SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the your-gazintas-needs-to-be-more-then-your-gazoutas dept.
The SpaceX launch of Taiwan's Formosat-5 satellite was delayed by years following a switch from the Falcon 1e rocket and the two Falcon 9 explosions in 2015 and 2016. SpaceX launched the satellite successfully and recovered the first stage booster on a drone ship, but the company won't make any profit on the launch:
The Formosat-5 is Taiwan's first satellite designed and built entirely with the nation's resources. More than 50 teams from across the country built it to facilitate academic research, disaster prevention, and humanitarian assistance. Originally, the sat was supposed to fly on SpaceX's Falcon 1e, an upgraded version of its first orbital-class Falcon 1 rocket with a lift capability of 2,200 pounds. And according to industry analysis site Space Intel Report, they paid $23 million for the privilege—compared to the typical $62 million for a commercial Falcon 9 launch today.
[...] Despite the delays, Taiwan didn't opt for another rocket provider like Orbital ATK, which operates the Minotaur rocket for missions to low-Earth orbit at a cost of around $30 million. Instead, SpaceX will pay 1.25 percent of the launch costs back to them for every month that Formosat-5 is delayed, according to the mission's contract.
So how much is SpaceX going to lose on this mission? If you remove the potential reusability of the Falcon 9 booster for a moment, a lot. According to a launch cost analysis by investment firm Jefferies International, SpaceX usually makes a 40 percent profit from $62 million commercial Falcon 9 launches with new boosters. That puts $25 million in the bank and $37 million toward direct launch costs. With Taiwan's severely reduced fare of $23 million, SpaceX is not only foregoing its profit but will be out-of-pocket for the remaining $14 million.
Also at NASASpaceFlight.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @08:31AM
Cost of first voyage of an vehicle or vessel is equal to the price of it plus recurrent expenses. On second voyage it is only half of price plus recurrent expenses, ... etc. If you are not using calculating with constant amortization rate (because at first you are not sure how far will initial investment take you), your initial prices must be higher, and exponentially fall of toward an asymptote with each new reuse. Ditto for recurring expenses, up to a level, because from one-off purchase you are becoming regular customer and your suppliers can lower their markup, to keep you coming back. Good record track also lets insurers lower their quotes.
Overall, my point is that it is normal that prices go down from initial, and that is especially pronounced for novel technologies as they mature. Musk may be even pushing it a little, to gain bigger market share, which would further lower costs per launch.