200 fairings at $3 million per fairing (or is it per pair, I keep forgetting), saves the company or the customers $600 million (or $300 million, depending), over the years.

If the engines are able to perform for 20 missions, then the hope for 148 Falcon launches suggests that about 8 new Falcon boosters need to be made, thus 72 new Merlin engines, and 148 upper stages have to be built, thus an additional 148 Merlin vacuum engines. That is quite a production rate for any rocket and for any engine type.

“SpaceX however also announced that the company is now working to upgrade its Falcon 9 first stages and fairings to fly as many as 40 missions.”

This is quite a learning experience (one that comes not from disaster or disappointment, as with most learning experiences). Blue Origin hopes that its New Glenn can fly 100 times, each, similar to SpaceX’s hopes for Starship and Super Heavy. Whether 20 is the maximum these rockets can launch, 40 is, or 100, it suggests that the launch companies are expecting a large number of customers.

This does not surprise me, because back in the 1990s the launch customers were trying to convince the launch companies that there would be a great demand for launch services if the price of a launch came down to only $2,000 per pound (from the general price of $10,000 per pound) in 1990s dollars. Falcon 9 has reached that point, explaining why it is wildly popular for customers other than Starlink. New Glenn is another attempt to reach that low cost range. Perhaps Vulcan can do the same, if it can reuse its engine compartment. The Ariane 6 did not reach that point, and it is not so popular with low preorders.

Yes, for the baseline PNT service. GPS is vulnerable, though, and more satellites would make it more robust; lower launch costs could help with this.

> There is also the possibility that future Starlinks and other low altitude comsats can be used for navigation. This has in fact been done even without SpaceX help.

Certainly, as we see with Iridium/Satelles or the work on opportunistic signals from Starlink and OneWeb. Not yet widely deployed, but encouraging. I’m not sure why we don’t see DoD proposals for dedicated LEO constellations to augment GPS.

Ten times as many is overkill. There is also the possibility that future Starlinks and other low altitude comsats can be used for navigation. This has in fact been done even without SpaceX help.
For civilian uses, providing we avoid World War 3 (there seem to be an alarming number of enthusiasts for having WW3) you can easily use a 4 constellation receiver. Right now in eastern Australia I have 59 navsats visible. In Los Angeles I have 43 navsats visible. Both cases with 5 degree mask angle on the horizon. We have more sats at the longitudes around China as they have a number of Beidou sats in figure 8 orbits and we also see the Japanese QZSS sats.

Eventually it may be the other way around. “You can use this proven, reliable stage for X, or you can try one fresh off the assembly line for a 20% discount.”

Anything from a brand new one for X amount to this fine 20 times used one for just 1 tenth the price. Twice the cost to not recover it. Fuel, second stages and launch costs are all the same.

They come in white but you can order it in any other color you like. your logo of choice.
Pick your orbit.
We have many open dates and a few open launch areas. Please choose.

We hope you are happy with our service and will think of us in the future for all your orbital needs.

It will be amusing to see these 1000kg-class payloads as “rideshares” on future Starship missions. While MEO is not a hugely popular orbit, it’s the legacy orbit for GNSS. Presently the GPS constellation is 32 satellites (ish). That could use another zero.

I wonder what company will be the next to have that “problem”?! My guess… nobody in this decade!

And by the time they do, SpaceX will have AI-based self-refurbishing rockets that schedule themselves, and walk on their legs from the landing pad to the launch pad! Only half kidding here.

Ray Van Dune: I think the decision to use of this 20-flight booster is because they have amortized its cost completely at this point. Though they could fly it more times as they work to upgrade the boosters for that new 40 flight goal, they probably don’t think it worthwhile to have more than one. As they fly that other 20-flight booster additional times, they can then apply what they learn to all their other boosters.

I should add that expending this booster makes engineering and financial sense. They have gotten full value from it, and also have another 20-flight booster to test their engineering.

Ray Van Dune: SpaceX made it clear, and I note it in the post, that the requirements of the satellites in orbit, inclination, etc required the Falcon 9 to expend all its fuel. No landing was possible.

https://youtu.be/vXrloxt4DaM

Indeed. This really is a remarkable development.

Interesting translation
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ekonomicheskie-aspekty-perehoda-k-mnogorazovym-sredstvam-vyvedeniya

Um…