tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.comments2024-01-25T01:36:57.893-08:00Space Business BlogColin Doughanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10914046439220372736noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-27496672205720890042013-12-26T22:17:18.978-08:002013-12-26T22:17:18.978-08:00Hello again.
7. ITAR Lawyer services FREE.
ITAR ...Hello again.<br /><br /><i>7. ITAR Lawyer services FREE.</i><br /><br />ITAR is far from the only regulation you can run afoul of in the US. For example, there are ATF, EPA, and OSHA regulations on transporting and storing small amounts of explosives and certain types of rocket and satellite propellant, FAA regulations on drone aircraft and rocket launches, and FCC regulations on allowed frequencies for radio use.<br /><br />Also, I think contracting with US government agencies (such as NASA and the DOD) has its own special perils. They can demand things that considerably increase the cost of a contract which could be fatal for a start up that isn't prepared.<br /><br />Finally, one can run into interference from big players. For example, SpaceX has had some of its early Falcon I launches delayed by scheduling games played by other aerospace businesses sharing the same government launch pad locations.<br /><br />Some space activities may require insurance of various sorts. The incubator program may even be able to match start ups with affordable and willing insurers.<br /><br />I think merely being aware of when these issues can be problems for the start up and general strategies for dealing with them would help ease the way through many potential mine fields.<br /><br />I would go as far as to say the relatively tough regulatory and government-contract dominated environment of anything deployed in space, which is much different from software development, should be another row in your table of differences.<br />Karl Hallowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011583095865586408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-62068595208278402952013-12-13T08:27:55.336-08:002013-12-13T08:27:55.336-08:00Great post, Colin. I particularly liked the ideas ...Great post, Colin. I particularly liked the ideas about partnerships with local universities, discounted ZeroG/NanoRacks/sRLV flights, and the TV show. <br /><br />You might be able to do a non-reimbursable SAA deal with the Flight Opportunities office at NASA to get them to chip in a certain number of ZeroG/sRLV flights to the accelerator per year. Buying full ZeroG or sRLV flights might be really expensive for the accelerator otherwise. CASIS might be able to do a similar deal with funding the NanoRacks opptys? Especially if CASIS can resolve the IP issues like they've been talking about.<br /><br />I think getting a larger number of 2nd-time entrepreneurs in NewSpace is going to be key, and an accelerator that gets a lot of companies focused on nearer-term "base hits" would be awesome.<br /><br />One other idea--even if the incubator is say located in Boulder, you could partner with University Tech Transfer offices throughout the country to provide tech transfer opptys for startups in the accelerator. I'm sure Georgia Tech, Stanford, MIT, and other heavy hitters would love to have a partnership like that arranged.<br /><br />Food for thought.<br /><br />~JonJon Goffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10960488857253480586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-48203814582627113892013-03-24T18:53:13.516-07:002013-03-24T18:53:13.516-07:00This project screams crowdfunding... what could be...This project screams crowdfunding... what could be more galvanizing than an interplanetary mission? I say create a website commemorating everyone who contributed to the project - and the pitch is those people will be remembered throughout history by their descendants as those who helped contribute... I don't believe the risk-profiles of the uber-rich really fit the ROI timeline of this project (until we have some more concrete revenue streams at least) but until then, the "99%" has enough collective resource to make things happen, provided the engagement barriers are low enough.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-20396910921099621902012-10-09T21:56:24.679-07:002012-10-09T21:56:24.679-07:00Space X did well and I think it will do well. Space X did well and I think it will do well. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-44661141591597050822012-09-26T11:21:49.039-07:002012-09-26T11:21:49.039-07:00"1. We don’t have the tooling/plans – long si..."1. We don’t have the tooling/plans – long since destroyed or lost<br />2. We don’t have the knowledge – the NASA/contractor engineers have retired/passed away"<br /><br />Really? Those are the only two reasons you can think of? How about "NASA can't build a rocket within budget to save its life for political reasons"? Just look at SLS. It's a politically driven cost and economics issue, not technical.<br /><br />You're also confusing "cost" and "price".<br /><br />Quick: Who's the most profitable oil producer in the world? Saudi Arabia, that's who. They have the lowest product costs and they charge the same price as Canadian oil sands.