What are the odds of SpaceX adopting the REL Skylon marketing concept by selling reusable FH's to the end user?
Not. Gonna. Happen.(And it won't for Skylon either)
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/26/2012 07:41 PMNot. Gonna. Happen.(And it won't for Skylon either)I actually think I heard Elon suggest that SpaceX may do something sort of like that if their reusability goes really well. Can't remember when he said it, but it was within the last six months.
A reusable Falcon Heavy, if we assume it costs 100 million to build, would need all three first stages to be reused AND the upper stage would need to be reused.
But I thought Musk had made it clear that he was looking to eventually just become a manufacturer/supplier of vehicles, like a Boeing or Lockheed
However Falcon Heavy is more like to big foot and the lock ness Loch Ness monster. We have some fuzzy pictures in the form of Falcon 9. On which Falcon Heavy is based.
Skylon has been touted from the outset as being able to do 200 launches at least and a launch cost of 10 million dollars.A reusable Falcon Heavy, if we assume it costs 100 million to build, would need all three first stages to be reused AND the upper stage would need to be reused.One could imagine getting the outer cores back and reusing them... 5 times? which would bring their effective cost down to 5 million dollars each. The central core might be reused... 3 times? That's about 8 million plus change but I'll round down. Getting the upper stage back? Err, probably not soon on that one.Already, we've got the cost down to 25 (upper stage, non-reusable) million, 10 million (2x outer cores), and 8 million (the inner core) which adds up to...43 million dollars.If we're going to have this discussion, we need to decide (or debate about) which bits of the FH can/could/will be reused and how often with an additional discussion about the extra costs of reusing bits (refurbishing costs etc).They we can get a $/kg figure which would allow us to usefully compare the two.I'll assume that the reusable FH as outlined above could launch 25,000kg to LEO, which works out at $1,720/kg as opposed to Skylons $666/kg.
Quote from: Kharkov on 12/27/2012 03:14 AMSkylon has been touted from the outset as being able to do 200 launches at least and a launch cost of 10 million dollars.A reusable Falcon Heavy, if we assume it costs 100 million to build, would need all three first stages to be reused AND the upper stage would need to be reused.One could imagine getting the outer cores back and reusing them... 5 times? which would bring their effective cost down to 5 million dollars each. The central core might be reused... 3 times? That's about 8 million plus change but I'll round down. Getting the upper stage back? Err, probably not soon on that one.Already, we've got the cost down to 25 (upper stage, non-reusable) million, 10 million (2x outer cores), and 8 million (the inner core) which adds up to...43 million dollars.If we're going to have this discussion, we need to decide (or debate about) which bits of the FH can/could/will be reused and how often with an additional discussion about the extra costs of reusing bits (refurbishing costs etc).They we can get a $/kg figure which would allow us to usefully compare the two.I'll assume that the reusable FH as outlined above could launch 25,000kg to LEO, which works out at $1,720/kg as opposed to Skylons $666/kg.Don't be silly, look at this gaint "black body" spacecraft, what kind of sane ppl believe it can "fry" 200 times? for a country with limited space launch capability, they can't even paint spacecraft right.
In my meaningless opinion topics like this should not be allowed. Comparing FH which is currently in production phase with something like Skylon (which I think will be never produced) is joke.
Well that's not particularly polite but your point is clear. FH is based on real hardware a lot of which had flown. Skylon is completely in the experiential realm at present with much of it not even designed much less flown. Powerpoint really. Even the engine has moved to a flown version yet and looking at the technology, there's an awful lot of piping that needs to be 100% perfect all the time.I just can't see it being viable cost-wise even if the tech is somehow operationalised.
