Just thought I'd sit down and do a first order costing approximation
on how to lower launch costs and see where it leads me. I haven't
figured this out yet because I'm writing this as I go, so at the end
this may all turn out to be an exercise in determining it can't
work. Be warned that this'll probbly be an exercise of meaningless
numbers coming to a conclusion.

Space tourism seems to me to be a ready market if we can hit the
right price points and generate enough volume. So how do we do it.

I'm going to rely a lot on my notes which I've gathered from various
sources with varying degrees of attribution. It's kind of a big
jumble broken into topics.

Let me break the question into two sceanrios: orbital and sub-
orbital technology. I'll leave the orbital question for another time
or for someone else.

Suborbital obviously requires a secondary means to cover the
remaining distance. I'm going to look into an orbiting tower. Here's
the proposal.

A 1,380 km long tower. Center of mass orbiting at 1,250 km, a
docking station at 260 km, and a low gravity section at 1,640 km.
From the docking station a winch is lowered to an altitude of 145 km
to intersect with a shuttle and then pulls the shuttle up to the
docking station.

What to build this out of. Spectra 1000 has a tensile strength of
3.0 GPa and a density of 0.97 g/cc but the Van Allen radiation belts
are going to make it pretty useless.

http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=PCF007

Spectra 2000 is an improvement.
http://www.spectrafiber.com/pdfs/hon-pf-ps10-sp2000.pdf

While we're awaiting the perfection of carbon nanotubes, we can
consider carbon fibers. Thornel Carbon Fiber T-40 has a density of
1.81 g/cc and a tensile strength of 5.65 GPa.

http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ETHOR0

Taking into account a 2.4:1 safety factor, solar panels, electrical
cabling, counterwieght (10,000 tonnes), radiation shielding,
gondolas etc, the mass of material should be on the order of 15,500
metric tonnes. Of this about 2,800 tonnes should be carbon fiber.

How much will it cost?

First let me say that the study of optimization is very interesting
and leads down many paths. Very flowery isn't it? What I mean is
that rather than lifting all of that carbon fiber and counterweight
mass, it may be more efficient to send a probe to a NEO and bring
back liquid ammonia, liquid methane and water. Then build an orbital
Polyacrylonitrile plant. Disassociate the methane and ammonia into
constituent parts and reassemble as follows:

CH2=CHCH3 + NH3 + 3/2O2 --> CH2=CHCN +3H2O

This gives you acrylonitrile, the basic building block of PAN, or as
we know it, carbon fiber.

While you're at it bring back other mass which can be used for the
counterweight.

Is it worth it? I have no idea. But you see the benefit of having
some orbital infrastructure.

So let's assume you've got to lift all that mass into orbit.

Using the figures I have available to me:

The Proton 8K82K can lift 6,000 kg to a 1,500 km orbit at 63
degrees. If it could be launched from Kourou or Alcantara it could
get a boost in payload capacity. The cost of launch is $70 million.
It's probably lower than even that. Anyone have some good figures
for this?

So we need 2,583 launches at let's say $25,000,000 because of volume
discounts to the Chelomei Rocket Company. This should really boost
the Russian economy. Total price = $64.5 Billion.

Price of carbon fiber and fabrication: I have no clue. Anybody have
access to industry price lists. The stuff I get on the web is
consumer grade, small quantity carbon fiber, not aerospace grade,
high volume, high performance prices.

I found a reference to c.f. price per kg of $11 - $22 here:
http://www.hypercar.com/pdf/Hypercar_EVS19.pdf

Something else to consider; such a project is going to tax worldwide
carbon fiber capacity. It will consume 15% of worldwide output of
generic carbon fiber.

QUOTE
Over the past two years, we increased our installed capacity for
producing high-performance carbon fibers from 3.5 million pounds to
10.5 million pounds per year. That is about 25% of the total world
capacity.
END QUOTE
http://www.zoltek.com/company_information/history.shtml

So let's say it is $22/kg for the Thornel T-40. That amounts to
$61,600,000 and factoring in a fabrication cost multiple of 8x, we
get a wild assed guess of around $500,000,000.

Heck, let's just say the fabrication cost of the entire tower is $2
Billion.

Therefore, a launch cost of $64.5 Billion and a component cost of $2
Billion.

If we can launch twice a day, then we're looking at a 3 and a half
year construction schedule.

I know this is kind of disjointed, but I'm writing as it comes to me.

