3 ms·
Yes its better, but my point is your not gone have cheap rocket launches because you produce 2 rockets a week. Your not gone beat a company that has rocket reus
by panick21_ 3y ago
Yes its better, but my point is your not gone have cheap rocket launches because you produce 2 rockets a week. Your not gone beat a company that has rocket reuse. And you sure as shit wont compete with a larger reusable rocket.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoReusability isn't a panacea. Refurbishment is hand bespoke labor and its costs can add up quickly. The obvious example is the space shuttle, which cost $1B to refurbish. Elon has said that it costs 10% of new cost to refurbish a first stage. It's believed that a first stage costs $20M to make, so that puts refurb at about $2M. It's plausible that the first stage of a medium-class rocket can be built for less than $2M. Just barely plausible, but plausible. You're not going to do it if you pay $16M for a pair of BE-4 engines, but if you can get two Raptors for $250M apiece... The elephant in the room is Starship. Designed for reusability from the beginning, it's quite possible it pushes that $2M figure down besides reusing the second stage as well as the first.
- panick21_ 3y agoYou can potentially build a small vehicle for the cost of a reused Falcon 9, but you don't compete on the rocket market, you compete on the payload to orbit market. > but if you can get two Raptors for $250M apiece... But if your competitor builds the same rocket with 3 Raptors that is reusable your still gone lose.
- hirundo 3y agoThey're aiming for $250K per Raptor, not M. The goal is less than $1K/ton of thrust.
- panick21_ 3y agoI know but not sure what that has to do with the discussion on reusability? Sure if you have a $250K per Raptor that is mass produced then you can beat a reusable RS-25 that cost 140M.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago$250K per Raptor. Nasty typo that ruins my argument!