Barriers to free enterprise in the high frontier

> I read in one post
> that even if launch costs were reduced to $0/lb, space
> industrialization, still wouldn't be economically viable. This is
a
> sobering thought. Could it be true?

Mike responded (for some reason, this system isn't quoting you
properly):

> Statements this dogmatic are almost always wrong.

True enough, but dogmatic statements like this are handy if you are
trying to communicate emphatically that launch costs are NOT the
problem with large-scale space construction (i.e., infrastructure).

>This person might have
> been thinking only in terms of taking some raw material up to a
space
> factory, doing some 0-G processing on it, and bringing it back to
Earth.
> The argument being that just the added expenses of having to
operate in
> space would overtake any advantage 0-G processing might have, even
if
> transportation were free. They most certainly were not considering
any High
> Frontier type of plan such as SPS or space resource use in space.

Well, let's ask the question point blank: Would reducing launch
costs to $0/lb significantly reduce the overall cost of large space
project? I would say, of course, and I think most would agree out of
common sense. But significant is relative. If the project costs $40
billion to implement at current launch cost estimates, how much would
the same project cost if launch costs were reduced to $0/lb.? $25
billion? $30 billion? $15 billion? Obviously a 25% cost reduction
is significant. But, the price tag is still prohibitively heavy.
Please keep in mind, this is a very informal calc. I know not how to
do a true analysis of this situation. I am learning, however.

Jack