Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"As to what it's all going to cost, our estimates are about--that it will cost for the first human lunar return, it will cost about 55 percent measured in constant dollars of what Apollo cost spread out over 13 years."

Correction: The estimate of what it will cost, at this point in time is 55 percent of what Apollo actually did cost. By using ISS cost growth as an estimate of expected cost overruns in the next 13 years, it should come in well over the Apollo cost.

Posted by K at July 11, 2006 11:44 PM

Standard government practice for vehicle acquisition programs considers development money to be "borrowed" from the Treasury at T-bill rates. That means at the time of its first flight, Apollo on Steroids will be $104 billion in "debt" to the Federal government, and that debt must be amortized over the life of the program (not including the interest that has accumulated during the development period).

If you assume T-bill rates of around 5% in the relevant period, the cost of money alone is 5% of $104 billion, or about $5 billion a year. Given the expected AoS operating rate of two flights a year, the cost of money *alone* will amount to $2.5 billion per flight.

To the cost of money, you must add the actual amortization for paying off the the "loan" over the lifetime of the program (whatever NASA assumes that to be) plus all of the annual operating costs;

So, an estimate of $5 billion per flight sounds like it's in the right ballpark.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 12, 2006 02:51 AM

I wouldn't jump up and down because of this story quite yet. It's another poorly sourced internet story with no confirmation, not reported so far as I can find from any other news site, and from a site that has dengerated into a "gotcha" page against Mike Griffin's NASA.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at July 12, 2006 04:46 AM

Flight rate, flight rate, flight rate requires a reason to fly those missions (i.e. demand that helps someone close a business case).

Create demand and there is plenty of guys with great ideas to lower costs for Earth-to-LEO.

All I hope for from ESAS is an LSAM that can evolve into one that stays "out there" allowing rendevouz with anyone who can do Earth-to-LEO and EML-1 or EML-2 be it SpaceX, SpaceDev, t/Space, Soyuz, Kliper, Shenzou, whatever.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2006 06:52 AM

What is the incremental cost per mission? Once ESAS is in place, how much more to add more missions?

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2006 07:22 AM

"What is the incremental cost per mission? Once ESAS is in place, how much more to add more missions?"

To me, that is the heart of the matter.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 12, 2006 07:33 AM

Assuming that the story is true (and so far there hasn't been any confirmation), the question seems to be arising: What costs are being included? There are are sorts of instances of the same thing being made to cost wildly different things depending on what is included.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 12, 2006 08:27 AM

Come on Rand, why are you complaining? They've finally brought the cost of a lunar mission down to the cost of a Shuttle flight (or vice versa).

If they keep this up Burt Rutan will be on the Moon before NASA.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at July 12, 2006 09:00 AM

"What is the incremental cost per mission? Once ESAS is in place, how much more to add more missions?"

That's about as relevant as the incremental cost of shuttle launches. Which is to say, not very.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 12, 2006 09:01 AM

Why is anyone upset about this? Those who knew Griffin beforehand and who was around in the SEI days knows that this is what he wanted to do then and is trying to shove down the throats of everyone now. Cost be d$ammed it's his way or the highway.

ESAS = SEI 1992 and will end up the same way.

Posted by Gilbert O'Sullivan at July 12, 2006 09:17 AM

That's about as relevant as the incremental cost of shuttle launches. Which is to say, not very.

Well, if the marginal cost were low (say, a few million per mission) it would be extremely relevant. But we know that it will be more on the order of a billion or so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 10:49 AM

> Create demand and there is plenty of guys with great ideas to lower costs
> for Earth-to-LEO.

Lower costs and there will be demand. There are plenty of people who want to go into space, Bill.

> All I hope for from ESAS is an LSAM that can evolve into one that stays
> "out there" allowing rendevouz with anyone who can do Earth-to-LEO and EML-1
> or EML-2 be it SpaceX, SpaceDev, t/Space, Soyuz, Kliper, Shenzou, whatever.

$104 billion for a lunar lander???

What makes you think companies like SpaceX, SpaceDev, and t/Space couldn't develop their own (affordable) lunar landers?

And why should American taxpayers spend over $100 billion to subsidize Soyuz, Kliper, and Shenzhou?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 12, 2006 12:50 PM

> What is the incremental cost per mission? Once ESAS is in place, how much
> more to add more missions?

