Bill,
Are you suggesting that because it's reusable, doesn't automatically mean
that it will cost less?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of William Claybaugh
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 2:33 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost (was >
Henry:
As Philip has observed, others are addressing deep space capabilities the
investment in which does make economic sense today. Let's just agree that
my requirements for return on investments appear to be nearer term than
yours.
The rest of your comments seem to me simply misleading. There is no
publicly available evidence known to me to suggest that SpaceX's reuse of
first stages is either profitable to them or lower cost. Indeed, the
publicly available evidence is that the cost per pound delivered to orbit on
the Block 5 is higher than it was on the FT; SpaceX's customers would
clearly be better off (by several hundred dollars per pound) if they could
choose the expendable over the reusable.
I have no knowledge as to whether SpaceX is making money on reuse and simply
keeping the gain for itself or whether refurbishment costs have proven to be
so high that they are losing money on each launch. The fact that they are
looking to demonstrate five uses of a stage could mean that profitable reuse
is yet to be achieved despite a two or so uses breakeven wrt the
depreciation charge.
In any case, you have no basis for suggesting that my previous analysis was
in error unless you have knowledge of their refurbishment cost of which I am
not aware. Do you have such knowledge?
Bill
