2 thoughts on “Walmart, But For Space”

  2. Rand I enjoy reading what you right and this article was no exception, however I hope you take what I’m about to say not as criticism, but as a constructive suggestion for a future article.

    I think we’ve been down the avenue of reusable rockets. Going forward I think you might be better served by taking an article such as this and reference a past article on the viability/cost/etc. of reusable rocketry and move on to applications ASSUMING $100/lb to orbit payloads. This will be more of a fire to the imagination than cost per pound figures of old-space derived launchers, which Starship will in all cases smoke. Rather than dwell on the past let’s look forward to more of what is enabled. I like the idea of fuel depots, but expanded upon. Like what would be likely optimal orbits for such, how would they work, how would they be employed, how would existing spacecraft design be altered to accommodate, etc. Also new applications. I like the idea of satellite service sats. These can refuel on-orbit GEO sats for instance, which themselves would have to be re-designed for on-orbit service. Extending their lifetimes to what the electronic limits might be. They could also can tow dead sats into harmless orbits freeing the expensive GEO orbital comm slots. The possibility of retrieval of GEO sats to LEO for capture and return to Earth for refurbishment. Space tourism can be touted more as well with emphasis on possible players in this arena. You did touch on space construction. I really like your description of the tyranny of the fairing. That was well worth expounding upon. Esp. how launching raw material into space for construction in-space helps to mitigate its effects. Thanks for that.

Comments are closed.