Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!nsc!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space,net.columbia
Subject: Re: Sixty Cents a Pound?
Message-ID: <651@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 17:52:36 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.651
Posted: Mon Nov 19 17:52:36 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 04:58:03 EST
References: <1062@inuxc.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 25
Xref: nsc net.space:2224 net.columbia:886

> 
> 	I heard the end of a segment on NPR this morning where 
> someone was making the following claim:
> 
> 	It costs about  $1000.00 to accelerate a pound of material
> 	to escape velocity today. However if we were to switch to
> 	electromagnetic launchers (mass drivers?) the cost of 
> 	electricity required to accelerate a pound of material to
> 	escape velocity would be $0.65.
> 	
> 	I have no idea who was talking, but the economics, if they are
> even close to being right , are interesting. Do these numbers sound
> reasonable to the space wizards on the net or are they science fiction.
> What are the problems with electromagnet launches, i.e. payloads must
> be designed to withstand 3000000G and must be launched in a restricted
> direction, etc.etc.?
> 
> 					
> 					Fred Mendenhall
> 					
> 					

I don't know the exact figures, but the cost of fuel for the shuttle is also
very small per pound of payload.  The bulk of the cost of space systems is
in the engineering and manufacture, not fuel.