azdesertbuddha

Even if this was true, which the article states it is not, isn't that the point of insurance? To spread the risk and cost across a geographic or demographic populace while making a reasonable, but steady profit?

The foundation of this entire analysis seems to have a massive miscalculation. On the 9th page, ULA puts the price of putting 1kg in LEO at ~$4000 ( or about $1820 per pound ). This estimated cost for ULA launches may be correct, but what happens to the calculations when the launch price from Earth drops, perhaps dramatically so.

SpaceX can already beat ULA's launches with their published price for throwaway Falcon 9 launches at $62M each ( $2720/kg, $1230/lb ). The Falcon Heavy drops that price even more ( $1655/kg, $750/lb ). And once we see reusable first stages in the next few years, that price could drop to as low as $1100/kg or $500/lb. Thirty years from now, the price should be well under $100/lb with new technologies and better engineering.

With these new numbers, will Lunar fuel be more cost effective than bringing it up from Earth's deep gravity well? Or will the lower launch costs the estimated Lunar fuel costs even more? No matter which way this goes, this analysis is greatly overestimated in both prices and timescales.