6 ms·

> The reusable feature of SpaceX is a business mistake Hell of a citation needed moment.

hef19898 6y ago
It is impossible to proof either way, unless we would see the full SpaceX financials. The ESA study referenced by OP, I am unable to find it again came to that conclusion years ago. The main reason was limited number of launches. Now SpaceX is raising money to launch Starlink in their own reusable rockets, increasing the number commercial low orbit launches. So yes, they deserve some scrutiny over that.
- nickik 6y ago
  ESA just spent almost 4 billion $ on their newest rocket despite it being basically a incremental improvement over the Ariane 6 will parts that have been in development for decades. I wouldn't trust their cost analysis. ULA did the same type of analysis as well. Funny how the failing competition is convinced that its the wrong move. Unlike Arianespace, SpaceX is not a jobs-program. SpaceX is happy if they don't have to have so many people in the production at all times, as they have many other things that need to be worked on. Arianespace is the opposite, they get money to produce jobs, if they have to reduce production because of re-usability then politicians would get angry. Also funny how ESA is investing 100s of million into re-usability right now and is planning their next rocket to be re-usable. And at the same time basically all upcoming new launch companies like RocketLab and Relativity have re-usability as a big part of their strategy. Its as if they know that without re-usability they have no chance in hell of competing.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    The study was from the early 2000s, if I remember correctly. And yeah, things have changed since then. Back then, and to me the numbers made sense, the conclusion was: not enough launches of smaller payloads into low orbit to make it profitable. And reusability isn't feasible for larger payloads or higher orbits (not sure how much and high SpaceX launches stuff with reusable rockets). I would love to see SpaceX financials, without them all we are left with is advertised launch costs, Musks Tweets, money raised and financials from the competition. That is like calculating airline costs and profitability based on Spirits quarterly figures and Ryan Airs special offerings between Dublin and some provincial German airport.
    - nickik 6y ago
      The problem is ESA/Arianespace rocket simply operate very differently. Because of solid boosters and hydrogen first stage, the first stage for their rocket reaches a far higher speed then SpaceX first stage does. And that makes it much harder to recover, and much more costly. SpaceX regularly recovers boosters for GEO missions and soon even moon missions, because it doesn't matter so much for them, the profile of the first stage is not all that different. If the Falcon 9 can't handle it, they rather use the Falcon Heavy and land that, rather then throw away a Falcon 9 core. Only in the most extreme situation, would Falcon Heavy drop its core booster. SpaceX has 1 mission on its books that will require the Falcon Heavy booster to expand its core. The side booster would still land in this case. So SpaceX has 100+ launches on its manifest right now and of all those a single launch is planned to not fully reuse its first stage. > I would love to see SpaceX financials Your not the only one. We have lots of different analysis that have been done and most put marginal internal cost for a SpaceX mission to 20-30 million. And SpaceX sells launches for 60M, with extra cost depending on what costumers ask for.
    - acd10j 6y ago
      *And yeah, things have changed since then* and who enabled those changes ? Progress is not function of time, if left to themselves, ULA , Arian et al, would have never let these launch costs go down. Even now Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy is capable of launching a very high orbits with quite good payload. Which will be further boosted by Star-ship.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Yep, we now find that there are enough launches to make, maybe, reusable rockets a profitable idea. These launches so are coming from SpaceX, are financed so far by VC money for a service that has yet to proof to be competitive and profitable. I am not saying SpaceX isn't impressive, because it is. They are simply working at a place where they can benefit from expensive government launches, government development contracts and VC money. Remove VC money, money the competition will never get, and the competitive landscape is totally different. As I said, you see the same situation with a lot of other start ups as well. And quite honestly, I don't like that some companies can strong arm competition by not having to be profitable. And before anyone brings up Amazon, they were profitable and cash positive for the most part of there existence.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  > It is impossible to proof either way, unless we would see the full SpaceX financials. I think we can just sit back and see how SpaceX do, ask ourselves were reusable rockets necessary for that, and it will be enough. If SpaceX dominate planetary internet, get to the moon, or get to Mars, I reckon we can probably say it was a good call. It's a credit to HN's contrarianism that the idea of reusable rockets is bad for business, but at some point you have to give in to reality. Perhaps Airbus should start scrapping their planes after every flight to boost their income.
resonantjacket5 6y ago
Taking a bit overly generous interpretation of redis_mlc's comment I assume they are referring to how SpaceX's reusable rockets brought the cost of rockets too low combined with the demand for rockets actually being much more inelastic leading SpaceX with a bunch of cheap rockets without adequate buyers. Aka why SpaceX went forward with the StarLink program as it requires a massive number of satellites

hef19898 6y ago

It is impossible to proof either way, unless we would see the full SpaceX financials. The ESA study referenced by OP, I am unable to find it again came to that conclusion years ago. The main reason was limited number of launches. Now SpaceX is raising money to launch Starlink in their own reusable rockets, increasing the number commercial low orbit launches. So yes, they deserve some scrutiny over that.

