- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,204
- Reaction score
- 1,547
I think it's more an issue of the customers being willing enough to fly their payloads on a reused rocket. Some are clamoring for it (and some price break) others want a new rocket. The customers with the big HEAVY satellites going into Geostationary Transfer Orbits which do not leave enough fuel for a landing, causing an expendable launch, those are the most expensive satellites. Sure, they have launch insurance but the insurance companies would absolutely be charging lot more for a launch on a reused rocket right now, so some of the savings would be lost. And if they lost a satellite, insurance won't magically create a new satellite in a week and get them to the front of the line, they'd wait a year or two to launch a "Spare" satellite and not have the services of the original satellite for all that time (that was a major blow to the owners of the AMOS-6 satellite that was destroyed when its Falcon rocket blew up on the pad before a static firing).
So, SpaceX has to build a solid track record that reused boosters are as reliable as factory fresh boosters before all their customers will be comfortable with it, as well as the insurers.
If I was the owner of a big heavy com sat that my business needed to use SOON, and would put my business in big trouble if it was lost, I'd rather pay 70 million for a new rocket launch than 60-65 million for a reused rocket (extra insurance would offset a lot of the savings), based on where things are at this point in time. 5 years from now with a lot of reflown Falcons, probably a different story if the reused ones have a good record.
Cost of the legs and grid fins and other parts unique to a booster to land, definitely SOME savings there when left off for expendable flights. But nowhere near the cost of the price break (I say that not knowing what the price break may be or what the cost of those parts are but more likely a price break of several million, maybe 10 right now, vs landing equipment likely under 1 million).
No, I have rethought the above paragraph. It's wrong. It should be SpaceX that is paying for all of the landing related equipment on the landing flights, NOT the customer. Since the customer is not owning or leasing the Falcon (though one customer has said they do want to own or lease one to reuse!). SpaceX is providing a SERVICE, to put the customer's payload into the contracted orbit. The CUSTOMER should not be paying one penny for anything related to landing the rocket since that is not a service they contracted for, and the customer does not get any "kickback" in a rebate if the rocket does land safely (or if they did, such info has not been made public).
So, an expendable flight ought not get any discount for leaving off landing related parts, since no customer ought to be charged for that to begin with.
Indeed, all this time, what SpaceX has effectively been doing with the landing attempts, is hundreds of millions of dollars worth of "free" R&D flight tests, by "piggybacking" legs, grid fins and the other landing related parts on the flights that customers have paid for. So, SpaceX has spent many millions to do that, in vehicle hardware, R&D design, and infrastructure such as the ASDS barges and landing zones. But not having to pay a penny for LAUNCHING the landing test flights on the orbital Falcon missions (beyond the separate costs related to reuse). The only test flights they did have to pay for were the early "Grasshopper" and Falcon 9 (F9R Dev) takeoff, low altitude, and slow landing flights at McGregor, Texas, which ended years ago.
Also, not a lot of reused rockets that have been refurbished yet (at least one or two seem in limbo as to whether they were too damaged on super-hot re-entries to be practical to fly again). IIRC a refurbished one will flying in a few months but I do not know right now if that's for an expendable launch. I do know on the first Falcon Heavy launch.... whenever.... one of the side boosters will be reused, and of course they plan to RTLS both side boosters and land the center booster on an ASDS barge.
So, SpaceX has to build a solid track record that reused boosters are as reliable as factory fresh boosters before all their customers will be comfortable with it, as well as the insurers.
If I was the owner of a big heavy com sat that my business needed to use SOON, and would put my business in big trouble if it was lost, I'd rather pay 70 million for a new rocket launch than 60-65 million for a reused rocket (extra insurance would offset a lot of the savings), based on where things are at this point in time. 5 years from now with a lot of reflown Falcons, probably a different story if the reused ones have a good record.
Cost of the legs and grid fins and other parts unique to a booster to land, definitely SOME savings there when left off for expendable flights. But nowhere near the cost of the price break (I say that not knowing what the price break may be or what the cost of those parts are but more likely a price break of several million, maybe 10 right now, vs landing equipment likely under 1 million).
No, I have rethought the above paragraph. It's wrong. It should be SpaceX that is paying for all of the landing related equipment on the landing flights, NOT the customer. Since the customer is not owning or leasing the Falcon (though one customer has said they do want to own or lease one to reuse!). SpaceX is providing a SERVICE, to put the customer's payload into the contracted orbit. The CUSTOMER should not be paying one penny for anything related to landing the rocket since that is not a service they contracted for, and the customer does not get any "kickback" in a rebate if the rocket does land safely (or if they did, such info has not been made public).
So, an expendable flight ought not get any discount for leaving off landing related parts, since no customer ought to be charged for that to begin with.
Indeed, all this time, what SpaceX has effectively been doing with the landing attempts, is hundreds of millions of dollars worth of "free" R&D flight tests, by "piggybacking" legs, grid fins and the other landing related parts on the flights that customers have paid for. So, SpaceX has spent many millions to do that, in vehicle hardware, R&D design, and infrastructure such as the ASDS barges and landing zones. But not having to pay a penny for LAUNCHING the landing test flights on the orbital Falcon missions (beyond the separate costs related to reuse). The only test flights they did have to pay for were the early "Grasshopper" and Falcon 9 (F9R Dev) takeoff, low altitude, and slow landing flights at McGregor, Texas, which ended years ago.
Also, not a lot of reused rockets that have been refurbished yet (at least one or two seem in limbo as to whether they were too damaged on super-hot re-entries to be practical to fly again). IIRC a refurbished one will flying in a few months but I do not know right now if that's for an expendable launch. I do know on the first Falcon Heavy launch.... whenever.... one of the side boosters will be reused, and of course they plan to RTLS both side boosters and land the center booster on an ASDS barge.
Last edited:
