[AR] Re: Aviation person?

  • From: Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:04:13 -0700

I suspect he also means ones where the owners are actually interested in printing rocket chambers for others and will actually talk seriously with potential buyers thereof.  I expect a lot of the technically suitable printers are owned by people with other priorities for their production capacity.

Henry

On 12/30/2019 12:00 PM, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:


I think he means ones that would actually be functional in that size class. I’d say he may actually optimistic.

Anthony J. Cesaroni

President/CEO

Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

http://www.cesaronitech.com/

(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota

(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *David Gregory
*Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2019 1:23 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Aviation person?

Are you saying all the metal printers in the world can only make about 468 5k thrust chambers per year?  I disagree.



    On Dec 29, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:wikkit@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    It’s a fairly quick bit of math to find that the launch rate of
    an expendable system with printed thrust chambers ends up being
    constrained by the total number of printers in existence in the
    world (and really, by the number of printers you can use within
    the artificial constraints of it*r).

    That number is about one rocket’s worth of chambers per week.
    Distributed across the four or five significantly capitalized
    companies that are doing printed thrust chambers.

    On Sunday, December 29, 2019, Anthony Cesaroni
    <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

        With high value payloads perhaps. That seems like an expensive
        logistics operation added to small and expensive launch
        system. Just an opinion but perhaps focusing on designing and
        producing an inexpensive, simple and reliable booster in
        vehicles this size and forgoing recovery would make more sense
        from an operational cost standpoint. Or perhaps not. A few
        successful missions should confirm it either way.

        Anthony J. Cesaroni

        President/CEO

        Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

        http://www.cesaronitech.com/

        (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota

        (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

        *From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *On Behalf Of *Joe Bowen
        *Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:34 PM
        *To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        *Subject:* [AR] Re: Aviation person?

        
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/08/12/rocket-lab-to-begin-booster-recovery-experiments-later-this-year/

        Electron is going to try it and it's something that's been
        done in the past.

        Joe

        On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 11:01 AM Keith Henson
        <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

            Someone I have known for a long time asked me about using
            a remotely
            controlled helicopter to aid recovering the SpaceX fairings.

            It is a topic about which I don't know enough even to be
            dangerous.
            But I said I would try to find someone who knew enough to
            critique his
            ideas.

            If there is such a person on this list, and you are
            interested, I can
            pass on this guy's email.

            Keith


Other related posts: