[AR] Re: Re spacex falcon 9 landing
- From: Derek Lyons <fairwater@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:48:16 -0800
On Dec 29, 2015 9:03 AM, "Steve Traugott" <stevegt@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm going with some version of that. It makes less sense to get a tank
and guidance structure up to orbital velocity and then throw all that
energy away if there's a demand for the hardware on orbit. The trick is
going to be creating that demand.
The trick is going to be spending the money to fly upper stages that will
be in demand well in advance of the existence of any demand.
Current generation upper stages will likely never be in demand because
they're just so much junk within a few hours of launch... They have no
long term power supply. Their tank insulation isn't rated for long life on
orbit. They have no fittings for scavenging unused propellant or for
refueling. Their payload connections are one-shot. Etc... Etc...
Changing that isn't going to be cheap, and convincing the paying passengers
to pay for capacity they don't need won't be easy.
D.
Other related posts: