
Why The US Can Beat China: The Facts About SpaceX Costs - hef19898
http://www.spacex.com/usa.php
======
alanbyrne
> "The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010
> fiscal year were less than $800 million which includes all the development
> costs for the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon."

Wow. Facebook could have started an entire space program for less money than
they spent on Instagram.

~~~
nirvana
Or from another perspective, the entire cost of SpaceX's history to develop
all these technologies is less than a SINGLE launch of the Shuttle by NASA.

~~~
mitchty
Does SpaceX's cost include the original research costs that NASA incurred by
actually researching the underlying principles the Dragon rockets use?

I think people are underestimating the costs NASA incurred by being first.
Take the X15 for example, its first test flights were without its planned
engine because nobody up until that point had ever built a throttleable rocket
engine.

Now its well known how to build them and what not to do. I'm not saying NASA
is efficient, but direct numerical comparisons like these unnecessarily
distort the various differences in history between the two.

The shuttles many deficiencies are rather well documented as well. And it, now
had, features that the Dragon rockets don't serve such as the obvious recovery
of space payloads for example.

~~~
InclinedPlane
What's your point?

That research would benefit a NASA attempt to build a new launch vehicle as
well, yet there's no way they could have done so at anywhere near the cost
SpaceX managed (they even acknowledged that with a study).

We're not being armchair historians here, hypothesizing about a world where
NASA never existed. We're talking about rocket development in the here and
now. And in the real world of today SpaceX is able to build new launch
vehicles about 5x cheaper than NASA could.

~~~
_delirium
The main point to me is that it's comparing apples and oranges: an
organization that's mandated to do long-term fundamental research along with
space travel, _along with_ satisfying military priorities, engaging in
scientific research, and on top of that, release a large amount of data to the
public that others can build on.

Versus... an organization that just wants to launch a rocket, _building on
that data and fundamental research_ that others spend money doing, but which
doesn't have any strong commitment to any of the other priorities (such as
releasing new reusable data or basic-science research for others to build on
in turn). Of course the latter organization will be cheaper, because the
entire organization has a different set of priorities. In particular, NASA's
mandate requires it to spend money on trying to make its results constitute
scientific advances, i.e. publishable work, releasable data, etc.; whereas
Space-X is happy to save money by not doing so.

For example, I've been looking for the FTP site where I can download raw data
originating from Space-X and released into the public domain, and I can't find
one. That's not very helpful for others who're looking to build on their
advances!

~~~
InclinedPlane
We can compare apples to apples, though. Again, this isn't about defunding
NASA, it's about maximizing return on expenditures. NASA doesn't have to stop
doing science or exploration to take advantage of commercially developed
launch vehicles. Indeed, by making such a switch it would free up money for
NASA to spend even more on doing those things.

If NASA were spending $5 billion a year on developing its own automobiles when
they could just buy cars from Toyota or Ford the decision would be a no
brainer.

~~~
kamaal
_If NASA were spending $5 billion a year on developing its own automobiles
when they could just buy cars from Toyota or Ford the decision would be a no
brainer._

True, if Toyota exists to supply those automobiles. Not, if NASA is the first
one to make a automobile.

Remember NASA was the first to make many things which are not available off
the shelf.

------
PaulHoule
It's astonishing to see this much transparency into launch costs.

Governments have long held this information close to their chests. NASA, in
particular, has never published accounting on what the Space Shuttle really
costs, since this information would help a competitor (Russians, Chinese,
etc.) build a similar vehicle with better economics.

~~~
damoncali
Is that really why? I worked at NASA for a while, and everything we did was in
theory public info (to my knowledge, at least) - but nobody had any incentive
to make anything actually available. (It's a shame - lots of cool stuff is jus
sitting on hard drives).

~~~
excuse-me
But the reasons Nasa had to do it that way - weren't

Space-X has a single goal - lift 1000Kg up 500km cheaply.

The space shuttle had a million competing goals - from the airforce who wanted
a certain glide slope, senators that wanted bits built in their home state,
Presidents that wanted a launch on the day of a press conference, scientists
that wanted a platform for different experiments, Astronauts that wanted
justification for crewed vessels. And of course Nasa that needed to find
budgets to keep 'N' Apollo era people employed.

~~~
tjic
> The space shuttle had a million competing goals - from the airforce who
> wanted a certain glide slope

You missed the one goal that was in the forefront of all others:

Justify a large budget / keep the permanent bureaucracy employed.

Elon doesn't care about this.

In the government sector labor force size is a BENEFIT.

In the private sector it's a COST.

That is why private sectors of the economy deliver more and more value
relative to the number of people employed over time (farming, publishing,
software, hardware) and why government dominated sectors move in the opposite
direction (the only sectors to gain headcount in the recession are education,
healthcare, and government).

