StarBound Alliance

> The point was that lift costs were not that important for Comsats
and maybe
> other high-value and low-mass satellites, but for other potential
> satellites, such as powersats, this certainly would not be true. I
would
> think launch costs would be very important for tourists and some of
the
> things they would want for their stays in space.
> Sincerely, Jay S. Huebner at jhuebn@...

So far, the only real reference I can find is from John Wheeler:

"I've read conflicting analyses of what that cost is,but I think in
every case, the cost of LH/LOx fuel was less than$10/kg payload to
LEO. The rest of the tremendous Shuttle launchcosts are for employing
a veritable army of technicians and foramortizing the large capital
costs. (I forget the exact figure, butI've read that if the airlines
were run the way NASA runs the shuttle,the cost of a trip from New
York to Los Angeles would be somethinglike $100,000 to $1 million.)"

Some of the other email I have read seems to imply that the lack of a
market is what keeps launch costs high. The logic seems to be that
without a sustained market there would not be enough launches over
the life of the vehicle. I am probably incorrect in this, but I am
new and will continue digging.

I'll be stunned if the general consensus of this group is that launch
costs are irrelevant (or even less relevant to most other factors) to
the development of space resources. Perhaps I should pose these
questions directly:

Wouldn't we all benefit from cheaper access to space?

Wouldn't cheaper access do more to help facilitate the beginning of
an infrastructure in LEO?

Wouldn't that infrastructure afford many others groups and commercial
space companies more opportunities?

Jack