XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.space.policy   
   From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article , gossg@gossg.org says...   
   >   
   > Doc O'Leary   wrote:   
   >   
   > >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?  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).  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.  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.   
   >   
   > "Recovering" them?  In Musk's version, they land themselves near the   
   > re-assembly plant.   
      
   News this week of SpaceX proposing new KSC facilities for Block 5   
   boosters.  My guess is they won't be shipping them back to California   
   until they're ready for refurbishment.  If they ever get to that point.   
      
   Jeff   
   --   
   All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.   
   These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,   
   employer, or any organization that I am a member of.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)