A couple of Tweets talking about SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage reuse
economics. The first is repeating some FUD that Tory Bruno of ULA likes
to spread. The second is, of course, Elon Musk replying.

Michael Baylor @nextspaceflight
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1295734479814684672

From above:

ULA has said that you need to refly a booster ten times for
the economics of reusability to make sense. SpaceX is now up
to six with Falcon 9.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144

From above:

Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is
<40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you're roughly
even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3

So, there you have it. SpaceX almost breaks even on a first stage after
only two flights. And they're definitely economically ahead with three.

I really don't know why Tory Bruno keeps saying they need 10 flights.
They really don't know SpaceX's internal costs for anything. They don't
have to pay high prices to external sub-contractors for things like
engines like ULA does. SpaceX makes most everything they can in-house.

This FUD says more about ULA than SpaceX though. It says ULA won't be
an ongoing concern in launch vehicles once Blue Origin perfects first
stage reuse. And if SpaceX ever gets full reuse out of Starship/Super
Booster, it's definitely game over for ULA.

Thanks,
Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 8/19/2020 5:44 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> This FUD says more about ULA than SpaceX though. It says ULA won't be
> an ongoing concern in launch vehicles once Blue Origin perfects first
> stage reuse. And if SpaceX ever gets full reuse out of Starship/Super
> Booster, it's definitely game over for ULA.

I think you are ignoring the possibility that ULA makes a buyout bid for
Blue Origin from Bezos. After which, after much consideration, Bezos
buys ULA for the parts and infrastructure.

Dave

In article <ri6c2j$m68$1@dont-email.me>, nospam@127.0.0.1 says...
>
> On 8/19/2020 5:44 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> > This FUD says more about ULA than SpaceX though. It says ULA won't be
> > an ongoing concern in launch vehicles once Blue Origin perfects first
> > stage reuse. And if SpaceX ever gets full reuse out of Starship/Super
> > Booster, it's definitely game over for ULA.
>
> I think you are ignoring the possibility that ULA makes a buyout bid for
> Blue Origin from Bezos. After which, after much consideration, Bezos
> buys ULA for the parts and infrastructure.

That's a possibility. But at that point, ULA ceases to exist as an
independent entity. The biggest advantage for ex-ULA employees is that
they'd finally be free from the meddling and lack of investment by their
original parent companies. They'd could finally be free to work on ACES
which includes technologies necessary for propellant depots (a necessary
technology to literally fuel a lunar water ice based economy). This
sort of tech is going to be necessary to fulfill Bezos' vision of moving
manufacturing off planet.

The bigger question would be whose management would be most in control
of the new entity? I've been in a situation where the part of the
company I work for bought another company and their management came to
dominate the organization. It was a strange twist I wasn't expecting at
the time. Such a situation inside Blue Origin might be a good thing,
depending on exactly who from former ULA is in charge (e.g. someone who
really wants to push new technologies and was held back by ULA's parent
companies).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> writes:

>I've been in a situation where the part of the company I
>work for bought another company and their management came to
>dominate the organization. It was a strange twist I wasn't
>expecting at the time.

That was how a retired Boeing employee characterized the M-D
merger. "Where M-D bought Boeing, but with Boeing's money" was
how he put it.

He was quite happy to no longer be working there.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

In article <rib6lc$7co$7@reader1.panix.com>, wb8foz@panix.com says...
>
> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> writes:
>
>
> >I've been in a situation where the part of the company I
> >work for bought another company and their management came to
> >dominate the organization. It was a strange twist I wasn't
> >expecting at the time.
>
>
> That was how a retired Boeing employee characterized the M-D
> merger. "Where M-D bought Boeing, but with Boeing's money" was
> how he put it.
>
> He was quite happy to no longer be working there.

That's what I've heard and read in articles about Boeing's recent
failings. They went from a company focused on quality engineering to a
company focused on the bottom line. They bought back billions of
dollars of their own stock only to have not one, but several of their
programs fail in various ways.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.