"Flight proven" is the new "Certified Pre-Owned"

It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/spa...ets-2016-08-30

Doesn't get into terms though.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You don't
see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into unproven
aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for however long it
takes to work out the inevitable kinks before delivering them to customers.

Very soon, "flight proven" rockets will be seen as less risky (and
therefore more valuable) than straight-from-the-factory hardware.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You
don't see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into
unproven aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for
however long it takes to work out the inevitable kinks before
delivering them to customers.

I wonder just how much testing that happens to be at this point. I
suppose it depends on the maturity of the aircraft design.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-round...to-the-clients

seems to get into the matter, though there may be some conflating of
testing there between pre-delivery and initial test aircraft testing.
My take from all that though is that the plane will fly once in the
hands of Boeing, and then presumably once in the hands of the customer
- whether the customer's test flight is simply the flight from the
factory to the customer's base isn't really discussed though.

In the case of the pre-delivery flights of an aircraft, I suppose that
is a good chunk of a "real" flight, but I rather doubt each new
787/whatnot does a full-endurance flight before delivery. So it is a
lot like a pre-flown stage, but not completely - at least to my peanut
gallery point of view.

rick jones
--
It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

On 31/08/2016 7:49 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You
don't see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into
unproven aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for
however long it takes to work out the inevitable kinks before
delivering them to customers.

I wonder just how much testing that happens to be at this point. I
suppose it depends on the maturity of the aircraft design.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-round...to-the-clients

seems to get into the matter, though there may be some conflating of
testing there between pre-delivery and initial test aircraft testing.
My take from all that though is that the plane will fly once in the
hands of Boeing, and then presumably once in the hands of the customer
- whether the customer's test flight is simply the flight from the
factory to the customer's base isn't really discussed though.

In the case of the pre-delivery flights of an aircraft, I suppose that
is a good chunk of a "real" flight, but I rather doubt each new
787/whatnot does a full-endurance flight before delivery. So it is a
lot like a pre-flown stage, but not completely - at least to my peanut
gallery point of view.

rick jones


They won't explore the full envelope, but they'll test all the systems,
and the mere fact that it gets into the air proves that there are no
systems gotchas that will prevent it from flying, which is more than can
be said for a newly built rocket sitting on the launch pad.

That said, you don't expect anything in an aircraft to break on the
second flight, whereas a rocket launch is quite a violent affair, and
things may just survive just long enough to be about to break on the
second launch.

So, dunno. We'll see how it works out in practice.

Sylvia.

In article , ess
says...


They won't explore the full envelope, but they'll test all the systems,
and the mere fact that it gets into the air proves that there are no
systems gotchas that will prevent it from flying, which is more than can
be said for a newly built rocket sitting on the launch pad.

That said, you don't expect anything in an aircraft to break on the
second flight, whereas a rocket launch is quite a violent affair, and
things may just survive just long enough to be about to break on the
second launch.

The "violence" of a launch is largely a myth for liquid fueled launch
vehicles. Space shuttle launches *were* violent due to the large
segmented SRBs, but the flight smoothed out *considerably* once the SRBs
burned out and were dropped. SLS will no doubt be similar to the space
shuttle in this respect. But all liquid fueled launch vehicles are not
very "violent" at all.

The fact that the largely aluminum and composite Falcon 9 first stage
can survive reentry and landing intact is proof of this. This has been
demonstrated multiple times already.

So, dunno. We'll see how it works out in practice.

Yes, we will, if only to partly dispel the myth that spaceflight is so
*hard* and *expensive* that it requires hundreds of millions of dollars
of expendable hardware for every flight. This is a myth which stemmed
from the first launch vehicles being designed by the same people who
designed ICBMs (which never needed to be reused).

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.

Jeff Findley wrote:
The "violence" of a launch is largely a myth for liquid fueled
launch vehicles.

Myth or "history"? eg pogo/whatnot.

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:48:39 AM UTC+12, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You don't
see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into unproven
aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for however long it
takes to work out the inevitable kinks before delivering them to customers.

Very soon, "flight proven" rockets will be seen as less risky (and
therefore more valuable) than straight-from-the-factory hardware.

This is absolutely correct, and given the margins involved in the present market, will totally transform the fortunes of SpaceX.

Expendable

$61 million

$55 million - construction
$ 5 million - gross margin
$ 1 million - propellant & launch costs


Flight Proven (150 uses)

$62 million

$60 million - gross margin
$ 2 million - maintenance, propellant and launch cost

They can expand their fleet by a rocket with each rocket they sell. In six months they can have a fleet of eight rockets, two at each launch center, and fly one rocket a day if need be.

Ideally they can then take their profit and acquire a satellite builder down on their luck, in part for 'free' launches, which basically cover the out of pocket costs and transfer large chunks of ownership in the satellite provider to SpaceX;

http://spacenews.com/permira-puts-fl...s-up-for-sale/

SpaceX then announces a plan to ring the world with wireless hotspots in space, and


http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-...nd-satellites/

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/El...ernet_999.html

The internet communication satellites are expected to be in the smallsat-class 500 kg (1,100 lb)-mass. 108 of them are launched per Falcon Heavy launch. 40 launches over 20 weeks put up 4,320 - with 320 spares in 40 orbital planes. All orbiting at an altitude in sun synchronous polar orbits of 1,100 kilometers (680 mi). The 4000 satellites cross-linked via open optical broadband. The number of satellites planned is more than twice the number of operational satellites today.

The satellites would be mass-produced, at much lower cost per unit of capability than existing satellites. Musk said "We’re going to try and do for satellites what we’ve done for rockets."

"In order to revolutionize space, we have to address both satellites and rockets."

"Smaller satellites are crucial to lowering the cost of space-based Internet and communications."

In February 2015, SpaceX asked the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to consider future innovative uses of the Ka-band spectrum before the FCC commits to 5G communications regulations that would create barriers to entry, since SpaceX is a new entrant to the satellite communications market..

The SpaceX non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) communications satellite constellation will operate in the high frequency bands above 24 GHz, "where steerable earth station transmit antennas would have a wider geographic impact and significantly lower satellite altitudes magnify the impact of aggregate interference from terrestrial transmissions."

The system will not compete with Iridium satellite constellation, which is designed to link directly to handsets. Instead, it will be linked to flat user terminals the size of a pizza box, which will have phased array antennas and track the satellites. The terminals can be mounted anywhere, as long as they can see the sky.

In July 2015, Musk said that the constellation is still in the early planning stages and that SpaceX is being careful not to overextend the company with the project. SpaceX hopes to launch a test satellite in 2016.

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-conten...satellites.jpg

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-global-telecommunications-study-navigating-the-road-to-2020/$FILE/ey-global-telecommunications-study-navigating-the-road-to-2020.pdf

http://www.internetworldstats.com/te...unications.htm

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...005-by-region/

The potential market is $1.28 trillion per year! This is quite a revenue. If SpaceX can deliver a satellite of comparable quality at 1/20th the cost of a Hughes 702 SP, that means they will reduce the price from $85 million per satellite to $17 million per satellite. 4,000 satellites at a total cost of $68 billion!

Alibaba Holdings Group (NYSE:BABA), a diversified online ecommerce company based in China, went public on September 18, 2014 at a whopping $21.8 billion. Four days later, underwriters exercised an option to sell more shares, bringing the total IPO to $25 billion. Although technology companies traditionally list on NASDAQ, Alibaba chose the New York Stock Exchange for its debut and used underwriting primarily from Credit Suisse.

NTT DoCoMo (NYSECM), a Tokyo‑based telecommunications player, went to the public market on October 22, 1998, raising $18.099 billion. Underwritten by Goldman Sachs Asia, this IPO launched NTT to the third largest market cap for a Japanese company.

Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) was one of the most-hyped IPOs in history. It listed on May 1, 2012 and raised $16.007 billion. This social media technology company's launch was riddled with trading issues and questionable information-sharing accusations. Nevertheless, it still became the largest technology IPO in U.S. history.

Nippon Tel (NYSE:NTT) is a Tokyo-based telecommunication provider. This is the oldest IPO on this list. The company raised $15.301 billion on February 9, 1987.

Asian players dominate this IPO market. They are also telecom based and internet services based. So, with the right partners, and the right preparation, I believe a $68 billion underwriting could take place for a big chunk of a $1.28 trillion market!

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/abo...n-intermediate

SpaceX will generate in three years an annual revenue that is 20x larger than what the world spends on space exploration. At the same time it will cost costs to 1/20th the historical cost. It will then use the increased revenue, with the lowered cost to increase the AMOUNT OF SPACE BUSINESS BY FOUR HUNDRED TIMES!

They will start with;

(1) Power satellites beaming laser energy from space,
(2) Mining satellites mining and purifying rare materials on earth crosssing asteroids in space,
(3) Vastly expanded space tourism to the moon,
(4) Settlement and development of Mars,
(5) Settlement and development of the dwarf planets in the asteroid belt,
(6) Construction of large space colonies in the asteroid belt,
(7) Reduction of terrestrial population through emmigration to Mars and the Asteroids,

This will likely include the acquisition and restructuring of major aerospace firms in light of these new capabilities.

