[AR] Re: Faster Space Transport? (was Re: Zubrin,

  • From: John Schilling <john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:41:34 -0700

Or a beamed-power launch system, whether laser or microwave; those inherently favor very small payloads at very high flight rates and are particularly good for launching propellant.  But to really facilitate that, you'd want an *equatorial* LEO depot.

        John Schilling
        john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        (661) 718-0955

On 8/23/2019 9:45 AM, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:

Good point.  A LEO depot could open a market for a relatively small but very high flight rate reusable booster, which done right might well make a significant reduction in cost-per-pound to LEO, cascading on to significantly lower propellant (and logistics in general) costs farther up an initial Earth-based sherpas-up-Everest space logistics chain.

Henry

On 8/23/2019 7:56 AM, Robert Steinke wrote:
The cost of launching propellant to a depot on a smaller rocket with a higher flight rate is not necessarily the same as the cost of launching an already fueled upper stage on a larger rocket with a lower flight rate.  Your analysis implicitly assumes they are equal.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:06 AM William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Henry:

    Propellant at a propellant depot costs the price of that
    propellant on the ground plus the cost of launching it to LEO
    plus the pro-rata amortization of the cost of the depot plus the
    pro-rata depreciation of the depot plus the cost of losses.

    Propellant in an upper stage costs the price of propellant on the
    ground plus the cost of launching it to LEO.

    Depots are not getting any traction because the key players—who
    are at OMB and the Space Council—know these facts.

    Bill



Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2019