Quote from: llanitedave on 03/06/2015 10:00 pmThat doesn't mean the second stage is 30%.In fact the cost of the second stage CANNOT be that high a percentage of the total manufacturing cost. If it were, the cost of the engines would end up in the negative numbers, depending on the cost ratio for the non-engined first and second stages.
That doesn't mean the second stage is 30%.
Quote from: IRobot on 03/06/2015 10:58 amQuote from: meekGee on 03/06/2015 05:20 amJust keep in mind that it was barely "decades" between Wright brother's first flight and airline-like operations....We have had decades between Gagarin and today and I see no substantial improvement towards an airline-like operation. And I would suggest that there is at least one major difference between the two situations: when the Wrights first flew, there was already a large amount of traffic between most of the destinations that would later be served by air transport. Air transport merely had to become a better way of reaching existing destinations. In space, on the other hand, the destinations and demand for travel to them for the most part have yet to be created.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/06/2015 05:20 amJust keep in mind that it was barely "decades" between Wright brother's first flight and airline-like operations....We have had decades between Gagarin and today and I see no substantial improvement towards an airline-like operation.
Just keep in mind that it was barely "decades" between Wright brother's first flight and airline-like operations....
Quote from: Proponent on 03/06/2015 12:02 pmQuote from: IRobot on 03/06/2015 10:58 amQuote from: meekGee on 03/06/2015 05:20 amJust keep in mind that it was barely "decades" between Wright brother's first flight and airline-like operations....We have had decades between Gagarin and today and I see no substantial improvement towards an airline-like operation. And I would suggest that there is at least one major difference between the two situations: when the Wrights first flew, there was already a large amount of traffic between most of the destinations that would later be served by air transport. Air transport merely had to become a better way of reaching existing destinations. In space, on the other hand, the destinations and demand for travel to them for the most part have yet to be created.Also, the barrier to entry. Early airplanes were pretty simple and made out of cheap materials.
So there's my rough numbers more to get the ball started rather than to answer this. Anyone have better volume numbers, RP-1 prices, LOX prices? This is something we can get to the bottom of nearly conclusively rather than spending pages flailing and counter flailing.
Cheap no you just don't need as much material to build a small plane as you do an EELV class launch vehicle.The materials used in early planes may seem primitive today but they were cutting edge back then.If anything Spacex has stuck with fairly conservative materials choices in the construction of their vehicles.A 757 costs about the same as a Falcon 9 if you wanted to get into making airliners the startup cost would be the same as Musk spent starting up Spacex.
Also, the barrier to entry. Early airplanes were pretty simple and made out of cheap materials.
Quote from: Vultur on 03/07/2015 01:46 amAlso, the barrier to entry. Early airplanes were pretty simple and made out of cheap materials.Actually -- not trolling here -- aren't rockets pretty simple and made out of cheap materials, too?Combining decades of experience with today's modeling, fab technology, and materials science, anyone with a spare Billion or so could make them.
I visited SpaceX and was told that the master plan is to keep dropping prices as much as possible to try to increase customer base. The SpaceX vision is one of massively increased flight rate; at the expense of perhaps more profit.
Quote from: Geron on 03/08/2015 03:58 pmI visited SpaceX and was told that the master plan is to keep dropping prices as much as possible to try to increase customer base. The SpaceX vision is one of massively increased flight rate; at the expense of perhaps more profit.Dropping prices will increase the customer base, because demand for most things is elastic; lower prices increase demand.
Not really. "Anyone with a spare billion or so" would probably end up building a rocket like Atlas V, Antares, Delta IV, Ariane 5, or Ariane 6.
To get startup costs down to SpaceX's level (when they first started) would require much more cleverness (or lower prevailing wages, like India).
what happens if spacex puts everyone else out of business?it seems to me it's headed that way considering no one has announced a reusability program yet. i think youd want to be in a hurry to start. i image it would be difficult to ride out the years between the commencement of spacex's reusable pricing and the start of your own.does it seem like everyone is choosing not to compete? throwing in the towel? when will we know for sure who has given up?
what happens if spacex puts everyone else out of business?