Cost of space shuttle missions

[aerogi]

I’ve just read in a PDF file I found on the internet about the advantages and disadvantages about the space shuttle. One of the disadvantages is the cost per flight. Apparently it costs between 0,4 and 1 billion USD per mission. Is this correct in the first place?<br /><br />Now to me that seems a whole lot of money to spend on a reusable spacecraft. Can someone tell me what exactly and why it is that much? Is it the refurbishment that cost that much? <br /><br />Are there lists with detailed descriptions on what the money is spent on such missions?<br /><br />Furthermore I’d also like to know some more information about the space shuttle itself. I tried wikipedia, but it wasn’t very satisfactory. How much did it cost to develop and built? I understand technologywise it is the most advanced thing ever built by human beings?<br /><br />Any info is most welcome! Thanks in advance,<br />

 

[qso1]

I would say $500 million per mission is probably about right.<br /><br />This figure is based on NASA budgets divided by flight rate and of course, keeping in mind only about half of NASAs annual budget goes to human spaceflight which includes shuttle and station operation.<br /><br />It is a lot of money for a reusable craft. The shuttle was a stunning technical success but has been an economical failure. Refurbishment contributes to the cost of operating the shuttle because its people that generate the costs more than anything. Salaries of highly skilled technicians and engineers, overtime, etc. all contribute to the high cost of shuttle operation.<br /><br />In 1973, the shuttle traffic model as it was called, projected 60 plus flights per year between 7 orbiters. Then during the 1970s, the problems began to show up. First SSME development was plagued by engine test failures, even exploding SSMEs. Then the adhesive compounds used to bond the tiles to the orbiters aluminum skin. These contributed by 1979 to a two year delay in the first mission launch.<br /><br />In addition, the 7 orbiters were whittled down to 4. NASA had 4 flight orbiters in various stages of construction by 1981 with Enterprise planned as a possible 5th orbiter. Enterprise would have required the most modification work to bring it to spaceworthyness.<br /><br />By 1984, traffic models were projecting 24 flights annually but the flight rate by 1984 was nowhere near this. The shuttle flew the most missions it has ever flown in 1985 with 9 missions. It was theoretically possible to fly 24 missions because Discovery had flown 6 missions in just a few days under a year during its first year of operations. However, the flight rate could never be brought down to the original cost per flight projection of $10 million annually IIRC.<br /><br />I've kept fairly close tabs on human spaceflight costs over the past 35 years and have never seen really specific breakdowns as to where the money goes on any of the program <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nec208]

> I would say $500 million per mission is probably about right.<br /> /><br /> /> This figure is based on NASA budgets divided by flight rate and of<br /> /> course, keeping in mind only about half of NASAs annual budget goes<br />to<br /> /> human spaceflight which includes shuttle and station operation.<br /><br /><br />It does not make sense can you clarify .A $500 million per mission =<br />half of NASAs budget goes to human spaceflight and non human<br />spaceflight ?<br /><br />That meas when the space shuttle goes up it cost $500 million ? half<br />of 500 million NASAs budget goes to human spaceflight and non human<br />spaceflight ? <br /><br /> /> It is a lot of money for a reusable craft. The shuttle was a<br />stunning<br /> /> technical success but has been an economical failure. Refurbishment<br /> /> contributes to the cost of operating the shuttle because its people<br /> /> that generate the costs more than anything. Salaries of highly<br />skilled<br /> /> technicians and engineers, overtime, etc. all contribute to the<br />high<br /> /> cost of shuttle operation.<br /><br />Yes the space shuttle is reusable but not really there is some months<br />before the shuttle can be used again.I don't know why but when the<br />shuttle goes up and down it takes months before it can be used again.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

I’ve just read in a PDF file I found on the internet about the advantages and disadvantages about the space shuttle. One of the disadvantages is the cost per flight. Apparently it costs between 0,4 and 1 billion USD per mission. Is this correct in the first place? <br />======================<br /><br />And there are pros and cons to space now.<br /><br /> /><br /> /> Capsules were decided upon in the 1950s precisely because early<br />human<br /> /> spaceflight planners knew they were in a political race and had to<br />do<br /> /> the easiest access to space they could. There were already winged<br /> /> vehicles planned for spaceflight in the late 1950s but they were<br /> /> passed over in favor of capsules.<br /><br />Would they not have technical problems if they tried to have a space<br />shuttle in the 60's ?<br /><br /><br /><br />Capsules are simpler. Once the moon<br /> /> race was won, we turned our attention to reusable craft because<br /> /> during Apollo, each of the Saturn-V rockets were tossed away after<br /> /> every use. They had to be because rockets have to stage during<br />flight<br /> /> to reduce mass and increase speed.<br /><br />But can't they use the stage or tanks again ?<br /><br />Throw away the empty propellant<br /> /> tanks once used. This approach however, is not likely to ever be<br />cost<br /> /> effective for routine orbital operations.<br /><br />But is the space shuttle not cheaper than capsule you can use the<br />space shuttle over and over but a capsule you can use only the one<br />time.<br /><br /> /><br /> /> Private industry/enterprise is only just now getting around to<br />trying<br /> /> to solve the low orbit economical access problem and they are still<br />a<br /> /> few years away from actually solving it. If it can be solved,<br />private<br /> /> industry/enterprise is now our only hope of that ever happening as<br /> /> NASA has given up on replacing the shuttle. The funding is never<br /> /> going to be readily available as long a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"But is the space shuttle not cheaper than capsule you can use the space shuttle over and over but a capsule you can use only the one time. "<br /><br />Because an item is reusable does not alway imply that reusing it is cheaper that building a new one. <br /><br />It is entirely possible that the engineering and cost required to make an item reusable, combined with the cost of turning the item around for reuse can be higher than the cost of building a "disposable" version, particularly if the rates at which you reuse the item are not high enough to get the number of reuses in to recover the non-recurring initial costs.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

The definitive piece on the cost of the Space Shuttle was written in 1980!! by Gregg Easterbrook. I highly suggest you read it, although with the subsequent deaths in Challenger and Columbia, it is a very depressing read, that noone took action before those brave astronauts died:<br /><br />http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

 

[bdewoody]

Plus we have to remember that 100% of the money involved in a shuttle launch or any space endeavor is paid to companies that pay employees and stock holders. No money is shot into space to never be seen again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[qso1]

nec208:<br />Would they not have technical problems if they tried to have a space <br />shuttle in the 60's ?<br /><br />Me:<br />That was one of the driving reasons for capsules. They knew aerospace vehicles would be a bit more challenging than capsules. However, when one talks shuttle as we know it...this vehicle is far more complex than what they could have had in the 1960s. There was a proposed USAF vehicle called Dyna Soar which eventually ended up being cancelled because the AF under Sec Def McNamara decided an orbital lab would be better. The lab was cancelled later.<br /><br />Dyna soar was basically a small aerospaceplane mounted atop a Titan III rocket and technically would have been achievable had we not been on a deadline to reach the moon. NASA stuck with capsules to reach the moon.<br /><br />The current shuttle size resulted from the AF wanting a vehicle to carry large DOD payloads. They saw it as a way to get a bird without paying for it. Let NASA foot the bill. NASAs space budget is smaller than the DOD space budget. NASA originally proposed a two stage to orbit fully reusable system that budgets reduced to the one we have now.<br /><br />Today we could have developed a reusable space plane similar to Dyna Soar and in fact, the VSE originally was planned around a winged or lifting body vehicle before NASA went back to capsules because budgets simply are not adequate for developing even a small spaceplane.<br /><br />nec208:<br />But can't they use the stage or tanks again ?<br /><br />Me:<br />There were studies done on reusing the Saturn-V first stage even in the 1960s. These studies did not produce any practical reusable solutions. I would also say that when they studied the same for the shuttle SRBs, the shuttle SRBs are not that different than Titan II SRBs but Titan III SRBs are not reusable. I suspect much of the shuttle SRB reusability simply comes from doing work to refly SRBs that otherwise was not considered practical. The only major difference I can see i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

RobNissen:<br />The definitive piece on the cost of the Space Shuttle was written in 1980!! by Gregg Easterbrook.<br /><br />Me:<br />Not a big fan of Easterbrook but this was one of his better, probably his best piece. I wouldn't say no action was taken before astronauts died. If you could have seen the work that went into the studies for shuttle during the 1970s including research on escape capsules and even an Apollo like capsule in the payload bay for crew escape. Literally hundreds of studies to try to develop the safest vehicle possible. The shuttle in reality has actually been quite forgiving if you look at how many more potential accidents were avoided by RSLS aborts etc. Spacelab 1 on Columbia returned to earth while an APU was practically on fire.<br /><br />Most astronauts know the possibility of loss of life is ever present regardless of what manned vehicle is flown.<br /><br />If Apollo had been a 115 mission program...I'd be willing to bet we would have had one...two...maybe more accidents. Space travel as its currently done is an inherantly dangerous business. If VSE flies more than a handful of missions, one must realize an accident can happen.<br /><br />After Challenger, the redesign effort was a major one that exceeded the requirements of the Rogers Commission recommendations. There was an engineer running around at the time claiming NASA was not doing enough and that the ET struts were the real reason Challenger went down. Never mind NASA redesigned the struts anyway. But thats not sexy enough news so the engineers wild claims got press and caused most folks to assume that NASA did nothing about ET struts.<br /><br />By the same token, there were some things NASA should have done. They should have been more attentive to the ET foam problem. But there again, at some point, when there are major incidents with complex vehicles...the programs tend to be shut down. The Hindenburg pretty much killed dirigible air travel and another shuttle accident will be the las <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nec208]