~~~
Klinky
I hope you don't really view the world in a black & white narrative pitting
the evil bloated government against sprightly nimble innovative companies.
Bureaucracy, bloat, waste & failure exists in both the public & private
sector. Heck a lot of people are driven to startups because of the dysfunction
they've found in other private sector jobs. It's also silly to think this way
when you realize that most large government programs involve private
contractors doing some, most or all of the actual work.

As far as delivering more value, a lot of economies of scale are thanks to
technological advances. A lot of technological advances can be credited to
expensive governmental programs that were springboards the private sector was
later able to launch off of.

~~~
tjic
> I hope you don't really view the world in a black & white narrative pitting
> the evil bloated government against sprightly nimble innovative companies.

You read a WHOLE lot in there.

Look at the point that I actually made, and JUST that point:

In Government, headcount is a (political, organization, etc.) benefit.

In industry it is a cost.

~~~
Klinky
>In Government, headcount is a (political, organization, etc.) benefit.

Can be said for the private sector as well. Unless you think the private
sector is growth averse.

>In industry it is a cost.

Governmental employees are not free.

You also made other points as well such as the #1 goal of the Space Shuttle
program was to keep bureaucrats employed & that the private sector is more
efficient regarding the value it creates per employee.

~~~
gaius
I've never seen a corporation with "full employment" as an actual, stated,
strategic goal.

[http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-
and-...](http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-
documents/building-britains-recovery/)

 _"Building Britain’s Recovery: Achieving Full Employment", published on 15
December 2009, restates the Government’s response to the recession and signals
the start of the programme to return to full employment._

~~~
gahahaha
A company is an OPEN system (they can cut jobs and make more money), but a
country is a (mostly) CLOSED system (someones spending is somebody else's
income). Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than
another mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high.

I'm not supporting government waste, but the way. Efficiency should be the
goal, but you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.

~~~
ekianjo
> Even the most ineffectual government employee is more valuable than another
> mother or father on the dole when unemployment is already high.

Yeah, it worked very well in Russia and East Germany. So well people were
risking their lives to go somewhere else for better opportunities. And if
North-Koreans could get out of their country, I'm sure they would be happy
witnesses of a full-employment state policy.

You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.

~~~
Daishiman
If you think matters of economics were the only, or primary, reason why people
attempted to escape from those countries, you are seriously delusional.

~~~
ekianjo
It all goes together, my friend. WHen you destroy the economy, you have to
replace it by a state-fueled economy and therefore the totalitarian package
goes with it. We have yet to see totalitarian states with free economy. It
does not exist because it goes against its own logic. That's not hard to
understand.

~~~
Klinky
The most successful economies are not free and feature heavy governmental
influence. One of the most successful, China, could be considered a
totalitarian regime.

------
evoxed
> The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch
> in four and half years for just over $300 million. The Falcon 9 is an EELV
> class vehicle that generates roughly one million pounds of thrust (four
> times the maximum thrust of a Boeing 747) and carries more payload to orbit
> than a Delta IV Medium.

> The Dragon spacecraft was developed from a blank sheet to the first
> demonstration flight in just over four years for about $300 million. Last
> year, SpaceX became the first private company, in partnership with NASA, to
> successfully orbit and recover a spacecraft. The spacecraft and the Falcon 9
> rocket that carried it were designed, manufactured and launched by American
> workers for an American company. The Falcon 9/Dragon system, with the
> addition of a launch escape system, seats and upgraded life support, can
> carry seven astronauts to orbit, more than double the capacity of the
> Russian Soyuz, but at less than a third of the price per seat.

Well now, look at these gems! If you still need a reason to get into this
company, just read the first sentence of either quote.

~~~
skore
Well, that may be true, but when you hire a ton of NASA scientists, I would
assume they can fill out those blank sheets rather quickly...

