The point is that in the quest of reusability, instead of launching a single Falcon 9, with a single stage 1 booster, they instead need to use a Falcon 9 heavy, with 3 stage 1 boosters.
It is a demonstration of just how much reusability can cost.
It does demonstrate how much reusability can cost. Its clearly cheaper to reuse 3 booster and destroy one.
By what definition of "commercial"?
They certainly seem to be launching things comparable to commercial things launched in the US.
For example, a bunch of satellites for GalaxySpace.
The only reason it is out of so many equations is because the US doesn't want to allow China to launch satellites. So much so that it blocks any US company from contracting any Chinese entity (including any Chinese company) to launch a satellite.
This also means it blocks satellite components being used by overseas companies to make a satellite which is then launched by the Chinese company.
Just think of how many launches it could have if the US allowed it.
Most Chinese launchers, and sat industries are either state owned, or subsidized. And by subsidized, I mean, they give them direct cash injections to produce a product. I have nothing wrong with this, but they are all funded from the same source. SpaceX gets customers from other countries or companies with no ties to SpaceX, or even USA. I consider this the difference.
And goes directly against your prior claims that you don't need such a large capacity.
Capacity vs Price. An expensive 27t launcher with 1 customer a year is worse than a cheap 16t launcher with 20 customers a year. There is a range where most paying customers are going to maximise the market share. You want to be in that range.
Why would you need to have your job only be for that rocket?
Are you saying these people are too stupid to look after 2 or 3 different types of rockets?
If so, I wouldn't trust them looking after 1.
. . . . .
The exact same thing, with other rockets.
I think you underestimate what I mean by specialised. These crew are trained to specifically work with dangerous liquids, at dangerous temperatures using very specific equipment for a very specific rocket, with trade secrets in a certain location in the country. This team is trained to fuel one specific vehicle, made by one specific company, which wants to ensure their talent does not get poached OR moves their trade secrets to another company. They are not fuelling cars, if they make mistakes they could blow up billion dollar equipment. If you think they can just hop over to dump some -170'C Hydrogen in a rocket after a 2 week course, then you have a very incorrect view of how the industry works.
Prove it.
You want me to steel their internal accounting books? Because I know a quote from a SpaceX representative wont be enough for you.
Musk also didn't really invest much into hyperscam. Instead other companies, or rich people from those companies, were quite happy to throw money away at it.
And? Do you think NASA, The Airforce, multiple countries and commercial communications companies are looking at the cool videos of a Falcon 9 landing and saying "screw it, we know it costs more, but I want to launch on the one that is reusable?" We have actual quotes around the industry saying they are cheaper than alternatives.
Sure, they aren't government funded, they just get billions of dollars from government contracts.
And as already established, the cost per kg of reusable rockets is more to the customers.
So does every other company that supplies goods and services to the US government. They still need to turn a profit on those contracts or go bankrupt.
And no, the cost to the customer is not more, because SpaceX has provided the launch option for disposable rockets, and customers are not choosing those. Maybe try to understand why customers are choosing reusable over disposable.
Which still shows that it isn't simple a case of they didn't want it. Musk at least implied that he wanted Falcon to be fully reusuable.
And while starship may allow it to be fully reusable, with all the costs of refurbishment, will it end up being more expensive?
I think they did want it, they never achieved it as Falcon 9 is too small for full reusability.
And I dont know for certain if SS will be cheaper. We will have to wait and see.
It depends on a few things, one of them is reliability of the rocket itself. If they need to do extensive refurb or not, this is what failed the STS. And how many flights they can get a year. If they can only fly once a year, it will cost a lot. If they can refurb and fly within weeks or days, then they will be fine. You need to share fixed costs (Such as those guys needing to fuel your rocket)
But overall, I have confidence that it will eventually be cheaper to fly a SS for less than $60m. Tending towards $20m a flight.
There will also be different types of flights with different associated costs.
If they are only flying fuel to a depot, that cheap.
Flying people (eventually) will cost a lot more.
Or you can do it more efficiently over a longer period of time, including by using more complex manoeuvres.
The physics does not change, you need to eject mass out the back end at a certain speed. You can get higher ISP motors, but cost seem to increase quickly here. You also are limited by fuels available. The most efficient fuels are Hydrogen, but hydrogen boils off if you dont use it quick enough, which means your throwing good fuel overboard. Electric propulsion is great for small sats, but there is still no large electric propulsion engine, and they take a lot energy which has associated costs. There are mono-propellants, which are used a lot for sats, but they are less efficient and dangerous to work with, so are usually used when you dont need a lot of it.
So why couldn't you get the article for the previous image?
And this one doesn't show it inside the fairing, just near it.
It appears that it will have quite a lot of empty space.
Cant find the previous source. Not sure what browser I used to find it.
Here are more pictures of the exact same sat being loaded in the exact same fairing.
From the bottom -
https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/ula-delta-iv-with-gps-iii-sv02-launch-delayed/From the top -
https://insidegnss.com/second-gps-iii-space-vehicle-magellan-launch-set-for-aug-22/They are not launching "STUFF" into space, they are launching sats into space. Sats that cost hundreds of millions of $$. There is zero chance they are going to try and fill that fairing to the brim like a jar of marbles.
We are talking about rideshare in general, not just for loads where it wouldn't be practical.
We are talking about re-usability. These sats are so small, you can place them along nearly any payload, they hardly matter except for the small sat launchers.