<font color="yellow"> Literally hundreds of studies to try to develop the safest vehicle possible. The shuttle in reality has actually been quite forgiving if you look at how many more potential accidents were avoided by RSLS aborts etc. Spacelab 1 on Columbia returned to earth while an APU was practically on fire. </font> <br /><br /><br />I'm sue the shuttle is safer than all the old rockets.But with many of the new rockets and the shuttle is so old it is going to have problems no metter are careful you are. <br /><br /> <br /><font color="yellow"> Space travel as its currently done is an inherantly dangerous business. If VSE flies more than a handful of missions, one must realize an accident can happen </font> <br /><br />Well space travel is dangerous and any flight is dangerous and I don't see it getting safer . <br /><br /><br /><br /> <font color="yellow"> But there again, at some point, when there are major incidents with complex vehicles...the programs tend to be shut down. The Hindenburg pretty much killed dirigible air travel and another shuttle accident will be the last shuttle mission should that happen God forbid</font> <br /><br /><br />Well yes the shuttle is very and I mean very complex vehicles but it is over 26 years old now and you would think we would be confutable with it now and well a updrade to more advance shuttle like the X-33 may be we are not confutable with a new more advance shuttle but the one we have we should be. <br /><br />I don't see how we can move to a more advance shuttle if we do not understand the one we have.<br /><br />( (Edit the post ))<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

<font color="yellow"> After Columbia, NASA realized that any other makeshift fixes were not going to prevent potential accidents in the long run and that the public no longer supports human spaceflight in the way it did during Apollo. NASA gave up on a shuttle replacement and planned shuttles phaseout hoping of course, the phaseout can be accomplished without further incident. </font> <br /><br /><br />Well I think money is a problem too and just look at the hubble space telescope there should be a new more advance one but no money for it. <br /><br /><br /> <font color="yellow"> Private industry/enterprise now has the unenviable task of developing something safe enough, yet cheap enough for a public that thinks space travel should be cheap and 100% safe. </font> <br /><br />And do you think this is going to happen in 5 or 10 years from now? <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

nec208:<br />Well yes the shuttle is very and I mean very complex vehicles but it is over 26 years old now and you would think we would be confutable with it now and well a updrade to more advance shuttle like the X-33 may be we are not confutable with a new more advance shuttle but the one we have we should be.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'd say NASA is pretty comfortable with the shuttle and certainly the flight crews are. NASA was preparing to develop a shuttle follow on through the X-33 program but there were not enough funds to do it and NASA canned it.<br /><br />We can move to a more advanced type vehicle if funding were to allow it. NASA understands the current shuttle and follow on technology well enough to develop a follow on. Its mainly funding. The follow on would be cutting edge technology because of its full reusability which in turn drives up development costs.<br /><br />Put another way, imagine NASA got one years worth of the Iraq war budget...this is around six times NASAs current budget. NASA should easily be able to put a shuttle follow on in service with that kind of budget.<br /><br />nec208:<br />Well I think money is a problem too and just look at the hubble space telescope there should be a new more advance one but no money for it.<br /><br />Me:<br />There are some proposals for follow on telescopes to Hubble. One was recently put on the chopping block until their managers decided o work with what they had budget wise. This is the Kepler telescope which I understand is back on track for now.<br /><br />There is also the James Webb space telescope which will be mainly infrared.<br /><br />nec208:<br />And do you think this is going to happen in 5 or 10 years from now?<br /><br />Me:<br />Most likely will be 5 to 10 years, maybe 10-15 tops. At some point if its not working out, lack of profitability will drive private enterprise/industry out of the game. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[aerogi]

That was an amazing read, and you are right, it was quite depressing reading that one... <br /><br />thanks to all the others for the feedback. Even though I still find it a whole lot of money to be spent for a reusable aircraft...