HORIZON at BBC (UK)

Al Globus wrote:

>
> Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>>Bearing in mind the recent Space Tourist a program on space
>>tourism would be VERY appropriate. There is a need to clarify the
>>TRUE costs of going into space (less than 1% of the current
>>costs),
>>
>
> Assuming Tito paid $20 million, that means your "TRUE" cost is <
> $200,000 -- about the full cost (salary, benefits, office space,
> computer, etc.) of one engineer for one year in the US.

Sounds about right, a little high actually; but in the ballpark.

> Where did you come up with this figure?

I didn't. I've read lots of stuff, on Usenet (Henry Spencer is
a god ;-), and on the web; and I've thought about it.

Basically, asymptotic cost, based on consumable items i.e. fuel
plus some allowance for profit etc.

The rocket equation gives a mass ratio of very roughly 20-30:1 or
so. But fuel is dirt cheap and the mass is mainly fuel. The
vehicle itself can be made more reusable with lower performance
than the space shuttle or disposable but production line made
rather than handmade as at present. Either way, costs can be
made very much lower there. Most of the other costs more
easily divide down with launch rate.

Aviation costs are approaching the fuel costs figure give or
take a factor of two or so. There's no particular reason why the
same can't happen with space flight.

Well, there's plenty of obvious reasons ;-) but there's nothing
in physics that says that the costs are even $20 million/person.

The current armies of people may still be needed; probably a few
less, but a higher launch rate will amortise the costs down
just as with airflight.

Even the space shuttle would cost many times less if it
could launch every week.

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill