Considering it was at a 32 degree inclination at over 6.5t, its right at the edge of what a F9 disposable could do. F9 reusable is not an option here.
Not really.
That would be assuming that it would achieve the same kind of orbital insertion as the falcon heavy. But as pointed out, it didn't. They are using F9 reusable to launch into a lower energy GTO, which would likely take years off the satellites life.
Seems to match the story quite well.
So I would say F9 reusable
ITAR does not cover everything made in the USA. It covers specific things.
Including satellite components, which was the point I made earlier, and included a link to a news article where a company was fined 8 million dollars for ICs which went into a satellite launched by China.
https://spacenews.com/37071us-satellite-component-maker-fined-8-million-for-itar-violations/Solar panels and many many other things are not on that list.
ICs normally aren't, yet ones made for satellites are.
Does the same apply to solar panels?
I would think so.
General, commercial grade items typically aren't controlled.
But components intended for use in satellites are.
$400m a year to pay for over 20 Falcon 9 launches, each with about 50 average sats.
According to you, reuse is more expensive, so this is costing them over $1-2B a year just in launch cost.
So either reuse is a hell lot cheaper than you think, or SpaceX has invented a money printing machine somewhere.
Or, they have multiple sources of income which can be used together to pay for launches.
Yet you claim the vast majority of the launch mass for the F9 isn't needed.
Very few rockets ever launch at their max capacity.
Which is just avoiding the point.
No, I never compared just the Flacon Heavy upgrade to the SLS.
I compared
4 rockets (F1, F9, FH, SS)
2 large rocket engines (merlin, Raptor)
deployed over 2500 sats (Of which there are 2 versions)
For 1/3rd of the price of SLS.
And I pointed out one of those rockets is a toy, 2 are basically the same thing, and one is yet to launch or even prove it can get to orbit.
And after that you responded by claiming the falcon heavy took lots of R&D, and that SLS is using some things from the shuttle.
That sure seems to be an attempt to compare the 2.
You mean like how Boeing was building the SLS, and was deeply involved in the $90B STS program should be able to now build Starliner cheaper for cheaper? Like that?
Are they in any way comparable to the strainer?
No.
Why did the others bid more than double for the same service?
Ask them.
But we can make certain informed guesses.
You aren't making informed guesses.
You are wildly speculating on a rocket that hasn't even been to orbit yet about claims of how cheap it will be.
And considering how many broken promises Musk has already made, why should any of that be taken seriously?
Right, this is the first time you said something interesting.
Considering I have already pointed that out, I doubt it.
How much does that complexity cost, in both mass, fixed cost, variable cost and cadence? How often can you reuse and how much does re-use cost?
How much reduction in capacity, and what is the cost of that and market of that lost capacity? How does it compare to using the full capacity?
And they are all questions which no one outside of spaceX knows the answer to for their rockets.
They are things which can cause reusability to cost more.
Everyone in the industry that has done this math is currently developing reusable rockets.
How do you know that?
How many are going for a fully reusable orbital rocket?
Only spaceX that I know of.
Additionally, as pointed out before, sometimes there are factors other than cost.
There does not exist any vehicles with the same capability of the shuttle.
Which is a problem for you, not me.
You can't compare the cost of building the space shuttle with the cost to launch it to try saying reuse is cheaper.