4 ms·
Really interesting, thanks for the insight. Since I was a boy, I had wondered why we hadn't improved our launch vehicles, I saw new cars and planes and electro
by cartoonworld 5y ago
Really interesting, thanks for the insight.
Since I was a boy, I had wondered why we hadn't improved our launch vehicles, I saw new cars and planes and electronics and whatnot produced every year, but I often wondered why the Space Shuttle was still the thing we used "to go into space".
I learned about RAMJET/SCRAMJET, doted on Star Trek warp drives and fantasized about teleportation, I kind of never questioned that rocket lift technology might have just reached some newtonian limits. I've certainly never considered the total cost of launches and the reliability or weather considerations.
A 25% cost reduction from vehicle recovery sounds great, but I've read "Eccentric Orbits" and am now considering there are many additional factors in these programs. I don't know very much about launch economics, especially since there is clearly much to consider. Thanks for the perspective.
- ethbr0 5y agoThe best way to look at it, IMHO, is from the demand side. Q: Why has space technology remained fairly stagnant? A: Because the economic demand to fund improvements hasn't existed. We look at the market and say "But all those satellites! Surely they could pay for it." But that's underestimating (a) the cost of development (HUGE! And there's a low-quantity of launches to amortize over) & (b) the value of incremental improvement (negligible, as most current customers aren't cost sensitive). That's SpaceX's real genius. Reusability isn't a competitive advantage unless it coincides with increased demand. Demand which they themselves seeded via the StarLink constellation.