[AR] Re: 500,000 tons

  • From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 21:27:49 -0700

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/6/2014 8:49 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
>>
>> How do you scale Falcon's to 500,000 tons per year to GEO?
>
> Why on God's green earth would anyone (other than you of course, Keith)
> either want to or expect to?

Reaction Engines thinks it's a good idea.  Remember them?

>  If SSP on that scale ever does come about, it
> will be an incremental, gradual, many-projects distributed thing, NOT some
> command-economy White Sea Canal project.

That means it will not come about unless someone can make a case
against the physics for incremental and gradual.  I would *much*
prefer it to be done that way.  I reluctantly came to the conclusion
it has to be a huge project to get the economics to work out.  Please
find a flaw in my work/thinking/assumptions/physics.  I will help you
any way I can.

If you can't and power sats are not constructed, what do you propose
to do to fill the gap as cheap oil runs out?

>> How do you
>> scale that level to 20 times that much?
>
> Incrementally, via the market.
>
> Or not, if no market for that ever develops.

If you have a fleet of laser Skylons operating, it's easy to grow it
incrementally to 10 million tons per year because it makes enormous
profits while undercutting the energy market.  It doesn't take that
much of an increase in the aerospace business.

But rockets?  I don't see how.
>
>   If SpaceX can do it, I want
>>
>> to talk to them.  I don't think they can.
>
> That's OK, Keith, I suspect SpaceX will survive the blow.

Musk is utterly opposed to power satellites.  Building them with
Falcon's isn't going to happen even if the economics made sense.

Keith

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2014