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

  • From: marsbeyond@xxxxxxxxx
  • To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 20:41:28 -0700

You didn't listen to the Gwynne's interview! SpaceX's actual payload capacity 
actually is 130% of published values of ~3OK lbs. That gives you ~10K lbs of 
fuel not for "fly back" but for "propulsive recovery", there is a big 
difference.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> 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