At some point, it's cheaper to just build an RLV than to pay people to study it some more.I hope CNES (or whoever in Europe) builds an RLV.
At some point, it's cheaper to just build an RLV than to pay people to study it some more.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/10/2015 01:27 pmAt some point, it's cheaper to just build an RLV than to pay people to study it some more.I hope CNES (or whoever in Europe) builds an RLV.Yes but you could say that about so many space projects.
true but at least with the likes of SpaceX they have put away the study books and powerpoints and are giving it a go. It might not work, might not be financially feasible but at least they will find out. They will (eventually) get a first stage back and be able to pull it apart and see if re-use makes sense. That's far more than ANY study has ever done.Quote from: nadreck on 02/10/2015 01:29 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/10/2015 01:27 pmAt some point, it's cheaper to just build an RLV than to pay people to study it some more.I hope CNES (or whoever in Europe) builds an RLV.Yes but you could say that about so many space projects.
I guess when they say geostationary orbit, they mean GSO, not GTO, or otherwise, their numbers are way below what SpaceX provides on their website (4,850kg, which already includes first stage reuse).
Could it be a 0° inclination standard delta-v deficit (1500m/s?) GTO?
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/10/2015 06:13 pmI guess when they say geostationary orbit, they mean GSO, not GTO, or otherwise, their numbers are way below what SpaceX provides on their website (4,850kg, which already includes first stage reuse).I believe their numbers include first stage engine-out margin, not first stage recovery.