~~~
InclinedPlane
And yet, how is it that NASA, or even Boeing or Lockheed-Martin, can't manage
to fill out those blank sheets rather quickly, let alone cheaply?

~~~
skore
I would suppose it's a combination of corporate politics being very different,
more goal driven than in government agencies and the simple fact that SpaceX
simply has a lot more giants on whose shoulders they can stand. Why they are
_that_ much more effective at it remains to be seen. I would guess it's being
smart with the shoulders you pick to stand on and a good bit of PR.

------
coenhyde
If SpaceX can put the costs to launch a satellite into orbit on their website,
then you'd think that enterprise software companies would be able to price
their software ......

By the way SpaceX is my favourite company of all time. Elon Musk is living my
6 year old self's dream (actually my dream is still pretty similar, just
haven't got their yet ;p )

~~~
protomyth
Heck, at this point I'd accept a particular enterprise software company
shipping a one click update program instead of 10 pages of instructions and
720,621 lines of PL/SQL that I need to run against the Oracle database.

// that is the exact line count from "wc -l" - I am not joking

~~~
zschallz
But then we couldn't charge you for training and consulting.

~~~
protomyth
That does seem to be the prevailing attitude in enterprise software.

I cannot help but look at the history of the big 3 Detroit automakers and
their love of using service and support as a revenue source. It bit them
pretty badly when Honda came along and made cars that didn't need the repairs.

I look at the example of the automakers every time someone tells me the proper
business model for software is give away the program and charge for support,
consulting, and training. I would much rather pay for software that I never
have to call support about.

~~~
zschallz
Agreed, but that's not quite how it works in Enterprise software, I think.
Enterprise software is developed to cover a wide spectrum of businesses whose
business rules, etc differ greatly. Because of this it's hard to make a
product that "just works" for every organization. That's why CIOs buy support
and consulting contracts. :)

~~~
protomyth
The one we are using (names withheld to protect the guilty) is being used in a
turnkey manner. No customization or custom code, just the base functionality.
It is the pure gall of shipping a sql file as an update that is longer than
most programs.

------
angersock
Wonderful quote from the article:

 _"(This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space
contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the
responsibility of the taxpayer.)"_

~~~
skore
Really? That sounds rather obvious and a bit too cheeky to me. To twist it the
other way around: If cost run over in a government project, who else _could_
you hold responsible?

Sure, it's not a great thing that this happens, but it seems like a douche
point to make when the government simply has no other choice.

Edit: Sorry, misread 'government contractors' as 'government agencies'. I was
under the impression that he is talking about NASA.

~~~
pilom
All Musk is saying is that they bid the project as a Firm Fixed Price (FFP)
contract. Most contractors aren't willing to do that with untried technologies
b/c of the possibilities of cost overruns. For instance when the government
buys Humvees for the army they pay a Firm fixed amount per vehicle because the
contractor knows exactly how much one should cost and charges more than that
to the government.

For a brand new stealth fighter though, there are a lot of unknowns and a lot
of development to do before they can build the first plane. The contractor can
say "We think we can do all the necessary research for this with 100 people
over 3 years plus $2 billion in additional costs for materials and to contract
out the construction of new factories etc. All that added up would be $5
billion (plus $100 million per additional month beyond 3 years) and we expect
a 15% return in profit on this development." This is called a Cost plus Fixed
Fee contract. If they were to bid it as a firm fixed price contract they would
just say "we want $3 billion per plane for the rest of time" and the
government would likely overpay comparatively. The government agrees to the
cost plus fixed fee terms because the know it allows the contractors to price
their offering lower if they don't have to take on the risk.

So option 1: Government takes on risk of overruns but pays a lower price if on
time and on budget. Option 2: Contractor takes on the risk and makes out like
a bandit if they are on time and on budget.

~~~
hef19898
Firm Fixed Price is what the EADS did with the A400M. When governments kicked
in, dictating engine suppliers, changing specs to fit all militaries
involved...

well let's just say it did go well. Lesson to be learned: If you are in full
ontrol of everything from scratch to delivery and have clear costumer specs
you can do that.

If you are a quasi state-run business with political obligations serving
multiple customers with different requirements, you better don't.

------
ewolfe
I had no clue they were profitable. With "over $3 billion in revenues" and
"total company expenditures ... were less than $800 million" that is quite the
ROI.

