--- Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The other option of launching 4x proportionately > reduces the life of the > vehicle. The vehicle cost is one of the biggest > costs of launch, > eclipsed only by R&D; and this scheme quadruples it > per unit payload > (ok. rather less, as there are economies of scale.)
I fail to understand this piece. Launching 4x as often means you launch 4x as much payload per unit time, but at somewhat less than 4x more cost per unit time (due to the economies of scale you mentioned). That seems to equal a net reduction of cost per unit payload, not a quadrupling. Even if everything else was exactly proportional, this would allow recovery of the investment on the rocket and acquisition of any net profit it would generate 4x as quickly - which is more appealing to potential investors even without considering the effect of 4x more time to pay interest on loans, et cetera. > My point is that the TSTO vertical staging scheme > never breaks even > compared to the other schemes; it doesn't seem to > matter how many times > you fly it. A venture doesn't have to break even compared to other schemes, unless the other schemes have already been deployed and are actively competing. (How many SSTO vehicles are on the market right now?) It just has to break even. _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
