Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

Bill White · 2004-03-30 10:28:07

Earth to LEO is a good well developed thread. This thread is intended to build in a slightly different direction.

[http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf]This report includes data suggesting that by using non-Western (read Russian) large boosters, cost per pound to LEO is today below $2000 per pound.

$1000 per pound to LEO is the supposed magic bright line that will allow an explosion of commercial space ventures. Still, less than $2000 per pound is far better than I had suspected.

This thread was prompted, in part, by a news release that an Asain company will deploy a Boeing satellite in 2005 using a Proton with launch costs being less than $50 million. A Proton for less than $50 million?

How can America compete with that on a per pound basis?

= = =

Actually, looking at the report more carefully, I see they assign a cost of $300 million per shuttle launch. Shuttle accounting is a voo-doo science at best yet if the $300 milion is accurate and could be maintained for shuttle derived, then shuttle derived will end up at about $1,600 per pound which is not bad at all.

If [http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dellarge.htm]Delta IV Heavy were purchased in bulk at the Air Force rate of 19 launches for $1.38 billion then the cost per pound falls below $1500.

Maybe launch costs actually are lower than public opinion seems to believe.

SBird · 2004-03-30 11:02:26

I was just reading a NASA report on potential HLVs. In there, they listed the performance of a Saturn V in modern dollars. It can loft stuff to orbit for ~$2300 a pound. That's half the cost per pound of a Delta or Titan and 1/4 the cost of the Shuttle.

What the Hell have we been doing the last 20 years?

I realize that the SAturn V has some economy of scale involved to it but STILL.

While Space X has yet to prove itself, the seem to have a decent strategy. Between approaches like that and Russia/India/China, the low weight boosters market is probably going to completely abandon the US and European aerospace market. (The sole exception is the Boeing Sea Launch system that is fairly competetive.)

Incidentally, the Russinas have a small launcher called Shtil that can loft ~400 kg to LEO for <$500 / kg. For small scientific paylods, that sounds about ideal.

Palomar · 2004-03-30 11:15:30

I was just reading a NASA report on potential HLVs. In there, they listed the performance of a Saturn V in modern dollars. It can loft stuff to orbit for ~$2300 a pound. That's half the cost per pound of a Delta or Titan and 1/4 the cost of the Shuttle.
What the Hell have we been doing the last 20 years?
I realize that the SAturn V has some economy of scale involved to it but STILL.

Bill wrote: "Maybe launch costs actually are lower than public opinion seems to believe."

*I'm really glad you've chimed in on this, SBird. In with Bill's comment, I've certainly -- until now -- felt (until your post here, and some other comments you made in the "Question about rockets & thrust" thread in the Science & Technology folder) that the Saturn V is often made out as having been some sort of completely UNeconomical and wasteful old dinosaur.

Thanks Bill, for the figures and etc.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-03-30 11:29:52

The report I linked to also says that launch costs have dropped 20% to 30% since 2000 due to lack of demand. Yet good data is not available since no one wants to reveal their bottom line price.

Delta IV Heavy does look like a very good deal = IF = you can get the Air Force preferred contract rate. 19 launches at $1.4 billion is less the $75 million per launch compared with $170 million quoted by astronautix.com as the per flight cost.

Shuttle C can lift 3x Delta IV-H therefore if we can actually procure 18 Delta IV per year dedicated solely to support exploration, for a lower total cost than 6 shuttle derived I am okay with going with Delta IV-H.

At $75 million per launch there is a good chance Delta IV-Heavy does beat out shuttle derived. At $170 million per launch, I am very skeptical.

Procurement remains an issue. Can Boeing deliver 18 per year and stay at $75 million?

= = =

Concerning Falcon V, Neil Tyson seems to be saying that IF Elon Musk can be certain he will deliver, well great, yet the national interest requires that we have a back-up plan just in case Space-X fails to deliver.

And, if we scrap shuttle infrastructure and Musk fails, we will be trapped into paying whatever Boeing asks =OR= buying Russian.

A NASA owned cargo only HLLV combined with private sector humans to LEO still seems like the best compromise, to me, yet I am open to discussion.

for a lower cost

clark · 2004-03-30 11:37:14

Why do you seem to neglect Lockheed in this analysis Bill?

Atlas can launch similar payload amounts and configurations like the Delta.

