4 ms·

I am curious, so I know that a big part of SpaceX is the re-usability aspect. But at what point is the rocket basically paid for (except for continued Maintence

I am curious, so I know that a big part of SpaceX is the re-usability aspect. But at what point is the rocket basically paid for (except for continued Maintence)? Given that this is this rocket's 23rd flight, was this really a "loss" for SpaceX or was the rocket already basically paid off. I realize launches for Starlink make this a more complicated number.

bzzzt 2y ago
Launch costs for a Falcon 9 are about near 70 million dollars now which is also the estimated production price of the rocket including launch. So it seems they are not making a big loss even when the first stage explodes on the first landing attempt. It's already 'paid off' after one single use. Price estimates of a first stage are in the 15-20m dollar range so every reused stage will net them about that (minus refurbishing costs) as a bonus.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  Interesting, I figured that they were basically subsidizing the first launch in the hopes of making it back in later launches. I could have sworn I remember there being an article about them doing something for the Government and they wanted a fresh rocket so it cost more. But maybe I am remembering wrong. So roughly first rocket at cost and then if they are successful (which is for sure an incentive) the rest is profit above maintenance cost.
  - throwaway48540 2y ago
    The flight cost more because they also wanted to fly much further
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    NASA used to want a fresh rocket, now they prefer the second flight to the first because any "bugs" get shaken out during the maiden voyage. They've always made money on the bulk of their first flights but the income is much better for later flights where the booster is already paid for.
asadotzler 2y ago
SpaceX builds and launches one of these for about $50-60 million and a reflight costs them about $20 million. They charge about $70 million per flight. They've made their investment on the first flight and more than double that income on all future flights. Compare that to a new $55 million dollar rocket for every launch, and you see how after a couple dozen reused flights a booster has earned SpaceX hundreds of millions of dollars more than using new all the time. SpaceX already dominated pricing with its cheap flights before reuse, built on cheap costs from vertical integration and advanced manufacturing processes (plus skilled workforce) but reuse made winning every launch contract even more lucrative and today no one else can possibly match them. More importantly reuse lets them fly often as they refurb in about a month and have a fleet of about 16 boosters. That lets them hit 3 flights a week when the operation is going smoothly and that is how something like Starlink can be profitable despite requiring over 100 launches a year. The cadence is ridiculous and that could not be had without reuse at anywhere close to SpaceX's workforce sizing today.

bzzzt 2y ago

Launch costs for a Falcon 9 are about near 70 million dollars now which is also the estimated production price of the rocket including launch. So it seems they are not making a big loss even when the first stage explodes on the first landing attempt. It's already 'paid off' after one single use. Price estimates of a first stage are in the 15-20m dollar range so every reused stage will net them about that (minus refurbishing costs) as a bonus.

nerdjon 2y ago
Interesting, I figured that they were basically subsidizing the first launch in the hopes of making it back in later launches. I could have sworn I remember there being an article about them doing something for the Government and they wanted a fresh rocket so it cost more. But maybe I am remembering wrong. So roughly first rocket at cost and then if they are successful (which is for sure an incentive) the rest is profit above maintenance cost.
- throwaway48540 2y ago
  The flight cost more because they also wanted to fly much further
- asadotzler 2y ago
  NASA used to want a fresh rocket, now they prefer the second flight to the first because any "bugs" get shaken out during the maiden voyage. They've always made money on the bulk of their first flights but the income is much better for later flights where the booster is already paid for.

asadotzler 2y ago

SpaceX builds and launches one of these for about $50-60 million and a reflight costs them about $20 million. They charge about $70 million per flight. They've made their investment on the first flight and more than double that income on all future flights. Compare that to a new $55 million dollar rocket for every launch, and you see how after a couple dozen reused flights a booster has earned SpaceX hundreds of millions of dollars more than using new all the time. SpaceX already dominated pricing with its cheap flights before reuse, built on cheap costs from vertical integration and advanced manufacturing processes (plus skilled workforce) but reuse made winning every launch contract even more lucrative and today no one else can possibly match them. More importantly reuse lets them fly often as they refurb in about a month and have a fleet of about 16 boosters. That lets them hit 3 flights a week when the operation is going smoothly and that is how something like Starlink can be profitable despite requiring over 100 launches a year. The cadence is ridiculous and that could not be had without reuse at anywhere close to SpaceX's workforce sizing today.