You are not logged in.
Private access to space is currently very far from a reality. However, getting to LEO is far more than "half the way to anywhere", in terms of the cost.
Some have suggested privatizing space by letting commercial operations do launches for the government, e.g. for NASA - thinking that eventually commercial launchers would get the cost of launch down.
But what if we reversed that? Let the government provide heavy lifting services, heavily subsidized, for private commercial space projects.
After all, NASA is developing a heavy lift capability, and has lots of experience at launching large payloads. It's politically difficult to down-size NASA, so we're going to be paying for it anyhow. If they launched more often, their fixed costs would be spread over many more launches - an instant reduction in cost per launch.
Any US company could propose a mission. If they can convince the government that they're competent to pull it off, they'll be allowed to buy a launch ticket - maybe even for the mythical "$100 per pound" at first, though eventually the price would probably be set via bidding. Got an idea for an automated lunar mining mission? Want to launch a space elevator? Think you can make a profit providing taxi service from LEO to GEO? Great! Go for it! Your Government is Here to Help!
To keep this going in the long term, launch costs have to come down. So have the government offer $5 for every $1 in yearly launch cost savings. If a manufacturer can sell NASA rockets for $1M less, and NASA is launching 2 of them a year, that manufacturer gets a bonus of $10M. If a corporation takes over some aspect of ground control for $10M less a year than NASA is spending, that corporation gets a $50M bonus (once they've demonstrated they can do the job).
It's a bit like the Louisiana Purchase - pay a big price up front, to create huge new (taxable) value years down the line.
Offline
Like button can go here
No amount of "economies of scale" of any large rocket will ever achieve the ultra-low $100/lbs kinds launch costs. Its just not possible for Western-built expendable rockets, regardless how they are made or launches them. No rocket of useful size nor reliability can be built that inexpensively in any number with any variation of rockets burning conventional fuel.
The key problem with this sort of plan can be summed up in a word: "unsustainable"
Say you do all these things, due to the above that no conventional rocket will ever be cheap and easy, there can be no follow-through, no sustained commercial industry.
And really, although rockets are big and not easy, they are not another order of magnitude more difficult than all these other things. If private companies can't even build rockets, are any of them competent?
Space elevators haven't even been shown to be possible, much less practical, and even if they were the cost of even a small one would be huge. And even if you did, who would pay to lift payloads that don't already buy small rockets today?
A true, honest, "no really!" RLV could be the key, but the technology for one is in the "just barely" stage. More importantly though, there is no place to fly it to yet.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
I agree that $100/pound won't happen as a result of this - I just suggested that be the price charged for the first few tickets. It's more symbolic than anything, since the government will be absorbing a big loss on every flight, even after companies start competing, bidding for "tickets".
Just launching more frequently, to spread NASA's fixed costs more thinly, would cut costs even before considering economies of scale.
Unsustainable? If the program costs $2B a year over NASA's existing budget, the US could sustain it for quite a long time, if we wished.
I think what you mean is that eventually the gravy train would end - politicians would kill the program, even if it was working in every way as it was planned. But even if we got only a handful of viable commercial space operations, I'd count it a success, if they were helping cut costs for other space missions.
And the second half of the plan - bonuses for cost cutting - has the potential to incrementally reduce launch costs in the manner at which private industry excels. Never as cheap as some dreamed-of reusable launch vehicle - but also not something waiting 30 years to get started.
Offline
Like button can go here
Symbolism is not appreciated by the stock market much. They will rightly see the "cheap rocket tickets" as a short term (and very expensive) government program that could dissipate at any time (on a big commercial venture timescale) on Congression whim. Nobody competent will risk it, so no space venture will come of it.
Again, space ventures rely not only on a few big launches to establish a destination, but also on transport to and from said destination. If you aren't solving this problem, it does no good to throw money at the former.
This idea of launch rate being a magic cure to lower NASA's cost is all wrong, NASA will still be paying the same fraction of its budget (if not more) into the expense of building/flying rockets. The only difference is that many of those rockets won't be benefiting NASA programs anymore. Again, lowering per-launch costs is meaningless if NASA has to pay for every rocket.
Incremental cost improvements are bunk, so long as you are throwing the rocket away, you'll never accomplish anything more than launch satellites and the occasional ultrarich tourists.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Symbolism is not appreciated by the stock market much.
The stock market is irrelevant - businesses don't get their start-up cash from the stock market, they only go there once they are successful and the owners want the opportunity to take some cash out of the company without selling out entirely. Many entrepreneurs will take chances on space, given the opportunity. Many already are, given no special opportunties.
Again, space ventures rely not only on a few big launches to establish a destination, but also on transport to and from said destination. If you aren't solving this problem, it does no good to throw money at the former.
How quickly would America have been colonized, if there'd been no way to profit or at least break even - i.e. if there were no "destination" worth going to? Conversely, if you can make 10% net profit on every pound sent into space, it doesn't matter what the cost per pound is. Can space companies keep making a profit in the long term? Only time will tell - but if we don't try, we'll never find out. With the goal of establishing a moonbase creating a need for a diverse set of capabilities in space, we have the opportunity to try.
This idea of launch rate being a magic cure to lower NASA's cost is all wrong, NASA will still be paying the same fraction of its budget (if not more) into the expense of building/flying rockets. The only difference is that many of those rockets won't be benefiting NASA programs anymore. Again, lowering per-launch costs is meaningless if NASA has to pay for every rocket.
That is a strawman argument - no one is claiming magic cures, and it's obvious that NASA's expenses would go up from this program. The big difference is that others besides NASA will be building up space enterprises - for every dollar NASA spends, they'll be investing at least another, likely far more. Even ignoring the fact that they'll operate much more efficiently than NASA, NASA will get at least twice the capabilities in space for a given expense. Lowering costs will help these companies remain in business when they eventually have to pay full fare for re-supply launches - so it's hardly meaningless.
Incremental cost improvements are bunk, so long as you are throwing the rocket away, you'll never accomplish anything more than launch satellites and the occasional ultrarich tourists.
It isn't just the cost per pound to orbit, but how many pounds you *don't* have to launch, that counts; and it is the latter that is the focus of this program. I.e. establishing infrastructure in space that can be used many times, and hopefully mining the moon to avoid bringing mass up from Earth.
As to a reuseable rocket - it has huge penalties to overcome - greater design and construction expenses, hauling lots of mass to orbit only to bring it back to Earth, instead of leaving it there. Those can be overcome if it can fly many times - but only if the refurbishing costs per flight are kept low, unlike the Shuttle.
Establishing some space infrastructure might even be the key to making a reuseable launch vehicle practical. E.g. suppose you could greatly reduce the stresses of re-entry, requiring less heat shielding, causing less damage, reducing refurbishing costs. Two possibilities would be to re-fuel with lunar O2 on orbit to decelerate more using rockets, or developing a tethered system that can simultaneously slow one craft while boosting another to a higher orbit.
Heck it might even be possible to avoid the costs of designing a new reuseable craft, if the shuttle didn't have to be refurbished as much! That'd be a huge cost savings.
---------------
If you never think outside the box, you'll stay in the box and never achieve anything. Repeatedy thinking of and trying new things and failing, is the price of eventual success.
Offline
Like button can go here