Back to the optimization alternative. We could first build a LEO
rotovator like I've mentioned in previous posts with a 15x-20x
mass:payload ratio which could then toss the payloads to our 1,250
km orbit. This would increase the capacity of the Proton rocket
payload to 21,000 kg to a 185 km orbit at 51.6 degrees, thus
reducing our total launches to 738.

The rotovator at a 20x mass ratio would mass at 21,000 kg x 20 = 420
tonnes. It would need an additional 20+ launches to assemble but
could reduce the total number of launches to the 1,250 km orbit. Of
course it would need dedicated supply and maintenance launches but
at this first cut it looks like a good bootstrapping strategy.
Doesn't it?

OK, I'm going with it, so I'm going to assume 25 launches to build
it and a maintenance/supply flight for every 20? launches. Thus
total launches are now

25 to build the rotovator
738 to build tower
37 to supply rotovator

Total 800 at $25 Million = $20 billion. Pretty damn good, huh. I
just shaved $44.5 Billion off of the project LOL :)))))

So now at 1 launch a day we're at 27 months of construction. Better.

Let's say the total cost of the project amounts to $30 Billion so as
to include carrying costs, administration, R&D, and other
incidentals.

Let's also say that the orbital hotel has a capacity for 932 guests.
Let's also assume that each guest, consumables and baggage masses at
225 kg.

If the Proton, or similar vehicle, becomes man rated, and we can
attach a passenger cabin how many people can we expect to launch?

Well if we can increase payload capacity by 400% to a suborbital
rendevous, then a Proton variant can launch 105,000 kg to an
altitude of 145 km. This means that 466 people, supplies etc can be
launched at once for $25 Million. That works out to be a ticket
price of $53,500, and a price of $238/kg.

If we assume a 3 day stay, then we have a yearly guest total at the
orbital hotel of 113,400. How much will they pay?

Let's say the $30 Billion is amortized over a 10 year period at a
rate of 18% then just the construction cost amounts to $57,200 per
guest. Factor in operating expenses (guests are already bring their
own consumables) and profit, so we charge the guests $146,500.

Total ticket price of $200,000 per person for a 3 day stay.

With a market of 113,400 passengers per year and a launch revenue of
$6.1 Billion, I'm sure aerospace companies will be interested in
developing a suborbital shuttle that can match the price/performance
of a Proton ( and be able to land the passengers back on Earth :)

Now we can also count on ancillary revenue. No longer will LEO and
GSO launches be competitive. Everything can go via the suborbital
route, dock with the tower, climb to the top and cast off with
rocket assist if necessary. How much revenue will this add? Also,
bootstrapping into other ventures is now more feasible because . . .

We've lowered the the launch cost to 20% of current market prices
without any new advances in technology! I've just decided that this
is going to be the title of this post.

Finished. What a way to spend a rainy afternoon.

TangoMan

Tango,

My first Q on this is how are you going to keep the
tower up there? Even at this height you are talking
some very major drag effects. Of these 800 flights
you have mentioned, how many are needed yearly to
provide a boost too keep the altitude? I am also
assuming this is at a 0 inclination (thinking of J2
effect here).

Second, you'd have to retrofit Korou for the Proton.
Currently it is being fitted for launching the soyuz
last I heard but the proton would cost more not to
mention the politics of europe letting russia launch
from there when it would directly compete with their
pride and joy the arianne.

Third, the time scale. You have 800 launches in 3.5
years. Generally a launch campaign is about a month
(actually a little less but approzimately correct).
Korou can only handle to launch campaigns
simultaneously. Now this is with the arianne rocket.
So your looking at about 24, possibly 25 launches a
year a launch base can handle.

Of course, assuming you can show the demand, more
facilities can be created but as it right now, arianne
cannot keep up with the schedule it has. One of our
satellites had its launch date bumped back three
months because of parts delay on the rocket. Sea
launch is even worse as it can only do one at a time
because of the ship processing (not sure if they are
adding another though). Theoritically, the quickest
turnaround are the new atlas and deltas, as they can
be carted out to the tower and launched the same day.
Though I am not to sure about their processing time.

None of these are major hurdles in and of themselves,
I just think they need to be factored into your
overall costs and schedule.

Ryan

> Just thought I'd sit down and do a first order
> costing approximation
> on how to lower launch costs and see where it leads
> me. I haven't
> figured this out yet because I'm writing this as I
> go, so at the end
> this may all turn out to be an exercise in
> determining it can't
> work. Be warned that this'll probbly be an exercise
> of meaningless
> numbers coming to a conclusion.
>
> Space tourism seems to me to be a ready market if we
> can hit the
> right price points and generate enough volume. So
> how do we do it.
>
> I'm going to rely a lot on my notes which I've
> gathered from various
> sources with varying degrees of attribution. It's
> kind of a big
> jumble broken into topics.
>
> Let me break the question into two sceanrios:
> orbital and sub-
> orbital technology. I'll leave the orbital question
> for another time
> or for someone else.
>
> Suborbital obviously requires a secondary means to
> cover the
> remaining distance. I'm going to look into an
> orbiting tower. Here's
> the proposal.
>
> A 1,380 km long tower. Center of mass orbiting at
> 1,250 km, a
> docking station at 260 km, and a low gravity section
> at 1,640 km.
> From the docking station a winch is lowered to an
> altitude of 145 km
> to intersect with a shuttle and then pulls the
> shuttle up to the
> docking station.
>
> What to build this out of. Spectra 1000 has a
> tensile strength of
> 3.0 GPa and a density of 0.97 g/cc but the Van Allen
> radiation belts
> are going to make it pretty useless.
>
http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=PCF007
>
> Spectra 2000 is an improvement.
>
http://www.spectrafiber.com/pdfs/hon-pf-ps10-sp2000.pdf
>
> While we're awaiting the perfection of carbon
> nanotubes, we can
> consider carbon fibers. Thornel Carbon Fiber T-40
> has a density of
> 1.81 g/cc and a tensile strength of 5.65 GPa.
>
http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ETHOR0
>
> Taking into account a 2.4:1 safety factor, solar
> panels, electrical
> cabling, counterwieght (10,000 tonnes), radiation
> shielding,
> gondolas etc, the mass of material should be on the
> order of 15,500
> metric tonnes. Of this about 2,800 tonnes should be
> carbon fiber.
>
> How much will it cost?
>
> First let me say that the study of optimization is
> very interesting
> and leads down many paths. Very flowery isn't it?
> What I mean is
> that rather than lifting all of that carbon fiber
> and counterweight
> mass, it may be more efficient to send a probe to a
> NEO and bring
> back liquid ammonia, liquid methane and water. Then
> build an orbital
> Polyacrylonitrile plant. Disassociate the methane
> and ammonia into
> constituent parts and reassemble as follows:
>
> CH2=CHCH3 + NH3 + 3/2O2 --> CH2=CHCN +3H2O
>
> This gives you acrylonitrile, the basic building
> block of PAN, or as
> we know it, carbon fiber.
>
> While you're at it bring back other mass which can
> be used for the
> counterweight.
>
> Is it worth it? I have no idea. But you see the
> benefit of having
> some orbital infrastructure.
>
> So let's assume you've got to lift all that mass
> into orbit.
>
> Using the figures I have available to me:
>
> The Proton 8K82K can lift 6,000 kg to a 1,500 km
> orbit at 63
> degrees. If it could be launched from Kourou or
> Alcantara it could
> get a boost in payload capacity. The cost of launch
> is $70 million.
> It's probably lower than even that. Anyone have some
> good figures
> for this?
>
> So we need 2,583 launches at let's say $25,000,000
> because of volume
> discounts to the Chelomei Rocket Company. This
> should really boost
> the Russian economy. Total price = $64.5 Billion.
>
> Price of carbon fiber and fabrication: I have no
> clue. Anybody have
> access to industry price lists. The stuff I get on
> the web is
> consumer grade, small quantity carbon fiber, not
> aerospace grade,
> high volume, high performance prices.
>
> I found a reference to c.f. price per kg of $11 -
> $22 here:
> http://www.hypercar.com/pdf/Hypercar_EVS19.pdf
>
> Something else to consider; such a project is going
> to tax worldwide
> carbon fiber capacity. It will consume 15% of
> worldwide output of
> generic carbon fiber.
>
> QUOTE
> Over the past two years, we increased our installed
> capacity for
> producing high-performance carbon fibers from 3.5
> million pounds to
> 10.5 million pounds per year. That is about 25% of
> the total world
> capacity.
> END QUOTE
>
http://www.zoltek.com/company_information/history.shtml

To start with, we've all heard the expression GIGO. From the start I
was examining the question with a whole slew of assumptions and
incomplete price data. What I wanted to see was whether a project
that was massive in scope could yield a permanent and profitable
infrastructure in orbit. Now onto your questions.

> Tango,
>
> My first Q on this is how are you going to keep the
> tower up there? Even at this height you are talking
> some very major drag effects. Of these 800 flights
> you have mentioned, how many are needed yearly to
> provide a boost too keep the altitude? I am also
> assuming this is at a 0 inclination (thinking of J2
> effect here).

Center of mass at 1,250 km, with the lowest part at 260 km. Boosting
can be done with electrodyanmic forces and with ion propulsion which
would be more efficient than chemical means. I don't know how to
model the drag effects. At what altitude does atmospheric drag stop
being an issue?

To figure this out we'd need to know the cross sectional area of the
tower and integrate the function of the drag coefficient over the
altitude range of the tower into this formula on this website:

http://www.deos.tudelft.nl/ers/operorbs/node5.html

Is there anyone who wants to venture a guess or even attempt a
reasoned answer? Please.

>
> Second, you'd have to retrofit Korou for the Proton.

Considering the dollar scale of the operation I don't think that's a
show stopper.

> Currently it is being fitted for launching the soyuz
> last I heard but the proton would cost more not to
> mention the politics of europe letting russia launch
> from there when it would directly compete with their
> pride and joy the arianne.

I have no clue how much it costs to build the land components needed
for launch. What would the cost savings of equatorial launch gain
you versus setting up a new launch facility from scratch? OK, it's
another cost to factor in.

>
> Third, the time scale. You have 800 launches in 3.5
> years. Generally a launch campaign is about a month
> (actually a little less but approzimately correct).

That's a management issue. If you only have one VAB and one crew to
assemble and test then you've got a problem. Have multiple
assemblies going on simultaneously at various stages of completion
and I don't see why it couldn't work. Now it becomes an optimization
of facility amortiztion, time value of capital, versus large
workforce confusion, redundancy, and extra capital to expand the
facility.

TangoMan

> The Proton 8K82K can lift 6,000 kg to a 1,500 km
> orbit at 63
> degrees. If it could be launched from Kourou or
> Alcantara it could
> get a boost in payload capacity. The cost of launch
> is $70 million.
> It's probably lower than even that. Anyone have some
> good figures
> for this?
>
Futron produces an annual report with all launch
costs. The proton was going between 60-85 mill per
launch. For a listing off all futron reports, goto
http://www.futron.com/spaceandtelecom/papers/default.htm

for the one i sited, its in the other reports section:
http://www.futron.com/pdf/2002%20Commercial%20Space%20Transportation%20Year%20in%20Review%20Final.pdf

To add to my last post, I was looking at the total
amount of government and non-government launches
peformed over the past 5 years and it was at 369! I
was also able to read up on the processing time for
launch payloads and the major purpose of the EELV
program was to lower. Of the two products of this
program, the delta 4 supposedly can integrate and
launch in just one week! The other product, the atlas
5, uses a vertical integration allowing it to be
rolled out to the pad and launched within hours, no
data though on how long it takes to integrate the
payload.

Not sure on what the costs will end up being. The
only launch prices I have were sharply reduced as they
were maiden flights and they both only charged 65-80
mill a piece. I would suspect though they would be on
par with the arianne 5 at around 125 mill.

But if you are looking to meet your schedule and use a
heavier launcher, I think that you need to look at
these two rockets.

Ryan

>
> --- victoriatangoman
> > The Proton 8K82K can lift 6,000 kg to a 1,500 km
> > orbit at 63
> > degrees. If it could be launched from Kourou or
> > Alcantara it could
> > get a boost in payload capacity. The cost of launch
> > is $70 million.
> > It's probably lower than even that. Anyone have some
> > good figures
> > for this?
> >
> Futron produces an annual report with all launch
> costs. The proton was going between 60-85 mill per
> launch. For a listing off all futron reports, goto
> http://www.futron.com/spaceandtelecom/papers/default.htm

I went and read the Futron report after you first posted notice of
it to this list. The figure I quoted for Proton was $70 Million,
which falls into the range you quote above.

Because of the extreme number of launches required, this should
allow the Russians to automate the Proton manufacturing process in
order to pump out the 800+ Protons needed. When they do this it
should lower their costs significantly, so a further byproduct could
be selling additional Protons to others who could now benefit from
their more efficient manufacturing base.

The reason I chose Proton was due to the Russian pay differential.
It could be any manufacturer that could offer cost savings based on
volume purchase. The Proton is a long standing design, the factory
is all tooled, the kinks have been worked out. It shouldn't be that
expensive to expand production when compared to a new design for a
Delta or Atlas. Cheap Russian labor may offset sophisticated
American manufacturing processes.

>
> for the one i sited, its in the other reports section:
> http://www.futron.com/pdf/2002%20Commercial%20Space%
20Transportation%20Year%20in%20Review%20Final.pdf
>
> To add to my last post, I was looking at the total
> amount of government and non-government launches
> peformed over the past 5 years and it was at 369!

Good figure to know. I knew that the scale of what I proposed would
be off the map. Once you up your productive capacity, pay for it,
and lower your subsequent cost structure, then your market should be
different after the endeavor.

I
> was also able to read up on the processing time for
> launch payloads and the major purpose of the EELV
> program was to lower. Of the two products of this
> program, the delta 4 supposedly can integrate and
> launch in just one week!

With one crew. You can have multiple crews.

The other product, the atlas
> 5, uses a vertical integration allowing it to be
> rolled out to the pad and launched within hours, no
> data though on how long it takes to integrate the
> payload.
>
> Not sure on what the costs will end up being. The
> only launch prices I have were sharply reduced as they
> were maiden flights and they both only charged 65-80
> mill a piece. I would suspect though they would be on
> par with the arianne 5 at around 125 mill.

Well if you have to end up paying 125 mill for the same payload, the
project cost is going to be 5x higher. That makes the tourist
package much more expensive, reduces the number of tourists that can
afford it, and increases the risk for the project.

>
> But if you are looking to meet your schedule and use a
> heavier launcher, I think that you need to look at
> these two rockets.
>
> Ryan

I wonder how much off "list price" you could go with the Delta or
Atlas? :) Can it approach the Russian price per kg?

TangoMan

> To start with, we've all heard the expression GIGO.
> From the start I
> was examining the question with a whole slew of
> assumptions and
> incomplete price data. What I wanted to see was
> whether a project
> that was massive in scope could yield a permanent
> and profitable
> infrastructure in orbit. Now onto your questions.
>
> At what altitude does
> atmospheric drag stop
> being an issue?
>
According to a textbook I have (Understanding Space by
Jerry Sellers, prolly one of the best books on orbital
dynamics for the average man), drag has effects upto
600 km (375 mi.).

I don't think knowing the exact amount is relevant at
this level of discussion, only that you factor this
into your plan launches needed to boost per year
during construction and then either develop an
on-board way of boosting itself or factor boosts into
the yearly costs of operations. I would think to be
conservative, you could say 3 flights per year for
boosts. For the ISS, generally the shuttle provides a
boost every time it visits and I believe some of the
progress ships do also.

[snip]
> That's a management issue. If you only have one VAB
> and one crew to
> assemble and test then you've got a problem. Have
> multiple
> assemblies going on simultaneously at various stages
> of completion
> and I don't see why it couldn't work. Now it becomes
> an optimization
> of facility amortiztion, time value of capital,
> versus large
> workforce confusion, redundancy, and extra capital
> to expand the
> facility.
>
Its not just the VAB you need to take into account
here, but also the time a rocket must stay on the
lanch pad to be fueled and prepped for launch (not to
mention scrubs due to weather, which almost always
seems to happen at korou due to its climate). In a
different post I go more into this issue.

While I agree this is a management issue, I do believe
you need to spend some time here adjusting your
schedule or add into your cost projections paying for
expanding these facilities.

Ryan Z

> --- victoriatangoman
> > To start with, we've all heard the expression GIGO.
> > From the start I
> > was examining the question with a whole slew of
> > assumptions and
> > incomplete price data. What I wanted to see was
> > whether a project
> > that was massive in scope could yield a permanent
> > and profitable
> > infrastructure in orbit. Now onto your questions.
> >
> > At what altitude does
> > atmospheric drag stop
> > being an issue?
> >
> According to a textbook I have (Understanding Space by
> Jerry Sellers, prolly one of the best books on orbital
> dynamics for the average man), drag has effects upto
> 600 km (375 mi.).

That high! Thanks for the info.

