4 ms·

So the government created a organization to help with commercialization of space, I don't see how this will help because launch costs are still high and they st

So the government created a organization to help with commercialization of space, I don't see how this will help because launch costs are still high and they still have to go through the FAA to launch. Yes launch prices will come down but it's still it's still probably 10-20 years before costs are low enough to reach anything the size of the ISS is even feasible for anything other than governments.

chii 8y ago
> feasible for anything other than governments. if there's profit involved, then it will be feasible for other entities than gov'ts. For example, if a useful mineral that's hard to obtain is found on the moon (unlikely as it is...), mining and processing it into goods might be the impetus for such a change.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  There is revenue involved, but not enough to cover the costs. You can do anything and you can sell anything, when engineers use the word feasible they often mean "the prices are right."
valuearb 8y ago
Much of the ISS was lifted by the most expensive launch system in history, the Space Shuttle. It cost nearly $40,000 per pound ($200B for 135 flights), probably $50,000+ in today’s dollars. The Falcon Heavy is priced to lift cargo at less than $1,000 per pound, and can launch three times heavier payloads than the Shuttle. That would drop the nominal launch cost of the components for an ISS sized spacelab to under one billion dollars. Space launch costs have already plummeted, and are poised to plummet even faster in the next decade. If the BFR is successful at full re-use (actually, it’s really if the BFS can be successfully reused often without costly refurbishing, as the BFR’s re-use is a straightforward repetition of the proven Falcon 9 approach), Elon’s crazy and bold claims of per-launch costs Of $5M are actually feasible.That would work out to something under $50 per pound, and the ISS components less than $50M to launch. When full re-use occurs, it will be when launch costs start to converge near fuel costs, which are typically less than a half million dollars per flight.

chii 8y ago

> feasible for anything other than governments. if there's profit involved, then it will be feasible for other entities than gov'ts. For example, if a useful mineral that's hard to obtain is found on the moon (unlikely as it is...), mining and processing it into goods might be the impetus for such a change.

whatshisface 8y ago
There is revenue involved, but not enough to cover the costs. You can do anything and you can sell anything, when engineers use the word feasible they often mean "the prices are right."

valuearb 8y ago

Much of the ISS was lifted by the most expensive launch system in history, the Space Shuttle. It cost nearly $40,000 per pound ($200B for 135 flights), probably $50,000+ in today’s dollars. The Falcon Heavy is priced to lift cargo at less than $1,000 per pound, and can launch three times heavier payloads than the Shuttle. That would drop the nominal launch cost of the components for an ISS sized spacelab to under one billion dollars. Space launch costs have already plummeted, and are poised to plummet even faster in the next decade. If the BFR is successful at full re-use (actually, it’s really if the BFS can be successfully reused often without costly refurbishing, as the BFR’s re-use is a straightforward repetition of the proven Falcon 9 approach), Elon’s crazy and bold claims of per-launch costs Of $5M are actually feasible.That would work out to something under $50 per pound, and the ISS components less than $50M to launch. When full re-use occurs, it will be when launch costs start to converge near fuel costs, which are typically less than a half million dollars per flight.