[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 20:22:08 -0700

I pretty sure SpaceX does not get its funding from folks who rely on Popular 
Mechanics for investment advice....

Bill

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2014, at 19:34, "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>

Other related posts:

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