Bill White · 2004-03-30 11:51:33

Why do you seem to neglect Lockheed in this analysis Bill?
Atlas can launch similar payload amounts and configurations like the Delta.

Because Boeing has better lobbyists? Or better spies?

Okay, here is [http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlasv.htm]an Atlas link. The Atlas 551 seems comparable to Delta IV-H altough I am less sure about the payload fairing sizes.

Price per astronautix.com is $170 million. If Atlas can offer a quantity discount like the one given the Air Force for 19 Delta IV-H launches then Atlas is fully competitive as well. IMHO, the analysis is very similiar to Boeing. IF procurement of sufficient boosters is available at less than $75 - $100 million per launch then it can compete with shuttle derived, IMHO.

If not, then shuttle derived seems preferred, at least to me. I really do believe that 6 or 8 shuttle derived per year could fall below $300 million each, once a routine is established.

Buying 9 Atlas V per year and 9 Delta IV per year does spread the supply over two companies.

Adding CEV launches to the Air Force bulk order keeps the EELV volume discount and also allows shuttle derived for cargo only launches.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-30 11:52:20

Mmmm Boeing is desperate to sell Delta-IV rockets... if it really is $75M a shot for the tripple-barrel, then that might be great, but if its just for the smaller single-barrel ones then its not so hot.

There is still the issue that its easier to make a large space ship in one piece than to send it up in lego bricks, because of the assembly and extra complexity of all the seperate pieces, construction too. If a small Moon vehicle is all thats required though, Delta-IV HLVs may be plenty.

I like SDV-HLLV supported by EELVs myself.

It is unclear if Lockheed will be making the Atlas-V for much longer... unless the USAF/NASA lines up a bunch of launches, I expect the thing to be quietly killed. The Delta-II with its extra SRBs and reccord as the second most reliable rocket ever built is a hard sell to beat.

Elon Musk is still "out there," and until his little rockets fly with reasonable reliability, i'm not holding much faith in him making a BIG rocket, much less able to turn around fast or carry humans.

Bill White · 2004-03-30 11:58:32

Mmmm Boeing is desperate to sell Delta-IV rockets... if it really is $75M a shot for the tripple-barrel, then that might be great, but if its just for the smaller single-barrel ones then its not so hot.
There is still the issue that its easier to make a large space ship in one piece than to send it up in lego bricks, because of the assembly and extra complexity of all the seperate pieces, construction too. If a small Moon vehicle is all thats required though, Delta-IV HLVs may be plenty.
I like SDV-HLLV supported by EELVs myself.
It is unclear if Lockheed will be making the Atlas-V for much longer... unless the USAF/NASA lines up a bunch of launches, I expect the thing to be quietly killed. The Delta-II with its extra SRBs and reccord as the second most reliable rocket ever built is a hard sell to beat.

The Air Force did purchase 19 triple barrels for $1.38 billion yet there appears to be developmet cost sharing included in the deal, yet excluded from the $1.38 billion.

If NASA can ride piggyback and buy 18 more for the same price. . . or will Boeing require NASA to pay retail at $170 million for the triple barrel?

= = =

As an aside, using two Delta IVH at $75 million, the spare ISS-Zarya at $100 million (It cost $200 million but the Russians need to clear out inventory) a new TransHab at $50 million and a new docking module for say $75 million, I have just built a space hotel for less than $400 million.

Find a hotel chain willing to pay $200 million for name rights, raise $100 million from miscellaneous advertisers and $100 million from time-share investors and it goes up with ZERO debt to service.

This hotel can support 4 guests plus 2 crew in comfort. $40 million per couple for a 2 or 3 week stay in orbit? I believe Space Adventures has a dozen or two already lined up to pay $20 million to go to ISS by themselevs, for only 1 week.

2-3 weeks plus you can bring a significant other? They would sell, thus giving Elon Musk a dandy market to aim at. If he can get a man-rated Falcon V to LEO for less than Soyuz, he can fill as many seats as he can fly.

clark · 2004-03-30 12:00:18

Well, looks like the HLLV cheerleaders are coming on-board. Welcome!

So we make NASA a customer too, and the cost for DOD and NASA to launch stuff into space is reduced. Our priavte launch companies gain security, and can become a bit more competitive in the global marketplace. This establishes a market for these new upstarts to point to when looking for loans to fund their hair-brained ideas.

Even if CEV goes nowhere, we're still ahead.

Now, something else to consider: NASA dosen't own the Shuttle's anymore. Lockheed+Boeing do, the United Space Allinance. Why couldn't the Space Alliance just build an HLLV, at NASA's direction, and then keep gov'ment out of the picture?

SBird · 2004-03-30 12:07:19

Don't forget that Boeing's Delta folks are terrified of the Sea Launch Zenit launchers eating their business alive. They even went so far as to try to use intracompany politics to try and kill the Sea Launch program even though Sea Launch has better long term profitability than Delta. The modified Zenit launchers can throw 15,876 kg to LEO and 5250 kg to GEO for $85 million a launch. The Delta IV-H at Air Force prices is going to be a better deal but I'm almost certain that Boeing is taking a loss at those prices to stay on the Arir Forces good side. It makes sense to lose a few hundred million if it helps you get multi-billion fighterplane contracts. Plus, The Air Force is committing to bulk orders which bring the price down.

Honestly, I think that for the time being, the Saturn V with some modern retrofitting is our best bet for Mars Missions. It's got the proper throw capacity and the cost per lb is better than just about anything out there. The NASA analysis didn't say anything about how costs were calculated but I'm assuming the Saturn V costs were the actual costs blown up to match inflation.

Bill White · 2004-03-30 12:13:39

Well, looks like the HLLV cheerleaders are coming on-board. Welcome!
So we make NASA a customer too, and the cost for DOD and NASA to launch stuff into space is reduced. Our priavte launch companies gain security, and can become a bit more competitive in the global marketplace. This establishes a market for these new upstarts to point to when looking for loans to fund their hair-brained ideas.
Even if CEV goes nowhere, we're still ahead.
Now, something else to consider: NASA dosen't own the Shuttle's anymore. Lockheed+Boeing do, the United Space Allinance. Why couldn't the Space Alliance just build an HLLV, at NASA's direction, and then keep gov'ment out of the picture?

Cheerleaders is not quite accurate.

Will Boeing honor $75 million per launch? BIG question. At $170 million, EELV is NOT a good deal. As SBird says, perhaps $75 million is quid pro quo for another contract and cannot be added to.

Second, can we manufacture enough of them? Don't know yet. Maybe a BIGGER question.

Security? Nah, Russian stuff is still cheaper.

Can Zenit carry a TransHab? Proton for ISS-Zarya and Zenit for Transhab and my space hotel goes up for less than Boeing's cost even at the Air Force discount rate.

Flying American has PR & marketing advantages for a space hotel, at least with the US travelling public but that only goes so far. Which is why Boeing might well honor $75 million per launch for a space hotel if we plaster Boeing's name all over the media.

Palomar · 2004-03-30 12:28:24

Honestly, I think that for the time being, the Saturn V with some modern retrofitting is our best bet for Mars Missions. It's got the proper throw capacity and the cost per lb is better than just about anything out there. The NASA analysis didn't say anything about how costs were calculated but I'm assuming the Saturn V costs were the actual costs blown up to match inflation.

*I'm curious how much a Saturn V would cost today. I found this item from a web site; the article itself was obviously written during the 1960s:

"The Saturn V program is the biggest rocket effort undertaken in this country. Its total cost, including the production of 15 vehicles between now and early 1970 will be above $7 billion."

And what about the "Big Dumb Booster"? (Huh? What's up with that name...is this a joke?) I found an article entitled "Big Dumb Booster Studies" in Adobe Acrobat format by searching Google with "Saturn V cost." I can't copy and paste, but it says that its payload was only 43,000 pounds (compared to Saturn V's 250,000 pounds), and that the BD booster would cost 25 times less than Saturn V, "yielding a cost per pound to LEO 5 times lower than Saturn V."

Sorry...I'm having a hard time believing it was actually named that!

There was a thread (no longer active) entited "Revive the Saturn V for Mars Direct," begun by a member named Dayton3 in the "Human missions" folder; it was last posted to in June 2002.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-03-30 12:39:34

Can Ariane V lift ISS components to a low inclination orbit?

Could a vaguely similiar ISS-2 be built at say 15 degrees of inclination using Ariane V and Zenit and the backlogged manifest of unlaunched ISS components? Remember there is a spare ISS-Zarya sitting idle in Russia.

Does the ESA / RSA need NASA to do this, except politically?

Quick math in my head suggests they could do this for less than $20 billion. Maybe less than that. Excluding, of course, the costs of components already manufactured and which will go to waste if ISS is abandoned by the United States.

clark · 2004-03-30 12:42:55

Yeah, let em walk into the trap we extricate ourselves from...

What do you need a space station for, other than for a destination for your rockets which were designed only to go to a space station?

No one is going to build another station, except for the Chinese. There is little point.

SBird · 2004-03-30 12:48:19

Re: Boeing logos. The thing about Sea Launch is that is largely owned by Boeing. It's *already* got big Boeing logos on the side. I'm sure tha Boeing would have no problem jumping ship to a Ukranian manufacturer. Boeing doesn't actually make too much stuff anymore. Their new passenger plane will be largely made in Japan andd Italy for political reasons. (Airbus - don't get me started about them - basically have a stranglehold on Europe. The only way Boeing can sell planes over there is to give away manufacturing rights. The European aerospace business is protectionism at it's worst)

Re: Saturn V. The one problem is that a lot of R&D would have to be redone fora new Saturn V. Urban myths aside, we do still ahve the bluueprints. However, many of the companies that made the parts are out of business and the tooling isn't around anymore. We'd have to sink billions into redoing that. However, it's a proven reliable design which is more than can be said for most of the HLV designs on the drawing board. Big Dumb Booster is a commonly used terminology for a rocket that doesn't do anything fancy, just gets stuff to orbit. It's not a negative term, persay. The Saturn V was the epitome of a Big Dumb Launcher.

SBird · 2004-03-30 12:52:13

Ugh, Arianne 5 is not a reliable launcher yet. I haven't followed it for a year or so but to my knowledge, it has never had a successful launch. The 'Arianne 5' launches we've seen are actually using the Arianne 4 1st stage. The whole project has been a debacle for the ESA.

Personally, I say that we give the ISS to the ESA, Russians and Chinese. And walk all the way back to the bank laughing.

Bill White · 2004-03-30 12:57:00

Ugh, Arianne 5 is not a reliable launcher yet. I haven't followed it for a year or so but to my knowledge, it has never had a successful launch. The 'Arianne 5' launches we've seen are actually using the Arianne 4 1st stage. The whole project has been a debacle for the ESA.
Personally, I say that we give the ISS to the ESA, Russians and Chinese. And walk all the way back to the bank laughing.

If the orbiter is as fragile as O'Keefe is saying and if ISS isn't really that safe of a safe haven for the orbiter crew then this may well be exactly what will happen.

Its a shame this potential reality wasn't on the table before the Aldridge Commission started meeting. Maybe we can give them an extension! :;):

Okay, scrap ISS/STS - - the question then becomes, now what?

SBird · 2004-03-30 13:05:18

Despite my dislike for our present commander in chief and the stupidity of going back to the moon first, I'd have to say our new space program direction is the way to go.

It's basically the sequal to Apollo minus the 20 year Shuttle detour. Disposable rockets and capsule styled crew modules going to the rest of the solar system are the most cost effective way of doing things until SSTOs become perfected and scramjets become practical.

clark · 2004-03-30 13:08:40

ISS isn't going away guys. We will finish it, somehow. After it's done, then we walk away, not before.

The problem is that if we stop flying the Shuttle, and walk from ISS, we end up having a Shuttle we don't need, a budget surplus for NASA that they simply cannot absorb. End result: NASA get's raided, and manned flight goes away.

We also put ourselves in a poor position when we want to do an international-thingy in space later. Everyone will say, "yeah, right."

ISS isn't a safe haven- we know that, but Joe Blow don't. Joe Blow dosen't care about the details. ISS is sort of a safe haven, not a very good one, but out in space, it's all we got. So it's a safe haven in that it's better than learning to breathe space.

EELV is the desire for future space launches. EELV, with NASA as a customer, brings the costs down for DOD launches (who bears the brunt of the costs). This also allows the Delta to maybe go back into commercial productions (which it stopped due to a lack of demand) and allows the Atlas to maybe make some commercial sales (which it hasn't made in a long time).

In order to do the Moon and Mars, the Shuttle infrastructure must go away. Sorry, but SDV will not achieve the cost cutting neccessary to support a manned mission to anywhere. SDV would require extra infusion of funds from Congress- big budgets. The Bush Plan is to avoid large infusions of cash. So, in order to get the money to keep NASA going, the Shuttle has to go away. The cost associated with the infrastructure to support Shuttle, or even a SDV is to great.

