3 ms·
I have no stock in the proposed cost savings until it actually becomes a reality. What people don't realize is that reusability isn't as straightforward as Spac
by computerex 8y ago
I have no stock in the proposed cost savings until it actually becomes a reality. What people don't realize is that reusability isn't as straightforward as SpaceX makes it seem. A used stage has to be taken apart, inspected and refurbished. It is unlikely that SpaceX saves any money on reusing their stages, they might even be losing money.
https://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/ https://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the...
- mikeash 8y agoThey have stated that their very first reused booster cost less than half as much money to refurbish than it cost to build a new one. That was quite a while ago, with a much less advanced reusable design. The current version of the Falcon 9 incorporates lessons learned from tearing down and reflying the earlier units, so should be much cheaper. Even if you think there are no possible improvements, it can’t possibly get worse than a 50% savings. Unless you’re proposing that they’re lying out their asses?
- greglindahl 8y agoThe article you link is 2 years old. The price difference is now known: F9 to GTO is $50mm using a reused-and-recoverable booster, compared to the old list price of $62mm. The cost difference is fully known inside of SpaceX; their public statements disagree with your speculation.