Hacker News Reader

I'd speculate labor, testing, and other quality assurance cost more than the materials. The fairings have to handle ridiculous thermal and mechanical stresses, then have to separate reliably and cleanly before payload deployment. There can't be flaws.

You don't want your "cheap" fairings developing a pinhole while being hurled through the atmosphere at great speed; this obliterates your ultra-expensive payload.

View on HN

Well see that's what I can't wrap my head around. If it's mainly a labor and testing cost, one would think recovery wouldn't yield much benefit because testing takes the majority of the budget. Since they are recovering, obviously the materials are extremely valuable, despite needing to be recertified.

If that's the case, what makes the materials so expensive?

Testing costs are not that much compared to the manufacturing. Especially if they are using carbon fiber composites.

Although I think the best result is that they get an much more detailed look at how their rocket parts are performing. Telemetry is great, but when you can inspect the actual part you can improve on things that may end up being a problem down the line. That's how block 5 boosters came about for the most part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com