From: zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk   
      
   Len wrote:   
      
   > I'm oriented toward a commercial space transportation   
   > system where the cargo should not dominate the mission.   
   > Even though transportation costs have come down from   
   > $1 million per lbm to perhaps $5k per lbm, we still   
   > seem to be spending as much as $50 per lbm on payload.   
      
   ITYM $50k per ...   
      
   > This really becomes absurd, when transportation costs   
   > get down to perhaps $100 per lbm.   
      
   [ $48/lb  (to equatorial LEO) ($950,000 for 9 metric tons cargo) ]   
      
   > At some point, the   
   > cost of the payload should be commensurate with the   
   > cost of transporting it.   
      
   Yeaaay!! Right on.   
      
      
      
   It's a qualitative difference though, not just a quantitive one. And the   
   money men aren't used to it.   
      
   Your sat fails? send another one up. In fact, send up another one anyway,   
   just in case the first one fails. Or send two spares up, why not?   
      
   Your sat goes through 4 design evolutions at $5 million each? Send it up   
   after one and see if it works, and how well. Better, just do a half-assed   
   design and test that ...   
      
   No, don't just divide the cost per sat by 10, divide it by 100. Your new sat   
   now costs $500,000, not $50 million. You might need two ... total, including   
   launch, about the cost of a nice small house.   
      
   Or worse, the new sat, with the same capability, now costs $50,000 ...   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   Thing is, after some recent talks with a major sat operator/capital guy, if   
   you do that then their present fleet of comsats has to be devalued - which   
   affects their balance sheet adversely.   
      
   Which makes the owners of the present fleet of comsats a bit unwilling to   
   invest in launch capacity, or to encourage others to do so. And as they are   
   regarded by the Banks as the only people with space financial expertise ...   
      
    ... no-one is really eager to invest the required large sums needed for   
   realistic CATS*.   
      
      
   like buying the newest computer - after a few years it will be worth   
   nothing. And for the operators, those few years are now, and unexpectedly,   
   shorter then the projected lifetime of the existing sats - or would be, if   
   there was a CATS.   
      
      
      
      
      
   *100 or two million is not enough for CATS, you'd need a bit more than one   
   billion to start, and ten billion would be a realistic minimum to control a   
   major share of the long term market, assuming governments would intervene   
   and try to compete later.   
      
      
      
      
      
   Of course the exclusivity of owning a sat wasn't mentioned: "I have a Sat,   
   and control some media, and you don't; but is that important?"   
      
   Like: "I have $5 billion, and you don't" wasn't mentioned either.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   There is a doctrine that sats should be environmentally disposed of from GEO   
   at the end of their lives. I wonder if someone might now get a contract to   
   collect them at some point near (or in) GEO, which would be easier on their   
   remaining fuel than the alternative burn, and just store them until their   
   value as mass (or as scrap) was optimum?   
      
      
      
      
   So who's actually doing it all? I'm not ...  yet   
      
   --   
   Peter Fairbrother   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)