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

  • From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 20:12:12 -0700

No, really, do ask...if I know what flight rate is associated with what price 
claim I can calculate the production cost of the hardware.

And who is the customer for 53 tons?

Bill

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2014, at 16:18, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It's no doubt a very high flight rate, from multiple sites. They are 
> expecting to create demand with the low prices.
> 
> On 2014-04-02 15:48, Bill Claybaugh wrote:
>> Rocket back first stages cost 30% of payload.  A HIAD and rocket
>> landing costs a minimum of 30% of the remainder (this is, to my
>> knowledge, the simplest way to return and recover and expendable
>> stage). Which I believe totals to a 30% + (70% * 30%) = 51% payload
>> hit.
>> Ask Gwynne what flight rate that price requires.... Or you could just
>> do the math yourself.
>> I concur that Falcon 9H should be pretty low cost; who's the customer?
>> Bill
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 15:29, Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> List price for Falcon Heavy is already about a thousand dollars per pound, 
>>> completely expendable ($120M for 53 tons). Gwynne recently said that a 
>>> reusable Falcon 9 gets per-flight prices down to $5M-$7M. Even if 
>>> reusability cuts payload in half (it shouldn't be that bad), that's on the 
>>> order of a couple hundred bucks a pound.
>>> On 2014-04-02 14:31, Bill Claybaugh 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