Author Topic: Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V  (Read 81003 times)

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
What would a Saturn V have cost today had the program continued?  Would a launch have cost less than a shuttle launch, given all the time it takes to refurbish a shuttle for launch?  In other words, would we have been better off if we had just continued manufacturing Saturns?
« Last Edit: 04/11/2011 11:07 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #1 on: 02/20/2007 10:09 pm »
Well, a Saturn V was about 1.2 bil per launch, and the shuttle is frequently quoted at $400-600 mil. per launch.

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #2 on: 02/20/2007 10:14 pm »
Did that 1.2 billion include the cost of all the tooling, R & D, etc.?  would the cost have come down for subsequent launches had they just kept the assembly lines rolling?

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #3 on: 02/20/2007 11:12 pm »
Quote
grakenverb - 20/2/2007  4:55 PM

What would a Saturn V have cost today had the program continued?  Would a launch have cost less than a shuttle launch, given all the time it takes to refurbish a shuttle for launch?  In other words, would we have been better off if we had just continued manufacturing Saturns?
A Saturn V launch definitely costs more in constant dollars. However the Saturn lifts about 5x the useful payload, so even if the Saturn cost 5x as much per launch, the cost per pound would be about the same. The Saturn V is just a launcher -- it can't service the Hubble Space Telescope -- but just from a launcher vs launcher standpoint, we could evaluate the costs this way:

There are various ways to count costs: marginal cost of adding another flight, average cost over a period of time, total costs of ownership (sum of all development, support and operational costs divided by # of flights in a given period).

The Apollo program cost very roughly $130 billion in today's dollars. Of that, Saturn booster development and operation was a significant portion: I've seen numbers ranging from $40 to $80 billion. The Saturn V flew 13 times, of which 2 were unmanned development flights, 1 was Skylab, and 10 were actual manned missions. If we count all those as useful flights, and take the lower cost number, that's $3 billion per launch. If we discount the two development flights and take the higher cost number, that's $7.27 billion per launch in today's dollars.

The book "Stages to Saturn" gives a total Saturn R&D cost of $9.3 billion (I assume in then-year dollars). That would be roughly $46 billion current dollars.
It also gives an individual production cost of the Saturn V as $113 million, that would be roughly $565 million current dollars.

By contrast the marginal per-launch cost of the shuttle is probably from $100-$200 million. That includes ET, SRBs, all processing costs for one flight. When discussing the cost of adding a Hubble repair mission NASA administrator Mike Griffin estimated the shuttle-specific costs at $100 million for expendable hardware, plus $100 million for vehicle processing, or a total of about $200 million: http://www.space.com/news/061013_hubble_cost.html

If we take the total shuttle program funding for development and operation (probably $150 billion), and divide by the number of flights (about 117), we get $1.28 billion per flight.

So the Saturn V cost more per flight, whether counting marginal per-flight, or fully burdened (total program) cost per flight. However it lifted about 5x as much, so on a per-pound basis it might have been somewhat cheaper than the shuttle.

If the shuttle few more frequently, it would still probably be more expensive on a per-pound basis. The shuttle flew 9 missions in 1985, so it's capable of flying that often. If it maintained 9 per year from 1982 to present with no accidents or stand-downs, that would be about 225 flights. If we assume the per-flight costs are $200 million, that adds (225-117 * $200 million) = $21.6 billion of operating costs beyond the currently-flown 117 missions. If we add that to the current total program costs, we get $150 billion + $21.6 billion = $171.6 billion. Divide by 225 flights and you get $762 million per flight.

That doesn't mean the Saturn was automatically better, or the shuttle worse overall. They are different vehicles for different purposes. OTOH, most of the shuttle's payload capacity is dedicated to completing ISS. The Saturn V could have lifted all current ISS components (about 1 million lbs) in about 5 missions, probably within 2 years.

Offline joebacsi

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #4 on: 02/20/2007 11:19 pm »
Hmmm ... As far as I know the fact is shuttle program has a rough annual cost of 5 billion that doesn't change much no matter if you launch 5 or 24 that never happened... But they really can't be compared cause Saturn V was for going to the moon not for LEO. When we lost the moon the Saturn V lost it's purpose... Probably the US could have gone forward with the 1B with some Soyuz and MIR like spacestationing but they choose the other path (that didn't really work). By the way STS is a much more delicate and precise way of making space stations. I wonder about the challenges of building a space station from 80 ton skylab-like modules though...

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #5 on: 02/21/2007 03:56 am »
I want to say that the shuttle's cost per flight has been determined by dividing the yearly program cost over the number of flights in a given year.  The $500 mil figure is optimistic, probably based on 1985 (9 missions.)  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the shuttle program will receive ~$4B for this fiscal year (plus another ~$3B for ISS.)  Hopefully NASA will get four missions off this year; depending on how you keep the books, each of those missions will cost either $1B or $1.75B.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #6 on: 02/21/2007 04:37 am »
Counting shuttle vs. Saturn payload is a little facetious there. The Shuttle's payload bay vs. a Saturn V is about 1/5 as much, true; but the Shuttle also takes into orbit marginally useful things like a crew compartment and life support systems. :-) So if you're using the Shuttle to launch satellites or probes, it's not really cost effective - that's why we're not doing it anymore. But for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well. After all, that's what it was designed to do in the first place.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #7 on: 02/21/2007 04:53 am »
Quote
Malderi - 21/2/2007  5:37 AM

But for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well.
No, it doesn't. The optimum strategy is a large launcher for the pieces of the station and a small launcher for the crew (which is what the Russians did, albeit by necessity). The ISS would have been built far quicker and for much less money using the Saturn V, IVB and Apollo than it has been using the STS. The only reason it has been built using the current methodology is to give the STS something to do.

If and when built, the Ares I and V would be capable of duplicating the ISS even more quickly and for a lot less money than even the Apollo-era equipment. (But the idea of a single large station is beginning to be discounted in favour of a number of smaller ones optimised for particular tasks.)

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #8 on: 02/21/2007 07:30 am »
Actually, the Russians did best in refining a good, simple, solid design. Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn V was a simple design. Had the US continued to refine it rather than do Shuttle, perhaps the economics would have been radically better than $7B a launch. Or is the trouble with expensive launch systems that you can't evolve them, because you rely too much on the past engineering base to vary from the proven?

The irony with the Shuttle and the Russians was the rush to do Buran, because of the fear that Shuttle re-usability would put them at an economic disadvantage, and the irony for the US was the inability to keep a good design evolving. While the Shuttle is a magnificent design, both US and Russia spent themselves into a hole for a "reusable" system.

Could it be that the Shuttle was an attempt to do "too much, too quickly" at the time, where waiting off a decade would have made a difference? E.g. complete the full run of 20 flights and Apollo Applications. Or was the flexibility of the Shuttle just too much of a compromise any way you slice it?

What really was the Shuttle all about?

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #9 on: 02/21/2007 11:05 am »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 20/2/2007  11:53 PM

Quote
Malderi - 21/2/2007  5:37 AM

But for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well.
No, it doesn't. The optimum strategy is a large launcher for the pieces of the station and a small launcher for the crew (which is what the Russians did, albeit by necessity). The ISS would have been built far quicker and for much less money using the Saturn V, IVB and Apollo than it has been using the STS. The only reason it has been built using the current methodology is to give the STS something to do.

ISS wasn't built by shuttle to give it "something to do". When shuttle was being considered, a space station was desired, as well, but only shuttle was funded. ISS has been built by shuttle because it's all we've got right now. Also, I would agree with Malderi that shuttle actually does work pretty well for building a space station. One launch takes up the crew and payload. Is it the safest way to go? Maybe not. Are there better ways? There are probably several alternative histories which if we had had the foresight to follow one of those would have resulted in a better situation - or simply a different set of problems. But, that doesn't in itself negate the value of the shuttle. Given the goals we have at this time and the tools we have available, the shuttle is uniquely well-suited to carrying out a space station construction endeavor.

Jon

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #10 on: 02/21/2007 11:23 am »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 21/2/2007  3:30 AM

The irony with the Shuttle and the Russians was the rush to do Buran, because of the fear that Shuttle re-usability would put them at an economic disadvantage, and the irony for the US was the inability to keep a good design evolving. While the Shuttle is a magnificent design, both US and Russia spent themselves into a hole for a "reusable" system.

Actually, the opposite.  The Russians did their own cost studies and saw that there was no avantage, so they figured that the US was doing it for some other reason, which was a weapon system.  So if the US has one, we need one.

The one orbit VAFB missions had them scared that the Shuttle was a "bomber"

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #11 on: 02/21/2007 11:46 am »
It has been mentioned on this site that the non re-useablity of the Saturns was seen as a big waste by the public at the time so there was a strong push for more re-usability. There were some ideas for reusing the S-IC stage, how feasible was this?

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #12 on: 02/21/2007 12:08 pm »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 21/2/2007  2:30 AM
Could it be that the Shuttle was an attempt to do "too much, too quickly" at the time, where waiting off a decade would have made a difference?...Or was the flexibility of the Shuttle just too much of a compromise any way you slice it?...
This is frequently stated -- the current shuttle designed pushed technology too far, was too ambitious. However it's also criticized for not being ambitious enough -- IOW, a partially reusable design rather than a two-stage fully reusable flyback booster.

These two items are somewhat contradictory -- if the current design is marginal with regard to maintenance, reusability, fixed costs, etc, then a more ambitious two-stage design developed with 1970s technology would be more so.

In fact Bob Thompson (Space Shuttle Program Manager from 1970 to 1981) addressed this during the CAIB hearings. He said had the original plan for a more ambitious fully reusable design gone forward, the entire program would have probably failed due to technical risk:

Transcript: http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030423/transcript_am.html
Video (warning, 271 MB video file, save to disk): http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030423/video.html

Re whether the shuttle's flexibility entails compromises that hamper it, the primary design goal was always servicing the space station. There was a long-held view a reusable shuttle was the best vehicle for that role. Naturally a manned vehicle with those performance characteristics can do other tasks, and NASA capitalized on this in selling it. But that doesn't mean the design itself was somehow compromised simply by having that capability.

The two disasters came from operating the vehicle outside the design spec, not from a flawed design per se. In Challenger's case, they exceeded the "redline low limit" of 40F as the lowest allowable temperature for SRB operation. In Columbia's case the design spec stated max allowable TPS impact was 0.006 ft-lbs (tiny).

Any vehicle will have imperfections. If you disregard vehicle operational specifications, any design will eventually fail.

In hindsight you can postulate varies alternative designs -- lower pressure SSMEs, different SRB design, metallic TPS, crew escape system, etc. However each change only removes that one perceived weakness, moving the failure point somewhere else in the chain. People died in space vehicles before the shuttle and will die after the shuttle. Manned spaceflight is inherently risky.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #13 on: 02/21/2007 12:27 pm »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 21/2/2007  12:05 PM

ISS has been built by shuttle because it's all we've got right now.
I don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.

Quote
... I would agree with Malderi that shuttle actually does work pretty well for building a space station.
Oh, wonderful job! How long have the delays been? How much have they cost? I'd hate to see anything done poorly by your criteria.

Quote
One launch takes up the crew and payload. Is it the safest way to go? Maybe not.
Maybe? I think most people would simply answer 'no'.

Quote
Are there better ways? There are probably several alternative histories which if we had had the foresight to follow one of those would have resulted in a better situation - or simply a different set of problems.
Your second sentence could've been replaced by 'yes'. It's an example of a 'fighting withdrawal to the rear'.

Quote
But, that doesn't in itself negate the value of the shuttle.
This I would agree with. The Shuttle taught us a lot, although quite a bit of that was what not to do.

Quote
Given the goals we have at this time and the tools we have available, the shuttle is uniquely well-suited to carrying out a space station construction endeavor.
As it's the only tool the US currently has to carry out space station construction, this is hardly surprising! (That's if by 'we' you mean the US. If you include the other ISS partners, then this is not true. The ISS - albeit the design would need altering - could've been built quicker and cheaper using Russian launchers, even adjusting for different wage rates.)

The Shuttle is a wonderful technological achievement, but a deeply flawed concept.

Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #14 on: 02/21/2007 12:40 pm »
The Saturn V flew 13 times with a max for 4 a year. The Saturn IB flew 7 times. What would be the effect of a longer life span on the program?

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #15 on: 02/21/2007 12:58 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 21/2/2007  7:27 AM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 21/2/2007  12:05 PM

ISS has been built by shuttle because it's all we've got right now.
I don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.

That's right, I forgot. We have a great example of that concept in Mir, which was of course built for Soyuz to have something to do. Not. Neither is the shuttle concept of a reusable space transport inherently flawed.

The rest of your comments seem to me to be neither logical nor objective, and I don't have time to respond to sniping at individual lines of a comment. It's obvious that there is a big difference in viewpoints.

Jon

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #16 on: 02/21/2007 08:19 pm »
Chris Kraft said in his book that had Apollo flown 20, 30 times on the Saturn V, they surely would've lost at least one crew. Apollo 13 was damn close and Apollo 12 got struck by lightning, among other things. In anything that high-engineering you're going to have problems. Just because you launch something on bigger boosters doesn't negate that. The Shuttle works pretty well for what its doing, and most ISS delays are coming from Russia and from the Columbia accident. Any international agreement is going to be flawed, and any spacecraft disaster is going to cause years of delays - no matter what.

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #17 on: 02/21/2007 10:28 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 21/2/2007  7:27 AM
I don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.
The shuttle flew from 1981 to 1993 before the space station Alpha concept was even announced. The shuttle continued to fly until December 1998 (about 18 years) before the first shuttle mission to ISS happened.

It's true that during shuttle design in the 1970s, the requirements emphasized servicing a possible future space station. However the shuttle obviously can exist without ISS, as it did for 12 years before the space station was ever announced, and for 18 years before the first ISS mission.

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #18 on: 02/22/2007 03:40 am »
Thank you for answering one of my questions.

If the only point of Ares 1 or Shuttle was routine access (4-8 per year), how would we compare the economics and reliability? How long would running the Ares take before it would approach the confidence of Shuttle launches - irrespective of "human error" issues? 4-5 years?

In other words, how good is Shuttle at what it is supposed to do, assuming you can find a way of getting the "best of the best" out of it?

Sometimes accounting, politics, and the desire to do "something different" for the public eye distorts the bottom level economics. I've often wondered that we lose track of the best parts of our accomplishments, only to need them once again later after they are gone. They get buried in the bad news of incidents, distorted budgets, and public ennui, so much that perspective is lost on the launch system itself.

Watching Apollo/Saturn V shutdown and forgotten, one knew it was wrong - yet NASA funding levels could never have kept it and the Shuttle, esp. with the predictable budget squeezes that routinely showed up. Will we later regret the Shuttle shutdown as well, again needing part or all of it yet again? I remember hearing how unnecessary the Saturn V was to the next 20 years back in the mid 70's, and I hear the same about the Shuttle. The attitude was "if we need it, we'll just do a better one from scratch".

Given the X-33, and even Ares V, that doesn't seem to be a easy assignment. Any launch system has to be a magnificent accomplishment even just to work.  So ignoring the necessary politics of budget, how can we compare what each of Saturn V, Shuttle, Ares 1 launch systems are side-by-side?

Here's a stab - please correct
 Saturn V - 10 heavy launch for around $15B CY07 dollars
 Shuttle   - 20 medium launch plus crew for $16B CY07 dollars
 Ares 1    - 50 crew launch for $16B CY07 dollars (unproven, partially budgetted)
 Ares V    - 8 heavy launch for around $18B CY07 dollars (unproven, not in budget)

So, knowing the net present value of the Saturn V as replacement cost of Ares V, the value to maintain Saturn V all along might have been worth it, if only to avoid the need to fund the replacement. E.g. its folly to believe that canceling a launch system in the long term saves money. Is there anything wrong with this argument?

If true, how long after Shuttle goes away ... do we need to bring it back? Never?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
RE: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #19 on: 02/22/2007 06:47 am »
Good post!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #20 on: 02/22/2007 11:36 am »
Never.  we don't need the shuttle.  Just as payloads were "designed" around the shuttle capabilities (which was wrong to do in the first place).  Now most payloads are going to fly ELV anyways so there is no need for the shuttle  for them.  Look at the payloads that flew on the shuttle in the late 90's (this timeframe is selected since most of the ELV type shuttle payload migrated to ELV's.  Eliminate Spacelab and Spacehab science missions (ISS does this), ll of the pallet missions go away (microgravity goes to ISS, earth viewing flies on ELV spacecraft) and the instruments on the  few free flying spacecraft  could fly on ELV spacecraft.  What remains are ISS missions.  Once ISS is built, need for shuttle goes away.  Other servicing spacecraft will take care of logistics.  And if there ever is a need to add more to the ISS post shuttle, then the payload will be designed around the ELV's and have to incorporate the last mile guidance (or another spacecraft will provide it).

HST is not a good example, since astronomy missions are not in LEO.


Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #21 on: 02/22/2007 11:49 am »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 21/2/2007  1:58 PM

Quote
CuddlyRocket - 21/2/2007  7:27 AM
I don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.

That's right, I forgot. We have a great example of that concept in Mir, which was of course built for Soyuz to have something to do. Not.
The ISS survived by one vote in Congress. I believe that but for the fact that without the ISS the Shuttle would have nothing to do, the vote would have gone the other way. The Mir situation was totally different. (And it was built using the Proton launcher.)

Quote
Neither is the shuttle concept of a reusable space transport inherently flawed.
I said the Shuttle was a deeply flawed concept, not that a reusable space transport was inherently flawed. If you're going to criticise what I say, criticise what I say not some extension of it that you've dreamed up.

A reusable space transport is flawed at the present time because there is insufficient demand for the number of flights needed for 'reusability' to be economic. The STS is flawed because it is designed to launch both cargo and crew simultaneously (for the latter, safety is all important, whereas cargo need only consider economics). And the crew compartment is next to the propellant and there is no escape system.

Should the need for the number of flights increase, a reusable launch system may very well be a good idea, but there should be seperate systems for crew and cargo, and the crew one should have the crew compartment above the propellant and have an escape system.

Quote
The rest of your comments seem to me to be neither logical nor objective...
They're not objective in the sense that I have an opinion on this matter, but they are logical. If they were not you'd surely point out the actual logical errors. But then again you...

Quote
... don't have time to respond to sniping at individual lines of a comment.
Presumably you only have time for people who agree with you?

Quote
It's obvious that there is a big difference in viewpoints.
Mine are based on historical observation and logic that I am willing to defend. And yours is based on...?

Quote
Malderi - 21/2/2007  9:19 PM

The Shuttle works pretty well for what its doing...
It's managing, thanks to huge and expensive effort, to carry out the tasks it has been given. That's not the same as saying that it works pretty well.
Quote
... and most ISS delays are coming from Russia and from the Columbia accident.
I think you'll find the Columbia accident was something to do with the Shuttle! And what Russian delays?

Quote
... any spacecraft disaster is going to cause years of delays - no matter what.
Any manned one. Less so for cargo launchers.

And let's consider spaceflight 'disasters':
1967 - Soyuz 1 (1 fatality)
1971 - Soyuz 11 (3 fatalities)
1976 - Challenger (7 fatalities)
2003 - Columbia (7 fatalities)

So four people have lost their lives on the Soyuz, though none since 1971, whereas 14 have lost their lives on the Shuttle, all since 1971.

Quote
joema - 21/2/2007  11:28 PM
The shuttle flew from 1981 to 1993 before the space station Alpha concept was even announced. The shuttle continued to fly until December 1998 (about 18 years) before the first shuttle mission to ISS happened.

It's true that during shuttle design in the 1970s, the requirements emphasized servicing a possible future space station. However the shuttle obviously can exist without ISS, as it did for 12 years before the space station was ever announced, and for 18 years before the first ISS mission.
During which time it became patently clear that everything else it was being used for (except the Hubble servicing missions) could be better done using expendable launchers.

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #22 on: 02/22/2007 12:07 pm »
I keep reading that the shuttle is necessary to complete the ISS.  Why can't components be launched on expendable rockets and attached to the station as the unmanned Progress spacecraft do?  It seems to me that limiting the size of components  to the shuttles payload bay dimensions only complicates matters and increases the number of launches neccessary to complete the station.   The first Russian segment was launched on its own, why not subsequent components?

Offline geminy007

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 48
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #23 on: 02/22/2007 12:18 pm »
parts were not designed to dock to ISS actively,...
If they agreed earlier in the phase to launch those items by ELV, then they might have equipped with rendevouz tools and maneauvering units and active docking interfaces. but they were designed to be attached by the shuttle and (S)SRMS! (grapple fixtures, etc...)

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #24 on: 02/22/2007 12:43 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 22/2/2007  7:49 AM

And let's consider spaceflight 'disasters':
1967 - Soyuz 1 (1 fatality)
1971 - Soyuz 11 (3 fatalities)
1976 - Challenger (7 fatalities)
2003 - Columbia (7 fatalities)


Let's be fair. The Russian and the Chinese space programs killed scores of people on the ground.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #25 on: 02/22/2007 01:23 pm »
I invite to consider in the cost comparison that Saturns/Apollo put 3 humans in LEO (yeah on the Moon too), while STS has capability for 7.

Payloads have a value not for their weight but for what they can do. So maybe considering payload value STS has an advantage over Saturn.

I like a lot a previous post of JonSBerndt. STS is a child of a need (space station) and it has to be considered a stepping stone. I'm not bashing steam engines because today we can develop levitating trains.

And it seems we can track the root cause of STS casualties to human factor.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #26 on: 02/22/2007 04:46 pm »
Quote
sandrot - 22/2/2007  9:23 AM

I invite to consider in the cost comparison that Saturns/Apollo put 3 humans in LEO (yeah on the Moon too), while STS has capability for 7.

Payloads have a value not for their weight but for what they can do. So maybe considering payload value STS has an advantage over Saturn.


That is not a valid comparsion neither.  There must be work for 7 crew members.   Also other than ISS or Spacelab type mssions, more than 4 was for sightseeing

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #27 on: 02/22/2007 06:41 pm »
Quote
Malderi wrote: But for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well.

CuddlyRocket replied: "No, it doesn't."

Malderi's statement is exactly true, in my opinion. He did not say it was the cheapest, nor the best, nor the safest. He said it works, "pretty well". This is true, because of the shuttle's unique capabilities - a combination of payload capacity, crew contingent, robotic arm, downmass, etc. capabilities.

Quote
CuddlyRocket wrote: "Presumably you only have time for people who agree with you?"

I have for many years participated in space policy and technical discussions - and learned a lot from others. I enjoy discussing topics with people I disagree with  - very much so when the discussion is done for mutual benefit, and in search of common ground (see, for instance, http://tinyurl.com/2l4d3t, or http://tinyurl.com/2udpbn). I recognize, however, the tone of a poster who already has a hard-set opinion and doesn't appear to want to consider another point of view. You seem to want to paint this particular issue as both narrow and black and white. I really don't have time to pursue an endless [and ultimately pointless and divergent] repartee of differing opinions.

Sometimes the best approach is just to say as I have, we disagree, and move on.

Jon

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #28 on: 02/22/2007 06:54 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 22/2/2007  6:49 AM

And let's consider spaceflight 'disasters':
1967 - Soyuz 1 (1 fatality)
1971 - Soyuz 11 (3 fatalities)
1976 - Challenger (7 fatalities)
2003 - Columbia (7 fatalities)

So four people have lost their lives on the Soyuz, though none since 1971, whereas 14 have lost their lives on the Shuttle, all since 1971.

Challenger was in 1986, not 1976, but I think that was just a typo.
Shuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!

The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.

Soyuz has suffered four mission failures (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Soyuz 18A, Soyuz T-10A.)
Shuttle has suffered three mission failures (STS-51L, STS-83, STS-107.)

It should be pointed out that Soyuz 11 and 51L Challenger both took place in the fifth year of their respective programs.
It also bears mentioning that the Shuttle flew more missions (88) between the Challenger and Columbia accidents than Soyuz has flown since Soyuz 11 (85).


Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #29 on: 02/22/2007 07:14 pm »
Quote
CFE - 20/2/2007  11:56 PM

I want to say that the shuttle's cost per flight has been determined by dividing the yearly program cost over the number of flights in a given year.  The $500 mil figure is optimistic, probably based on 1985 (9 missions.)  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the shuttle program will receive ~$4B for this fiscal year (plus another ~$3B for ISS.)  Hopefully NASA will get four missions off this year; depending on how you keep the books, each of those missions will cost either $1B or $1.75B.

These are the numbers I'm more familar with.  Of course, the big difference between Saturn and shuttle is the need for a crew.  Be sure to add the annual cost for the astronaut office into the mix.  Oh, and the extra cost for crew safety and the restrictions on launch because of the crew.  Saturn can (and did) launch unmanned.  Shuttle never has.

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #30 on: 02/22/2007 11:36 pm »
So if I understand correctly, there isn't anything to be gained from saving anything from Shuttle if/when a future need for RLV eclipses ELV (e.g. substantially higher launch rate, like 20+, which nobody can foresee). And if it were to happen, there's nothing from Shuttle to reuse because 1) crew safety, 2) economically crew+cargo works too infrequently, 3) special design features like large cross-range serve no purpose. Does that capture it?

With Saturn V, the billion dollar launch figure was the big issue, made worse by an increased launch rate that never materialized. Given the above Shuttle epitaph, the similar one for Saturn was "too big, too costly, and not flexible enough for variable needs". They did have a program for lower cost variants, and the lunar stack is an example of combined crew/cargo. So the orbiter concept as a means to combine engine reuse, crew escape on abort, cargo to orbit, orbital operations, and return is a dead-end, regardless of implementation or launch rate?

If a Space-X Falcon or others ever proves successful in being reusable on top of operational, perhaps that becomes the successor model to the Shuttle as a reusable platform?

And that then the difference between shutting down Saturn V and Shuttle is one where an attempt to insist on entirely a RLV mindset with limited budget and launch rate didn't retain an acceptable ELV contingency, when the industry failed to develop an RLV based economy - e.g. more launches bringing down costs and RLV refinement outdistancing ELV economics. So apart from Challenger/Columbia, the issue is the choice of how to do RLV, and Ares I/V is just a retreat to retain limited cost and safety - let COTS play with RLV in the sandbox in the meantime.

If we then look at Ares I/V against Saturn, some reuse, reliability, and safety benefits accrue.
Perhaps if we even had Saturn, we'd find it like Shuttle - too unsafe and costly?

What part of that $1 - $1.75B can't we get away from?

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #31 on: 02/23/2007 06:53 am »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 22/2/2007  7:41 PM

Malderi's statement is exactly true, in my opinion. He did not say it was the cheapest, nor the best, nor the safest. He said it works, "pretty well". This is true, because of the shuttle's unique capabilities - a combination of payload capacity, crew contingent, robotic arm, downmass, etc. capabilities.
If you mean 'it works pretty well' in the sense of 'it works', then fine. I suspect most people think 'works pretty well' means something more than that.

The discussion was about whether a heavy lift launch vehicle, such as the Saturn V would have been better than the STS for building the space station. The Saturn V could have lifted the entire ISS in only 5 launches. (And that's the entire ISS, not just the US-provided part.) It has taken over 8 years getting to where we are today. Would 5 Saturn V launches take that long? And would they have cost more than has been spent, and will be spent, on STS launches? I don't think so.

The Shuttle does have unique capabilities, but are those capabilities needed for building a space station? I contend not. And they come at a price, that need not have been paid.

The Shuttle's payload to LEO is 28 tonnes. The Proton rocket that lifted the Zarya and Zvezda modules has a LEO payload over 20 tonnes (118 tonnes for the Saturn V). Crew can be launched separately (as the Russians did when building the Salyut and Mir stations, and the US did with Skylab). A robotic arm is not unique to the Shuttle. The downmass capability is unique, but is non-essential.

Quote
Thorny - 22/2/2007  7:54 PM

Shuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!

The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.
Yes, but the Soyuz accidents were in the first ten years of manned spaceflight, and were launched using Soviet technology, procedures and attitudes etc. Columbia was just over 4 years ago, and is a product of the (justifiably, IMO) much-vaunted US technology etc. The Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not.

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 23/2/2007  12:36 AM

So if I understand correctly, there isn't anything to be gained from saving anything from Shuttle if/when a future need for RLV eclipses ELV (e.g. substantially higher launch rate, like 20+, which nobody can foresee). And if it were to happen, there's nothing from Shuttle to reuse because 1) crew safety, 2) economically crew+cargo works too infrequently, 3) special design features like large cross-range serve no purpose. Does that capture it?
The Ares launchers do use technolgy etc. from the STS. And if launch rates get high enough for a RLV to be cost-efficient, I'm sure further technology and lessons will be used. But we need to learn from what didn't work as well as what did.

I suspect the next RLV will be a small, crew-only craft launched on top of a booster. (Or perhaps air-launched, like SpaceShip One - I suspect tourism will be what gives us the higher launch rates eventually.) But yes, I doubt a large cross-range would serve any purpose that would justify the additional expense in having it available.

Quote
...the similar one for Saturn was "too big, too costly, and not flexible enough for variable needs".
Said at the time. Now seen to be a misjudgment (apart from the 'too costly' bit - but steps could have been taken to reduce the cost).

I don't know whether the decision to scrap the Saturns and go for the STS was correct or not - it possibly was, given the political position at the time and people's beliefs as to what was achievable and relevant. But, I do think it was wrong in hindsight. Mistakes need to be recognised so they aren't repeated and the space progam can move on.

Quote
So the orbiter concept as a means to combine engine reuse, crew escape on abort, cargo to orbit, orbital operations, and return is a dead-end, regardless of implementation or launch rate?
No. The launch rate is the driver. Get that high enough and RLVs become cost-effective. And an orbiter may very well work. But a different design to the STS!

Quote
...and Ares I/V is just a retreat to retain limited cost and safety...
No. It's a return to what works, but at greater capability and lower cost. And it provides capabilities the STS cannot. It's a re-grouping to move forward.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #32 on: 02/23/2007 01:58 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 23/2/2007  1:53 AM

Quote
Thorny - 22/2/2007  7:54 PM

Shuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!

The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.
Yes, but the Soyuz accidents were in the first ten years of manned spaceflight,

Not relevant. Years don't matter; flights do. The relevant number is that Soyuz has had 85 safe landings since the last accident. As Thorny points out, the shuttle had 87 safe landings between 51L and 107. An honest statistician would call these two datasets equivalent.

Quote
The Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not.

Incorrect. All designs have built-in vulnerabilities, not just the shuttle. The main vulnerability of Soyuz is the separation of the descent module from the orbital module and propulsion module after the deorbit burn. This feature was the indirect cause of the Soyuz 11 accident (the separation was the cause of the pressure relief valve failure), and was the direct cause of two near-mishaps (Soyuz 5 and TM-5). If Soyuz flies long enough, it will kill again. And it should be pointed out that this design vulnerability is common to all expendable capsules, not just Soyuz.

I will be extremely (and pleasantly!) surprised if Orion is able to get through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident, which is what it will need to beat the shuttle's overall record. Although at the flight rates NASA projects, Orion will never even fly 58 times throughout its lifetime.

Quote
I don't know whether the decision to scrap the Saturns and go for the STS was correct or not - it possibly was, given the political position at the time and people's beliefs as to what was achievable and relevant. But, I do think it was wrong in hindsight. Mistakes need to be recognised so they aren't repeated and the space progam can move on.

Given NASA's budgets in the early 70's, scrapping the Saturn V was definitely the correct decision, with or without hindsight. Saturn V capability simply couldn't be sustained on those budgets, period, and there was no way NASA was going to get budget increases in that environment. Scrapping the Saturn IB is more questionable. And attempting to jump from the X-15 directly to a fully operational space shuttle was definitely the wrong decision. A program of continued low-rate Apollo CSM/Saturn IB flights in parallel with a series of X-vehicles to demonstrate candidate technologies for fully-reusable, high-flight-rate vehicles might have been the best way to go in hindsight.

Quote
Quote
...and Ares I/V is just a retreat to retain limited cost and safety...
No. It's a return to what works, but at greater capability and lower cost. And it provides capabilities the STS cannot. It's a re-grouping to move forward.

It's moving forward only in the sense that it enables flight beyond LEO once more. It is definitely a step backwards in terms of doing what really needs to be done: reducing costs by increasing reusability and flight rate.
--
JRF
JRF

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #33 on: 02/23/2007 03:20 pm »
Jorge,
Quote
I will be extremely (and pleasantly!) surprised if Orion is able to get through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident, which is what it will need to beat the shuttle's overall record. Although at the flight rates NASA projects, Orion will never even fly 58 times throughout its lifetime.

Yeah.  Whenever I see people posting reliability numbers for unbuilt systems that are taken out to 4 significant figures, I tend to get a wee bit skeptical.  NASA might just get lucky and not fly Ares-I/Orion enough for them to kill any more astronauts.  But with them (supposedly) cutting test flights before first manned flight just so they can keep their schedule...

Quote
Given NASA's budgets in the early 70's, scrapping the Saturn V was definitely the correct decision, with or without hindsight. Saturn V capability simply couldn't be sustained on those budgets, period, and there was no way NASA was going to get budget increases in that environment. Scrapping the Saturn IB is more questionable. And attempting to jump from the X-15 directly to a fully operational space shuttle was definitely the wrong decision. A program of continued low-rate Apollo CSM/Saturn IB flights in parallel with a series of X-vehicles to demonstrate candidate technologies for fully-reusable, high-flight-rate vehicles might have been the best way to go in hindsight.

Wow.  That's almost identical to the conclusions I came to in two of my most recent blog posts:
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/02/path-not-taken.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-on-path-not-taken.html

Keeping the Saturn Ib would've allowed you to keep some of the most useful parts of the Saturn/Apollo program alive and kicking while still retiring some of the most expensive hardware.  Without an immediate need to both replace the capabilities of Saturn Ib, and without the need to come up with a massive engineering project to keep the Saturn guys all employed, NASA might have been in a position to do something a lot more reasonable sized.  A couple of X-planes leading up to an orbital RLV of much more modest capabilities (2-3 people or unmanned with 2-4klb of cargo) might have been a lot more interesting when combined with the Saturn Ib than what we ended up with.

Quote
It's moving forward only in the sense that it enables flight beyond LEO once more. It is definitely a step backwards in terms of doing what really needs to be done: reducing costs by increasing reusability and flight rate.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

~Jon

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #34 on: 02/23/2007 03:42 pm »
Quote
Jorge - 23/2/2007  9:58 AM

It's moving forward only in the sense that it enables flight beyond LEO once more. It is definitely a step backwards in terms of doing what really needs to be done: reducing costs by increasing reusability and flight rate.
--
JRF

doing what really needs to be done?  

Not so.  

1.  It is not a step backwards.  It is a lateral move.

2.  Developing an RLV, when there are no flight rates to support it,  is much like some cities putting in light rail systems without the ridership to support them.  There first must be a need.  

Just like heavy lift, built it and they will come also doesn't apply to RLV's.  Just because an RLV is available means that flight rates will increase.

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #35 on: 02/23/2007 09:53 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/2/2007  10:42 AM
2.  Developing an RLV, when there are no flight rates to support it,  is much like some cities putting in light rail systems without the ridership to support them.  There first must be a need.  

Just like heavy lift, built it and they will come also doesn't apply to RLV's.  Just because an RLV is available means that flight rates will increase.

Did you mean: "Just because an RLV is available doesn't mean that flight rates will increase".  [?]

I'm on the fence about this one. On the surface, it's hard to comprehend why someone would invest money in developing a system for which there was little perceived current need. There are already plenty of launch vehicles fielded. On the other hand, if you can offer a service for far less than existing providers can, then you have something unique to offer. Also, I have read that there are potential payloads to be developed, but are not currently, because the launch prices are too high. So, there is potential for the market to grow in predictable and even unpredictable ways.

I'm not convinced that developing an RLV specifically is as important as simply developing cheaper access to space. Is the added cost to develop reusable engines and recovery mechanisms, as well as the cost of post-flight inspection and refurbishment, worthwhile considering the potential savings? Has Musk decided yet how reusable Falcon will be?

Jon

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #36 on: 02/23/2007 10:13 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 23/2/2007  1:53 AM
The Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not...
That is simply not true. Each design has its own pros and cons. Having a launch escape system does not guarantee crew safety, and entails significant risks and penalties. Likewise with serial vs parallel staging.

Apollo 13 came very close to catastrophic failure due to severe pogo oscillations in the 2nd stage. They were simply lucky the vibrations triggered a low combustion chamber pressure sensor which cut the center engine. Had the 2nd stage broken up, the only option was abort mode II, where the CSM thrusted away from the stack. The launch escape tower had already been jettisoned. But the CSM thrust-to-weight ratio was quite poor, so could not get away very fast. http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/articles/pogo.htm

The Orion will have a launch escape system -- it's projected to weigh 14,000 lbs, roughly 2/3 the crew module weight. Hopefully that helps explain why they don't "just add one" to the shuttle.

Regarding "inherently safe", the two shuttle disasters arose from operating the vehicle outside the design specifications. Any launch vehicle, no matter what shape or design, if operated outside the specifications will eventually fail, often catastrophically.

In hindsight you can always say if this or that had been designed differently the problem wouldn't have happened. Yet our judgments are often clouded by the outcome, which is partially luck rather than a definitive indication of engineering quality. E.g, Apollo 13 flew with a known pogo problem -- they knew it existed, had a fix in the works, but gambled it wouldn't be bad. They were wrong but were saved (just barely) by luck and large structural design margins. It easily could have gone the other way.

It's little different from STS-51-L Challenger. Had the temperature or winds been slightly different, it would have probably survived, and the problem fixed.

I'm not saying the current shuttle is a perfect design but we must resist the temptation to judge the design based on the success record, since that is significantly determined by (1) Operational decisions by management, and (2) Luck.

It's important to understand this so when, say, a future Orion crew is lost, you won't be surprised and say "I thought it was inherently safe -- it was serial staged and had a launch escape system -- how could they die?"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #37 on: 02/24/2007 03:05 am »
Musk's Falcon is recoverable but yet to be determine if reusable

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #38 on: 02/24/2007 05:49 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 23/2/2007  1:53 AM
Quote
Thorny - 22/2/2007  7:54 PM

Shuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!

The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.

Yes, but the Soyuz accidents were in the first ten years of manned spaceflight, and were launched using Soviet technology, procedures and attitudes etc. Columbia was just over 4 years ago, and is a product of the (justifiably, IMO) much-vaunted US technology etc. The Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not.

A case can be made for the Soyuz 1 accident being partly due to so early in the space age, but I don't think the same can be made for Soyuz 11. Soyuz 11 occured over four years into the Soyuz program, the heat of competition had faded markedly since the US 1969 victory in the moon race. One can argue that the last Soyuz accident was early in the program and should be discounted or otherwise given less influence on the statistics. But until STS-107, the same could be said of the Space Shuttle program... Challenger was lost less than five years into the program. More disturbing for Soyuz supporters... the Shuttle flew more times between Challenger and the Columbia accident than Soyuz has flown since Soyuz 11.

In spaceflight, as in most endeavors, it is foolish to proclaim any design as "safe". There have been two fatal accidents, two non-fatal failures, and several near-misses (one as recently as 2003) in the Soyuz program. Is Soyuz safer, or just luckier?


Offline vda

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #39 on: 02/24/2007 06:46 pm »
Quote
Malderi - 20/2/2007  10:19 PM
Chris Kraft said in his book that had Apollo flown 20, 30 times on the Saturn V, they surely would've lost at least one crew. Apollo 13 was damn close and Apollo 12 got struck by lightning, among other things. In anything that high-engineering you're going to have problems. Just because you launch something on bigger boosters doesn't negate that. The Shuttle works pretty well...

The difference between Apollo and Shuttle accidents is that in Shuttle cases management *knew* (or should I say 'was informed'?) that there are problems, and was actively pushed by techies to diagnose and fix it, but didn't pay attention. This does not classify as 'inevitable risk of using new technology', it's a managerial failure.

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #40 on: 02/24/2007 07:34 pm »
The "biggest problem" I have with RLVs is that their proponents, from what I've seen, *seem* to imply that it's a goal onto itself, the golden fleece.  I.e. screw the economics and the mechanics, the RLV *must* be the goal.  

That just seem too dogmatic... We do have a space economy (sats and all), why not just let it all sort itself out?  (like everything else did in the past)  As for the STS, no reasonable entrepreneur would sink a dollar into this (splendid technically) machine.  (someone is bound to bring up railways and how the government "paved the way to the West", but private enterpreneurs did invest in it!, it's not a valid comparison)

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #41 on: 02/24/2007 08:33 pm »
The political rational for RLV is simply to shift industry economics so that as you do more launches, it gets easier to budget for a greater launch rate because the numbers keep getting better. Thats all an RLV is supposed to be.

Perhaps the issue is we've never gotten to a true RLV? Because RLV experience is little compared to ELV? Maybe they can't exist, because they'd need to be made of "unobtainium"? Whats the answer here?

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #42 on: 02/24/2007 08:39 pm »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007  1:33 PM

The political rational for RLV is simply to shift industry economics so that as you do more launches, it gets easier to budget for a greater launch rate because the numbers keep getting better. Thats all an RLV is supposed to be.

Perhaps the issue is we've never gotten to a true RLV? Because RLV experience is little compared to ELV? Maybe they can't exist, because they'd need to be made of "unobtainium"? Whats the answer here?

This is a very interesting question.  The greater launch rate is a function of demand, however.  (in theory however, ELVs can satisfy increased launch rate as well as the RLVs, though, via economies of scale) How can an increased RLV supply affect the *demand* in its favor?  We do need more space applications.

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #43 on: 02/24/2007 09:10 pm »
ELV economics improve only with economies of scale. But few LV's reach the number of launches where this effect can dominate. The economic point of a RLV over a ELV is the ambition that reuse multiplies the effect of economies of scale with the effect of reduced remanufacturing. In theory, even if you have a costly part, as long as it is effectively reused, it doesn't affect the subsequent LV economics. With ELV's, the intent is simple/cheap only.

Which is how you can get talked into expensive orbiters. Is the Shuttle an RLV by this definition? Or not. For example, improvements to the Shuttle ET increased the expense and the performance, but since this wasn't a reusable part, the Shuttle's RLV economics actually got worse.

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #44 on: 02/24/2007 09:16 pm »
How would you address the demand side of the question?

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #45 on: 02/24/2007 09:20 pm »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007  2:10 PM

...The economic point of a RLV over a ELV is the ambition that reuse multiplies the effect of economies of scale with the effect of reduced remanufacturing. In theory, even if you have a costly part, as long as it is effectively reused, it doesn't affect the subsequent LV economics.

The tooling is reused, the parts drop in cost(and as a consequence the price) as the quantity demanded increases.

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007  2:10 PM
...
With ELV's, the intent is simple/cheap only.
...

That's a good goal, isn't it?  (sometimes it also means safer for the folks riding it)

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #46 on: 02/24/2007 09:43 pm »
Exactly the problem with an RLV is demand. The idea with the Shuttle was to drive all launch demand through it by fiat. It would improve, where the Saturn V couldn't.  But this is a bitter, disfunctional, and invalid way of generating demand - it distorts accounting and management functions, because you are suspending rules to attempt to generate a time period to allow a radical shift in economics. You presume that you've got the right vehicle, the right flight schedule, and that what comes together is a altered industry that constantly enhances this doubled advantage. This is the theory.

