Launcher Costs?

JasonF · 2004-01-14 21:34:29

Is there a breakdown anywhere of the various launchers and costs? I'd like to compare shuttle versus EELV costs, and am having trouble bringing them all together.

Bill White · 2004-01-14 21:50:11

Is there a breakdown anywhere of the various launchers and costs? I'd like to compare shuttle versus EELV costs, and am having trouble bringing them all together.

Have you tried here?

[http://astronautix.com]http://astronautix.com

This website is awesome.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-14 22:04:53

Very good site Bill, thank you for that.

GCNRevenger · 2004-01-14 22:18:41

Well, it can be figured pretty roughly between Shuttle and EELV-HLV rockets...

Shuttle, with its human flight control system and the all-important reuseable payload faring, costs about $500M per flight. A little closer to $600M-700M is possible in the post-Columbia program... Shuttle can haul about 27.5 metric tons to equitorial LEO.

The 2nd contender in the American launch business, the "tripple-barrel" Delta-IV HLV can do about 25.8MT for $170-190M

#3 on the list, the 5-booster Atlas-V varies with upper stage and "who you ask" since this varient hasn't been needed yet, but I expect it to cost ~$150M for a similar payload as the Delta-IV HLV, since it has fewer liquid fuel engines/stages.

A Shuttle Derived Launcher is also a grayish area... it would cost probably half what Shuttle does to launch, and haul somewhere around 100-120MT, but this is speculative, and the vehicle is only a concept, and would require substantial development cost, but could probably be developed rapidly.

Shuttle: ~$20-25M per ton
Delta HLV: ~$7M per ton
Atlas HLV: ~$6M per ton (speculative)
SDV (Magnum): ~$3M per ton (speculative)
SDV (Ares/Shuttle-Z): ~$2-3M per ton (speculative)

RobertDyck · 2004-01-14 22:21:32

I tried to compile a list myself. Most of the data comes from Encyclopedia Astronautica (astronautix.com). It's over a year old now, but I put it in table form. [http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/files/lv.html]click here

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-14 22:36:39

Damn Shuttle launches are so expensive. If SDV would be that cheap someone needs to get their freaking act together. Tomorrow. An OSP would cost a lot more and all it would provide really is the ablity to land on wheels rather than with a parachute.

Thanks for that list Robert, very informative. What's the point of the degrees, though? Kinda missing the significance, but I'm sure it means something important.

Bill White · 2004-01-14 22:48:18

Damn Shuttle launches are so expensive. If SDV would be that cheap someone needs to get their freaking act together. Tomorrow. An OSP would cost a lot more and all it would provide really is the ablity to land on wheels rather than with a parachute.
Thanks for that list Robert, very informative. What's the point of the degrees, though? Kinda missing the significance, but I'm sure it means something important.

Orbital inclination, Josh.

As a freakin' history major, orbital inclinations hurt my head for a while. Can't say as I can do the math, but I can follow the general idea.

Now, as to why certain inclinations are better/worse for trans-Mars orbital insertion, I simply accept the word of my math superiors!

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-14 22:49:59

Ahah, you guys mentioned that before I think. I have a really poor memory. And math sucks.

RobertDyck · 2004-01-15 02:44:12

What's the point of the degrees, though? Kinda missing the significance, but I'm sure it means something important.

You can launch into any orbit with an inclination equal or greater than the latitude of your launch site. An orbit with a lower inclination never passes over your launch site, so the only way to do it is first enter an orbit that does, then change inclination while in orbit. Changing inclination takes a lot of fuel.

The second thing is using the Earth's centrifugal force. The Earth rotates and its diameter is big. An orbit close to the equator can use that centrifugal force, so you need that much less fuel. The higher your orbital inclination, the less of Earth's centrifugal force you can use, so the more fuel you need.

Therefor, any launch vehicle will be able to lift the most to an inclination that exactly matches the latitude of its launch location.

JasonF · 2004-01-15 02:53:10

Thanks. I've mainly been trying to form a mental picture of the economic side. This helps. Astronautix price data is a little out of date, mainly 98 and 99 dollars.

Vir Stellae · 2004-01-15 08:15:38

The rising Euro will probably make Ariane 5 launche more expensive than Delta Ivs.

RobS · 2004-01-15 13:27:34

The other factor to keep in mind is demand. Commercial rockets do not need to put more than about 20 tonnes into low earth orbit, and even then it's for sending two satellites at once to geosynchronous orbit. It it's going to cost $15 billion to build the orbital space plane (and the crew exploration vehicle may not be very different, because the OSP was already practically required to be a capsule), then a shuttle derived vehicle will not be as cheap as the old estimates suggested. Mars missions will only need maybe two or three launches every other year, so it will be hard to justify, say, $15 billion to build the thing; $15 billion will pay for a lot of EELV launches (it would pay for 30 space shuttle launches, about 100 Delta-IV large launches able to place 2750 tonnes into LEO). The SDV could have put all of ISS into orbit in maybe four launches. A moon project maybe needs two or three flights a year. That's the problem with big boosters; right now there is very weak demand for their capacity.

-- RobS

Bill White · 2004-01-16 19:22:54

Rand Simberg speculated that shuttle B would take between $1 billion to $3 billion to develop.

From my amateur's armchair, it seems to me that the engineering for shuttle B would be far less than for Ares because you could design your payload mass distribution to mimic the orbiter as closely as possible and the RS-68s could be located essentially where the SSMEs are placed right now.

At Simberg's blog a commenter gave speculation about a Delta IV superheavy. Are the above numbers at about $7M per ton for Delta IV and about $2-$3M per ton for shuttle variants still true in 2004 dollars?

Shuttle B might run cheaper than C, maybe?

Might all the fuss be nothing more than Boeing wanting to use Delta IV superheavy for the CEV and cargo launches?

wgc · 2004-01-16 19:33:44

Well, it can be figured pretty roughly between Shuttle and EELV-HLV rockets...
Shuttle, with its human flight control system and the all-important reuseable payload faring, costs about $500M per flight. A little closer to $600M-700M is possible in the post-Columbia program... Shuttle can haul about 27.5 metric tons to equitorial LEO.
The 2nd contender in the American launch business, the "tripple-barrel" Delta-IV HLV can do about 25.8MT for $170-190M
#3 on the list, the 5-booster Atlas-V varies with upper stage and "who you ask" since this varient hasn't been needed yet, but I expect it to cost ~$150M for a similar payload as the Delta-IV HLV, since it has fewer liquid fuel engines/stages.
A Shuttle Derived Launcher is also a grayish area... it would cost probably half what Shuttle does to launch, and haul somewhere around 100-120MT, but this is speculative, and the vehicle is only a concept, and would require substantial development cost, but could probably be developed rapidly.
Shuttle: ~$20-25M per ton
Delta HLV: ~$7M per ton
Atlas HLV: ~$6M per ton (speculative)
SDV (Magnum): ~$3M per ton (speculative)
SDV (Ares/Shuttle-Z): ~$2-3M per ton (speculative)

Did I read somewhere that only SDV would be useful for Mars Direct. Whats the isp for the Delta's and Atlas.

Can't they do a direct launch to mars.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 19:52:04

[=http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm]Astronautix says the Ares design can lift 121 tons to LEO.

Delta IV lifts 25 or 26 tons, close to the shuttle orbiter.

Delta can throw payload to Mars yet MarsDirect critics often said that even the 121 tons launched on Ares was insufficient for a "safe" mission. To do MarsDirect with Delta IV you would need 6 launches and on orbit assembly.

RobS · 2004-01-16 20:53:09

Don't forget Sean O'Keefe keeps talking about developing new propulsion systems. And Zubrin notes a series of systems that could launch Mars Direct with smaller rockets. Nuclear thermal reduces the launch to LEO in half, solar thermal to 60% as much, solar ion to about 40% as much.

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-14 21:34:29

Re: Launcher Costs?

#2 2004-01-14 21:50:11

Re: Launcher Costs?

#3 2004-01-14 22:04:53

Re: Launcher Costs?

#4 2004-01-14 22:18:41

Re: Launcher Costs?

#5 2004-01-14 22:21:32

Re: Launcher Costs?

#6 2004-01-14 22:36:39

Re: Launcher Costs?

#7 2004-01-14 22:48:18

Re: Launcher Costs?

#8 2004-01-14 22:49:59

Re: Launcher Costs?

#9 2004-01-15 02:44:12

Re: Launcher Costs?

#10 2004-01-15 02:53:10

Re: Launcher Costs?

#11 2004-01-15 08:15:38

Re: Launcher Costs?

#12 2004-01-15 13:27:34

Re: Launcher Costs?

#13 2004-01-16 19:22:54

Re: Launcher Costs?

#14 2004-01-16 19:33:44

Re: Launcher Costs?

#15 2004-01-16 19:52:04

Re: Launcher Costs?

#16 2004-01-16 20:53:09

Re: Launcher Costs?

Board footer