A better question, Bill, is what's the incremental value of the Platinum that you think each mission will mine?

Using your figure of $1000 an ounce and a marginal cost of $2 billion, each mission would need to produce about two million troy ounces just to pay for itself. That's about 80 tons, which is far more than the LSAM and CEV can carry. Even Dennis's fabled SEP tug would only return 16 tons a year to LEO. You would need 10 SEP tugs, operating full time, just to pay for two Constellation missions.

That assumes launch from the Moon to LLO and return from LEO to the Earth are both free, the SEP tug costs nothing to operate, and you don't need any heavy equipment to mine all these tons of platinum. It also assumes we ignore all development costs, just because you say so.

Even bending over backwards, to the point of breaking our backs, it's obvious that platinum mining cannot pay for Project Constellation.

Yet, sadly, that will not stop you from telling us otherwise. Sigh.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 12, 2006 01:52 PM

Edward, any plans I am thinking about for collecting lunar platinum currently involve Proton and Soyuz. American launch prices are far too high to be remotely competitive.

Could NASA do better than ESAS? Of course.

But let's be honest. ESAS and Ares V exist so Griffin can go to Mars after the Moon. Dr. Robert Zubrin is winning as of right now. Mars capability is what ESAS is really all about.

Deploy that r-LSAM and turn the Moon to the commercial sector - - then on to Mars!

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2006 02:56 PM

Mars is where the importance of the marginal cost per mission comes in. Once ESAS does the Moon, the additional cost for a Mars mission will not be all the great.

And just as COTS will turn over ISS re-supply to the private sector, once an EML-1 station is built and an r-LSAM deployed, Ares V can carry Americans to Mars with NewSpace being given the Moon for whatever commercial purposes can be devised.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2006 02:59 PM

...any plans I am thinking about for collecting lunar platinum currently involve Proton and Soyuz. American launch prices are far too high to be remotely competitive.

Any plans you have to mine the moon for anything using those launch systems is an economic fantasy.

But let's be honest.

So anyone who disagrees with you is being dishonest?

ESAS and Ares V exist so Griffin can go to Mars after the Moon. Dr. Robert Zubrin is winning as of right now. Mars capability is what ESAS is really all about.

Neither ESAS or Ares V will get us to Mars. Ares isn't big enough to do a Mars mission in a single launch, and Bob thinks "It's impossible, it's impossible!" to do a Mars (or lunar) mission in multiple launches.

This is the fundamental flaw of the heavy-lift faithful. Whatever mission you want to do next will always require an even heavier vehicle.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 03:01 PM

Ares V is Mars Direct capable and if we reject a one launch Mars Direct as too skimpy then two Ares V are launched to assemble a bigger ship.

Whether or not we agree this is feasible I believe Mars is Griffin's objective. Ares-V? After all its Zubrin's own name for a Mars rocket.

"Lets be honest" refers to the idea that Mars is the follow on objective and I won't even pretend that low launch costs are the objective.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2006 03:12 PM

Rand, are you quite sure that Zubrin thinks this? Mars Direct has called for multiple launches since the early 1990s.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 12, 2006 03:15 PM

With nuclear thermal propulsion and Bigelow habs, two Ares V are more than enough to send 6 people to Mars. (With an earlier Ares V launch of the ERV.)

Especially if crew is ferried up later.

Wise? A different question.

But knowing Griffin's writings and public statements why should this be a surprise to anyone?

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2006 03:18 PM

Rand, are you quite sure that Zubrin thinks this?

I can't say what Bob thinks at any particular point in time. I can only relate that he got into a heated debate with an audience member at a recent conference (perhaps last fall's Space Frontier Conference?--they start to blur) over that very issue, claiming that it was "impossible" and not even worth discussing the possibility of going to the moon in multiple launches (this was a discussion about ESAS). Jeff Foust can confirm it. In fact, I'm pretty sure he wrote a piece at The Space Review about it.

I suppose that it's possible that he was just being disingenuous, feeling that he needed to see a lunar heavy lifter developed in order to do multiple launches to Mars...

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2006 03:20 PM

Rand Says

This is the fundamental flaw of the heavy-lift faithful. Whatever mission you want to do next will always require an even heavier vehicle.

********

Agreed

**********

Ed Wright Says

Even Dennis's fabled SEP tug would only return 16 tons a year to LEO. You would need 10 SEP tugs, operating full time, just to pay for two Constellation missions.

***********

Nope, not even close. Try 60 Metric tons LLO-LEO for a marginal cost of about $200M per mission. That number is heavily influenced by current launch costs and will come down as that number comes down.

In a real architecture you that actually has economics as a driver it is obvious to all but the most casual observer that the current plan is not the one that will be followed.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 12, 2006 10:33 PM

Mark is partly right on this one.

Zubrin believes it's possible to do a Mars mission with multiple launches *IF AND ONLY IF* the vehicles rendezvous on the Martian surface, not in space.

According to Zubrin, orbital rendezvous is very hard and dangerous, because we have so little experience with it, but landing two vehicles in the same spot on the Martian surface is simple and straightforward (because we've done it so often before?).

"You can't make this stuff up."

Posted by Edward Wright at July 12, 2006 10:39 PM

> Nope, not even close. Try 60 Metric tons LLO-LEO for a marginal cost of about $200M per mission. That
> number is heavily influenced by current launch costs and will come down as that number comes down.

Sounds like you need to talk to Mark Wade. Astronautix.com reported that Andrews proposed "A reusable LEO-L1 Tug (LLT) that would deliver 63,000 kg from LEO to L1 and return 15,000 kg from L1 to LEO."

He also reported "first unit cost being $223 million and an annual operating cost of $13.7 million."

If the operating cost is $200 million per mission ($400 million per year), then the economics are much worse than what Mark reported, even with a 4x greater payload.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 12, 2006 11:08 PM

In a real architecture you that actually has economics as a driver it is obvious to all but the most casual observer that the current plan is not the one that will be followed.

Unless economics is not the real driver of ESAS. And I agree economics isn't the real driver, seeking a Mars capability is at the heart of Ares V, whether that is a mis-guided driver or not.

Therefore NewSpace should piggyback whatever they can on ESAS (COTS for example and the prize money ideas) and develop and deploy alternative systems as quickly as possible so they can show Congress hardware rather than viewgraphs as an alternative to ESAS.

Once tourists inhabit a Bigelow module (serviced by Soyuz) Congress will not say no to a call for NASA to buy Bigelow habs off the shelf. If Masten or Armadillo flies a lunar lander in New Mexico before Boeing or LM finish with their picture making, a deal can likely be made.

If a tether tosses 100 kg from LEO to Luna (or Mars) without propellant, all for a prize then NASA will buy cis-lunar cargo delivery off the shelf.

= = =

But long term NASA cannot be the economic driver. NewSpace needs to locate private sector revenue streams.

Are there any besides:

(1) Tourism;
(2) Materials/Energy - (He3 PGM SSP);
(3) Media, marketing, sponsorship & brand enhancement;
(4) On orbit medical or materials research

Human-less satellites are omitted as that industry is already doing fine.

Any others? Develop these markets as a source of demand in order to by-pass NASA.

Posted by Bill White at July 13, 2006 03:51 AM

Bill

I could care less about Mars at this time, even though it is confirming my NiFe impactor surviability thesis. The economics of Mars are not sound until we can do the Moon cost effectively.

I don't care what Mark Wade says, The numbers that I use are what I say, and I did the work. I did more work than just the Andrews tug last year.

You have little understanding of how the cost that I stated fits into a logistical train of a commercial cislunar transportation architecture so your input is of limited value.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 13, 2006 09:11 AM

Dennis -

My point is that Griffin does care about Mars. And that is why Ares V is what it is and why the CLV Ares is a 5 segment SRB plus a new J-2X, because Ares V needs a 5 segment SRB and a new J-2X.

Good idea or not? That is another topic altogether. Politics not economics drives ESAS. Film at 11.

= = =

The NiFe impactor on Mars is fascinating. Thanks for bringing that up.

Any new thoughts, Dennis, on using NiFe fragments to create nickel carbonyl vapor and then vapor deposit that gas to make a large number of useful items?

Posted by Bill White at July 13, 2006 10:56 AM

> I don't care what Mark Wade says, The numbers that I use are what I say,
> and I did the work. I did more work than just the Andrews tug last year.

So, you're talking about a different version than the Andrews tug?

If the Mysterioso version has a return payload 4x higher but operating costs 30x higher, the cost per pound is going to be 7.5x higher.

Of course, that's relying on math rather than faith, so I'm sure it won't fit your "understanding of how the cost fits into a logistical train." :-)

In the meantime, of course, your addiction to high-cost launch systems prevents your train from ever getting off the ground.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 13, 2006 02:23 PM

You are an idiot when it comes to understanding systems engineering and systems cost determination. You have zero idea what went into the Andrew's number or mine.

I DON'T have high launch costs with my projects, they are among the best in the world. The key is to be a doer and not a whiner and you can figure out how to cut deals and save money.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 13, 2006 04:52 PM

> I DON'T have high launch costs with my projects, they are among
> the best in the world

You don't have high launch costs because ESA is giving you free launches.

The European taxpayers who subsidize you have very high launch costs.

You think you can mine the Moon using ELVs and sell the products to Chinese peasants -- and you say other people don't understand systems cost determination? :-0

Posted by Edward Wright at July 13, 2006 05:56 PM

Ed Sez

You don't have high launch costs because ESA is giving you free launches.

**************

Nope. We have negotiated a multiple launch per year multiple year contract with Arianespace. We pay for our launches, we just figured out a way to do it inexpensively.

Anything else you want to say that is completely wrong?

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 13, 2006 10:15 PM

> Nope. We have negotiated a multiple launch per year multiple year contract
> with Arianespace. We pay for our launches

So, you pay ESA for multiple launches with the investment euros you get from ESA?

How could anyone possibly mistake that for a free launch? :-)

> we just figured out a way to do it inexpensively.

Great. You've been talking about your "alternative approach to CATS" for years -- I'm glad you can finally deliver.

Sign me up for 50 seats at $10,000 a seat and 10,000 pounds for, say, $100 a pound? Renewable indefinitely. Send send me a contract.

Or do you still think "inexpensive" means huge bucks?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 14, 2006 12:10 PM

Poor Ed, never gets a story right, even when explained in English.

ESA is paying 1/2 of the cost for the first mission for Orbital Recovery. This has absolutely no impact on further missions.

If I remember right, a certain person called Ed Wright has lobbied for years that governments pay for results and only after a customer has been secured (non governmental).

Now we are doing this, we are paying commercial prices for launch, and now you ar claiming that this is not a good way of doing business?

Sorry Ed, your attempts to claim the high ground continue to make less and less sense.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at July 14, 2006 01:46 PM

> If I remember right, a certain person called Ed Wright has lobbied
> for years that governments pay for results and only after a customer
> has been secured

I guess I missed the news story when you launched your satellite and achieved results. When did this launch take place?

> Now we are doing this, we are paying commercial prices for launch,
> and now you ar claiming that this is not a good way of doing business?

So, you're paying ESA's "commercial prices"?

You claimed you had discovered how to do launches "inexpensively." There's nothing inexpensive about Ariane commercial prices.

Or is this just the old Dennis Wingo saw that everything is "inexpensive" no matter how much it costs?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 14, 2006 02:54 PM

Have you never been involved in a real project with real milestones? We have succeded at meeting many milestones on the path to our eventual first flight and these credibility builders are the results referenced.

There is no such thing in this world really as a price. It is all negotiable, except for crappy high priced Operating system software maybe. Prices in the real world are based upon supply, demand, and the willingness to pay.

For example, most of us, including you, know that Dennis Tito and the rest of the space tourists have not paid $20M for their flights even though that is the stated price.

A few years ago Eutelsat bought the first new Atlas variation and paid no more than about $30M dollars for a launch vehicle that normally costs almost $100M dollars.

Price is what you negotiate when you are ready to lay a check on the table. I am in the process of negotiating for a large block buy of solar arrays right now and am working to get the best price. This price is not the list price but when you are ready to lay down a check, that is the time when the price is negotiated, not when you see a number on a website.

What part of real world economics don't you get?

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 14, 2006 09:04 PM

Post a comment