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.

▲

pyrale 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

	▲	adastra22 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, insurance rates for satellites launching on reused boosters go down the more flight tested the booster is.

▲

michaelt 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

"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 7 months 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.

▲

sudosysgen 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	adastra22 7 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	philipwhiuk 7 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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.

▲

nordsieck 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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

	▲	adastra22 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		This furthers the point, does it not?