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

  • From: JOHN HALPENNY <j.halpenny@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 19:25:26 -0700 (PDT)

Popular Mechanics has been predicting things for the better part of a century. 
They have been right dozens of times, and wrong thousands of times.


On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:38:49 PM, "marsbeyond@xxxxxxxxx" 
<marsbeyond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
www.popularmechanics.com/_.../elon-m...Feb 7, 2012 - SpaceX is hard at work 
trying to design rocket parts that can fly themselves back to the ... For 
Falcon Heavy, that would mean a price per pound to orbit of less than $500.

There are many links to this 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/elon-musk-is-having-a-great-week-spacex-takes-another-solid-step/

He's also stated that MCT will drop prices below "two orders of magnitude" just 
google it

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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