tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post9176211968407609552..comments2023-10-23T12:57:43.485-07:00Comments on Planet Plots: Economic issues of reusable SpaceX launch vehiclesken_anthonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07612961297952294600noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post-42391068969591640162014-04-18T17:30:35.315-07:002014-04-18T17:30:35.315-07:00I'm just waiting to see the used RV space ship...I'm just waiting to see the used RV space ship market open up!ken_anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07612961297952294600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-987241699123718287.post-73577429051977370992014-04-18T01:03:24.497-07:002014-04-18T01:03:24.497-07:00Great points.
My guess is they'll have custo...Great points. <br /><br />My guess is they'll have customers for the full-pop 56 mil launches; those that need the full payload capacity, and/or won't accept a "used" rocket. <br /><br />For Falcon Heavy, my guess is this will very much apply; they'll need to go for full capacity (no reuse) on some missions, when the customer needs it. <br /><br />My guess regarding the new/used safety issue; it'll take quite a while to show it, but the "used" may actually prove safer. <br /><br />One huge market for very high mass payloads is NRO. Photorecon birds in Leo use quite a bit of fuel (due to low orbit, but mainly due to needing to change orbit fairly often). We're talking birts at over two billion each with fuel being their main life limiter (about 18 months to 2 years is average) so the idea of a a bird with a lot more fuel would be very appealing. For example, if increasing the fuel load by double gave you 6 more months of operations, that's be a savings (based on the per month lifetime cost) of around half a billion. Is that worth paying for a non reusable FH? Very much so. <br /> C Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09526212511734492238noreply@blogger.com