Kistler resurrected (again)

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"If making the SS reusable requires that it be 5,000 pounds heavier than an equivalent expendable SS, then there is a net loss in profitability on the flight. If the 5,000 pounds is payload, then the customer would be paying to put that mass in orbit."</font><br /><br />You are talking some sort of cost analysis here, aren't you? What's the point in comparing two different payloads? You say 10000 lb RLV operates at a loss because if it were expendable additional 5000 lb would have been lifted. Fine, show me your 15000 lb expendable and I'll pitch RLV of same capacity at it. You say again 'yes but if bigger payload could have been lifted...' and this keeps going until we end up with infinite payload. We have to choose a market segment thus setting limit for payload until meaningful comparison can be made.<br /><br />I did some very rough calculations, I'm not a professional bean counter so they might be full of holes but here goes nothing:<br /><br />Basic parameters:<br /><br />Both crafts with 12000lb payload at 1300$/lb (Falcon V performance to ISS orbit)<br /><br />Expendable:<br /><br />Vehicle: 5000000$<br />Fuel: 75000$<br /><br />(both just guestimates)<br /><br />Reusable: (and tried to be really harsch here!)<br /><br />Vehicle: 50000000$<br />Recover&Refurb: 2000000$<br />Fuel: 150000$<br /><br />I chose very modest lifetime of 25 flights, evenly amortized it makes 2000000$ vehicle cost per flight.<br /><br />Crunching these numbers says that expendable nets 10525000$ per flight, RLV 11450000$. <br /><br />I'm sure you will quickly point out that RLV needed ten times more capital, so I borrow it and pay interest. Some loanshark gives me the money asking 20% interest (This rate is another guesstime). I fly once a month and pay back the loan at same rate, 2000000$ plus interest. This way first RLV flight nets 10616666,67$ and last $11416666,67$, still beating the ELV.<br /><br />I was very generous towards the expendable, I see no real reason why reus

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"What's the point in comparing two different payloads?"</font><br /><br />Launch services are essentially a commodity market. That means that there are few factors to differentiate one supplier of launch services from another. There are *some* factors -- percentage of successfull launches is one such, and nationality is another, but neither is applicable here. In short -- what that boils down to is that price is the only differentiating factor. 'Price' in terms of launch services is defined in terms of dollars per pound to a given orbit (or Euros per kilo or whatever terms you prefer). What this means in terms of the reusable vs. expendable second stage is that every single pound added to the second stage to make it reusable *also* raises the relative cost of the launcher as a whole. Every pound added to the second stage reduces the potential payload to orbit by a pound. This is the point of comparing different payload sizes -- it's the comparison between what the lanuch system *could* have placed into orbit with a lighter expendable second stage vs. what it can place into orbit with a heavier reusable one.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"You say 10000 lb RLV operates at a loss..."</font><br /><br />No -- I didn't. 'Operating at a loss' is a specific phrase that means that it is more expensive to run than it returns in revenue. What I said in my post was <i>"...there is a net loss in profitability..."</i>. As I once again tried to explain in the above paragraph -- what I am saying is that the 're-usable-specific' mass eats into potential payload mass. Payload mass is where the revenue for the launch firm comes from. As payload mass is reduced, the company gets less money for a given launch. If this still doesn't make sense to you -- I'm done. It's simply not that important to me that you understand basic economics.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I did some very rough calculations, I'm not a professional be</font>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Payload mass is where the revenue for the launch firm comes from. As payload mass is reduced, the company gets less money for a given launch. If this still doesn't make sense to you -- I'm done."</font><br /><br />I do understand that if you price the 'reusability-mass' that way you end up with horrendous negative figure. What has been missing is the price of the imaginary expendable stage that could put the bigger mass to orbit. What is this imaginary cost saved by stage not being expendable, net income of profitability?<br /><br />IMHO viewing the reusability-mass as a cause for net loss in profitability is misleading. One makes technical choices, design a spacecraft with certain limits to payload mass and competes in that range. So, somebody failed to loose the heat shield and parachute, vehicle can't lift more weight, tough. ELV designer didn't design 50% bigger fueltank and engines. He could have! Is his technical choice now generating net loss of profit?<br /><br />Now, gotta try to plug those holes with something...<br /><br />#1: OK, 5M$ might be too much but IMO the ratio of reusable/oneshot prices at 10 is more than plenty. Former is basicly the latter with parachute, maybe airbags, TPS and some small thrusters to orient and deorbit. This is mostly COTS stuff.<br /><br />#2: Comparing Kistler to SpaceX...so unfear < Yes, there is no other RLV company to speak of but still. In this case I allow myself to use a bit rose-tinted glasses through which I can see CosmosZ, a fresh RLV-startup with SpaceX-like agility, talent and intelligence to stay away from contracting the big and porky aerospace companies. I get dejavú that this has been discussed before, Kistler's downfalls, they operated too much like NASA and got leeched the same way.<br /><br />#3: Nooooooooo.... Oh well, such is life. Risks have to be factored into calculations. One might consider insuring the RLV.<br /><br />You call $50M wildly optimistic sum to 'reusabilize' ot

