4 ms·

I'd presume if they can get the recovery rate and refurbishability rate high enough, they'd charge extra to companies that make them launch without recovery ver

I'd presume if they can get the recovery rate and refurbishability rate high enough, they'd charge extra to companies that make them launch without recovery versus more flexible scheduling to guarantee recoveries.

vonklaus 12y ago
Why would a company make them launch without recovery? SpaceX has always focused on the paid mission first and runs tests as a secondary task if there is sufficient resources available after successful payload delivery. Also, the cost is expected to drop by a factor of 10. Launches are ~60mil USD (can fluctuate based on specs). Even conservatively, the company would likely pay a 40 million dollar penalty if the whole rocket had to be jettisoned. Some missions with higher payloads will ideally be serviced when the Falcon Heavy comes on line. In terms of weather, I reckon they could have a secondary site to land if weather prevented it in the primary zone. If you mean in the interim before approval of domestic landings on or near launch sites, spaceX probably has pre-existing contracts to do launches. Maybe they would discount them a bit for a better window, prior to Air Force/Regulatory approval.
- zaphoyd 12y ago
  At some point where recovery is more routine, SpaceX could offer pricing at something like: $60 million we launch your rocket without regards to whether or not we will be able to recover the first stage. $x million, x<<60: we launch your rocket only once the weather/conditions suggests we'll be able to do both. I can see some companies with very specific launch windows (say gravity assisted missions to outer planets) going for the former.
- tsotha 12y ago
  >Why would a company make them launch without recovery? Because recovery reduces the capability of the rocket. If you look at SpaceX's web site you'll see they plan to have two versions of the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy. One version will be recoverable, and one will not. A customer that needs ever last m/sec out of the launcher will not be able to use the latter.
mikeash 12y ago
The rockets will not last all that many cycles. It might just be a handful, or it may be a couple dozen, but after enough reuses they'll have worn out too much to continue. For that last flight you could fly it expendable without any sort of penalty. You might even give people a "this rocket is old and tired" discount for it. If customers who don't want to be subject to landing-related delays aren't too common, that could be enough to satisfy that need.

vonklaus 12y ago

Why would a company make them launch without recovery? SpaceX has always focused on the paid mission first and runs tests as a secondary task if there is sufficient resources available after successful payload delivery. Also, the cost is expected to drop by a factor of 10. Launches are ~60mil USD (can fluctuate based on specs). Even conservatively, the company would likely pay a 40 million dollar penalty if the whole rocket had to be jettisoned. Some missions with higher payloads will ideally be serviced when the Falcon Heavy comes on line. In terms of weather, I reckon they could have a secondary site to land if weather prevented it in the primary zone. If you mean in the interim before approval of domestic landings on or near launch sites, spaceX probably has pre-existing contracts to do launches. Maybe they would discount them a bit for a better window, prior to Air Force/Regulatory approval.

zaphoyd 12y ago
At some point where recovery is more routine, SpaceX could offer pricing at something like: $60 million we launch your rocket without regards to whether or not we will be able to recover the first stage. $x million, x<<60: we launch your rocket only once the weather/conditions suggests we'll be able to do both. I can see some companies with very specific launch windows (say gravity assisted missions to outer planets) going for the former.
tsotha 12y ago
>Why would a company make them launch without recovery? Because recovery reduces the capability of the rocket. If you look at SpaceX's web site you'll see they plan to have two versions of the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy. One version will be recoverable, and one will not. A customer that needs ever last m/sec out of the launcher will not be able to use the latter.

mikeash 12y ago

The rockets will not last all that many cycles. It might just be a handful, or it may be a couple dozen, but after enough reuses they'll have worn out too much to continue. For that last flight you could fly it expendable without any sort of penalty. You might even give people a "this rocket is old and tired" discount for it. If customers who don't want to be subject to landing-related delays aren't too common, that could be enough to satisfy that need.