Development cost for the SLS are estimated between $20b and $41b over ten years. Launch costs projected to be $500m for 70 mt. with a 130 mt. version later.
Falcon Heavy will be ready this year at $120m for 53 mt.
Falcon XX will have a 126 mt. payload and will likely cost much less than $500m.
SpaceX, rather than taxpayers, will pick up the development costs.
To justify the SLS they will have to come up with a payload larger than 53mt and smaller than 70mt. and pay for that in addition to the SLS costs before SpaceX builds their 113 mt. Falcon X Heavy. Even then, it's really not justified.
SpaceX tends to keep improving their engines and leaping ahead depending on business conditions (which is why they abandoned the F5 and went straight to the F9.)
Anybody should see that NASA would have better use of $40b by just buying over 300 SpaceX flights. At 3 flights a year, that's 100 years, so only one tenth the cost per year for something that will not even be available for over ten years.
Can't congress do math? NASA does.
Another take (note: Dragon + Bigelow habitat for less than Orion.)
This is the required reading.
The saddest part is for what NASA has wasted on the SLS in the last few years would have given us dozens of people living on mars (property owners looking for ways to improve their community if I had my way.)
4 comments:
That does it. Now you're on Jasons' troll list.
Yes in deed. I see it as a challenge to build character all around.
And what's the matter with being on Jason's troll list? ;-)
Ken, the fuel depot report you were looking for was over at SpaceRef.com:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577
But the report link no longer works. It did work last week, but not now.
Oh, and I see you're having a nice conversation with Jason right now. He banned me, but I did send him my list of why anti-SLS people are that way. The short version is:
1. No known need.
2. Why isn't NASA contracting with the private sector for transportation like every other government agency (including NASA) already does?
3. Lost opportunity. As the fuel depot report showed, we could be out exploring far faster, and for far less money, using existing launchers.
Keep up the good fight Ron. I've always found your comments to be educational and a pleasure where ever on the web I've chanced upon them.
Post a Comment