Heh. It is of course entirely possible to produce a reusable system
that costs far more than some equivalent-function expendable. Shuttle
of course being the canonical example.
On 7/1/2019 12:28 PM, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
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/
(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
