Derek Howe
$10,000 per pound is high. Space X is $2,500 per pound, with a goal of under $1,000. That said, I wish them luck. I thought this tech was going to be the Future with NASA's X-33...but then it got cancelled, and I haven't heard a peep on this tech, until now.
nLopez
I think $10,000 per pound or $4,545 per kilogram is not correct... maybe the opposite.
nLopez
And 550 Kg seems too little for the empty rocket, I think the engine cannot be made from composite materials anyway.
Andrew Goetsch
A 53 foot tall 16 combustion chamber rocket that weighs 1200 pounds empty? Good luck with that.
Mihai Pruna
SO Arca started as an XPrize competitor. The XPrize was won by Scaled Composites. Then Arca was working on a hoverboard (because hoverboards were all the rage in 2015 because of BTTF2). The hoverboard sort of worked but definitely not as well as the Flyboard. I doubt they made any sales. And now this venture which is three orders of magnitude bigger than their previous projects? Color me skeptical.
lollo
None of you mentioned the main point: it seems a giant stellar electric shaver
LeroyEssek
The company called Joi Scientific located at NASA's KSC would be a interesting hydrogen on demand technology worth investigating. Even the energetic rich hydrogen gas contained in MagneGas burns 4,000 F hotter than acetylene and hydrogen.
JimFox
NOTHING for 56 years?? Reminiscent of the LFTR experiment at Oak Ridge:- http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/learn/alvin-weinberg/
Jonathan Colvin
$1 million per launch? Since the rocket is not reusable how the heck can they do that? They think they can build one of these for a half million bucks or so?
myale
The pictures shows the nose cone detaching - is this going to add to the space debris or simply fall to earth and burn up hopefully