Commercial spaceflight & then what?

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:


Suppose a space tourism market does come to pass: Rich folk ride the
descendants of an X-prize winner to enjoy the view and weightlessness.
The flights would be suborbital or low earth orbit, no?


Suborbital at first, LEO later.


Would this make Mars, the moon, or even high earth orbit more accessible?


Yes. As the saying goes, if you can reach LEO, you're halfway to
anywhere in the solar system.

- Joe

ISTR from another thread that the Roton could slow down more than the
shuttle in re-entry to the upper atmosphere because it's mostly empty
fuel tank gives it more surface area and less density.

If you achieve LEO with an empty fuel tank you're not halfway there.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article ,
Hop David wrote:

If you achieve LEO with an empty fuel tank you're not halfway there.

Of course you are. You just don't have the fuel to go any farther. If
my car runs out of gas halfway to San Jose, is it not halfway to San
Jose?

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:


If you achieve LEO with an empty fuel tank you're not halfway there.


Of course you are. You just don't have the fuel to go any farther. If
my car runs out of gas halfway to San Jose, is it not halfway to San
Jose?


Well, that's true enough.

So when we get to LEO all we need to do is stand by the road and stick
out our thumb.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:59:59 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So when we get to LEO all we need to do is stand by the road and stick
out our thumb.

Or fuel up at the orbital depot...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Hop David wrote:

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:


If you achieve LEO with an empty fuel tank you're not halfway there.


Of course you are. You just don't have the fuel to go any farther. If
my car runs out of gas halfway to San Jose, is it not halfway to San
Jose?


Well, that's true enough.

So when we get to LEO all we need to do is stand by the road and stick
out our thumb.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

You have heard of payloads.

The Delta launch vehicle doesn't go all the way to Mars, but the
Rover vehicles it launched will.

Mike Walsh

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:


If you achieve LEO with an empty fuel tank you're not halfway there.


Of course you are. You just don't have the fuel to go any farther. If
my car runs out of gas halfway to San Jose, is it not halfway to San
Jose?


Well, that's true enough.

So when we get to LEO all we need to do is stand by the road and stick
out our thumb.

Basically yes.

Imagine the shuttle bringing up a TLI for a lunar mission.

Let's give it 60,000 lbs mass (you can pick the fuels, payload, etc.) at
(we'll be generous) $300,000,000.

So you're paying $5000/lb

Now, let's say something like Roton had succeeded.

I don't recall mass to orbit, but some of the schemes out there are already
talking $1000/lb or less.

Let's give it a payload of 2,000lbs, but a cost of $1000/lb.

You have to fly 30x missions, but it's still cheaper.

So, each of those 30 missions, you fill up your orbital depot and sell to
the highest bidder.


Sorta like the fact that when I drive to Jan Jose, someone else has
prepositioned the gasoline for me.



Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article , "Greg D. Moore
\(Strider\)" wrote:

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:


If you achieve LEO with an empty fuel tank you're not halfway there.


Of course you are. You just don't have the fuel to go any farther. If
my car runs out of gas halfway to San Jose, is it not halfway to San
Jose?


Well, that's true enough.

So when we get to LEO all we need to do is stand by the road and stick
out our thumb.

Basically yes.

Imagine the shuttle bringing up a TLI for a lunar mission.

Let's give it 60,000 lbs mass (you can pick the fuels, payload, etc.) at
(we'll be generous) $300,000,000.

Someone else is quoting $640 million per launch.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/20...asterbrook.htm

So you're paying $5000/lb

Now, let's say something like Roton had succeeded.

I don't recall mass to orbit, but some of the schemes out there are already
talking $1000/lb or less.

Let's give it a payload of 2,000lbs, but a cost of $1000/lb.

You have to fly 30x missions, but it's still cheaper.

$1000 x 2000lbs == $2,000,000 per launch. That sounds too good to be true!

So, each of those 30 missions, you fill up your orbital depot and sell to
the highest bidder.

Wouldn't you have to build the orbital depot first?

If nothing else, you'd need somewhere to house those assembling the lunar
mission's ship. As a benchmark, the ISS will be over 350 metric tons when
finished. Even if your depot was only one-tenth it's size, that would
still be a lot of missions to fly (at 2000 lbs apiece) before you could
even begin flying the missions to take the pieces of the lunar ship into
orbit. Not to mention the missions for rotating crews while the lunar ship
is being constructed.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:02:53 +1000, in a place far, far away,
(Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


$1000 x 2000lbs == $2,000,000 per launch. That sounds too good to be true!

Not to me, as long as you do enough launches.

So, each of those 30 missions, you fill up your orbital depot and sell to
the highest bidder.

Wouldn't you have to build the orbital depot first?

If nothing else, you'd need somewhere to house those assembling the lunar
mission's ship. As a benchmark, the ISS will be over 350 metric tons when
finished.

ISS is a lousy benchmark for an orbital propellant depot.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:02:53 +1000, in a place far, far away,
(Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


$1000 x 2000lbs == $2,000,000 per launch. That sounds too good to be true!

Not to me, as long as you do enough launches.

So, each of those 30 missions, you fill up your orbital depot and sell to
the highest bidder.

Wouldn't you have to build the orbital depot first?

If nothing else, you'd need somewhere to house those assembling the lunar
mission's ship. As a benchmark, the ISS will be over 350 metric tons when
finished.

ISS is a lousy benchmark for an orbital propellant depot.

Then what would you use as your benchmark?

In the example I was responding to the launcher being used was limited to
a payload of 2000 lbs.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

Wouldn't you have to build the orbital depot first?

True. Now, if NASA was to build it, they would probably charge a few
billion to build and launch it. Then they would charge the tax payer
billions to run it, and if anyone other than NASA wanted to use it,
then they would need to qualify, then fill the paperwork, and get NASA
approval.
OR if you simply wanted orbital depot instead of a jobs program for a
orbital depot. The govt can simply pay for fuel to be delivered to
some place in orbit, then once enough fuel was placed in orbit, the
govt could simply offer to give the fuel to any party which will build
and operate this orbital depot. So instead of govt designing and
building something, the govt can merely subsidize the project by
buying payloads of fuel to be delivered to orbit. Beside providing a
place to fill up for NASA or other parties, the operator can find
other benefits, such as location for tourists or many other commerical
activities.

If nothing else, you'd need somewhere to house those assembling the lunar
mission's ship. As a benchmark, the ISS will be over 350 metric tons when
finished. Even if your depot was only one-tenth it's size, that would
still be a lot of missions to fly (at 2000 lbs apiece) before you could
even begin flying the missions to take the pieces of the lunar ship into
orbit. Not to mention the missions for rotating crews while the lunar ship
is being constructed.

So, let's try it with existing stuff. Take Sea Launch, they are
probably now charging around 80 million per launch to GTO. Since we
are buying in volume, we want a modest discount (might get
considerably less but why argue about it) let's say the govt offers 70
million per 5 tons delivered to a GTO type orbit. So are paying about
$7,000 per lb- if this was instead going LEO we get double the
payload- get better than $3,500 lb. Now Sea Launch can take it or
leave it, but they would be crazy not to take it. The main problem
will be all the crying about how unfair this is [and it is unfair,
govt is paying far too much, and Sea Launch would get rich from it].
Anyways, say govt buys 10 launches- 700 million, about the cost of
launching one Shuttle. Giving 50 tons of fuel in a GTO type orbit. Now
this orbit is going through the Van Allen belts, but you will have
about 50 cu meters of sheilding in the form of this fuel, so the 10
payloads could arranged to block most of the radiation affects from
belts or solar flares- whoever is making the fuel depot might want to
use this as part of design. So Govt spends the 700 million on payloads
then give these payloads to anyone who will invest capital need to
turn this into a place in which spacecraft can refuel. Govt cost: 700
million. Private sector cost: variable.
The funny thing about this is that some people are probably going to
have two inflicting thoughts bashing about in their skull. First is
this 50 tons of fuel payloads would be "worthless" and the other
thought will be "who gets to have it". I would simply say that
ignorance and greed are evils that people should deal with