Rocket engines carrying their own oxygen isn't really that much of a problem. Air breathers have to do the same thing essentially by accelerating oxygen AND nitrogen up to their flight speed before they can burn it for thrust. The total amount of mass accelerated to flight speed (including that nitrogen mass) is actually GREATER for an air breather for an around the world flight.
New article attempting to analyse reusability savings, with a particular focus on how long it might take SpaceX to recoup their investment so far in re-use:http://uk.businessinsider.com/spacex-reusable-rocket-launch-costs-profits-2017-6Their model is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TgkiKHRNll3XhhYCZnmbJpL941cxGd5isMHIFFIpaG0/edit?usp=sharing
Europe Sets Sights on Cheap Rocket Engine by 2030s
PARIS (Reuters) - Europe aims to develop a low-cost, reusable rocket engine for use after 2030 under a deal between Airbus Safran Launchers and the European Space Agency (ESA).They signed a development contract at the Paris Airshow on Thursday to develop a demonstrator engine, powered by liquid oxygen and methane.Airbus Safran said it would use new manufacturing techniques, including the use of 3D printers, to keep the engine's cost down to around 1 million euros ($1.1 million)."The commercial market - at least the European one - is asking for reliability, on-time delivery and cost, and we have to find the best way to answer these market expectations," its CEO, Alain Charmeau, told Reuters.The firm, a joint venture between Airbus and Safran that will become ArianeGroup on July 1, currently powers the rockets it uses to launch satellites for commercial clients with Vulcain 2 engines costing around 10 million euros each.
"We need, and will have Ariane 6 in 2020, but we also have to prepare for the future ...and that is why this (Prometheus) program is important," he said.The jury was still out on the issue of reusability, however.California-based Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) earlier this year achieved what it called "a huge revolution in spaceflight" by reusing part of one of its Falcon 9 rocket on a subsequent launch.Charmeau said Prometheus would include work on reusability. "(But) the market is not asking for reusability... As long as we have a limited number of institutional launches it's difficult to bet on reusability."
Sounds like Ariane is more or less ceding the field to SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin for a decade or more.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 06/22/2017 04:05 pmSounds like Ariane is more or less ceding the field to SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin for a decade or more.Two years ago, they were referring to reusable rockets as fantasy, and four years ago, they were planning on expensive upgrades of Ariane 5. Now it's Ariane 6 and low cost methlox engines, with reuse on the horizon. They've come long, long way.
QuoteCharmeau said Prometheus would include work on reusability. "(But) the market is not asking for reusability... As long as we have a limited number of institutional launches it's difficult to bet on reusability."
Charmeau said Prometheus would include work on reusability. "(But) the market is not asking for reusability... As long as we have a limited number of institutional launches it's difficult to bet on reusability."
The market is asking for schedule, reliability, and cost. All things that rapid reuse, if you could perfect it, would give you in spades. So it's BS to say the market isn't "asking for reusability."
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/23/2017 12:00 amThe market is asking for schedule, reliability, and cost. All things that rapid reuse, if you could perfect it, would give you in spades. So it's BS to say the market isn't "asking for reusability."Reusability is the solution to the demand, one of potentially many solutions. So the statement is quite correct.
Quote from: Semmel on 06/23/2017 06:05 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 06/23/2017 12:00 amThe market is asking for schedule, reliability, and cost. All things that rapid reuse, if you could perfect it, would give you in spades. So it's BS to say the market isn't "asking for reusability."Reusability is the solution to the demand, one of potentially many solutions. So the statement is quite correct.Okay, then the statement is disingenuous. Might as well say that the market isn't asking for any kind of rocket, as the customer just wants their payload in orbit.
As written crosspost from the discussion topic.Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 06/22/2017 11:59 pmToday at the ESA pavilion at the Paris Airshow, there was a live roundtable discussion about the fixed institutional procurement of launches from Arianespace. Link to videoThe participents were representatives of: the EU, ESA, France, Germany & Italy, EUMETSAT and Arianespace. Discussions belong in the discussion threat.
Today at the ESA pavilion at the Paris Airshow, there was a live roundtable discussion about the fixed institutional procurement of launches from Arianespace. Link to videoThe participents were representatives of: the EU, ESA, France, Germany & Italy, EUMETSAT and Arianespace.
Quote from: AncientU on 06/22/2017 10:30 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 06/22/2017 04:05 pmSounds like Ariane is more or less ceding the field to SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin for a decade or more.Two years ago, they were referring to reusable rockets as fantasy, and four years ago, they were planning on expensive upgrades of Ariane 5. Now it's Ariane 6 and low cost methlox engines, with reuse on the horizon. They've come long, long way.But they have a very long way to go still... Ariane 6 could be already be outdated by its first flight.
Where I think a lot of these estimates may miss the boat is in the high gross profit margin they assume SpaceX is currently achieving - prior to reuse. Generally, in the articles I have read on this topic, the 40% gross margin is traced back to a single source estimate, done some time ago to estimate SpaceX's value should they announce an IPO.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 06/22/2017 07:10 amWhere I think a lot of these estimates may miss the boat is in the high gross profit margin they assume SpaceX is currently achieving - prior to reuse. Generally, in the articles I have read on this topic, the 40% gross margin is traced back to a single source estimate, done some time ago to estimate SpaceX's value should they announce an IPO.To be clear for everyone in case it is not generally known, gross margins are before R&D costs (and sales/general/admin costs) are accounted. It's probably a good bet that SpaceX breaks even after those costs are accounted. SpaceX has a lot of development engineers.