Cost of Spacelaunch

[vogelbek]

It seems to me that the best way to fire up the space industry is bring down the cost of spacelaunch to a price that allows businesses and well funded individuals to persue high-risk space ventures.<br /><br />So my question for you:<br />What could you do in space for 100$/kg? 500$/kg? 1000$/kg? <br /><br />I figgure current prices are arround 20,000$/kg for human-rated launch vehicles.

 

[vulture2]

This is the crux of the question regarding the future of human spaceflight. What price would make human spaceflight practical? At the cost of the CEV/CLV, perhaps $50M/seat or more, it is not; even after sixty years ELVs are very expensive. <br /><br />The goal of the Shuttle was to reduce the cost of human spaceflight. It clearly failed to do this. But this doesn't mean reusable spacecraft are impractical, it just means our first-ever reusable spacecraft design wasn't optimal because we chose the design without bothering to get any flight experience with the TPS or SRBs. There were several technology demonstrator projects to develop new technology, but these were scrapped.<br /><br />So the short answer is that the more you invest in technology development, the less you will have to spend on operaions.

 

[nexium]

Arthritus and other ailments make old age misery in a one g gravity field for millions of humans. Wealthy humans could spend their last years in luxurious space hotels, if the cost to orbit was $100 per kilogram, perhaps even at $1000 per kilogram. Neil

 

[annodomini2]

The only problem being with the current launch systems it would be unlikely that they would survive the launch due to the forces experienced and the muscle degradation and radiation exposure wouldn't do them much good either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Commercial space development faces two challenges. One is (obviously) lower costs of getting into space. The second, and much more crucial, is investors having the vision and patience needed to invest in high-risk ventures with very long-term returns.<br /><br />Getting from Earth's surface to LEO will always be a terrestrial problem. But if you're at LEO you're "halfway to anywhere in the solar system". I believe that the first company to provide customers cheap Lunar-based rocket fuel at LEO is going to make serious bank. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

"Arthritus and other ailments make old age misery in a one g gravity field for millions of humans. Wealthy humans could spend their last years in luxurious space hotels, if the cost to orbit was $100 per kilogram, perhaps even at $1000 per kilogram. "<br /><br />'Here's your week's bill. 600 hundred thousand. $312 or the goods and the balance to get them up to you. Oh, by the way, the staff rotated this week for so there will be the usual a 6 million surcharge on your rent at the end of the month. Your daughter called and would like to visit. Would you like the half million added to the bill or pay cash? '<br /><br />

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow"> It seems to me that the best way to fire up the space industry is bring down the cost of spacelaunch to a price that allows businesses and well funded individuals to persue high-risk space ventures. </font><br /><br />I am going to take a different approach in arguing that the <i>failure of the space launch business</i> is not because the high cost of space launch, but due to <i>the failure in justifying the space-based business for investment</i>.<br /><br />Another word, space launch cost is NOT high. There's just no businss for a good return-on-investment (ROI) for space. Money is no object when a business can justify the return of that investment. For example, if someone finds a way to make diamond out of carbon in space (microgravity), two things will happen: <br /><br />1) there will be a surge in the space launch business as well as a commercial space station (space business park), and<br /><br />2) the price of diamond will plunge !! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Likewise, if they find ways to make cancer-curing drugs in space!<br /><br />Detroit car makers put in $5 BILLION dollars for tooling changes every 2 years for each car model just to show some "upgrades". They do so without blinking an eye, that's because they know they will recoupe that money at a higher rate than the cost of borrowing that money.<br /><br />Develop a good space-based business case, then they will come.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am going to take a different approach in arguing that the failure of the space launch business is not because the high cost of space launch, but due to the failure in justifying the space-based business for investment.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think you've nailed it right there, propforce. Companies exist which can afford to build this stuff. The technology is more than ready. But the investors who will foot the bill remain unconvinced, and without them, nothing will happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[ronjie]

You make an interesting point. So here's another.<br /><br />If I wanted a place to invest money, how would I invest in NASA and or the United States Space Program?<br /><br />ronjie

 

[virusxp]

First, I don't think you can invest your money in NASA, like paying for the development of the new CEV, you only most definetely can buy something from them, like hypersonic wind tunnel time or a launch of your stuff into the orbit.<br />Secondly, I would really advise not to invest in NASA, because the results for a given amount of money will be far more humble than if you would have invested the same amount of money in some private venture or poor countries space program (like Russia).<br /><br />What Rutan did with SpaceShipOne for 25-50 million dollars, would have taken NASA about 500 million dollars.

