On 12/26/2015 12:26 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 26 December 2015 at 05:30, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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