[Uncle Peter]

This person claims to be able to reduce launch cost's down by a magnutude of 1000. In his own words: "If you can deliver a ton per flight, that would be a million flights. Let's say that the marginal cost per flight is a hundred thousand or so (I think we can do a lot better than that). That would be a hundred billion dollar program"

STOP RIGHT HERE! Is this genius not aware of the fact that there are only a eight suitable launch facilities in the ENTIRE world? That would be Kourou - FG, Cape Canaveral - FL, Vandenberg AFB - CA, Xichang - China, Baikonur - Khazakhstan, Tanegashima - Japan, Wallops Island Flight Facility, VA, and Pacific Ocean platform.

Let's Do The Math

• 1 Million flights divided by 8 launch sites= 125,000 flights/launches per facility.
• 1 launch per month divided by 125,000 = 10,416 years

  This is responsible science?

  A Hundred Thousand dollars or so? You can't even paint a rocket gantry for that amount! Do the Math!

[NonZeroSum]

You're apparently unfamiliar with the current state and direction of spaceflight. Suborbital vehicles take off like airplanes on runways, or vertically from concrete pads--no "gantries" required. Mojave, for example is a spaceport, as is Burns Flat, Oklahoma. One is being built north of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Others are planned in Australia, Singapore, Dubai, etc. Their operating characteristics and costs are similar to those of aircraft, since they only go to Mach 3 or 4, and only to a hundred kilometers altitude (currently). They'd be ideally suited for this type of mission, which only needs to deliver raw materials to the stratosphere. With a sufficiently large fleet (a couple dozen vehicles per spaceport), the estimate of a hundred flights per day seems quite reasonable.

Such a project would never be done with conventional expendable rockets for exactly the reasons you state (though you also don't seem to be familiar with the fact that Titan is out of business, and that it would have much greater payload to suborbit than GEO).