William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:48:39 AM UTC+12, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You don't
see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into unproven
aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for however long it
takes to work out the inevitable kinks before delivering them to customers.

Very soon, "flight proven" rockets will be seen as less risky (and
therefore more valuable) than straight-from-the-factory hardware.


This is absolutely correct, and given the margins involved in the present market, will totally transform the fortunes of SpaceX.

Expendable

$61 million

$55 million - construction
$ 5 million - gross margin
$ 1 million - propellant & launch costs


Your numbers are bull****, but that's no surprise. Your numbers are
usually bull****.

For a Falcon 9 launch, total cost to customer is $62 million. SpaceX
gross margin on that launch (used to cover fixed costs and net profit)
is 40% or around $24 million. The remainder is the cost of the
rocket, fuel, and the launch campaign (vehicle processing and
stacking, launch support, etc). Launch pad operational costs are
around $10 million per year. OTA studies indicate that launch and
mission operations can be as much as 45% of the total costs of a
launch. I assume SpaceX does better and it's down around 10% or so,
so call processing, launch, fuel (at $200k-$300k) at around $4 million
or so. That leaves vehicle cost around $34 million. That puts first
stage cost around $25 million.


Flight Proven (150 uses)


This number is an order of magnitude too high. Musk has said "dozens"
(not 'hundreds'), their 3 sigma estimate is "at least 10", and when
you figure that you're not going to get all of them back (a 75%
recovery rate would be good), estimating somewhere between 15 and 24
reuses on average per core is probably close. Last professional
estimate I saw done used 15.

But that's all stuff done by engineers and cost accountants, not
hucksters.


$62 million


You're going to charge a million dollars MORE for a used rocket? I
know what my reaction as a customer would be to that. "Thanks, but
I'll keep my million dollars and take a brand new rocket."


$60 million - gross margin
$ 2 million - maintenance, propellant and launch cost


This is pure bull**** AND hucksterism. You can't stack, fuel, and
launch for $2 million and that doesn't covered the cost of fixed
assets like the pad. You don't get the whole vehicle back; they're
only doing the first stages right now, so you still have to buy a new
first stage every time. And the goal isn't to gouge prices, huckster,
but to cut costs so that the market expands and you get a bigger chunk
of it. Let's look at what actually gets saved here.

New first stage costs around $25 million. So that's around what you
save. If you assume a couple dozen reuses that gets you down to
around $40 million or so per launch if you keep the same $24 million
or so as gross margin.

And now the huckster is going to hand us the magic pixie dust.



They can expand their fleet by a rocket with each rocket they sell. In six months they can have a fleet of eight rockets, two at each launch center, and fly one rocket a day if need be.


And presumably the used stages just magically teleport back from the
landing barge to be instantaneously fueled and fully stacked on the
launch pad, because that's the only way you're going to get a launch a
day out of 8 rockets.


Ideally they can then take their profit and acquire a satellite builder down on their luck, in part for 'free' launches, which basically cover the out of pocket costs and transfer large chunks of ownership in the satellite provider to SpaceX;


Why the **** would they do something like that? Pure hucksterism.


SpaceX then announces a plan to ring the world with wireless hotspots in space, and


http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-...nd-satellites/

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/El...ernet_999.html


I'll just note that they skipped your whole step of "acquiring a
satellite builder down on their luck".

MookHucksterism Munched


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:27:24 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:48:39 AM UTC+12, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You don't
see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into unproven
aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for however long it
takes to work out the inevitable kinks before delivering them to customers.

Very soon, "flight proven" rockets will be seen as less risky (and
therefore more valuable) than straight-from-the-factory hardware.


This is absolutely correct, and given the margins involved in the present market, will totally transform the fortunes of SpaceX.

Expendable

$61 million

$55 million - construction
$ 5 million - gross margin
$ 1 million - propellant & launch costs


Your numbers are bull****, but that's no surprise. Your numbers are
usually bull****.

Your analysis (such as it is) is faulty. Your 'analysis' is ALWAYS faulty.

For a Falcon 9 launch, total cost to customer is $62 million. SpaceX
gross margin on that launch (used to cover fixed costs and net profit)
is 40% or around $24 million.

Cite? Have you looked at their financials lately?

