Originally Posted by Monte Davis

We frequently see quoted prices for Soyuz, Proton and Zenit launches
that are a lot lower than those for US ELVs or Arianespace. Often
those prices are cited as proof that over-all $/kg to orbit could and
should be a lot lower, were it not for [insert your favorite critique
of how the US does space here].

I'm curious -- and have no opinion in advance -- about the extent to
which the raw prices are an apples-to-apples comparison. It's my
understanding from Jim Oberg's and others' work on the Soviet space
program that in general they've had longer production runs of the same
core models, with advantages in learning curve and economy of scale.
And obviously labor costs are less in Russia and Ukraine. (Should we
use exchange-rate or PPP comparisons?)

But I don't know much about how Soviet facilities were privatized,
what the cost accounting (if any!) in that process was like, or to
what extent there has been continued _de facto_ subsidy since 1990 to
maintain a base of missile technology and expertise. So I don't know
if a Soyuz price reflects amortized R&D, infrastructure, etc. in the
same way an Atlas or Delta or Ariane price does.

Can you suggest any good resources on this subject?

-Monte Davis