Here's how to get CATS for 20% of current price.

> --- victoriatangoman
> > To start with, we've all heard the expression GIGO.
> > From the start I
> > was examining the question with a whole slew of
> > assumptions and
> > incomplete price data. What I wanted to see was
> > whether a project
> > that was massive in scope could yield a permanent
> > and profitable
> > infrastructure in orbit. Now onto your questions.
> >
> > At what altitude does
> > atmospheric drag stop
> > being an issue?
> >
> According to a textbook I have (Understanding Space by
> Jerry Sellers, prolly one of the best books on orbital
> dynamics for the average man), drag has effects upto
> 600 km (375 mi.).

That high! Thanks for the info.

>
> I don't think knowing the exact amount is relevant at
> this level of discussion, only that you factor this
> into your plan launches needed to boost per year
> during construction and then either develop an
> on-board way of boosting itself or factor boosts into
> the yearly costs of operations. I would think to be
> conservative, you could say 3 flights per year for
> boosts. For the ISS, generally the shuttle provides a
> boost every time it visits and I believe some of the
> progress ships do also.

OK. Done. Let's say three launches just for reboost.

>
> [snip]
> > That's a management issue. If you only have one VAB
> > and one crew to
> > assemble and test then you've got a problem. Have
> > multiple
> > assemblies going on simultaneously at various stages
> > of completion
> > and I don't see why it couldn't work. Now it becomes
> > an optimization
> > of facility amortiztion, time value of capital,
> > versus large
> > workforce confusion, redundancy, and extra capital
> > to expand the
> > facility.
> >
> Its not just the VAB you need to take into account
> here, but also the time a rocket must stay on the
> lanch pad to be fueled and prepped for launch (not to
> mention scrubs due to weather, which almost always
> seems to happen at korou due to its climate). In a
> different post I go more into this issue.
>
> While I agree this is a management issue, I do believe
> you need to spend some time here adjusting your
> schedule or add into your cost projections paying for
> expanding these facilities.
>
> Ryan Z

OK, I'll write a check for them tonight :)

I guess what I'm curious about is what you think of the approach in
principle? For those who are talking about tourism, I think the
approaches are suborbital hops so people can see space; orbital
stopovers within a vehicle; and orbital launches to a orbiting
facility. The cost savings are only gained from launch efficiencies.

My thoughts are that a orbital tower will forever after lower cost
to orbit. This will immediately increase the threshold for tourism
because we've permanently increased the payload ratio of existing
launch vehicles.

Granted the scale of the project is huge but can it really bring
about the permanent cost savings?

Is this the right approach or is the better vehicle dedicated to
reaching orbit the way to go? I know that a variety of approaches
will be tried but can this tower proposal generate the critical mass
of launches needed to lower unit costs on launch vehicles and then
most importantly, can that number of tourists be enticed into orbit
to pay for it, and how much of the value of the ancillary services
can we cpature (GEO and LEO satellite launch, furthr construction in
orbit, etc.

TangoMan