Launch costs from $10,000 per pound down to $1,000 per pound.

[rickm99]

I am really encouraged by the responses I got from my last posting so now I want to take the conversation to the next level.<br /><br />If industry and/or gov't were able to lower launch costs for heavy lift payloads from an average of $10,000 per pound down to $1,000 per pound, what would space look like in 10 years? What would earth look like? How would our lives change?

 

[spacester]

Great question. BTW, what previous posting are you referring to? I think I missed it.<br /><br />I've played with some numbers before, and IMO $1000 per pound is not quite low enough to break loose the floodgates of space development. Now, if it gets down to $500 per pound, the answer IMO is all kinds of stuff.<br /><br />Ten years after $500 per pound for cargo, there would be several space hotels, a tourist facility on the moon, man on Mars and solar system probes all over the place. The limiting factor will be the cost of human access to and from space.<br /><br />How would our lives change? Well, in my case I would be strutting all over the place saying "I told you so" over and over again. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <br /><br />Seriously, in that time span the most significant change would be a sense of optimism and hope for the future, which would be no small thing. A close second would be lots and lots of new jobs in the growth industry of space development.<br /><br />I hope you get a lot of good responses to this; I'll wait before adding to this quickie answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[summoner]

I think It's make a huge difference. Let's throw some numbers out. If you could launch at 1k per pound, then you could put up 2 people (1 couple) for about 500k( figuring around 350lbs for a man and a woman, and 150 lbs for supplies for a 1 week stay). Charge 1 million for a 1 week stay at a small orbital hotel that fits 10 couples. There's thousands of millionaires in the US alone and already there are many people waiting to fly for 20 mill. a pop. If you could make 500k profit roughly per couple for 10 couples for 1 year, that'd be nearly 2.5 billion dollars minus the expenses for crews etc. After a year or so ecomomy of scale would allow you to lower the cost to say 750k per couple for 1 week, which would allow another large group of the population to participate. I know this is a bit simplistic, but I think it would work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[mikejz]

To be honest, I am not sure that it would have a big impact in the short term. After all, payloads often cost ten times+ what the rocket that gets them into space costs. For example, most commercial geo satellites cost in the order of $250 million and are launched on boosters that cost on the order of $35 million. Another example Is Cassini which cost a total of $3.3 billion of which only about $100 million was the cost of the Titan rocket that got it there. <br /><br />For lower cost launches to have an effect on what is launched into space, a change will have to change in how missions are built. In other words, lower launch costs are nice, but if your spending $250 million on a bird, what impact will the launch costs have on overall profitability—not all that much. The big thing is if what microsats are pioneering (non-space rated hardware, rapid design, etc) can be scaled up to take advantage of these launch costs. For example, if launch costs go down enough, flying standard electronics with lots of shielding could be cheaper then a normal rad-hardened systems. <br /><br />The interesting part is of course space tourism, but that still is up in the air. <br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"For example, most commercial geo satellites cost in the order of $250 million and are launched on boosters that cost on the order of $35 million."</font><br /><br />I think you're underpricing the booster for a GEO launch considerably. I can't say for positive -- never been in the market for a booster myself. However -- as you mention later in the post -- cheaper boosters will likely lead to cheaper satellites. Right now -- if a company is going to pay 35-65 million to launch a satellite -- they overengineer <b>everything</b> to have the best chance that it will work once up there. A bird blowing up on the way to orbit will be insured. A satellite that stops working three months into its five-year lifetime (or never starts working at all) probably isn't. Also there's a whole lot of explaining to be done to the shareholders. 'Rocket go *boom*' they can understand and forgive. 'Satellite no worky' is another matter.<br /><br />If launch costs drop significantly -- then satellite construction costs should also drop significantly. There will be a lot more mini and micro satellites launched, and larger satellites will become more modular.<br />

 

[soccerguy789]

Thats a great question. Save a space elevator, the only way i can see to pull of -$500 would be a horizontal take off and landing space plane, probably ramjet. but once we hit that point, He3 mining could really start to hit big on the moon, but without the drop to at least $1000, you can't do it privately, Ive done the math, without the drop (and some kind of vehicle like a reusable SEP vehicle) it would take almost 100 years to pay off the Launch Costs Alone! but things like he3 would help with energy costs. If we had a space elevator, we could put up solar power satalites and pump the power down the cable, but otherwise, you loose too much power beaming it down to make it worth your time. I can see people liveing in concrete domes on the lunar surface to support minning operations. with the drop andthe SEP, you could get to the moon with your belongongs for about $200,000. that would be possible! then, with the doubtlessly high wages on the moon because of the doubtless labor shortage, you could save up and bring your family afterward (just like america in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. this would just set off a chain reaction, pulling thousands of people to lunar, martian and maybe even asteroid mining colonies.

 

[soopahman]

I just finished watching a Discovery Channel piece on Space Balloons and wondered if a hybrid approach to launching hardware would get costs very low.<br /><br />NASA said the balloons go up to 120,000mi carrying up to 8,000lbs. Most of the launch claims for large spacecraft hit about 55,000lbs, so just 8 balloons would exceed one launch's capabilities, yet surely cost almost nothing compared.<br /><br />The point being what if there were a hybrid approach to launch? First, send the weight up via balloons, then send a light spacecraft up that just carries the required manpower to do whatever manipulation needs to be done to the items in space.<br /><br />If no human interaction is required, it would be interesting if what's sent up on the balloons had the capability of positioning itself in space after the balloon has served its purpose.<br /><br />What would be the cost per pound then? $300? Less?

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If launch costs drop significantly -- then satellite construction costs should also drop significantly."<br /><br />Not related. Launch costs are a small factor of the mission cost. satellites are "overengineered" so they last long

 

[billslugg]

soopaman<br />Welcome to SDC! I believe the Discovery Channel may have said that balloons can go to 120,000 feet - not miles. Space starts at about 300,000 feet. Elevating the payload above the atmosphere is but a small part of the energy requirement to go to orbit. The rest is needed to get it up to the 17,500 mph needed to keep it there.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacester]

http://www.jpaerospace.com/<br /><br />Link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>satellites are "overengineered" so they last long<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, and they have to last long because launching an upgrade or replacement would cost too much .. because launching satellites is expensive .. kind of a vicious circle.<br /><br />Anyway, if anyone was really offering $1000/lb launches for a few pound payloads to LEO, i might try put together a toy nanosatellite myself and launch it, just for kicks.