Quote:
|
I disagree. A truly reusable space plane would need labour more than anything, as the physical components would last multiple flights. Lack of people is not a problem society is likely to face in the future. So it is a fuel problem.
|
Check out the fuel cost of a shuttle mission compared to the overall cost of a shuttle mission.
Quote:
|
Kerosene is obviously out, because the last thing we need as we edge towards peak oil is to start burning it off by the tonne sending millions of people on vanity trips into space.
|
I can think of many stupid things people use oil for today. Making ethanol for one thing. I don't think people will suddenly stop being stupid. But kerosene could certainly be too expensive compared to alternatives.
Quote:
|
LOX comes from liquefied air and so is heavily dependent on electricity - which is getting more expensive by the day.
|
The overall trend has been for electricity to get cheaper. Of course, high coal and natural gas prices have resulted in an upswing lately.
Quote:
|
If you have electricity, getting hydrogen and oxygen isn't a problem. But there really is no capacity for such a surge in personal consumption.
|
The US used to add over 7% to its generating capacity per year. Now it adds less than 4% a year. There is no reason why it could not increase the growth in generating capacity if it wanted to. Shooting people into space should be less of a hassle than the growth in air conditioning due to its ability to use off peak power.
Now none of this changes the fact that I think spending good money to be shot into space is a bloody stupid idea. If you want zero gee you are better off flying in a vomit comet. And if you want a spectacular view of the earth from orbit buy a high definition TV. If you both at the same time then put a TV in a vomit comet. Or if you just want to float and see stars there are chemicals that will let you experience that at very low cost.