keithl@vice.UUCP (Keith Lofstrom) (10/23/83)
This is a followup to a discussion in net.sf-lovers. I figure it belongs
here.
In support of Tom Craver, who claimed that a reasonable space effort could
be made with ~$10M, it is likely that space launch could be MUCH cheaper if
provided by private industry; government may be the worst thing that ever
happened to the American space effort. A simple calculation:
(1/2) * (M=30000Kg = shuttle payload) * (V=8000m/s = orbital velocity)^2
~= 1e12 Joules
1 gallon gasoline + oxidizer ~= 1.3e8 Joules ~= $1.30
therefore the cost of the payload kinetic energy from a shuttle launch is
about $10K. The rest is inefficiency and waste. (Incremental costs for a
shuttle launch are about $200M. Amortized costs are much higher.) Granted
it's harder to do orders of magnitude better with present technology, but
present technology (read: modified war rockets) isn't the best answer.
If some people lack the imagination to think of ways to reduce that $200M
number, others don't: there are half a dozen small companies working on that
right now. Do they need lavish federal subsidies?
Stephen Bennett, head of Arc Technologies in California, recently said
before a Senate subcommittee that he could make a profit in space launch,
without federal subsidies, tax exemptions, or help of any kind. All he
wants is the freedom to do so. Many other firms are also operating without
federal funds; others have been stopped by government intervention.
It is a pointless exercise to second-guess history; without the massive,
weapons-related government investment in rocket technology, the history and
technology of space development would have turned out much differently. I
suspect that without that investment, private industry would have a much
more aggressive attitude towards space, and the potential for development
would be far greater than it is now.
I will follow the private path; others can follow the tax supported one.
If others want to shore up the decrepit structure of NASA, that's their
business; just keep it out of my way.
--
Keith Lofstrom
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!vice!keithl
CSnet: keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relayal@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus) (02/27/84)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In support of Tom Craver, who claimed that a reasonable space effort could be made with ~$10M, it is likely that space launch could be MUCH cheaper if provided by private industry; government may be the worst thing that ever happened to the American space effort. A simple calculation: (1/2) * (M=30000Kg = shuttle payload) * (V=8000m/s = orbital velocity)^2 ~= 1e12 Joules 1 gallon gasoline + oxidizer ~= 1.3e8 Joules ~= $1.30 therefore the cost of the payload kinetic energy from a shuttle launch is about $10K. The rest is inefficiency and waste. (Incremental costs for a shuttle launch are about $200M. Amortized costs are much higher.) Granted it's harder to do orders of magnitude better with present technology, but present technology (read: modified war rockets) isn't the best answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The dominant cost of space flight is engineering, not energy costs. Incidentally, the dominant cost of auto transport is not energy either. My car costs about 3-4 cents a mile in gas, but about 12-20 cents a mile in total costs. Building cars is a lot easier and better understood than space flight (my Honda doesn't need to hit the atmosphere at mach 35). The cost of space flight can and will come down, but this kind of tunnel vision won't help. There are A LOT of critical issues in space flight, total energy consumtion is not even that high on the list.