Randall said: >Ian said >> Randall said: >>>The tricks are to keep the development cost down >> >>If you're worrying about that too much, you're not >>launching enough.
The point is that a market that has enough demand for you to "launch enough" doesn't exist yet, and won't just spring like Athena out of the head of whatever RLV manages to be the first to appear on the stage. It will take time to develop, and if you don't keep development costs down very low for your 1st generation commercial RLV, then you'll likely end up going belly-up from cashflow issues. As I see it, the first RLVs or ultra low cost commercial ELVs will have to be profitable at current flight rates. Down the road once the news has been spread that you have a low cost and responsive access to space, the market will grow to the point that higher development costs will be justified. But anyone who needs dozens of flights a year to make their business plan connect must have been enjoying a little recreation herbage with those guys up in Eugene I saw this weekend. It just isn't going to happen immediately. > If you're worrying about it much at all, you're > not launching yet anyway. You're still in > development. Which is where pretty much all of us are (if that far). > And that will continue to be true given any > forseeable market. Remember market elasticity: > three years ago Henry Vanderbilt pointed > out that even if launch costs dropped by half, > the launch rate wouldn't go up. While I agree with that, and that was my point, I will have to point out a few caveats. First off, that is for *current markets* with *current customers*. IOW, the big satellite builders aren't likely to build more satellites just because launch prices dropped, because launch is usually a small chunk of their costs. However, this doesn't provent new and innovative companies that take advantage of newer design paradigms and techniques to leverage off of the lower costs to make a truly more competative system. This also doesn't take into account any vertical market integration. That said though, it's probably pretty darned likely that he's right. >> Both are very much improved by increased launch >> rate. > Ah... If your amortized development costs are > significantly higher than your incremental > operations costs, *and your operations are > profitable*, this is true. Neither of which are 100% obviously true. OTOH hand, some incremental costs start getting some efficiencies of scale at higher flight rates. OTOOH, some get worse at higher flight rates. So, while higher flight rates is likely neccessary, it isn't obvious if it is sufficient. > But more to the point, no RLV company could afford > 1000 test flights unless someone was paying them > to do them. Exactly. Which is why it may be better off getting that experience *as you operate* then going back later to get youre EC and MPL reassessed, and your RLV relicensed under better terms. ~Jon _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
