Orion Costs

[Lurker Steve]

Is there a ballpark cost on how much each Orion will cost to manufacture, after the R&D is complete ? How much does the low anticipated flight rate factor into manufacturing cost ?

Would it cost significantly less if we manufactured 3 or 4 per year, instead of the anticipated 1 every other year ?

[Robotbeat]

Is there a ballpark cost on how much each Orion will cost to manufacture, after the R&D is complete ? How much does the low anticipated flight rate factor into manufacturing cost ?

Would it cost significantly less if we manufactured 3 or 4 per year, instead of the anticipated 1 every other year ?

I remember hearing around $.7-$1 billion (not counting launch), though I'd prefer a source as well (so count that figure I just said as a rumor). It's supposed to be expendable, now (at least structurally).

[TomH]

Is there a ballpark cost on how much each Orion will cost to manufacture, after the R&D is complete ? How much does the low anticipated flight rate factor into manufacturing cost ?

Would it cost significantly less if we manufactured 3 or 4 per year, instead of the anticipated 1 every other year ?

The one every other year is for the SLS launch vehicle. The MPCV Orion is designed for a lifetime of 10 flights.

[pathfinder_01]

Is there a ballpark cost on how much each Orion will cost to manufacture, after the R&D is complete ? How much does the low anticipated flight rate factor into manufacturing cost ?

Would it cost significantly less if we manufactured 3 or 4 per year, instead of the anticipated 1 every other year ?

The one every other year is for the SLS launch vehicle. The MPCV Orion is designed for a lifetime of 10 flights.

Unless things have changed, current Orion is disposable. They wanted 10 flights but that went out when they choose water landing over landing on land.

It might cost less, but it will total more which isn't a good thing.

[RocketmanUS]

Apollo CSM
$77m per unit , in the 60's and early 70's time frame
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm

In 2012 dollars $528m
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Orion at only one unit a year that could probably cost more like $.7b to $1b as was posted above.

If they have a long shelf life it might be better to make multiply units per year for future use to keep the per unit cost down. If they need more then run another batch, with possible upgrade at that time.

[spectre9]

Reusability increases mass.

It's not a good thing for this spacecraft because the mission isn't to go up and down from LEO. It's subject to cosmic radiation and high speed reentry.

Reusable beyond LEO capsule is something that's a long way in the future even if SpaceX reckons they can do it (please don't buy every piece of spin they say and apply it universally).

[Blackjax]

It's not a good thing for this spacecraft because the mission isn't to go up and down from LEO. It's subject to cosmic radiation and high speed reentry.

Could you outline what mission you think this is likely to be used for where it isn't effectively serving principally as a trans-atmospheric craft to get to an actual spacecraft or from that spacecraft back to earth?

As far as I can tell, there is really only one (orbiting the moon), and that isn't exactly what most people are talking about when they talk about beyond LEO exploration.  So actually yes, it's main mission would be to go up and down from LEO.

[TomH]

Is there a ballpark cost on how much each Orion will cost to manufacture, after the R&D is complete ? How much does the low anticipated flight rate factor into manufacturing cost ?

Would it cost significantly less if we manufactured 3 or 4 per year, instead of the anticipated 1 every other year ?

The one every other year is for the SLS launch vehicle. The MPCV Orion is designed for a lifetime of 10 flights.

Unless things have changed, current Orion is disposable. They wanted 10 flights but that went out when they choose water landing over landing on land.

It might cost less, but it will total more which isn't a good thing.

Thanks.  Somehow I missed that change. I was wondering how they were going to deal with exposure to sea water.

[A_M_Swallow]

Could you outline what mission you think this is likely to be used for where it isn't effectively serving principally as a trans-atmospheric craft to get to an actual spacecraft or from that spacecraft back to earth?

As far as I can tell, there is really only one (orbiting the moon), and that isn't exactly what most people are talking about when they talk about beyond LEO exploration.  So actually yes, it's main mission would be to go up and down from LEO.

As the bridge of the NEA spacecraft.

The early Orion was designed to fly the Altair lunar lander by remote control.  If those controls are still present then Orion could control some other spacecraft.

A 3 part spacecraft - Orion, habitation module and thruster module including fuel tanks.  Since the Orion has the navigation aids such as star trackers the habitat and thruster modules do not need them, making the modules simpler.

That is a cost saving suggestion, how likely it is is a different matter.

[spectre9]

Orion isn't to be used for LEO.

Not unless it ends up being ISS backup which everybody at NASA knows would be a national embarrassment because you can't go launching 100mt+ just to get astronauts to the space station. The shuttle was taking up supplies and new modules not just crew.

The USA needs to catch up to that smaller/cheaper/safer launch capability of Russia. Simple reason for this is to save money. There just isn't enough of the stuff to go around as much as many space geeks might dislike that fact.

[kkattula]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.

The trick would be to use mostly the same facilities and workforce to also produce other vehicles like Landers, DSH and MMSEV.

This would lower the cost of all these vehicles, and have the added benefit of spare parts commonality in many systems. Very useful for long duration missions.

[Robotbeat]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.
...

You mean Orion is composed of $50-100 million worth of aluminum (etc)?

[Zed_Noir]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.

The trick would be to use mostly the same facilities and workforce to also produce other vehicles like Landers, DSH and MMSEV.

This would lower the cost of all these vehicles, and have the added benefit of spare parts commonality in many systems. Very useful for long duration missions.

Wouldn't those vehicles be open to bidding from various vendors?

[Blackjax]

Could you outline what mission you think this is likely to be used for where it isn't effectively serving principally as a trans-atmospheric craft to get to an actual spacecraft or from that spacecraft back to earth?

