Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al
From: al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Billion Dollar Space Programs
Message-ID: <165@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Feb-84 15:19:02 EST
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.165
Posted: Mon Feb 27 15:19:02 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 11:42:11 EST
References: <1263@vice.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 28


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In support of Tom Craver, who claimed that a reasonable space effort could
be made with ~$10M, it is likely that space launch could be MUCH cheaper if
provided by private industry;  government may be the worst thing that ever
happened to the American space effort.  A simple calculation:

 (1/2) * (M=30000Kg = shuttle payload) * (V=8000m/s = orbital velocity)^2
 ~= 1e12 Joules

 1 gallon gasoline + oxidizer ~= 1.3e8 Joules ~= $1.30

therefore the cost of the payload kinetic energy from a shuttle launch is
about $10K. The rest is inefficiency and waste.  (Incremental costs for a
shuttle launch are about $200M.  Amortized costs are much higher.) Granted
it's harder to do orders of magnitude better with present technology, but 
present technology (read: modified war rockets) isn't the best answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The dominant cost of space flight is engineering, not energy costs.  
Incidentally, the dominant cost of auto transport is not energy either.
My car costs about 3-4 cents a mile in gas, but about 12-20 cents a mile
in total costs.  Building cars is a lot easier and better understood
than space flight (my Honda doesn't need to hit the atmosphere at
mach 35).  The cost of space flight can and will come down, but this
kind of tunnel vision won't help.  There are A LOT of critical issues
in space flight, total energy consumtion is not even that high on the
list.