Elon Musk expects at least 20 or 30 missions from each Falcon 9 block 5 booster rockets. Currently, the booster rockets have been reused 3 times with some recovered for their fourth launch.
Thirty reuses of a first stage Falcon 9 block 5 could reduce the cost of the booster from $30 million to $1 million plus maintenance, recover and operational costs. The total Falcon 9 rocket also has an $8 million second stage and $6 million payload fairing. Payload fairings have been recovered but have not been reused yet. A Falcon 9 with 30 reuse first stage and ten reuse fairings would get close to $10 million in cost.
Other SpaceX Updates
A Crew Dragon supersonic abort test will likely destroy the rocket that launches it.
SpaceX has started building a new Starhopper nose cone. The previous nose cone was badly damaged when blown over in high winds.
How many launches are you expecting to get our of this rocket Elon
— canzy darrin (@CanzyD) February 22, 2019
High probability of this particular rocket getting destroyed by Dragon supersonic abort test. Otherwise, at least 20 or 30 missions for Falcon 9. Starship will take over before the F9 fleet reaches end of life.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2019
Depends on when Crew Dragon comes back. That’s scheduled for launch next Saturday, but lot of new hardware, so time error bars are big.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2019
The new nose cone has arrived via prefab sections onna truck, shiny and much stronger than previous. Going to be up in DAYS.
A cryogenic tanker arrived yesterday.
Musk says second, improved Raptor engine is done.#StarHopper is about to be ready to fly.#SpaceX #Starship https://t.co/4D8jNjkB1Y— Davis (@Davis_404) February 22, 2019
SOURCES- Elon Musk, Twitter, SpaceX, Charlie Burgess renderings of the SpaceX Super Heavy Starship, Youtube Spadre.com
Written by Brian Wang.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Very. This is what I’d been hoping for since I was a kid.
Far too many decades ago, dang it…
And soon we’ll see naysayers going “It just proves he didn’t build it right! It’s too heavy, with too many compromises to performance! He’s doing it wrong!”
And they’re probably from NASA. 😉
Ten re-uses without refurbishment. Potentially capable of many more. Perhaps Elon is saying 20 or 30 without going back to the factory.
My point is that they are sort of on their way to that. 4th reflight/landing of a rocket? Would have been completely nuts 10 years ago.
Yes, the 20-30 figure isn’t proven yet. But they were expecting a smaller number before. That means the data they’ve got so far is better than they were expecting.
Which are already going down, as is. Not only with smaller satellites that can *literally* be built in a garage but rideshares are more common AND larger, quantitatively.
Exciting times.
Apparently the insurance has not been greatly affected by the reuse paradigm.
4th re-use of a booster[the one that just landed in fact] is supposed to occur in April.
Keep in mind as launch costs come down, so will the average value of the payloads.
The plan was for 10 reuses per F9 block 5, IIRC. 20-30 reuses means they’ve got a good handle on reuse, and can meet and exceed their reuse goals. That’s good news for BFR.
Also, we’re insuring satellites which have known costs and not human beings and lawsuits for wrongful death. You make a good point but I don’t think the severity of the cost increase will be along the same lines as what you see in the aircraft industry.
Spy satellites are not insured.
I’ve heard the same “Insurance for SpaceX launches will go up” argument from people involved in SLS. I don’t quite buy it being that much of an increase. I suspect that the most reliable launch of a first stage is actually the 2nd or 3rd launch.
Either way insurance won’t cost more than a new rocket.
I suspect launch costs will go down but insurance costs on the payload will go up as the probability of failure increases. It is the same with airplanes which become un-certified after a certain number of pressurization cycles on the air frames’ un-replace-able bits. The air-frames are still usable and nothing is measurably wrong, just that its beyond the simulated limits or the risk becomes un-acceptable in first world countries. but then the air frames go on to live fairly useful lives in other countries if they don’t get harvested at the bone-yards. I’m not saying the insurance would sky-rocket Not hugely so, and, indeed, the savings may pay for the increased insurance. but the market will change for the nth +10 flight I would bet. but it will be considerable for billion dollar payloads like spy satellites and big science like hubble x10-100 or humans in space.
20 reuses would be great. The amortized cost per launch of the first stage booster would be a few (2-3) million. Launch costs would be dominated by second stage costs, maintenance costs, and fuel.
That’ll be quite something.