"None of the next generation rockets planned are ELVs....(expendable)
Most of the costs of a space system involve the equipments, their integration and verifications.
The equipments are meant for a short life. Extending their lifespan will render them more expensive and less performing.
Re-use means increasing verifications. Only structural components could be envisaged for re-use, but they are a small fraction of a launch cost. For re-use, an important item is the thermal protection and that turned out to be the Shuttle's weakest link.
Recovering, cleaning, checking, refurbishing a launcher is more expensive than building an expendable one by the dozen.
Besides, recovering means wings, wheels, parachutes that all reduce the launcher's performances.
We're still years away from a true RLV...If one will ever exist. "
We, are going to have a RLV, flying passengers next year.
It's called SpaceShipTwo.
Tut. Tut.
Right?
But I believe one of the bigger cost saving of SpaceShipTwo is in terms of lowering launchpad costs. It's launch pad is the sky and an airport.
So, if want know the higher costs of rocket, I suggest you research how much the Russians will pay Europe to launch rockets from the 05 inclination- in just in terms of the marginal costs. In other words you have all the noise of various types of investments, which will allow some certain launch rate per year. How much does Russia need to pay if it wants to add 1 launch per year over there agreed upon launch rate? This will give some clue of what the marginal costs of the launch are.
The cost of the launchpad is related to the number launches per year divided by yearly cost of launch pad- more launches per year, the lower the unit cost of launching.
The true yearly cost of launch pad, depend upon the cost to build the launch facility and the yearly salaries of the people needed to operate the launch facility.
So, if SpaceShipTwo had have it's own airport for it's use exclusively for SpaceShipTwo, it's launch cost would increase- unless it had a very high launch rate. As it is SpaceShipTwo shares the airport with other airplanes [which have a very high "launch rate"].
Space/Science » in reply to Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- Re-usable Launch Vehicles - coming to a space port near you.
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- A very complicated question with no simple answer.
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: The Necessity and Eventuality
- re: Re-usable Launch Vehicles: a wrong "good idea" ?
