On 2/16/2018 2:49 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
To first order and to date, stuff that goes to orbit costs about four orders of magnitude more than subsonic stuff, per pound.
SpaceX has pulled about half an order of magnitude out of that, leaving the difference—in their case only—at almost exactly four orders of magnitude.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 1:28 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Cost-per-airframe/engine pound certainly scales up with higher vehicle
performance.
Development cost per project has a less linear relationship with raw
vehicle performance - other significant variables also apply.
See my previous remarks about the different demands of achieving a
profitable performance increment over existing mature-technology ailiner
competition, versus developing a Good Enough version of a radically new
space transport approach that inherently brings with it a significant
performance edge.
And on the gripping hand, setting up for economic serial production of
hundreds-to-thousands of copies of a big state-of-the-art airliner is a
major expense that developers of advanced rockets generally avoid.
In fact, SpaceX's investment in reusability can be viewed as primarily a
way to support their high (for the old expendable industry) flight rates
with a much smaller/cheaper booster core production establishment than
they'd otherwise need.
To a first approximation, a successful Mark 1 version fast-turnaround
SSTO space transport will not immediately require mass production. More
like single digit numbers of hand-built copies.
Later marks, as the market radically expands, will be a different story.
But the revenue from the early marks will be there to help support
establishing higher-rate production. Not an issue for funding the
initial push to market.
Henry Vanderbilt
On 2/15/2018 3:15 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
> Rick:
>
> Productivity gains in the aerospace sector have pretty much matched
> inflation over the period since the 747 was developed; accordingly, a
> large passenger aircraft should cost—in today’s dollars—pretty
much the
> same as a 747 cost in then dollars. $1 Billion by your estimate.
>
> The other glaring issue here is that a subsonic aircraft is not
> comparable to a Mach 25 spaceship; trying to use the one to
estimate the
> cost of the other guarantees underestimating.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:42 PM Rick Wills <willsrw@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:willsrw@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:willsrw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:willsrw@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>
> Henry
>
> I'll throw my 2 cents in here.
>
> $20B should be an upper limit for spaceplane/launch vehicle
> development. My estimate is $14B to $17B. A reusable orbital
> launch vehicle may or not be an SSTO but it needs to be 100%
> reusable. My rational for the estimate is Boeing spent $1
Billion
> to develop the 747 with first flight in 1969. Today, that's
roughly
> $7B. Rough order of magnitude is double Boeing's cost; than add
> 20% for cost overruns. I can see why some people might argue
$20B
> to $40B; Boeing Dreamliner is reported to have cost $30B to
develop.
> However, SpaceX could hit 100% reusable with a reusable upper
stage.
>
> On Monday afternoon, I spoke to freshman mechanical and aerospace
> engineering students at the University of Dayton on the
subject of
> the Engineering Profession. In my "lessons learned" section, I
> discussed bias. Yep, we all got them. As an example, I
discussed
> my bias about what a reusable orbital launch vehicle would
like. My
> long held view was a reusable launch vehicle would be "aircraft
> like": wings, landing gear, etc, and of course a pilot. (full
> disclosure, I hold a commercial pilot rating and am
engineer). In
> preparing for the talk, I realize this bias when as far back
as my
> childhood looking at Pratt & Coggins book "By Spaceship to the
> Moon". It's 1950 technology but the science is solid for the
time.
> In it, there is a nice drawing of a large winged vehicle, they
> called it a supply ship. The vehicle was taking off horizontally
> with a rocket powered sled. My five year old self looked at that
> and thought, "that's neat". I now understand the technical,
> developmental, political, and financial issues with these
sorts of
> system configurations but the bias was implanted. Now Space X
> comes along and shows how recovering an intact undamaged
first stage
> can return a profit. Biases do die hard, but it's hard to
argue
> with success.
>
> Take Care and Be Safe,
>
> Rick Wills
> Still waiting for Buck Rogers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>] On Behalf Of Henry Vanderbilt
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:54 PM
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [AR] Re: SSTO fuels (was Re: SSTO)
>
> On 2/13/2018 7:14 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
> > I have seen that paper. For something as technically
(much less
> > economically) difficult as SSTO it seems a little light:
even much
> > more detailed analysis doesn’t often lead to much
confidence that I
> > ought to recommend dropping $20 or $40 billion on one solution
> over another.
>
> My two cents worth: If fielding a useful SSTO space transport is
> costing you $20 to $40 billion, you're doing something very
wrong.
>
> That's the sort of price tag you get by farming it out to the
> existing cost-plus government aerospace houses, supervised by an
> existing high-overhead government R&D bureaucracy.
>
> At the end of that process you may or may not get a useful space
> transport, but lots of people will have had decades of low-stress
> white-collar job security. Fine if that's your objective -
> typically if you're a Congressman and they're your
constituents - if
> you actually care about building useful space transportation,
not so
> much.
>
> Done as previously described, build your own private team up
doing
> methodical risk-reduction then development (as with SpaceX
and Blue)
> it should be perhaps a tenth of that.
>
> Henry V
>
>
>