I don't know the answer to that question without having an idea of what is
being replaced and what is just being inspected. I'm not familiar enough with
the vehicle design other than to speculate and so far, I'm not aware that
SpaceX has published much in the way of details. Such information is
competition sensitive and non-disclosure is part of the company culture and
business model. The only information that I can use for a reference is what we
estimated at the time and that information has never been confirmed in
practice. Perhaps the method of recovery they have developed and demonstrated
in practice reduces the amount of components that need to be replaced and just
require inspection. It's not obvious to me if that is the case but it likely
is. The bottom line is operational and life cycle cost, if an apples to apples
comparison is to made. I don't think an auditable set of numbers exist for that
comparison outside of the company. Even at that, figures don't lie but liars
can figure. Call me skeptical and if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.
There's a good argument put forth that a small to medium size, un-manned launch
vehicle shouldn’t cost much more to build than an average jet transport. Life
support systems and interiors notwithstanding in the latter. It's a long
argument but please bear with me. Operating it is a different story entirely.
The obvious advantage that the airliner has is in production numbers with lower
operational costs and orders of magnitude, higher use rates per system. Not to
mention a fully integrated network of places to operate to and from that are
funded from a wide variety of sources, not just the passenger.
Some jest here if I may. In many respects, the effort involved in re-cycling a
launcher could be compared to operating an aircraft that doesn’t have landing
gear and lands gear-up every time you fly it. There are only so many times you
can do that. Only once as far as the aircraft is concerned if its poorly
executed. So you design around it and improve the landing technique, sort of
like what SpaceX has accomplished. The point being is that there has to be a
trade-off in running an airline that way, even if it's just haling cargo.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Rand Simberg
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 6:34 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost (was >
We don't know what is required for reflight, but they don't seem to be spending
a lot of time making it pretty. They seem to have a lot of margin in engine
performance, and I doubt if they are tearing down each flight, probably just
inspecting. The avionics shouldn't need any maintenance, and I doubt they're
changing propellant tankage or structure. Why should we think they're doing
anything other than inspections? And if so, how could that cost more than
building a new vehicle?
