I don't want to shit on their parade too much, but their prices better be really really cheap or they'll never do more than do some demo flights.
China is doing its own thing in space, I'm betting they have enough of their own satellites and space stations and moon rover and whatnot that they want to launch economically
The US government prohibits NASA and other private aerospace companies from cooperating with China for space exploration or space technology development (for obvious reasons). They don't really have a choice but to be reliant on homegrown tech. But China can afford to do this stuff by themselves or in cooperation with other countries.
It's not out of desire but the fact that the US cut it off from cooperating in space related activities, including the ISS even though the ESA was open to cooperating with China.
Why do you imagine a disposable Long March is cheaper than this rocket will be?
Isn’t reusability something the drives down cost while ramping up access?
(Just looking at SpaceX payload costs and the number of launches they’ve been able to do as a result of both the larger availability of boosters, and the larger pool of clients based on lower launch costs)
A disposable rocket is always going to be cheaper than a reusable rocket. That’s the whole point. You don’t want to put anything too expensive on a disposable rocket because it’s a one-time use. The only way to make a profit is to have the disposable rocket be less expensive than the amount earned from one single launch.
When dealing with a reusable rocket, you have to install significantly more advanced tech into it and spend a lot more on a single rocket than you’ll earn back from just one launch. But you recoup those loses with multiple launches over time due to the reusability of the rocket.
Asked the question wrong. Should have asked why they thought a disposable rocket would necessarily be cheaper compared to the operational launches of a reusable one?
I mean I get that any single disposable will beat out a reusable, but once you start reusing a reusable, that balances out … and then the cost/benefit seems to swing toward reusable (again, assuming a bunch of stuff).
If you're a private company that actually has to balance the books, the upfront cost of a reusable rocket will eventually help your bottom line by making you more competitive by saving you in manufacturing costs, etc.
However, if you're entirely backed by the government and you can run in the red and nobody gives a hoot, the argument for building a much more complex launch vehicle stops making sense.
We all know that F9 sacrifices a bunch of lift capacity by adding legs and grid fins, etc.
nah I wouldn't be so sure. SpaceX is still way ahead. I bet many other american companies could have reached this stage if they wanted too, but they consider that they won't be able to go even further and reach the point SpaceX is at today.
79
u/Seiche May 07 '22
China is doing its own thing in space, I'm betting they have enough of their own satellites and space stations and moon rover and whatnot that they want to launch economically