Not sure I agree with that. I think that if SpaceX gets a BFR working,
then it will be a vehicle for bulk cargo. Not things that intrinsically
need a big vehicle, but people who want to deliver commodities to orbit
at low cost. Think pipeline to (and to a lesser degree, from) orbit, or
transcontinental railroad to space.
On 10/3/21 17:55, William Claybaugh wrote:
John:
This is similar to the argument that ELV’s could compete w/ RLV’s if they could be produced and fly thousands of time per year. And I agree that the very limited data doesn’t prove which is most correct.
But first mover’s have a real advantage: if ELV’s had manically pursued low cost—something that your employer notably acted to oppose—than that might be the path things ran down. But that is over: SpaceX dropped ELV prices by a factor of four and then built a partial RLV that prices at about one-third of ELV prices, RLV’s are now the canonical solution.
If SpaceX gets a BFR working then there will not be a space in the market for twenty tons at six or eight times as many launches: first mover likely wins for the next few decades, not least because payloads will get sized for that vehicle.
Assuming no world war.
Bill
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 3:45 PM John Schilling <john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mars only requires a BFR if you insist on flying to the surface of
Mars in a spaceship you launched from the surface of Earth.
Which, admittedly, is what Apollo and fifty years of science
fiction have programmed people to expect. But if you are willing
to use on-orbit assembly, and if you're planning to go to Mars a
*lot* you really ought to, then what matters is large *total*
launch capacity at low cost per ton, and no need for any single
launch to be >20 tons.
Whether a few larger launches or many smaller ones gets you lower
overall cost per ton is uncertain, but the effect is probably not
large. There are economies of scale for larger launch vehicles,
but there are also economies of scale for higher flight rates, and
they very roughly cancel. So no, you don't need either a BFR or
new physics to go to Mars.
If you want to pay for your trip to Mars in part by selling launch
services to customers whose interests lie closer to home, it is
probably advantageous to offer flights on demand on a rocket
scaled to the LEO and GEO markets.
John Schilling
On 9/30/2021 5:15 PM, Troy Prideaux wrote:
From my (albeit naïve) understanding, Elon’s driving goal has
always been Mars – which ultimately requires (in the absence of
new physics) a BFR.
Troy
*From:*arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Anthony
Cesaroni
*Sent:* Friday, 1 October 2021 10:10 AM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Nothing to do with rockets.
Hi Bill,
One could argue that the plateau was reached with the 747 and
finally the A-380. Operational costs and the overestimate of the
hub model in the case of the latter. The 777 appears to be able
to sustain the “jumbo” mission and operational cost models
currently as I understand it. That said, I’m not sure that it’s
apples to apples when it comes to comparing any of this to
spacecraft. Elon certainly believes bigger is better and it will
be required for his mission goals.
Best.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.cesaronitech.com/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5kYs525JE3jfChOKTniySYrfhBtw7Q2Vsxr4OVzpi--OukATDnyEJiB-PJj8bdfowA98qI3w_g$>
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:*arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Thursday, September 30, 2021 7:53 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Nothing to do with rockets.
Rand:
Just like the airlines.
Bill
>