The paper that Sam is presenting at ISU is now available on line.

I've only had time to skim through it, but this looks like a *very* nice paper.

Just read it - very interesting! (And a whole lot nicer to read than the NASA HRST study). I'm currently writing a launch problem explanation as the introductory chapter of my PhD thesis, though of course my emphasis is on the physics.

I noticed the G. Henry reference at the end - this quote from that gave me a good chuckle:

"The Earth is covered by two-thirds water and one-third space launch studies"
- Secretary of the Air Force Sheila A. Widnall, December 1992.

I have just skimmed the paper, and I agree with the conclusions. I will selfishly point out that if anyone wants to play around with their own cost estimates, I have a beta-version of a costing model (in Excel) they can borrow at: http://www.jupiter-measurement.com/research/rocketcost.xls if in exchange for its use they will let me know of any corrections or improvements it needs.
A description of the basis for the model is at http://www.jupiter-measurement.com/research/jpc_04_paper.pdf, but basically it seems to lead to the conclusions y'all got.

Cool! I get $231/lb for the microwave thermal rocket :) (just changed Isp to 800 sec)

Um, isn't ISU the one with the lovely campus in the scenic town of Strasbourg, France?

(plus wherever they hold their summer sessions...Adelaide, Bremen, Valparaiso, Nakhon Ratchasima, Vienna, Stockholm, Barcelona, Kitakyushu, Toulouse, Toronto, a handful of U.S. cities, and coming up in Vancouver)

"Cool! I get $231/lb for the microwave thermal rocket :) (just changed Isp to 800 sec)"

Don't forget R&D cost, and infrastructure cost. What is the installed cost of a mirowave transmitter per Watt? I have no idea. Jordin Kare's laser thermal rocket analysis* estimates potential laser cost at $2-$5/Watt installed; that might be starting point.
*http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf

Rest assured that result was a little tongue in cheek :p Sort of like thinking you can simulate flows at Reynolds number 1 million just by typing that value into the CFD program. What it does say is that Isp makes a big difference to costs associated with the vehicle.

As for the rest, gyrotrons cost $2/W (including power supply) and phased array area is $24K/m^2 (based on astronomical arrays).

The figure you quote for lasers must be for Jordin's latest fiber laser idea. If I remember correctly that's based upon an extrapolation of the capabilities of these things. The present laser cost is an order of magnitude or two higher, whereas the present gyrotron cost really is $2/W.

It was a very thoughful paper, but I though that the coverage of the conecpt of insurance was a little too simplictic making the RLV's insurance more expensive. For instance using his two stage asumption all mission fialures with the second stage blowing up after separation of the first stage will cost less for the insurance company than an ELV due to the first stage not being lost and able to be used again. The same can be said of the first stage failing to be recovered after separation and the second making it to orbit and back. This would not even have to be 'proven' by flight testing. Just take the data of lauch failures at each point of the flight trajectory and recompute what parts of the craft are at risk. This also does not cover the concept of safe failures with the RLV that can not be done with ELVs. Otherwise I really liked it.

If I'm reading Sam correctly, insurance and range facilities costs appear to dominate the total cost/lb.-to-LEO with actual rocket engineering matters at best in 2nd place. The range facilities costs, unless I'm mistaken, appear to be those of NASA's facilities. It looks to me like the best way to radically reduce the cost/lb.-to-LEO is to self-insure, as Sam reommends, and not use NASA range facilities. Or have I missed something here?

If range facility costs and potential liability are really the dominant cost factors, the first order of business would appear to be finding a primary facility location on the coast of a 3rd-world nation that is at least as close to the equator as Canaveral and also has nothing but water to the East. If you insist on being smack on the equator, the only choices appear to be Indonesia, Somalia and - though it isn't exactly 3rd-world - Brazil. Again; am I missing something here?

Dick,

Sam did show in his stuff that the range costs and
insurance costs were the dominant costs for small
launchers, but he only picked two very separate data
points for detailed analysis--1000lb and 100,000lb.
There's a lot of room in between these two numbers that might have range costs be a much smaller chunk of their total cost. Range fees don't seem to be a constant function of launcher size, but likely a step function depending on what additional infrastructure you need.

That said, the range fees situation really does need a good solution to it.

~Jon

Are range fees and other range constraints why SpaceX is moving later Falcon launches to the Marshall Islands?

Are range fees and other range constraints why SpaceX is moving later Falcon launches to the Marshall Islands?

I don't know, but given how much Elon has been kvetching about them, I'd say it's a reasonable bet.

Sent to the authors, bless 'em:
*Very* nice job on the ISU paper. You should all be proud.

Of course, none of you will ever be able to show your face, name or URL again without being beset by those who know that the One True Answer is

- ramjet/scramjet/inkjet first stages
- catapults feeding mass drivers supporting a space fountain tower on the peak of Aconcagua
- more testosterone in the drinking water at NASA
- a Rutan/Branson ticket in 2008
- finishing the DC-X, only make it HOTOL with an aerospike
- finding those Saturn V blueprints that were buried on the grassy knoll

But you knew that...

a Rutan/Branson ticket in 2008

Not that it's could happen but .. that would be an interesting horse race.

a Rutan/Branson ticket in 2008

Even if Burt decided to be a one-term President, I calculate that this distraction would deny the world at least five Rutan-designed craft. I think, on balance, that is too high a price to pay.

I like Monte's comments - spoken like one who has experienced more than his fair share of "True Believers" (Can't otherwise comment on the presentation, as I had a hand in it myself - it would be prejudicial). The "Three Doctors" may get to present this at Space Access - am helping them prepare for the potential rotten fruit, tar, feathers, and a rail.

"more testosterone in the drinking water at NASA"

You know that might actually help! NASA's engineers are rather aged these days; perhaps they'll remember the 18 hour day risk taking crowd they used to be back in the old days.