Hacker News Reader

Comment by greedo | Hacker News Reader

If you're seriously arguing that F9 reuse is not a financial success, then you're not paying attention. Flight insurers "like" the F9 since it has proven itself reliable. Otherwise you're arguing that SpaceX is either a welfare queen, or a ponzi scheme.

View on HN

I am citing an old paper from EASA. Again, how the true financials are is impossible to tell without SpaceX finances. Which we don't have. Except for really old leaks. And even with these numbers, we would have to account for Starlink launches.

Spacex couldn't afford to launch Starlink if F9 wasn't dirt cheap. So either it's cheap or some financial strategy is hiding money? EASA has underestimated SpaceX from day one.

> EASA has underestimated SpaceX from day one.

EASA is the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. I think you meant to say ESA, the European Space Agency? But ESA's not that relevant here, as the European governments fund and develop launch services through Arianespace, a consortium of space industry companies led by the French aerospace companies Airbus and Safran.

Correction aside, I agree with your point that Arianespace did underestimate SpaceX.

You're correct; the one I was replying to wrote EASA and I mentally farted. I was also unaware that ESA had a smaller role in developing spaceflight in Europe. Thanks for correcting me :)

We know the Falcon 9's marginal cost for relaunch (with fairings reused is $15 million). Of this $10 million is for the second stage, $1 million is for booster refurbishment, the rest is for operations (including the landing barges) and fuel (which is $300,000 to $400,000 at the moment). These numbers are from Elon Musk's May 2020 Aviation Week podcast. I haven't yet found a good recent figure for the sticker price of relaunches though.

I did some analysis based on these numbers in this 8 minute video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4

Reply on news.ycombinator.com