Cost of launch and laws of physics

Len wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
Len wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

Althoug I disagree with John with respect to the need for
advanced technology for a near-term space transport capable
of frequent, reliable low-cost transport to LEO, I have
to agree with both of you with respect to the current
economic environment for commercial development of a
space transport.

That is why I insist that the first commercial space
transports must be brought on line for an investment
of no more than $200 million--and perhaps the limit
may be more like $100 million. I view this investment
limit as a requirement every bit as basic as the
delta-vee requirement. Where I part company with both
of you is that I truly believe that it is possible
to meet this investment requirement with current
technology. It does require getting the money somehow
without resorting to a DOA type of management that
precludes good system concept design. And that is tough.


Len, I think you missed the point of this particular discussion.

It wasn't about CATS by means of low cost rocket flight,
it was about the feasibility of a space elevator.

My departure with you was about the capability of a private
company developing a commercial space company for the
$100-200 million figure without some kind of a leading
technology program. I believe we already beat that discussion
to death in earlier threads and I certainly hope you are more
nearly correct than I am.

Thanks. I keep beating on this point, because I would
like a financial climate that might enable raising the
money to try.

However, in this particular discussion I was only discussing
the proposal for a space elevator and I believe that is far beyond
the bounds of our current technology. As I expressed in an
earlier part of that discussion, that one really requires some
advancement of the state-of-the-art technology. Right now
I doubt that anyone is going to pay for it, and I find it incredible
to believe that it could be done without NASA, the government
and some form of big business and certainly not without it
even being noticed.

I realize that the context has been in terms of SE--
however, John O.'s recurring theme is that there are
no launch concepts that can reduce costs without
new "technology."

This is a place where I part company with John Ordover.

I do believe that a government financed "proof of concept"
small, completely reusable space vehicle would be a step
in the right direction. I see a problem with a commercial
organization having to demonstrate a capability that has
not so far been demonstrated by anyone. That is recovering
and reusing an upper stage, complete with propellant tanks
and all that goes with them. The fact that the Shuttle solved
the problem by dumping the propellant tanks makes that
a continuing region of uncertainty.

Mike Walsh