It lands on its tail.

>>9016295
yes. that's the whole fucking point

>>9016295
It's cheaper the fact that you don't have to build a new rocket every time

Why not just a parachute?

>>9016310
>>9016311

Could you share your evidence that SpaceX saved money?

>>9016311
So they take it off the barge and just plug a new second and third stage onto it and fill it with gas and it's 100% good to go again for the next 39 launches?

Because if they have to take the entire engine apart, they aren't gonna save a lot of money. Pennies on the dollar at best.

>>9016324
sigh.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+spacex+rockets+save+money

>>9016317
Seawater damages rockets

>>9016330
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+spacex+rockets+save+money

None of the results have any evidence.

Sure, if you try to not pay your employees, and overwork them. :^)

Oops, he tried that and now has to pay millions!

>>9016364
what exactly do you want. I see you posting this on /pol/ too. The answers there were the same. So what do you want since obviously those answers are not good enough for you. what is your expected answer.

SpaceX have been upgrading their rockets to make them more easily refurbishable to refly. They're flying something called Block 3 now, and with Block 5 by the end of the year. Block 3 is good for 1-2 reflights. Block 5 should be good for 13 reflights.

Dope

>>9016383
his expected answer is lots and lots of (yous)

>>9016383
Some form of evidence, or people recanting the claim if they lack the evidence to support it.

I expected more from /sci/.

>>9016478
http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-reusable-rocket-launch-costs-profits-2017-6/#then-again-we-dont-consider-that-the-falcon-9s-second-stage-may-soon-be-fully-reusable-too-20

This is the best secondhand information you are going to get. SpaceX keeps its budget secret from the public as much as possible.

The evidence: There isn't any hard evidence. This is a recanting of Musk and speculation of how the Falcon-9 project will be cheaper long term.

Now please stop being an insufferable sperg and just say thank you to the people going out of their way to help you.

>>9016317
parachute landings of large equipment tends to be at several meters per second which causes damage.

So retrorockets or rockets must be used to reduce landing velocity to a speed that avoids damage. Also landing in the ocean sucks because seawater is highly corrosive and waves are not gentle.

>>9016519
Shotwell did say a couple months ago that they are doing very well financially, and that they could withstand 2ish AMOS6's happening again. More than that and it gets iffy.

>>9016317
Parachute landings are too fast.

The T 10 parachute used by us army airborne. Descends at 24 feet per second.

why not use wings?

File: gk175-1.jpg (771KB, 4011x2326px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 4011x2326px

>>9016531
the soviets put some thought to that. didn't really work out

>>9016531
Too much mass you have to haul up.

>>9016295
Currently, no.

Once the technology has matured, yes.

R&D takes a long time. I'm just glad we get to see as much as we do.

>>9016538
currently *yes

It only took 4 months to refurb the 1st stage for SES-10. It takes 12 months to build a 1st stage from scratch.

There's some shotwell/elon quote out there saying that they are saving money from the get-go but I can't seem to find it

>>9016546
You have to factor in the cost of the R&D first. Once they get production up then the turn around rate up, it will be profitable.

>>9016558
well, yeah if you do the math that way. Shotwell said that they put about a billion bucks into reusability R&D. So yes, when just saving 15mil per flight, it will be a while before they recuperate those investments.

Pretty good long-term payoff though!

>>9016324
>>9016383
http://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-savings-from-reused-falcon-9/
>“It was substantially less than half” the cost of new first stage, she said.

>>9016531
They become useless mass once you're in spes.