My thoughts on the recent activity on the Hill, over at Popular Mechanics.
41 thoughts on “Setting NASA Up To Fail (Again)”
NASA will always need more money because they are expected to increase their operations. There is the costs of getting to LEO, maintaining the ISS, exploration satellites and robots, Earth Science satellites, and R&D. Right now, we seem to be struggling to fund these much less expand beyond LEO.
No matter how technology is leveraged through fuel depots or anything else, NASA will still need more money for a trip to the Moon, an asteroid, Mars, or anywhere else.
What do the eggheads and number crunchers think? Is it possible to maintain what NASA does now and expand beyond LEO with NASA’s current budget ? Especially if that expansion meant having to maintain another station/outpost.
To the uninitiated (or simply those who don’t care), NASA appears to be a kind of “Department of Space,” hence the myriad, multi-bazillion dollar duties for which it is now tasked (foremost among these duties now, in the eyes of pols, is apparently creating jobs for people with space industry skills).
Simply put, more politicians, lobbyists, and Presidential speech-makers need to go back and read NASA’s original charter and not treat its mission like it is that of the Department of Defense.
Wodun wrote:
Is it possible to maintain what NASA does now and expand beyond LEO with NASA’s current budget ?
Yes. Boeing, ULA, and Jon Goff, among others, have all published architectures showing how it could be done. The chief requirement seems to be avoiding the use of a heavy-lift launch vehicle or Shuttle-derived anything.
Commercial crew, propellent depots, an ACES-derived Earth departure stage, and a Masten-derived lunar lander could probably get NASA a manned lunar landing by 2020 under its current budget top-line. If not 2020, almost certainly by 2025.
Mike
What on Earth are the sticking pieces that drive Orion’s costs? Is it just the shifting of requirements necessitating re-re-engineering things?
NASA is being asked to do too much with too little by Congress, and, once again, America’s space agency is set up for failure.
Yes NASA is not being given enough money to build a white elephant, but is that really the best point to emphasize?
I would think it possible to practically open up space for a tenth the budget of the NASA HSP, in such a context NASA is being grossly over funded. The problem is not a lack of funding, but that NASA HSF is a continual and overt failure.
One problem with program cost estimates for space programs is the lack of references. $35 billion for Orion seems large, but is less then the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program and is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs. Amazing when you remember it must operate in space.
But for some reason we think seem to believe we should be able to do space on the cheap and so it gets space advocates all hung up.
Its that same mind set that keeps us from investing in a TSTO, which is really needed to move spacelift forward.
If we cannot do manned space on the cheap, then manned space is not worth doing at all. Only “cheap” space offers any chance of expanding into something more than a series of expensive symbolic dead-end stunts.
$35 billion for Orion seems large, but is less then the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program and is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs.
But how many Orions and how many C-17s do we get for that money? Also, each C-17 is capable of making hundreds of flights, at least.
I would think that a small reusable launch system in the 500kg class (enough for two people or equivalent payload), should now cost less than $200m to develop, and hopefully less than $100m to develop. Marginal costs should hopefully be significantly less than $1000/kg to LEO. Spending more than this infers a serious waste of money. Unless one can compete with this, then a launch vehicle is ill advised.
NASA derived vehicles are no where near this, even SpaceX is likely to have its lunch stolen at some point, unless it can so evolve.
One might argue that 500kg is too small a payload to be useful for the vast majority of the market. I would argue that the market would care far more about cheap access to space than heavy lift. Payloads would very quickly adapt to the opportunity of cheap access to space using modular orbital assembly and depots as desired.
f we cannot do manned space on the cheap, then manned space is not worth doing at all.
I would argue that settling space is worth it at any price, however, being self sufficient in space means being economically productive enough to put food on the table. If one can not live in space without someone else on Earth picking up the bill, then one is not being self sufficient.
While initially challenging, the technology is not inherently expensive, if one can not do space cheaply then one is, not to put to fine a point on it, incompetent. Incompetence is not compatible with settling space so if one can not do it cheaply, then one is unlikely to have sufficient competence to settle space at all. This is NASAs current situation.
rickl
[[[But how many Orions and how many C-17s do we get for that money? Also, each C-17 is capable of making hundreds of flights, at least.]]]
Of course how much of the money for the C-17 is for R&D and how much for production units? Also note the aircraft technology is more mature then for spacecraft so the R&D should be less then for Orion. And of course you have the matter of production runs. The more Orion capsules built the lower will be the cost per unit.
But the key point is that $35 billion is not that much in terms of major development programs. Space Advocates have been so focused on space on the cheap (CATS) they are still thinking in terms of 1960’s costs structures.
Look at Virgin Galactic. They have spent about $200 on developing their SpaceshipTwo system, a Huge costs in terms of New Space thinking, but that is only the cost of a single jet liner for Virgin Atlantic…
I think a better question is: how much is RKK Energia getting for their next generation 6 seat crew vehicle?
Apparently the 2009 budget for the whole space agency was 82 billion rubles and 50% of that was spent on human spaceflight (mostly upgrades to the ISS). That’s $1.8B per year on human spaceflight. Why can’t the US do everything Russia does for so little?
Mike,
Thanks for letting me know it is possible but I am still a little skeptical of being able to maintain two stations at the same time.
Looking at the FY 2011 and onward budget overview, I guess there is a little wiggle room depending on how those technology demonstrations play out.
I’ll just hope that as the technology proves itself, congress and the public will be willing to increase funding.
$35 billion for Orion seems large, …. is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs.
It isn’t on par with Dragon. It isn’t on par with the entire SpaceX budget since that company’s inception, all infrastructure, 2 orbital launch vehicles and a near complete crewed space vehicle.
Of course how much of the money for the C-17 is for R&D and how much for production units? Also note the aircraft technology is more mature then for spacecraft so the R&D should be less then for Orion. And of course you have the matter of production runs. The more Orion capsules built the lower will be the cost per unit.
But the key point is that $35 billion is not that much in terms of major development programs. Space Advocates have been so focused on space on the cheap (CATS) they are still thinking in terms of 1960’s costs structures.
The Air Force intends the C-17 to be its core airlifter and the cornerstone of its future airlift force. Through fiscal year 1996, the Congress had appropriated about $20.5 billion for the C-17 program, including $5.9 billion for research and development, $14.6 billion for procurement, and $170 million for military construction. The Congress had approved the acquisition of 40 C-17s.
According to GAO estimates, the Ares I and Orion were going to cost up to $50 billion for R&D alone. That is absurd at any level, but especially when you consider that the rocket had little more capability than existing rockets and the capsule wasn’t all that great, either.
Also note the aircraft technology is more mature then for spacecraft so the R&D should be less then for Orion.
No, it is generally the other way around, greater technology maturity leads to longer development times, for obvious reasons.
I think there was an aircraft in WWII the first prototype of which was designed, built and flown in ~42days. The first blackbird which was I think far more technology adventurous than the Ares I took around eighteen months.
But the key point is that $35 billion is not that much in terms of major development programs.
Major development programs have nothing to do with developing a first working prototype of an economic launch vehicle. This is akin to designing a 747 before the Wright Flier has even flown. Only NASA could be that disconnected from reality and have that much hubris.
I remember ten years and ten billion being roughly suggested for the development of new large passenger jets, where the design and market could be predicted with great certainty. But space is still at the Wright Flier development stage, not the 747 one. Development costs should be in the hundred million range at this stage (less if possible), assuming developing an economic launch vehicle is the actual intent.
$35b = 70 SpaceX.
What we need to do is find a way to get money in the hands of a thousand Elons.
Thomas Matula wrote:
One problem with program cost estimates for space programs is the lack of references. $35 billion for Orion seems large, but is less then the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program and is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs.
1) As others have pointed out, the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program is not just for development but also includes production of 223 aircraft, military construction to house them, funds to operate and maintain them, and for spares and training. Development cost was only a few billion dollars.
2) I think you’re confusing a few numbers. $35 billion was the development cost of the Ares I, not Orion, per Steve Cook, NASA’s former Ares program manager. The development cost of Orion at the time of contract award was to be $3.9 billion for the full lunar-capable spacecraft. So far, about $4 billion has been spent to get Orion to PDR. The FY10 budget projected that at least another $6 billion was necessary to get the LEO block 1 spacecraft developed. That would be $10 billion, not $35 billion, for block 1 Orion.
3) To provide a proper reference for block 1 Orion’s $10 billion development cost, note that Boeing is supposedly (according to rumors — I don’t think it’s been made public) asking for $1.5 billion to develop the CST-100 under the CCDev program. Since CCDev is a fixed-price program, any cost overruns would be Boeing’s responsibility, not NASA’s. Note also that CST-100 would place a 7-man crew into LEO on either a Delta IV medium, an Atlas V, or a Falcon 9 launch vehicle for a launch cost of $56 – $150 million, while block 1 Orion could only place a 4-man crew into LEO on the Ares I for a launch cost of $1 billion.
4) SpaceX’s projected development cost for a manned Dragon is substantially less than Boeing’s projected development cost for CST-100.
5) The proper comparison for Ares 1’s $35 billion development cost is the Delta IV Heavy, since each vehicle would carry 55,000 lbs to LEO. Delta IV Heavy was developed by Boeing under Air Force contract for $500 million.
I’ve posted some of these numbers here before. I apologize if you’re already seen them. The debate seems to go on without them, but they’re very relevant if we want a more rational manned space program.
Mike
The problem with the defense program comparison (C-17) is that defense articles are never meant to be procured in quantities that get more than a handful of government employees into the air (or into combat).
The space enthusiasts largely want to see a future for humanity en masse in space, hence supply will have to be greater and costs will have to come down.
Think automobile, not C-17.
Trent,
[[[Why can’t the US do everything Russia does for so little?]]]
Simple. The wages aerospace workers get in Russia are much lower then in the U.S. Its the same reason electronic manufacturing is out sources to China. Lower wages equal lower costs of production.
Cecil Trotter,
[[[It isn’t on par with Dragon. It isn’t on par with the entire SpaceX budget since that company’s inception, all infrastructure, 2 orbital launch vehicles and a near complete crewed space vehicle.]]]
Let’s see. SpaceX doesn’t have any legacy costs. You know pensions, health care, etc. for retirees. Also unless I am mistaken there is no union at SpaceX. And start ups usually pay less based on the promise of a big payday when there is an IPO. Then of course they probably have different overhead rates not to mention a number of other accounting issues involved.
Finally we really don’t know what the capabilities of the systems are in detail. Both a Cessna 210 and a LearJet 23 carry 6 people, but there is a huge difference in what the two aircraft are capable of.
Really, its like comparing the X-15 to SpaceShipone. Different vehicles for different purposes.
larry j,
Thanks for the figures and actually I am surprised its that high 5.9 billion given how mature jet aircraft technology is.
Also it will be interesting to see what the new estimate for the Orion is given Ares I appears to be out as a launcher.
Pete,
[[[But space is still at the Wright Flier development stage, not the 747 one. ]]]
No, Space launch was in the Wright Flyer stage when Prof. Goddard was building rockets in the 1930’s. Today’s rockets have as much technology development behind them as aircraft had in the 1980’s, a fact NewSpace doesn’t see to like to acknowledge. The difference is Space is not the atmosphere, its a much different environment and rockets must do much more complex things then airplanes do so the requirements for building systems are different. And so are the costs.
Michael Kent,
[[[That would be $10 billion, not $35 billion, for block 1 Orion.]]]
Thanks. I was using the figures the New Space advocates have been throwing around. $10 billion makes a lot more sense for just a BEO capsule. Also it appears since they have tested the LAS and have the first orbital test article a good part of that money has already been spent.
Yes, the CST-100 is a better comparison with the Dragon. I also assume that it would include the full package including development of the LAS system. Again the question is what do you get in your CST-100 versus a Dragon.
txhsdad,
[[[Think automobile, not C-17.]]]
Other then very specialize sportcars, automobiles are produced in production runs of the tens of thousands to the hundred of thousands. Aircraft are produced in production runs of the hundreds.
I expect even the most optimistic New Spacer doesn’t expect to see tens of thousands of spacecraft produced per year.
Let’s see. SpaceX doesn’t have any legacy costs.
Feature, not a bug.
Also unless I am mistaken there is no union at SpaceX.
Again, feature.
And start ups usually pay less based on the promise of a big payday when there is an IPO.
More feature.
Then of course they probably have different overhead rates not to mention a number of other accounting issues involved.
I’m beginning to repeat myself, feature.
Finally we really don’t know what the capabilities of the systems are in detail. Both a Cessna 210 and a LearJet 23 carry 6 people, but there is a huge difference in what the two aircraft are capable of.
We will however know the capabilities of Dragon years before we know the same of Orion. And even assuming Dragon has half (by whatever measure) the capability of Orion, the cost difference still favors Dragon by an order of magnitude over Orion.
Thomas, and yet they keep going to work and doing great stuff? Wow, must be some kind of competitive market for labor in Russia.
larry j,
Thanks for the figures and actually I am surprised its that high 5.9 billion given how mature jet aircraft technology is.
That isn’t so far out of line when you look at the R&D costs of recent airliner developments like the Airbus A-380, Airbus A-400 transport, or Boeing 787 Dreamliner when you factor in for inflation. All of those planes have cost $10 billion or more for R&D. Only the A-400 has to meet the specific military requirements for things like operating off of rough, undeveloped airfields and airdropping outsized cargo.
$35b = 70 SpaceX.
What we need to do is find a way to get money in the hands of a thousand Elons.
Actually no, SpaceX is an old/new space hybrid, we need 10 XCORs instead with the ~$34b this leaves spare being spent on similar vain space infrastructure like low cost space stations, depots, hangers, tugs, etc.
The obvious answer is that congressmen are all controlled by alien parasites who are determined to destroy our space program so we cannot challenge them in settling the universe…
… come on, don’t tell me you haven’t thought the same thing a few times…
NOTE: Your blog system snips sarcasm tags off comments…
It just ignores HTML tags it doesn’t recognize. Use square brackets instead of angles.
Cecil Trotter,
The problem with “features” like that is they are generally not sustainable.
Trent Waddington,
[[[Wow, must be some kind of competitive market for labor in Russia.]]]
Yes, a collapsed economy does then to lower labor costs.
That should be “tend to lower”
The problem with “features” like that is they are generally not sustainable.
So we enjoy them while they do, still not a reason to continue down the path of pumping 10x, 20x, 30x the money into NASA programs that lead NOWHERE.
Thomas, so what you’re saying is that if the US government was to stop proping up the aerospace industry, and just let it collapse, the labor costs may go down, driving everyone who’s looking for a meal ticket out of the business, leaving only the people who wanna do great things like it has in Russia? Wow, that’s really insightful of you.
So Trent, are you comparing the entire Russian economy to the US aerospace industry? Perhaps you should reread what Thomas wrote.
Trent,
You mean like the other American industries that have lost their jobs to global out sourcing? I guess that is the future you want for the American space industry, but its not the one I want to see.
The old American space industry is a collapsed economy, they just have not realized it yet (well some have). It is still asking for ~x100 the price for half the job, and depending on protectionism to get it.
In the real world, getting twice the wage rate requires doing twice the job. NASA’s HSP does not accomplish this.
Actually no, SpaceX is an old/new space hybrid, we need 10 XCORs instead…
Pete,
I don’t know the best way to categorize companies, but one way is by dollar value as a class.
If SpaceX in the billion dollar class it’s going to have to grow a magnitude to be a part of the explosion in space that’s coming.
Nothing against XCor but it’s going to have to grow as well to be a part of that. Of course you need many more smaller companies than larger ones… but you need the larger ones to take some of the major steps that are going to be needed.
Just a single BA330 habitat in earth orbit cost $200m to buy it and launch it. Constructing a space ship in orbit will cost one to ten billion depending on the design (more if the govt. does it.)
So yes, we need a lot of XCors, but we are going to need SpaceXs as well.
NASA will always need more money because they are expected to increase their operations. There is the costs of getting to LEO, maintaining the ISS, exploration satellites and robots, Earth Science satellites, and R&D. Right now, we seem to be struggling to fund these much less expand beyond LEO.
No matter how technology is leveraged through fuel depots or anything else, NASA will still need more money for a trip to the Moon, an asteroid, Mars, or anywhere else.
What do the eggheads and number crunchers think? Is it possible to maintain what NASA does now and expand beyond LEO with NASA’s current budget ? Especially if that expansion meant having to maintain another station/outpost.
To the uninitiated (or simply those who don’t care), NASA appears to be a kind of “Department of Space,” hence the myriad, multi-bazillion dollar duties for which it is now tasked (foremost among these duties now, in the eyes of pols, is apparently creating jobs for people with space industry skills).
Simply put, more politicians, lobbyists, and Presidential speech-makers need to go back and read NASA’s original charter and not treat its mission like it is that of the Department of Defense.
Wodun wrote:
Is it possible to maintain what NASA does now and expand beyond LEO with NASA’s current budget ?
Yes. Boeing, ULA, and Jon Goff, among others, have all published architectures showing how it could be done. The chief requirement seems to be avoiding the use of a heavy-lift launch vehicle or Shuttle-derived anything.
Commercial crew, propellent depots, an ACES-derived Earth departure stage, and a Masten-derived lunar lander could probably get NASA a manned lunar landing by 2020 under its current budget top-line. If not 2020, almost certainly by 2025.
Mike
What on Earth are the sticking pieces that drive Orion’s costs? Is it just the shifting of requirements necessitating re-re-engineering things?
NASA is being asked to do too much with too little by Congress, and, once again, America’s space agency is set up for failure.
Yes NASA is not being given enough money to build a white elephant, but is that really the best point to emphasize?
I would think it possible to practically open up space for a tenth the budget of the NASA HSP, in such a context NASA is being grossly over funded. The problem is not a lack of funding, but that NASA HSF is a continual and overt failure.
One problem with program cost estimates for space programs is the lack of references. $35 billion for Orion seems large, but is less then the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program and is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs. Amazing when you remember it must operate in space.
But for some reason we think seem to believe we should be able to do space on the cheap and so it gets space advocates all hung up.
Its that same mind set that keeps us from investing in a TSTO, which is really needed to move spacelift forward.
If we cannot do manned space on the cheap, then manned space is not worth doing at all. Only “cheap” space offers any chance of expanding into something more than a series of expensive symbolic dead-end stunts.
$35 billion for Orion seems large, but is less then the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program and is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs.
But how many Orions and how many C-17s do we get for that money? Also, each C-17 is capable of making hundreds of flights, at least.
I would think that a small reusable launch system in the 500kg class (enough for two people or equivalent payload), should now cost less than $200m to develop, and hopefully less than $100m to develop. Marginal costs should hopefully be significantly less than $1000/kg to LEO. Spending more than this infers a serious waste of money. Unless one can compete with this, then a launch vehicle is ill advised.
NASA derived vehicles are no where near this, even SpaceX is likely to have its lunch stolen at some point, unless it can so evolve.
One might argue that 500kg is too small a payload to be useful for the vast majority of the market. I would argue that the market would care far more about cheap access to space than heavy lift. Payloads would very quickly adapt to the opportunity of cheap access to space using modular orbital assembly and depots as desired.
f we cannot do manned space on the cheap, then manned space is not worth doing at all.
I would argue that settling space is worth it at any price, however, being self sufficient in space means being economically productive enough to put food on the table. If one can not live in space without someone else on Earth picking up the bill, then one is not being self sufficient.
While initially challenging, the technology is not inherently expensive, if one can not do space cheaply then one is, not to put to fine a point on it, incompetent. Incompetence is not compatible with settling space so if one can not do it cheaply, then one is unlikely to have sufficient competence to settle space at all. This is NASAs current situation.
rickl
[[[But how many Orions and how many C-17s do we get for that money? Also, each C-17 is capable of making hundreds of flights, at least.]]]
Of course how much of the money for the C-17 is for R&D and how much for production units? Also note the aircraft technology is more mature then for spacecraft so the R&D should be less then for Orion. And of course you have the matter of production runs. The more Orion capsules built the lower will be the cost per unit.
But the key point is that $35 billion is not that much in terms of major development programs. Space Advocates have been so focused on space on the cheap (CATS) they are still thinking in terms of 1960’s costs structures.
Look at Virgin Galactic. They have spent about $200 on developing their SpaceshipTwo system, a Huge costs in terms of New Space thinking, but that is only the cost of a single jet liner for Virgin Atlantic…
I think a better question is: how much is RKK Energia getting for their next generation 6 seat crew vehicle?
Apparently the 2009 budget for the whole space agency was 82 billion rubles and 50% of that was spent on human spaceflight (mostly upgrades to the ISS). That’s $1.8B per year on human spaceflight. Why can’t the US do everything Russia does for so little?
Mike,
Thanks for letting me know it is possible but I am still a little skeptical of being able to maintain two stations at the same time.
Looking at the FY 2011 and onward budget overview, I guess there is a little wiggle room depending on how those technology demonstrations play out.
I’ll just hope that as the technology proves itself, congress and the public will be willing to increase funding.
$35 billion for Orion seems large, …. is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs.
It isn’t on par with Dragon. It isn’t on par with the entire SpaceX budget since that company’s inception, all infrastructure, 2 orbital launch vehicles and a near complete crewed space vehicle.
Of course how much of the money for the C-17 is for R&D and how much for production units? Also note the aircraft technology is more mature then for spacecraft so the R&D should be less then for Orion. And of course you have the matter of production runs. The more Orion capsules built the lower will be the cost per unit.
But the key point is that $35 billion is not that much in terms of major development programs. Space Advocates have been so focused on space on the cheap (CATS) they are still thinking in terms of 1960’s costs structures.
According to this GAO report:
The Air Force intends the C-17 to be its core airlifter and the cornerstone of its future airlift force. Through fiscal year 1996, the Congress had appropriated about $20.5 billion for the C-17 program, including $5.9 billion for research and development, $14.6 billion for procurement, and $170 million for military construction. The Congress had approved the acquisition of 40 C-17s.
According to GAO estimates, the Ares I and Orion were going to cost up to $50 billion for R&D alone. That is absurd at any level, but especially when you consider that the rocket had little more capability than existing rockets and the capsule wasn’t all that great, either.
Also note the aircraft technology is more mature then for spacecraft so the R&D should be less then for Orion.
No, it is generally the other way around, greater technology maturity leads to longer development times, for obvious reasons.
I think there was an aircraft in WWII the first prototype of which was designed, built and flown in ~42days. The first blackbird which was I think far more technology adventurous than the Ares I took around eighteen months.
But the key point is that $35 billion is not that much in terms of major development programs.
Major development programs have nothing to do with developing a first working prototype of an economic launch vehicle. This is akin to designing a 747 before the Wright Flier has even flown. Only NASA could be that disconnected from reality and have that much hubris.
I remember ten years and ten billion being roughly suggested for the development of new large passenger jets, where the design and market could be predicted with great certainty. But space is still at the Wright Flier development stage, not the 747 one. Development costs should be in the hundred million range at this stage (less if possible), assuming developing an economic launch vehicle is the actual intent.
$35b = 70 SpaceX.
What we need to do is find a way to get money in the hands of a thousand Elons.
Thomas Matula wrote:
One problem with program cost estimates for space programs is the lack of references. $35 billion for Orion seems large, but is less then the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program and is on par for similar flagship aerospace programs.
1) As others have pointed out, the $40-45 billion for the C-17 program is not just for development but also includes production of 223 aircraft, military construction to house them, funds to operate and maintain them, and for spares and training. Development cost was only a few billion dollars.
2) I think you’re confusing a few numbers. $35 billion was the development cost of the Ares I, not Orion, per Steve Cook, NASA’s former Ares program manager. The development cost of Orion at the time of contract award was to be $3.9 billion for the full lunar-capable spacecraft. So far, about $4 billion has been spent to get Orion to PDR. The FY10 budget projected that at least another $6 billion was necessary to get the LEO block 1 spacecraft developed. That would be $10 billion, not $35 billion, for block 1 Orion.
3) To provide a proper reference for block 1 Orion’s $10 billion development cost, note that Boeing is supposedly (according to rumors — I don’t think it’s been made public) asking for $1.5 billion to develop the CST-100 under the CCDev program. Since CCDev is a fixed-price program, any cost overruns would be Boeing’s responsibility, not NASA’s. Note also that CST-100 would place a 7-man crew into LEO on either a Delta IV medium, an Atlas V, or a Falcon 9 launch vehicle for a launch cost of $56 – $150 million, while block 1 Orion could only place a 4-man crew into LEO on the Ares I for a launch cost of $1 billion.
4) SpaceX’s projected development cost for a manned Dragon is substantially less than Boeing’s projected development cost for CST-100.
5) The proper comparison for Ares 1’s $35 billion development cost is the Delta IV Heavy, since each vehicle would carry 55,000 lbs to LEO. Delta IV Heavy was developed by Boeing under Air Force contract for $500 million.
I’ve posted some of these numbers here before. I apologize if you’re already seen them. The debate seems to go on without them, but they’re very relevant if we want a more rational manned space program.
Mike
The problem with the defense program comparison (C-17) is that defense articles are never meant to be procured in quantities that get more than a handful of government employees into the air (or into combat).
The space enthusiasts largely want to see a future for humanity en masse in space, hence supply will have to be greater and costs will have to come down.
Think automobile, not C-17.
Trent,
[[[Why can’t the US do everything Russia does for so little?]]]
Simple. The wages aerospace workers get in Russia are much lower then in the U.S. Its the same reason electronic manufacturing is out sources to China. Lower wages equal lower costs of production.
Cecil Trotter,
[[[It isn’t on par with Dragon. It isn’t on par with the entire SpaceX budget since that company’s inception, all infrastructure, 2 orbital launch vehicles and a near complete crewed space vehicle.]]]
Let’s see. SpaceX doesn’t have any legacy costs. You know pensions, health care, etc. for retirees. Also unless I am mistaken there is no union at SpaceX. And start ups usually pay less based on the promise of a big payday when there is an IPO. Then of course they probably have different overhead rates not to mention a number of other accounting issues involved.
Finally we really don’t know what the capabilities of the systems are in detail. Both a Cessna 210 and a LearJet 23 carry 6 people, but there is a huge difference in what the two aircraft are capable of.
Really, its like comparing the X-15 to SpaceShipone. Different vehicles for different purposes.
larry j,
Thanks for the figures and actually I am surprised its that high 5.9 billion given how mature jet aircraft technology is.
Also it will be interesting to see what the new estimate for the Orion is given Ares I appears to be out as a launcher.
Pete,
[[[But space is still at the Wright Flier development stage, not the 747 one. ]]]
No, Space launch was in the Wright Flyer stage when Prof. Goddard was building rockets in the 1930’s. Today’s rockets have as much technology development behind them as aircraft had in the 1980’s, a fact NewSpace doesn’t see to like to acknowledge. The difference is Space is not the atmosphere, its a much different environment and rockets must do much more complex things then airplanes do so the requirements for building systems are different. And so are the costs.
Michael Kent,
[[[That would be $10 billion, not $35 billion, for block 1 Orion.]]]
Thanks. I was using the figures the New Space advocates have been throwing around. $10 billion makes a lot more sense for just a BEO capsule. Also it appears since they have tested the LAS and have the first orbital test article a good part of that money has already been spent.
Yes, the CST-100 is a better comparison with the Dragon. I also assume that it would include the full package including development of the LAS system. Again the question is what do you get in your CST-100 versus a Dragon.
txhsdad,
[[[Think automobile, not C-17.]]]
Other then very specialize sportcars, automobiles are produced in production runs of the tens of thousands to the hundred of thousands. Aircraft are produced in production runs of the hundreds.
