Why NASA fails to reduce costs

[DarkenedOne]

Since the Russians have an effective monopoly on commercial manned space launches they can pretty much charge whatever people will pay. There productions cost however do go down per unit with increase in production.

Do you have any objective data to substantiate this? Why would production costs go down? There's no prospect of reducing the number of man-hours needed to produce a Soyuz given the extreme matrity of the technology. They always had a monopoly on commercial flight to orbit. The only change that's happened recently is that demand has increased. If a supplier finds demand increasing in any market, that supplier will normally increase prices because that is the only way to increase profits without capital investment. Only the astute businessman (i.e. Elon Musk) will recognize the high cost elasticity of demand and plan for the longer term by reducing cost to increase market share.

There a number of countries that invested and used the ISS. Up until now the shuttle has been the primary means of traveling to and from the station. NASA as I understood it practically gave many seats on the Shuttle away for free. Now that the shuttle is being retired the Soyuz is the only vehicle left capable taking people to and from the $100 station. That equates to a huge amount of market power. Hell I think NASA is lucky. They could probably charge twice that amount and still get it.

 

[rockett]

Falcon 9 $50 Million? I dont think it is possible in the long run, it's just a promotional price to get things going. The comercial satelite launch leader Ariane 5 costs 250 mil/launch and no other ELV is much cheaper. I once saw a real Ariane 5 engine nozzle and when the guy explained to me how much work gets to make one and it takes a YEAR from order to delivery you start to understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring launch cost down using current tech. If Musk can launch for 50 mil he is the greatest rocket engineer since Von Braun,

That's what their price sheet says:

Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases. A half bay flight of Falcon 9 is available to accommodate customers with payloads in between Falcon 1 and 9.

Mission Type Price*
LEO (s/c<80% capacity to the customer orbit) $49.9M
LEO (s/c>80% capacity to the customer orbit) $56M
GTO (s/c<3,000 kg)** $49.9M
GTO (s/c up to 4,680 kg) $56M

*Standard Launch Services Pricing through 9/31/10.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

Falcon 9 $50 Million? I dont think it is possible in the long run, it's just a promotional price to get things going. The comercial satelite launch leader Ariane 5 costs 250 mil/launch and no other ELV is much cheaper. I once saw a real Ariane 5 engine nozzle and when the guy explained to me how much work gets to make one and it takes a YEAR from order to delivery you start to understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring launch cost down using current tech. If Musk can launch for 50 mil he is the greatest rocket engineer since Von Braun,

Yes the Falcon 9 is listed as around $50 Million, and why would you compare it to an ELV? It is intended to be reusable! ELV's are always going to be too expensive, why would you build some state of the art equipment then throw it away? That has never made sense to me at all.

 

[kk434]

The rocket engine is like a top fuel dragster, after a run it has to be overhauled extensively, hopefully the overhaul is a lot less expensive than a new engine.

 

[vulture4]

The rocket engine is like a top fuel dragster, after a run it has to be overhauled extensively, hopefully the overhaul is a lot less expensive than a new engine.

The XLR-99, the first big reusble rocket engine (it powered the X-15) was designed to run an unprecedented 1 hour between overhauls. The SSME actually does a bit better; of course it gets inspected on every flight but it can go several flights between overhauls. Of course the SRB is not reusable, it's salvageable.

 

[rockett]

Falcon 9 $50 Million? I dont think it is possible in the long run, it's just a promotional price to get things going. The comercial satelite launch leader Ariane 5 costs 250 mil/launch and no other ELV is much cheaper. I once saw a real Ariane 5 engine nozzle and when the guy explained to me how much work gets to make one and it takes a YEAR from order to delivery you start to understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring launch cost down using current tech. If Musk can launch for 50 mil he is the greatest rocket engineer since Von Braun,

Yes the Falcon 9 is listed as around $50 Million, and why would you compare it to an ELV? It is intended to be reusable! ELV's are always going to be too expensive, why would you build some state of the art equipment then throw it away? That has never made sense to me at all.

Falcon 9 is classed as a EELV, not a RLV. Reuse is still a long way away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9262092/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

Falcon 9 is classed as a EELV, not a RLV. Reuse is still a long way away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9262092/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

It is an ELV now, but it was designed and built with the intent on reusing the first stage. They are just throwing them away now because they aren't really doing regular flights yet, so they don't care about profits too much yet. Once they get established and are moving along, I expect that they will begin recovering and refurbishing the first stages.

 

[rockett]

Falcon 9 is classed as a EELV, not a RLV. Reuse is still a long way away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9262092/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

It is an ELV now, but it was designed and built with the intent on reusing the first stage. They are just throwing them away now because they aren't really doing regular flights yet, so they don't care about profits too much yet. Once they get established and are moving along, I expect that they will begin recovering and refurbishing the first stages.

Recovery is not easy, or cheap. Say for example Elon moves ahead with it. Fine.
So we have to have:
1. Reliable recovery system
2. Loss ratio factored in (Ares I's recovery failed because it got bent coming down, so it is a given that you will still lose some)
3. Loss of payload due to weight of recovery system.
4. Recovery teams (if water recovery, which would be most likely, you are talking about , recovery ships and crews, etc)
5. Refurbishment (salt water and impact damage)

So there are substantial costs (as NASA found out with it's SRBs) that can actually diminish the savings from reuse considerably, perhaps to the point of simply making it not worth it. The STS SRBs are actually a lot more robust than a chemical based design, fewer fragile pieces to damage. With Falcon 9's architecture, it would not be just fish it out, gas and go. Without thorough checkout, you could have a catastrophic failure on launch.

 

[Testing]

The rocket engine is like a top fuel dragster, after a run it has to be overhauled extensively, hopefully the overhaul is a lot less expensive than a new engine.

The XLR-99, the first big reusble rocket engine (it powered the X-15) was designed to run an unprecedented 1 hour between overhauls. The SSME actually does a bit better; of course it gets inspected on every flight but it can go several flights between overhauls. Of course the SRB is not reusable, it's salvageable.

I have to call for Shuttle Guy for backup on this but I'm pretty sure no SSME turbopump has flown repeat flights without removal and teardown.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

Yeah I think that they refurbish it every time, but hey, I'm no expert!