Another way of looking at this that I think is relevant: 5-reuse
boosters allows SpaceX to support a given flight rate with (to a first
approximation) 1/5th the size of production establishment they'd need
for fully expendable operations.
Henry
On 3/23/2020 8:12 AM, William Claybaugh wrote:
Robert:
There is too little data to make any assertion about stage longevity at this point.
However, ignoring propellant and launch operations costs, five flights per booster would indicate a cost per booster at 20% of the manufactured cost, not including refurbishment between flights. The former is around $30-35 million, so $6-7 Million per flight, again, not including refurbishment. If an overhaul costs more than about $6 million, it would make more sense to simply build a new five launch lifetime stage.
We may note that compared to a $50 million price, these depreciated stage cost estimates suggest either a good deal of profit or that other costs (launch operations, refurbishment) are high.
Bill
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:51 AM Robert Steinke <robert.steinke@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:robert.steinke@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
From hobbyspace.com <http://hobbyspace.com> about the latest
Falcon 9 launch:
" A first stage engine shut down prematurely (just before staging)
but had no effect on the mission as the other 8 engines made up
the difference. The booster also failed to make a successful
landing on a sea platform. This was the fifth flight of this
booster."
That was after a previous launch attempt aborted due to slightly
high power.
Wonderful demonstration of engine-out fault tolerance, but it does
look like the rocket is showing some wear and tear after 5
flights. What does this do to their economics if stages need an
overhaul/have an increased chance of loss of vehicle after only 5
flights?
