Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/17/97 8:25:20 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:

>On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:16 PM, KellySt@aol.com 
>[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote:
>>
>> Ah, given current (actully a little dated) tech and a large enough 
>market,
>> you can drop 2-3 orders of magnitude off current launch costs.  This
>> would
>> bring launch costs down to the cost of current trans ocean air frieght
>> costs.
>>  Given these have similar energy requrements, this isn't unexpected.
>>
>>
>You are quite right. It is actually more a matter of economics and scale 
>than it is technology. The paper I posted from John Walker goes into this 
>pretty thoroughly.
>
>The commercial space transportation survey conducted several years ago, 
>might disagree with his conclusions somewhat though. Of approximately 70 
>surveys sent to Silicon Valley biotech companies, over 90 percent were not 
>returned at all, the remainder indicated no plans to use space 
>manufacturing at all (despite the obvious benefits of doing so). The 
>authors concluded (somewhat wishfully I think) that it was a public rela  
>tions problem rather than a real lack of need.
>
>NASA has drawn up a plan similar to the one proposed by John Walker. Of 
>course they used a brand new booster, etc. and launch costs per pound are 
>predicted to be $9,000 or more. Let me get this straight - they propose a 
>massive launch program of small cargoes to bring down launch costs, but the 
>best they can do is $9,000 per pound? Naturally, it will never work...
>
>They did a fairly rigorous market analysis though that showed that only 20 
>launches a year should drop the cost to around $300 per pound.
>
>Lee


True I've seen far better numbers out of McDonnel Douglas' internal market
studies.  But then NASA HQ does really beleve their is any potential market
for many launches.

Kelly