-
英文文献翻译
Space elevator
economics
of alternatives, like
rockets
.
Space elevator economics compared and
contrasted with the economics
Costs of
current systems (rockets)
The costs of
using a well-tested system to launch payloads are
high. Prices
range from about $$4,300/kg
for a Proton launch
[1]
to
about US$$40,000/kg for a
Pegasus launch
(2004).
[2][3]
Some systems
under development, such as new
members
of the Long March CZ-2E, offer rates as low as
$$5,000/kg, but
(currently) have high
failure rates (30% in the case of the 2E). Various
systems
that have been proposed have
offered even lower rates, but have failed to get
sufficient funding (Roton; Sea Dragon),
remain under development, or more
commonly, have financially
underperformed (as in the case of the Space
Shuttle). (Rockets such as the
Shtil-3a, which offers costs as low as $$400/kg
rarely launch but has a comparatively
small payload, and is partially subsidised
by the Russian navy as part of launch
exercises.)
Geosynchronous rocket launch
technologies deliver two to three times smaller
payloads to geosynchronous orbit than
to LEO. The additional fuel required to
achieve higher orbit severely reduces
the payload size. Hence, the cost is
proportionately greater. Bulk costs to
geosynchronous orbit are currently about
$$20,000/kg for a Zenit-3SL launch.
Rocket costs have changed
relatively little since the 1960s, but the market
has
been very
flat.
[3]
It is, however,
quite reasonable to assume that rockets will be
cheaper in the future; particularly if
the market for them increases. At the same
time, it is quite reasonable to assume
the market will increase, particularly if
rockets will become cheaper.
英文文献翻译
Rocket costs are
significantly affected by production volumes of
the solid parts
of the rocket, and by
launch site costs. Intuitively, since propellant
is by far the
largest part of a rocket,
propellant costs would be expected to be
significant,
but it turns out that with
hydrocarbon fuel these costs can be under $$50 per
kg
of payload. Study after study has
shown that the more launches a system
performs the cheaper it becomes.
Economies of scale mean that large
production runs of rockets greatly
reduce costs, as with any manufactured item,
and reuseable rockets may also help to
do so. Improving material and practical
construction techniques for building
rockets could also contribute to this.
Greater use of cheap labour
(globalisation) and automation is practically
guaranteed to reduce manpower costs.
Other costs, such as launch pad costs,
can be reduced with very frequent
launches.
Cost estimates
for a space elevator
For a space
elevator, the cost varies according to the design.
Dr. Bradley
Edwards, who has put forth
a space elevator design, has stated that:
space elevator would reduce lift costs
immediately to $$100 per pound
($$220/kg).
[4]
However, as with the
initial claims for the space shuttle, this is only
the marginal cost, and the actual costs
would be higher. Development costs
might be roughly equivalent, in real
terms, to the cost of developing the shuttle
system. The marginal or asymptotic cost
of a trip would not solely consist of
the electricity required to lift the
elevator payload. Maintenance, and one-way
designs (such as Edwards') will add to
the cost of the elevators.
The gravitational potential energy of
any object in geosynchronous orbit (GEO),
relative to the surface of the earth,
is about 50 MJ (15 kWh) of energy per
kilogram (see geosynchronous orbit for
details). Using wholesale electricity
prices for 2008 to 2009 (7.1 NZ cents
per kWh) and the current 0.5% efficiency
of power beaming, a space elevator
would require USD 220/kg just in electrical
英文文献翻译
costs. By the time the space elevator
is built, Dr. Edwards expects technical
advances to increase the efficiency to
2% (see power beaming for details). It
may additionally be possible to recover
some of the energy transferred to each
lifted kilogram by using descending
elevators to generate electricity as they
brake (suggested in some proposals), or
generated by masses braking as they
travel outward from geosynchronous
orbit (a suggestion by Freeman Dyson in a
private communication to Russell
Johnston in the 1980s).
For the space elevator, the efficiency
of power transfer is just one limiting issue.
The cost of the power provided to the
laser is also an issue. While a land-based
anchor point in most places can use
power at the grid rate, this is not an option
for a mobile ocean-going platform. A
specially built and operated power plant
is likely to be more expensive up-front
than existing capacity in a pre-existing
plant. Up-only climber designs must
replace each climber in its entirety after
each trip. Some designs of return
climbers must carry up enough fuel to return
it to earth, a potentially costly
venture.
Contrasting
rockets with the space elevator
Government funded rockets have not
historically repaid their capital costs.
Some of the sunk cost is often quoted
as part of the launch price. A comparison
can therefore be made between the
marginal costs of fully or partially
expendable rocket launches and space
elevator marginal costs. It is unclear at
present how many people would be
required to build, maintain and run a
100,000 km space elevator and
consequently how much that would increase
the elevator's cost. Extrapolating from
the current cost of carbon nanotubes to
the cost of elevator cable is
essentially impossible to do accurately.
Space elevators
have high capital cost but presumably low
operating expenses,
so they make the
most economic sense in a situation where they
would be
used to handle many payloads.
The current launch market may not be large
英文文献翻译
enough to make a compelling case for a
space elevator, but a dramatic drop in
the price of launching material to
orbit would likely result in new types of space
activities becoming economically
feasible. In this regard they share similarities
with other transportation
infrastructure projects such as highways or
railroads.
In addition, launch costs
for probes and craft outside Earth's orbit would
be
reduced, as the components could be
shipped up the elevator and launched
outward from the counterweight
satellite. This would cost less in both funding
and payload, since most probes do not
land anywhere. Also, almost all the
probes that do land somewhere have no
need to carry fuel for launch away
from
their destination. Most probes are on a one-way
journey.
Funding of capital
costs
Note that governments
generally have not historically even tried to
repay
the capital costs of new launch
systems from the launch costs. Several cases
have been presented (space shuttle,
ariane, etc), documenting this. Russian
space tourism does partially fund ISS
development obligations, however.
It has been suggested that
governments are not usually willing to pay the
capital costs of a
new
replacement launch
system. Any proposed new system
must
provide, or appear to provide, a way to reduce
overall projected launch
costs. This
was the nominal impetus behind the Space Shuttle
program.
Governments tend to prefer to
cut costs in many cases. Spending more money
is something they are usually loath to
do.
Alternatively, according to a paper
presented at the 55th International
Astronautical
Congress
[5]
in Vancouver in
October 2004, the space elevator can
be
considered a prestige megaproject and the current
estimated cost of
building it (US$$6.2
billion) is rather favourable when compared to the
costs of
constructing bridges,
pipelines, tunnels, tall towers, high speed rail
links,
英文文献翻译
maglevs and the like. It is also not
entirely unfavourable when compared to the
costs of other aerospace systems as
well as launch vehicles.
[6]
Total cost of a privately funded
Edwards' Space Elevator
A
space elevator built according to the Edwards
proposal is estimated to
cost $$20
billion ($$40B with a 100%
contingency)
[7]
. This
includes all operating
and maintenance
costs for one cable. If this is to be financed
privately, a 15%
return would be
required ($$6 billion annually). Subsequent
elevators would
cost $$9.3B and would
justify a much lower contingency ($$14.3B total).
The
space elevator would lift 2 million
kg per year per elevator and the cost per
kilogram becomes $$3,000 for one
elevator, $$1,900 for two elevators, $$1,600 for
three elevators.
For comparison, in
potentially the same time frame as the elevator,
the Skylon,
12,000 kg cargo capacity
spaceplane (not a conventional rocket) is
estimated to
have an R&D and production
cost of about $$15 billion. The vehicle has about
the same $$3,000/kg price tag. Skylon
would be suitable to launch cargo
and
particularly
people to
low/medium Earth orbit. An early space elevator
can
move only cargo although it can do
so to a much wider range of
destinations.
[8]
References
1
.
^Space
Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to
Orbit
1990-2000 (PDF). Retrieved on
2006-03-05.
2. ^Pegasus. Encyclopedia
Astronautica. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
3. ^The economics of interface
transportation (2003). Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
4. ^What is the Space Elevator?.
Institute for Scientific Research, Inc.. Retrieved
on 2006-03-05.
5. ^55th
International Astronautical Congress. Institute
for Scientific Research,
Inc..
Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
6. ^ Raitt,
David; Bradley Edwards. THE SPACE ELEVATOR:
ECONOMICS AND
APPLICATIONS (PDF). 55th
International Astronautical Congress 2004 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇:大学英语四级第一套真题
下一篇:迅达中英文对照