How cheap can a space taxi could be?

[DarkenedOne]

I was reading a good article about "space taxis."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns ... nce-space/

The author makes a very good argument for what a economic space taxi would look like. He explains how many of the spacecraft that NASA builds are very advanced and more capable than a simple space taxi. The shuttle for example has the ability to deliver cargo and modules, repair satellites, and etc.

However if a spacecraft was designed solely for the mission of transporting people to and from space stations or space ships it can be made cheaper and reliable than the space shuttle or even the Soyuz. The reason for this potential to reduce costs and increase reliability is due to the much lower requirements. In the article the author talks about how such a spacecraft would only need an endurance of 2 to 3 days. It would not even toilet like he Soyuz.

In any case that is why I believe that a space taxi that is comparable and even undercuts the Russian prices is possible.

 

[sftommy]

Development costs are one thing. amortized along the life of the craft, but launch costs are the challenge.

The Atlas V 551 version (one of our heavier lifters) is $190M per launch (2008 base year cost) and can take about 19,000 pounds into GTO. Delta IV heavy would do even better. Neither has completed the human-launch-certification process.

What is really needed is a more cost effective method of moving against gravity fields, something other than controlled chemical explosions.



Lassie! Run get help, Timmy fell into a gravity well!

 

[DarkenedOne]

Development costs are one thing. amortized along the life of the craft, but launch costs are the challenge.

The Atlas V 551 version (one of our heavier lifters) is $190M per launch (2008 base year cost) and can take about 19,000 pounds into GTO. Delta IV heavy would do even better. Neither has completed the human-launch-certification process.

What is really needed is a more cost effective method of moving against gravity fields, something other than controlled chemical explosions.

Lassie! Run get help, Timmy fell into a gravity well!

Well what I am saying is that with current technology human transport to and from LEO can be even cheaper than what we are currently paying the Russians.

The Shuttle weighs 109 metric tones, which is partly why it is so expensive. The Soyuz weights only 7.2 metric tones, which is why it is so cheap and is able to be launched by a man rated version of a commercial rocket. A space taxi could conceivably be as low as 5 metric tones for 3 people. The Delta II could make that life for less than $50 million. Adding in the cost of the spacecraft and you could get less than 100 million total. For three people that is even better than what we get for the Soyuz and much better than from the Shuttle.

 

[Booban]

Yeah, and imagine if you could re use the entire thing rather than throw it away!

X-37B for space taxi!

 

[DarkenedOne]

Yeah, and imagine if you could re use the entire thing rather than throw it away!

X-37B for space taxi!

Only parts of the spacecraft would be thrown away. The return capsule could be used over and over again.

 

[halman]

DarkenedOne,

Your addressing the central concept of my thread, 'A Cheap And Easy Way To Space.' We could build an orbiter which is designed to carry a dozen people, and nothing else, capable of landing at its launch site, for much less than what the shuttle cost. If we lift that orbiter to 50,000 feet before we light up its engines, those engines don't have to be able to push the orbiter straight up. If we use airborne launching, we can launch in weather that would scrub a shuttle launch, and pick whatever orbital inclination we want.

We most definitely need a vehicle designed to carry more people into space than anything proposed right now, because we are not going to get anywhere sending up only 3 or 4 people at a time. But we don't need a vehicle that can keep those people alive on orbit for weeks at a time, nor do we need a vehicle which can double as a space station. And building a vehicle which we can launch from the back of an aircraft will substantially reduce the costs of launching, because we are not dealing with the problems of going straight up.

See 'A Cheap And Easy Way To Space'.

 

[Booban]

Yeah, and imagine if you could re use the entire thing rather than throw it away!

X-37B for space taxi!

Only parts of the spacecraft would be thrown away. The return capsule could be used over and over again.

I did not know that. So is that the Russian capsules reusable? Was Orion meant to be reusable?