#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Three times fuel costs. | Andrew Gray | Policy | 1 | August 5th 04 10:24 PM |
Shuttle Costs Surge - Extensive Fixes to Fleet Will Run $1.1B | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 27 | July 21st 04 10:47 PM |
Heavy Lift launcher is allready here | serge | Policy | 27 | February 13th 04 06:03 PM |
Comparison of two budget 2" low power eyepieces | Florian | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | July 25th 03 08:11 PM |
High Launch Costs - Result of Physics? | Dr John Stockton | Policy | 101 | July 25th 03 12:10 AM |