Re: Stick - Saturn IB Reprise?

Will McLean wrote:
> Ed Kyle wrote:
> >
> > I like the following classic essay that mentions how
> > much money would have been saved if NASA had used
> > Saturn IB instead of shuttle.
> >
> > "http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2843";
> >
> > The Space Program: No Prize
> > Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - January 1994
> > by Frederick Giarrusso and Gary C. Hudson
> >
> > "...Then there is the story of the Saturn 1B, an expendable
> > rocket. The Saturn 1B cost $3.4 billion to develop and
> > $156 million per flight to operate (that would be $5.8
> > billion to develop and $267 million per flight in 2005
> > dollars). It was able to lift about 40,000 pounds into
> > orbit. However, rather than continue to use the Saturn 1B,
> > NASA spent ten times as much money to develop a vehicle
> > that cost twice as much to perform the same job.
> >
>
> The essay is bogus on at least two levels. The price quoted for the
> Saturn 1B is production cost only. It doesn't include launch operations
> (And Apollo made Shuttle operations look austere) and it doesn't
> include the spacecraft (with production cost in the same ballpark as
> the launcher).
>
> Nor did they do the same job. The shuttle can deliver its payload to a
> rendezvous and berthing or docking and bring it back if necessary. The
> Saturn 1b could deliver 40,000 pounds (to a less challenging orbit than
> ISS) but to deliver it to a docking would require something like the
> ATV to be subtracted from the payload and added to the cost.

The essay clearly took some liberties to make its points,
but I think that its basic thesis was sound. NASA could
have had a human space program without spending billions
to develop shuttle. Most of the shuttle payloads could
have been lofted on uncrewed Saturn IB missions, which
would have been less costly than crewed Saturn/Apollo
missions (or shuttle missions). A steady Saturn IB
production rate could have reduced vehicle costs over
the years, etc.

- Ed Kyle

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global wireless hotspot
    ... the decision to completely cancel Saturn and go for the Shuttle are ... system using nuclear pulse rockets fueled by cold war weapons. ... You're only counting a fraction of the cost. ... fleet would put up 6,240 metric tons while the Shuttle Fleet puts up ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: What if we still had Saturn V
    ... >:What if the Saturn V was still being built? ... > Shuttle development and the last two Saturn Vs were allowed to rot. ... gave the go-ahead for the space shuttle program. ... were few cost overruns in the shuttle program. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs Delta or Atlas
    ... was 1st contracted they where to cost around 100 million, ... it was costing over 200 million per launch, ... unless you where to just strip a shuttle, as 2 of the currently flying ... to recreate a system similar to the Saturn 5 will most likely have the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Belated look at the OSXhints April Fools front page
    ... Saturn V launches 1964-1973: 13 ... Shuttle launches 1977-2008: 120 ... Average cost in 2007: $1300M ... so the cost of each launch of the Shuttle is roughly half the Saturn V. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... I eventually discovered a set of the ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the first crack in the proposal which I found. ... The argument I heard was that the new LV costs needed to match Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast