High Launch Costs - Result of Physics?

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

....snip...

Sometimes the potential of markets is false. The apparent potential
of LEO communication satellites was so interesting that billions were
invested and lost.

It didn't mean that LEO communication satellites disappeared, the
systems are up and running with the organizations that picked them
up out of bankrupcy trying to make a buck.

Mike Walsh

Your last paragraph is the clue. Iridium Satellite LLC
is making a reasonable go of it--because they are able
to deal with much improved economics.

The original LEO systems were all faulty on the basis of
economics. IMO, much better service is possible at far,
far, lower costs to the ultimate consumer. However, the
system design--launch and satellite fabrication and real
market--needs to be radically different from what has been
tried.

This leads to my argument for vertical integration. The
people who currently design payloads and the people who
currently aim at markets appear to have no concept of what is
really possible with respect to frequent, reliable, low-cost,
space access. I don't believe I have any misconceptions
with regard to the problems of vertical integration;
however, I have come to see vertical integration as the
only way around the impasse of faulty coordinated planning.
This faulty coordinated planning is the legacy of the
forty-year-long detour we have taken with respect to
what type of space transportion systems are feasible with
current technology.

All this is admittedly a tough sell in the current
environmnet. IMO, a small TSTO system can lower the
investment threshhold to $120 million or less for a
proof-of-concept phase; I view a low investment
threshhold as a basic requirement--in order to have
any chance of overcoming the large barrier to any
investment in a LEO comsat system at this time. The
system I have in mind would eventually require billions
for full deployment. The "proof-of-concept" phase is
likely to be necessary because of the bad precedents
set by current LEO systems. Proof-of-concept would
include demonstration of potential economics whereby
remote area service (pre-tax and pre- other government
add-ons) would be more like $7.50 per week than
$7.50 per minute. With respect to the potential
economics and quality of service of LEO comsats,
there is absolutely no resemblance what has been tried
and what, IMO, is possible.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

M
I hold the opposing view that there are quite a few probable markets
out there that would come into the investors zone if the cost of current
space launches was not so high.

Heck, that's true of a ton of things - there are a lot of things that,
if there was a better cost/return relationship, people would invest
in.

Sometimes the potential of markets is false. The apparent potential
of LEO communication satellites was so interesting that billions were
invested and lost.

Which has made investors even more skittish.


It didn't mean that LEO communication satellites disappeared, the
systems are up and running with the organizations that picked them
up out of bankrupcy trying to make a buck.

Mike Walsh

Of course, and good luck to them.