>
> I don't think knowing the exact amount is relevant at
> this level of discussion, only that you factor this
> into your plan launches needed to boost per year
> during construction and then either develop an
> on-board way of boosting itself or factor boosts into
> the yearly costs of operations. I would think to be
> conservative, you could say 3 flights per year for
> boosts. For the ISS, generally the shuttle provides a
> boost every time it visits and I believe some of the
> progress ships do also.

OK. Done. Let's say three launches just for reboost.

>
> [snip]
> > That's a management issue. If you only have one VAB
> > and one crew to
> > assemble and test then you've got a problem. Have
> > multiple
> > assemblies going on simultaneously at various stages
> > of completion
> > and I don't see why it couldn't work. Now it becomes
> > an optimization
> > of facility amortiztion, time value of capital,
> > versus large
> > workforce confusion, redundancy, and extra capital
> > to expand the
> > facility.
> >
> Its not just the VAB you need to take into account
> here, but also the time a rocket must stay on the
> lanch pad to be fueled and prepped for launch (not to
> mention scrubs due to weather, which almost always
> seems to happen at korou due to its climate). In a
> different post I go more into this issue.
>
> While I agree this is a management issue, I do believe
> you need to spend some time here adjusting your
> schedule or add into your cost projections paying for
> expanding these facilities.
>
> Ryan Z

OK, I'll write a check for them tonight :)

I guess what I'm curious about is what you think of the approach in
principle? For those who are talking about tourism, I think the
approaches are suborbital hops so people can see space; orbital
stopovers within a vehicle; and orbital launches to a orbiting
facility. The cost savings are only gained from launch efficiencies.

My thoughts are that a orbital tower will forever after lower cost
to orbit. This will immediately increase the threshold for tourism
because we've permanently increased the payload ratio of existing
launch vehicles.

Granted the scale of the project is huge but can it really bring
about the permanent cost savings?

Is this the right approach or is the better vehicle dedicated to
reaching orbit the way to go? I know that a variety of approaches
will be tried but can this tower proposal generate the critical mass
of launches needed to lower unit costs on launch vehicles and then
most importantly, can that number of tourists be enticed into orbit
to pay for it, and how much of the value of the ancillary services
can we cpature (GEO and LEO satellite launch, furthr construction in
orbit, etc.

TangoMan

Tango...

I like the idea, but this is where the Earth-based space elevator has
a huge advantage: it can easily bootstrap itself to a higher capacity,
by pulling up more of itself and growing. It's a lot harder to do with
your design; hence the initial huge launch mass (15,000 tons). Anything
that costs $50 billion plus for unproven benefit is basically a nonstarter.

Are you familiar with the tether work by Bob Hoyt and the people at
"Tethers Unlimited"? See http://www.tethers.com/ - they seem to have
pretty much all these bases already covered. One example I found was a
25 ton tether design for moving things form LEO to GTO or Lunar transfer
orbit. There's also a "Hypersonic Airplane Space Tether Orbital Launch
(HASTOL)" paper that indicates they could have tethers that weigh just a
few times a launch payload, even using current materials, so I don't
know why your design requires so much mass.

Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> Tango...
>
> I like the idea, but this is where the Earth-based space
elevator has
> a huge advantage: it can easily bootstrap itself to a higher
capacity,
> by pulling up more of itself and growing.

It's still awaiting the perfection of carbon nanotubes while an
orbiting tower is, hold on, smaller in scale, and can be built with
readily available materials like carbon fiber variants. It could go
ahead today!

It's a lot harder to do with
> your design; hence the initial huge launch mass (15,000 tons).
Anything
> that costs $50 billion plus for unproven benefit is basically a
nonstarter.

Considering this proposal was built on half-assed guesses while I
was sitting in front of the computer, perhaps my $30 Billion and
your $50 Billion mean the same thing. Our figures are probably as
accurate as Liftport's $6-10 Billion. Nevertheless, the
technological leap is far less for an orbiting tower/hotel than it
is for a Earthbased tower by orders of magnitude.

Whether it's a non starter at $30 Billion, well that's really
determined by the business model, isn't it? How many tourists are
able to pay $100,000 to $200,000 for a orbital vacation? How much
can be earned by satellite launching, and all the other components
of Liftport's business model, and forever after doing away with
orbital launch requirements and capturing the docking market for sub-
orbital shuttles, etc? I have no idea what the size of the markets
are, so I'm not sure that its a non-starter.

>
> Are you familiar with the tether work by Bob Hoyt and the
people at
> "Tethers Unlimited"? See http://www.tethers.com/ - they seem to
have
> pretty much all these bases already covered.

Very familiar with their work. I've got all of their papers and have
studied them extensively. The rotovator idea I make mention of is
one that they've extensively modeled.

One example I found was a
> 25 ton tether design for moving things form LEO to GTO or Lunar
transfer
> orbit. There's also a "Hypersonic Airplane Space Tether Orbital
Launch
> (HASTOL)" paper that indicates they could have tethers that weigh
just a
> few times a launch payload, even using current materials, so I
don't
> know why your design requires so much mass.
>
> Arthur Smith (apsmith@...

With their HASTOL concept, a sub-orbital shuttle docks with a
rotovator which picks up the payload and tosses it into a higher
orbit and the shuttle then proceeds to land. There is nothing for
tourists here.

I think that tethers are the most elegant solution to CATS, but one
that is really in search of a market. Tourism, as many have pointed
out is a HUGE market, orbit would be a hot destination I'm sure, but
as I've pointed out, it's one thing to take an X-Prize hop for an
hour which will wear thin after a while, its a little better to take
a few orbits around the earth in a capsule and then land, but it's a
whole other realm of experience to stay in orbit at a destination,
and that's what this proposal is all about.

Remember my Bootstrapping in 20 Easy Steps post? It was predicated
on the LEO rotovator and the Lunavator, both of which are detailed
by Tethers Unlimited, and by Hans Morevec, just modified to the
specific purposes of the mission I was writing about. building on
their work and other material that's how I was able to get down into
the nitty-gritty details and develop models for ballast mass build-
up, orbital locations and synchronization of the orbits for the
multi-tether system.

The concept I outlined proceeds from docking by having people or
cargo go onto an elevator and go up to a station/hotel over 1,000 km
overhead.

Now there is a large volume of tourists and industries and services
to underwrite the first foothold in orbit. The volume and resultant
price points are critical. The other proposals didn't address those
issues.

Think for a moment what a 100,000+ tourists per YEAR will do for an
industry? What that industry can underwrite.

TangoMan

TangoMan, I like this. What happens if you throw Sea Dragon into the
mix? I think that this could drop the overall price considerably,
and STILL not need any exotic newtech.

Xenophile (who likes Sea Dragon, too!)

--- In ssi_list@... "Xenophile"
> TangoMan, I like this. What happens if you throw Sea Dragon into
the
> mix? I think that this could drop the overall price considerably,
> and STILL not need any exotic newtech.
>
> Xenophile (who likes Sea Dragon, too!)

Sure, let's call Truax and do it.

Think of this as the ladder from the ground to the first floor.
Foreverafter you can use this ladder and no longer have to climb
willy-nilly to the first floor. This can do away with orbital launch
requirements. All anyone has to do now is just get to 145 km
altitude and dock with the grapple.

With the Sea Dragon, if it can be cheaper in boosting large
quantities of mass into orbit, or suborbit in conjunction with the
rotovator, then even better.

Remember though, after this is built, we still need a well developed
sub-orbital infrastructure to get the tourists up to 145km. Not just
a few, but a few hundred per day.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"

> Taking into account a 2.4:1 safety factor, solar panels,
electrical
> cabling, counterwieght (10,000 tonnes), radiation shielding,
> gondolas etc, the mass of material should be on the order of
15,500
> metric tonnes. Of this about 2,800 tonnes should be carbon fiber.
>

>

> How much will it cost?
> Back to the optimization alternative. We could first build a LEO
> rotovator like I've mentioned in previous posts with a 15x-20x
> mass:payload ratio which could then toss the payloads to our 1,250
> km orbit. This would increase the capacity of the Proton rocket
> payload to 21,000 kg to a 185 km orbit at 51.6 degrees, thus
> reducing our total launches to 738.
>
> The rotovator at a 20x mass ratio would mass at 21,000 kg x 20 =
420
> tonnes. It would need an additional 20+ launches to assemble but
> could reduce the total number of launches to the 1,250 km orbit.
Of
> course it would need dedicated supply and maintenance launches but
> at this first cut it looks like a good bootstrapping strategy.
> Doesn't it?
>
> OK, I'm going with it, so I'm going to assume 25 launches to build
> it and a maintenance/supply flight for every 20? launches. Thus
> total launches are now
>
> 25 to build the rotovator
> 738 to build tower
> 37 to supply rotovator
>
> Total 800 at $25 Million = $20 billion. Pretty damn good, huh. I
> just shaved $44.5 Billion off of the project LOL :)))))
>
> So now at 1 launch a day we're at 27 months of construction.
Better.

