Re: Ages everyone?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 03:23:15 +1200, tussock <scrub@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:
tussock wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
tussock wrote:

That takes more energy than you can imagine.
<sigh: 000 too many on the cost side, or too few on the mass side>

Huh? You're saying it costs tens of billions to launch the shuttle
once??
Yes, and it's one of the more stupid things I've ever said. I mean,
Russia's throwing rich men into space for $40 mil each, and I reckon
they're profitable. Heh.

Tens of billions *PER LAUNCH*?? The whole program is only tens of
billions.

*INCONCEIVABLE*! Did you read what I wrote there, or just the first
word. I'm pretty sure it means what I think it means.

Reread my reply. I called you on the numbers and you are agreeing
that the value I derived for a launch based on your figures is right.

Anyway, a large space presence presumes something like a space
elevator--something that's now on the horizon. Try maybe $20 per kg
to geosync.
$3k, considering life cycle. Much the same as a proper system of
high altitude launch planes which will be human-compatible.

How do you get 99% of the cost being the equipment? An elevator will
run many years 24/7 and when it needs replacing the new one will be
much cheaper.

These magically large structure things need to be made from
millions of tonnes of exotic materials. To make millions of tonnes of
exotic materials you need money; *lots* of money. Money costs money,
either as loan interest or as opportunity cost. You've also got to build
the thing from geostationary orbit, and lifing all the raw materials up
there won't be cheap either.
I guess you could say all but the first trip are really cheap.

They are figuring something in the ballpark of $10 billion for the
initial system. Given the nature of the system it should have a
pretty long life so a reasonable infrastructure cost is the cost of
supplying that much money. Since this is government it's cheap, say
5%. Thus we have $500 million/year. We can lift a *LOT* of
cargo--the instant such a cable goes into place it will immediately
take over virtually all launch operations.

I expect the charge will be high at first while there is no
competition but pretty soon someone will build another and the price
will drop.

Personally I can't see why you'd use anything other than high
altitude launch planes for the same cost, much less chance of
world-shattering failure.

The loss of the cable would be an economic mess but the doomsday
scenarios make no sense. It's not strong enough to do any real damage
if it did fall.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?
    ... What is your defination of 'cheap'. ... > then find all sorts of problems that need more money to fix like NASA did? ... agreement that an orbital vehicle will cost a lot more than SS1. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Best comment from Judge Vinsons decision
    ... how to lower the cost of providing healthcare for them. ... Do you mean like in Canada where, when the health care system runs out of money, they take the poor out of the hospital's back door & shoot them in the head? ... I thought you said your driving force was that you're cheap? ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: OT: Paging the guitarists
    ... Anyone know what that's likely to cost? ... nicer to play. ... Spend the money and have Elixir strings fitted. ... Even cheap guitars are a lot better ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Why the big deal about slides at Walmart?
    ... and camp in a Wal Mart parking lot you are either cheap, ... People who can buy a MH of that cost are usually pretty savvy with money. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Java and avoiding software piracy?
    ... you pay me thus-and-such". ... Stuff like charging money for the right to use a specific software ... Its marginal cost is close to zero ... hydro company bill me for my usage. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)