As far as I can tell, there is really only one (orbiting the moon), and that isn't exactly what most people are talking about when they talk about beyond LEO exploration.  So actually yes, it's main mission would be to go up and down from LEO.

As the bridge of the NEA spacecraft.

The early Orion was designed to fly the Altair lunar lander by remote control.  If those controls are still present then Orion could control some other spacecraft.

A 3 part spacecraft - Orion, habitation module and thruster module including fuel tanks.  Since the Orion has the navigation aids such as star trackers the habitat and thruster modules do not need them, making the modules simpler.

That is a cost saving suggestion, how likely it is is a different matter.

When it is rendezvousing with "habitation module and thruster module including fuel tanks" and those are then used as the primary craft for actual exploration, then it is largely being used as an atmospheric taxi to/from LEO much as CC craft would be used as an atmospheric taxi to LEO, they simply rendezvous with a different craft.  Orion is not an exploration vehicle, it is a means to reach an exploration vehicle.

[A_M_Swallow]

Could you outline what mission you think this is likely to be used for where it isn't effectively serving principally as a trans-atmospheric craft to get to an actual spacecraft or from that spacecraft back to earth?

As far as I can tell, there is really only one (orbiting the moon), and that isn't exactly what most people are talking about when they talk about beyond LEO exploration.  So actually yes, it's main mission would be to go up and down from LEO.

As the bridge of the NEA spacecraft.

The early Orion was designed to fly the Altair lunar lander by remote control.  If those controls are still present then Orion could control some other spacecraft.

A 3 part spacecraft - Orion, habitation module and thruster module including fuel tanks.  Since the Orion has the navigation aids such as star trackers the habitat and thruster modules do not need them, making the modules simpler.

That is a cost saving suggestion, how likely it is is a different matter.

When it is rendezvousing with "habitation module and thruster module including fuel tanks" and those are then used as the primary craft for actual exploration, then it is largely being used as an atmospheric taxi to/from LEO much as CC craft would be used as an atmospheric taxi to LEO, they simply rendezvous with a different craft.  Orion is not an exploration vehicle, it is a means to reach an exploration vehicle.

The DreamChaser and CST-100 are being designed to be LEO taxis, the cockpit of the transfer vehicle would have to be in the habitation module.

In my example the Orion would act as an atmospheric taxi at the beginning and end of the mission.  In addition after docking with the other two modules it becomes the bridge.  The pilot would be at the controls in the Orion when the combination leaves Earth orbit, enters say Mars orbit and leaves Mars orbit on the return trip.

[Lurker Steve]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.

The trick would be to use mostly the same facilities and workforce to also produce other vehicles like Landers, DSH and MMSEV.

This would lower the cost of all these vehicles, and have the added benefit of spare parts commonality in many systems. Very useful for long duration missions.

That's what I was thinking. let's get the design of Orion correct, then crank out 10 or 20 copies. This way, the total cost of those Orion only ends up in the 2-3 billion range, instead of 7-10 billion. No worries about parts going obsolete or vendors going out of business either.

[Patchouli]

Orion isn't to be used for LEO.

Not unless it ends up being ISS backup which everybody at NASA knows would be a national embarrassment because you can't go launching 100mt+ just to get astronauts to the space station. The shuttle was taking up supplies and new modules not just crew.

The USA needs to catch up to that smaller/cheaper/safer launch capability of Russia. Simple reason for this is to save money. There just isn't enough of the stuff to go around as much as many space geeks might dislike that fact.

If you're going to use Orion like that you might as well try and think of 50 tons of other stuff to go up with it every time it goes to ISS using SLS.
Send up an MMSEV,Nautilus-X type centrifuge, or a BA330 etc with it.
At least then you'll end up with something that's at least a better value then the Shuttle was.

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.

The trick would be to use mostly the same facilities and workforce to also produce other vehicles like Landers, DSH and MMSEV.

This would lower the cost of all these vehicles, and have the added benefit of spare parts commonality in many systems. Very useful for long duration missions.

That's what I was thinking. let's get the design of Orion correct, then crank out 10 or 20 copies. This way, the total cost of those Orion only ends up in the 2-3 billion range, instead of 7-10 billion. No worries about parts going obsolete or vendors going out of business either.

Sounds like a good idea produce a batch of them then have the work force get to work making other vehicles.

Possibly also sell some to the ESA maybe just the command module and let them make their own service module.

[RocketmanUS]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.
...

You mean Orion is composed of $50-100 million worth of aluminum (etc)?

So each unit only cost $50m to $100m each not counting the yearly over head? That would be more like it based on small private or corporate jets.

[Robotbeat]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.
...

You mean Orion is composed of $50-100 million worth of aluminum (etc)?

So each unit only cost $50m to $100m each not counting the yearly over head? That would be more like it based on small private or corporate jets.

The number seems very unrealistic. No source is given for the numbers; isn't Orion produced by Lockheed Martin?

[RocketmanUS]

The facilities & workforce to manufacture, test and prepare Orion will cost $0.7B+ per year whether used or not. IIRC, the additional material cost of each Orion is likely to be on the order of $50m to $100m.
...

You mean Orion is composed of $50-100 million worth of aluminum (etc)?

So each unit only cost $50m to $100m each not counting the yearly over head? That would be more like it based on small private or corporate jets.

The number seems very unrealistic. No source is given for the numbers; isn't Orion produced by Lockheed Martin?

I was reading a F-22 was around $142m per extra unit made. And a private jet around 2002 was around $18m per unit. So a capsule made by Lockheed Martin should not be more per unit not including yearly over head than $150m. That is for all the parts as the yearly over head should take care of the assembly and testing. If it were to be a lot more per unit were would the cost come from?