Remix clone Hacker News

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.

▲

adastra22 6 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

michaelt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"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.

	▲	adastra22 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.