`/science/nature/2680043.stm].      This is all just diversionary tactics away from the main argument.  You just don't want the comparison done.  And I do not know if it repays all the capital devt cost or not.  But I would like to know from the facts rather than just take it on your say so.     : Ok, lets just let it be known officially: Paul has refused to answer my questions.  He has refused to back up his assertion, which he keeps on making.  Consequently, Paul is refusing to discuss.  Consequently, he should not be allowed to edit in this dispute. I'll repeat them, in case you ever feel like rejoining the discussion, Paul:  : A) Do you accept that the space shuttle does not repay its capital costs? : B) Do you think that rockets apart from the space shuttle - such as Ariane - do repay  : C) Why do you believe (B)?  Do you have a shred of evidence to support it? : D) Why is (A) not clear evidence against (B)?   : I'll add one more:  : E) If Ariane was repaying its launch costs, why would it have had to have a major bailout recently?  Wouldn't they just stop repaying capital costs?  : lastly, as mentioned earlier....  : 1) I demand a shred of evidence if you are to assert that claim again.  I've presented several pieces of evidence that suggest that it's not true (the shuttle's lack of repayment, and the fact that the repayment schedule would have to be incredibly long).  It is 2:0.  I refuse to let this go on without you making it at least 2:1.  Even if you personally don't like my 2, your zero is simply unacceptable.   : P.S.: ``Preparatory work began in 1984. Full scale development began in 1988 and cost $ 8 billion.``   : P.P.S.: The page has changed since then, but look at this google cache: .  Notice at the bottom: ``... of the Ariane 5 contracting team have agreed to reduce their costs to permit Arianespace to assemble, fuel and launch an Ariane 5 rocket for 136 million euros.``  Drive another stake in your mistaken notion.  NO CAPITAL COSTS.  ``Assemble, Fuel, and Launch``.    Rei continues to say I have said things I have not.  She is repetitively and dishonestly doing so.     == Prices ==  Wolfkeeper has brought up a couple new systems that haven't been discussed yet.  Soyuz: Let's pick on in the series at random - say, Soyuz FG.  Launch cost 50m$, payload 7420 to 51.8 degree inclination.  Price in 1994 dollars=50m$, Prince in 2004 dollars~=70m$.  Just under 10k$/kg.  ``Chinese``: assumedly he means ``Long March``: Lets pick a random one; the CZ-4A.  What do we find?  30 million dollars in 1994 -> ~45 million now, 4,680kg payload... just under 10k$/kg again.    Ones he mentioned that were already discussed:  ``Sea Launch`` - Assumedly he means the never built Sea Dragon, whose design proved to be not only overly optimistic, but an outright failure, when a smaller version was built as SEALAR.  Or he could mean a number of other things...  :No I mean sealaunch. Hey, here's an idea, why don't you use google? You know- research? I even included a reference to a data source that gave it's launch costs... (If your google is broken (funny how Rei's google is always broken when it comes to cheap conventional rocketry), Sea Launch is a Boeing/Russian joint effort- with *seriously* cheap rockets...)   :: Sorry, we were discussing the Sea Dragon earlier here, which was a never-built rocket that Truax claimed could get spectacular returns.  ``Sea Launch`` is often used as a generic term; you should have stated Zenit-3SL with a Block DM-SL to get to GEO, instead of citing the company - ``Sea Launch`` is not a rocket.  Lets look at the geostationary transfer orbit so we don't have to factor the Block in... the Zenit-3SL itself costs over 100m$ in current dollars (90m$ in 1999), and has 5,250kg payload.  That's almost 20,000$/kg to geosync transfer .  Even if you assume that you can get twice as much to LEO, that's still not cheap.    ::: I did cite Zenit-3SL you removed that from the article! It's not my fault if you don't known what launch vehicle Sea Launch use! Actually, a LOX/Kero stage like the third stage of Zenit-3SL the appropriate multiplier is 3x, giving a price to LEO of ~$6600/kg, even with your more pessimistic figures. Most other vehicles use hydrogen which is more efficent, and then 2.5x is more like it.