HORIZON at BBC (UK)

Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> 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.
>

With all due respect, there is no way you can launch a person into space
given today's technology with one engineer year of effort. Not even
close. It takes a full time engineer just to keep a few dozen PCs
functioning in today's environment.

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

Operating a car costs about $0.30-40/mile, but only $.10 of that is fuel
cost today. Cars, however, operate in an extremely benign environment
compared to launchers and thus need far less engineering, testing and
(especially) refurbishment. Apparently your "TRUE" cost is something in
the future with much more advanced technology than we have today (e.g.,
molecular nanotechnology).

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

Physics never costs anything. Only people consume money. The sustained
cost of anything is, at minimum, the cost of the people. At maximim,
whatever the market will bear. Right now the launch market is a buyer's
market and prices are approximating cost plus a little profit. One
reason for high space launch costs is that you need so many people to
get the failure rate down to the current 7% (commercial launchers) or 1%
(US space shuttle). One reason you need so many people is that
launchers operate in extreme environments so great care is necessary for
things to work at all; in part because of materials limitations. My
hypothesized solution is to improve materials to the point that they can
easily survive inside rocket engines and in orbit. This should
substantially reduce the engineering, testing and refurbishment
necessary -- but this will take considerable time.

--
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.