Keith,I too would like to see a future where space resources (including energy) become economically practical for making life better on Earth.
We're trying to get there in very different ways.You've been pushing this massive centralized predefined technical solution in recent years. I will not discount its potential to provoke rethinking of fundamentals, but practically speaking it looks to me that the only entity that might ever actually implement your plan would be a government - and governments do NOT have a good track record on implementing vast predefined technical solutions.
My approach since the late eighties has been to push for private commercial pursuit of lower-cost launch solutions, with the goal of dropping costs to the tipping point where reduced launch costs start expanding the overall market fast enough that the market begins to drive further cost reductions, driving further market expansion in a virtuous circle, eventually reaching the point where going to space for physical resources simply makes economic sense.
(The industry-conducted Commercial Space Transportation Study (CSTS) defined this point to be somewhere near $600/lb-to-LEO in mid-90's dollars. I tend to assume that with inflation it's closer to ~$1000/lb these days.)
Our plans are aimed at the same place. The difference is that mine seems to be working.
best regards Henry On 4/2/2014 9:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
For power satellites, it's the cost to GEO that is important, not the cost to LEO. But let's consider what a cost of $1000/kg to GEO would do to the cost of electric power, holding the rest constant. The transport cost would go up to $5000/kW, making total cost come in at $6100/kW. The power would have to be sold at 7.6 cents per kWh to break even. The cost of synthetic oil would be $10/bbl for capital cost and $150/bbl for energy. Gasoline would be around $7 per gallon. If the goal is dollar a gallon gasoline, this won't do it. Sorry. Keith On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:What Henry said. Bill Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2014, at 20:58, Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Marsbeyond, I'd apply several grains of salt there. SpaceX is close to demonstrating intact first-stage recovery - I wouldn't bet against it this next flight, given how well the last couple tests have gone - but intact second-stage recovery is an even tougher problem that they haven't yet made a visible start on. Also, even once they get back intact stages, there's a big question of what kind of shape the stages will be in - how many reliable reflights will be practical, at what cost for handling and inspection and refurbishment. You need to fly your hardware a LOT of times with minimal between-flights hardware processing costs before you can hope to approach the low three figures payload cost per pound. Mind, I've learned to be very careful about betting against SpaceX on their announced goals. (Have they actually said they'll do this?) In any case, chances are Cheops' Law will prevail - the project will take longer and cost more than planned. Me, I'd be very happy if in two years they're close to reusing first stages on an operational basis. Given that first stages are probably the majority of an F9's hardware cost, I'd expect that would give them a good start toward breaking the $1000/lb barrier, from their current apparent costs in the neighborhood of $2000+/lb. $1K/lb to LEO would be revolutionary enough, is my guess. With inflation, that's well below the $600/lb the CSTS back in the nineties said should make cost reductions start expanding the overall launch market fast enough so overall revenue rises despite dropping prices. At that point, further cost reductions pay for themselves and more, and the sky's (no longer) the limit. Henry On 4/2/2014 10:49 AM, marsbeyond@xxxxxxxxx wrote:Kieth, When is Skylon supposed to fly? In less than two years, SpaceX will be using propulsive recovery to re-use the first stage, second stage, and capsule, and their cost to LEO will drop to $100 a pound! Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline$350 million committed so far to the Skylon engines.Keith
