Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al From: al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids Message-ID: <144@ames-lm.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Feb-84 21:25:24 EST Article-I.D.: ames-lm.144 Posted: Thu Feb 2 21:25:24 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 03:12:20 EST References: <782@ssc-vax.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 15 Sorry Dani, launch cost to LEO is more like several thousand dollars per pound, not $1,500. The $1,500 cost is, I believe, derived from highly subsidized shuttle launch costs. It is official NASA policy to gradually raise prices until full fare is really paid. As for the 'lower' costs of shuttle derivatives, I wouldn't count your chickens before the vehicle is off the drawing board. The shuttle was supposed to bring launch costs down to around $500/lb., something which has not and will not happen. In fact, if real costs come to within a factor of five of that level the shuttle folks will be very happy. What does all this mean? It MAY mean that lunar oxygen will be a paying proposition in a couple of decades. By the way, my letter never got through, thanx for the comments on the comet idea.