3 ms·
SpaceX is predicting $2000/kg to low earth orbit.[1] Reaction Engines are predicting an order of magnitude cheaper than current tech[2], so let's be charitable
by bjelkeman-again 12y ago
SpaceX is predicting $2000/kg to low earth orbit.[1] Reaction Engines are predicting an order of magnitude cheaper than current tech[2], so let's be charitable and say that this is $200/kg. (Although the Wikipedia article mentions $650/kg).
Consider that a Skylon launch is for a non pressurised satellite and capable of lifting 15,000 kg, which supposedly could be for 30 passengers in a passenger module [3].
That would meant $100,000/passenger to anywhere on earth. Cheap if you want to go to orbit, less so for a trip to Japan maybe.
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Pricing_and_development_funding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Pricing_and_deve...
[2] http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html
[3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)#Specifications_.28Skylon_C2.29 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)#Specifica...
- m_mueller 12y agoWhy do you assume intercontinental flight will use the same configuration as the orbiter? First of all, the orbiter still needs lots of oxygen on board, even though they can save around half of it with their hybrid jet/rocket engine. Furthermore it needs heavy heatshields. Both things that are not needed (or to a much lesser extent) in an intercontinental craft. The saved weight for oxygen alone should allow you to go from 30 to 200 passengers, giving you another order of magnitude - and suddenly you're at first class ticket prices.
- idlewords 12y agoYou need some way to keep the passengers from being roasted alive, and you need to engineer it to commercial air safety standards (redundant systems, emergency exits, little sign that says 'no smoking'). By the end of the process you'll be pining for the days of having to just lug around a little oxygen.