The foundation of this entire analysis seems to have a massive miscalculation. On the 9th page, ULA puts the price of putting 1kg in LEO at ~$4000 ( or about $1820 per pound ). This estimated cost for ULA launches may be correct, but what happens to the calculations when the launch price from Earth drops, perhaps dramatically so.
SpaceX can already beat ULA's launches with their published price for throwaway Falcon 9 launches at $62M each ( $2720/kg, $1230/lb ). The Falcon Heavy drops that price even more ( $1655/kg, $750/lb ). And once we see reusable first stages in the next few years, that price could drop to as low as $1100/kg or $500/lb. Thirty years from now, the price should be well under $100/lb with new technologies and better engineering.
With these new numbers, will Lunar fuel be more cost effective than bringing it up from Earth's deep gravity well? Or will the lower launch costs the estimated Lunar fuel costs even more? No matter which way this goes, this analysis is greatly overestimated in both prices and timescales.
Their market analysis, just like every other discussion of commercial space exploration I've ever seen, is circular. Space solar power, space manufacturing, space mining, space refueling... the only reason to do any of those things is if you have some other reason to be in space in the first place. (And in this case, near the moon!)
Don't we? We push objects from Earth to GEO all the time. If they could get their fuel along the way, it seems like that would reduce the cost of sending a satellite up to GEO.
It would also lighten the load of the launch, meaning we could put much heavier things in orbit.
Getting that fuel to objects in orbit will require a significant infrastructure, and huge up front costs, but someone clearly sees a calculus that results in a net savings over time.
If we can get that infrastructure built, it becomes much more reasonable to start looking at other things near Earth as potential resource sites -- asteroids in particular. All sorts of metals are out there in ahem astronomical quantities.
I see this as an exercise in improving what we're currently doing (let's get some gas stations installed between home and orbit), followed by innovation/new industries.
It could be environmental regulations are what finally push economic activity out into space. At the Recode conference a few weeks back, Jeff Bezos (Amazon, Blue Origin) stated his wish to see heavy industries and manufacturing moved into the celestial realm, beyond our precious atmosphere and land, leaving the earth pristine and less-polluted.
I tend to think there are opportunities up there, but they're primarily in mining and the infrastructure support that. There are opportunities in tourism of course, but those are small compared asteroid mining.
Only $3.5 billion to produce 1,000 metric tons of propellant on the moon? Seems like it probably would have already been done by now if it were that cheap.
Would it not make more sense to build safer and more reusable systems, like, electromagnetic launchers?
Weird that there is no competitive analysis or discussion of how the cost curve changes. This is, after all, pretty much an industrial administration play.
[+] [-] azdesertbuddha|9 years ago|reply
SpaceX can already beat ULA's launches with their published price for throwaway Falcon 9 launches at $62M each ( $2720/kg, $1230/lb ). The Falcon Heavy drops that price even more ( $1655/kg, $750/lb ). And once we see reusable first stages in the next few years, that price could drop to as low as $1100/kg or $500/lb. Thirty years from now, the price should be well under $100/lb with new technologies and better engineering.
With these new numbers, will Lunar fuel be more cost effective than bringing it up from Earth's deep gravity well? Or will the lower launch costs the estimated Lunar fuel costs even more? No matter which way this goes, this analysis is greatly overestimated in both prices and timescales.
[+] [-] holmak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pfhreak|9 years ago|reply
It would also lighten the load of the launch, meaning we could put much heavier things in orbit.
Getting that fuel to objects in orbit will require a significant infrastructure, and huge up front costs, but someone clearly sees a calculus that results in a net savings over time.
If we can get that infrastructure built, it becomes much more reasonable to start looking at other things near Earth as potential resource sites -- asteroids in particular. All sorts of metals are out there in ahem astronomical quantities.
I see this as an exercise in improving what we're currently doing (let's get some gas stations installed between home and orbit), followed by innovation/new industries.
[+] [-] BrandonMarc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teraformer|9 years ago|reply
Just like submarine launched ICBM's and Nimitz class aircraft carriers project power, so too shall a presence in orbit.
It's just not entirely clear how to enter that game yet, but it will be a game that gets played sooner or later.
I think there's probably going to be a big stare-down between 4 or 5 big players, but there's no way to guess at what's on the other side of that.
[+] [-] anubisresources|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsprogrammer|9 years ago|reply
Would it not make more sense to build safer and more reusable systems, like, electromagnetic launchers?
[+] [-] terravion|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awinter-py|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boznz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azdesertbuddha|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]