I was playing with the numbers in Excel last night and it will work. I was counting the development costs twice in my initial assessment (whoops). Trust me, I wouldn't have done that if I were being paid...anyway On the numbers I ran assuming a production run of 10 vehicles and an overall development cost of $15B with a fixed annual operating cost of $4.5M and a variable operating cost of $5M based on 70 missions per year, I came up with a cost to LEO (for the C1) of $1.96M/mt, about half that of Falcon-9. Once I had the model set up I couldn't resist running some theoretical numbers like:(Snip!). For example, the LH2/LOX costs of a C1 launch would cost about $400K at today's prices (much lower if we get the H2 economy rolling). While the Concorde sucked down over 95,000 kg, or $2M of Jet-A per flight!(Snip!)
Then assuming $1,000/kg is attainable. The passengers would have toshell out an average of 100,000 dollars or euros per orbital joy-ride.
Quote from: Moe Grills on 04/18/2012 01:54 amThen assuming $1,000/kg is attainable. The passengers would have toshell out an average of 100,000 dollars or euros per orbital joy-ride.Which is phenomenal.. it's $200k for suborbital seats currently. Why would you look down on half the price for orbital? If you want to argue against Skylon, there's a lot easier targets!
GEO? Then it would need to carry an OTV plus reduced payload, and that wold rob Skylon of any financial advantage over say a Falcon 9, or government subsidized GEO payload boosters.
Rapid reuse is only good if you have enough satellite business to launch that many missions. 300 -400 missions is just laughable. Unlike the suborbital companies, Skylon will not be taking people on joyrides.
two prototype Skylons will already have conducted 300-400 flights over two yearsThat's the biggest bunch of, I don't know, I have ever heard. 300 - 400 launches in two years? LMOL What kind of junk are these people smoking? That would be a launch every other day! There's not enough payloads in the entire commercial catalog to justify so many launches. Cheaper than Falcon 9 really? When you compare total development costs and add them in, I'm sure the picture will look completely different. The Skylon project managers should be subject to a mental evaluation if they actually believe this.
They intend for a parallel development of [...] the Skylon Passenger/ Logistics Module
According to the Reaction Engines development plan when the Skylon enters regular commercial service in 2020 two prototype Skylons will already have conducted 300-400 flights over two years and will have conducted every possible mission plan at least four times including 16 visits to the ISS 4 of which will deliver crew. That's potentially nearly 90mt and 16 crew.They intend for a parallel development of the main initial Skylon specific payloads, in time for the flight test program, of the Skylon Upper Stage, the Skylon Passenger/ Logistics Module, the Skylon Small Payload Carrier and the Skylon Orbiting Facility Interface.The SUS can put a 8.25mt payload into GTO in expendable mode or 6.25mt in reusable mode and has a notional unit cost of $65m(2009).The SPLM can put up to 24 people in LEO or 3mt of cargo or combination thereof and has a notional unit cost of $75m(2009). A Skylon can deliver 1.5mt more to GTO than a Falcon 9 at a cheaper price.Skylon will enter service with more completed flight than any other launch vehicle.Well that's the plan.
Quote from: lkm on 04/18/2012 07:04 pmAccording to the Reaction Engines development plan when the Skylon enters regular commercial service in 2020 two prototype Skylons will already have conducted 300-400 flights over two years and will have conducted every possible mission plan at least four times including 16 visits to the ISS 4 of which will deliver crew. That's potentially nearly 90mt and 16 crew.They intend for a parallel development of the main initial Skylon specific payloads, in time for the flight test program, of the Skylon Upper Stage, the Skylon Passenger/ Logistics Module, the Skylon Small Payload Carrier and the Skylon Orbiting Facility Interface.The SUS can put a 8.25mt payload into GTO in expendable mode or 6.25mt in reusable mode and has a notional unit cost of $65m(2009).The SPLM can put up to 24 people in LEO or 3mt of cargo or combination thereof and has a notional unit cost of $75m(2009). A Skylon can deliver 1.5mt more to GTO than a Falcon 9 at a cheaper price.Skylon will enter service with more completed flight than any other launch vehicle.Well that's the plan.Hi lkm again.I am sure you are aware that these are very old figures based on the C1 configuration. The wikipedia entry is my latest info and refers to the C2 config of 15,000kg. I understood C2 could carry 40 in the passenger module (SPLM). Clearly all modules would change with a revised config too. Hence a larger SUS could be launched etc.I remember reading REL say that they do not want to release any 'D' configuration info until it is finalised. Hence all the info on the website pertains to earlier 'C' revisions. I think they last said D config is well advanced, but they are still finalising some details.I am hoping Baldusi will see this response and let us know anything more about the 'D4' 20 ton revision? Do you have any links? Thanks.Here's my 2 second effort to extrapolate how many might be carried in a Skylon capable of a 20 ton SPLM:40 x 20/15 = 53 passengers.Apologies if my figures are awry. I am working from memory!