Henry:
Please see below:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:48 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
An argument from authority that cites the father of "The Stick"
astronaut-osterizer, no offense, is a bit less convincing than it might
have been at the time...
Seriously, is that article available online? It could be interesting to
see how well the assumptions those conclusions were based on have stood
up. Times change, organizational and technological givens fade and give
way.
Henry
On 7/1/2019 1:12 PM, William Claybaugh wrote:
Anthony:
I think we both understand this to be a leading question....
Mike Griffin and I showed in a 1994 article in JBIS that reuse would
eventually be lower cost than expending. But the trip from here to there
is fraught: the breakeven between fully reusable and expendable space
launch assets is typically north of 100 launches per year.
For partial reuse it depends on whether one is modifying an existing
expendable to be a little bit reusable or building from scratch. The
former—based on SpaceX’s example—might be as low as three to five uses if
refurbishment is very low cost. The latter is calculably somewhere north
of 20 launches (possibly well north) again depending largely on
refurbishment costs.
So no, just because it is reusable does not mean—in the space launch
business—that it will be cheaper. Until individual launch vehicles are
flying more than 100 times per year, the calculation suggests that
expending is more likely to be lower cost.
Bill
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:29 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bill,
Are you suggesting that because it’s reusable, doesn’t automatically mean
that it will cost less?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 2:33 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Human Rated Hydrogen Tanks (was Re: Re: tank frost
(was >
Henry:
As Philip has observed, others are addressing deep space capabilities the
investment in which does make economic sense today. Let’s just agree that
my requirements for return on investments appear to be nearer term than
yours.
The rest of your comments seem to me simply misleading. There is no
publicly available evidence known to me to suggest that SpaceX’s reuse of
first stages is either profitable to them or lower cost. Indeed, the
publicly available evidence is that the cost per pound delivered to orbit
on the Block 5 is higher than it was on the FT; SpaceX’s customers would
clearly be better off (by several hundred dollars per pound) if they could
choose the expendable over the reusable.
I have no knowledge as to whether SpaceX is making money on reuse and
simply keeping the gain for itself or whether refurbishment costs have
proven to be so high that they are losing money on each launch. The fact
that they are looking to demonstrate five uses of a stage could mean that
profitable reuse is yet to be achieved despite a two or so uses breakeven
wrt the depreciation charge.
In any case, you have no basis for suggesting that my previous analysis
was in error unless you have knowledge of their refurbishment cost of which
I am not aware. Do you have such knowledge?
Bill
