XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   "Robert Clark"  wrote on Thu, 7 Jun   
   2018 16:24:06 -0400:   
      
   >Several companies are proposing satellite megaconstellations that would   
   >require hundreds to thousands of communications satellites. This may finally   
   >provide the impetus to produce reusable launchers.   
   >   
   >Proponents of reusable launchers such as SpaceX have argued by producing   
   >them the costs of launch will be reduced which will drive an increase in the   
   >market that will pay for their development. However, the OldSpace companies   
   >have maintained the market for launch is not enough to justify the expense   
   >of developing reusable launchers. But without reusability the price for   
   >launch is too high to generate a large market. So we have a "chicken or the   
   >egg" type problem.   
   >   
      
   A big driver is that the cost of launching tends to drive the cost of   
   what you launch.  If you're going to have to spend $200 million to get   
   your payload on station, you're going to spend a lot of money making   
   your payload large, reliable, and capable so that you're not wasting   
   that money.  That drives the cost of your payload up.   
      
   Cut the cost of launching to 30% of that and suddenly launching   
   cheaper and less capable payloads becomes practical.  The problem is   
   that nobody really knows what the elasticity of demand is for   
   launches.   
      
      
   --   
   "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable   
    man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,   
    all progress depends on the unreasonable man."   
                                         --George Bernard Shaw   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)