zlacker

What do you mean? SpaceX didn't invent the reusable rocket, and my understanding is that Falcon 9 is still not significantly more economical than disposable rockets, and that the main reason it's attractive is that it's not Soyuz-2.

>>fluori+(OP)
> SpaceX didn't invent the reusable rocket

There isn’t a single inventor and reusable rockets emerged through decades of research.

But: SpaceX was the first to make orbital-class reuse routine and economically viable.

>>fluori+(OP)
Your understanding is wrong; see page 2 of https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200001093/downloads/20.... That’s a log plot!

The backing table is on page 8. Falcon 9 is (was, in 2018! It’s only cheaper now.) at $2700/kg to LEO. No one else is below $4k, except… Falcon Heavy.

>>fluori+(OP)
Space is basically half the cost of it's competitors on a per kg basis. And while previous experiments like the DC-X existed, SpaceX absolutely gets credit for the first operational reusable rocket stage.

And I say that as someone that despises Elon and the way he casts his companies as due to his personal technical genius.

>>jasonw+e3
>And while previous experiments like the DC-X existed, SpaceX absolutely gets credit for the first operational reusable rocket stage.

Not true. What about STS?

>>fluori+(OP)
I found that surprising, so I looked on Wikipedia.

Soyuz-2 capacity to LEO: 8,600KG

Falcon 9 capacity to LEO: 22,800KG when expended, 17,500KG when not.

Soyuz-2 Cost to Launch: $35 Million

New Falcon 9 Cost to Launch: $70 Million

Used Falcon 9 Cost to Launch: $50 Million (cost to SpaceX: ~$25 Million)

Soyuz-2 cost per KG: $4000 (data from 2018)

New Falcon 9 cost per KG: $964 when expended, $1250 when not.

Use Falcon 9 coster per KG to Customer: $893 when expended, $690 when not

So realistically, Falcon 9 is roughly 20-30% the price per KG when new, and dropping to a minimum of 17.25% of the price when used.

Plus you get a larger diameter payload fairing and the ability to launch a payload up to 4X the size.

I'm pretty sure that even used as an expendable rocket, 1/4 the price per KG (if you need the capacity) is a pretty significant improvement. Now I understand why satellite ride-shares are so popular!

>>ghc+05
Plus, the Falcon launch cadence is infinitely better than Soyuz 2. 2025:

Soyuz-2: 12 launches

Falcon 9: 165!

>>fluori+64
Eh that's a spaceplane and solid rocket booster shells which I see as categorically different, and an absurd failure on a cost per kg basis.

>>jasonw+Vj
It was a spaceplane and also a rocket. It literally had fixed rocket engines and was carried up by separating rocket stages. And yeah, it was expensive to operate, but it was built in the '80s and it truly was the first reusable rocket regularly flown, rather than being merely an experimental craft.