From Making Space Happen, by Paula Berinstein, we find that the Boeing 777 cost between $5.5 billion and $12 billion to develop. The 747 cost $3.8 billion in today's dollars. The Airbus A3XX cost $12 billion and the 707 was developed for $2.4 billion in today's money. The Concorde cost $12 billion in the 1960s. That would be approximately $55 billion today!
It seems to me that development is the biggest cost factor. Once you've got a production model you have to mass produce it and sell lots of tickets to get a return on the investment and make a profit. There's only a limited market for satellite launches. Tourism would create the mass market for space travel. In any case, NASA has never operated like a business. Special vehicles are developed for each mission. There were only two Voyagers and about a dozen Apollo spacecraft. If development costs a billion dollars, you aren't going to get a payback on two models. The Mars Rovers cost a small fortune, and we aren't going to crank them out like Model Ts. Subsequently, space travel costs a fortune. Even the Delta 4 rocket would be cheaper to launch if there were tens of thousands of commerical launches every year and they were cranked out on assembly lines; but there are only about 100 commercial launches every year and that's all that's needed. Telecommunication and broadcasting satellites are a $20 billion a year business!
Certification Costs
Then there is the certification process. The FAA requires 1,000 flights and at least three years. It costs over $100 million to certify a small business jet. It seems to me that a passenger carrying space plane is going to cost $100 billion to develop and a couple of billion to certify. Who has that kind of money?? Burt Rutan has built a small rocket for sub-orbital flight for a few million, but that thing's more like a Wright Flyer than a 747 or a Concorde. I'm sure there are millions of customers out there who will take a ride in space. Surveys have proven this. But who has the money to perfect a reusable orbital vehicle? I am convinced that space travel for the masses is possible. A 1.5 stage VTOL rocket using methane and LOX for routine flight might be just the ticket. This would cost billions to develop and 1,000 flawless flights. Is it really posssible?? I remain optimistic.
External Tanks
The E.T. is expensive, and it could be orbited with HVL cargo rocket flights, but it could be used for construction in space so the cost is worth it. If the E.T. was produced in larger numbers the price per unit could be reduced. It would still be a pricy item because it is made with a costly titanium frame and the aluminum skin has to be welded up in a barn flushed with argon gas. Even so, a space station made of external tanks would never rust or corrode in space. There will never be storm, earthquake or flood damage in space. The chance of a meteor strike is so low that it isn't worth worrying about. If an E.T. costs $60 million today, perhaps it would cost only $10 million or less if produced in quantity. A space station hotel consisting of a ring of twelve tanks would then cost $120 million or less and it would last for centuries. The interiors, plumbing and wiring might need replacement every couple or three decades, but the tanks will last long enough to make large profits. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of tanks in orbit would be quite a resource. Eventually, resources from Moon mining would cause the extinction of the E.T.
Also of interest, from Making Space Happen, the honorable Dr. John Lewis states that the Russians were charging about $600 per pound to LEO when the US was asking $3,000 to $10,000. The US State Dept. felt this was unfair competition and demanded that the Russians raise their rates or no US space company would be allowed to do business with them. So the Russian price went up to $3,000 a pound! You call that FREE ENTERPRISE??? What a way to teach our capitalist ways to the former communists! NASA has never operated like a business. American expendable rocket makers have been protected by the Feds from foreign competition by the European Ariane and the Russians. The Feds are as bad as the Reds, in my arrogant opinion. Space will continue to be a program instead of a place as long as the government controls things.
Mass Production?
So let's say that private industry gets in there mass produces rockets for tourism and prices come down to as little as $50,000 or even $20,000 per passenger to LEO. Where do we go? Hotels in orbit made from ETs hauled to orbit with HLV cargo rocket flights! External tanks will also be stocked up in LEO for storage tank farms, fuel depots in LEO and at L1 and L2, lunar surface habitat, stations at L1 and L2 and LO and other locations, spaceship hulls and scrap metal. Certainly, it would be wise to stock up ETs in anticipation of the day we raise a large interplanetary spaceship fleet and cycling stations to the Moon and Mars. Those ETs will be like corporate commodities to be used in the future or sold to other businesses.
Into the Future
When we industrialize the Moon to harvest helium 3 and build SPSs and power reflectors and/or supply raw materials to orbital factories, tourism could follow. The inter-lunar cycling station will be the most cost effective method of travel to the Moon. How big will cyclers be? The Queen Mary amasses 80,000 tons. Let's shoot for a cycler at 20,000 tons. That's 660 light weight ETs! You could fit 2,000 to 3,000 people in that comfortably.
Of course, early cyclers will be much more modest. They'll be made from a few to a couple of dozen ETs. Yet, imagine 100 cyclers of 20,000 tons each. We'd need 66,000 ETs!! It seems to me, we could stock up ETs for decades, as long as the company's income covered the cost; however, we probably won't need that many cargo rocket flights to build Moon mines with mass drivers that can supply metals and other materials to industry in space. If we build everything from tank farms to spaceships from E.T.s in the future, chances are that we will manufacture the E.T.s in space. That external tank is an excellent piece of engineering. Too bad it is under appreciated.
Safety
Safety will be paramount. The Challenger and Columbia disasters must not and will not be repeated. If a solid rocket booster on a 1.5 stage VTOL breaks loose it will seriously damage the vehicle. The consequences will be fatal. Liquid fueled boosters could be shut down immediately if one breaks loose, but complex liquid rocket engines are not 100% reliable. Hybrid rocket motors for the boosters might be best, combining the simplicity and reliability of solids with the higher performance and controllability of liquids.
Better electronic systems and sensors throughout the ship will increase safety. VTOLs ferrying passengers to orbital hotels will be inspected closely with cameras on robotic arms at the hotel and astronauts going EVA if necessary. If there is any damage to the thermal protection system, reentry will be postponed until the vehicle is repaired. Another rocket could ascend to orbit and transport passengers/tourists back to Earth. Simply implementing an inspection process in orbit will prevent accidents involving damaged heat shields of future tourist VTOLs.
