[AR] Re: Reusable Dragon & Grasshopper delta V (off topic)
- From: Norman Yarvin <yarvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 07:37:37 -0400
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 08:46:10PM -0400, Bill Claybaugh wrote:
>I'm still not certain I understand the question, but let us assume
>that there exist an ELV that will place 30,000 pounds in LEO for $2000
>per pound (= $60 million); let us call this vehicle "100%".
>
>Now let us further assume that there exists a derivative of "100%"
>that has a boost back first stage with near zero refurbishment costs;
>further assume that this vehicle--per previous estimate--is capable of
>six first stage flights and accordingly is priced at $1000 per pound
>for 30% less payload. Call this vehicle "70%".
>
>21,000 pounds at $1000 per pound is $21 million vs 30,000 pounds for
>$60 million, no? Whether we calculate in price per launch or in price
>per pound the result is the same: no rational economic actor buys the
>ELV for LEO missions; the project cost will--up to a calculable
>limit-- be lower if one spends more on making the spacecraft fit the
>21k pound vehicle.
Well, except for the people to whom a 30,000 pound satellite is worth
more than $39 million more than a 21,000 pound satellite, due to its
higher capability. I'm not sure who those people might be; either
figure is quite a substantial satellite, even if most of that mass
would be used to raise the orbit from LEO to GEO. But that was (if I
understood it) Henry's point, in an abstract sense. For the Falcon 9
(those figures being close to the Falcon 9's) the argument might not
make much practical difference, but a smaller launcher might see much
of its market disappear if it started cutting payload.
--
Norman Yarvin http://yarchive.net/blog
Other related posts: