2 ms·

In order for any solution to be 10% the cost of an existing solution, you have to get a rocket to escape velocity with less fuel, a more efficient engine using

In order for any solution to be 10% the cost of an existing solution, you have to get a rocket to escape velocity with less fuel, a more efficient engine using 10% of the fuel or, fuel that is 10% the cost of existing fuel, or some combination thereof. I don't believe rocket technology can become efficient enough to meet those claims. I think it's clear that fuel costs are not the major part of the cost of a launch to orbit. Development, support, and manufacture of the vehicle itself are much more important, and those are areas that seem ripe for innovation, which is why SpaceX can hope to achieve major reductions in cost as they ramp up flight frequency.

cd34 16y ago
You are correct. I distilled his process which gave me the conclusion that the only place he could really see any efficiency gains were in fuel efficiency or cost. He's using a 40+ year old design for his engine (with modern equipment). His engine doesn't consist of fewer parts, it has a large R&D/Engineering budget, and carries with it the same launch pad staffing/rental fees that any other launch must have. The only place he can really optimize his solution is more efficient engines, cheaper fuel or, a much more reusable system. At this point, only the first booster stage is reusable and recovered which is possibly the least expensive part of his system. As his avionics gear must continue with the launch vehicle, it becomes unrecoverable. While I'm only an observer from afar, I believe his heavy lift capabilities will result in more fuel being required to make escape velocity. There is a reason that most heavy-lift rockets use solid rocket boosters. I really hope that they can bring down the cost of putting cargo into space. From what I see now, I don't see him doing anything significantly different from Ariennespace's approach which can recover/reuse the booster stage.... which brings us back to the only real thing he can do to reduce cost is improve fuel efficiency/fuel cost.

cd34 16y ago

You are correct. I distilled his process which gave me the conclusion that the only place he could really see any efficiency gains were in fuel efficiency or cost. He's using a 40+ year old design for his engine (with modern equipment). His engine doesn't consist of fewer parts, it has a large R&D/Engineering budget, and carries with it the same launch pad staffing/rental fees that any other launch must have. The only place he can really optimize his solution is more efficient engines, cheaper fuel or, a much more reusable system. At this point, only the first booster stage is reusable and recovered which is possibly the least expensive part of his system. As his avionics gear must continue with the launch vehicle, it becomes unrecoverable. While I'm only an observer from afar, I believe his heavy lift capabilities will result in more fuel being required to make escape velocity. There is a reason that most heavy-lift rockets use solid rocket boosters. I really hope that they can bring down the cost of putting cargo into space. From what I see now, I don't see him doing anything significantly different from Ariennespace's approach which can recover/reuse the booster stage.... which brings us back to the only real thing he can do to reduce cost is improve fuel efficiency/fuel cost.