PROGRESS costs are $22MM - No way to do LEO cheaper?

[themanwithoutapast]

According to space.com (article in Aug 2005) the costs for the launch of one Progress transporter to the ISS (that is the cost of BOTH the launch of a Soyuz rocket + the cost of constructing a Progress transporter) totals $22MM. Progress has a payload capability to LEO (ISS orbit) of around 3-4 tons.<br /><br />Leaving aside any illusionary new (yet-to-be-developed) technology, I just don't see the price for cargo transports to LEO drop below that number. And with that said, I would like to ask all those folks out there who are thinking that private space companies may provide cargo services to the ISS (as asked for by NASA) at some point in the next years: How the hack can this be accomplished if private companies have to compete against this price set by the Russians.<br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

They are not competeing with the Russians, that's the point. If we were we would of retired most of the US fleet of LVs years ago.

 

[subzero788]

Thats a good question.<br /><br />If by 2010 the russians still have the cheapest cargo flights avaliable (with Progress) than any private company then why wouldn't the US just pay the russians to take their cargo to the ISS? Are private launchers expected to develope an even cheaper option? Or are there political/logistical problems associated with this?

 

[scottb50]

That's why ISS should be made available to any commercial or private user, who can arrange to get there.<br /><br />Having somewhere to go gives you a target to shoot for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

The Congress, the White House, the Department of Defense, and NASA consider consider it to be in the United States national interests to maintain a domestic launch capability. I'm in full agreement with this viewpoint.<br /><br />

 

[shoogerbrugge]

I do think the Progress is more expencive then 22 million USD to build, prepare and launch. I've seen more figures around 40 to 45, but its just how you look at it, with launch services run by either Roskosmos or the Military at Biakonur. The payload however is also higher then stated, the Progress weighs 7,250 kilo when injected into orbit.<br /><br /><br />The other matter I wanted to comment on. In recent history protectionism has a VERY poor record on actually improving a situation. Its tends to be more expencive, less efficient, creates a "box" feeling and usually doesn't leed to real innovation. <br /><br /><br />

 

[subzero788]

True, the Progress' gross weight is about 7.25 metric tons but it can only carry about 2.5 tons cargo, which is the critical value here.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...a Progress transporter) totals $22MM..."<br /><br />the total (usable) Progress' payload is around 2.4 tons (the rest is vehicle's weight)<br /><br />if the total price (including rockets and earh support) of a Progress is really so little it will NEVER have any competitors since the cheaper USA and ESA prices for 8 tons payload rockets ONLY (without any Progress) are 4+ times more<br /><br />I think that USA and Europe may spend more money to have their INDEPENDENT cargo systems but only if the total (cargo+rocket) price will be "reasonable"... max 2-3 times Progress' price...<br /><br />unfortunately both NASA and ESA plans for space cargo will be a SUICIDE under economical aspect!!!<br /><br />ESA plans a BIG vehicle to be launched with Ariane5... a total cost of $250+ million per launch!<br /><br />NASA plans to use two cargo versions of CEV (3.5 tons payload with pressurized CEV and 6 tons with unpressurized CEV)... unfortunately each (2x, 3x, 4x, 6x crew or pressurized/unpressurized) CEV/CLV launch will cost <font color="yellow">OVER $1 BILLION!!! </font>a very very very expensive "independence")<br />

 

[grooble]

I'm sure ISS partners wish they'd had a system to launch their modules though. You have to also remember that international relationships can turn ugly and you cannot depend on another nation for your own important programs. <br /><br />If i was a private company however, i'd build my rockets in China.

 

[dobbins]

"CEV/CLV launch will cost OVER $1 BILLION!!!"<br /><br />Will you kindly keep your lies confined to the nonsense threads you start? Most of us have no interest in hearing you babble.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

" In recent history protectionism has a VERY poor record on actually improving a situation."<br /><br />Relying on third parties when something has national security implications has a poorer record than protectionism, and there are definite national security implications to having a domestic launch capability.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />launch big ISS' module will be a GIANT problem without Shuttles<br /><br />ESA don't have any launcher able to do it and develop its own HLV + space Tug may need $20+ billion!<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />simplified evaluation:<br /><br />to-day (satellite) NASA/ESA big rockets: $200-250 million per launch<br /><br />DOUBLE dimensions and payload CLV + man rate, tests, etc.: $400+ million per launch<br /><br />little and old 8 tons Soyuz price: around $50 million each<br /><br />25 tons (triple weight, triple internal volume capsule, high tech, interplanetary navigation system, etc.) CEV/SM (VERY OPTIMISTIC) price: $200+ million each<br /><br />shared CEV+CLV development costs (NASA claim!) will be: $5+5 billion (a VERY VERY VERY optimistic evaluation since $10 billion is the development cost of a new half-CLV-payload sat-launch rockets ONLY, without capsules!!!)<br /><br />$10 billion shared on 25 orbital/lunar launch in next 20 years = $400 million per CEV/CLV launch<br /><br />then...<br /><br />$400 million (CLV) + $200 million (CEV/SM) + $400 million (shared R&D costs) = $1 BILLION per CEV/CLV launch!!!!<br /><br />BUT THIS IS A VERY OPTIMISTIC EVALUATION!!!<br /><br />add... unexpected problems, cost growt, 10+ years inflation... the REAL price will be 50%+ higher!!!<br /><br />

 

[shoogerbrugge]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Relying on third parties when something has national security implications has a poorer record than protectionism, and there are definite national security implications to having a domestic launch capability.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I just fail to see how acces to the ISS effects national security. The only thing that deserves national security protection is acces to space for satellites, this is provided by the EELV plus Delta II vehicles. It is national security to get GPS satellites in MEO, its damn important to get spy and meteo satellites in orbit.<br /><br />However, the Shuttle and ISS serves <b>science</b>, not national security. And with science its important to get the biggest bang for your buck, because thats the best way to make progress. <br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />it's not my post<br />

 

[dobbins]

The larger the market is for domestic launch providers the more of them there will be. The DoD market is not large enough to provide for more than one domestic launch service without subsidies<br /><br />The number of companies capable of providing domestic launch services has been falling for decades. The DoD or NASA used to get at least a half dozen bids every time they developed a new launcher, now there aren't that many companies capable of making bids, let alone companies that actually submit them. Part of the US domestic market for launches already goes to non-American providers. If they lose the government science market then one of the big two will likely leave the market, most likely Boeing. It will also cripple SpaceX's attempt to enter the market.<br /><br />

 

[yurkin]

I think the point is too encourage private industry. Even if its not cheaper then Progress. There’s only so many Progress freighters that can be built so if we ever want to expand out presence in LEO and beyond we’re going to need new launchers.<br /><br />And who knows? Industry might just be able to out do the old Russian ship.<br />

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Will you kindly keep your lies confined to the nonsense threads you start? Most of us have no interest in hearing you babble. </font><br /><br />if you factor in the total number of flights of both systems together (most likely very few) and the development cost, I think over 1 billion is not overblown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[subzero788]

Still, $1 billion US sounds pretty cheap for a moon mission lasting 2 weeks, when an 8 day shuttle mission to LEO costs about the same today.

 

[bwhite]

Soyuz from Kouru will increase the net payload, perhaps significantly. If net payload is 1/3 of the total gross weight lifted to LEO then to increase gross payload by 8% to 12 % because of equatorial physics will increase the net payload by 24% to 36%.

 

[yurkin]

Maybe i missed something but where did u guys hear about a cargo version of the CEV being built?

 

[nibb31]

There are at least 2 in the plan, a capsule-shaped pressurized cargo CEV (a CEV without seats), which I suppose will be used for returning cargo to earth, and an unpressurized disposable CEV-derived vehicle using a CEV service module.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">"...Still, $1 billion US sounds pretty cheap for a moon mission lasting 2 weeks, when an 8 day shuttle mission to LEO costs about the same today..."</font><br /><br /><br />$1 billion is ONLY for the CEV/SM/CLV orbital or lunar launch!<br /><br />Moon missions need also one LSAM and one SDHLV... both very expensive and completely expendable.<br /><br />The cost of ONE moon missions (including shared R&D) in 2020-2025 will be OVER $8 billion (a price based on to-day's optimistic evaluation and VSE funds):<br /><br />$104 billion - a few orbital flights at $1 billion each = around $96 billion for 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 (two per year: NASA claim)... then... EIGHT BILLIONS EACH!!!<br /><br />But the real cost (with additional funds) may exceed $12 billion per moon mission.<br /><br />Great part of these very high costs are due to the giant six-seats CEV (that need a big CLV) and to the completely expendable LSAM.<br /><br />With different vehicles and missions' architecture the cost may be reduced and more missions can be done with the same funds.<br /><br /><br />about time... moon exploration will be only ONE WEEK per missions while one Shuttle mission may be up to 16 days long... also... one CEV/CLV launch may cost like one Shuttle launch but CEV/CLV can't carry in orbit 25 tons payloads like Shuttle and will have NO airlock for easy EVA, NO robot-arm and tools for assembly and repair, NO up to 10 astronauts per missions (despite only 7-8 sent in real missions), NO big cargo-to-earth return, etc. etc. etc.<br /> <br />CEV don't appear so cheap...........................<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The cost of ONE moon missions (including shared R&D) in 2020-2025 will be OVER $8 billion (a price based on to-day's optimistic evaluation and VSE funds):"<br /><br /> "$104 billion - a few orbital flights at $1 billion each = around $96 billion for 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 (two per year: NASA claim)... then... EIGHT BILLIONS EACH!!!"<br /><br />I disagree.<br /><br />I believe the 104 billion dollar figure includes all manned spaceflight related activities for twenty years. So in addition to two lunar missions per year there would be: 2 crew rotation missions per year to the ISS using a 3 man CEV, 3 cargo missions per year to the ISS using a cargo CEV, completion of the ISS assembly, Space Shuttle operations until retirement.<br /><br />I'm no fan of the ESAS plan, but fair is fair. A huge chunk of the 104 billion dollars is absorbed by the Space Shuttle and the ISS.<br /><br />(And please stop typing words with all capitalized letters and stop punctuating sentences with multiple exclaimation marks. For your own sake.) <br /><br />

 

[grooble]

The high cost of the mission could be to NASA's benefit in that it will be pushed to buy cheaper alternatives that may be provided by private space firms 15 years from now. Ofcourse it will always have its official launchers to fall back on so that it does not have to rely on private business for its missions.<br /><br />What i havn't figured out is how that will effect jobs. If NASA is buying HLV from private firms, what will the guys who would be building NASAs SDHLV be doing?