Author Topic: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH  (Read 5434 times)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
  • Liked: 2806
  • Likes Given: 3925
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #20 on: 03/01/2017 10:22 PM »
As such one could argue that, if  for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.
While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.
This statement is really what your entire argument rests on, and the numbers are obviously completely made up.

The SpaceX number is obviously wrong, because you are basically claiming that 80% of money paid to SpaceX goes to aluminum imports and similar, which is completely untrue.

Also, because of multiple stages of trickle down the total increase can be greater than 100%, but your description is incomplete and ignores this. As an example, NASA spending in 1987 overall had a multiplier effect of 2.1, and some specific industries were higher such as electronic components with a multiplier of 5.9. (Your .92 of "general economy for SLS" would mean a multiplier of 1.92) Source.

SpaceX/EM has stated that raw materials (aluminum mostly) constitute 1% of the price of a launch -- the other 99% is people and machines, plus other raw materials, some parts, etc.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #21 on: 04/05/2017 02:22 PM »
America has Bauxite to make aluminum.  Most aluminum in America is from recycled material, not imported.  Bauxite is still mined to make up the difference.  We actually have more aluminum than iron for steel making.  Also, most steel in America is made from recycled cars. 

When I was in economics, for every dollar you spent, it went around about 7 times before it got back to you.  If you buy a foreign made product, that dollar may not come back.  If you buy a grill made in China, that Chinese may not buy something American, but buy something made in Germany.  Money didn't come back to create jobs. 

If SpaceX (made in America) can launch payloads cheaper than SLS, then NASA, instead of spending $1 billion per SLS launch to put up 100 ton $500 million dollar payload, just buy 4 Falcon heavy's to put up 200 tons for for the same price.  They spend the savings on the components to launch and have say a moon station in a couple of years instead of a little outpost in 4 years.  Spend the money on SEP space tug, a reusable moon lander, a moon space station, a fuel depot.  All of these things have to be made somewhere on earth to be launched. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12663
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3459
  • Likes Given: 576
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #22 on: 04/05/2017 04:58 PM »
Dare I mention, in context to the previous post, that the SLS core stage panels are being fabricated in Germany?  That the ICPS LH2 tank comes from Japan?  That the RL10 extension comes from Europe?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/05/2017 05:00 PM by edkyle99 »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7177
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2794
  • Likes Given: 835
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #23 on: 04/05/2017 06:01 PM »
Dare I mention, in context to the previous post, that the SLS core stage panels are being fabricated in Germany?  That the ICPS LH2 tank comes from Japan?  That the RL10 extension comes from Europe?

 - Ed Kyle
There is no such thing as an all-American rocket. That applies to Falcon 9, Delta IV(H) and Antares as well. Much like Ariane 5 is not an all-Europe rocket (and Ariane 6 won't be an all-Europe rocket either).

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #24 on: 04/06/2017 03:58 PM »
Assuming we are talking about economic impact to the U.S. economy, and not global economic impact, an important point that's being missed here is that launch vehicles that are commercially successful on the global launch market have a near term economic impact that U.S. government-only used vehicles do not.  Specifically, successfully commercial launchers bring "new" money to the U.S. economy when a foreign government or company buys a launch on the commercial vehicle that otherwise would have gone to an overseas provider.  Arguably, a similar principle applies when a U.S. launch company wins a competitive contract for a domestic commercial launch that may have otherwise gone overseas.

Since SpaceX claims to have secured at least one commercial launch contract for FH, you could argue that FH will/may have a larger economic impact on the U.S. economy in the near term.   

In the longer term, it gets much, much harder to estimate.  There is no demonstrated commercial market for a launch vehicle in the class of SLS. The arguments that some markets may evolve for such a class of launcher are highly speculative and not (purely in my opinion) particularly compelling.   

Now without turning this into an SLS vs FH thread (of which there are far too many already), it's arguable that there is a (potentially very large) long term economic return from investing in technologies and capabilities that are useful for public policy reasons and do not yet have a commercial use but that may open up new markets and commercial opportunities in the future.  An example is the space domain is the ISS.  The ISS is providing (among other things) an initial market for crewed transportation services to and from LEO, and a test bed for pursuing research areas and technologies that may prove to have commercial value later.  The ISS will almost certainly never be commercially viable, but a commercial follow on could be, and research findings could lead to huge returns far down the road that are impossible to predict now, and perhaps commercial human spaceflight opportunities will open up in LEO because starliner and dragon have been developed and are available.  Over decades, the economic returns could far exceed the substantial investment in ISS. 

So there is an argument that a super heavy lift vehicle like SLS could play a similar role in establishing new markets and capabilities in deep space.  It's of course arguable that FH could as well, but I would strongly suggest, or even beg, leaving the discussion of the extent to which an SLS class vehicle vs a FH class vehicle is needed for such an endeavour to the other threads where it has already been beaten to death.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2129
  • Likes Given: 2565
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #25 on: 04/06/2017 09:35 PM »
Since SpaceX claims to have secured at least one commercial launch contract for FH, you could argue that FH will/may have a larger economic impact on the U.S. economy in the near term.

Future Falcon Heavy missions (paying customers), in alphabetical order:

ARABSAT (ARABSAT 6A)
INMARSAT
INTELSAT
US AIR FORCE (STP-2)
VIASAT

So three foreign companies, one U.S. Government, and one U.S. company.
 
Quote
In the longer term, it gets much, much harder to estimate.  There is no demonstrated commercial market for a launch vehicle in the class of SLS. The arguments that some markets may evolve for such a class of launcher are highly speculative and not (purely in my opinion) particularly compelling.

No demonstrated market, and even if there was NASA could not, by law, compete against the private sector.

Plus, no company is going to willingly risk committing to using the SLS.  There is a reason the USAF won't depend on NASA, and it applies to private sector too - NASA doesn't control it's own destiny, and operating a transportation system is not one of it's core strengths.

Quote
Now without turning this into an SLS vs FH thread (of which there are far too many already), it's arguable that there is a (potentially very large) long term economic return from investing in technologies and capabilities that are useful for public policy reasons and do not yet have a commercial use but that may open up new markets and commercial opportunities in the future.

If the SLS will only be used for U.S. Government use, and specifically for only NASA use, then that means it won't be an efficient use of taxpayer money, especially if there are alternative solutions that could use the private sector to achieve the same result but at a lower overall cost.

In other words, that the same money being used for the SLS could have a higher ROI being spent in some other part of the government (i.e. DoD, NIH, DoE, etc.).

I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market.  However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.  The SLS and Orion are, if anything, competitors to the private sector, not partners.

Also, for the private sector to benefit from what the government is spending money on, or to leverage government capabilities, there needs to be clarity of purpose and direction from the government.  The private sector needs dependability, especially since the lead times for anything space related are so long, both for the building of space hardware and the operational lifetimes.  And our government has not had a cohesive plan for either the SLS or the Orion.

Bottom line is that spending on the SLS today is basically equivalent to spending the money anywhere else in the government, with possibly a less than average ROI overall.  And this is based on the lack of an overall plan for how the SLS can help grow U.S. GDP in the future, whereas what SpaceX is doing is already growing U.S. GDP and looks to only increase that in the future.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #26 on: 04/12/2017 02:07 PM »
I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market.  However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2129
  • Likes Given: 2565
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #27 on: 04/12/2017 02:31 PM »
I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market.  However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.

This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.

You are responding to a topic on a different thread.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #28 on: 04/12/2017 03:31 PM »
I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market.  However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.

This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.

You are responding to a topic on a different thread.

I know what thread i'm responding to. the point you were arguing in THIS thread is that SLS is not being planned to be used in a way that creates markets for commercial opportunities.  That isn't true. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7835
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2107
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #29 on: 04/12/2017 03:50 PM »
The dollar spent on SpaceX may have the same trickle down effect as a dollar spent on SLS, but you get far more bang for the buck. 

Also, Because Europe went into depression BEFORE America and therefore didn't buy American products.  This helped cause the Great Depression.  Germany went in to depression by 1924, bringing down Europe. 

Domestically produced products create more jobs.  For every manufacturing factory, it helps create at least 4 support jobs.  SpaceX gets a better handle on things producing them in house and in America.  Chinese products are crap compared to former American made by the same companies.  I've older and have been around longer.  In my opinion, America, Japan, Germany, and usually most European countries make better products.  We make the best Rockets, hands down.  Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta IV, previously the shuttle, Titan, and Saturn IB and Saturn V.
If you are "that old" then you should remember when "made in Japan" meant as you say "crap"... Product quality is "not static" regardless of the nation..
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2129
  • Likes Given: 2565
Re: spaceflight economic trickle-down - SLS vs. FH
« Reply #30 on: 04/12/2017 08:52 PM »
I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market.  However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.

This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.

You are responding to a topic on a different thread.

I know what thread i'm responding to. the point you were arguing in THIS thread is that SLS is not being planned to be used in a way that creates markets for commercial opportunities.  That isn't true.

Let's remember that the SLS is only a transportation system, and in this example the SLS transports the DSG and it's elements to space, and will be used to support the DSG by also transporting the Orion spacecraft to space (which itself is also only a transportation system).

So really what you are stating is that the DSG has the potential to create a market, not the SLS.

But since the DSG could be created without the SLS using commercial or private sector contracting services, the NASA-owned SLS is, if anything, removing work from the commercial marketplace.

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags: