>> With the grasshopper technology the cost of a flight to orbit basically is the cost of rocket fuel...
>Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel.
yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel. As opposed to the cost of a full car + fuel because you decide to blow your car up once you get to destination, like we now do for rockets.
> yes, but the cost of using your car for a drive from home to work is basically the cost of car fuel.
No, it isn't. Insurance, license, registration, annual inspection, tires, wear-and-tear, maintenance, depreciation... and imagine if I needed a fully-staffed mission control at my house every time I took a ride.
Reusable rockets may reduce costs, but chances are it won't be by 100x.
If we assume two things: the current cost of fuel is 1% of the total launch cost, and launching a reusable rocket is similar to operating an aircraft, then we can use numbers from commercial aviation:
- the cost of fuel is 35% of the total cost.
The total cost of the rocket launch then will be 3 times its fuel cost, or 3% of the _current_ expense. That's savings of 97%. Even if the analogy is not perfect and we make numerous allowances, the potential for cost-cutting by 80-90% is not inconceivable.
Again, this is based on the two assumptions above. If they are totally off, so are these calculations.
I would assume that air traffic control is similar to ground control for the purposes of this analogy. Does that 35% number take into account the costs of air traffic control? I'm assuming that the airport (and not the airlines) covers those costs.
As far as I know air traffic control is part of FAA and it's covered by taxpayers (or perhaps, it's an extra charge in the ticket?). In any case, ground control will probably be a lot less expensive since it's just one team in one location, while air traffic control covers the entire country.
Even my car costs significantly more than just the fuel.