3 ms·
It's not about physical efficiency of the rockets so much as it is about their reuse. When you launch a rocket, fuel costs are basically a rounding error - well
by somenameforme 2y ago
It's not about physical efficiency of the rockets so much as it is about their reuse. When you launch a rocket, fuel costs are basically a rounding error - well under a million dollars in general. Nearly all of your costs come from the rocket itself. And before SpaceX we were simply throwing away these rockets after a single use. Well technically the Space Shuttle was "reusable" but the refurbishment required was so extensive that they may as well have been rebuilding it from scratch after each launch. This is why SpaceX's audacious initial goal of reducing space flight costs by orders of magnitude was completely viable.
I think companies will have difficulty competing against SpaceX, so long as SpaceX is ideologically motivated. Right now their goal isn't to make a ton of money, but to create a stable civilization on Mars. So once we start headed to Mars them making next to no profit on launches, beyond what's needed for development and basic sustainability, would be perfectly fine. So you not only need to hit technological parity, but then somehow also go well beyond them in terms of cost reductions - at least if your motivation is profit.
- isolli 2y agoNot to mention that 2 out of 5 Space Shuttles suffered catastrophic loss, one of them (Columbia) almost certainly because it was being reused and the heat shield failed.
- tekla 2y agoColumbia didn't fail because of heat shield reuse. It failed because a chunk of foam crashed into a important part of the heat shield at high speed and created a big hole.