I expect even the most optimistic New Spacer doesn’t expect to see tens of thousands of spacecraft produced per year.
Let’s see. SpaceX doesn’t have any legacy costs.
Feature, not a bug.
Also unless I am mistaken there is no union at SpaceX.
Again, feature.
And start ups usually pay less based on the promise of a big payday when there is an IPO.
More feature.
Then of course they probably have different overhead rates not to mention a number of other accounting issues involved.
I’m beginning to repeat myself, feature.
Finally we really don’t know what the capabilities of the systems are in detail. Both a Cessna 210 and a LearJet 23 carry 6 people, but there is a huge difference in what the two aircraft are capable of.
We will however know the capabilities of Dragon years before we know the same of Orion. And even assuming Dragon has half (by whatever measure) the capability of Orion, the cost difference still favors Dragon by an order of magnitude over Orion.
Thomas, and yet they keep going to work and doing great stuff? Wow, must be some kind of competitive market for labor in Russia.
larry j,
Thanks for the figures and actually I am surprised its that high 5.9 billion given how mature jet aircraft technology is.
That isn’t so far out of line when you look at the R&D costs of recent airliner developments like the Airbus A-380, Airbus A-400 transport, or Boeing 787 Dreamliner when you factor in for inflation. All of those planes have cost $10 billion or more for R&D. Only the A-400 has to meet the specific military requirements for things like operating off of rough, undeveloped airfields and airdropping outsized cargo.
$35b = 70 SpaceX.
What we need to do is find a way to get money in the hands of a thousand Elons.
Actually no, SpaceX is an old/new space hybrid, we need 10 XCORs instead with the ~$34b this leaves spare being spent on similar vain space infrastructure like low cost space stations, depots, hangers, tugs, etc.
The obvious answer is that congressmen are all controlled by alien parasites who are determined to destroy our space program so we cannot challenge them in settling the universe…
… come on, don’t tell me you haven’t thought the same thing a few times…
NOTE: Your blog system snips sarcasm tags off comments…
It just ignores HTML tags it doesn’t recognize. Use square brackets instead of angles.
Cecil Trotter,
The problem with “features” like that is they are generally not sustainable.
Trent Waddington,
[[[Wow, must be some kind of competitive market for labor in Russia.]]]
Yes, a collapsed economy does then to lower labor costs.
That should be “tend to lower”
The problem with “features” like that is they are generally not sustainable.
So we enjoy them while they do, still not a reason to continue down the path of pumping 10x, 20x, 30x the money into NASA programs that lead NOWHERE.
Thomas, so what you’re saying is that if the US government was to stop proping up the aerospace industry, and just let it collapse, the labor costs may go down, driving everyone who’s looking for a meal ticket out of the business, leaving only the people who wanna do great things like it has in Russia? Wow, that’s really insightful of you.
So Trent, are you comparing the entire Russian economy to the US aerospace industry? Perhaps you should reread what Thomas wrote.
Trent,
You mean like the other American industries that have lost their jobs to global out sourcing? I guess that is the future you want for the American space industry, but its not the one I want to see.
The old American space industry is a collapsed economy, they just have not realized it yet (well some have). It is still asking for ~x100 the price for half the job, and depending on protectionism to get it.
In the real world, getting twice the wage rate requires doing twice the job. NASA’s HSP does not accomplish this.
Actually no, SpaceX is an old/new space hybrid, we need 10 XCORs instead…
Pete,
I don’t know the best way to categorize companies, but one way is by dollar value as a class.
If SpaceX in the billion dollar class it’s going to have to grow a magnitude to be a part of the explosion in space that’s coming.
Nothing against XCor but it’s going to have to grow as well to be a part of that. Of course you need many more smaller companies than larger ones… but you need the larger ones to take some of the major steps that are going to be needed.
Just a single BA330 habitat in earth orbit cost $200m to buy it and launch it. Constructing a space ship in orbit will cost one to ten billion depending on the design (more if the govt. does it.)
So yes, we need a lot of XCors, but we are going to need SpaceXs as well.