NASA Figures Show That Commercial Rocket Costs Less Than Half as Much as Government-Run Effort Would

[n2doc]

By John Matson

SpaceX has been the darling in the past few years of the so-called NewSpace movement—private companies aspiring to do the spacefaring work that was once limited to the space programs of the world’s superpowers.

The California-based company, headed by Paypal co-founder Elon Musk, has already completed successful demonstrations of its Falcon 9 rocket and its Dragon crew capsule to much fanfare. If further unmanned tests go smoothly, SpaceX might use those vehicles in coming years to carry U.S. astronauts to orbit. NASA, for its part, has struggled with cancellations and shifts of direction (some internal, and some imposed by lawmakers) for its own planned rockets and crew capsule.

Now a column by Florida Today‘s John Kelly points out that the much-trumpeted efficiencies of private enterprise do indeed work for SpaceX. A NASA study (pdf), Kelly notes, found that the Falcon 9 would have cost much more had it been developed within the confines and culture of NASA.

Initial estimates using the NASA/Air Force Cost Model, or NAFCOM, found that NASA would have needed $4 billion to build the Falcon 9, more than twice as much as a NAFCOM-derived estimate for SpaceX. But then NASA personnel visited SpaceX to learn more about the company’s rockets and found that more hardware was either off-the-shelf or derived from the smaller Falcon 1 rocket than had been assumed in the study. So, an updated estimate based on those factors and others made cost savings through commercialization even more dramatic.

more

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/28/nasa-figures-show-that-commercial-spaceflight-costs-half-as-much-as-government-run-effort-would/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I call bullshit.

This is the same old neoliberal privatization party song and dance. The savings never actually materialize and instead yet another slice of the public sector gets captured by the same gang of crooks.

[Confusious]

2. I second that bullshit call

The numbers are probably based on some fanciful projection of usage and numbers built, which of course, never materializes.

Of course, they could also be saving money by outsourcing and cutting safety.

Oh, I see now. They used off the shelf parts, which probably didn't exist 20 years ago. So they're comparing numbers from apollo and the shuttle, which had to be built by hand, piece by piece, with no preset path to follow.

Thankfully, they saved money because the government decided to invest in space flight, so now there ARE off the shelf parts, and they can spend less now.

Republicans. Nothing has ever happened before a private business did it. You say we went into space before? we landed on the moon? did a private business do it? no? then we never did it.

[bananas]

8. No, these are development costs, not per-flight costs. nt

[Confusious]

9. I corrected myself lower in the post

Starting at " oh I see now"

did you not read the entire thing?

[bananas]

11. NASA could've used off-the-shelf parts, too

There were a number of proposals to use off-the-shelf parts to reduce development costs and to reduce the "gap".

http://www.universetoday.com/88872/atk-and-astriums-liberty-launcher-added-to-nasas-commercial-crewed-roster/

ATK and Astrium’s Liberty Launcher Added to NASA’s Commercial Crewed Roster
by Jason Rhian on September 13, 2011

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla – Liberty has wings. That is to say that the launch vehicle proposed by Alliant Techsystems or ATK as they are more commonly known has been given the green light by NASA – albeit unfunded – as part of a Space Act Agreement. The announcement was made at the Kennedy Space Center press site’s auditorium in Florida Tuesday at 3 p.m. EDT. With ATK’s addition – the fleet of potential spacecraft and launch vehicles could mean that the space agency will not only be able to return to human space flight operations sooner – but with a more diverse range of vehicles to do so as well.

<snip>

The proposal to use the Liberty launch vehicle, which is comprised of a five-segment solid rocket booster (similar to the four-segment SRB utilized during the shuttle program) and an Ariane V upper stage could reduce the human space flight “gap” that NASA is currently experiencing.

<snip>

More importantly – ATK has stated that they could be ready to launch as early as 2015.

<snip>

[LongTomH]

12. Those SRBs were a major contributor to the cost-per-launch of shuttle

The SRBs require about 6,000 man-hours just to stack for each shuttle launch, and all activity around the shuttle had to come to a halt during the stacking, for safety reasons.

I've said this before; the only reason for using SRBs on a manned vehicle is the fact that ATK (formerly Morton Thiokol) has powerful friends in Congress. Some NASA engineers quit when the found that solid rockets were to be used on the shuttle. Solids are dangerous; once they 'light the candle,' the crew is obligated to ride it out until the solids burn out.

There was talk of replacing the SRBs with liquid-fuel boosters all during the shuttle era - No Way!. Even after the Challenger disaster, ATK/Morton Thiokol continued to be the prime contractor for shuttle boosters.

And of course, everything NASA seriously considers has to be based on ATK solid rockets: 'Shuttle C,' Constellation, etc.

Oh, and about that public vs private controversy: ATK/Morton Thiokol is a private contractor, not a government agency. What Mr. Obama actually did was break the monopoly that ATK and other big defense contractors had for aerospace.

And, yeah, I'm a liberal - not neo-liberal - and I'm a big fan of Space X.

By the way, I won't be online to answer any objections until late tonight, there's a big protest planned for Kansas City today through Monday: the occupation of the Federal Reserve Building.

[n2doc]

3. I think the critical part is that they haven't built up a safety record

We know, for example, that it is possible to build a car and sell it for 3,000 (India's Tata, for example). However such a car will not keep you alive as well as a 15K car. Space is more unforgiving, and I gotta wonder how much savings are being made from not testing or 'overbuilding' their systems. Time will tell, I hope without casualty.

[bananas]

6. Musk is designing these to get people to Mars and back

he's doing plenty of 'overbuilding' in terms of safety and reliability.

[TheMadMonk]

5. I'll call BS on your BS call. NASA does suffer from a serious case of...

..."If it's not spending in my backyard it's not getting my vote."

Another problem is the yoinking of newly proven technologies to defence, such as the linear aerospike and a couple of scramjets.

Musk and Branson won't be the ones cutting corners and putting people in unnecessary danger. It will be the "competitors" following on their coat tails.

[bananas]

7. Agree. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Amen!

Let's not fall for it AGAIN! :eyes:

[saras]

4. You get what you pay for - ask Christa McAuliffe

[krispos42]

13. Yeah, after NASA does all the hard work breaking ground...

...pushing the frontier, training the space-specialized scientists and specialists and technicians and materials, and developing the space industry...


NOW private companies can come in and do stuff.