3 ms·
> Those "new space" companies will struggle to re-use their vehicles with such technologies. Do they even need to? Material cost of solid fuel ICBMs go right
by baybal2 6y ago
> Those "new space" companies will struggle to re-use their vehicles with such technologies.
Do they even need to?
Material cost of solid fuel ICBMs go right into few megabucks each.
- Robotbeat 6y agoYes, they do. The lowest cost per kg to orbit launch vehicles are not primarily solid.
- baybal2 6y agoBut if they can get missile cost to $1-2m, which I believe is very realistic, would there still be any big economic benefit from recovery when the launch will still cost few megabucks?
- m4rtink 6y agoFor one its unlike to scale - especially if you are using similar stages as the military, once you reach a certain maximum payload, making a bigger rocket will be much more expensive as you would no longer share the development and production costs of the new stages with the military.
- Robotbeat 6y agoAnd guided missiles and ICBMs are expensive. In fact, the cheapest large missiles are usually liquid.
- Robotbeat 6y agoBut no one has in spite of there being a super strong incentive to do so. Reuse is taking over the launch market. And for good reason: expendable aerostructures cost basically the same to build as reusable ones, certainly within a factor of 2 or whatever. A cruise missile and a similar dry mass general aviation aircraft cost about the same. For all the talk about (& investment in) low cost expendables, nobody has made it cheaper. Besides, reusable liquid rockets are easier on the payload (less vibration, etc).