<br /><br />An RLV lowers SpaceX's costs, not its prices. It's already the low-price provider and is wrapping up the entire market with its ELVs. If they cut their prices another 30% they could put Boeing and EADS out of business (but for political lobbying). Then they could sit back and collect fat checks all day long while Blue Origin or whoever continues to struggle to even reach 100 km, let alone orbit.<br /><br />And that's before they even start to increase demand for space access with new business models. How about private telescopes on the dark side of the Moon? How about Bigelow stations and regular traffic to and from there with astronauts from Japan and Singapore? And then there's Planetary Resources.<br /><br />--<br /><br />Let's remember that Henry Ford lowered the price of car production 10x. How'd that work out for him? Was he able to keep his manufacturing employees sharp and practiced?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17698562397742719005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-32798847476799798222012-09-25T18:57:38.852-07:002012-09-25T18:57:38.852-07:00>> A Kinglet-class vehicle (100KG to LEO wit...>> A Kinglet-class vehicle (100KG to LEO with high flight rates and low integration cycles) wins at any demand level.<br /><br />You are assuming several things with the Kinglet:<br />1) The market in smallsats is qualitatively similar to that for largesats. This just is not the case. The only reason these get to space at all is because they piggyback for pennies on the dollar. I think in the long run this is good for the Kinglet class, mainly because the customers will be a lot more elastic to price. But that's only because the price that smallsats will pay is already far lower than what largesats will pay, so it make the business case harder to close to recoup R&D.<br />2) It's technically a lot harder and more expensive to launch 100kg 50 times than it is to launch 5000kg once. Some Soviet ICBMs did small payloads for relatively low prices in the '90s when they were firesaling them, but their reliability sucked and that was a market glut not driven strongly by price signals. Pegasus is the only thing we have that's close now, and it's about 3-10X more expensive per kg than medium and heavy lifters (and it hasn't flown in years). The path to r-Kinglet is a lot further than that to r-F9 or r-Blue.<br />3) You seem to be assuming that a reusable system would spring fully formed 8 at a time from the factory, which would then shut down. Nascent buyers will go out of business or mothball their vehicles, which may not be good but will absorb some startup cost from the manufacturer. Lessons will be learned and the line will stop to update with them, older tail numbers will be pulled back in for overhaul, etc. As Clark mentioned, parts of the system may remain expendable for some time, giving the factory something to build. It will take many years from test flights which signal to potential vehicle and payload customers that this is imminent, to actual regular reusable service. I agree the crux is the demand elasticity, but I don't buy that the factory will choke itself off with initial high production rate. If anything, the opposite will be true.<br /><br />All in all, your post seems to boil down to, "If there is no elasticity of demand these guys are screwed." To which I would say, "duh." Barring unforeseen or pessimistically understood markets, up until somewhere in the $100s/kg, you're eating your own revenue to corner a shrinking market. And I think it's a real possibility, maybe >50%, that the companies will not get launch prices low enough fast enough to the point where mass markets finally bend the elasticity to >1. But I think the production quandary you cite will prove to be a problem the companies wish they had when the time comes.Rogahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15019289777501868721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-32106864220218216532012-09-11T08:20:34.945-07:002012-09-11T08:20:34.945-07:00I also wanted to highlight Clark's last statem...I also wanted to highlight Clark's last statement which is worth repeating...<br /><br /><br />"A transition to RLVs may not be smooth but the sooner it gets underway the better for space development."<br /><br /><br />Agreed!Colin Doughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10914046439220372736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-55775493927726854152012-09-11T08:18:53.803-07:002012-09-11T08:18:53.803-07:00Clark:
