Physics / mechanism
Reusable launch recovers and reflights rocket stages rather than discarding them, collapsing the dominant cost driver in space access. SpaceX Falcon 9 achieves first-stage reuse via cold-gas grid-fin guidance, retropropulsion descent, and deployable landing legs; boosters have flown 20+ times. Payload penalty for reuse is ~15–20% versus expendable mode on Falcon 9 (GTO capacity ~5.5 t reusable vs ~8.3 t expendable). Starship targets full-stack reusability with rapid turnaround (<24 h ambition). Rocket Lab’s Neutron, in development, is designed reusable from the outset; Electron recovery is partial (booster only, ocean catch). Key metrics: turnaround time, refurbishment cost per flight, structural fatigue margins.
Competitive landscape
Expendable launch (Ariane 6, Vulcan, long-march variants) trades capex on hardware for simpler ops but cannot reach the $/kg floor reusables target (~$1,000/kg LEO aspirational for Starship vs ~$5,000–10,000 for expendables). Adjacent: air-launch (Virgin Orbit, defunct; Stratolaunch) suits small payloads with flexibility, not cost scale. Spin-launch kinetic launch addresses small sats differently. Hypersonic propulsion research (rotating detonation engines, aerospike) could alter next-generation vehicle economics.
Companies using
Connected ideas
Sources
Frontier (open questions)
- To be added.