If we just use ELV market demand experience, RLV economics cannot compete, because they must be more costly, yet by being unproven as reusable, they add no advantage - only loss. Even if we assume a ten launch series and budget for substantial reuse, we don't approach politically definitive economic improvement, because of the learning costs are factored in, and the cost accounting to prove the advantage itself gets distorted by the horizontal re manufacturing processes needed.

True RLVs might not be obtainable. ELVs made out of simple/cheap may be the best, if not only goal in LV's. But if you could do true RLV's, esp. simple and cheap, they'd beat ELV's hands down.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #47 on: 02/25/2007 10:45 am »
Quote
Thorny - 24/2/2007  6:49 PM

In spaceflight, as in most endeavors, it is foolish to proclaim any design as "safe".
People seem to have missed the 'so far as these things go' that I was oh-so-careful to put in my previous post! :)

Quote
There have been two fatal accidents, two non-fatal failures, and several near-misses (one as recently as 2003) in the Soyuz program. Is Soyuz safer, or just luckier?
I don't know. Is the Shuttle more dangerous, or just unlucky?

I assumed that everyone agreed with Griffin that having the crew compartment next to, rather than above, the propellant was a bad idea, as was not having an escape system. Apparently not.

But even if we accept (which I don't) that the Soyuz and Shuttle records are statistically equivalent, it still has to be accepted that using the Saturn V rather than the Shuttle to build the ISS would have required far fewer manned flights, and therefore - statistically - there should have been fewer casualites (as well as being cheaper and taking less time).

Quote
JonSBerndt - 23/2/2007  10:53 PM

Did you mean: "Just because an RLV is available doesn't mean that flight rates will increase".  [?]
If Jim did, then I agree with him. But I also agree with...

Quote
On the surface, it's hard to comprehend why someone would invest money in developing a system for which there was little perceived current need. There are already plenty of launch vehicles fielded. On the other hand, if you can offer a service for far less than existing providers can, then you have something unique to offer. Also, I have read that there are potential payloads to be developed, but are not currently, because the launch prices are too high. So, there is potential for the market to grow in predictable and even unpredictable ways.
The problem is, for a RLV to offer a far cheaper service, it has to have a high flight rate. It's very chicken and egg. At the moment, I don't see there being any demand that would make an RLV cost-efficient. And the only demand I do see that would eventually reach the required level is space tourism. I suspect we'll get a successful RLV by the sub-orbital guys gradually extending into orbit.

Quote
I'm not convinced that developing an RLV specifically is as important as simply developing cheaper access to space.
No. The point is cheaper access to space. At the moment, for orbital space, this means ELVs. (Although it is important to note that the Ares launchers are not completely ELVs, though that shouldn't be exaggerated!)

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #48 on: 02/25/2007 03:46 pm »
Some questions:1-if program were continued Saturn-V could have been more cheaper For exemple with reusable first stage? 2-Shuttle-B block II  Payload is same of Saturn-V? 3-Shuttle-B block II is more cheap of Saturn-V? In yours opinion the real mistake is not  have constructed Shuttle-B and Shuttle-B block II? http://www.astronautix.com/hires/zsjucomp.jpg

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #49 on: 02/25/2007 09:46 pm »
Quote
Ducati94 - 21/2/2007  7:40 AM

The Saturn V flew 13 times with a max for 4 a year. The Saturn IB flew 7 times. What would be the effect of a longer life span on the program?

Just keeping Saturn IB alive would have kept J-2 in production and would have supported a lively production line for H-1 type engines, which would have lowered costs for Atlas and Thor/Delta.  A longer, steady production run would have lowered per-launch costs for Saturn IB as well.  In addition, Saturn IB could have served as a means for NASA to gradually invest in liquid propulsion system improvements.  A modernized Saturn IB could have been the Ares I that NASA is only now starting to develop.

A lot of money would have been saved over the years if Saturn IB/Apollo had been the core of NASA's human spaceflight program rather than Shuttle.  Part of the savings would have come from not having had to develop shuttle.  Another part would have come from the fact that all of those satellites would have stayed on more efficient ELVs rather than having been launched by shuttle.  Finally, savings would have accrued from the fact that NASA would have been forced to run a more modest human spaceflight program if it had used Saturn IB/Apollo rather than shuttle.  

 - Ed Kyle

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #50 on: 02/26/2007 09:43 pm »
There were a lot of design studies of Saturn to try to go the "evolved expendable" route. The pushback from it was "not enough", plus engineers hated to veer from proven designs. The RLV approach was "something different".  The desire to avoid billion dollar launches while spending an uncertain amount of time learning how to live for months/years in space, gaining the experience and learning how to deal with closed ecosystems and radiation, meant that "something different" might be good.

Perhaps that was the reason for Saturn costing uncertainty - they didn't know when they'd be going back, so politcally there was no advantage in retaining Saturn V, because who could defend putting money into a program with no end/beginning in sight.

Dr. Douglas D. Osheroff , Nobel prize winner, on the CAIB, spoke at Stanford that he thought the biggest mistake was in losing the ability to still fly Saturn. He was practically breaking down about it as he spoke.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #51 on: 02/26/2007 10:21 pm »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 26/2/2007  4:43 PM
Dr. Douglas D. Osheroff , Nobel prize winner, on the CAIB, spoke at Stanford that he thought the biggest mistake was in losing the ability to still fly Saturn. He was practically breaking down about it as he spoke.

Not to be Vulcan about it, but why didn't he do his utmost to do the same thing for the existing administration or a Congressional committee at the time involved?

Hindisght is 20/20 - to proclaim you were right when everyone else was wrong without evidence you did everything possible to try and change what is currently happening is bogus, IMO.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #52 on: 02/26/2007 10:33 pm »
Quote
MKremer - 26/2/2007  5:21 PM

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 26/2/2007  4:43 PM
Dr. Douglas D. Osheroff , Nobel prize winner, on the CAIB, spoke at Stanford that he thought the biggest mistake was in losing the ability to still fly Saturn. He was practically breaking down about it as he spoke.

Not to be Vulcan about it, but why didn't he do his utmost to do the same thing for the existing administration or a Congressional committee at the time involved?

I think there was little anyone could have done.  The cutbacks that shut down Saturn production were initiated in 1968.  That was the year of Tet, of the King and RFK assassinations, the year of massive casualties in Vietnam, the year when LBJ withdrew from the election process, the year when U.S. cities burned while riots were underway in the streets, the year when Mayor Daley's Chicago Police Dept busted heads in Grant Park and on Michigan Avenue on live TV, while the "whole world was watching".  Back then, with the world seemingly falling apart around them, the public had turned decidedly against big space spending.  During an election year, NASA had no political support.  Saturn V had to go.  I've always thought that Saturn IB could have been saved, but NASA chose to sacrifice it first in an effort to keep a dim hope alive for Saturn V/Apollo.  That's how I've interpreted events at any rate.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #53 on: 02/26/2007 11:22 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 26/2/2007  4:33 PM

I've always thought that Saturn IB could have been saved, but NASA chose to sacrifice it first in an effort to keep a dim hope alive for Saturn V/Apollo.  That's how I've interpreted events at any rate.  

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, I'm in total agreement here.  I feel that the Apollo CSM and its Saturn IB launch vehicle gave the US a unique capability to continue human spaceflight in a cost-effective manner after the moon missions ended.  In an era when keeping pace with the Soviets was all-important, an Apollo Applications Program using the Saturn IB and Apollo CSM could have allowed the US to keep pace with the Soviet Salyut program.  The money spent on shuttle development would have been saved, and perhaps spent on a long-term effort to develop the spaceplane concept through a series of prototypes like X-24C.  We're now paying dearly for that mistake by developing Orion and Ares I.  While Orion and Ares I are more capable than Apollo and Saturn IB, the older system was "good enough," and it was already bought & paid for.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #54 on: 02/27/2007 12:45 am »
NASA was right to sacrifice Saturn 1B to save Saturn V. Of any of the LV's the Saturn V had the most chance of making it through. Because small or large didn't matter - what mattered was continuing the program. In the end, all the cost base of either of these LV's killed all, so the belief you could have saved Saturn 1B isn't practical. The only hope was to stretch things out, but again the cost base still killed that. And yes, you could have done it with a single vehicle, though not ideal. The point is that budget pragmatics can't be assumed apart from the situation of the times.

And yes, the Vietnam war, just like the Iraq war now, has a greater impact on NASA than all the rest put together.

Well into the mid 70's, many still beleived it could be brought back. As the Shuttle took form, they gave up hope.

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #55 on: 02/27/2007 09:32 am »
Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007  2:43 PM
...

But if you could do true RLV's, esp. simple and cheap, they'd beat ELV's hands down.

That's the thing, IMHO, even *that* is disputable as we have no data points.  And as such - an assumption.  We need a simple and cheap RLV compete against a simple and cheap ELV* in the market we *do have* to prove anything one way or another.  (sorry for perhaps a truism)  Thanks for an interesting discussion to all.

*[edit] or even a 'partial' ELV/RLV, some things are cheaper saved, some are [cheaper] discarded -- I'm not a pundit.

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #56 on: 02/27/2007 11:34 am »
Quote
lmike - 27/2/2007  4:32 AM

Quote
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007  2:43 PM
...

But if you could do true RLV's, esp. simple and cheap, they'd beat ELV's hands down.

That's the thing, IMHO, even *that* is disputable as we have no data points.  And as such - an assumption.  We need a simple and cheap RLV compete against a simple and cheap ELV* in the market we *do have* to prove anything one way or another.  (sorry for perhaps a truism)  Thanks for an interesting discussion to all.

*[edit] or even a 'partial' ELV/RLV, some things are cheaper saved, some are [cheaper] discarded -- I'm not a pundit.

I've seen people support RLVs using cute "sound-bytes" like "only children throw things away after using them once", or "we shouldn't make launch vehicles like disposable razors". To me, these kind of statements are like the one: "If  a "black box" is supposed to survive a plane crash, why not make the whole aircraft like that?" These statements don't stand up logically to a closer inspection. In some markets, disposability is the goal. Look, for instance, at cameras - I think I've even seen disposable video recorders, recently. In a more relavant application, aircraft have used unrecoverable drop tanks for a long time.

As RLVs go, I've thought that the approach suggested by Wes Kelly (a friend of mine) in his Stellar-J vehicle looks good (see: http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter/sep05/sep05.pdf, and http://www.stellar-j.com/).

Jon


Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #57 on: 02/27/2007 02:34 pm »
Saturn 1-B would have been put in orbit wet workshops for a AAP 1974-80s program.Maybe with Big-Gemini instead Apollo.

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #58 on: 02/27/2007 02:37 pm »
But what about Saturn-V / Shuttle-C ?
Quote
Some questions:1-if program were continued Saturn-V could have been more cheaper For exemple with reusable first stage? 2-Shuttle-C block II Payload is same of Saturn-V? 3-Shuttle-C block II is more cheap of Saturn-V? In yours opinion the real mistake is not have constructed Shuttle-B and Shuttle-C block II? http://www.astronautix.com/hires/zsjucomp.jpg


  • Guest
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #59 on: 02/27/2007 11:21 pm »
Quote
carmelo - 27/2/2007 9:34 AM Saturn 1-B would have been put in orbit wet workshops for a AAP 1974-80s program.Maybe with Big-Gemini instead Apollo.
Nobody believes cost numbers unless flown and current. Wet workshop was a great hypothetical concept, but a quick retreat to a dry one given contingencies. As it was Skylab impressed people with its surprises both on launch and in orbit. Could you imagine the fear of something breaking loose on launch, and going into a turbopump? Or after pressurization, discovering contamination/destruction due to trapped propellant? OOPS!

Quote
lmike - 27/2/2007 4:32 AM That's the thing, IMHO, even *that* is disputable as we have no data points.
Absolutely - RLV's are just theory. But it you don't build them ... you won't get data points.

Quote
JonSBerndt - 27/2/2007 6:34 AM I've seen people support RLVs using cute "sound-bytes" like "only children throw things away after using them once", or "we shouldn't make launch vehicles like disposable razors"
Couldn't agree more. Heard these in the 70's as Shuttle advocates sneered at Saturn. While listening to my friend testing shuttle tiles that were so fragile, they routinely BROKE in the lab with normal handling. Look at today's hail damage...

Hype aside, RLV is massively more difficult that ELV - which is why there is little history. If you drink this Koolaid, you kill your ELV economics, because we're zero-sum in aerospace, thus Shuttle ate Saturn. Likewise if you play ELV games with an RLV, like with the ET enhancements.

RLV hits across the industry - its an attempt to jump technologies into the future.  Shooting at a moving target 10-15 years in the future.

In short, IMHO the big mistake was not refining Saturn V to get $800-900M per launch 1-2 per year, and pursuing RLV at a slower pace. Putting all the wood behind one arrow always sounds great, but everytime NASA becomes dependant on a single project, watch out! Once we had Gemini backstopping Apollo, one way or another the goal of the Moon was assured. When everything depended on Shuttle, things could grind to a halt .. and did.

Thanks for the discussion.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #60 on: 02/28/2007 11:58 am »
Why is everybody assuming RLV:s have to be super advanced and have thin margins or be extremely hard...

The biggest problem in my view for the RLV:s is the chicken-and-egg kind, lack of hard market for high flight rates.
Their operating model and cost structure is (well, should be) different from ELV:s.

Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #61 on: 02/28/2007 01:02 pm »
With the current materials technology  RLVs are super advanced and have thin margins or be extremely hard... to survive the reentry environment and have the capability to deliver a usable payload.

Offline AnlaShok

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #62 on: 02/28/2007 07:29 pm »
People seem to forget that Saturn V and even IB were very expensive compared to the Shuttle flying 60 flights a year. Those were the options in the 70s. NASA had to stop the Apollo program, so there would not have been any budget for anything a Saturn V would have launched. So NASA would have gone like the Russians, or soon the Chinese, with LEO flights in a capsule and maybe a small space station.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #63 on: 03/02/2007 08:41 pm »
With the winged Saturn concept ( www.up-ship.com ) the Saturn V tooling would have been preserved at least.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #64 on: 03/04/2007 08:25 pm »
Quote
Ducati94 - 28/2/2007  2:02 PM

With the current materials technology  RLVs are super advanced and have thin margins or be extremely hard... to survive the reentry environment and have the capability to deliver a usable payload.

Well, the second stages might have to be somewhat advanced but less with less crossrange requirements. The surface loading is small if you enter with empty tanks.

Anyways, first stages don't need that good thermal protection. Of course you could tune your stage sizes and flight profile to lessen it even more... And it's different for two stages to LEO vs two stages to GTO. Depends on your business model a lot of course.

The Kistler K-1 doesn't seem super-advanced to me, of course it hasn't flown yet.

Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #65 on: 03/04/2007 10:58 pm »
You are right. I was thinking SSTO but a TSTO the 1st Stage is not has hard to make work.  Kistler has been working on their LV for some time. Lots of deployments ( which always drive cost) has to happen to make the flight work.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #66 on: 03/04/2007 11:36 pm »
Yeah, RLV doesn't mean SSTO.

Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #67 on: 03/05/2007 08:31 pm »
True but more stages cost more money and the higher up they go the more expensive they become.

Offline bolun

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
  • Europe
  • Liked: 970
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #68 on: 04/11/2011 08:08 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.html

Quote
With NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature.

Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #69 on: 04/11/2011 08:20 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.html

Quote
With NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature.

Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.


And the point here is......?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #70 on: 04/11/2011 08:27 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.html

Quote
With NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature.

Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.


Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

Using this particular accounting method will do Saturn V no favors... at $150 billion in today's dollars, and 27 total Saturn I/IB/V launches in the Apollo program (Skylab and ASTP are not included in the $150B figure), the average cost per Saturn launch would be $5.55 billion. Certainly the Saturn V would be more than that, I/IB less.
JRF

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #71 on: 04/11/2011 08:30 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.html

Quote
With NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature.

Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.


Here's the piece in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7341/full/472038d.html

There's an interesting chart showing both the cost per year and the number of launches each year. They apparently did a similar analysis about 20 years ago.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #72 on: 04/11/2011 08:42 pm »
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.html

Quote
With NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature.

Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.


Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

Using this particular accounting method will do Saturn V no favors... at $150 billion in today's dollars, and 27 total Saturn I/IB/V launches in the Apollo program (Skylab and ASTP are not included in the $150B figure), the average cost per Saturn launch would be $5.55 billion. Certainly the Saturn V would be more than that, I/IB less.

Another variation for something that was likely posted and will be used by others to get all "anti-shuttle" yet again, so here's a little perspective: 

From 2011-2041, a home buyer paid about $386,000 for his or her "$200,000 home", or about $35 dollars a night (but not including property taxes, insurance, electric, gas, water, etc).   

Was it worth it?  Certainly some would be very quick to tell you "no" for their own reasons I'm sure.  Yet are they absolutely informed of the benefits the home owner had? 
« Last Edit: 04/11/2011 08:54 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #73 on: 04/11/2011 09:03 pm »
How would you address the demand side of the question?

Not sure of a general answer to this question, but the tactic SpaceX is using is to first have a launcher affordable enough to fill the niche left empty by the loss of the Delta II; this market when combined with ISS (and hopefully Bigelow) supply and personnel flights will provide a steady source of business for the Falcon 9.

The second prong of their business tactic is to undercut and cannibalize the world launch market. That's the strategy behind Falcon Heavy; at $2.2k/kg they come in at half the price of the cheapest launch service in the market today while still being able to tout American expertise, technology and quality.

The two prongs of this strategy should provide a steady market for their launch services.

Re: Saturn vs. Shuttle

In an ideal world, you would love to have both systems operating side by side. However, that would require a Pentagon-sized budget to do this. Both are experimental systems, so you can't expect economical performance out of either. Shuttle in theory was to ramp up to 24+ launches a year to reach its economical sweet spot, but that never happened.

For me, the great tragedy of the Apollo cancellation was the loss of the F-1 and J-2 engines, and of the CSM. The Challenger and probably Columbia accidents would have been avoided with a RP-1 fueled F-1 based launch stack. The great tragedy of the Shuttle cancellation is the loss of our manned LEO capability and its space-based repair ability.

Going forward, there are some lessons we need to learn not to repeat the worst of these systems:

1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,
2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,
3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #74 on: 04/11/2011 10:51 pm »
1.Not sure of a general answer to this question, but the tactic SpaceX is using is to first have a launcher affordable enough to fill the niche left empty by the loss of the Delta II; this market when combined with ISS (and hopefully Bigelow) supply and personnel flights will provide a steady source of business for the Falcon 9.

2.The second prong of their business tactic is to undercut and cannibalize the world launch market. That's the strategy behind Falcon Heavy; at $2.2k/kg they come in at half the price of the cheapest launch service in the market today while still being able to tout American expertise, technology and quality.

A.Going forward, there are some lessons we need to learn not to repeat the worst of these systems:

1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,
2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,
3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.

1.  They have yet to get any missions in this class

2.  They haven't come in at that price yet

A.
1.  Not true, see the subsidized operations of ESA, RSA and China.
2.  Where is the proof? Spacex is only getting niche contracts.
3.  Not proven

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #75 on: 04/12/2011 12:18 am »
1.Not sure of a general answer to this question, but the tactic SpaceX is using is to first have a launcher affordable enough to fill the niche left empty by the loss of the Delta II; this market when combined with ISS (and hopefully Bigelow) supply and personnel flights will provide a steady source of business for the Falcon 9.

2.The second prong of their business tactic is to undercut and cannibalize the world launch market. That's the strategy behind Falcon Heavy; at $2.2k/kg they come in at half the price of the cheapest launch service in the market today while still being able to tout American expertise, technology and quality.

A.Going forward, there are some lessons we need to learn not to repeat the worst of these systems:

1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,
2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,
3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.

1.  They have yet to get any missions in this class

2.  They haven't come in at that price yet

A.
1.  Not true, see the subsidized operations of ESA, RSA and China.
2.  Where is the proof? Spacex is only getting niche contracts.
3.  Not proven

1) true. The issue is that according to this article SpaceX needs to meet is:

"The current certification standard calls for a launch vehicle to accumulate three successful flights in a common configuration, including at least two consecutive successful missions."

2) no, not yet. However, they have the correct price point and we now have a metric by which to measure them by.

A.
1) RSA needs to find outside funding to develop launchers and use Soyuz, so I'm going to set them aside as they will starve once American business starts encroaching on their turf. As SpaceX's price point is at least half of ESA's and China's, if SpaceX can execute then both ESA and the Chinese will be forced to either increase subsidies or wall off their domestic markets as the Americans have done and yield the global market to SpaceX.

2) yup, niche contracts so far, but enough to keep them going and building. That's ok in this phase of a start-up.

3) yup, not proven. SpaceX has to keep executing at their current level and avoid mistakes. Some on NSF have suggested ten successful flights of Falcon 9 is what it's going to take to prove their mettle. However, given that a few years ago no one in this business gave a start-up a snowball's chance of success, they have come a long way.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #76 on: 04/12/2011 01:00 am »
1.  It isn't just certification that has prevented Spacex getting missions

2.  F9 is not meeting its price goals

A.
1. You are ignoring Proton. 

2. They are past the phase of startup

3.  Their current level isn't going to get them there

A whole lot of if's strung together

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #77 on: 04/12/2011 01:10 am »
SpaceX and roscosmos ect have nothing to do with the costs of Saturn vs space shuttle

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #78 on: 04/12/2011 01:18 am »
1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,
2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,
3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.

1.  There is more to spaceflight than a rocket launch.  Some launches have been treated like this for years where and when appropriate.  You cannot call to-and-from space transport (of either cargo or crew) as a commodity because it simply does not exist in that manner to take advantage in that way.

2.  This does not even make sense.  The term "defense contractors" implies they are under contract to the government, specifically the DOD, where these contractors are responsible to doing what the customer specifies....regardless of how often the scope changes impacting cost and schedule.  "Open market solutions" for to-and-from transport again do not exist on any measurable scale where data points can be gathered to accurately make such a claim. 

3.  Of course it is possible.  The rest is pure speculation because it is and will vary from company-to-company depending on a host of factors. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #79 on: 04/12/2011 01:20 am »
SpaceX and roscosmos ect have nothing to do with the costs of Saturn vs space shuttle

Agreed, not sure why a three-year old thread is getting revived so people can rehash the *off-topic* parts of it...
JRF

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #80 on: 11/03/2012 01:25 am »
The thing that's SO sad about Saturn V and IB is that basically production was stopped as soon as the capability existed... such a tiny number of vehicles were built and flown (or remained unflown as the museum pieces in Texas, Alabama, and Florida attest) that of COURSE costs on per-vehicle, per mission basis were enormous.  If we had flown 135 Saturn V's or Saturn IB's, the costs would have quite probably been at the very least competitive with Shuttle, if not less than Shuttle.  If a decent yet modest cost program had been implemented to streamline production and reduce costs, simplifying the production of F-1's and the vehicles structures, and applied economies of scale, I think Saturn would have been very cost competitive with shuttle on a per launch basis, and they would have blown shuttle out of the water when it comes to payload performance. 

Of course, payloads for 135 Saturn V's isn't going to happen, but if you look at the Saturn IB, lofting a station logistics and crew vehicle of whatever type (either a simplified Apollo follow on, Big G type vehicle, or a lifting body or shuttle type gliding vehicle (much smaller and easier to maintain, refurbish, and turn around between launches), between the two we could probably have had a series of small space stations (Skylab and similar follow-ons) and a large ISS type space station eventually (constructed Mir-like from a handful of large modules rather than from multiple smaller modules lofted on dozens of shuttle launches), and dozens upon dozens of logistics and crew transfer flights.  All that, and preserve the deep space capabilities of an HLV as well, for when/if the desire to do deep space exploration came around again...

All that development time, effort, and money that was poured into Apollo and the Saturn rockets was thrown away JUST when it was starting to come into its own... It'd be similar to spending nearly a hundred million bucks to design, test, and develop an all new sports car, create tooling, build factories, engine and transmission plants, and create a massive assembly line to produce the cars, and then build a few dozen cars before scrapping the whole operation and starting over from scratch... That's basically what happened.  SO, OF COURSE those cars would end up costing over a hundred thousand a piece... BUT, if you mass produce them, you can get the unit price down to a price point that is affordable enough to stimulate sales and still make a profit.  Saturn was canceled at JUST the point where it would have STARTED to get some economies of scale... the development was already paid for... the costs of the infrastructure and the production capacity, the research and development to produce functional and safe engines and components had been done... the main thing was to get the cost down through simplification and streamlining (like say of F-1 production) and getting some economies of scale through actual use. 

SO, based on what has become known to be either extremely optimistic estimates or downright deliberate ignoring of the realities of launch needs, payloads, and costs of shuttle development and operation, through a twisting and turning of compromises and overblown promises and disregarding "inconvenient facts" and making overly optimistic projections, we ended up with the shuttle we've just retired after 30 years.  One that had basically no chance of ever meeting the expectation for it from day one.  It wasn't by accident, but by a series of deliberately made choices and compromises, that seemed perfectly logical at the time, yet had "unforeseen" consequences that impacted the entire system and made it incapable of meeting the expectations set for it... and the same sort of decision making process led directly to the loss of both the Challenger and Columbia. 

THIS is the exact sort of thing we need to avoid going forward.  Unrealistic numbers and assumptions have been used in everthing from ESAS, to Ares I safety numbers, to Constellation costs, and now with SLS... If we're going to produce a vehicle that will have a chance to be any more cost-efficient or capable as the shuttle or Saturns, then we have to HONESTLY assess the costs, the flight rates, and the missions and their requirements.  So far, SLS seems to be suffering from a definite fuzziness of what exactly the mission will be, let alone the requirements actually needed to accomplish it. 

I guess time will tell... it certainly has about the Saturn and the shuttle...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V
« Reply #81 on: 11/09/2012 09:48 pm »
I'm fairly certain that a good number of people have read this already, but I think it's worth a mention.

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/arosaway.htm

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1