> Who is offering launch services at $100/lb? [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

At what launch rate?

For humans? First class? Second class? Third class?

For cargo? Delicate (low g)? Medium (mid g)? Robust (high g)?

> why not go for a figure that is plausibly achievable, say
> dropping the cost from $7-10,000 per pound down to $1000.

"Chicken/egg. If you have the activity in orbit, then
yes, more launches are needed and price goes down."
-TangoMan

If you believe it is true, as you say, that with "more launches"
the "price goes down", would you mind giving your estimates for
robust-cargo launch costs at the following yearly launch rates?:

Launches/year . . . . . $cost/pound

3
10
30
100
300
1,000
3,000
10,000
30,000
100,000
300,000
1,000,000

Could you explain how you might fill a habitat with, as you have
speculated, 250,000 settlers, without increasing the launch rate
beyond, say, 10 per year?

More on launch costs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacex#Future_development

[Elon] Musk said "Long-term plans call for development of a heavy
lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. We
expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease
in cost per pound to orbit. For example, dollar cost per pound to
orbit dropped from $4,000 to $1,300 ($8,800/kg to $2,900/kg) between
Falcon 1 and Falcon 5. Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound
($1,100/kg) or less is very achievable." Musk said he expects to
offer $1,000 per kilogram by 2010.

If cost/pound were to drop to $500, do you suppose that communication-
satellite launch-rates might increase?

> ==============================
> [Elon] Musk said "Long-term plans call for development of a heavy
> lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. We
> expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease
> in cost per pound to orbit. For example, dollar cost per pound to
> orbit dropped from $4,000 to $1,300 ($8,800/kg to $2,900/kg) between
> Falcon 1 and Falcon 5. Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound
> ($1,100/kg) or less is very achievable." Musk said he expects to
> offer $1,000 per kilogram by 2010.
> ==============================
>
> If cost/pound were to drop to $500, do you suppose that communication-
> satellite launch-rates might increase?

What did I write? I wrote that more realistic launch costs should be
modeled. Look, the auto industry pumps out millions of cars per year
and despite that volume of sales they still can't sell cars for $20.
There are price floors involved. To send a ton of payload into orbit I
don't think you'll ever see a whole rocket launched for $200,000
(2,000 lbs * $100/lb.) I wrote that you should model a goal of
$1,000/lb. Your Falcon quote notes that Musk made significant price
reduction progress with Falcon 1 by bringing down cost to $4,500/lb.
He projected lower costs for Falcon 5 but never achieved them because
he canceled the project. His latest project, Falcon 9 (Heavy),
projects costs at $1,300/lb. Note further, that this is only to LEO.
To achieve higher orbit takes more coin, $3,000/lb to GTO.

So, I think that $1,000/lb is a more realistic goal than $100/lb. Mass
economies in the production and launch of rockets yield diminishing
marginal returns with increased volumes and eventually hard limits are
approached, which is why cars don't sell for $20.

The economics of Habitat development and orbital commerce are likely
feasible when built upon a model of economic and resource
bootstrapping which minimizes the need for launching everything from
Earth. In other words, by bootstrapping development the launch costs
for payloads not launched are immaterial.

Now, going back to my original point about trade balances, it seems
that you may be fixated upon the proximity issue of Habitat to Earth
and not the delta-v and launch cost for trade shipments, so it might
help to imagine greater distance between Habitat and Earth. Let's say
we placed the Habitat so that it orbited Jupiter. From your
perspective, with SSPS being inconsequential to the orbital economy
and the Habitat serving as a tax haven for billionaires, then we
should expect that nothing much will change with respect to the
viability of your model. The delta-v to get to Jupiter from LEO is
about the same as it is to launch to LEO, so a mere doubling in
delta-v cost. In other words, your model, as best I understand it,
ignores delta-v requirements in regards to shipping and depends for
viability on attraction to billionaires who then don't have to pay
taxes on their Earth-side earnings to Earth governments. If trade
balances between a Habitat and Mother Economy on Earth pay no heed to
delta-v costs then the Jupiter Habitat should be just as viable as an
Earth Habitat, n'est-ce pas? In fact, the Jupiter Habitat should be an
even more attractive alternative in that it offers a more varied
neighborhood to explore and really ups the "exotic" quotient when
compared to hanging out in a 2:1 resonant orbit or at L5. So I ask,
stuck out at Jupiter, who will take a check from the Billionaire and
what will they spend those Euros, Yen or Dollars on once they
completed a transaction with the Billionaire?

So again, the question is what good do your Earth billions do in a
Habitat? They have about as much appeal as North Korean Won.