Your post is an object lesson for my growing loss of interest.
Sorry actual figures and simple calculations makes your eyes glaze over, but the point of the exercise still stands.
Example
Avoiding the point. I hammer the idea of re-usability until I am blue in the face and you act like you never hear of it.
I actually understand "re usability" quite well. The main issue is while my figures are rough they at least come closest to reflecting reality. Let's be clear here:
We
KNOW exactly how re-usability is reflected on the SpaceX bottom line. They explicitly state that a single "space tourist" or passenger will be charged exactly $52 million for a flight into orbit and one to two month stay on the ISS. (And in case anyone misses the totally unsubtle hint there that exact same amount of money will get you a fully dedicated payload mass on a Falcon 9 to anywhere you want to go) At the same time they state that they will put 2.2lbs (1kg) into orbit for $5,000 dollars.
This does not reconcile with the given launch cost, (LEO should be $114 million, GEO should be $41.5 million but they are both as we know, $52 million) so we should know that the 'launch costs' do not directly correlate. And that's because launch costs only partially reflect vehicle costs since they include things like operations costs, range fees and other necessities of operation.
The basic point is that re-usability has had a major effect on the amount of money needed to get 1kg/2.2lbs into space and I have agreed with that but it is ONLY one factor which should be obvious. MORE comes into play the 'further' you get from the "simple" job of delivering a payload to orbit and the costs reflect this.
Now having said all that who's calculations are close to the reality? There's a reason for that as well.
When I specify the cost of a Falcon 9 launch in terms of non-reusable upper stage, it follows I am talking about the end goal of Falcon pricing:
Falcon 9 Cost = main booster/100 + upper stage ($21M) = upper stage + change.
I have significant questions on your assumptions and the equation itself since it ignores so many factors and and essentials, (where's the fairing or Dragon cost for example) but let me make this simple. The use of "launch costs" as a basis to figure vehicle costs is always going to be wrong because the "launch costs" actually encompass a great many factors that are not directly related to the vehicle itself and some of which are pretty much 'fixed' and do not follow the vehicle flight rate or re-usability. It only directly equates to the "$-per-kg/lb-to-orbit" equation. THAT then can be used to calculate more realistic costs for other factors.
From Spacex directly:
https://www.spacex.com/reusability-key-making-human-life-multi-planetary
"SpaceX believes a fully and rapidly reusable rocket is the pivotal breakthrough needed to substantially reduce the cost of space access. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket currently carries a list price of about $54 million. However, the cost of fuel for each flight is only around $200,000—about 0.4% of the total. The majority of the launch cost comes from building the rocket, which flies only once. Compare that to a commercial airliner. Each new plane costs about the same as Falcon 9, but can fly multiple times per day, and conduct tens of thousands of flights over its lifetime. Following the commercial model, a rapidly reusable space launch vehicle could reduce the cost of reaching Earth orbit by a hundredfold."
The quote from SpaceX is actually saying nothing new in space fight since it's been known and expounded on since before anyone actually flew a successfully long range rocket. Throwing away a transport after a single use is only 'economical' in very specific and certain circumstance and in fact until recently that was actually the case for space flight. Not anymore and SpaceX is a major reason for that shift.
(Just so we're clear here's the prices for Boeing aircraft as of January 2019;
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273941/prices-of-boeing-aircraft-by-type/, they run from $442 million to $89 million) It also ignores the fact that the cited transportation system, (aircraft) benefited from things like already established trade and passenger demand and destinations as well as several major conflicts which dictated a rapid progress in the technology. Currently the F9 boosters are officially supposed to have a lifetime of 10 flights while the PARTS can be utilized for a possible 100 the aerospace frame is more limited. (More specifically it is "10 flights before major maintenance" but as that would come close to a complete tear down and rebuild the reality is the same) Put in context that's about a 60 minute "lifetime" compared to an aircraft airframe life of hundreds of thousands of hours. This may sound terrible but it's not considering the circumstances since this will clearly only go up with time.
By the way, NASA has already purchased a Falcon 9 launch for an X ray satellite project at a price of $50.3M:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...tract-for-groundbreaking-astrophysics-mission
“The total cost for NASA to launch IXPE is approximately $50.3 million, which includes the launch service and other mission-related costs.”
This is an intermediary point along the development of Falcon 9 reusability. As the 4th, 5th, 10th flight etc reused booster flies, Spacex will gain more margin in pricing to lower them further.
