XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.space.policy   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   Doc O'Leary   wrote on Fri, 8 Jun   
   2018 13:10:48 -0000 (UTC):   
      
   >For your reference, records indicate that   
   >"Robert Clark"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >What are the actual numbers when it comes to savings from a reusable   
   >rocket?   
   >   
      
   That depends on a lot of things.   
      
   >   
   >It’d also be interesting to know how new technologies might   
   >impact the economics of launching items into space (including just making   
   >disposable launch vehicles much cheaper).   
   >   
      
   Real reuse will always be cheaper.  If you can make disposable launch   
   vehicles much cheaper, the same technologies allow making reusable   
   launch vehicles much cheaper.   
      
   >   
   >Once you start to contemplate   
   >the need for multiple daily launches, even recovering boosters to reuse   
   >them seems like a slow and labor-intensive process.   
   >   
      
   But orders of magnitude faster than throwing them away and building a   
   new one.   
      
   >   
   >On the path to a   
   >space elevator, it seems like there should be many more ways to reach   
   >escape velocity that do a better job than what Musk is doing today.   
   >   
      
   You've discovered a good supply of unobtainium, have you?  Otherwise,   
   rockets are your man for getting stuff to orbit for the foreseeable   
   future.   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)