Comparison costs

Given today's SS1 flight, I'm interested in relevant comparison costs. Not
that these projects are appropriate benchmarks, but does anyone have figures
for the cost of the Mercury program (from conception to first flight) and
the X-15 program (from inception to first flight) - in today's dollars?
Seems to me I recall the X-15 program as a whole running about $200 million
in 196? dollars. No?

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

I can't think of any valid program to compare to.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

I can't think of any valid program to compare to.

D.

Well, there is one that comes to mind, sort of. I believe the X-38 program
was finally pegged at a total cost of $1.5 billion when it was canceled, no?
I think that included a half billion dollar shuttle flight. Add windows to
the "orbiter", and a Delta or Atlas instead of shuttle, and how much would
an orbital space flight cost for seven people? Still very expensive.

Is there any precedent for use of composites in space on a major strucutral
element?

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
Given today's SS1 flight, I'm interested in relevant comparison costs. Not
that these projects are appropriate benchmarks, but does anyone have figures
for the cost of the Mercury program (from conception to first flight) and
the X-15 program (from inception to first flight) - in today's dollars?
Seems to me I recall the X-15 program as a whole running about $200 million
in 196? dollars. No?

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

Jon

To me, even X15 and Mercury aren't very close comparisons.
- Both were exploring a flight regime that at the time was poorly
understood. SS1 has the advantage of 40+ years of experience in this
area. Compare the development effort of the Wright Flyer, or maybe
Bleriot monoplane to building an ultralight 50 years later...
- Both were designed to reach far higher speeds than SS1. This
presents materials problems that SS1 can simply ignore.
- Mercury was explicitly a step toward an orbital spacecraft. If the
goal of Mercury had been seemly to lob a man 100km and not do anything
else, it could have been much simpler. Likewise for the X15 if it
didn't have to reach 7000kph.

Like Derek, I'm not sure there is a valid historical comparison.
Perhaps the X1/X2 programs ? These didn't reach the altitudes that SS1
did, but might be closer in terms of complexity. OTOH, they were going
into unexplored territory.

In any case, it would be interesting to see numbers.

"hop" wrote in message

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

Jon

To me, even X15 and Mercury aren't very close comparisons.

I agree, but I couldn't get any closer.

Like Derek, I'm not sure there is a valid historical comparison.
Perhaps the X1/X2 programs ? These didn't reach the altitudes that SS1
did, but might be closer in terms of complexity. OTOH, they were going
into unexplored territory.

In any case, it would be interesting to see numbers.

Yes, that's what I am after. You've heard the claims of having built a space
program for $25 million. Now, I am just wondering how good that really is.
How much did the Canadian Arrow guys spend? Da Vinci? That Chinese guy a
millenium ago who strapped rockets to his chair? ;-)

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

I can't think of any valid program to compare to.

D.

Well, there is one that comes to mind, sort of. I believe the X-38 program
was finally pegged at a total cost of $1.5 billion when it was canceled,
no?
I think that included a half billion dollar shuttle flight. Add windows
to
the "orbiter", and a Delta or Atlas instead of shuttle, and how much would
an orbital space flight cost for seven people? Still very expensive.

Is there any precedent for use of composites in space on a major
strucutral
element?

Jon


The space flight money for the Shuttle flight was never spent.

Interestingly enough, the structure for two X-38 landing test craft
was produced under government contract by Scaled Composites.
The cost figures I saw on that contract were about twice as much
as I what I have seen quoted for Space Ship 1. Of course, they
are different, but I would have thought White Knight and
Space Ship 1 were more complex than the X-38 test vehicle
as this was not an orbital vehicle.

Apparently, even if it is Scaled Composites, if you are doing it
for the government it is going to cost more.

Mike Walsh

From: "Jon Berndt"
Date: 10/4/2004 4:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Given today's SS1 flight, I'm interested in relevant comparison costs. Not
that these projects are appropriate benchmarks, but does anyone have figures
for the cost of the Mercury program (from conception to first flight) and
the X-15 program (from inception to first flight) - in today's dollars?
Seems to me I recall the X-15 program as a whole running about $200 million
in 196? dollars. No?

Can anyone think of another more valid government program to compare
against?

Jon


Averaging the X-2 program and the x-15 program up to the date it reached 100 km
is probably about as close as you'll come.

Will McLean

Will McLean

"Mike Walsh" :

Interestingly enough, the structure for two X-38 landing test craft
was produced under government contract by Scaled Composites.
The cost figures I saw on that contract were about twice as much
as I what I have seen quoted for Space Ship 1. Of course, they
are different, but I would have thought White Knight and
Space Ship 1 were more complex than the X-38 test vehicle
as this was not an orbital vehicle.

Apparently, even if it is Scaled Composites, if you are doing it
for the government it is going to cost more.

I can think of a number of reasons why this was so.

1) It is the government, so charge thru the nose. The people at Scaled are
not angels so this could be the entire reason.

2) Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. It is possible with the paper
trail/testing that NASA requires and the extra staff needed for this that
NASA is it's own worse cause of cost overruns.

3) PHB/NASA telling Scaled how to make the shell. This relates to #2,
instead of just letting Scaled build using thier own skills, supplies, tech.
Scaled was told to use particular supplies/suppliers or tech. In that case
Scaled will charge more to buffer the extra work using diffirent type of work.

4) The structure of the X-38 may be more complex than we know (unless you do
know more then sorry), and thus would always cost more than we realize
compared to the SS1.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Mike Walsh" :

Interestingly enough, the structure for two X-38 landing test craft
was produced under government contract by Scaled Composites.
The cost figures I saw on that contract were about twice as much
as I what I have seen quoted for Space Ship 1. Of course, they
are different, but I would have thought White Knight and
Space Ship 1 were more complex than the X-38 test vehicle
as this was not an orbital vehicle.

Apparently, even if it is Scaled Composites, if you are doing it
for the government it is going to cost more.

I can think of a number of reasons why this was so.

1) It is the government, so charge thru the nose. The people at Scaled
are
not angels so this could be the entire reason.

I rather doubt this as I believe that Scaled Composites had to be
competitive and would not have received the contract if their
bid had been out of line.


2) Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. It is possible with the paper
trail/testing that NASA requires and the extra staff needed for this that
NASA is it's own worse cause of cost overruns.

Not so much paper trail/testing that is required by any rational program
but the series of government forms and requirements that up the cost
on government programs. Quite a few of these are either required by law
or the result of interpretations of the law that result in increased costs.


3) PHB/NASA telling Scaled how to make the shell. This relates to #2,
instead of just letting Scaled build using thier own skills, supplies,
tech.
Scaled was told to use particular supplies/suppliers or tech. In that
case
Scaled will charge more to buffer the extra work using diffirent type of
work.

I doubt that it went down to level of requiring particular suppliers, but
from
what I have read of the X-38 program Scaled Composites was building
to a NASA specified design. This doesn't give Scaled Composites much
room for cutting costs by innovative design.


4) The structure of the X-38 may be more complex than we know (unless you
do
know more then sorry), and thus would always cost more than we realize
compared to the SS1.


I find this hard to believe, Space Ship 1 certainly looks a lot more
complicated
than the X-38 structure.

Mike Walsh

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
2) Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. It is possible with the paper
trail/testing that NASA requires and the extra staff needed for this that
NASA is it's own worse cause of cost overruns.

feh. Even selling screwdrives to the goverment takes tons and tons of
paperwork.

When I worked for an electronics shop, we had to submit something like
100+ pages of paperwork annually just to be eligible to bid, and
another 100+ to be a place the goverment could order from without a
bid.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL