How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

BWhite · 2004-09-09 07:17:28

MarsDog pointed me to a link leading to this quote:

[R]elatively simple RL-10 engines cost about $2.5 million each. Gas turbine helicopter engines contain approximately the same number of parts, and are of the same complexity, but are made on assembly lines at a rate of several thousand a year. Those engines sell for $80,000. "When you are building in lots of tens, you're basically hand building these engines and they are bound to be expensive."

Is this true? Is the Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engine more complex to manufacture than a gas turbine helicopter engine? If an order were placed for 1000 RL-10s how much of a cost savings might there be per engine?

= = =

Thiokol RSRMS cost $30 million each (that is what they sell them to NASA for) based on building 6 or 8 boosters per year.

Might mass production reduce that cost significantly? Say order 500 5 segment boosters.

The current RSRM has an 85% mass fraction. 85% of the launch weight is fuel and 15% is other stuff. 192,000 pounds of "other stuff" according to numerous sources. RSRMs are built with 1970s metalworking technology. Suppose Thiokol were to incorporate composites. Moving from 85% to 87% mass fraction would add 25,600 pounds to the upper stage payload for a 4 segment SRB and add 32,000 pounds to the upper stage payload for a 5 segment SRB.

= = =

Looking at this, =IF= demand existed to fly 500 5 segment SRBS with an upper stage made from 2 RL-10s launch costs for cargo only would fall below $1000 per pound to LEO and in best case scenarios, fall below $250 pound to LEO.

Best case (fantasy?) scenario:

5 segment SRB costs $15 million (based on a 500 unit purchase)

2 RL-10s cost $ .5 million (based on a 1000 unit purchase)

1 upper stage fuel tank costs $3 million? (based on a 1000 unit purchase)

Miscellaneous stuff including payload stabilization until collected costs another $3 or $4 million.

(Nore - Northrup inteds their new fuel tank to be re-useable as living space and the guidance systems could be collected and returned to Earth for re-use after cargo is collected)

Lets say $20 million is our fantasy launch price. Based on statements from ATK Thiokol's Mike Kahn, such a system with 87% or 88% mass fractions and lighter upper stage tanks could well throw 80,000 pounds to LEO at a net price of $250 per pound.

= = =

Problem? No demand. 80,000 pounds x 1,000 launches equals 80 million pounds in LEO for a total cost of $20 billion dollars.

But then, $20 billion would buy all the launch services needed to build one huge BattleStar Galactica!

Or at a 20% net to Mars delivery ration (100 pounds in LEO equals 20 pounds on Mars) - - $20 billion could send 16 million pounds of supplies to jump start a permanent settlement.

BWhite · 2004-09-09 07:18:33

PS - - I have been known to slip decimal places ???

So if I made a glaring error please tell me.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 08:38:21

You sort of hit the edge of the fence with regards to Manufacturing because known sales will be there and contractual agreements to provide a fixed quantity.

In Manufacturing for mass production not only must material cost be low but the overhead of labor as well, automation is usually seen as the answer but that entails capital expenditures and that eats away at profits.

Under contracts though there is no need to reduce manufacturing cost because it is garenteed money in the hand upon delivery for the manufacturer goods. No one cares to try to eek out a little more profit since it is already fat.

BWhite · 2004-09-09 09:12:33

You sort of hit the edge of the fence with regards to Manufacturing because known sales will be there and contractual agreements to provide a fixed quantity.
In Manufacturing for mass production not only must material cost be low but the overhead of labor as well, automation is usually seen as the answer but that entails capital expenditures and that eats away at profits.
Under contracts though there is no need to reduce manufacturing cost because it is garenteed money in the hand upon delivery for the manufacturer goods. No one cares to try to eek out a little more profit since it is already fat.

Demand is everything.

Its counter intuitive, but I believe launch costs will fall only after demand increases because increased demand will justify the production of launch vehicles as a commodity and not as a high end "one-off" product line.

The Ford Taurus is a rather boring ordinary American car. But how much would a 2004 Taurus cost if Ford only made 100 of them?

