[ExI] Alternate to shrinking people

[Keith Henson]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:00 PM,  Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Reading through the study...
>
> Page 15, table 2.2.  Restated on page 18, table 2.3.
> DRM 1-A and 1-C are 40 kg payloads; 1-B is 80 kg.
>
> Even ignoring the launch vehicle costs, the recurring
> per-launch ground operations costs come to $666,666.67,
> $916,666.67, and $791,666.67 respectively.  Per kg, that's
> about $17K, $11K, and $20K, respectively.
>
> That is way more than $100/kg - and again, that's ignoring
> the launch vehicle costs, though those are on the order
> of$1K/kg (and thus need to be addressed to get under
> $100/kg).
>
> What kinds of cost savings are you anticipating, that the
> NASA study does not reflect?  Granted, simply not using
> the traditional overengineer-because-cost-is-no-object
> approach could be a huge part of that.

I have managed to read most of the report myself by now.  It's OK for
NASA I suppose, at least it gets some of the physics right.  The usual
suspects were either quoted or part of the study.

Part of the problem is the unfocused nature of their missions.  They
are also not taking advantage of burning hydrogen while there is
atmosphere.  There is also a huge advantage in larger scale, and
though the numbers get large, they are not in the context of the
energy business.

Keith