Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Reusing Boosters: Launch, Land, and Re-Launch

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
In a Sept 14 tweet Elon says commenting on the failed landing video, "Long road to reusabity of Falcon 9 primary boost stage…When upper stage & fairing also reusable, costs will drop by a factor >100."

The first stage is now reusable and customers agreeing to use a 'flight tested' booster may be getting some launch discount. I probably missed seeing some info about size of discount, but I have a vague memory it might be 10% (likely varies between customers as well).
I'm guessing (and happy to be corrected) the F9 launch hardware costs breakdown to something like 70% first stage, 20% second, 10% faring. If 70% of reusability is close (with block 5) to accomplished, and cost reductions projected out a few years are perhaps reducing cost by 50%, how will making the second stage and faring also reusable going to drop costs by a factor of >100?

Should this cost prediction be regarded as exaggeration, hyperbole or baloney?

My guess is his reasoning might have been to fully extend his air travel cost analogy to rocket launches. I.e. If all the hardware can some day be reused hundreds of times (akin to a jet aircraft being flown weekly for twenty years before replacement) then costs could drop by such a dramatic factor. That seems far fetched for many decades, perhaps longer unless some type of anti-gravity engine is invented.

Needless to say, all of the advances and accomplishments to date by SpaceX entitle its founder to occasionally exaggerate broadly for effect to make a point.
 
If 70% of reusability is close (with block 5) to accomplished, and cost reductions projected out a few years are perhaps reducing cost by 50%, how will making the second stage and faring also reusable going to drop costs by a factor of >100?

Should this cost prediction be regarded as exaggeration, hyperbole or baloney?

My assumption is that his >100 comment is including everything including first stage, not that second stage and fairing alone would drop costs by a factor of >100.

Of course, that doesn't mean customers will immediately see that great of a price drop. It's in the companies best interest to drop prices more gradually so that the benefits of their efforts are shared by both the customer and the company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
My interpretation was his comparison was the ultimate goal of reusing pretty much everything with only minor reuse compared to pre-resuse costs, ie reusing the airplane rather than throwing it away.

I don't think we'll see anything close to that with Falcon 9 or FH. Perhaps they'll get much closer with the miniBFR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
My interpretation was his comparison was the ultimate goal of reusing pretty much everything with only minor reuse compared to pre-resuse costs, ie reusing the airplane rather than throwing it away.

I don't think we'll see anything close to that with Falcon 9 or FH. Perhaps they'll get much closer with the miniBFR.

I agree. The second stage of F9 and FH would need a serious redesign to make it reusable. As far as I can tell SpaceX doesn't have the time to focus on that redesign. It makes a lot more sense to design a fully reusable launch vehicle from the ground up. The BFR design would allow for that. It also has the advantage of a spectacular engine to power such a vehicle. The Raptor should allow for even greater margins to make reusability work the way Elon and SpaceX envisions it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkn
Agreed. The mBFR should have much greater mass to LEO capacity, a lot of which, I suspect, will be used to get the 2nd stage and fairing (if there is one) back, rather than using it for payload. The market for huge satellites is pretty small, although of course it could grow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Should this cost prediction be regarded as exaggeration, hyperbole or baloney?

I'm not a fan of 'never', but the idea of 100x cost reduction is waaaay off in the future at best. It's hard to even think of any type of product that has reduced its price anywhere near 100x.

Regardless, that's more or less $1M per launch (in 2017 dollars) which, while certainly good for a internet click, will take more than hopes and dreams to achieve.

Certainly hardware makes up the bulk of the price, but there's a lot of recurring cost/OPEX in a launch that will need to be managed as well. Things like the mission control team, the recovery/reset team, thenission analysis team...no doubt a lot of that can be streamlined and automated, but there's still a noise floor in there somewhere. And, oh yeah, profit.

IMHO, it's very unlikely that chemical rockets will ever see a 100x price reduction. What is far more likely is that they will asymptote long before 100x, then some different mass-to-orbit technology will pick up the reigns of progress.
 
In a Sept 14 tweet Elon says commenting on the failed landing video, "Long road to reusabity of Falcon 9 primary boost stage…When upper stage & fairing also reusable, costs will drop by a factor >100."

The first stage is now reusable and customers agreeing to use a 'flight tested' booster may be getting some launch discount. I probably missed seeing some info about size of discount, but I have a vague memory it might be 10% (likely varies between customers as well).
I'm guessing (and happy to be corrected) the F9 launch hardware costs breakdown to something like 70% first stage, 20% second, 10% faring. If 70% of reusability is close (with block 5) to accomplished, and cost reductions projected out a few years are perhaps reducing cost by 50%, how will making the second stage and faring also reusable going to drop costs by a factor of >100?

Should this cost prediction be regarded as exaggeration, hyperbole or baloney?

