So, some quick Googling comes back with a high-end cost for the Apollo program of $25.4B in 1969 dollars, or $164.5B in 2015 dollars. $16.5B exceeds the amount already spent on Constellation, Orion, and SLS, if I’m not mistaken.
Perhaps Lightfoot meant the per-mission costs, not the per-program costs? That would seem to be basically impossible, too.
SLS has already spent $10B through the end of 2015. It’s on track for a development of $17B if it finishes the basic core capability by the end of 2022.
Orion has already spent $12B through the end of 2015. It’s on track for a development of also about $17B if it finishes up what’s it’s tasked for by 2022. That’s not including the European service modules, among other things.
But we are getting too fact driven here.
Lightfoot may have been referring to some “per mission cost” -which can come close to your “$16.5B” if taking the budgets of SLS, Orion and Ground Ops for 4 years, or about 4 X 3 = 12, PLUS the budget of ISS if all that were one day diverted to Mars missions, another 4 X 3 = $12B, for a grand total of $24B per Mars mission.
Well, assuming that’s enough $ to actually do 1 mission every 4 years, given the plundering of budgets by these type cost-plus programs, among other highway robbery going on.
Of course, with such a singular focus, at that point all of space flight support, among other human spaceflight budget items, like back in early Shuttle days, becomes purely assignable to that once every 4 years Mars mission – so the actual per mission Mars $ is even higher than the simple math above.
Does anyone know how many SLS launches will be needed in support of the first Mars landing? And a what cost. I’ve heard upwards of 20 launches just for first landing Can’t understand how we could manage that.
Plus shouldn’t the focus be on advanced propulsion for future Mars craft. Can habs and rovers wait
Thank you Hug Doug if it’s 10 for each future launch any idea how far apart they would be spaced . Seems like a huge number of flights if there was one mission every two years. I had heard SLS flight rate would be one or two per year
Yep…two SLS per year, but possibly less, as even that rate that pushes into budget territory higher than the planned SLS budget outlook – meaning an SLS that get’s to 2 launches a year still has to go steal even more money from somewhere else in the budget to increase the yearly amount available to it.
The SLS assembly facility at Michoud is designed to produce up to two SLS cores per year. Congress would have to liberally dump money on NASA to build more than that, they could probably triple their workforce and split production into three shifts working around the clock and make four or five cores per year.
A few points more points to consider as well, about Michoud:
1) The additional cores would need payloads. It all has to add up, launch and purpose.
2) The Shuttle Michoud cost experience was that Michoud was a good deal at getting one more External Tank (the incremental cost difference was very low at any production rate after 1 unit). But see point 1. It’s a system.
3) The current MAF “core stage” is a very different beast; it’s not a dumb tank anymore. The core stage brings in main propulsion, engines, and forward interfaces for what’s atop. It’s variable cost picture will likely reflect this – being more expensive on an incremental unit level.
I remember when Shuttle exercises got into the matter of increasing launch rate, none of which went anywhere, especially due to point 1. No payloads!
After all, adding one launch needed at least a little more funding. Plus you needed to get a new payload justified (lots more funding). Inversely, there was zero incentive to reduce costs at a given flight rate, except for basic learning and attrition that occurred naturally over time. And no-the notion of using the Shuttle (and crews at risk) at incremental costs for private payloads was long gone (many reasons, incl. legal). If lives were to be risked it would be for something important-like building a NASA space station.
You’ll recall that when the ISS elements were delayed, the Shuttle did not just book other customers. There were none! Instead Shuttle reduced it’s launch rate to quietly move resources from Shuttle to ISS till near the end these were really very tied at the hip.
During the first Bush administration NASA provided a reasonable estimate of the cost for a limited series of human Mars landing program. In reality neither the technology nor the cost have changed much since then. It would make sense to develop technology that brings the cost of human spaceflight within reach of a larger market, There is nothing to be gained by asserting an unrealistic cost.
That estimate did not include ISRU for propellant generation for the return trip and I also believe it included the development of Nuclear Thermal Rockets.
That estimate was totally ridiculous and never going to happen. There are definitely cheaper ways.
As fond as I am of ISRU, it requires a substantial investment in equipment and manpower on a planetary surface before it provides a return. If and when we have the funds for a permanent human settlement on Mars, it makes sense to pursue ISRU. But it does not appear to me that ISRU by itself would reduce the initial costs of establishing human flight to Mars on a viable and sustainable basis.
