SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage reuse economics

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/...34479814684672

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.