I am hopeful like you that the demand will...Clark:<br /><br />I am hopeful like you that the demand will be there. Imagine the possibilities if SpaceX is really able to hit the price points that are being discussed. Hundreds of dollars per KG to orbit! May I be the first to say Yahoooooo to that. And I like your outline for how the demand probably will grow for an RLV service at low costs (and I have a few other ideas that should grow demand as well that I will save for a future post or a future business plan).<br /><br />I guess this is a “hedge-your-bets” blog post. SpaceX is in a tough (if enviable) spot. They already have a Falcon family of launchers. So it makes sense they try to increase reusability within this family of vehicles (that is what I would do). But if demand grows for their reusable vehicle slower than projected, I worry about closing the business case for the R-Falcon (the production line argument outlined in the blog post above being an element of that argument). Even if you are correct and I am overly concerned about production levels, the real question (I think we can both agree on) is the unknown demand level. And this is my main concern why I am advocate for SpaceX competition to come not from the Blue Origins alone but from the NanoSat launcher class, what I have been referring to as Kinglet-class.<br /><br />A Kinglet-class vehicle (100KG to LEO with high flight rates and low integration cycles) wins at any demand level.<br /><br />If demand is lower initially, the Kinglet requires less demand to maintain a full manifest thus has a good shot at still closing its business case.<br />If demand is higher as many are predicting, then there is probably room for several players within the RLV to LEO market.<br /><br />Developing a Kinglet-class vehicle may offer a less risky approach to reusability…even if SpaceX may not be able to easily take that path themselves. <br /><br />~ColinColin Doughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10914046439220372736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-7123626981253154172012-09-09T21:35:30.368-07:002012-09-09T21:35:30.368-07:00"We don’t have the tooling/plans – long since..."We don’t have the tooling/plans – long since destroyed or lost<br />We don’t have the knowledge – the NASA/contractor engineers have retired/passed away"<br /><br />Nonsense! We have had the ability to build a Saturn V class vehicle derived from the Shuttle since the first SDHLV study was done in the late 70's. We don't need an actual rivet for rivet replacement to fulfil the role of a Saturn V, just a vehicle of similar capability. The Shuttle was always payload plus a 70 ton spaceplane that had to be placed into orbit but only marginally contributed to the payload. <br /><br />What we lack is a non-government payload and a non-government market that yet requires a vehicle of that size. The reasons for it's non-existance are purely economic and not technical.Mike_Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04308198109451495178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-57340730980270155792012-09-09T11:29:58.359-07:002012-09-09T11:29:58.359-07:00If you want to develop space, even at RLV costs so...If you want to develop space, even at RLV costs something has to stay in space. It certainly won't be complex science or highly engineered payloads at today's payload development costs. Clear thinkers have for years posited that it will be the launch vehicle (or a portion of it) themselves, certainly the upper stages, if the cost of space development is to decline with the cost of transport. Thus your conundrum is easily solved.<br /><br />This is assuming you (or the RLV developers) want to develop space. At least one of them indicates he does. It doesn't appear that NASA or our government actually wants to develop space since their proposed launch vehicle does not incorporate the now easily implemented reusability features. Thus launcher size is irrelevant if one posits the principles actually want to proceed with any credible large scale space development goals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-25670935718361685152012-09-08T14:16:48.067-07:002012-09-08T14:16:48.067-07:00Hi Colin,
The issue of a high flight rate require...Hi Colin,<br /><br />The issue of a high flight rate requirement for RLVs has been around for a long time and I agree that it is not a crazy concern. My argument is that you are taking it to an unwarranted extreme by assuming no positive market response at all.<br /><br />"in the early days"<br /><br />That really gets to my main point. Firstly There is no instant transition between one day having all ELVs and the next day a having a rF9 that's quickly clearing out all the payloads in the space transport queue. Secondly, new launch demand can arise very quickly within the "early days".<br /><br />The initial rF9 (or Blue's RLV or whatever) will have a start up period of some number of years. Some payloads will not be compatible. (E.g. big sats going to GEO. either need an expendable upper stage or development of a reusable tug.) Its flight rate will no doubt start out quite low. Probably have to wait for rF9 ver.2.0 or 3.0 before it really becomes a robust, reliable high rate transport. (Remember also that the rF9 involves three major reusable parts, each of which will have its own development life. E.g. maybe at a given time the first stage can be flown 100 times and the second stage only 10.)<br /><br />In the meantime, many of its payloads, such as Bigelow habitats, by their nature will add new payloads/passengers to the queue. Another example of this is the ISS. Utilization will quickly rise since within the same transport budget, NASA can send far more astronauts and researchers (and cargo to supply them). This will encourage development of new uses of the ISS, which in turn will add more transport demand.<br /><br />Also during this meantime, lots of LEO satellite services concepts that are marginal at best at current launch costs will become financially feasible at the lower costs. Many of these involve constellations of many satellites. <br /><br />The lower cost, quicker access to space means the development of such satellites can be faster since they don't need to be as hyper-robust and long-lived as they need to be now due to expensive, infrequent access to space. So the queue can grow quite quickly. <br /><br />The recent Smallsat meeting in Utah had about 1200 people attending, a good many of whom are involved with a satellite project that needs a cheap ride to orbit. <br /><br />So the bottom line is that there is a lot of latent demand ready to respond quickly to a big drop in launch costs. A transition to RLVs may not be smooth but the sooner it gets underway the better for space development.Hobbyspacerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15702598550954893125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-50507034293642529022012-09-08T09:45:38.256-07:002012-09-08T09:45:38.256-07:00The killer is in the number, 12, for flights per y...The killer is in the number, 12, for flights per year. As you note, higher launch rate results in faster cycling of fleet vehicles. The once a week rate has been claimed to be the threshold at which reusable launch vehicles become viable, and it certainly would help in this case.<br /><br />I think that SpaceX is counting on a fairly radical increase in demand. The thing is, they might not get that demand without either creating it themselves (with a little vertical integration perhaps) or by knocking out some one-time development risks with some strategic R&D.<br />Karl Hallowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011583095865586408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-11177955305282988582012-09-08T07:15:47.059-07:002012-09-08T07:15:47.059-07:00Clark:
to sum up your arguments - (1) with demand...Clark:<br /><br />to sum up your arguments - (1) with demand, the business case for RLVs could close and (2) the capabilities of R-Falcon will be far superior to the capabilities I outline in my tables above. <br /><br />Sadly, I worry that increased capability only makes the "production line" problem worse, not better. If one R-Falcon can fly 1000's of times per vehicle with short turn-arounds (promised but I have my doubts), one vehicle could service the whole industry in the early days. one vehicle. only one. yikes! I am arguing for perhaps a way to keep the production lines open by targeting smaller/cheaper vehicles like a 100KG Kinglet.<br /><br />But I completly agree that selling these vehicles to "spacelines" you may be able to increase that production number. This approach does not fully bypass the demand question, but it does allow multiple operators to chase the same customers. <br /><br />Great comments. I am hopeful like you!Colin Doughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10914046439220372736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-42432148790751858682012-09-07T23:47:37.846-07:002012-09-07T23:47:37.846-07:00You introduce two types of RLVs but constrain both...You introduce two types of RLVs but constrain both to an ELV world that is unchanged from what we now have. In particular, you assume no change in demand even after several years have passed with significantly lower launch costs available. I think that level of pessimism about demand is unwarranted. Lower costs as well as quicker access to space will attract new demand very quickly. <br /><br />The ways the satellite industry would change with low cost launch is too big a subject to go into here but it would definitely change dramatically and lead to many more sats going to space.<br /><br />Launch cost is one of the primary limiting factors to NASA's space science program. Lots more projects would appear with lower cost access to space. <br /><br />Putting Bigelow habitats into orbit and traveling to and from them become much more affordable. Bigelow has spoken of the need for weekly flights.<br /><br />Etc, etc.<br /><br />In his press conference in which he introduced the rF9 plan, Elon outlined goals of full reusability, rapid turnaround, 1000 or more flights per vehicle, and price per kg in the low $100s. It's obviously highly likely the first rF9 will fall far short of those goals and have perhaps only the limited capabilities you describe. However, I think rather than building a fleet of such highly limited vehicles, they will instead improve the design over several iterations till they are far more capable and can lower costs substantially below $2000/kg . (The FH is already supposed to achieve that cost for its large payload.)