The Business Case for Reusable Launch Vehicles

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Business Case for Reusable Launch Vehicles

Posted by michael on Tuesday September 2, 2003 @10:08AM from the four-thousand-dollars-per-payload-pound dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Remember the failures of "shuttle replacements" like VentureStar? A Space Review article argues that even if VentureStar succeeded technically, it and other proposed big RLVs would never have made it financially: they cost too much to develop and wouldn't have made it up through increased launches. What's the solution? The author says that suborbital RLVs, like what Carmack, Rutan, and the other X Prize contenders are working on, will create a business cycle that will eventually lead to orbital vehicles."

10 of 232 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't see what the problem is: by burgburgburg · 2003-09-02 10:16 · Score: 4, Funny

We already developed the Eagle RLVs for Moonbase Alpha more over 4 years ago. Ask Commander Koenig.
orbital vehicles?! by stardome · 2003-09-02 10:21 · Score: 1, Funny

that sounds really cool! i can't wait for that next quake version =)
uhm, what do you mean that carmack... oh nevermind
Re:There is no incremental development path to orb by inertia187 · 2003-09-02 10:30 · Score: 2, Funny

That ratio of 25 is about equal to the difference between the latent chemical energies of broccoli and gasoline.

I'd be happy with some of that space broccoli.
<homer>Mmmmm, space broccoli...arggahgahggaagha...</homer>

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Re:Business case? by Gherald · 2003-09-02 10:31 · Score: 2, Funny

That big blue marble is my home you insensitive clod!

--
The unofficial /. digest
Re:There is no incremental development path to orb by fenix+down · 2003-09-02 10:35 · Score: 1, Funny

About what I thought.

Just as the Wright Brothers did not go from the Wright Flyer directly to a 747, or even a DC-3, we cannot expect to jump from expendable rockets immediately to large orbital RLVs.

Except suborbital rollercoasters are more like Oriville strapping Wilbur to a kite and tying it to the bumper of their pickup truck. There's no logical economic path from that to even a Wright Flyer.
Waste of time, waste of money. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 10:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Why bother? The average "joe" out there is too busy swilling back another Budweiser to wonder about the awesome phenominum found in space. No... The average "joe" want's to see Jean-Luc gun down the Borg in another episode of Star Trek.
The earth is a penal colony for the stupid, the lazy, the criminal, and the insane. (I fall into all of the above...)
In short, unless you plan on not coming back, don't bother trying to escape.
---
Earth has no survivors. Everyone who has ever been born here, has died here.
Re:To boldy go... by toxic666 · 2003-09-02 10:56 · Score: 2, Funny

where Enos, the orbiting chimp, went in 1961.
We're going about it wrong by confused+one · 2003-09-02 11:05 · Score: 4, Funny

I say we take the aerospace guys and mix them up with the guys who build the nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. Tell them we want a vehicle that's nuclear powered, it has to reliably go to space and back, be self-contained (no boosters, onboard repair facilities, etc.), size / weight are not a factor (more power!!! Mwuahaha), budget is unlimited.
Then sit back and see what kind of aircraft carrier sized behemoth vehicle they come up with...
Re:There is no incremental development path to orb by Laur · 2003-09-02 12:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Whup -- ya caught me! I slipped a decimal place (1kw vs. 10kw)...
Well, we certainly won't be asking you to design any Martian landers! ;)

--
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Re:Business case? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 12:51 · Score: 1, Funny

Do you think if we all chipped in, we could buy Darl McBride a one-way ticket?