[AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)

  • From: "Anthony Cesaroni" <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:44:26 -0400

In 2004, I predicted that no suborbital tourist flights would occur before
2010 (on this list IIRC). Last time I checked, it's 2014. I was involved
with SS1 technology at the time BTW. I'm also going to bet that we will not
see anywhere near $100/lb to LEO in our lifetime.

Please don't shoot the messenger because the effort is really worth it in
any event.

Best.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bill Claybaugh
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:32 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)

If you are going to make ridiculous assertions, please provide the math to
prove them.  Even SpaceX says rocket back will not get below $1000 per
pound, and that takes hundreds of launches per reusable stage.

If you are not going to provide proof of your silly claims, please stop
making them.

Bill

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2014, at 14:00, marsbeyond@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> It uses only 30% of PAYLOAD. Listen to Gwynne Shotwell's most recent
interview on "The Space Show" very carefully. For what purpose would you
ever fly it up range? Just land on a barge or land downrange. Actually $80
per pound is doable.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 
>> Please.
>> 
>> Landing the first stage downrange uses 15% of the payload; flying it back
up range cost 30% of payload.  Even if refurbishing and relaunch were free,
propulsive fly back will take four launches just to cost the same as
expending. Since they are not free, it is more likely to take something
between 12-24 launches for this system to cost exactly the same as the
expendable version.
>> 
>> This also means that production rates will drop and so those cost will go
up.
>> 
>> And then there's the customers who want to know why they should fly on a
used rocket....
>> 
>> $100 per pound is not achievable with this system.
>> 
>> Bill   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:49, marsbeyond@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 
>>> Kieth,
>>> 
>>> When is Skylon supposed to fly? In less than two years, SpaceX will be
using propulsive recovery to re-use the first stage, second stage, and
capsule, and their cost to LEO will drop to $100 a pound!
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>
http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline
>>>> 
>>>> $350 million committed so far to the Skylon engines.
>>>> 
>>>> Keith
>

Other related posts:

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