Rocket landing legs

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

As long as the Falcon 9's 1st stages aren't reused, and thus the price isn't going down, then a non-reusable Falcon 9 launch is good enough for heavy payloads which require the extra delta-V.

Who's going to pay for a Falcon Heavy if it's easily launched on a non-reusable Falcon 9?

Because they are supposed to be reused- I don't even think SpaceX is offering expendable F9 anymore. SpaceX just put them on Falcon Heavy.

[batman78781]

It seems like current pricing for the F9 is 60mil, FH at 90mil.                 http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Not quite sure what is going on here, as they have yet to demonstrate reusing the rocket. Seems like they charge less for more opportunity to land or something like that? They have mentioned cross-feeding from the boosters to the cores though, so maybe the 60 mil means it is still designed to be 'expendable' in case something goes wrong like last Sunday. By the time FH flights are regular, they will probably have nailed the landings. 

 

 

[Delta_8930]

Just something I noticed reccently:

Blue Origin actually deploys their landing legs on the pad to check them out and verify that they are all working correctly. This can be seen during the video for the second New Shepard launch. SpaceX is unable to do this because of the design of their legs and the Strongback pressing against the rocket. 

[monophonic]

7 hours ago, batman78781 said:

It seems like current pricing for the F9 is 60mil, FH at 90mil.                 http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Not quite sure what is going on here, as they have yet to demonstrate reusing the rocket. Seems like they charge less for more opportunity to land or something like that? They have mentioned cross-feeding from the boosters to the cores though, so maybe the 60 mil means it is still designed to be 'expendable' in case something goes wrong like last Sunday. By the time FH flights are regular, they will probably have nailed the landings. 

 

 

x+y = 60mil, 3x+y = 90mil. x is of course the price of F9 first stage, while y is the price of the upper stage and everything else that doesn't need triplicating for a FH launch like mission control crew, launch permits, facitility rents, PR, etc.

From this I solve that a Falcon 9 first stage costs 15 million. That does not seem like, I'm not sure, sane?

[Kaos]

19 minutes ago, monophonic said:

x+y = 60mil, 3x+y = 90mil. x is of course the price of F9 first stage, while y is the price of the upper stage and everything else that doesn't need triplicating for a FH launch like mission control crew, launch permits, facitility rents, PR, etc.

From this I solve that a Falcon 9 first stage costs 15 million. That does not seem like, I'm not sure, sane?

The only way this makes sense to me, is that the F9 price is todays launch price, FH price is only in case they manage the landing. And in that case, the F9 price is also likely to go down, then.

[Nibb31]

You can't extrapolate cost from price. Hardware is only a small part of the cost of a launch service. 

You also can't consider that infrastructure costs are equal. FH launches from LC39A, F9 launches from LC40, Vandenberg, or SpaceX-owned Boca Chica. The rental costs of each facility will be different.

And those prices are indicative. They are likely to vary by purchase volume, urgency, orbital parameters, etc...

[batman78781]

6 hours ago, Kaos said:

The only way this makes sense to me, is that the F9 price is todays launch price, FH price is only in case they manage the landing. And in that case, the F9 price is also likely to go down, then.

Yeah, that is probably the most likely reason. Besides, I don't see when the first commercial launch of the FH is, and it doesn't look like the demo flight in April will have a payload, probably just ballast. The FH is scheduled to launch a DOD satellite (STP-2) in september I think, but its just qualifiation. Besides, I dont know if they had to pay them or what, it is just to certify DOD launch capabilities.