nickik 6y ago
ESA just spent almost 4 billion $ on their newest rocket despite it being basically a incremental improvement over the Ariane 6 will parts that have been in development for decades. I wouldn't trust their cost analysis. ULA did the same type of analysis as well. Funny how the failing competition is convinced that its the wrong move. Unlike Arianespace, SpaceX is not a jobs-program. SpaceX is happy if they don't have to have so many people in the production at all times, as they have many other things that need to be worked on. Arianespace is the opposite, they get money to produce jobs, if they have to reduce production because of re-usability then politicians would get angry. Also funny how ESA is investing 100s of million into re-usability right now and is planning their next rocket to be re-usable. And at the same time basically all upcoming new launch companies like RocketLab and Relativity have re-usability as a big part of their strategy. Its as if they know that without re-usability they have no chance in hell of competing.
- hef19898 6y ago
  The study was from the early 2000s, if I remember correctly. And yeah, things have changed since then. Back then, and to me the numbers made sense, the conclusion was: not enough launches of smaller payloads into low orbit to make it profitable. And reusability isn't feasible for larger payloads or higher orbits (not sure how much and high SpaceX launches stuff with reusable rockets). I would love to see SpaceX financials, without them all we are left with is advertised launch costs, Musks Tweets, money raised and financials from the competition. That is like calculating airline costs and profitability based on Spirits quarterly figures and Ryan Airs special offerings between Dublin and some provincial German airport.
  - nickik 6y ago
    The problem is ESA/Arianespace rocket simply operate very differently. Because of solid boosters and hydrogen first stage, the first stage for their rocket reaches a far higher speed then SpaceX first stage does. And that makes it much harder to recover, and much more costly. SpaceX regularly recovers boosters for GEO missions and soon even moon missions, because it doesn't matter so much for them, the profile of the first stage is not all that different. If the Falcon 9 can't handle it, they rather use the Falcon Heavy and land that, rather then throw away a Falcon 9 core. Only in the most extreme situation, would Falcon Heavy drop its core booster. SpaceX has 1 mission on its books that will require the Falcon Heavy booster to expand its core. The side booster would still land in this case. So SpaceX has 100+ launches on its manifest right now and of all those a single launch is planned to not fully reuse its first stage. > I would love to see SpaceX financials Your not the only one. We have lots of different analysis that have been done and most put marginal internal cost for a SpaceX mission to 20-30 million. And SpaceX sells launches for 60M, with extra cost depending on what costumers ask for.
  - acd10j 6y ago
    *And yeah, things have changed since then* and who enabled those changes ? Progress is not function of time, if left to themselves, ULA , Arian et al, would have never let these launch costs go down. Even now Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy is capable of launching a very high orbits with quite good payload. Which will be further boosted by Star-ship.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Yep, we now find that there are enough launches to make, maybe, reusable rockets a profitable idea. These launches so are coming from SpaceX, are financed so far by VC money for a service that has yet to proof to be competitive and profitable. I am not saying SpaceX isn't impressive, because it is. They are simply working at a place where they can benefit from expensive government launches, government development contracts and VC money. Remove VC money, money the competition will never get, and the competitive landscape is totally different. As I said, you see the same situation with a lot of other start ups as well. And quite honestly, I don't like that some companies can strong arm competition by not having to be profitable. And before anyone brings up Amazon, they were profitable and cash positive for the most part of there existence.
randomsearch 6y ago
> It is impossible to proof either way, unless we would see the full SpaceX financials. I think we can just sit back and see how SpaceX do, ask ourselves were reusable rockets necessary for that, and it will be enough. If SpaceX dominate planetary internet, get to the moon, or get to Mars, I reckon we can probably say it was a good call. It's a credit to HN's contrarianism that the idea of reusable rockets is bad for business, but at some point you have to give in to reality. Perhaps Airbus should start scrapping their planes after every flight to boost their income.

resonantjacket5 6y ago

Taking a bit overly generous interpretation of redis_mlc's comment I assume they are referring to how SpaceX's reusable rockets brought the cost of rockets too low combined with the demand for rockets actually being much more inelastic leading SpaceX with a bunch of cheap rockets without adequate buyers. Aka why SpaceX went forward with the StarLink program as it requires a massive number of satellites