>>13097006The 'rocket cost' assumes that it will cost about 50% of the original cost of the rocket for each new launch (after the first one), which seems reasonable. According to SpaceX themselves they seem to be around 40%. However, SpaceX is known to BS a bit, so I just assumed 50%. The 'payloads to orbit' is because re-usable rockets need to save fuel since they need to land again, and the last unit of fuel generates more thrust than the first unit of fuel since the rocket is much lighter when the last unit of fuel is used up. According to SpaceX themselves they have a 70% 'payloads to orbit'. However, SpaceX is known to BS a bit, so I just assumed 50%.
The end result of these calculations, which you can see under 'COSTS, ...', is that under these assumptions re-usable rockets are not economically sound. And, keep in mind that the real SpaceX launch costs hasn't gone down. Thunderf00t made a great video about it.
Pic is the results under the most favorable assumptions you can give SpaceX. So, you need 3 launches for it to be profitable.