= = =

RL-10s are not the only game in town. If Pratt & Whitney declines to sell 1000 RL-10s at $100,000 each then buy 1000 Russian LH2/LOX upper stages at $100,000 each.

Otherwise I agree. Without compeition prices will not come down.

As for Thiokol, if 5 segment SRBs don't come down from $30 million, look at liquid first stages with RS-68s and those new Northrup tanks. Robotic lasers can cut and robot assemblers fabricate and "glue" composite tanks so its all in the contract bidding.

But without several hundred or a thousand flights, no mass production.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 09:17:46

Like you noted demand is everything but so is price and currently that is stopping demand. Your case of the auto was a prime example sales of Taurus versus a Cadilac or even a porche.

BWhite · 2004-09-09 09:21:15

Like you noted demand is everything but so is price and currently that is stopping demand. Your case of the auto was a prime example sales of Taurus versus a Cadilac or even a porche.

Catch-22 :;):

But, suppose someone drives through that price barrier, bites the bullet so to speak, and plants a permanent settlement on Mars - - damn the costs- - and along the way acquires the patents and know-how to lower launch costs and recoups that initial investment from selling that know-how to the follow on people?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 09:27:24

Sort of like the catch 22 we now have with no shuttle flights for Astronauts.

The big vendors all have unmanned vehicles and I am sure could all provide it in a manned version but they will not. This in large part since they have no contracts to do so they are unwilling with no garantees of payment.

Auh yes they all got recent contracts but little money for there thoughts for the next 6 months.

NASA taps contractors for space architecture
http://www.wtonline.com/news/1_1/daily_ … 435-1.html

Northrop Grumman to Help NASA Define Space Exploration Architecture
http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news_ … ml?d=63464

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-09 11:11:38

Demand is everything.
But without several hundred or a thousand flights, no mass production.

And therein lies the problem... if we had demand, then even current available rockets like Zenit or Atlas or even Energia would be alot cheaper.

Keep forever in your mind, "fewer dollars per pound period" is not always the ultimate goal. There is a minimum and maximum practical payload size, a maximum practical ecological impact, a minimum practical reliability to satisfy insurance agencies, and the capacity for direct escape trajectories, perhaps post-launch payload stabilization, etc... and then you have manned vehicles too.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 11:13:28

Enough already with the studies for the exploration program. Gee another 6 more months and still the possibility of another and still all we will have is papers. Lets build hardware instead for that same 12 months and whose ever design works at the end of that time wins....

John Creighton · 2004-09-09 11:21:24

The Ford Taurus is a rather boring ordinary American car. But how much would a 2004 Taurus cost if Ford only made 100 of them?

Although I don't like Toyota cars. The created a processes where any car can be created on any assembly line. With such technology the only real economy of scale is spreading out the design cost given all capital investment is already fully utilized and paid for. For some reason the word peg board comes to my head. ???

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 11:29:06

And where is the word alternative space providers that are trying to get into the game, such as Armadillo Aerospace
here is a link into news from their most recent attempts.
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/A … ews_id=276

I like the individual Astronaut lunar lander it is sort of on the lines of the escape pod idea.

BWhite · 2004-09-09 12:34:07

The Ford Taurus is a rather boring ordinary American car. But how much would a 2004 Taurus cost if Ford only made 100 of them?
Although I don't like Toyota cars. The created a processes where any car can be created on any assembly line. With such technology the only real economy of scale is spreading out the design cost given all capital investment is already fully utilized and paid for. For some reason the word peg board comes to my head. ???

How much does that assembly line cost? If Toyota only sold a few dozen cars, they never would have built that assembly line. That said, flexibility is good.

Micro-chip stamping plants cost billions but stamp billions of micro-processors. Dell could never sell a Celeron machine for $500 if billions of Pentium chips were not being made each year.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 13:18:27

Editorial:
A vision for the ages Today, members of a key Senate Appropriations subcommittee are poised to slash NASA's budget and undermine President Bush's historic vision for space exploration.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20 … -2126r.htm

C M Edwards · 2004-09-09 14:17:41

Who is on that committee?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 14:22:53

Here is the link for the senate appropriations subcommitee.

http://appropriations.senate.gov/

C M Edwards · 2004-09-10 11:34:56

The original article is not particularly informative. Nor, saddly, are the senators' websites, which can't be updated with any news reports that are not actually recorded in the Senate minutes until after the election in November. The relevant appropriations subcommittee appears to be the Senate Independent Agencies subcommittee. A brief search of the members web sites reveals that only one, Tom Harkin, is publicly taking a stand against funding space exploration. However, only two subcommittee members, Kay Hutchison and Barbara Mikulski, are publicly in favor of it to the point where they list it under their key legislative issues and other pet projects. The other ten subcommittee members are non-committal.

The Appropriations Committee at large approves the Independent Agencies Subcommittee recommendations when they're finished, and that committee includes other publicly pro-space Senators, including Mary Landrieu from my own Louisiana. So, the result is still far from decided even after the subcommittee's vote.

I think I'm going to write Mrs. Landrieu, though.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-10 11:44:40

Another possibility for lowering launch costs is to develop non-rocket launch technologies. Some, like the JP Aerospace Airship-To-Orbit plan (yes, I'm becoming an apologist :;): ) could lend themselves to mass production techniques. However, these all currently suffer under the same dilema as rocketry: opportunity costs are higher than the altitudes they seek to attain.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 11:46:44

Space politics website does have a little more of the details you are seeking.

Topic forum blocks:

Funding the exploration studies
Senate hearing on the shuttle program

http://www.spacepolitics.com/

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 11:53:50

Here is another write up:
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Budget Cuts Would Severely Hinder Exploration, O'Keefe Says
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow....104.xml

I find the CEV Image choice interesting by them.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-09-10 23:15:20

You can try to lower launch costs as much as you like with efficent expendable launch vehicles, but to get them really low, as in <$100 a pound launch costs to LEO, the launch vehicle has to be expendible. Rockets are fairly simple machines, payload sheath, fuel tank, engine for most of them, but no matter what they'll always be take least several million dollars to build. In a reusable launch vehicle you just have to pay for the fuel, preflight, and the workers' salaries. In an ependible launch vehicle you have to add the cost of the rocket to every single flight, and that will prevent you from getting any costs very cheap.

I sincerly hope that the senate will grant NASA their deserved money, but pragmatically speaking I don't see that as being likely. All we can really do is sit back and think, hope, pray that Bush will veto the budget cut. I'm still adamantly against him, but hopefully he'll make one last appriciable gesture before leaving the White House (At least I hope he'll be leaving).

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 07:22:13

You forgot on the RLV side the refurb cost of tile replacement, systems upgrades and or part replacements do to being broken or worn out.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-13 08:37:15

Refurbishment, upgrades, and general maintenance can be made cheaper by mass production of parts, just like almost everything else that requires hardware. However, mass production alone won't get costs down far enough.

What is really required is cheap reliability, not cheap parts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-09 07:17:28

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#2 2004-09-09 07:18:33

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#3 2004-09-09 08:38:21

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#4 2004-09-09 09:12:33

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#5 2004-09-09 09:17:46

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#6 2004-09-09 09:21:15

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#7 2004-09-09 09:27:24

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#8 2004-09-09 11:11:38

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#9 2004-09-09 11:13:28

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#10 2004-09-09 11:21:24

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#11 2004-09-09 11:29:06

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#12 2004-09-09 12:34:07

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#13 2004-09-09 13:18:27

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#14 2004-09-09 14:17:41

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#15 2004-09-09 14:22:53

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#16 2004-09-10 11:34:56

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#17 2004-09-10 11:44:40

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#18 2004-09-10 11:46:44

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#19 2004-09-10 11:53:50

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#20 2004-09-10 23:15:20

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#21 2004-09-13 07:22:13

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

#22 2004-09-13 08:37:15

Re: How to lower launch costs - Calling our techie gurus. . .

Board footer