 

[webtaz99]

<font color="yellow">Another word, space launch cost is NOT high. There's just no businss for a good return-on-investment (ROI) for space. Money is no object when a business can justify the return of that investment. For example, if someone finds a way to make diamond out of carbon in space (microgravity), two things will happen:<br /><br />1) there will be a surge in the space launch business as well as a commercial space station (space business park), and<br /><br />2) the price of diamond will plunge !! </font><br /><br />In the early 90's asomeone did find a cheap way to make flawless, perfect artificial diamonds. The DeBeers folks quickly made sure that the artificial ones were sold at prices equal to the natural ones. There was no market flood, no drop in prices. Monopolies exist for a reason.<br /><br />And while actual "launch costs" are low, the accounting view of "launch costs" includes all the effort that went into design and construction of not only the launch vehicle, but all the infrastructure needed to go from design to flying hardware. Then there is the insurance needed, which usually doubles the cost of a launch just by itself.<br /><br />The problem with space investment is that it requires governement-sized amounts of money, poses an extreme risk, and offers almost zero <b>near term</b> returns. Sadly, only a few entrepreneurs have the vision to grasp the scale of the returns that are possible, and so far <b>no</b> investors have made the sacrifice. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"In the early 90's asomeone did find a cheap way to make flawless, perfect artificial diamonds. The DeBeers folks quickly made sure that the artificial ones were sold at prices equal to the natural ones. There was no market flood, no drop in prices. Monopolies exist for a reason. "<br /><br />That's not exactly true, coloured diamonds from Gemesis go for less than a quarter the price of DeBeers diamonds. Until the last year we haven't had the ability to make colourless CVD diamond. Once Apollo ramps up, expect gem diamond prices to hit the floor. <br /><br /> />"What could you do in space for 100$/kg?"<br /><br />With large payload shrouds a Stanford Torus wouldn't be entirely out of the question. We might need to build a _large_ linear accelerator on the lunar surface for the iron, aluminium and silicon bulk materials.

 

[mithridates]

Something like this would be a better place to spend money:<br /><br />http://www.jpaerospace.com/combination_4.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[virusxp]

"We might need to build a _large_ linear accelerator on the lunar surface for the iron, aluminium and silicon bulk materials."<br />Or just a couple of mines on some of the NEAs, of which some are just 60m/s deltaV away. Not to mention, that they have almost non existant gravity, so NEAs might be better suited for bulk material mining.<br />I am only not quite sure about abundance of water on NEAs... maybe only for the sake of water we might need a modest mine on the moon.

 

[mdodson]

John S. Lewis, in "Mining the Sky" http://www.amazon.ca/Mining-Sky-John-S-Lewis/dp/0201328194 shows several NEA's with a smaller round-trip delta V than to and from the surface of the moon. Trip time, and ability to teleoperate aren't as advantageous, though. Carbonaceous chondrites have all sorts of good elements we would be interested in.

 

[vogelbek]

Thanks for the responses everyone. My thought for space business would be a private astronaut corps. Essentially, "you want your satellite fixed, we fix it. You want us to assemble 30 modules that you just launched, we can do that to." I figgure the large-scale mining opperations will need some level of human assembly in earth orbit before deployment to the moon and other locations.<br /><br />Of course, the economics of it all is ultamitely the driving factor in space business - not out of greed, but out of sustainability. Turning a solid profit will keep any opperation afloat because the funding to continue will be there.