[AR] Re: Re spacex falcon 9 landing
- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:26:23 +0000
On 26 December 2015 at 05:30, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Remember that SpaceX doesn't *have* an operational reusable rocket yet --
just an initial proof of principle, achieved with some difficulty. Many
would say that Elon is doing things the hard way, losing much of the
benefit of reusability by treating it as a later add-on.
They would probably be wrong. Most careful published analyses seem to say
that fully reusable orbital rockets are a cost-loss rather than a cost-win,
compared to expendables launching the same amount, whereas SpaceX's rockets
are already cheaper, simply because they've been cost reduced. Even if it's
the other way around, if the reusability turns out to be a net-win, the
advantage is probably less than the cost reduction he's already look at.
And Elon's now doing his work with a full launch manifest. It's similar to
the Tesla Model S. It's always much easier when people are giving you money
for what you do, than trying to get it working with nobody giving you
money, By cost reducing it first, he gained business and access to
financing which he can use to fund the research.
Do consider that SpaceX is on its second rocket (Falcon 1 having been a
technical struggle and a complete financial flop, although a useful
pathfinder for Falcon 9) and its second attempt at first-stage reusability
(the original splash-down-and-salvage-parts concept having been a complete
failure, as some of the "doubters" correctly predicted). The most notable
thing about SpaceX is not that it always succeeds, because sometimes it
doesn't, but that it's been persistent enough to amend its plan and press
on when some part of the original plan didn't work.
Henry
--
-Ian Woollard
Sent from my Turing machine
Other related posts: