Exponential Rocket Equation

Not open for further replies.


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.


Basically the difference I see is the difference between private enterprise developing something vs the government developing something . Cost plus at it's finest . Did you ever have a job that you knew when you finished that job you would need to find new work cause the paychecks would stop rolling in ? Kinda like that , it dosen't inspire for greatness in speed .

Now to man rate an atlas V might cost another billion but it's still cheaper than government run by far . Did they change the motor on the atlas V lately or are they still using the russian motor ? I haven't worked on atlas V in about 4 years but I used to make the mount beams for the russian motor for Lockheed/Martin . From what I'm told the russian motors are never pushed beyond about 75% , I guess they have more thrust than needed but are very reliable so should be easy enough to man rate with mostly an escape system development .

However as always I'm a huge fan of private space and my hopes lie with them :!:


Another factor is politically motivated engineering. To sell ARES 1 NASA had to claim it wouldn’t require much new development which in this day and age tring to tell that big a lie isn’t going to work.

It made me lose faith that the people who were supposed to be experts chose such a bad design. They choose a solid rocket first stage and topped it with an engine that can not be air started!

No rocket the size of ARES has ever used a first stage that was solid and having a solid rocket for a first stage means your performance is fixed. With a liquid fueled rocket you could increase tank size, change engines, and have much more to tinker with to get the performace you need.

In the end ARES 1 went from being shuttle derived a completely new rocket with little in common with the shuttle. It would have a five segment booster with different propellant than the shuttle. It would us the J2X and engine that needed to be developed! And using a solid for a first stage is a very questionable way to safetly send a crew into space.


Just to point out, the Falcon is NOT a NASA project...
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts