|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Launch costs: actual vs. accumulated
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-03-2010 03:01 AM
   
One of the most common arguements to justify the manned space programme, and one I've used myself, is that most of the money spent stays on the ground.However, when one looks at launch costs, the numbers are frightening. For example, Apollo 11 is quoted at $355 million and a typical shuttle launch at $440 million. But how much money actually disappears into space? Am I correct in thinking that the real cost of what goes up is limited to the value of the raw materials used in the manufacture of the launch vehicle and any payload, the cost of the fuel, astronaut wages and the cost of repairs to the launch site? Surely, all the rest 'stays on the ground'. Is this the true value of launch costs? These hardly equate to $355 million. Or do they? And if so, how much money are we now talking about? On edit - before someone picks me up on this, forgot to add a proportionate cost of raw materials used to make the tools needed to build the rocket and the various mission controls. Being really picky - the cost of paper used to design the thing.  |
Byeman
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-03-2010 12:21 PM
70-90% of the cost is labor. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-04-2010 04:19 AM
In the absence of any response I've been trying to answer my own question. So far I've only got as far as the Saturn launch vehicle, but here goes and I stand to be corrected if my maths is off-line. The LH2 price is current, the nearest LO2 cost I could find is for 2001 and I've assumed that the 1970 cost of kerosene is roughly the same as petrol. This gives the LOX cost at $0.21 per kg; LH2 cost at $5.5 per kg and kerosene at $0.36 per gallon. - So, first stage LO2 cost $312,259 approx.
- First stage kerosene cost $76625 approx.
- Second stage LO2 cost $75,123 approx.
- Second stage LH2 cost $383,240 approx.
- Third stage LO2 cost $18,329
- Third stage LH2 cost $108,750.
To cost the metal used I've had to assume that it was built entirely of aluminium. Okay - I know it wasn't but I reckon that costs of more exotic materials will be offset as I've had to use the 2007 prices of $1.15 per lb. This gives a costing for the stages - - 1st stage - $332,062
- 2nd stage - $91,905
- 3rd stage - $28,750.
This prices the actual cost of the Saturn at $1,427,043 excluding other consumables. If these figures are anything like in the ball park, then these unrecovered costs of the Saturn V represented just 0.4% of the total claimed launch cost of $350 million. From this, can one assume that something over 95% of the Apollo costs stayed on the ground to be spent boosting the US economy? On edit - the figures have been re-worked, especially for the cost of kerosene. One error has been pointed out (see postings below) but I'd be grateful for any others to be spotted. |
dsenechal
Member Posts: 539
From:
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 09-05-2010 09:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
On edit - to make your eyes water. The current cost of a kg of kerosene (aviation fuel) is $197.
Jet A is a bit expensive, but not nearly $197 per kg. Current price in the US is $3.50-$4.00 per gallon. Since there are approx 3 kg in a gallon, that makes the price about $1.25 per kg. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-05-2010 11:15 AM
Thanks for your comment. The $197 per kg for aviation fuel was sourced from the IATA web site where they quote $88 per lb. My calculation for the kerosene used by Apollo was worked out using the 1970 cost of petrol sourced from a web site giving US average prices for that year. |
dsenechal
Member Posts: 539
From:
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 09-05-2010 11:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
The $197 per kg for aviation fuel was sourced from the IATA web site where they quote $88 per lb.
The AITA quote is per barrel, not per pound. Dividing $88 by 42 (US gallons per barrel) provides a current price of $2.09 per gallon. So, if you buy in bulk, which hopefully NASA does, that makes the price per kg approximately 70 cents.Back in 1970, the cost of Jet A was $5/barrel, or about 4 cents per kg. If the present cost truly was $197/kg, it would cost almost $36 million to fuel up a B747. Ouch! |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-05-2010 02:13 PM
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing out the error. I did say will someone check the numbers and prove me wrong.
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-07-2010 06:41 AM
Been looking further into space borne dollars gone forever in an Apollo launch. I've taken the quoted launch weights for Apollo 11 as the base for the numbers and, as before assumed aluminium as the construction material throughout. This gives ball-park costs of - - LES - $10,246
- CM - $14,088
- SM - $58,930
- LM - $38,186
- SLA - $4,600
There is some additional cost to be made for the fuel, particularly for the LM. However, since the weights used above are launch weight, then this will be somewhat offset. Please feel free to correct the numbers, but bear in mind that the current cost for nitrogen tetroxide is $133.35 per gallon and for unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine it's $445.30 a gallon.This brings the total unrecovered cost of an Apollo launch to $1,553,093, still less than 0.5% of the total cost. As closing point of interest, an Apollo flight cost about $974,326 to fuel, a Shuttle mission costs $1,380,000 to fuel with just the liquid propellants. |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 09-07-2010 11:22 AM
A philosophical thought on fuel/oxidizer: yes, this stuff is used up on the way to space, but like the other raw components, a great deal of its cost factors in manpower as well. Drilling for oil, refinining, processing, shipping, etc., are all done by people on the ground (not to mention manufacturing the equipment for all those tasks!) is certainly a significant portion of the cost/weight of kerosene, LH, or LOX. What that proportion is, I don't know (but you can probably find something for petroleum online). My point is, even money for that sort of thing is spent on the ground. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-07-2010 04:26 PM
I agree. However, for this exercise I think it fair to include the full cost to fuel the vehicle. It still makes it a relatively insignificant amount in the $350+ million that is given as launch expenditure. | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
