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.