~~~
piotrSikora
Keep in mind that those $3bn are mostly "future" revenues that will be
generated over the next 5 years (<http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php>).

~~~
simonh
Also that was $800 Million through 2010, we are now 2 years on and counting.

------
randall
Most YC hackers:

"I'm fixing x because x is broken. They're slow, costly, inefficient, and
aren't taking advantage of modern technology."

Elon Musk is doing a YC startup (in spirit) on the most grand scale possible.

~~~
sounds
And, if his luck holds (and I really hope it does!), mankind can escape our
single-planet limitation and actually colonize the solar system !

~~~
ashleyw
We've just got to hope there aren't any major catastrophes involving life
early on. Personal space travel could easily go the way of Concorde and
commercial supersonic travel if companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic
don't get it spot on first time.

~~~
sounds
Yes, true.

(Moment's pause to remember and respect the Challenger and Columbia
Astronauts, and the Russian Cosmonauts who also gave their life.)

As I think about it though, I think of the few brave people I know who would
be willing to take a _one-way trip_ to Mars, as long as they were starting a
colony.

------
drewblaisdell
Is it fair to say that NASA would likely require many times the amount of
funding for the same result as SpaceX?

I ask because as someone who was previously unfamiliar with the amount of
funding SpaceX had to work with, $800 million sounds like an _incredibly_
small amount of money to do (what looks like) more than NASA does with its
~$18 billion budget.

~~~
JeffBlauser
Not that there couldn't be inefficiencies at nasa, but they have many other
programs going on which account for its budget.

~~~
hessenwolf
Partly true, but partly there is a fundamental inefficiency at play in the way
they do things.

On the space shuttle, every outer tile is unique and must be manufactured
accordingly. Boeing cover their rockets in shitty orange foam.

When the shuttle returns, it is driven into this spider-like contraption that
actually cost almost as much to build as a shuttle. Boeing put the rocket on
its side, and use step-ladders, and, I kid you not, a plank.

------
DanI-S
> This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor
> rates.

As much as I admire Elon Musk, this is a short-sighted, exceptionalist dogma.
It may apply in some cases - for the time being - but do people really think
that non-Americans are incapable of innovation?

SpaceX have had a headstart, since NASA and their gigantic budget have decided
to take advantage of free enterprise. It's only a matter of time before Asian
and European governments begin to do the same.

~~~
gaius
You've not met many European governments, have you? In England Elon'd still be
waiting planning permission from his local council to build a launch site...

~~~
jacoblyles
In France, a Presidential candidate who advocates a 100% income tax on incomes
over $300,000 is polling at 16% of the vote. Europe doesn't like Elon Musks.
It's inequal :(

------
pgroves
This is how a CEO gets engineers to want to work for his company.

~~~
MPSimmons
By working on impossibly cool goals for the betterment of humanity?

Yes.

------
wave
Actual goal of Elon Musk is to send someone to Mars, but since seems far
reaching goal for most people and since they might call him crazy, he is
sticking with near space for now. Do not be surprise when he starts talking
about Mars.

~~~
ballooney
He talks about Mars quite publicly already and various of SPaceX's corporate
videos contain CGI dragon capsules landing on mars.

Also he's not 'sticking with near space for now' to avoid being called crazy
as you imply, he's sticking to near-space now because you have to get that
capability working and reliable so you can build on it for going further
afield. It's not a smoke screen, it's all quite consistent with a road-map to
mars.

------
mukaiji
You are a random billionaire (i.e. not Mark Zuckerberg) with a billion
dollars.

You could: A. Buy Instagram. B. Build SpaceX from scratch.

Most of them would probably buy instagram. :(

~~~
awj
Well ... yeah. I have a bit of experience buying things, but know nothing
about creating and running companies that design and build rockets. I'd
probably buy Instagram too since the rocket thing would die in my ineptitude.

~~~
mukaiji
what about Jeff Bezos (ok, he's EE [yay, EE!]), or Richard Brandson (or it's
really Rutan's brainchild)? OK, Virgin Galatic is child-play next to SpaceX,
but it still demonstrate that billionaires can invest in AA.

------
retube
I am surprised that a leavy-lifting rocket capable of achieving orbit only
develops 4 times the thrust of a 747.

~~~
mcguire
A Delta IV Medium's payload capacity is roughly 10,000lbs (to a geosynchronous
transfer orbit). A 747's original design payload is more than 10x that.
(Wikipedia claims a 747-8F's payload is about 150 tons.)

------
ck2
I wonder how many decades until you can buy an earth-orbit ride giftcard at
walmart.

~~~
wtvanhest
It will more likely be Amazon.

------
MatthewPhillips
> font-size: 11px;

Why?

~~~
joering2
Google Chrome: Ctr +, Ctr +, Ctr +

Honestly, the same thing I had to do with Hacker News. Font is damn too small,
for me at least.

~~~
yesbabyyes
I view webpages at 120% by default. I used to love small fonts, now I don't
know what I was thinking and instead prefer the browser default of 16px.

------
noomerikal
On a side note, could you pony up for a designer? I felt like I was perusing a
README file for StarCraft.

------
andys627
Man I wish this could be replicated in train construction - Florida is
exploring this. One downside however, is you get what the private developer
wants - so they're ending up with a train station at Orlando airport instead
of downtown Orlando where it should be. Government is uniquely incentivised to
do that right because they gain from increasing property values near where the
train will go. Unfortunately local developers won't be so nice as to pony up
more for that kind of thing even though they will reap disproportionate
rewards. Another example - here in Reno, we're trying to build Bus Rapid
Transit through a main corridor that is undergoing a pretty great
revitalization. People in NV are especially not cool with traditional way for
raising taxes for this kind of project (a la 1 cent sales tax just for
BRT/streetcar).

It begs to ask, if the developers nearby are going to gain so much, why aren't
they building it themselves? Too many groups that won't take risk... I mean
probably 1,000 people who own buildings there will benefit
disproportionately... you are never going to get them together to pony up for
a streetcar. But the proof is there... look at Portland for a US example...
also Seattle and SF and San Diego. Its just easier to get the government to do
it. They should put a local surcharge on property values. Its only fair.
However, they will f- this project up I'm sure... just like NASA spent a
kabillion extra dollars just to build certain parts in certain senator's home
states... and my other local train is going to have a snack bar so the Sonoma
County housewives that will never ride the train can get a snack; instead of
more seats and bike space.

~~~
Symmetry
So, this is basically replicated in train construction in Europe and Japan,
but the US has a... unique regulatory environment for trains.

<http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html>

Also, when you develop near a train station you can't build parking lots next
to it, which tends to make people with cars upset, and they usually have more
political influence than people who just use trains:

[http://www.darientimes.com/news/darien-features/local-
news/5...](http://www.darientimes.com/news/darien-features/local-
news/5002680-commuter-council-warns-of-potential-woes-at-stamford-
station.html)

~~~
andys627
I'm not sure I understand your argument - trains in Europe and Japan are not
private.

We're talking about Elon Musk and looking past the status quo of stuff. The
status quo I'm trying to look past is "do everything based on cars, for cars,
for the benefit of cars, because cars are the way old people have done it and
they're obviously right. Cars. Cars. And more cars."

~~~
Symmetry
Trains in Europe aren't private, but the companies that make the trains are.
And in fact all the trains in Japan (even the Tokyo subway!) are private.

I very much agree that we ought to get away from promoting cars so much, but
lets not kid ourselves. The problem isn't developers, but middle class
Americans who like their cars.

~~~
andys627
Middle class americans might like cars - but our government certainly
encouraged them. Perhaps this is what we should stop first, and then parking
lots next to train stations may be less of an issue.

------
olalonde
> China has the fastest growing economy in the world. But the American free
> enterprise system, which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete,
> is what will ensure that the United States remains the world’s greatest
> superpower of innovation.

China is also moving pretty fast towards a free enterprise system while the
United States is moving in the opposite direction at approximately the same
speed. Well at least, having lived both in America and China, that's my
impression.

------
tlogan
I hope that young entrepreneur will follow more steps of Elon Musk and instead
of pursuing fast money start pursuing big dreams. Actually I think that is
already happening...

~~~
gvb
Elon Musk started with fast money (PayPal) and is now using that to pursue big
dreams. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk>

~~~
tlogan
I'm sorry I was not 100% clear. With term "entrepreneur" I mean to include
only people who already made it and prove to society they are entrepreneurs -
i.e., they already sold the first company and have $$ and name. So my point is
that instead raising money to build path.com, color.com, or some other stupid
web 2.0, young entrepreneurs should follow Musk steps.

------
rrrazdan
<http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/gslv.htm> India's comparable GSLV has a
programme cost of 800 million dollars and a launch cost of around 90 million
dollars. Given the relatively less development costs in India. I'd have to say
very impressive SpaceX.

------
cridal
Is this guy the Richard Branson of XXI century? Barely in his 40s and: Paypal
Tesla SpaceX You've got to be in owe...

------
hef19898
Following the discussion on the SpaceX infrastructure, I did some didding on
their homepage and stumbled over this article.

Seriously, being in this industry, that's more than just impressive. And you
should really ask yourself what you do wrong...

------
jeffool
Is it dumb of me to ask "so why isn't NASA working on terraforming bodies
yet?"

It seems inevitable, and like we may as well start spitballing now. Send a few
rooms that attach to the surface and dig in, practice in there remotely.

------
rdl
This is a good reason to the sarbanes oxley. If SpaceX had IPO'd already, more
end cheaper capital might have helped, and buying spacex stock would the best
thing I can do personally for space for a while.

------
brainless
This is disruption in true sense. Hope others follow the footsteps.

------
chrismealy
_For the first time in more than three decades, America last year began taking
back international market-share in commercial satellite launch. This
remarkable turn-around was sparked by a small investment NASA made in SpaceX
in 2006 as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)
program. A unique public-private partnership, COTS has proven that under the
right conditions, a properly incentivized contractor — even an all-American
one — can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-
price basis, significantly beating historical industry-standard costs._

------
workhorse
Elon for president?

~~~
cridal
Nope... Born in South Africa...

~~~
hashfold
u r racist. a capable person will take country higher. be positive!

~~~
ef4
You're missing the point. It's actually written into the American Constitution
that the president must be born in America.

I don't think the above comment had anything to do with his capabilities.
Merely the practical difficulty in becoming president. (It would require a
constitutional amendment.)

------
mburshteyn
This is why SpaceX is my favorite company.

~~~
hashfold
mine too.

------
beernutz
Wow, and that post from Elon is over a year OLD! Wonder where things lie
currently?

------
excuse-me
There's nothing new in this - it has been done before.

Want to build a Mach3 aircraft in the days when most people thought jets were
pretty clever?

Want to do it in <2years using materials that had never been used in a plane
before - and do it on budget.

And repeat the success with half a a dozen other projects.

And it's described in a book that everyone in technology (or management)
should read [http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-
Lockheed/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-
Lockheed/dp/0316743003)

~~~
excuse-me
re: the downvote.

This wasn't an attack on space-X it was a celebration of them having continued
the tradition of the frankly astonishing work that skunk works started.

ps. it is a very good book

------
rorrr
I hope Elon Musk gets all the "man of the year" awards.

The man is brilliant, and there's so much resistance to what he's doing, it's
insane.

------
spenrose
The real cost of space flight is energy, specifically:

1) The huge amount of energy required to lift mass out of Earth's gravity
well. 2) The vexing practical expense of obtaining that energy in useful form
(e.g. rocket fuel) for launch.

Rocketry's future will always be limited by those daunting constraints.

~~~
ColinWright
This ...

    
    
        The huge amount of energy required to
        lift mass out of Earth's gravity well.
    

... is a common misconception. The energy required to get to orbital altitude
is only a tenth of the kinetic energy of orbital veloity. Yes, I'm just
confirming your observation that the energy requirement is huge, but you're
understating the problem, and propagating a misconception.

~~~
spenrose
My point is that the insofar of the promise of space is "let's send lots and
lots of stuff, especially people/food/air/water", then the fundamental
economics center on energy use. Are you saying that some of the orbital
velocity can be recaptured or otherwise used to offset the cost of fuel?

~~~
ColinWright
No. Let me quote myself:

    
    
        ... I'm just confirming your observation
        that the energy requirement is huge, but
        you're understating the problem, ...
    

With regards energy use you are underselling your position by a factor of 10
when you talk about getting things 200 miles in the air. The kinetic energy
required is 10 times as much. By saying what you did ...

    
    
        The huge amount of energy required to
        lift mass out of Earth's gravity well.
    

... you are:

1) understating your case, and

b) propagating a misconception (that getting out of the gravity well is the
hard bit).

~~~
excuse-me
It would be more correct to say - the huge amount of power required to
accelerate all the fuel + rocket + payload to high speed at the start.

If you could fly up to orbit at walking pace and then boost the horizontal
velocity to orbit you would need very little fuel - compared to firing a big
rocket for a few minutes so that the huge mass can then coast to orbital
heights.

