Photo says a billion words...@elonmusk: There and back again http://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/679137936416329728/photo/1
Last edited:
Probably some type of refurbishment and cleaning and preparation, however significantly cheaper vs. cost to build a new one...the landing was very impressive, I wonder how much work they need to do on the booster before its next mission. Do they just gas it up and run through some quick checks and go?
At the moment, it costs companies about $60 million to buy a SpaceX Falcon 9, but only about $200,000 of that is the cost of the fuel needed to launch the rocket and payload to orbit. http://buff.ly/1RCJmmn
"I think it really quite dramatically improves my confidence that a city on Mars is possible," Musk said during a post-landing press conference. "That's what all this is about."
http://buff.ly/1RCJmmn
Only the first stage is recovered, best estimates I have seen for the cost, put it at around $30M to manufacture. So it will be interesting to see what the refurb. cost is. Also, how will insurance companies feel about the reuse of the main booster to launch an insanely expensive satellite.Probably some rehabilitation and cleaning and preparation, however significantly cheaper vs. cost to build a new one...
Since this is the first time they've successfully landed a first stage they probably aren't sure yet how much effort and time it will take to refurb. This is still a learning experience. When they do complete the refurb my bet is that they use it in either a demo launch or some lower value payload, which might get a discount. It'll be important to demonstrate the successful reuse before insurance companies and customers alike are comfortable with it. The landing was an important first step though.Only the first stage is recovered, best estimates I have seen for the cost, put it at around $30M to manufacture. So it will be interesting to see what the refurb. cost is. Also, how will insurance companies feel about the reuse of the main booster to launch an insanely expensive satellite.
This is what they claimed for the Shuttle launch systems, but it turned out to be not true.Probably some type of refurbishment and cleaning and preparation, however significantly cheaper vs. cost to build a new one...
NASA is considering the Moon for staging purpose and to reduce costs... http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...SA-is-reconsidering-the-moon-as-a-6178116.phpI still don't understand why launching from near space doesn't make more sense.
Maybe because it isn't a big light show , and nobody actually see's the launch.
FAST