I also feel ISRU should the thoroughly tested with robotic systems before humans are put in a position where lives depend on it.
I agree that ISRU should first be fleshed out before we depend human lives on it.
But if you think about what it enables, how much smaller you can make a two-way Mars mission, you can invest a lot in this technology and still come out cheaper than doing a mission where you leave LEO with all the fuel needed to come home again.
The only way I know of increasing reliability is going to cost money; but you can’t send people on a 140 million mile; 2 year trip on Radio Shack parts. Can somebody estimate the cost incurred by a loss of crew event on the equivalent of a faster, better cheaper mission.
He’s off his rocker, NASA has nearly spent 10% of the Apollo budget already on the Orion capsule and it is 6 to 8 years from its first crewed flight. Cost of Apollo was about $30 billion, about $120 billion in today’s dollars. Orion has been getting at least a $1 billion per year since it started in 2005, closing in on $12 billion real soon.
No way you’re doing a Mars mission on the equivalent of $16 billion, unless it was some type of incredibly risky Zubrin-style Mars Direct Lite mission – and that’s assuming that the cost estimates for Falcon Heavy launches don’t skyrocket upwards.
It could be less than the Apollo Program, though, in real costs. Unlike with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, we don’t have to essentially build everything from scratch.
From a related article posted a few days later: “A NASA spokeswoman said after Lightfoot’s speech that he was comparing the Apollo budget and the agency’s current budget based on percentages of the overall federal budget. NASA received 4 percent of the total federal budget during the height of the Apollo Program, and today NASA has 0.4 percent.”
So, some quick Googling comes back with a high-end cost for the Apollo program of $25.4B in 1969 dollars, or $164.5B in 2015 dollars. $16.5B exceeds the amount already spent on Constellation, Orion, and SLS, if I’m not mistaken.
Perhaps Lightfoot meant the per-mission costs, not the per-program costs? That would seem to be basically impossible, too.
Maybe NASA is planning to use someone else’s launch vehicle for their Mars program? 😉
Maybe they are just sending the same sort of people they sent on the Juno mission: http://www.space.com/12546-…
SLS has already spent $10B through the end of 2015. It’s on track for a development of $17B if it finishes the basic core capability by the end of 2022.
Orion has already spent $12B through the end of 2015. It’s on track for a development of also about $17B if it finishes up what’s it’s tasked for by 2022. That’s not including the European service modules, among other things.
But we are getting too fact driven here.
Lightfoot may have been referring to some “per mission cost” -which can come close to your “$16.5B” if taking the budgets of SLS, Orion and Ground Ops for 4 years, or about 4 X 3 = 12, PLUS the budget of ISS if all that were one day diverted to Mars missions, another 4 X 3 = $12B, for a grand total of $24B per Mars mission.
Well, assuming that’s enough $ to actually do 1 mission every 4 years, given the plundering of budgets by these type cost-plus programs, among other highway robbery going on.
Of course, with such a singular focus, at that point all of space flight support, among other human spaceflight budget items, like back in early Shuttle days, becomes purely assignable to that once every 4 years Mars mission – so the actual per mission Mars $ is even higher than the simple math above.
All in 2015$ here.
$164B over ten years is only about 0.1% of GDP would barely move the needle on the economy, perhaps 0.2% with multiplier.
Does anyone know how many SLS launches will be needed in support of the first Mars landing? And a what cost.
I’ve heard upwards of 20 launches just for first landing
Can’t understand how we could manage that.
Plus shouldn’t the focus be on advanced propulsion for future Mars craft. Can habs and rovers wait
12 or 14 depending on mission architecture, and 10 more launches for each future manned landing. That’s not counting any precursor missions to Phobos.
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
Thank you Hug Doug if it’s 10 for each future launch any idea how far apart they would be spaced . Seems like a huge number of flights if there was one mission every two years. I had heard SLS flight rate would be one or two per year
EDIT: Never mind
Yep…two SLS per year, but possibly less, as even that rate that pushes into budget territory higher than the planned SLS budget outlook – meaning an SLS that get’s to 2 launches a year still has to go steal even more money from somewhere else in the budget to increase the yearly amount available to it.
