Robert Lynn <[email protected]> wrote: The energy costs for launching via a gun launch or a rocket won't be > much different to a space elevator given the parasitic weight of the > climber's laser receivers, motors, radiators, wheels etc
The payload of a lifter is 70% of the mass, with present technology. The payload of the space shuttle is 24 tons, compared to the total mass of 2030 tons (1%). The payload ratio for an elevator is the best by far for any space system. In any case, the dollar energy costs for both are only a few percent of total costs. Rockets like Falcon Heavy currently also have fuel costs of about $10 per > kg of payload launched, though that is dropped to $5/kg if using methane as > a fuel. . . > For an elevator, energy costs with present technology would be less than $3/kg, since most of the energy is solar. (p. 166). With cold fusion the cost would be $0. Cold fusion cannot be as easily applied to rockets as it can to elevators. As far as I know, the only way to apply it to ETO rockets would be to synthesize fuel. By the numbers you quote (500x35000kg) = 17 million kg per year for $1 > billion in operations/maintenance and optimistically $2 billion in > capital costs on a $17 billion investment would mean $150-200 per kg > lifted. > Your numbers are way off. By the time you have $1 billion per year operations cost and 2-way traffic with two 200-ton ribbons the cost is $13.50/kg. (p. 168). - Jed
