[ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 07:09:03 UTC 2015


On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:24 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:56 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] structural scale dependence, was: RE: IQ and beauty
>
>
> >…Until recent years (with the rise of SpaceX, XCOR, and so on), the vast
> majority of these builders were being paid a lot more if they kept things
> expensive, and ultimately failed (after going through a large development
> budget) at any effort that would have resulted in substantial cost
> savings.  It should surprise no one that they did just that.
>
> Did or are doing?
>
Definitely did.  Somewhat are still doing: see the lobbying-result politics
surrounding SLS as opposed to Commercial Crew.

> What is their current cost to GEO?
>
I don't have that on hand - you might have better access to that data than
I - but it's way more than a Falcon 9's $61.2M for 4850 kg to GTO.

> What is their risk?
>
One of their latest incarnations, the United Launch Alliance, claims 100%
safety so far...on less than 100 launches.  But then, they have other
risks, such as losing access to the Russian rockets they currently rely
on.  Sure, they'd continue to have a perfect safety record if they became
unable to fly ever again, but there are multiple types of risk here.

> I heard they were carrying stuff to the Space Station but hadn’t seen cost
> or risk numbers.
>
 They have carried stuff to the ISS.  It is to be seen whether they will be
able to do so again.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151022/16df3d04/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list