Audacious Tactics

>Is there really any hope for low cost to orbit without using nuclear power or
>ground based launchers (like mass driver/spacegun and laser launch)? My
>impression was that orbit is expensive not because of NASA but because
>chemical rockets out of Earth's gravity well just suck.
>
Yes, there's definitely hope - the fuel is only a tiny fraction of
launch costs right now; since everything but the shuttle is expendable,
i.e. thrown out after a single use, the cost of the rocket itself is a
big piece (more than 10 times the cost of fuel generally). But worse
than that are the amortized costs of development with current low launch
rates, and the extensive ground crews needed for all current launch
systems. High launch rates and improved automation of launch processes
would cut costs significantly even for expendables; a truly reusable
chemical system should cut costs down to just 5 or so times the cost of
fuel (as for airlines), rather than 1000 or more times as it is now.

The problem is getting to that point requires significant technology
investment, and nobody's willing to pony up the money given the shaky
commercial launch market (and with Congress and NASA continually
fighting over federal efforts in this direction).

By the way, I'd wager on the space elevator before nuclear, space guns,
or laser launches being practical from Earth's surface.

Arthur