Establish demand
- From: "Totorkon" <aertrion@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:08:46 -0800
If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.
The Keck telescopes have a bit over 16 times the light collection area
of the HST and are made of 36 mirror segments. Most of the 270 ton
weight and $100M cost is to keep the structure rigid against
gravitational distortion. Building a succession of assemblable space
telescopes, ASTs, would be a real coup for astronomy. Along with its
robotic and/or human assemblers it would use up a few hundred tons of
capacity over a decade.
Robotic water prospectors at the moons pole could eat up another
hundred. A VP assembled mass driver would be good for a couple of
years worth of cargos, but it would be a greater advance than was
landing a man on the moon.
Mastering the art of drilling on Phobos, and returning samples, could
easily call for another 200 worth, as would setting down half a dozen
rugged rovers on the geological feast that is Mars.
Of course this is so much handwaving on my part. I can atleast dream
of a leadership that chops and pounds with its hands, while
proclaiming a new age of space exploration and enterprise, on a $5G/yr
budget, something like Kennedy did 46 years ago.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Establish demand
- From: kT
- Re: Establish demand
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Establish demand
- Prev by Date: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Next by Date: Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Previous by thread: Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?
- Next by thread: Re: Establish demand
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading