Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudosysgen | Hacker News Reader

It's not actually necessary to use reusable rockets to get at a similar cost per launch. Long March 5 is at 2.8M$/ton (so less than SpaceX commercial price).

Also, 15M$/launch is not widely believed to be correct. There is much creative accounting SpaceX could be doing with Starlink (is at-cost account for booster depreciation? If so how, since we don't know how much reuse a booster can be expected to give? Or is it just the cost of refurbishment?), and since the last statement where Elon claimed 1000$ per kg actual cost, SpaceX had to raise their prices, claiming it was due to inflation - is that accurate? Most estimates I've seen are that the cost is 20-30M/launch, which would instead give 1.1-1.7M/ton.

So, it's a big advantage but not an insurmountable one.

View on HN

Boosters don’t depreciate. They are actually considered more valuable with more successful launches.

They do depreciate, even if the later launches are more valuable, that increase in value is marginal compared to the per-launch capital cost. Airplanes, cars, buildings, everything depreciates.

What do you mean by per-launch capital cost? Maintenance? The increase in value of a F9 booster after use is more than the near-negligible per-launch maintenance cost.

"Depreciation" and "capital cost" reflect the fact the vehicle has a maximum life, even given maintenance.

Imagine if I buy a $200,000 Lamborghini which, with regular servicing, will survive 100,000 miles.

That means for every mile I drive, not only am I paying for fuel, and insurance, and tyres, and servicing - I'm also paying, on average, $2/mile in depreciation.

And sure, the "true" value chart might not be linear. Maybe there'll be a sharp drop when the car ceases to be brand new, or a bump in value when it becomes a classic. But so long as it's worth $200k at 0 miles and $0 at 100k miles, the average cost of a mile must be $2.

The statistics here are inverted. The main marginal cost of a launch is the risk of loss of payload which the customer must insure against. The risk of loss of payload actually goes DOWN with more launches, making costs cheaper the more a booster is reused.

It’s as if your car gained value with every mile driven.

The fact that customers launching exceptionally expensive payloads (the US space force, for one) tend to demand new boosters is not consistent with this.

But even then, it doesn't change that the booster has a maximum lifespan and/or eventually increasing repair and therefore depreciation - we are working on an amortized basis.

> The fact that customers launching exceptionally expensive payloads (the US space force, for one) tend to demand new boosters is not consistent with this.

That used to be true. It no longer is.

They don't anymore. They actually require the use of flight proven boosters for important payloads now. Astronauts too are usually sent up with reused boosters, for safety.

We don't know what the maximum lifespan of these boosters are. There are workhorses that have over 20 launches under their belt, and no sign of deterioration. Obviously at some point something will give, but we're not there yet.

> The risk of loss of payload actually goes DOWN with more launches, making costs cheaper the more a booster is reused.

I don't think that's true. All of the F9 failures[1] have been due to the 2nd stage. And that's new every time.

---

1. CRS-7, AMOS-6, and Starlink 9-3

This furthers the point, does it not?

> The increase in value of a F9 booster after use is more than the near-negligible per-launch maintenance cost.

Do we have anything proving this besides the self-serving word of a privately owned company?

I'm not saying it's false, I have no idea either. But there's a lot of highly specific speculation going on here, based on no reliable source.

Yes, insurance rates for satellites launching on reused boosters go down the more flight tested the booster is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com