> It was a epoch defining change
Not yet. Costs haven't fallen. The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
Not yet. Costs haven't fallen. The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
I disagree. I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters. It is also speculated that at least the first few customers of reused boosters were given a discount.
If you are saying customer cost has not fallen, you may be correct. I would counter with the fact that SpaceX is already a low cost provider, lowering their price more may not increase their overall profits.
> The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
The booster SpaceX plans to reuse today is a "block 5" booster. This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse.
Well, they are. Which is natural, because the program is still R&D more than mass production.
> This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse
When that rapid re-use is demonstrated, it will mark the epoch. We could retcon to the original re-use, or even booster recovery. But that's premature.
(I'm still super excited about everything SpaceX does.)
That is false. You already pay 10 million less. That is 15% of the launch price. And 15% of the extremely cheap price that SpaceX was already selling.
The reality is that SpaceX simply increased its margin. The technology is still epoch defining.
If any competitor comes even close to SpaceX in price, they will simply drop the price again.