Advanced EELV with on orbit assembley is the new mantra. Sure, it's a bit more complicated, and yes it's not as effecient- however, smaller, more routine launches spread the cost over longer periods, and makes it more manageable to sell to Congress. While it may not be the most effecient method an engineer would come up with, from a politcal stand point, it's sheer brilliance. And as most advocates know, it's not the technical points that prevent us from reaching the stars, it's simply the freaking politics to make it happen.

John Creighton · 2004-03-30 13:21:22

I keep reading the acronym EELV and for some reason I often thought Earth elevation vehicle. I wonder why I would have thought that. Anyway after reading the posts I realized the discussion was about a particular system, so I did a google search:
[http://www.af.mil/lib/afissues/1997/app_b_20.html]http://www.af.mil/lib/afissues/1997/app_b_20.html
(Evolved expendable launch vehicle) My mistake. I wonder if anyone else has made this mistake. Probably not.

Bill White · 2004-03-30 22:39:25

Read this article - [http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1895]cost of Proton launch.

If $48 million is accurate for Breeze M Proton, its a Buyers market!

ILS did not divulge the value of the launch contract, however, Binariang indicated in a filing with Malaysian regulators that it will pay $48.7 million for the launch, substantially below previous public estimates for Proton launch costs

[http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/spa … asat3.html]Measat-3

[http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlin … /sep58.htm]Another link

= = =

Assuming this is a full-up [http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/probrizm.htm]Proton with a Breeze M upper stage someone else paying the same price could put 21,000 kg into LEO at 51 degrees, which is very close to $1,000 per pound, correct?

= = =

Two Protons could deploy a space hotel for less than $100 million in launch costs. Whoa!

Since Soyuz is the only vehicle capable of reaching this hotel, today, the Russians would have great incentive to keep the Proton costs as low as possible.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-30 23:21:35

That figure sounds mighty low to me, but its not beyond the realm of possibility to keep the hyper-broke RSA in business.

As far as Delta-IV HLV going for only $75M a pop, the USAF must be getting a huge discount, the engines alone would cost almost $40-50M.

Bill White · 2004-03-31 07:47:18

That figure sounds mighty low to me, but its not beyond the realm of possibility to keep the hyper-broke RSA in business.
As far as Delta-IV HLV going for only $75M a pop, the USAF must be getting a huge discount, the engines alone would cost almost $40-50M.

I was reading Lost in Space last night and the author says that Dennis Tito only paid $12 million for his flight to ISS, with the requirement that he never reveal it wasnt really $20 million.

Please double check my Proton links, but it sure looks like the market rate for Proton is damn close to $1000 per pound.

How can the alt-space types compete with that?

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-31 12:54:37

I have just built a space hotel for less than $400 million.
Find a hotel chain willing to pay $200 million for name rights, raise $100 million from miscellaneous advertisers and $100 million from time-share investors and it goes up with ZERO debt to service.

Hahaha, that's ferking brilliant!

Bill White · 2004-04-03 19:25:49

Earth to LEO launch costs are NOT $10,000 per pound and have not been so for quite a while. Here is a SpaceRef link from several years ago:

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-30 10:28:07

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#2 2004-03-30 11:02:26

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#3 2004-03-30 11:15:30

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#4 2004-03-30 11:29:52

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#5 2004-03-30 11:37:14

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#6 2004-03-30 11:51:33

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#7 2004-03-30 11:52:20

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#8 2004-03-30 11:58:32

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#9 2004-03-30 12:00:18

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#10 2004-03-30 12:07:19

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#11 2004-03-30 12:13:39

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#12 2004-03-30 12:28:24

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#13 2004-03-30 12:39:34

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#14 2004-03-30 12:42:55

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#15 2004-03-30 12:48:19

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#16 2004-03-30 12:52:13

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#17 2004-03-30 12:57:00

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#18 2004-03-30 13:05:18

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#19 2004-03-30 13:08:40

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#20 2004-03-30 13:21:22

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#21 2004-03-30 22:39:25

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#22 2004-03-30 23:21:35

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#23 2004-03-31 07:47:18

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#24 2004-03-31 12:54:37

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

#25 2004-04-03 19:25:49

Re: Earth to LEO - revisited - another direction

Board footer