Let me start off by being very clear - I am talking about development and colonization - not exploration. Also - why does it cost so much to go into space?
Let me start off by being very clear - I am talking about development and colonization - not exploration. This isn't about finding water on mars, or the chemical makeup of comets and asteroids - although the basic science is worthwhile. What I am talking about for space development is utilizing space to create jobs for people on earth, and space colonization makes outer space available for the common man.
The act of space colonization is not in itself spectacular. It is the ordinary day-to-day routine of living. It is the point at which an average middle class family can afford to move to a colony located either in a space station or on another planet for an investment comparable to purchasing a home and moving across a continent where colonization will become routine. However, the philosophy of space colonization is a profound affirmation of humanity's ability to move beyond the limitations and risks of remaining on Earth. Space colonization is as profound as the American Revolution was to political philosophy and the rise of a market economy.
But, as has been pointed out, starry-eyed dreams can cost money. Which brings us to launch costs, and price per pound to orbit. Now, as I promised on Sunday, the current cost to put 1 pound of stuff in orbit, is between $10,000-$24,999 dollars. This is the key figure to remember. This is the expense that is holding back space development and colonization. The reason cost to orbit is most important is because most of the energy required to go anywhere is used up just getting to orbit - compare the size of the rocket that sent the Pathfinder probe with the size of Pathfinder itself. As Robert Heinlein said, "get to low-earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."
Now, an important question that isn't asked often; how are the prices for cost to orbit set? Is it a result of market economics? Of anti-competitive pricing? Of a vast intergalactic conspiracy against humanity? As you will see, it's quite complex, but it is most definitely not free and fair market forces.
To address where these costs come from, and why it's quite conceivable that they can come down, and come down rather quickly, we need to examine both an individual rocket for space travel, and the history of manned space flight itself.
Let me start by examining the shuttle. I am using the shuttle for the following reasons
1. It's the only manned flight vehicle currently used in the US, and manned space flight is a large aspect of development/colonization
2. It was the first attempt at significantly reducing costs (and failed miserably at that)
3. I know it much better than the some of the other rockets
4. It's the vehicle most people associate with Space flight.
The cost for the shuttle comes in 2 parts - the cost to build a shuttle, and the cost to operate a shuttle. The idea behind the shuttle was a fairly simple one - make a robust system that can be reused again and again, cheaply. And though it might cost more initially, it would save money, by making space flight much cheaper. Unfortunately, because of shortsightedness on the part of the government at the time, in an effort to decrease building costs, numerous compromises were made that increased operational cost, and ultimately cost the life of crews of the Challenger and Columbia. For example, the use of segmented solid rocket boosters adds cost because after each flight they must be broken down, and then reassembled, and they also must be transported across the US for refueling. A better option would have been to use liquid boosters, or even solid boosters that were a single piece, instead of segmented. But the USA did not want to spend the money required to build a plant for the rockets near Cape Canaveral. It is quite arguable that this decision led to the death of Challenger astronauts. In addition, the turbopumps, the most expensive part of the shuttle's engines, are required to run at such high efficiencies/energies that they must be replaced after every other flight. And similar things happened throughout the shuttle. All these things have driven the cost of manned flight to untenable heights. Despite the many problems with the shuttle, it has been flying for over 20 years. We haven't just thrown good money after bad money - we've thrown practically a whole bank. No company would have done this - they would've scrapped the program and started over, or given up completely.
And, this brings us to the structural issues in NASA that has perpetuated the shuttle, when it should've been replace many years ago. To understand this, you have to go further back into the history of Space Travel. The conception of NASA was very similar to the conception of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The unknowns were so great (basic questions of survival) that there was no way the average person could and would face the risks of the expedition. Hence both the Lewis and Clark expedition and the original concept of NASA were given a monopoly to proceed; the only customer was the government. The technology required for space travel is obviously much greater than the technology required by Lewis and Clark, but the underlying issues of survival were the same. So NASA blazed a trail into the unknown, and were subsequently the only customer in town. If you didn't get a NASA contract, you were probably out of business (yes, you could theoretically go to the military, but after 1970, or so, the concept of manned military hardware in space was replace with unmanned satellites). And today we see the result - we have 1 consumer of rockets into space, NASA, and a rapidly shrinking set of companies from which to get rockets from - In fact, earlier this year we saw the beginnings of the end result - Lockheed Martin and Boeing currently trying to get permission to create a single company for NASA to buy rockets from. In other words, we have a price fixing scheme, and the government has been encouraging the price fixing! While you can spin a number conspiracy schemes, and there is some evidence of corruption, the truth is, in my honest opinion, it was mainly a combination circumstances that came from the unknown dangers of Space flight. Another way of looking at it is that NASA, and manned space flight, suffer from the problems of the planned economy. And planned economies almost always suffer severe stagnation.
It is this monopoly, on both the producer AND CONSUMER ends that makes space expensive, and beyond the means of the average person. Because, if we can address the cost of orbital access, the limitless resources of space do open up to us. And, they are limitless; energy from the sun, minerals from asteroids, just to name a few.
Next Entry - Breaking the Monopoly, and locations available for development and colonization.