>

DUH! DUH! WHACK! (The sound of TangoMan hitting himself upside the
head)

Why are we lifting 10,000 tonnes of dead weight for the
counterweight?

Use the Proton remenants and any other space junk we find up there.
Run it through a compactor or pelletizer and slowly accumulate the
10,000 tonnes.

So we've reduced the launches by 476 and saved another $11.9 Billion
dollars.

Now we need just 324 launches rather than 800. This should relax the
launch schedule.

> If the Proton, or similar vehicle, becomes man rated, and we can
> attach a passenger cabin how many people can we expect to launch?
>
> Well if we can increase payload capacity by 400% to a suborbital
> rendevous, then a Proton variant can launch 105,000 kg to an
> altitude of 145 km. This means that 466 people, supplies etc can
be
> launched at once for $25 Million. That works out to be a ticket
> price of $53,500, and a price of $238/kg.
>
> If we assume a 3 day stay, then we have a yearly guest total at
the
> orbital hotel of 113,400. How much will they pay?
>
> Let's say the $30 Billion is amortized over a 10 year period at a
> rate of 18% then just the construction cost amounts to $57,200 per
> guest. Factor in operating expenses (guests are already bring
their
> own consumables) and profit, so we charge the guests $146,500.

Tht $30 Billion now becomes $18.1 Billion and the amortized cost per
guest becomes $34,500 and we charge guests $86,250.

>
> Total ticket price of $200,000 per person for a 3 day stay.

Total ticket price of $140,000 per person for a 3 day stay.

TangoMan

> Sure, let's call Truax and do it.

If'n I had a billion to drop on Truax (which'n I don't)...

> Think of this as the ladder from the ground to the first floor.
> Foreverafter you can use this ladder and no longer have to climb
> willy-nilly to the first floor. This can do away with orbital
> launch requirements.

Yes, but you still need to get the rotovator stuff into orbit to
begin with. And Sea Dragon can whump up 600 tons at a time.

> All anyone has to do now is just get to 145 km altitude and dock
> with the grapple.

Yes. Could the Sea Dragon FIRST STAGE do that? Thus adding to it's
already formidable launch capacity?

> With the Sea Dragon, if it can be cheaper in boosting large
> quantities of mass into orbit, or suborbit in conjunction with the
> rotovator, then even better.
>
> Remember though, after this is built, we still need a well
> developed sub-orbital infrastructure to get the tourists up to
> 145km. Not just a few, but a few hundred per day.

My next post. ^_^

Xenophile (in a basically good mood)

--- In ssi_list@... "Xenophile"
>
> > Sure, let's call Truax and do it.
>
> If'n I had a billion to drop on Truax (which'n I don't)...
>
> > Think of this as the ladder from the ground to the first floor.
> > Foreverafter you can use this ladder and no longer have to climb
> > willy-nilly to the first floor. This can do away with orbital
> > launch requirements.
>
> Yes, but you still need to get the rotovator stuff into orbit to
> begin with. And Sea Dragon can whump up 600 tons at a time.

Jeez, It's been awhile since I looked at the Sea Dragon specs. And
here I was look at extending the Proton to 21 tonnes. :)

>
> > All anyone has to do now is just get to 145 km altitude and dock
> > with the grapple.
>
> Yes. Could the Sea Dragon FIRST STAGE do that? Thus adding to
it's
> already formidable launch capacity?

I don't know. Why not? Sure let's do it. This scheme of mine is
built on so many suppositions, what another one.

> > With the Sea Dragon, if it can be cheaper in boosting large
> > quantities of mass into orbit, or suborbit in conjunction with
the
> > rotovator, then even better.
> >
> > Remember though, after this is built, we still need a well
> > developed sub-orbital infrastructure to get the tourists up to
> > 145km. Not just a few, but a few hundred per day.
>
> My next post. ^_^
>
> Xenophile (in a basically good mood)

OK, Looking forward to reading how we can get 100,000+ people a year
up to 145 km.

Hopefully, a destination in orbit will really spur on a suborbital
research boom and there will be multiple players servicing this
tourist market and competing on price, location, service, all the
hallmarks of the glorious free enterprise system.

TangoMan