Launch costs

Original estimates of costs per launch were only $7 million. They ended up
costing over $1 billion.

What went wrong?

Was it a deliberate lie, or bad management?

Richard Stephens wrote:
Original estimates of costs per launch were only $7 million. They ended
up costing over $1 billion.

What went wrong?

Was it a deliberate lie, or bad management?


Yes

Richard Stephens had uiteengezet :
Original estimates of costs per launch were only $7 million. They ended up
costing over $1 billion.

What went wrong?

Was it a deliberate lie, or bad management?

Inflation...

On 9/07/2011 4:58 AM, Richard Stephens wrote:
Original estimates of costs per launch were only $7 million. They ended
up costing over $1 billion.

What went wrong?

Was it a deliberate lie, or bad management?


Depends on what you call "launch costs" - I prefer the cost of the
program divided by the number of launches. That works out at about $1.3
billion per launch.

Last night, the NASA spokesperson said it was about $430 million per launch.

Compare that to Delta IV Heavy for $250 p/l and Falcon Heavy for $125
million per launch - less than a third of the shuttle cost for a payload
mission - with a payload almost three times the size.

Falcon Heavy allows automated modules (like a big version of the
Salyut/Mir/Russion ISS modules) to be launched at rendezvous/dock
without human involvement. If you want to launch people, the Falcon
Heavy could put a reuesable vehicle into orbit for that purpose (I'm
thinking of the proposed HL-42 - a much larger version of the HL-20 that
was proposed by the USAF) that could launch 20ish people into LEO for
less than half the shuttle launch cost.

Saturn Ib shows as being less expensive for personnel launch and using
that LV for payload would still be less expensive today especially if
you amortise the cost.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:58:20 -0700, "Richard Stephens"
wrote:

Original estimates of costs per launch were only $7 million. They ended up
costing over $1 billion.

What went wrong?

Was it a deliberate lie, or bad management?

Part of it is that the original figure is in 1972 dollars, while the
$1 billion plus figure is in today's dollars. $7 million in 1972 is
roughly $36 million today.

But the biggest thing is that promised cost assumed the Shuttle would
be used for all but the smallest satellite launches. That never
happened. The government decided to use the Shuttle only for missions
which required the presence of a crew. That cut the Shuttle's flight
rate from 50 flights per year (which was never remotely realistic) to
24 or so a year (ambitious but theoretically possible) and finally an
average of only 5 or 6 missions per year over which to amortize the
high annual infrastructure costs.

Brian

Do we have the technology to build a fully reusable space plane that has the
carrying capacity of the Shuttle and that can operate for no more than $50
million per launch?

If so, why isn't NASA doing it?



"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:58:20 -0700, "Richard Stephens"
wrote:

Original estimates of costs per launch were only $7 million. They ended up
costing over $1 billion.

What went wrong?

Was it a deliberate lie, or bad management?

Part of it is that the original figure is in 1972 dollars, while the
$1 billion plus figure is in today's dollars. $7 million in 1972 is
roughly $36 million today.

But the biggest thing is that promised cost assumed the Shuttle would
be used for all but the smallest satellite launches. That never
happened. The government decided to use the Shuttle only for missions
which required the presence of a crew. That cut the Shuttle's flight
rate from 50 flights per year (which was never remotely realistic) to
24 or so a year (ambitious but theoretically possible) and finally an
average of only 5 or 6 missions per year over which to amortize the
high annual infrastructure costs.

Brian

On 11/07/11 01:35, Richard Stephens wrote:
Do we have the technology to build a fully reusable space plane that has
the carrying capacity of the Shuttle and that can operate for no more
than $50 million per launch?

Yes.

If so, why isn't NASA doing it?

Because, along with Greece, Spain and Ireland, the US has run out of money.
In case you hadn't heard, it's China's turn to do the big stuff for the
next fifty years or so.

I,JM