For 2021 as already noted that's pretty much the standard price anyway. As it's the "primary" payload for the mission then NASA is paying for the lion's share of the total flight cost but I hope you aren't assuming that is the total SpaceX will get out of the mission? This is a "rideshare" flight and IXPE only takes up 770lbs of the payload space. Two standard "rideshare" satellites (adding near 1000lbs and still well below the Falcon 9's capacity) and it's back up to $52 million. Probably any added riders will get a discount since it's not as customized as a standard fight but I've no doubt the actual launch money will be more than just what NASA pays. Further ALL SpaceX flights will be the 'standard' price, so first or tenth flight the cost is the same, that's kind of WHY they went with a standard price. Flight rate, lifetime extensions, and boosters available will likely play a more important role in further price reductions
Example
Obfuscation. I mentioned our perspectives being polar opposites on virtually everything including the basic nature of the Chinese government (made by me to you not long ago on another thread). Nothing at all to do with Chinese launchers but we get a paragraph on them.
It's a thread on spaceflight so that was kind of a given
I don't see our opinions being polar opposite since I regard the Chinese government as an autocratic dictatorship with a veneer of "communism" and a slice of capitalism which has a semi-oligarchical overtone. But this isn't really all that different than how China has ALWAYS operated. (If they could get a couple of solid copper loops around Mao's body right about now they could be a net energy exporter REAL quickly
)
Example
More obfuscation. I linked a Spacenews article where Viasat Government Systems president Ken Peterman makes a point that NASA can get far more done far more quickly by accepting the role as end customer and letting private companies design and manage technical solutions on their own. This results in a paragraph about regulations. Well at least I am as uninformed as a senior aerospace president.
Again this isn't a new idea it was in fact the initial way NASA was supposed to operate but the needs of Apollo and the Lunar goal made that unworkable. That it has taken NASA almost 50 years to get "back" to the idea is greatly due to that aberration. The "senior aerospace president" likely knows his history which is why the comment makes sense in context. Not being insulting but you ARE 'uniformed' and that's no you because the information is out there. NASA was originally going to operate more like NACA than the US Air Force but the needs of the Apollo program forced the adoption of a modified Air Force procurement and contractor system to achieve the goal. Originally NASA did some design that would then be handed to industry to produce along with solicitation of industry input and designs. But Apollo's timescale meant that to achieve the goal set before them NASA had to fully undertake and oversee design and after Apollo 1 pretty much oversee and direct construction as well. NASA has taken almost 50 years to self-adjust to finally back off this position and method of operation. Part of the pressure to NOT do so has always been the aerospace jobs creation and support aspect that reflected back on Congress (especially) and various administrations. With more and more of the 'old guard' politicians, (so long Orin!) leaving office the ability of NASA to shift gears is finally growing.
Example
Narrative building. When I see Spacex dump years of composite development and tooling and make a sudden switch to steel, I see Musk being Musk based on internal Spacex analysis. You create a story of Spacex being corrected and guided by more reasoned outsiders but don't provide an actual case of it. I saw a lot of criticism when this happened. Didn't seem to make any difference.
And I can point out that many also praised the decision because, (as many pointed out) SpaceX had moved away from the "Black Aluminium" paradigm of the idea that composites solve everything. I specifically said that Musk often does not listen to critics both inside and outside SpaceX, my main point was those critics are not always wrong and Musk himself acknowledges this fact. I should probably point out that you also seem to keep tying to "build narratives" that don't conform to reality. SpaceX isn't 'dumping' composites they just will be using them in applications other than the main structure of Starship/SH. They were pretty clear on that.
It keeps boiling down to accepting your explanations of how and why things are the way they are versus what I see with my own eyes and can deduce through my own common sense.
No and I wouldn't expect you to "accept" my explanations and opinions but rejecting them simply because YOU can't "see" them and they don't fit your assumption of "common sense" is just as bad as what you're accusing me of doing. As I said before I always learn a lot from conversation such as this because they cause me to examine and think about my own assumptions and biases. It always helps expand my knowledge and understanding.
And while I don't mean to be insulting but am going to assume it will come out that way anyway, the attitude of not "believing" it because you can't "see with my own eyes and can deduce through my own common sense" is how you get people who 'believe' the Earth is flat and the Moon landings were faked because they didn't "see" it happen and it goes against their "common sense".
I will outright admit I have a different perspective than you do because I love aerospace history and have kept myself aware of both the technical and political sides of spaceflight as well as keeping a close eye on the general public's feelings on the subject. I've had to because ever since I was a lowly grade-school Space Cadet watching Apollo land on the Moon I have struggled to understand why were are where we are compared to where we 'should' have been had things been different. We are where we are for a varied and twisted multitude of reasons with no one clear 'point-of-departure' (to use the Alternate History phrase) that could have made things different. And understanding and accepting that makes the path forward that much more clear which is what I hope to accomplish when I post to others. Needless to say that's a hit or miss thing
Randy
