Replies

hopespringseternal wrote: "The only real breakthrough is managerial. Technically, there is no real reason why launches should cost what they do. It is a chicken or egg problem both ways, for government and the private sector. A moon base has potential for breaking the logjam, but if congress doesn't balk and cut things short it will be the first time."

Certainly it all depends on Congress, but there are also physical reasons that it costs a lot to launch a rocket. The main issue is that its such a brutally wasteful way of going some place. its as if you had to build a car with all of the gas for its lifetime built in. This means an enormous fuel tank, lets say several times the size of the car. Thats extra weight, wind resistance, bigger, heavier engine, etc. thats the issue with rockets, fortunately, they can stage it and drop off the dead weight later in flight. The vast majority of the fuel is spent moving the fuel higher, and not so much in moving the ship itself, and since no better way has yet been built, we have to use that.

hopespringseternal wrote: "So far there are no firm plans for exactly what this outpost will be. It will of course have to be bigger than a LEM, but the minimum possible size isn't much bigger. The space station will probably look roomy and well populated next to a moon base."

Hm, I never thought of it in comparison to ISS. Hm, the main difference I guess is you need radiation protection, which you can get from mooncrete. You might as well put a nuclear reactor in if your ship is nuclear, that would be a bit more mass too. And also you need bigger rockets to take all that out of LEO. Other than that, it would basically be the size of ISS. --EXCEPT- you have to expand it. What Bush is doing is much more serious and permanent than apollo or ISS. For it to be really useful, you need mining facilities, mass drivers perhaps, telescopes, processing stuff for electrolysis. And, as Rightwhale points out, some really advanced robot rovers.

Initially, it is comparable to previous space programs, but to make it what we all meant for space to be, it will be a lot more money. And don't let that dissuade you: money is a tool with which to do things that must be done. I think 5000 years from now, spaceflight may just be America's greatest heritage to civilization.

But the fuel costs are lost in the noise. It is about a 20 to 1 ratio of fuel to payload, but you can use such mundane fuels as liquid oxygen and kerosene. Both are cheap. The fuel costs of getting to orbit are about $10/lb.

Throwing away hardware is far, far more expensive, and developing hardware like the shuttle than needs a vast army of minions is even more expensive still.

Boeing isn't going to address that problem because they make lots of money selling new hardware and NASA/DOD picking up the tab for the salaries.