That’s one of the current systems under development (attached). The growth
variant is a bit more sophisticated however.
Best.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of William Claybaugh
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:42 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Future Skylon and F9 costs
Robert:
I had some very good folk look at BB XII back in '97. In those ancient times
it's potential payload to LEO had no economic value; acceleration was also a
very big deal: it is not obvious that the upper stage can take those loads.
Twenty years of shrinking electronics present us today work a different view.
The problem--in my view--is that the costs are both very fuzzy and subject to
politically arbitrary outcomes: the only truly fixed costs in this particular
system are the last average contract cost of the Black Brant stage and whatever
the real costs are of assembling the hardware. Everything else is a
negotiation with the government that might could result in very low prices...or
not. And that last is strategicly important because the government is a very
unreliable partner; meaning that even if you negotiate a highly favorable deal
initially, your competitors will politically force a less--likely much
less--favorable deal after a few years.
Better to build a vehicle that is inherently lower cost than anyone else can
match.
Bill
On Monday, December 14, 2015, <qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Use a Black Brant XII with a revised flight profile and 1/8 the payload just
may get ya there for 600K in 2005-2006 dollars.
This was briefly visited but IIRC was thumbed down because of the G forces
involved.
Robert
At 05:15 PM 12/14/2015, you wrote:
I did a presentation at the last SEDS conference showing that $1000 per pound
(direct cost only) might be possible w/ an expendable solid....
Bill
On Monday, December 14, 2015, Anthony Cesaroni <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx');> > wrote:
Sorry, that was meant for Bill off list.
Â
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
Â
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');> ] On Behalf Of
William Claybaugh
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 6:06 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');>
Subject: [AR] Future Skylon and F9 costs
Â
https://theconversation.com/spaceplanes-vs-reusable-rockets-which-will-win-51938
No idea where the cost chart comes from and do note that the F9 numbers make an
assumption about refurbishment that seems--to me--aggressive.
Bill
Attachment:
UP Aerospace's Spyder Aviation Week.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document