My guess is his reasoning might have been to fully extend his air travel cost analogy to rocket launches. I.e. If all the hardware can some day be reused hundreds of times (akin to a jet aircraft being flown weekly for twenty years before replacement) then costs could drop by such a dramatic factor. That seems far fetched for many decades, perhaps longer unless some type of anti-gravity engine is invented.

Needless to say, all of the advances and accomplishments to date by SpaceX entitle its founder to occasionally exaggerate broadly for effect to make a point.

Reusability is of course key to lower prices. It is also important how much service is needed between flights. Space Shuttle required half year unbuild - rebuild between flights. So it did not reduce costs.

If SpaceX gets service time to two days, then costs can really come down. I don't think they will develop reusable 2. stage for F9. They concentrate to BFR.


I'm not a fan of 'never', but the idea of 100x cost reduction is waaaay off in the future at best. It's hard to even think of any type of product that has reduced its price anywhere near 100x.

First mobile phones did cost 100* cheapest current ones. Moving from throw away after single use to easy reusability will easily drop costs to 1/100. Since RP-1 is used only in rockets, I guess it is not very cheap. Methane is easy to separate from LNG, so it is cheapest rocket fuel.
 
Not one, but the next two launches from Iridium will use "flight proven" boosters. The CEO of Iridium mentions that it has to do with timing and not about price. SpaceX guaranteed the launch dates if Iridium went with previously flown boosters. I expect this was a guarantee they wouldn't have gotten with new boosters. Now that there have been three successful reuse flights, this shows that almost everyone is willing to save time or money to have a launch happen. There is even rumors that NASA will be using a used booster for an upcoming launch.

Iridium swaps two new Falcon 9 rockets for “flight-proven” boosters – Spaceflight Now

“The most important thing there is we went out to our insurance carriers, and they agreed,” he said. “They said there would be no changes to our premium as a result of this.”
Which is really telling about reuse...

I have yet to hear any news on when the Block 5 boosters are going active. They are supposed to be launched by the end of this year. This is important to SpaceX because they need to have 7 successful launches with Block 5 before they can allow a live astronaut to be launched on one. The first launch of a F9 for Commercial Crew (Crew Dragon Demo 1) is supposed to be in April. That rocket must be the same type as the astronauts use. So it really must be the fourth or fifth Block 5 rocket flown for the official first astronaut SpaceX flight to work.

I'm speculating now that SpaceX is making the transition at the end of this year to Block 5 and this is why they are pushing various customers onto previously flown boosters to allow extra time for manufacturing to come up to speed with Block 5. That would make sense in many ways. There has not even been a rumor from SpaceX about this but it does explain to me why this is happening.
 
Regardless, that's more or less $1M per launch (in 2017 dollars) which, while certainly good for a internet click, will take more than hopes and dreams to achieve.

IMHO, it's very unlikely that chemical rockets will ever see a 100x price reduction.

Per: Elon Musk: Launching a Satellite with SpaceX is $300 Million Cheaper

U.S. Air Force launch cost is 420 million, so a launch price of 4 million hits the 100:1 target.

SpaceX is working on range automation to reduce cost. Fuel per launch is currently 200k or so. Looks doable based if BFR can fly enough times to amortize build costs.

Also depends if Elon was speaking of internal cost or end user cost. Internal cost drop of 100:1 allows more room for profit.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: jkn and GoTslaGo
Not one, but the next two launches from Iridium will use "flight proven" boosters. The CEO of Iridium mentions that it has to do with timing and not about price. SpaceX guaranteed the launch dates if Iridium went with previously flown boosters. I expect this was a guarantee they wouldn't have gotten with new boosters.
And I was wondering why that would be the case. Was SpaceX getting so busy with launches that their manufacturing pace and used stage refurbishment process speed couldn't keep up?

I'm speculating now that SpaceX is making the transition at the end of this year to Block 5 and this is why they are pushing various customers onto previously flown boosters to allow extra time for manufacturing to come up to speed with Block 5.
And that seems plausible. Good thinking!
 
There is even rumors that NASA will be using a used booster for an upcoming launch.
If that turns out to be true, it would be a game changer. They are probably the last holdout to not openly go for re-used boosters, right (hand-waving here)?
From that point on, flying on a non-flight proven booster would become a rarity.
Then SpaceX would probably use up the stocks non-block 5 boosters as expendable launches as well.
Which private customer would require a fresh booster when even risk-averse NASA goes for flight-proven. Air Force maybe?
 
Then we're in agreement. :D

At least partly :)

I'm not a fan of 'never', but the idea of 100x cost reduction is waaaay off in the future at best.

A fully reusable BFR/BFS with minimal refurbishment drops the marginal cost to human/ site and fuel costs. I see that happening fairly quickly. Especially with the Mars flight requiring 5 refilling launches, that drops the amortization cost of the build way down. Four BFS to Mars in 2024? Using one BFR, that means 24 launches. Add on the SpaceX constellation plus contracted launches, and it's a lot of flights.
Unknown is the time to overhaul of the engines/turbopumps.

IMHO, it's very unlikely that chemical rockets will ever see a 100x price reduction.

Agreed, there is no incentive to drop the launch price to 4 million, even if the rocket is launched enough times to amortize the cost.

For grins and giggles:
65 million current launch cost x 3 for BFR size difference = 195 million upper bound on rocket cost (should be way less). 100 launches is 2 million per launch in rocket cost. Add 1 million for fuel, site, and people and the net margin is 25% with a 4 million launch price.

The launch volume will need to pick up, which it should based on increased affordability/ capability and new uses such as dead satellite capture (two for one missions? Launch new sat, pick up the old one)
 
I'm speculating now that SpaceX is making the transition at the end of this year to Block 5 and this is why they are pushing various customers onto previously flown boosters to allow extra time for manufacturing to come up to speed with Block 5. That would make sense in many ways. There has not even been a rumor from SpaceX about this but it does explain to me why this is happening.

@Grendal this seems a very sound speculation. The frequency of launches has accelerated this year and now Complex 40 is returning to service. If they can switch to using Block in Jan/Feb. they should have the necessary launches completed by April/May. Also the Commercial Crew Demo flight itself has good chance of a delay or two for non booster reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
@Grendal this seems a very sound speculation. The frequency of launches has accelerated this year and now Complex 40 is returning to service. If they can switch to using Block in Jan/Feb. they should have the necessary launches completed by April/May. Also the Commercial Crew Demo flight itself has good chance of a delay or two for non booster reasons.

It is now semi-official that NASA will use a flight proven booster for CRS-13 in December. NASA will be reusing the CRS-11 booster. This will cause everyone to be on board with flight proven boosters. The last hurdle will be the military and they have already stated that they are willing to reuse a booster as well. It's been less than two years since the first booster was recovered and SpaceX has changed the face of the orbital launch business for all time.

So this year, if it continues as planned, SpaceX will have reused 5 booster cores. Basically 25% (5/20) of the launches they did this year. I am excluding FH side cores from this. If we add those in then we have 7/21 or one third the launch manifest from 2017.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: e-FTW
No announcement from NASA that I've seen yet but the word is spreading. Chris B. from NASAspaceflight::

Chris B - NSF on Twitter

News that NASA has approved the use of flight-proven boosters, starting with CRS-13.

To be fair, it's been a lot of evaluations and - as I'm sure you can guess with NASA - reviews on top of reviews. For them to come out and approve it really is a massive feather in the cap for SpaceX. Any doubts and NASA would have said no.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: scaesare and e-FTW
If I remember correctly, Elon said they are concentrating to develop BFR instead of F9. Fairing recovery system is not useful with BFR, so it could be canceled. Raptor 2. stage for F9 would enable heavier loads now, perhaps also larger for FH. It could be scale model of BFS.

Elon and, I think, Gwynne have said that they are still moving forward with fairing recovery and that they expect it to succeed before the end of 2018. Just yesterday Gwynne said that SpaceX will also continue to work on 2nd stage Falcon recovery too. However the 2nd stage will not be to actually recover the second stage but learn from the attempts at recovery to better design BFR/BFS.

Fairings cost about 1/4 the cost of the 2nd stage but are very light and are jettisoned much sooner in the flight hence they can survive re-entry and only need a landing mechanism.

I'm not sure where you got this information. Elon has said the fairings are about $5 or $6 million in cost. It is speculated that the cost of a F9 is about $45 million. The booster is roughly 2/3 the cost of the whole rocket. So the booster is $30 million. So if the fairings are $6 million then the second stage would be $9 million. So being nit-picky (sorry), I can't see where the fairing could ever be only 25% the cost of a second stage.

2nd stage recovery is complicated and expensive (a lot of mass added to the 2nd stage and each ton added in 2nd stage recovery = one less ton of available payload).
So the $$$ for fairing recovery versus the available payload performance is a much better proposition.
But I don't know much about the result of the tests done so far, SpaceX has recovered some fairings no news about the conditions of such fairings to the outside public.
But much like the booster recovery campaign, its an optional process, that only needs to be attempted if it won't interfere with delivery of payload to orbit (and if it won't prevent booster recovery that's #2 priority).

Agree with all of that. I could see, since we know they are going to make some attempts, that SpaceX may make a few beefed up second stages where the extra weight will not interfere with getting the payload to orbit. As an article mentioned yesterday, the idea for second stage recovery is only to gain information, not actual reuse.

Here is the article:
SpaceX aims to follow a banner year with an even faster 2018 launch cadence - SpaceNews.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: e-FTW