D
DarkenedOne
Guest
Something that has been bothering me about NASA rockets is their development costs.
Let's examine the medium size rockets. At the low end of the scale the Falcon 9 was developed for around $400 million. On the high end of the scale the Atlas V was developed for something like $1.6 billion.
Both rockets in their simple form only carry about 10 Mg to orbit.
Now lets compare that to the Ares I rocket, which was estimated as of 2009 to cost $40 billion to develop. Now the Ares I is only able to carry 25 Mg to orbit. That is about 2.5 times what the Falcon 9 and the Atlas V cost. Yet it was going to cost 100 times as much as the Falcon and 25 times as much as an Atlas V. Now I understand that manned rockets cost more than unmanned rockets, but I do not understand why it would cost that much more.
It seems like there is some kind of exponential equation regarding rocket development.
Let's examine the medium size rockets. At the low end of the scale the Falcon 9 was developed for around $400 million. On the high end of the scale the Atlas V was developed for something like $1.6 billion.
Both rockets in their simple form only carry about 10 Mg to orbit.
Now lets compare that to the Ares I rocket, which was estimated as of 2009 to cost $40 billion to develop. Now the Ares I is only able to carry 25 Mg to orbit. That is about 2.5 times what the Falcon 9 and the Atlas V cost. Yet it was going to cost 100 times as much as the Falcon and 25 times as much as an Atlas V. Now I understand that manned rockets cost more than unmanned rockets, but I do not understand why it would cost that much more.
It seems like there is some kind of exponential equation regarding rocket development.