Phase 1 of 4
Lift-off
The ascent begins the mission chain. The recovery case only matters if payload delivery and return operations can coexist.
From orbital deployment to a net-caught return.
Scrub the four mission phases named in the post, then test how your own recovery assumptions change cost and cadence pressure.
One mission.
Four critical handoffs.
The sequence below follows only the phases stated in the source post. Select a phase to see its role in the recovery architecture.
Payload first
Orbital deployment remains the mission objective. Recovery is an added operational chain, not a substitute for delivery.
The new handoff
Vertical return transfers the vehicle into a capture operation. Reliability, turnaround, and reuse become linked assumptions.
Build the recovery case.
These are your scenario assumptions, not reported Long March 10B specifications. The baseline is an abstract 100-point expendable launch.
Baseline expendable index: 100
Scheduling potential from turnaround and reuse
Addressable share weighted by capture reliability
This scenario puts more pressure on launch availability than on unit cost.
Scenario model only. It is not a forecast, vehicle specification, safety assessment, or claim about achieved Long March 10B economics.
Where the pressure lands.
The comparison updates with the lab. Scores are normalized scenario signals, not market forecasts.
Cost pressure
A lower scenario cost index could force competitors to revisit expendable pricing.
Cadence pressure
Shorter turnaround and more reuse cycles could shift customer expectations around availability.
Execution pressure
Capture reliability determines how much of the theoretical recovery case survives operations.
Transparent by design.
The source provides a mission sequence and a question, not economics. The lab keeps that boundary visible and lets you inspect every transformation.
Cost index = 100 - (recoverable share / 2)
Cadence = 1 + max(0, 30 - days) / 30 × (reuse - 1) × 0.49
Confidence = recoverable share × capture reliability