<br /><br />Meanwhile, Blue Origin will be developing its competing RLV and perhaps do as well or better than the rF9. The suborbital RLV guys also have plans for orbital RLVs as well. <br /><br />You assume that no one else will want to buy and operate their own RLVs. It's quite likely that NASA, DoD, other countries, and private companies would want to own their own fleets of RLVs. (The book "The Rocket Company" by Stiennon and Hoerr emphasizes the benefits of separating RLV builders and operators.) <br /><br />A world with fully and rapidly reusable vehicles will be quite different than our current ELV world. <br /><br />- Clark<br /><br />p.s. The Saturn V blueprints are actually still available. If it was really important to do so, one could be built today. Hobbyspacerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15702598550954893125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-10026190738338734632012-06-28T02:15:33.749-07:002012-06-28T02:15:33.749-07:00Hi, I heard about a science fiction book named Sat...Hi, I heard about a science fiction book named Satellite Sisters writen by french novelist Maurice G. Dantec in which Richard Branson plays a significant role in space with Virgin Galactic. The book depict the private space industry boom in an epic journey beyond Earth. Elon Musk is also present in the story. The publication of the novel is scheduled August 23 this year. And I hope a translation will occur soon after.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393763353613897682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-9169632922490041642012-04-29T09:57:15.383-07:002012-04-29T09:57:15.383-07:00If you want to do your processing in LEO, that wou...If you want to do your processing in LEO, that would mean moving huge masses to LEO. Is there a good plan for this? Would the cost of radiation-hardened electronics be significant compared to this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17926645720753265096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-64210246011546966512012-03-04T10:15:17.833-08:002012-03-04T10:15:17.833-08:00nice blognice blogAdminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09305526464301437555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-52922889494920123212012-02-11T06:43:17.230-08:002012-02-11T06:43:17.230-08:00You present very good analyses on the profit makin...You present very good analyses on the profit making potential of space. In regards to your analysis on asteroid mining there is one key fact that can make it more feasible: the amount that can mined for the mass of equipment transported to the asteroid is *much* higher than your estimate of 100 to 1, in fact orders of magnitude higher.<br /> First, here's an argument posted to sci.space.policy that a low cost lunar lander can be composed from currently existing components when carried to LEO by the upcoming Falcon Heavy:<br /><br />Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.history,<br />rec.arts.sf.science<br />From: Robert Clark <br />Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:12:59 -0800 (PST)<br />Subject: Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.<br />http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/2a2bce92b40ce970?hl=en<br /><br /> Because the delta-V to a NEO is lower than to the Moon, this lander can likewise be used for asteroidal prospecting.<br /> Now, in regards to the amount that can be mined for the weight of the equipment, note that on Earth mining, the same equipment is used to process the materials mined for years, continually, and at tons at a time. Clearly this amounts to many times more than just 100 times the mass of the equipment used.<br /> To put some numbers behind this, here is a post to a space forum about lunar mining of gold:<br /><br />Mars in a decade?...<br />http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107780-Mars-in-a-decade-...?p=1826862#post1826862<br /><br /> It notes there is portable gold processing equipment capable of processing 300 tons of excavated material a day, at a weight of only 3,000 pounds. This is a ratio of 200 times the weight of the equipment *every day*. Just operating a couple of years would mean the amount of material processed would be more than 1,000 times higher than your 100 to 1 estimate.<br /> This is for gold, but quite likely analogous numbers would hold for platinum and other valuable metals.<br /><br /><br /> Bob ClarkRobert Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16114043697010364282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-6961010173269565272012-01-29T07:16:07.990-08:002012-01-29T07:16:07.990-08:00Hi Colin,
I think you greatly over estimated the m...Hi Colin,<br />I think you greatly over estimated the mass of the target asteroid. If a 3.5m radius asteroid masses 500,000 kg then a 0.5m radius asteroid with the same density masses less then 1,500 kg. Double check me: calculate the density of 2010 RF 12, then calculate the volume of 0.5 diameter asteroid (volume of a sphere equation) and then multiply the two numbers. I think it's that simple or did I miss something?<br />Anyway, love the blog. Keep it up.<br />TomTom M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08967204364621456126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-19090894342113980302011-12-18T06:32:47.636-08:002011-12-18T06:32:47.636-08:00Hi Colin!