The SLS assembly facility at Michoud is designed to produce up to two SLS cores per year. Congress would have to liberally dump money on NASA to build more than that, they could probably triple their workforce and split production into three shifts working around the clock and make four or five cores per year.
A few points more points to consider as well, about Michoud:
1) The additional cores would need payloads. It all has to add up, launch and purpose.
2) The Shuttle Michoud cost experience was that Michoud was a good deal at getting one more External Tank (the incremental cost difference was very low at any production rate after 1 unit). But see point 1. It’s a system.
3) The current MAF “core stage” is a very different beast; it’s not a dumb tank anymore. The core stage brings in main propulsion, engines, and forward interfaces for what’s atop. It’s variable cost picture will likely reflect this – being more expensive on an incremental unit level.
I remember when Shuttle exercises got into the matter of increasing launch rate, none of which went anywhere, especially due to point 1. No payloads!
After all, adding one launch needed at least a little more funding. Plus you needed to get a new payload justified (lots more funding). Inversely, there was zero incentive to reduce costs at a given flight rate, except for basic learning and attrition that occurred naturally over time. And no-the notion of using the Shuttle (and crews at risk) at incremental costs for private payloads was long gone (many reasons, incl. legal). If lives were to be risked it would be for something important-like building a NASA space station.
You’ll recall that when the ISS elements were delayed, the Shuttle did not just book other customers. There were none! Instead Shuttle reduced it’s launch rate to quietly move resources from Shuttle to ISS till near the end these were really very tied at the hip.
Since SLS is reusable it should be no problem.
Excuse me? I’d like to have a source on that statement.
I am the source of my joke!!!!
🙂
Okay, you got me!
LOL …. good one.. but we both know that congress does not like reusable.. they love BIG …. ENDLESS .. developement .. for BIG .. DISPOSABLE .. rockets
During the first Bush administration NASA provided a reasonable estimate of the cost for a limited series of human Mars landing program. In reality neither the technology nor the cost have changed much since then. It would make sense to develop technology that brings the cost of human spaceflight within reach of a larger market, There is nothing to be gained by asserting an unrealistic cost.
That estimate did not include ISRU for propellant generation for the return trip and I also believe it included the development of Nuclear Thermal Rockets.
That estimate was totally ridiculous and never going to happen. There are definitely cheaper ways.
As fond as I am of ISRU, it requires a substantial investment in equipment and manpower on a planetary surface before it provides a return. If and when we have the funds for a permanent human settlement on Mars, it makes sense to pursue ISRU. But it does not appear to me that ISRU by itself would reduce the initial costs of establishing human flight to Mars on a viable and sustainable basis.
I also feel ISRU should the thoroughly tested with robotic systems before humans are put in a position where lives depend on it.
I agree that ISRU should first be fleshed out before we depend human lives on it.
But if you think about what it enables, how much smaller you can make a two-way Mars mission, you can invest a lot in this technology and still come out cheaper than doing a mission where you leave LEO with all the fuel needed to come home again.
The only way I know of increasing reliability is going to cost money; but you can’t send people on a 140 million mile; 2 year trip on Radio Shack parts. Can somebody estimate the cost incurred by a loss of crew event on the equivalent of a faster, better cheaper mission.
He’s off his rocker, NASA has nearly spent 10% of the Apollo budget already on the Orion capsule and it is 6 to 8 years from its first crewed flight. Cost of Apollo was about $30 billion, about $120 billion in today’s dollars. Orion has been getting at least a $1 billion per year since it started in 2005, closing in on $12 billion real soon.
No way you’re doing a Mars mission on the equivalent of $16 billion, unless it was some type of incredibly risky Zubrin-style Mars Direct Lite mission – and that’s assuming that the cost estimates for Falcon Heavy launches don’t skyrocket upwards.
It could be less than the Apollo Program, though, in real costs. Unlike with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, we don’t have to essentially build everything from scratch.
Looks like it’s time for a large scale international Mars program.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/…
From a related article posted a few days later: “A NASA spokeswoman said after Lightfoot’s speech that he was comparing the Apollo budget and the agency’s current budget based on percentages of the overall federal budget. NASA received 4 percent of the total federal budget during the height of the Apollo Program, and today NASA has 0.4 percent.”