If I had to guess, their first priority is launching new rockets that generate revenue, with paying customers' payloads on them (as all of the recent Falcon 9 launches have been), rather than a self funded R&D flight. I don't think any paying customer would put anything other than a boilerplate/test article satellite on the very first ever re-use of a first stage.
back
2 comments
People would if the cost was sufficiently defrayed -- this is just a financial instrument problem.
That might make the first reuse flight unprofitable for SpaceX, but not as unprofitable as one with no payload.
One of the biggest risks to SpaceX's business is probably the perception that they cannot launch on time, that they have multi-year delays: they are not reliable in terms of launch date expectations. While SpaceX is getting better at this, they need to be able to show prospective customers that they will do everything possible to launch on time, or with the fewest delays. Otherwise, cheaper launches be damned, many customers might switch to a launch provider that will commit to a date.
See this here for a series of graphs of how big their launch backlog has grown over the years: http://www.americaspace.com/?p=93456
This means that launching customer payloads on fresh-built rockets is Priority #1, at least until confidence is fully restored, cadence is up, and backlog is down.
The insurance companies which insure commercial telecom satellite launches are EXTREMELY risk averse - I would be surprised if you see a commercial launch in any of the first eight re-uses of first stages. Government/science payload/R&D, yes. LEO or geostationary transfer orbit commercial, no.
edit: you might see a commercial flight with a never-flown-before prototype commercial satellite bus (example: like a geostationary bus the size of a boeing 702 with a novel never before tested type of ion propulsion stationkeeping system, or a new battery system, or something else weird).
As I said, a financial instrument problem. If nobody is willing to create the appropriate insurance because of structural inefficiencies in the insurance industry, well, that's reality. But there's no prima facia reason why it should be uninsurable.
For context, this launch cost around $60mil and carried $200mil of satellite (spacenews http://spacenews.com/spacex-successfully-launches-2nd-pair-o... )
Spacex are aspiring to a 30% discount https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-u...
Until the tech is well proven this would seem to only be a compelling offer for lower cost sats. Theres also the catch 22 that the first mission will be almost uninsurable. I reckon we'll see an LEO demonstration launch maybe with some cubesats n the first one.
From what I understand the first "used" mission will be insured.
Insurers seem to be playing a bit loose with SpaceX:
>This insurance official said that given the market’s current softness, underwriters have overlooked the fact that they are not always sure what modifications have been made to the Falcon 9 they are insuring.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-brief-underwriters-on-the-roa...
If, say, around 30% of rockets blow up, I don't see why there wouldn't be an insurance willing to write a policy for say 35%?
Not if the satellite is much more expensive than the rocket. Using the GP's figures of $200mm and $60mm, that would mean paying $70mm in insurance instead of just waiting for the next $60mm flight.
Yes, that's true. With an expensive enough satellite, even a free launch would not compensate for 30% failure.
Supposedly SES volunteered to put their next flight on a used stage. The sticking point was price - SpaceX wants to charge $40m and SES wanted to pay only $30m.
SpaceX claims several customers have volunteered to be first. I don't think we're going to see a test payload unless SpaceX is concerned there's such a high chance of failure the PR hit would be to big to risk it.