From: zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk   
      
   Len wrote:   
      
   > [...] I do   
   > think that $200 million could be enough for a space   
   > transport system capable of carrying about one tonne   
   > at a time.  One just needs to be somewhat clever about   
   > the design and the development plan.   
      
   It may be possible, but quite a few people have tried and failed. Leaving   
   that experience aside though, what's the mission? What is the market?   
      
   One tonne LEO uplift isn't enough for tourism, except for the most reckless   
   kind. Space manufacturing? One tonne is okay for some cargo flights, eg drug   
   manufacturing, or getting something small there in a hurry, but you have to   
   get the people and the factories there first.   
      
   Lots of small LEO comsats? That's one possible application, but it's only   
   one application, and afaict it's the only application. If it fails you are   
   SOL, and it looks a bit dicey to me. Some years ago Bill Gates was   
   reportedly interested in a 250-sat system but didn't pursue it, at least   
   partly because of lack of air- and orbital- space.   
      
   I don't think $200 million is anywhere near enough capital to build a system   
   that would launch 3-4 sats a day for $500,000 each, $250 per lb, either   
   (which you would need to put and keep 4,000 sats in orbit). As capital costs   
   are already eating up a fair chunk of your operating income, increasing the   
   capital investment isn't going to be pleasant. You need more market.   
      
      
      
      
   There are so many markets you can service with a 10 ton system that you   
   can't do with a 1 ton system.  Might I suggest -  perhaps a 10 ton payload   
   system for $500 million might be a better bet?   
      
   It's probably about as doable. The cost of a system does not scale linearly   
   with payload - much of the costs are the same whether you are building a 1   
   ton or a 10 ton system, and for others it's only about about twice as   
   expensive.   
      
   You might even get your capital back from that, but once someone does it   
   successfully and mokes some money there is going to be a lot of competition,   
   and the big money is going to be made on the systems developed in that part   
   of the curve. You could jump to there by a large initial investment, say   
   $4-10 billion, probably the higher end of that range because of the almost   
   inevitable entry into the market of various governments.   
      
      
      
      
   But I still reckon technically for a minimum capital system you need $450   
   million for a one ton system and $1 billion for a ten ton system   
   (immediately-reuseables or mass-produced part-expendables, for high launch   
   rates and low per lb cost, which is after all the point). At $250 per lb the   
   one ton system just about breaks even, while the ten ton system makes a   
   reasonable profit.   
      
   Up those figures to $700 million and $1.5 billion, thereby increasing the   
   launch rate, and at capacity and $250 per lb the one ton system is in profit   
   (if you can find the market), while the ten ton system is making serious hay   
   - you could half the price and still make loads-a-money!   
      
      
   --   
   Peter   
      
   Rocket science is easy -  even rocket engineering isn't that hard - rocket   
   finance is the nightmare   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)