XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article , droleary@   
   2017usenet1.subsume.com says...   
   >   
   > For your reference, records indicate that   
   > Thomas Koenig  wrote:   
   >   
   > > An older version of a Falcon 9 reportedly had 488 tons of total   
   > > fuel, 147 of it RP-1 (a modified kerosene).  Liquid oxygen is   
   > > quite cheap, and if we give RP-1 a cost of 1 dollar per kg,   
   > > we probably are in the right ballpark.  So, around 150 000 Dollar   
   > > per launch.   
   > >   
   > > This is _very_ low compared to all the other costs.  A launch   
   > > cost around 50 to 60 million dollars now, if I remember the   
   > > figures right.   
   >   
   > That?s just the problem: you?re only accounting for the cost of   
   > the fuel, whereas I would consider large parts of ?all the other   
   > costs? as inherently part of the efficiency equation.  After all,   
   > if we found a way to eliminate the boosters entirely, the savings   
   > is obviously not just from the decrease in fuel.   
      
   Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range.  I'll get   
   right on that.   
      
   Meanwhile, in the real world, that's not how to optimize the cost of a   
   transportation system in order to minimize the $ per kg to orbit.   
      
   Jeff   
      
   --   
   All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.   
   These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,   
   employer, or any organization that I am a member of.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)