What would Ron do about NASA?

[LibertyOfOne]

Why do you say "it will be a long while" ? how do you know? Maybe it'd all speed up once the government is out of the way? There's TONS of incentives for people to want to get into space, especially for mining purposes.

I am not saying that there is a lack of incentives. Just that in the coming years energy costs are going to shoot through the roof unless we start moving away from fossil fuels. Which would drive up the cost of materials, construction, pulling 02 out of the atmosphere for rocket propellant, and converting methane into usable hydrogen.

Going by the physics alone not much can be improved in terms of efficiency. These rockets from the onset are engineered with models with maximum efficiency solved for.

Unless you:
a) Devise a new propulsion system
b) Find another means to transport stuff into earth orbit. (Space Elevator) Theoretical, but so was the rocket and space flight a long time ago.
c) Develop new materials to make lighter crafts.

 

[Hook]

I am not saying that there is a lack of incentives. Just that in the coming years energy costs are going to shoot through the roof unless we start moving away from fossil fuels. Which would drive up the cost of materials, construction, pulling 02 out of the atmosphere for rocket propellant, and converting methane into usable hydrogen.

Going by the physics alone not much can be improved in terms of efficiency. These rockets from the onset are engineered with models with maximum efficiency solved for.

Unless you:
a) Devise a new propulsion system
b) Find another means to transport stuff into earth orbit. (Space Elevator) Theoretical, but so was the rocket and space flight a long time ago.
c) Develop new materials to make lighter crafts.

I propose a large rubber band to fling spacecraft into orbit.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

I propose a large rubber band to fling spacecraft into orbit.

Dennis the Mennis might be able to make that happen.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

If you compare the complete costs of maintaining the entire shuttle fleet since its inception as well as the launch costs, you could have thrown up a replacement satellite for every one that died in space with a Saturn V for way less money. The Space Shuttle has been the most expensive way of getting things into space ever devised. And they can only repair satellites in low earth orbit anyway. The ones that are really useful to us, such as comm sats are in geosynchronous orbit, which is way too far out to go for the shuttle. The only generally useful low earth satellites are GPS and sat phones. Those sats are certainly cheaper than the shuttle launch costs.
The cost to lanuch something into space with the Shuttle is something like $2000/oz. Which means if there was gold for the taking in low earth orbit, it wouldn't be cost-effective to get it with the shuttle.
Every dollar you spend on the shuttle or the space station is a dollar you could have spent sending your kids to school or feeding some poor person in the third world. Let the market decide, not NASA.

Giving the Hubble a "contact lens" was certainly cost effective, or it would not have happened. btw: Hubble cost 2.5 Billion. Some spy satellites cost in the low billions, garden variety communication satellites have price tags in the millions.

As to it costing $2,000 an OUNCE to get something into orbit, that figure is a bit off. There is a chart at the bottom of this exercise for school children that lists costs per pound to get something into orbit. for the shuttle, it's $10,000 per POUND, so your figure was way off. For an orbital space plane, it's half that. (no wonder they want to replace the shuttle fleet!). Technologies that are farther off get downright cheap - $100 a pound for microwave or $6 a pound for single stage to tether (beanstalk).

http://media.nasaexplores.com/lessons/03-033/5-8_2.pdf

When microwave and tether type "elevators" mature, I can see space getting very commercial - it will be a while yet...

-n