Relative Development Costs
I know I'm going to start sounding like a broken record (if I haven't already), but what gives? The total cost for developing and fielding Delta IV Medium was about $2B. That included taking a new, high-thrust, LOX/LH2 engine from a clean-sheet design to operational status. That included developing the CBC stage. That included building a new factory in Decatur meant to crank out 2-3 dozen of these per year. That included new pads. All this for a completely clean-sheet design. Atlas V only cost $1B (since they didn't have to develop a new engine). So for the EELV program we're talking about $3B, and if I'm remembering it right, only about $1-1.5B of that came from the government.
With this in mind, why the heck is the Shaft so freakin expensive?!? We're talking somewhere between $2.5-5B dollars, in spite of the fact that they claim to not be doing hardly anything new. They claim they're using a slightly upgraded version of a booster that's been flying for my whole life. They're using an upper stage engine that is only a slight modification on an old design. They're supposedly reusing shuttle tooling for the upper stage tanks. They're going to refurbish existing pads. They're not making a new factory. Why then is it so expensive? Why does this warmed over piece of Shuttle leftovers cost more than the EELV and COTS program combined?
Even if you count all the private money that's been and will be going into Falcons I, V, and IX (currently at $100M, with my guess being that they'll end up in the $200-250M range by the time they're all flying), and RpK's K-1 (currently at $800M, and likely to take another $400-500M to field) and add that to the Atlas V and Delta IV investments ($1 and $2B respectively), you still have less money ($4.5B) than the development costs for the Shaft. And that's for two semi reusable vehicles, and two expendable ones. All clean-sheet designs.
Seriously? What the heck is going on here?
With this in mind, why the heck is the Shaft so freakin expensive?!? We're talking somewhere between $2.5-5B dollars, in spite of the fact that they claim to not be doing hardly anything new. They claim they're using a slightly upgraded version of a booster that's been flying for my whole life. They're using an upper stage engine that is only a slight modification on an old design. They're supposedly reusing shuttle tooling for the upper stage tanks. They're going to refurbish existing pads. They're not making a new factory. Why then is it so expensive? Why does this warmed over piece of Shuttle leftovers cost more than the EELV and COTS program combined?
Even if you count all the private money that's been and will be going into Falcons I, V, and IX (currently at $100M, with my guess being that they'll end up in the $200-250M range by the time they're all flying), and RpK's K-1 (currently at $800M, and likely to take another $400-500M to field) and add that to the Atlas V and Delta IV investments ($1 and $2B respectively), you still have less money ($4.5B) than the development costs for the Shaft. And that's for two semi reusable vehicles, and two expendable ones. All clean-sheet designs.
Seriously? What the heck is going on here?
posted by Jon Goff at 10:55 PM
4 Comments:
Excellent post!
What is going on is the shoe-horning effect that also compromised Shuttle, an example of using the wrong tool for the task. EELVs and NewSpace vehicles are up to the task, the Stick/Shaft/Satay is proving expensive and inefficient.
Excellent post Jon!
- Josh Gigantino
If I may indulge in a moment of gross cynicism, perhaps the cost is best explained by the fact that the Stick is being designed and built by people who have decades of hands-on experience at milking government contracts without delivering much of anything. EELV is being done by folks who are less skilled in the art of pork, and less willing to accept complete and total failure as a non-issue compared to the prime directive of making money and preserving privilege and power.
Man-rating.
*runs*
Post a Comment
<< Home