The remainder is the cost of the
rocket, fuel, and the launch campaign (vehicle processing and
stacking, launch support, etc).

Segregate out the satellite related costs don't forget. Don't forget the mandatory insurance as well.

Launch pad operational costs are
around $10 million per year.

Right, so what's the launch rate you're presuming? Think about Musk's filing with the FCC regarding 4,000 satellites to be launched very shortly. Sure, they're small satellites, but what's the implied launch rate?

OTA studies indicate that launch and
mission operations can be as much as 45% of the total costs of a
launch.

OTA studies have little to do with the ACTUAL FINANCIAL DATA from SpaceX

I assume

This is the most HONEST part of your commentary. You're putting your ASS before U and ME.. lol.

SpaceX does better and it's down around 10% or so,

Cite? You assumed it right? lol.

so call processing, launch, fuel (at $200k-$300k) at around $4 million

yawn You're confused in addition to making **** up. No wonder you're in such a lather.

or so. That leaves vehicle cost around $34 million. That puts first
stage cost around $25 million.


Flight Proven (150 uses)


This number is an order of magnitude too high.

Cite? Have you spoken with Musk and Tom Mueller where they want to be in say 18 months?

Musk has said "dozens"
(not 'hundreds'), their 3 sigma estimate is "at least 10", and when
you figure that you're not going to get all of them back (a 75%
recovery rate would be good), estimating somewhere between 15 and 24
reuses on average per core is probably close. Last professional
estimate I saw done used 15.

And there is no reason in the goddamned universe for them to say this right? To sort of mislead their competition in the hopes that Boeing and Lockheed won't get together with their congress critters and pull the knives out and kill SpaceX before their throats are cut?

You've never really been in a high stakes competitive environment at the C-level have you?

But that's all stuff done by engineers and cost accountants, not
hucksters.

You're the only one making **** up and assuming **** based on inappropriate sources and selling it as truth.



$62 million


You're going to charge a million dollars MORE for a used rocket?

Yes, after I negotiate with the insurers to charge less for a 'proven' rocket.

I
know what my reaction as a customer would be to that.

So do I. You saved us $5 million on our insurance rate, and are only taking $1 - that's decent of you.

"Thanks, but
I'll keep my million dollars and take a brand new rocket."

Okay, if you want to pay an extra $5 million dollars in insurance premiums go right ahead.

You see, the insurers need to be worked with as well, and if they can see they're going to get a bonanza in their business because Musk increases launch rates 400x - well, they've got Congress critters too - and the fight goes on!

So, you talk down your capacity, to lull your competitors into peace, and strengthen your ties with even bigger buddies than they, who benefit from your growth.


$60 million - gross margin
$ 2 million - maintenance, propellant and launch cost


This is pure bull**** AND hucksterism.

Your comments are sure.

You can't stack, fuel, and
launch for $2 million and that doesn't covered the cost of fixed
assets like the pad.

Depends on launch rate and logistics. and we've already learned how little you know about those.

You don't get the whole vehicle back;

Today. What about in 18 months? Hmm?

they're
only doing the first stages right now,

The operative word is 'right now' -

so you still have to buy a new
first stage every time.

yawn Today - Look if Musk is putting up 4,000 comsats in 2020 - he's going to have to reach a whole new level of performance. The FCC filing was mandatory and let SpaceX plans slip in a highly competitive environment. That's why SpaceX is backing off and reframing the news reports about the network.

And the goal isn't to gouge prices, huckster,

Blowhard.

but to cut costs so that the market expands and you get a bigger chunk
of it.

And avoid the knives of the competitors who have grown fat with high priced scarcity. Look, you say the right words, you don't really understand what that means in the context of a space business that operates outside of cost plus contracts, since you're a beneficiary of that environment. You also haven't a clue of what real competition looks like at this level.

Let's look at what actually gets saved here.

New first stage costs around $25 million. So that's around what you
save. If you assume a couple dozen reuses that gets you down to
around $40 million or so per launch if you keep the same $24 million
or so as gross margin.

And now the huckster is going to hand us the magic pixie dust.

You're the only one who assumes things to be true without any real knowledge and sells it as fact because you're gut says its right. Blowhard.

Boeing and Lockheed through ULA have floated the idea of using the X-37B technology to make a reusable upper stage.

http://qz.com/766697/spacexs-biggest...bital-economy/

Why do you think that is? Hmm.. ?

To draw SpaceX out about their plans for THEIR upper stage! They have no intention of actually building anything unless they have to, and unless they can get the US taxpayer to foot the bill to do a decades long research project on applying shuttle era technology to the idea of using an upper stage.. **** like that.

European Space Agency also floated an idea to reuse engines that fly back to the launch center along with space tugs as well. For much the same reason.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:48:39 AM UTC+12, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:01 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

I noticed that little turn of phrase, and I totally approve. You don't
see Boeing and Airbus loading freight and passengers into unproven
aircraft. Instead, they flight test new aircraft for however long it
takes to work out the inevitable kinks before delivering them to
customers.

Very soon, "flight proven" rockets will be seen as less risky (and
therefore more valuable) than straight-from-the-factory hardware.


This is absolutely correct, and given the margins involved in the present
market, will totally transform the fortunes of SpaceX.

Expendable

$61 million

$55 million - construction
$ 5 million - gross margin
$ 1 million - propellant & launch costs


Your numbers are bull****, but that's no surprise. Your numbers are
usually bull****.

For a Falcon 9 launch, total cost to customer is $62 million. SpaceX
gross margin on that launch (used to cover fixed costs and net profit)
is 40% or around $24 million. The remainder is the cost of the
rocket, fuel, and the launch campaign (vehicle processing and
stacking, launch support, etc). Launch pad operational costs are
around $10 million per year. OTA studies indicate that launch and
mission operations can be as much as 45% of the total costs of a
launch. I assume SpaceX does better and it's down around 10% or so,
so call processing, launch, fuel (at $200k-$300k) at around $4 million
or so. That leaves vehicle cost around $34 million. That puts first
stage cost around $25 million.


Gee, actual details and facts, not just WAG numbers.


Flight Proven (150 uses)


This number is an order of magnitude too high. Musk has said "dozens"
(not 'hundreds'), their 3 sigma estimate is "at least 10", and when
you figure that you're not going to get all of them back (a 75%
recovery rate would be good), estimating somewhere between 15 and 24
reuses on average per core is probably close. Last professional
estimate I saw done used 15.

I'll be really curious how they get to this number? Close analysis or what?
I mean in theory you want to make sure 15 isn't really any more likely to
blow up than 14.
So what makes 16 impossible?
I do agree, 150 I think is a bit. Let's see if we can get 2-3 flights under
our belts first. Hell, no shuttle got close to 100 flights. Granted it had a
lot other issues, but it's really the only vehicle we have ANY experience
with. I think the Falcon 9 is far more robust, but it'll take time for the
actual engineers to gain confidence. So yeah, I'll go with 15 over 150 at
this time.


But that's all stuff done by engineers and cost accountants, not
hucksters.


$62 million


You're going to charge a million dollars MORE for a used rocket? I
know what my reaction as a customer would be to that. "Thanks, but
I'll keep my million dollars and take a brand new rocket."


$60 million - gross margin
$ 2 million - maintenance, propellant and launch cost


This is pure bull**** AND hucksterism. You can't stack, fuel, and
launch for $2 million and that doesn't covered the cost of fixed
assets like the pad. You don't get the whole vehicle back; they're
only doing the first stages right now, so you still have to buy a new
first stage every time. And the goal isn't to gouge prices, huckster,
but to cut costs so that the market expands and you get a bigger chunk
of it. Let's look at what actually gets saved here.


One thing to keep in mind is I suspect is that as they ramp up flights, NASA
(LC-39) and Air Force (LC-40 at CCAFS and LC-4 at VAFB) may decide to start
charging more.

New first stage costs around $25 million. So that's around what you
save. If you assume a couple dozen reuses that gets you down to
around $40 million or so per launch if you keep the same $24 million
or so as gross margin.

And now the huckster is going to hand us the magic pixie dust.



They can expand their fleet by a rocket with each rocket they sell. In
six months they can have a fleet of eight rockets, two at each launch
center, and fly one rocket a day if need be.

And here is where we go from an inaccurate, but ok post to lala land.



And presumably the used stages just magically teleport back from the
landing barge to be instantaneously fueled and fully stacked on the
launch pad, because that's the only way you're going to get a launch a
day out of 8 rockets.


Ideally they can then take their profit and acquire a satellite builder
down on their luck, in part for 'free' launches, which basically cover the
out of pocket costs and transfer large chunks of ownership in the
satellite provider to SpaceX;


Why the **** would they do something like that? Pure hucksterism.


SpaceX then announces a plan to ring the world with wireless hotspots in
space, and


http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-...nd-satellites/

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/El...ernet_999.html


I'll just note that they skipped your whole step of "acquiring a
satellite builder down on their luck".

MookHucksterism Munched



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net