3 ms·
My guess, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable will chime in, would be efficiencibutton a larger rocket/lift capability- Defintely with the current 'throwaway
by robbiep 14y ago
My guess, and I'm sure someone more knowledgable will chime in, would be efficiencibutton a larger rocket/lift capability-
Defintely with the current 'throwaway' model, where whole rocket costs are ~95%+ cf. fuel; but I believe even with re-usable rockets (as they are aiming for) you have significant cost advantage per kg (or pound if you prefer) from a larger rocket.
So, as I see it, less cost, less launches, less messy construction (larger modules/however the beast turns out)
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoMaybe. Or maybe it just means a larger payload. The cost per kg could end up anywhere with new technology. At least in the beginning it might be much higher.
- jbri 14y agoIn the long run, you'd expect carrying heavier payloads to be cheaper per-kg (because you're lifting more payload and less rocket, relatively speaking), but carrying larger payloads to be more expensive (because you need to be using a bigger rocket). Those play against each other to some extent. In the very short term a new technology is likely to be pricier than the existing tried, tested and refined version (especially when you include R&D costs), how long it stays that way is hard to predict.