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"What is this imaginary cost saved by stage not being expendable, net income of profitability? "</font><br /><br />I don't know if you refuse to see or cannot see. At any rate, I'm not going to attempt another accounting lesson.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"#1: OK, 5M$ might be too much..."</font><br /><br />Rerun the figures from your previous post using a 1M expendable SS.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"In this case I allow myself to use a bit rose-tinted glasses through which I can see CosmosZ, a fresh RLV-startup with SpaceX-like agility..."</font><br /><br />Cool -- instead of using two contemporary companies/craft, we get to use completely unsubstantiated information? OK -- I'll stick with SpaceX for my hypotheses. Through my RT glasses, they work out a process in a few years to manufacture the second stage of Falcon-V for $300K. They also apply the same composite technology they're currently using for their interstage to it and eke out another 1,000 pounds of payload capacity. Elon wipes CosmosZ out with ease because they can't even refurbish their reusable second stage for the price SpaceX builds expendable ones.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"You call $50M wildly optimistic sum to 'reusabilize' otherwise $1M stage..."</font><br /><br />Hmmm -- is a Wedgewood china plate more than 50 times as expensive as a paper plate? Yes -- actually it is. This is the type of difference you're talking about between a one-shot expendable and a reusable craft that must withstand the heat and stress of re-entry, the shock of landing at several G's, engines which must be reusable for dozens of launches, etc.<br /><br />Again -- I have **no problem** with a first stage reusable. They make a lot of sense for several reasons:<br /><br />-- As they never enter orbit:<br /> 1. There's no need to have excess fuel for a controlled reentry.<br /> 2. They can be dropped at a controlled location on engine burnout.<</safety_wrapper>

 

[tap_sa]

OK I'm done here, baffled by the infinite looping if-it-could-lift-more accounting.<br /><br />10 maximumPayload = 10000 lbs<br />20 <b>if</b> RLVPrice(maximumPayload) < ELVPrice(maximumPayload) <b>then print</b> "RLV is cheaper than ELV if maximumPayload is " + maximumPayload <br />30 <b>print</b> "Yes, but if that RLV would be ELV it could lift 1.5 times more"<br />40 <b>print</b> "Assuming there is market for 1.5 times bigger payloads then why not design RLV too that can lift that much"<br />50 maximumPayload = maximumPayload * 1.5<br />60 <b>goto</b> 20

 

[nacnud]

argh you used a goto<br /><br />*runs away *

 

[mikejz]

Yeap the 2nd stage is reusable. Its just that so it the 1st. I am saying that if they put the money into the reusable 2nd stage--even if they don't have the cash to finish the 1st stage they will still have something that can be used on other boosters that is unique.