In article ,
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
High flight rates. No reason we couldn't achieve $100/lb using 1960's
tech. Just need to build in numbers and fly a lot.
...Kind of like the Russions do with their "Proton" booster...

You people are either being sarcastic or silly. Getting $100/pound using
1960's technology requires building thinsg like the Titan and Saturn for
around $5,000,000 per copy, which seems wildly unlikely.

It has been reported that Proton costs less than $1M to build, although
such numbers are notoriously dependent on the assumptions made. The
Russians invested heavily in automated production for operational
launchers -- none of this business of building each one by hand in a
cleanroom -- and in automated pad operations.

And the Proton is no where near $100/pound to orbit.

The *price* of a Proton is far above $100/lb, but that says little about
their *costs*. They are politically required to set their prices not too
much lower than Western launchers.

And there labor is much cheaper than ours.

Quite true, but they also need much less of it. The same principle could
be applied here.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |