How Long till $1/KG

[ikrase]

Do you think we can ever get the cost of space lift below $1/KG? What do you think would do it?

I put my money on fusion rockets, possibly combined with lofstrom loop

 

[Artlav]

Probably never.
Even aircrafts don't have this kind of per/kg prices near their full range, and spacecrafts are more complex than that in handling and maintenance.
We might get prices to LEO comparable with transcontinental cargo jets within a century, but not less without a radical breakthrough.

 

[tori]

If the inflation keeps working the way it is now we'll even get to 1¢/kg.

 

[Urwumpe]

I agree, likely never - the inflation currently compensates the savings in launch costs easily. So, $1/kg will maybe never be reached, but you could still launch more payloads for the same inflation corrected budget.

 

[Ark]

I think even the raw power required for a launch loop would exceed $1/kg. Maybe if we had fusion SSTO cargo ships the size of container ships, the economies of scale would level out at something like that.

 

[Sky Captain]

Without some real breakthroughs in physics especially drive technology (antigravity or something similar) and power generation (some sort of power source that makes energy dirt cheap) 1$/kg to orbit is highly unlikely. For that to happen you would need to have spacecraft with operational costs comparable to ocean cargo ships. A 100 - 500 $/kg might be possible with realistic technology and economies of scale - at least that`s the figure I have seen in some articles dealing with launch cost reduction.

 

[Urwumpe]

The three laws of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can not decide to not take part.

You need always the same energy for bringing one kg into orbit. It doesn't matter if you use rocket engines or "anti-grav" (which is fiction). The price has to be paid.

 

[RisingFury]

Without some real breakthroughs in physics

Engeneering, not Physics. Physics is pretty clear here:

If you wanna go forward, you have to push something from your trunk. How you do it is up to you...

 

[T.Neo]

"anti-grav" (which is fiction).

Aw...

I guess Santa isn't real either?

 

[Sky Captain]

The three laws of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can not decide to not take part.

You need always the same energy for bringing one kg into orbit. It doesn't matter if you use rocket engines or "anti-grav" (which is fiction). The price has to be paid.

That`s why I said power source that makes energy dirt cheap. In this speculative case it don`t matter what exactly it is as long as it get the job done. It can be fusion reactor you pour water in and get instant fusion product exhaust at 50 km/s, it can be zero point generator coupled to anti grav engine from Stargate or genetically engineered super hamsters in wheel. whatever.

 

[ikrase]

Zubrin said that due to a lack of air resistance, if we could get over the rocket problem, space lift coudl be cheaper than air freight.

I guess even mail isn't $1/kg unless very large.

What 'bout the cost to get you and basic equipment into orbit? How low could that go?

 

[Urwumpe]

Zubrin must really said a lot over time...

Did you know that the space shuttle gets a far better mileage than any car? This is no sign of it being exactly cheap or the ultimate transporter. It just spends a lot of time in LEO...

 

[ikrase]

That was referring to the fact that lift (with elevator) and acceleration (assuming ultra cheap propellant) required much less energy than ploughing through the atmosphere for several hours.

 

[Urwumpe]

That was referring to the fact that lift (with elevator) and acceleration (assuming ultra cheap propellant) required much less energy than ploughing through the atmosphere for several hours.

The energy demand does also not change for a space elevator. You don't need the full tankage of a rocket, but instead travel for hours through the Van Allen belts.

 

[ikrase]

Yeah. Ouch. Unless you somehow are able to inject below the Van Allen belts, which could not be done with a normal space elevator but I seem to remember one that has a huge ring around the earth.

 

[Kaito]

I think the only way a rocket could achieve 1$/kg is by having a MASSIVE disposable rocket. Nothing can beat disposable rockets in lifting power, and if you lift something in bulk, maybe you could get a 1$/kg launch. But the payload (and rocket) would have to be absolutely massive

 

[Urwumpe]

I think the only way a rocket could achieve 1$/kg is by having a MASSIVE disposable rocket. Nothing can beat disposable rockets in lifting power, and if you lift something in bulk, maybe you could get a 1$/kg launch. But the payload (and rocket) would have to be absolutely massive

That is the Big Dumb Booster concept, which is only working in a fantasy world, where fairies fly, unicorns roam and a 60,000 ton rocket requires the same ground infrastructure for production and operation as a 50 ton launcher.

 

[Kaito]

While I agree with you on some points, the ground infrastructure can be designed to handle multiple situations. A perfect example is airports: they are designed to handle different types of planes landing on them, from small to relatively big.

I do know my idea is VERY far fetched, i'm just saying that it is the most likely for 1$/kg

 

[Urwumpe]

A perfect example is airports: they are designed to handle different types of planes landing on them, from small to relatively big.

Yes, but the bigger the planes become, like the A380 shows, the more expensive the infrastructure gets, so you need a realistic number of large planes per year for affording the infrastructure. For a small regional airport far away, it makes no sense, but for a large hub, it does - and such a large hub will not waste the infrastructure for serving smaller planes, it will prefer the larger ones.

The size and costs of rockets will more likely evolve - by evolutionary pressure from the market, by means which really mean survival of the fittest. A launcher that is too large for the market will not get far, just like a launcher that is too small for it. Instead any growth in size (which is reasonable, if you look at the container ship market), will come slowly, step by step, with gradual reductions in costs. Small launchers will fill niches, which the bigger standard orbit carriers will leave open, since it is hard getting a good launch rate for non-standard orbits.

This does not mean automatically, that the bigger ones must be expendable. Reusable launch vehicles are not automatically bad, because they failed to meet the promises of the Space Shuttle. It is again a matter of evolution.