3 ms·

>Aren't their reused rockets significantly cheaper than the competition already? Are they? Have they re-used their rockets commercially, outside of testing?

>Aren't their reused rockets significantly cheaper than the competition already? Are they? Have they re-used their rockets commercially, outside of testing? I was unaware of that, but I don't follow it very closely. Did they not ditch the idea of re-using the second stage, as it proved too expensive? If so, that demonstrates there's sometimes a gap between targets and reality.

activelistener 7y ago
Layman's opinion here, but of course they'd want to reuse their rockets? Why would throwing away your entire product and having to create again from scratch each time be the ideal? This would be an iterative process. First, figure out how to successfully recoup the rocket. Second, see what issues exist with the integrity of these rockets, and work to fix those. Try reusing. Find more issues, fix those, etc. Eventually/hopefully, profit?
areyousure 7y ago
> Are they? Have they re-used their rockets commercially, outside of testing? I was unaware of that, but I don't follow it very closely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program#First-stage_reuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Booster_turnaround_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b...
theptip 7y ago
Falcon heavy is cheaper than Delta IV by a factor of four: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/three-years-of-sls-development-could-buy-86-falcon-heavy-launches/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/three-years-of-sls-d... SpaceX milestone of using a Falcon 9 four times: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/spacex-returns-to-the-launch-pad-for-a-second-starlink-mission/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/spacex-returns-to-th... I'm not in the industry so I could be missing something (e.g. it sounds like there's a lot of competition in the light-lift market, cubesats and that kind of thing). But it seems that on heavy lift, SpaceX is dominating on price, and that seems to be largely down to reusability.

activelistener 7y ago

Layman's opinion here, but of course they'd want to reuse their rockets? Why would throwing away your entire product and having to create again from scratch each time be the ideal? This would be an iterative process. First, figure out how to successfully recoup the rocket. Second, see what issues exist with the integrity of these rockets, and work to fix those. Try reusing. Find more issues, fix those, etc. Eventually/hopefully, profit?

areyousure 7y ago

> Are they? Have they re-used their rockets commercially, outside of testing? I was unaware of that, but I don't follow it very closely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program#First-stage_reuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Booster_turnaround_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b...

theptip 7y ago

Falcon heavy is cheaper than Delta IV by a factor of four: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/three-years-of-sls-development-could-buy-86-falcon-heavy-launches/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/three-years-of-sls-d... SpaceX milestone of using a Falcon 9 four times: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/spacex-returns-to-the-launch-pad-for-a-second-starlink-mission/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/spacex-returns-to-th... I'm not in the industry so I could be missing something (e.g. it sounds like there's a lot of competition in the light-lift market, cubesats and that kind of thing). But it seems that on heavy lift, SpaceX is dominating on price, and that seems to be largely down to reusability.