A payload reduction of 30-40% is huge. And even if refurb and recovery is less than 10%, you still loose the 2nd stage at every lunch (18% of the rocket by weight). You then have to include the extra development costs and additional risk of failure.

I highly doubt they hit break-even with only two launches, the math just doesn't add up.

If reusing rocket was so profitable, there is a high chance someone else would have done it before. Landing a rocket isn't totally new tech. NASA did it on the moon 50y ago.

After the massively incorrect analysis by popular YouTuber Thunderf00t, I made a video analyzing SpaceX's reusability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 It's 8 minutes but I recommend watching at 2 times speed.

The latest numbers are that the marginal cost of relaunch is $15 million, with $10 million of that the second stage. Refurbishment cost is 27 days with a $1 million refurbishment cost (not $250,000 as I mistakenly said in the video, see description). The net effect is the cost of marginal cost of reflight is approximately 25% but the payload reduction is 30%, which leads to a break even point of 3 launches. After 10 flights, the cost to orbit per kilogram is halved. SpaceX has demonstrated 8 flights of a single booster.

Note, these are all using SpaceX's own numbers (but so was the payload reduction and original reuse cost figures). It depends on recovering the $6 million fairing (which does not happen every mission). All numbers are sourced from an Aviation Week May 2020 podcast that I linked to. Yes, the cost numbers are from SpaceX but the only public refurbishment cost analogue we have is their 27 day turnaround time.

SpaceX are currently operating at a sixth of the rest of the industry and use their cost advantage to launch 60 Starlink satellites at their $15 million marginal cost.

The traditional military-industrial complex with cost-plus accounting is "subcontractors all the way down", and the incentives weren't aligned to make an industry dominating rocket until arguably the 1990s commercial satellite boom (eg, the original Iridium constellation). Until 2008, there hadn't ever been a privately funded rocket reach orbit ever. Until SpaceX. Prior rockets we designed, owned and approved by the US government under World War 2-era cost-plus accounting arrangements.

While the 2nd stage is 18 % of the rocket by weight, it only has one engine. The booster has nine. Engines are by far the most expensive part of the rocket, or used to be. (ULA says that engines make 65 per cent of the total cost of their first stages.)

> If reusing rocket was so profitable, there is a high chance someone else would have done it before.

AFAIK it is only like 10-12 years that computers and engineering software got good enough to simulate everything that happens in a rocket engine, sloshing of fuel etc. Cruder simulations were available before, but not good enough for that.

SpaceX engineers did most of the design and testing on computers. It took them only a few tries in the real world to nail the first landing.

Earlier pioneers would have to try in practice, which would mean a lot more failures and a lot more money, with a possible deadly incident in between.

There were mutiple reason, citing from top of my head as I don't find he old paper anymore. Reasons were:

- Reliability and insurance costs - limited number of launches - refurbishment costs of boosters ompared to new ones - heavier and more expensive boosters to make them reusable

This paper was way before SpaceX tried that. And whther or not reusable boosters are really a financial success is impossible to tell without published financials from SpaceX. The paper alsosaid, that reusable boosters become interessting with a high number of commercial launches, something they didn't see to happen. And that part alone makes Starlink so interessting, because it is basically SpaceX increasing its own number of launches.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :)