X) Invitation For Bid ( ) Request For Proposal Vendor Bid Opening: Fill & Download for Free

A rocket a day will bring the high costs awayIn the last 2 decades there was a rise for the Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO), then there are many launch assists that other people mentioned here.Regarding SSTO, I suppose you heard about SkylonA comparison with SpaceXThe problem with Skylon is the SABRE engine, because it's a new technology and it requires a lot of testing. Seems they had some success in the 2012:Following a successful propulsion system test that was audited by ESA's propulsion division in mid-2012, the company announced that it would begin a three-and-a-half-year project to develop and build a test rig of the Sabre engine to prove the engine's performance across its air-breathing and rocket modes.In November 2012, it was announced that a key test of the engine precooler had been successfully completed, and that ESA had verified the precooler's design. The project's development is now allowed to advance to its next phase, which involves the construction and testing of a full-scale prototype engine.October 2015:In October 2015, BAE Systems entered into an agreement with Reaction Engines where it would invest £20.6 million in Reaction Engines to acquire 20% of its share capital and help develop the SABRE engineMaybe the Venture Star is less knownI love its aerospike engineThe VentureStar program was cancelled due to development cost concerns accompanied by technical problems and failures in the X-33 program, a program which was intended as proof-of-concept for some of the critical technologies needed by the VentureStar. [...] Ultimately, the VentureStar program required too many technical advances at too high a cost to be viable.Why do I think that a rocket a day will be the only way, for decades, to reach space?It seems that no matter the technology, an economy of scale is the best solution for costs reduction.Merely launching a large total quantity reduces the manufacturing costs per vehicle, similar to how the mass production of automobiles brought about great increases in affordability.Using this concept, some aerospace analysts believe the way to lower launch costs is the exact opposite of SSTO. Whereas reusable SSTOs would reduce per launch costs by making a reusable high-tech vehicle that launches frequently with low maintenance, the "mass production" approach views the technical advances as a source of the cost problem in the first place. By simply building and launching large quantities of rockets, and hence launching a large volume of payload, costs can be brought down. This approach was attempted in the late 1970s, early 1980s in West Germany with the Democratic Republic of the Congo-based OTRAG rocket.A related idea is to obtain economies of scale from building simple, massive, multi-stage rockets using cheap, off-the-shelf parts. The vehicles would be dumped into the ocean after use. This strategy is known as the "big dumb booster" approach.This is somewhat similar to the approach some previous systems have taken, using simple engine systems with "low-tech" fuels, as the Russian and Chinese space programs still do. These nations' launches are significantly cheaper than their Western counterparts.An alternative to scale is to make the discarded stages practically reusable: this is the goal of the SpaceX reusable launch system development program and its Grasshopper demonstrator.A common objection:There just aren't enough payloads to make the system pay. Other than a few established markets for satellites, there just aren't that many profitable, useful, or interesting things to do in space right now, and we already have too many launchers chasing too few launch customers.As long as launches cost tens or hundreds of millions of US$ each, only governments and the very largest corporations will be able to afford them, and only for the most obvious and essential purposes, such as communication, earth resource, navigation, and reconnaissance satellites. And as long as the number of such payloads is fewer than a hundred per year, who is realistically going to pay to develop a launcher capable of sustained rates many times as great, however cheap it ends up being? You'd just end up with a huge pile of rockets gathering dust waiting for payloads, wouldn't you?Consider the following scenario. The Agency announces a procurement in which bidders are invited to provide launches, one per day, of 2000 kg or more to a standard Low Earth Orbit, mating with a specified payload and shroud interface and to a prescribed set of services on a flat concrete pad. A suitably derated payload is specified for polar orbit. Bids of more than US$1.25 million per successful launch will be returned unread. The winner of the bid will be awarded a fixed-price contract for 1000 launches at the agreed price. The first 100 launches will be considered development flights and will be purchased at the bid price regardless of success or failure; afterward only successful launches will be purchased. The procurement will be re-competed every 1000 launches; if a new vendor wins with a substantially lower cost per launch, they will be granted the same development period for the first 100 flights. The vendor retains all rights to the launcher design and is free to offer it on the open market independent of the Agency.Immediately the launch contract awarded, the Agency announces the availability of daily flights of 2000 kg to LEO or 1500 kg to polar orbit. Commercial enterprises may purchase launches for whatever purpose they wish at a price equal to the Agency's cost per launch plus 25%. Unsold flights are offered on a first-come, first-served basis to researchers, government agencies, and individuals. In the event of excess demand, non-commercial proposals will be selected by a peer review process similar to that used to allocate telescope time at astronomical observatories. All risks of launch failure are borne by the provider of the payload; clients should note historical failure rates and build appropriate spares. Provider of the payload assumes all liability for it once it separates from Agency's rocket. Payloads shall be delivered by truck to the loading dock of the Agency's Rocket Garage. All payloads must be supplied with adequate documentation to verify their content and safety. The payload interface specification handbook is available for US$5 from the Agency's toll-free order line; payload test and integration jigs are available in the Agency's regional centres and many major universities around the world. Plans for building your own are available for US$5.Payloads delivered to the Rocket Garage are inspected to ensure they are not nuclear bombs, sacks of gravel, or otherwise unacceptable. Payloads containing propulsion hardware are reviewed especially closely. Assuming no big no-nos, the payload is bolted to the top of the next free rocket, the requested orbit inclination is dialed into the rocket's guidance system, and it moves down the queue toward the pad. [...]There are sides effect for a strategy like that, as more space junk, more pollution. A mass produced rockets like the ones of SpaceX (Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy) is the best solution in my opinion.Sources:VentureStarSkylon (spacecraft)A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs AwaySingle-stage-to-orbit