The central argument for complete reusability is that capital cost can be amortised across repeated flights, with the marginal cost of each additional launch falling substantially as recovery, inspection and refurbishment mature. Commercial spaceflight has led to a fall in the cost of placing a payload into space. Rockets that once cost hundreds of millions of dollars per flight now advertise launch prices of a few thousand dollars a kilogram. Yet lower launch prices have not automatically translated into easier or more reliable access to space. As the global space economy grows, the question of who can get to orbit, and on what terms, has become as important as how much each kilogram costs.
The changing launch market
In 2024, the World Economic Forum and McKinsey estimated that the global space economy would expand from about USD 630 billion in 2023 to USD 1.8 trillion by 2035, almost twice the projected rate of global GDP growth. At the same time, launch capacity remains concentrated around a small number of rockets and providers.An analysis by Ethereal Exploration Guild, published by the World Economic Forum, found that one launch-vehicle family carried 77 per cent of payloads in its global sample, even after excluding Chinese, Russian and Starlink satellites.In the same essay, Manu J. Nair, co-founder and chief executive of Ethereal Exploration Guild (The Guild), noted that 58 per cent of payloads in the dataset were being deployed into sun-synchronous orbit, with even satellites suitable for other low-Earth-orbit pathways being funnelled into standardised corridors because that is where rideshare capacity exists. He argues that this clustering reflects a practical lack of choice for many customers, despite the appearance of increasing launch activity.A Reuters report, dated August 4, 2026, has illustrated how one company’s internal demand can shape that landscape. Drawing on Jonathan McDowell’s launch database, the agency found that Starlink’s share of Falcon 9 missions rose from 54 per cent in 2020 to about 79 per cent so far in 2026. Several spacecraft companies have indicated that Falcon 9 capacity was fully booked until 2028 or 2029.Speaking to TOI, Nair suggests that cost-effectiveness must mean more than cost per kilogram.“Is a USD 1,000/kg launch really cheaper if a customer waits two years for a launch slot, compromises on their desired orbit, or spends additional time and propulsion getting there?”, he asks.In his view, the industry requires a multipolar transportation access to space where one company’s satellite ambitions do not determine everyone else’s access to orbit.
The economics of reusability
If falling prices do not guarantee access, the question becomes whether reusability can reduce the underlying cost of operating a launch vehicle enough to support more frequent flights.In NASA’s 2016 analysis, “Is It Worth It? The Economics of Reusable Space Transportation”, reviewed decades of studies and found “no clear consensus” on whether reusable launch vehicles are more economical than expendable ones. The analysis showed that reusable systems typically require high annual flight rates to amortise development costs and refurbishment overheads.“Partial reusability lowers costs, but you are still rebuilding expensive hardware every time you fly. Full reusability lets you move from covering the cost of major new hardware on every mission to primarily recovering the operating cost of the flight, much like the airline industry did over a century ago”, said Nair.The central argument here is that capital cost can be amortised across repeated flights, with the marginal cost of each additional launch falling substantially as recovery, inspection and refurbishment mature.Another NASA assessment of earth-to-orbit launch vehicle concepts found that a fully reusable vehicle could potentially reduce cost per flight by 60–80 per cent compared with a partially reusable one, provided thermal protection and other technologies reached the required performance. The study also found different risk and cost profiles among reusable architectures, underlining that the economics depend on how a vehicle is designed and operated.The Guild claims it is “driving launch costs down to roughly 1/35th of today’s global average”. However, that remains a company target.
The guild claims its launch cost would be 1/35 of today’s global average.
The other part of Nair’s argument concerns the economics of small versus medium-lift launchers for relatively small spacecraft.“A dedicated small-lift mission for that 250 to 300 kg payload can still cost around USD 5 million to USD 9 million,” he said. “Put the same payload on a properly priced medium-lift rideshare and the economics can come much closer to USD 1 million to USD 2 million, because the cost of the flight is distributed across multiple payloads.”SpaceX’s published SmallSat Rideshare pricing provides a current reference point. The company advertises USD 350,000 for 50kg to sun-synchronous orbit, with additional mass priced at USD 7,000 per kilogram.
Designing for the next generation of launches
Moving beyond partial reusability, a launch vehicle must be designed to return, be inspected quickly, and fly again at a cost that makes economic sense.The Guild claims to have designed its engine cycle and vehicle architecture around reuse from the outset, particularly the upper stage.The upper stage is consequently a central part of the proposal. Current orbital-class reusable systems such as Falcon 9 recover and reuse the first stage, while the upper stage is expendable. For The Guild, Nair argues, recovering both stages is necessary not only to reduce the amount of hardware rebuilt between missions but also to support the company’s wider approach to launch flexibility.Medium-lift rideshare forms the other part of that approach.“The real problem is that rideshare today is concentrated around a limited set of orbital destinations,” Nair says. “Shared access becomes much thinner when customers need MEO, GEO, TLI or more mission-specific insertion profiles. That can force them back towards a dedicated launch or require additional in-space transportation.”Existing rideshare services, such as SpaceX’s Transporter missions, have standardised the business of sharing a launch to sun‑synchronous orbit and, more recently, to mid‑inclination LEO. The Falcon Payload User’s Guide describes multi‑payload configurations, standard separation sequences and payload interface requirements for these missions, but they largely focus on fixed orbital destinations and a predictable manifest cadence.Nair’s startup aims to combine that catalogue‑style rideshare economics with multiple orbital insertions within a single mission, objectively carrying several customers on the same mission while delivering them closer to the orbits they actually need.The approach has yet to be demonstrated by The Guild.
The road to launch
The economics ultimately depend on how quickly a reusable vehicle can be returned to flight.“We are designing for a 72 to 96 hour turnaround,” Nair claims.Notably, NASA’s Space Shuttle programme was originally designed around a two-week turnaround, but its shortest interval between flights was 55 days. Its average cost per flight was about USD 1.4 billion, with an effective cost to low Earth orbit of about USD 43,650 per kilogram.
Launch dynamics of the NASA Space Shuttle.
Falcon 9 has demonstrated a more successful model of first-stage reuse. According to a SpaceX filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission dated May 20, 2026, Falcon 9 had completed approximately 620 orbital launches by March 31, with a mission success rate of more than 99 per cent. In 2025 alone, SpaceX launched 165 Falcon 9 rockets, 157 of them using previously flown boosters.The first version of Falcon 9, launched in 2010, reportedly brought the cost of reaching orbit down to about USD 2,700 per kilogram, approximately 85 per cent below the historical average of USD 18,500 per kilogram.Even then, its fastest booster turnaround was 9 days and 3 hours on March 21, 2025.The Guild says its first launch is targeted for December 2027 and is planned to demonstrate controlled re-entry and recovery of both stages.However, it is important to note that reusable hardware does not operate in isolation. Launch infrastructure, range availability, and maintenance decisions also affect how frequently a vehicle can fly.After landing, Nair says, the vehicle would first undergo “safing and deservicing”, including offloading residual propellant and depressurising tanks and feed systems. A post-flight health review would then use flight telemetry, avionics diagnostics and engine-performance data. The propulsion system would be checked for leaks, valve and feed-system health, turbomachinery condition and combustion-hardware wear, with borescope or non-destructive inspection used where required.Life-limited components such as seals and other wear items would be replaced according to condition or cycle count. Once the checks were complete, the vehicle would be serviced, refuelled and returned to flight readiness.“Ultimately, sustainable access requires more than cheaper rockets,” the CEO says. “It requires a multipolar transportation access to space where one company’s satellite ambitions do not determine everyone else’s access to orbit.”