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

From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:34:05 -0700
 That is mostly propaganda for funding you know that right?

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)
> From: JOHN HALPENNY <j.halpenny@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, April 02, 2014 7:25 pm
> To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>>>
> >
> >>
> >
Follow-Ups:
- [AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)
  - From: Bill Claybaugh
[AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)

Other related posts:
