| Page 1 of 2 |
[ 23 posts ] |
Prof. Collins' answer and estimated numbers
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Moderator  
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany 
|
 Prof. Collins' answer and estimated numbers Posted on: Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:05 pmThis thread is meant to discuss the numbers estimated by Prof. Collins as well as by others which I will post later as a table which I still have to work on by reading documents.
By "discuss the numbers estimated" I mean discussion about chances and risks indicated by them, about customers' requirements of financing a ticket, about market chances and their possible time as well as very much else like that. Prof. Collins explicitly says that the magazines "The Futurist" and "Canadian Business" recently have quoted the numbers too which I have been quoting from "Wirtschaftswoche" - and the figure quoted is the result of confusion according to Prof. Collins' answer. Now before I got his agreement to post his answer to me here I already read one of the documents he is referring to in the answer. That document includes a graphic showing the Earth , the moon, orbits with hotels installed and so on - including the number of 5 million passengers. I still have to read the other documents he provides the links to in his answer and I suppose that in one of those documents the number of 20,000$ will be to be read. These both documents together I suppose to be the cause of the confusion: the authors of the articles in "Wirtschaftswoche", "The Futurist" and "Canadian Business" haven't been sufficiently careful in reading the documents and "Wirtschaftswoche" at least didn't list the links to the documents. Please read these documents too - completely and word by word. All the documents contribute to other sections and threads too. Collins' answer to me: Quote: Dipl.-Volkswirt Augustin, Political Economist, Hamburg ea6086@bdvb.de Thank you very much for your question below. I'm very pleased to hear of you and your colleagues' interest in these matters. I have (I think) always been consistent in my cost estimates, which are based on the work of engineer colleagues, and airline-type cost models. However, there seems to be some confusion here, since I have never estimated the price of a trip to the Moon at $20,000 - though this figure has also been quoted in The Futurist and Canadian Business magazines recently. My main suggestion for what is feasible in 2030 is in an illustration which is included in this paper among others: www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_recent_ progress_and_future_prospects.shtml There is some explanatory text about this scenario in several papers, but the origin is as follows: As part of the Space Tourism Study Programme of the Japanese Rocket Society (JRS) from 1993-2002, the price for an orbital flight was estimated to be 2.95 million Yen. This was based on the assumption of a relatively "mature" business, in which 52 Kankoh-maru vehicles (50-seater, VTOL, passenger space vehicles - there is a great deal of information available on the design) would be built over 8 years, and would each fly some 300 times/year. This is a price of about $25,000/passenger at a traffic rate of 700,000 passengers/year. The engineering cost estimates for the development and production of Kankoh-maru were criticised by engineers in Europe (notably Dietrich Koelle) and USA (notably William Gaubatz and Ivan Bekey) as being rather high. The Japanese engineers acknowledged that they were based on the experience of developing the H2 rocket, which is very expensive. The H2A rocket developed since then is near to 50% of the cost, and hence the cost of Kankoh-maru could be significantly less than the above figures assume. Consequently a price of $20,000/passenger seems a reasonable estimate at 1 million passengers/year. The cost could presumably fall further at progressively higher levels of activity. Hence the basic assumption for the 2030 scenario is $20,000 for a weekend in orbit, of which about $10,000 would be the return flight to orbit, on a scale of 5 million passengers/year. NB My 2030 scenario - not really a prediction, since it is based on actually starting - was first published in 1999 at the 2nd ISST (International Symposium on Space Tourism) held in Bremen. So I am not rigid about the 2030 date, but I still maintain it is possible within 30 years, once funding was available. So to come to lunar costs, I have never made any detailed calculations since my engineering colleagues have not yet had the opportunity to design even a conceptual system in the same detail as the Kankoh-maru study. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that getting to low Earth orbit is "half way to anywhere" as they say. That is, a vehicle like Kankoh-maru (suitably modified) if refuelled in orbit could, in principle, perform a round trip to the lunar surface. So it is in some ways a smaller technological step beyond low Earth orbit than low Earth orbit is beyond sub-orbital flights to 100 km. In 2003 I was invited to speak about lunar tourism at the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) Conference; the text is here: www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_future_ ... rism.shtml This speech seems to have "struck a chord", since it has already been reprinted in two books so far, and it also led to an invitation to speak to COSPAR on the same subject. However, you will see that I do not actually offer an estimate of the price of a lunar trip. The only other place where I have discussed it is in connection with a 1996 Nasa illustration of a lunar sports stadium. In order to compare such an advanced phase of tourism with what I and colleagues were studying, I suggested a price of $150,000 for a 2-week lunar round trip, at a time when a 3-day orbital holiday cost $15,000, at a rate of 3.6 million passengers/year: www.spacefuture.com/archive/artificial_ ... pool.shtml Until some engineers are able to make a reasonably detailed study of the various facilities involved, I think this ratio of about 10:1 between a lunar trip and a trip to low Earth orbit is a reasonable basis for discussion. Of course, add another 50 years of exponential growth, and it is difficult to say what will be impossible. But 10 times is a reasonable start; I have heard arguments for both higher and lower. There are a couple of other points which are worth noting. The criticism that space tourism will be a waste of energy is not conclusive, since by reducing launch costs sharply it will make the use of space-based resources, including power supply, feasible, if required: www.spacefuture.com/archive/synergies_b ... er_supply_ from_space_and_passenger_space_travel.shtml I am still agnostic as to whether or how power from space may be used - but it is certainly one possibility for limitless, CO2-free electric power, and is very synergistic with space tourism - see also www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_common_co ... _of_space_ transportation_for_space_tourism_and_space_energy_development.shtml by Professor Makoto Nagatomo, the leader of the JRS study. By the way, I very much look forward to some serious European effort in this field. It has been very frustrating that there has still been so little. You may know that some German colleagues deserve the honour for holding the first ever International Symposium in this field in Bremen in 1997. I am still looking forward to the organisers being allowed to hold the 3rd ISST. They are as keen as I am, but being space engineers they are beholden to space agencies, who are opposed to work on this subject (which is a story in itself). Interestingly, after the US Space Transportation Assocation took up the theme with 1-day conferences in 1999, 2000 and 2001, they too gave up through lack of funds due to the shrinking of the US space industry. (FYI a 2004 FAA document shows US employment in launch vehicle manufacturing and services falling from 28,617 in 1999 to just 4,828 in 2002!) So it would be excellent to have another Bremen Conference. Anyway, I would be pleased to keep in touch if you are thinking of trying to move this subject forward in Europe. As an economist you may be interested in the argument that space tourism will be of great economic value as a source of new employment, which I have described at length, eg in some of the papers referenced in the above papers. This argument is of no interest to space agencies, but I believe it deserves more attention by economic policy makers. Best wishes, Patrick Collins Professor of Economics Department of Environmental Policy Azabu University I will add a link to the orginal thread causing my e-mail to Collins by EDIT here. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) EDIT: A scientific economic estimation Last edited by Ekkehard Augustin on Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total. |
| Back to top |
 |
|
Moon Mission Member  
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361 Location: Austin, Texas
|
Re: Prof. Collins' answer and estimated numbers Posted on: Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:14 pm Ekkehard Augustin wrote: Collins' answer to me: Quote: there seems to be some confusion here, since I have never estimated the price of a trip to the Moon at $20,000 - though this figure has also been quoted in The Futurist and Canadian Business magazines recently. Thanks Ekkehard, that explains everything. |
| Back to top |
 |
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:21 am Hello, Peter,
I am still working on the completed and thus corrected table of numbers - I have read the documents Collins links to completely and word by word except the References. But did you read the documents Collins sent me the links to? Your quote is that short and isolated. Collins say in the quoted answer that he estimated the costs for a lunar round-trip at 150,000 dollars and in some of the documentsd he links to he estimates the orbital travel at 20,000 dollars and say that lunar can be assumed to cost 200,000 dollars. So the factor of 1,000 you are not convinced of still is there - in the other thread you have corrected yourself that the factor was 10,000 instead of 1,000. The documents provide the explanations you asked for so often. Please read them. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moon Mission Member
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361 Location: Austin, Texas
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:42 am Ekkehard Augustin wrote: did you read the documents Collins sent me the links to? |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:19 pm Here the new versions of the table. I will provide links from these tables to articles and documents but have to do some more work for that.
Additionaly I will provide additional tables by another post too. And just this moment I recognized that I forget to include a special additional "new" number. Table of amount of customers Code: 07.12.04 19.12.04 21.12.04 19.04.05 Collins answer to me 10.6.05 - orb. acc. JRS based on H2 - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc. JRS based on H2A - / - - / - - / - - / - - ret.flight to orb. acc. JRS - / - - / - - / - - / - - 3-day orbital holiday - / - - / - - / - - / - Collins in documents - orb. acc.Future of Lunar... - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc.Future of Lunar... - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc.Art.-Grav. ..-Pool - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc. Recent Progress - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc. Recent Progress - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc. Synergies ... - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc. Synergies ... - / - - / - - / - - / - - orb. acc. Synergies ... - / - - / - - / - - / - - lunar acc.Art.-Grav...-Pool - / - - / - - / - - / - Collins as quoted by - / - - / - - / - - / - "Wirtschaftswoche" Virgin Galactic: Branson, Whitehorn 7000 13000 - / - - / - growth since ... previous date - / - 85,70% - / - - / - previous date per month - / - 171,40% - / - - / - first date 85,70% - / - - / - - / - found by my own theoretical experiments: growth period growth rate month 0.5% - / - - / - 7018 7159 double-month 1.75% - / - - / - 7031 7279 month 2,1875% - / - - / - 7153 7799 double-month 4.375% - / - - / - 7077 7710 month 0.5% - / - - / - - / - 13262 double-month 1.75% - / - - / - - / - 13459 month 2,1875% - / - - / - - / - 14175 double-month 4.375% - / - - / - - / - 14162 25.04.05 2030 dateless 30 years Collins answer to me 10.06.05 - orb. acc. JRS based on H2 - / - - / - 700000 - / - - orb. acc. JRS based on H2A - / - - / - 1000000 - / - - ret.flight to orb. acc. JRS - / - - / - 5000000 - / - - 3-day orbital holiday - / - - / - 3600000 - / - Collins in documents - orb. acc.Future of Lunar... - / - sev.mio. millions - / - - orb. acc.Future of Lunar... - / - 5000000 - / - - / - - orb. acc.Art.-Grav. ..-Pool - / - - / - 3600000 - / - - orb. acc. Recent Progress - / - 5000000 1000000 - / - - orb. acc. Recent Progress - / - 5000000 - / - - / - - orb. acc. Synergies ... - / - - / - 1000000 5000000 - orb. acc. Synergies ... - / - - / - 700000 - / - - orb. acc. Synergies ... - / - - / - 5000000 - / - - lunar acc.Art.-Grav...-Pool - / - - / - sev. 100000 - / - Collins as quoted by - / - 5000000 - / - - / - "Wirtschaftswoche" Virgin Galactic: Branson, Whitehorn 29000 - / - - / - - / - growth since ... previous date 123,10% - / - - / - - / - previous date per month 30,78% - / - - / - - / - first date 314,29% - / - - / - - / - found by my own theoretical experiments: growth period growth rate month 0.5% - / - 4850957 - / - - / - double-month 1.75% - / - 4997873 - / - - / - month 2,1875% - / - 4956277 - / - - / - double-month 4.375% - / - 4956277 - / - - / - month 0.5% - / - 4850957 - / - - / - double-month 1.75% - / - 4997873 - / - - / - month 2,1875% - / - 4956277 - / - - / - double-month 4.375% - / - 4956277 - / - - / - please take 21.12.2004 and 19.4.2005 as half month or full month Links: Collins Future of Lunar... Art.-Grav. ..-Pool Recent Progress Synergies Virgin Galactic 25.04.2005 quoted 25.04.2005 17.12.2005 quoted 19.12.2005 22.10.2004 quoted 07.12.2004 08.06.2004 quoted 07.12.2004 The date after quoted is the date in the table. It wasn't possible to provide the links in the table directly. Table of prices estimated Code: Collins document - / - - / - - / - - / - orbital H2 answer - / - - / - - / - - / - orbital H2A answer - / - - / - - / - - / - orb. weekend answer - / - - / - - / - - / - orb. return answer - / - - / - - / - - / - flight to 3-day orb. answer - / - - / - - / - - / - holiday orbital Future... - / - - / - - / - - / - orbital Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - orbital Synerg. - / - - / - - / - - / - orb. Yen Common C. - / - - / - - / - - / - willing orb. Yen Common C. - / - - / - - / - - / - typical lunar answer - / - - / - - / - - / - lunar Art.Grav. - / - - / - - / - - / - lunar Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - Collins as - / - - / - - / - - / - quoted ... Moon - / - - / - - / - - / - suborb. - / - - / - - / - - / - Rutan date of currently 2010 2013/2014 betwe.2017 quote and 2020 suborb. 07.12.04 100000 - / - - / - - / - suborb. 24.01.05 30000 - - / - - / - - / - 50000 suborb. 02.03.05 - / - - / - - / - 30000 - 40000 suborb. 07.03.05 - / - - / - - / - - / - Virg.Gal.: Bra.,Wh. initial sev. ys. suborb. 07.12.04 200000 <<100000 - / - - / - suborb. 24.05.05 200000 50000 25000 - / - Space Adv. curr. off. act. 02.03.05 12048 - - / - - / - - / - 20 mio. t/Space document orbital website - / - - / - - / - - / - Collins document - / - 2030 dateless start fall to orbital H2 answer - / - - / - 25000 - / - - / - orbital H2A answer - / - - / - 20000 - / - - / - orb. weekend answer - / - - / - 20000 - / - - / - orb. return answer - / - - / - > 10000 - / - - / - flight to 3-day orb. answer - / - - / - 15000 - / - - / - holiday orbital Future.. - / - - / - 50000 20000000 20000 orbital Recent.. - / - - / - 20000 - / - - / - orbital Synerg. - / - - / - 20000 - / - - / - orb. Yen Common C. - / - - / - 1000000 - - / - - / - willing 3000000 - / - - / - orb. Yen Common C. - / - - / - 1800000 - / - - / - typical lunar answer - / - - / - 150000 - / - 200000 lunar Art.Grav. - / - - / - - / - - / - 200000 lunar Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - 200000 Collins as - / - 2030 quoted ... Moon - / - 20000 - / - - / - - / - suborb. - / - 10000 - / - - / - - / - Rutan date of longer ultimate quote run goal suborb. 07.12.04 7000 - / - - / - - / - - / - suborb. 24.01.05 10000 - - / - - / - - / - - / - 12000 suborb. 02.03.05 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - suborb. 07.03.05 - / - 10000 - - / - - / - - / - 15000 Virg.Gal.: Bra.,Wh. suborb. 07.12.04 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - suborb. 24.05.05 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Space Adv. act. 02.03.05 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - t/Space document - / - - / - - / - - / - orbital website - / - - / - 3333333 3333333 - / - - 5000000 - 5000000 Links: Collins Future... Recent... Synerg. Common C. Art.Grav. Rutan 14.08.2004 quoted 24.01.2005 02.03.2005 quoted 02.03.2005 7.12.2004 and 7.3.2005 currently not found Virgin Galactic 23.05.2005 quoted 24.05.2005 7.12.2004 currently not found Space Adv. 02.03.2005 quoted 02.03.2005 t/Space website The date after quoted is the date in the table. It wasn't possible to integrate the links into the table directly. The price quoted from t/Space has been got by dividing the price listed at their homepage by the numbers of pssengers which range from 4 to 6. It has been done because the other numbers in the table are per passenger but not per flight while t/Space has given a price per flight. Some of the years are calculated as if operations will begin in 2005 - despite the fact that they tend to begin in 2008 at Virgin Galactic. The operations of Virgin Galactic are delayed by regulations obviously and The vehicles will be ready after two or three years earliest. Especially such delays cannot be incorporated into Collins' estimations - because the delays weren't known then. Additionaly those estimations are estimations of an order of magnitude - which can be seen by the fact that the numbers of customers are given in full millions. Factual numbers mostly look like 4997873. Both these tables only show potentials but no actual amounts. Please note that Burt Rutan as an engineer gets nearly the same results as Bransons and Whitehorn (is one of the bother an engineer?) and the Economist Collins. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) EDIT: interesting number added: t/Space Last edited by Ekkehard Augustin on Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:10 pm, edited 3 times in total. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moon Mission Member
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361 Location: Austin, Texas
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:57 pm Hi Ekkehard,
I have read some of the documents, especially http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_ ... rism.shtml . Collins is assuming lunar flight will cost on the order of 10 times as much as LEO, which seems reasonable to me. The big problem is how to get from Dennis Tito’s $20,000,000 flight to the hoped for $20,000 orbital flight, a 1000 times cost reduction, which would allow a $200,000 lunar flight. To do this Collins refers to the Kankoh-maru SSTO VTOL passenger vehicle. So we are back to Andy’s 28 page document and any other Kankoh-maru information we can find. These documents will have economic and engineering information. I will be primarily interested in the engineering information; does the proposed vehicle sound possible. Could it operate frequently and safely without extensive maintenance. The space shuttle was supposed to do exactly that, but as we know, it can’t. If the engineering looks OK to me, I’ll just accept your judgement on the economic estimations. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:09 pm The documents Collins gave me the links to as well as the 1997-paper the authors of Andy Hill's document refer to contain references to papers about the Kankoh-Maru.
Nearly each of the documents refers to those data. I didn't follow all the links and references but the documents I read all refer to engineers and to Kawasaki (for example). Please follow the references and serach at the comapnies listed in the documents. You will find the data I think. And the 1997-document itself says a little bit about the properties of the Kankoh-Maru. I am already thinking about starting a new thread in the Technology section. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:51 am I have modified the price listed by t/Space in the table in the third post from this one. The modification was required because t/Space lists a price per flight while the other numbers in that table are prices per passenger.
The fact that the CXV will carry 4 to 6 passengers according to t/Space means that the price per passenger is the price per flight listed divided by the number of passengers. So a passenger flight to orbit by the CXV would cost between 3333333 and 5000000 dollars per passenger only instead of 20000000. I have added the links to documents an darticles too. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:12 am Peter, please have a look to www.xprizenews.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1346 .
There will be additional links to technical informations provided in the documents Collins listed the links to. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:12 pm Here the tables still to be posted
I. Table of Collins' data II. Table of Costs of Flight III. Table of Number of Flights (4 continuations) VI. Timetable Links still to be added I. Table of Collins' data Code: Nr Base passengers population tourists orbital 1 per year JRS exper. H2 700000 - / - - / - JRS H2A rocket 1000000 - / - - / - orb. weekend 2 JRS - / - - / - - / - - / - orb. return 3 flight to JRS - / - 5000000 - / - - / - 3-day orb. 4 holiday - / - 3600000 - / - - / - 2-week lunar 5 round trip conn. 1996 - / - - / - - / - - / - Nasa ill.lunar sports stadium orbital 6 Future.. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - millions - / - - / - Art.Grav. - / - 3600000 50000 - / - Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 1000000 20000 - / - Synerg. - / - 1000000 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 700000 - / - - / - - / - 5000000 - / - - / - Common C. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - lunar 7 Future.. - / - - / - - / - - / - Art.Grav. - / - - / - 10000 ~6000 - / - sev.100000 - / - - / - Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - (continuation 1) Nr Curr. remarks $ or Yen remarks 2030 or orbital 1 30 yrs JRS $ - / - 25000 - / - - / - JRS $ - / - 20000 - / - - / - orb. weekend 2 JRS $ - / - - / - - / - 20000 orb. return 3 flight to JRS $ - / - - / - incl.in >10000 WE in orb. 3-day orb. 4 holiday $ - / - 15000 - / - - / - 2-week lunar 5 round trip conn. 1996 $ sugg.when 150000 - / - - / - 4 is val. Nasa ill.lunar sports stadium orbital 6 Future.. $ $10bill. 50000 - / - - / - F&D - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Art.Grav. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Recent... $ 20000 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Synerg. $ - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Common C. Yen will. 1000000 - / - - / - to pay to 3000000 Yen typ. 1800000 - / - - / - lunar 7 Future.. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Art.Grav. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - (continuation 2) Nr pass. per popul prices prices remarks orbital 1 year 2030 2030 start at fall to JRS - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - JRS - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - orb. weekend 2 JRS - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - orb. return 3 flight to JRS - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 3-day orb. 4 holiday - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 2-week lunar 5 round trip conn. 1996 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Nasa ill.lunar sports stadium orbital 6 Future.. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - sev.mio. - / - - / - - / - - / - 5000000 70000 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 20000000 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 20000 - / - Art.Grav. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Recent... - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 5000000 70000 - / - - / - - / - 5000000 - / - - / - - / - - / - Synerg. - / - - / - - / - 20000 - / - 5000000 - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Common C. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - lunar 7 Future.. - / - - / - high progr.to 10x LEO to perh. 200000 Art.Grav. - / - - / - - / - 200000 10x LEO - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Recent... - / - - / - - / - 200000 10x LEO II. Table of Costs of Flight Code: Base Currency Costs Collins orbital Space Tourism experience H2 rocket Yen 2950000 Study JRS Space Tourism experience H2A rocket Yen signif. < 2950000 Study JRS t/Space orbital - / - $ 20000000 III. Table of Number of Flights (4 continuations) Code: per year seats kind lifetime prod. scale in years per year vehicle Collins -answer Kankoh-maru 300 50 VTOL - / - - / - JRS 300 - / - 10 8 WHEN PHYSICS... base of calc. - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - history - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - Virgin Galactic: Branson, Wh. "SS2" 07.12.04 - / - 4 HTOL - / - - / - 19.12.04 - / - 4 HTOL - / - - / - 25.04.05 - / - 4 HTOL - / - - / - Rutan SS1 - / - 2 HTOL - / - - / - t/Space CXV - / - 4 - 6 HTVL - / - - / - (continuation 1) prod. scale remark minimum number per year of pass./yr, required eng. of veh. vehicle Collins -answer Kankoh-maru - / - - / - - / - JRS 96 potential of >=100000 cost red. mass prod. WHEN PHYSICS... base of calc. - / - - / - - / - history - / - - / - - / - Virgin Galactic: Branson, Wh. "SS2" 07.12.04 - / - - / - - / - 19.12.04 - / - - / - - / - 25.04.05 - / - - / - - / - Rutan SS1 - / - - / - - / - t/Space CXV - / - - / - - / - (continuation 2) flights currency feas. price acc.market per day res. JP, CAN, GER, US vehicle Collins -answer Kankoh-maru - / - - / - - / - JRS 10 $ 20000 WHEN PHYSICS... base of calc. - / - - / - - / - history - / - - / - - / - Virgin Galactic: Branson, Wh. "SS2" 07.12.04 - / - - / - - / - 19.12.04 - / - - / - - / - 25.04.05 - / - - / - - / - Rutan SS1 - / - - / - - / - t/Space CXV - / - - / - - / - (continuation 3) add. pass. add.flights total orb.laun. suborb.laun. per year per year since 1957 since 1957 vehicle Collins -answer Kankoh-maru - / - - / - - / - - / - JRS 100000 2400 - / - - / - WHEN PHYSICS... base of calc. - / - - / - 1000 - / - history - / - - / - - / - 4700 about 22000 Virgin Galactic: Branson, Wh. "SS2" 07.12.04 - / - - / - 1750 - / - 19.12.04 - / - - / - 3250 - / - 25.04.05 - / - - / - 7250 - / - Rutan SS1 - / - - / - - / - - / - 3 t/Space CXV - / - - / - - / - - / - (continuation 4) suborb.laun. since 1957 vehicle Collins -answer Kankoh-maru - / - JRS - / - WHEN PHYSICS... base of calc. - / - history about 22000 Virgin Galactic: Branson, Wh. "SS2" 07.12.04 - / - 19.12.04 - / - 25.04.05 - / - Rutan SS1 3 t/Space CXV - / - The seats for "SS2" and SS1 are listed without the pilot's seat. The total number of flights of "SS2" is the number of customers divided by the seats of "SS2" listed without the pilot's seat. Please note that the number of flights used as base by WHEN PHYSICS is significantly below the total number of flights of "SS2" calculated. VI. Timetable Code: orbital lunar orbital lunar Future.. If between Then earlier than between 2013 + 2018 2023 2018 + 2023 Links still to be added by EDIT Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:22 am To breath some life into all the numbers and tables:
Table "I. Table of Collins' data" (1. table in the 10. post from the initial post) says that according to Collins the number of passengers for the Moon can be estimated at several 100,000 per year while the lunar population can be estimated at 10,000 6,000 of which will be tourists. Compare this to the other numbers of tourists given by the table - they are between three times and ten times those 6,000 or ten times the (several) 100,000 . So the degressions of costs and economies of scale achieved orbital that time won't be achieved lunar that time. Collins said in his answer to me that he did no analysis of lunar tourism comparable to orbital tourism. Consequently it can't be considered to be impossible that comparable degressions and economies could be achieved lunar - it should be analysed if they are achievable. Orbital tourism needs to be established previous to that simply. The same table says too that Collins currently thinks that a lunar trip will cost between 150,000 $ and 200,000 $ - at a time when there will be 6,000 tourists at the Moon per unit of time and several 100,000 lunar tourists per year. Ten times the price to orbit at a number of lunar tourists which is a tenth of the number of orbital tourists. Next compare Collins' 150,000 $ to 200,000 $ for the lunar trip to the current price for a suborbital trip to be payed to Virgin Galactic which too is 200,000 $ (Table "Table of prices estimated" - 2. table in the fifth post from the initial post). Currently Virgin Galactic has 100 contractors which means that 200,000 $ is a price consumers are willing to pay - for a suborbital trip. A suborbital trip is much less than a lunar trip - so is seems to be very probable that there will be consumers buying lunar tickets. So currently it doesn't make sense to consider the difference between 20,000 $ and 200,000 $ to be essential. What's really interesting is the difference in what the consumer gets for his 200,000 $ - a large if not huge difference. It seems that the future lunar trip may be more pricy than the current suborbital trip. Table "III. Table of Number of Flights" in the 3. table in the 10. post from the beginning of the thread shows that the possible number of flights calculated on the base of registered people at Virgin Galactic is significantly above the number of flights Dinkin, Jurist and Livingston based their study on. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:57 am To add some further comparisons.
According to recent articles like "Japan Embraces Space Tourism" ( www.space.com/missionlaunches/050818_sp ... tures.html ) Space Adventures offer a moon-round-trip at 100 million dollars - two commercial seats. They offer also orbital trips at 20,000,000 dollars. So a moon-round-trip is offered at five times the orbital trip. If this is applied to Collins' numbers a moon-round-trip would be at 100,000 dollars in two decades - Collins estimates that orbital trips could could be to be had at 20,000 dollars then. So the application of the 5:1-relation to Collins' numbers results in a price for a lunar trip which is half the price Collins told me he would assume for a lunar trip in 2030 - 200,000 dollars. This is a comparison only - to illustrate the relations. I am looking for more numbers which enable me to consider this all in the Accumulation-in-detail-thread too. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:52 pm It may be a weak comparison but it is an interesting comparison: costs or prices calculated in the threads about the accumulation in deatil and the Costs of a CXV launch versus numbers listed in the tables I posted earlier in this thread.
1. Suborbital flights That the published price for a suborbital flight by one of Virgin Galactic's vehicles after the first 400 to 500 tickets sold will be at the level they estimated earlier is known since long: They talked about $25,000 in 2013 or 2014 and they announced $20,000 after 400 to 500 tickest sold. So the real price seems to be 20% less than the estimated already. Really interesting are the variable costs. By the data published I found out that they aren't higher than $121,000. Since the number of passengers per flight and vehicle is 7 the variable costs per passenger are $17,285.714. Burt Rutan estimated $10,000 to $15,000 as ultimate goal and $10,000 to $12,000 in the longer run. Obviously the variable costs I found are just $2,000 above his estimated upper boundary as uötimate goal - that's is less than 20% of the upper boundary he estimated. Of course - I didn't include the fixed costs here. I will try to include them later - the fixed costs per flight depend on the number of flights over lifetime of a vehicle. 2. Orbital flights. The propellant costs whonos calculated for the CXV - in the thread about its launch costs were somewhat above $78,000. The CXV can carry 4 to 6 people. So the propellant costs per person are around $13,000 to $19,500. That's close to the $15,000 to $20,000 Collins estimated as final price for an orbital flight. Again the fixed costs aren't included yet - plus additional varible costs like those for the up to now expendable booster. It will be interesting to have an analytical look at the conclusions for a lunar flight - I will look for an approach. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:00 pm Here I am using the results of the weak approach in the CXV-thread for trying to have a better look onto at where
the costs of an orbital tourist trip may be currently perhaps. First I am using data reported by articles. The CXV must be considered to have at least one competitor - Space Adventures using Soyuz. Another company could evolve itself to a second competitor - SpaceX. The launch costs of the Falcon V may increase if it would be used for a manned launch but there are no data available concerning this. So I am using their current Falcon V launch costs. I am using a price policy similar to Virgin Galactic's suborbital price policy. The difference is that I assume two groups of passangers only - founders and others. Thus is due to the low number of flights required to cover the investment into the CXV. When the founders are all flown the depreciations are covered completely. Code: persons CXV flight per price revenue revenue num. costs person less than - costs fli- competitor ghts - competitor Space Adventures using Soyuz - 4 20000000 5000000 19000000 76000000 56000000 7.14 6 20000000 3333333 19000000 114000000 94000000 4.26 - competitor SpaceX using Falcon V - 4 20000000 5000000 15000000 60000000 40000000 10 6 20000000 3333333 15000000 90000000 70000000 5.71 Obviously the total depreciations can be covered after five to eleven flights. In the CXV-thread I calculated that if the flight costs would be used instead of any price 21 flights would be required to amortize the budget. So I can assume the life time of the CXV to be 21 flights at least - obviousy the depreciations can be covered long before that life time is terminated. So there is a number of flights left which can be done at lower prices. Let's assume that the costs are the booster and the propellant only. Then the costs per flight are $10,377,330. Per person these would mean $2,594,333 if four persons are flown in one flight or $1,729,555 if six persons are flown. This is around the $2,500,000 Interorbital Systems have said their flights will cost. The result is that today - in 2005 - the costs for an orbital trip would be $1.7 million to $3 million. There is a chance to drop this until 2030 by making the booster - costing $10,301,128 - reusable, It then would have to be depreciated simply and included into the calculations done here. This wouldn't increase the number of flights before profit zone - or it would increase that number by 1 only. The costs calculated already include $2,575,282 for the booster in the 4-person-case - which means that the reusability would drop the costs for an orbital trip to $19,051 in that case! In the 6-person-case $1,716,855 are included into the price and resuability would mean a drop down to $12,700! Remember - no wages etc. are included here - the price would have to be above these numbers. Result: The CXV assists Collins' estimation that orbital flight may cost $20,000 in 2030. I will try to get better insights, data etc. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
Posted on: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:14 pm The article "Clear skies for Virgin spaceliner" ( news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4365612.stm ) which Sigurd has linked to from the news apge of this board is reporting a new number of potential customers registered at Virgin Galactic. I incorporated that number into the table of customers.
Here it is: Table of amount of customers Code: 07.12.04 19.12.04 21.12.04 19.04.05 Virgin Galactic: Branson, Whitehorn 7000 13000 - / - - / - growth since ... previous date - / - 85,70% - / - - / - previous date per month - / - 171,40% - / - - / - first date 85,70% - / - - / - - / - found by my own theoretical experiments: growth period growth rate month 0.5% - / - - / - 7018 7141 double-month 1.75% - / - - / - 7031 7247 month 2,1875% - / - - / - 7155 7640 double-month 4.375% - / - - / - 7077 7982 month 0.5% - / - - / - - / - 13262 double-month 1.75% - / - - / - - / - 13459 month 2,1875% - / - - / - - / - 14189 double-month 4.375% - / - - / - - / - 14823 25.04.05 21.10.05 2030 dateless Virgin Galactic: Branson, Whitehorn 29000 34000 - / - - / - growth since ... previous date 123.10% 17.24% - / - - / - previous date per month 30.78% 2.87% - / - - / - first date 314.29% 485.71% - / - - / - found by my own theoretical experiments: growth period growth rate month 0.5% - / - 7358 4850957 - / - double-month 1.75% - / - 7634 4997873 - / - month 2,1875% - / - 8712 4956277 - / - double-month 4.375% - / - 13493 4956277 - / - month 0.5% - / - 13665 4850957 - / - double-month 1.75% - / - 14178 4997873 - / - month 2,1875% - / - 16179 4956277 - / - double-month 4.375% - / - 25058 4956277 - / - 30 years Virgin Galactic: Branson, Whitehorn - / - growth since ... previous date - / - previous date per month - / - first date - / - found by my own theoretical experiments: growth period growth rate month 0.5% - / - double-month 1.75% - / - month 2,1875% - / - double-month 4.375% - / - month 0.5% - / - double-month 1.75% - / - month 2,1875% - / - double-month 4.375% - / - As can be seen by the calculated percentage the growth of the number of the potential customers registered at Virgin Galactic is decreased down to a level above the highest monthly growth rate I used in my theoretical experiments. This means that the rate is a sane one now which could be kept in the future - I wouldn't wonder if the lowest rate I used would be broken for some time. The absolute number of registered potential customers is still high above the highest experimentally calculated number but approaching it due to the decrease in growth rate. Please not: I modified some of the results of my experiments - I may have done an error or unconsciously done a slight change in the method. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
| Back to top |
|
  |
Page 1 of 2 |
[ 23 posts ] |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests |
Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.