Just read through your blog from the be...Hi Colin!<br /><br />Just read through your blog from the beginning, love it! I recently started a blog focused on the business side of new space because of general frustration with there being so little out there. So it was great to see someone else already doing it.<br /><br />On the market demand for cube sat launches, how do you see the possibility of opening up cubesat missions to other positions such as GEO or even LLO using high Isp Electrospray engines and a 6u? I could see additional market demand from researchers if things went this way. (I suspect NEO would be unfeasible because of the long travel time :/ )James Coombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14577543990777597095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-54435884201625720912011-11-28T01:35:30.145-08:002011-11-28T01:35:30.145-08:00How much of a concern is the possibility of govern...How much of a concern is the possibility of government or international regulation of nanosats? I know there was a recent report about the amount of "space junk" in orbit and the difficulty NASA and the Air Force have keeping track of it all.<br /><br />Or to put it another way, what would happen if a nanosat collided with another satellite? Does that turn into a lawsuit? Is there insurance for that kind of thing?James Paillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06213113363979079375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-7441594570061664492011-10-19T00:29:26.955-07:002011-10-19T00:29:26.955-07:00Of all the companies competing in the space busine...Of all the companies competing in the space business, Space X has the coolest name, but they worry me sometimes. How will they ever make a profit? More importantly, at these prices how will I ever afford to get myself into space?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-63219258427801320222011-10-02T08:14:38.196-07:002011-10-02T08:14:38.196-07:00Good commentary. But maybe it's simpler even t...Good commentary. But maybe it's simpler even to say that the XCORs and Virgin Galactics are in the end much more likely to achieve an order of magnitude higher flight rate than a rF9 or any other vertically launched traditional rocket concept.<br /><br /><br />The first and foremost answer to truly sustainable space is flight rate; even more than reusability , or trying to focus on cost (though all are obviously related). It's easy to imagine that a single XCOR or Virgin vehicle alone could have a higher flight rate than the entire Falcon system in a year. And they are also more flexible, able to operate from many, many more locations. <br /><br />There is also the issue one derives from watching Branson's actions: for the CCDEV competitors, he partnered with the spaceplane competitors - SNC and Orbital - and NOT the capsule competitors. T guy who know s something about running high-frequency scheduled airlines knows which configuration is most likely to succeed on that score.<br /><br />We need innovative competitors in all segments. Elon is trying it from the traditional rocket/capsule/orbital approach, and then seeing if he can make that truly economic and eventually high flight rate; essentially starting at the top (orbit) and working his way down. Our suborbital buddies, and the NASA CRuSR program, are working from the other direction: Trying to get very high flight rates, with all that that requires - high operability, low to no maintenance between flights, very high reliability, etc. etc. - and doing that first with suborbital; eventually building up to doing it with point-to-point, and orbital. I'm glad we have both strategies in play.<br /><br />Dave HuntsmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-82854011006888688462011-10-02T03:08:37.199-07:002011-10-02T03:08:37.199-07:00.
my answer is "yes" anyway, but NOT hop....<br />my answer is "yes" anyway, but NOT hoping (nor falsely promising) that it may cut the costs of the access to Space by a factor of 100 because it's absolutely NOT TRUE<br />.<br />and, since I think that SpaceX and Musk perfectly know what I've just explained, it's clear that this bold announcement has only a marketing purpose, to find more funds, more investors, more supporters and more customers for their EXPENDABLE version of the Falcon-9<br />.<br />the reusable Falcon-9 animation also has a BIG MISTAKE because, while the 2nd stage can be easily de-orbited at the right point to land at the KSC, the 1st stage, at stages' separation, isn't in orbit but at around 100 km. of altitude and 100-150 km. away from KSC and on top of the ocean, so, HOW the 1st stage can come back to the KSC without wings? and HOW MUCH propellants this operation will need? ... maybe, "magic?" ... :)<br />.Gaetano Maranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00500435490402119385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522400530564551254.post-57164879347655436832011-10-02T03:08:10.828-07:002011-10-02T03:08:10.828-07:00.
in other words, an expendable Falcon-9 may cut t....<br />in other words, an expendable Falcon-9 may cut the costs of the access to Space by a factor of 3-5 times, but absolutely NOT by a factor of 100 times and NOT EVEN by a factor of 10-20 times!!!<br />.<br />but, those listed so far, aren't the only problems to develop a reusable Falcon-9 because, first, SpaceX must find the FUNDS to develop, test and launch this kind of rocket, costs that may be found in two years or five years or seven years or never<br />.<br />then, assuming that SpaceX will find soon (within 2-3 years) the funds (in the range of $300-500 million) to develop a reusable Falcon-9 how much years may it need to be ready available for true and reliable launches??? (hoping, NOT with astronauts!)<br />.<br />well, evaluating 2-3 years from now to find the funds + 3-5 years to develop and test the rocket + 2-3 years to accomplish a good number of launches (to know its REAL reliability and operating costs) we can reasonably guess that its (modest) advantages could be get only by the end of this decade, or later<br />.<br />so, does it worth the efforts, time, costs to develop a reusable Falcon-9 ???<br />.Gaetano Maranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00500435490402119385noreply@blogger.com