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

  • From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 20:50:40 -0800

For power satellites, it's the cost to GEO that is important, not the
cost to LEO.

But let's consider what a cost of $1000/kg to GEO would do to the cost
of electric power, holding the rest constant.  The transport cost
would go up to $5000/kW, making total cost come in at $6100/kW.  The
power would have to be sold at 7.6 cents per kWh to break even.  The
cost of synthetic oil would be $10/bbl for capital cost and $150/bbl
for energy.  Gasoline would be around $7 per gallon.

If the goal is dollar a gallon gasoline, this won't do it.

Sorry.

Keith

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What Henry said.
>
> Bill
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 2, 2014, at 20:58, Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Marsbeyond,
>>
>> I'd apply several grains of salt there.  SpaceX is close to demonstrating 
>> intact first-stage recovery - I wouldn't bet against it this next flight, 
>> given how well the last couple tests have gone - but intact second-stage 
>> recovery is an even tougher problem that they haven't yet made a visible 
>> start on.
>>
>> Also, even once they get back intact stages, there's a big question of what 
>> kind of shape the stages will be in - how many reliable reflights will be 
>> practical, at what cost for handling and inspection and refurbishment.  You 
>> need to fly your hardware a LOT of times with minimal between-flights 
>> hardware processing costs before you can hope to approach the low three 
>> figures payload cost per pound.
>>
>> Mind, I've learned to be very careful about betting against SpaceX on their 
>> announced goals.  (Have they actually said they'll do this?)  In any case, 
>> chances are Cheops' Law will prevail - the project will take longer and cost 
>> more than planned.
>>
>> Me, I'd be very happy if in two years they're close to reusing first stages 
>> on an operational basis.  Given that first stages are probably the majority 
>> of an F9's hardware cost, I'd expect that would give them a good start 
>> toward breaking the $1000/lb barrier, from their current apparent costs in 
>> the neighborhood of $2000+/lb.
>>
>> $1K/lb to LEO would be revolutionary enough, is my guess.  With inflation, 
>> that's well below the $600/lb the CSTS back in the nineties said should make 
>> cost reductions start expanding the overall launch market fast enough so 
>> overall revenue rises despite dropping prices.  At that point, further cost 
>> reductions pay for themselves and more, and the sky's (no longer) the limit.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On 4/2/2014 10:49 AM, 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