Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday November 13 2017, @08:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the spending-these-dollars-makes-sense dept.

In-depth study: Commercial cargo program a bargain for NASA

It has generally been assumed that NASA will save money by spurring the development of services by US companies to supply the International Space Station, but such conclusions have largely been based on estimates. Now, a rigorous new review authored by a NASA analyst, and published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, offers a clear answer to this question.

According to the new research paper by Edgar Zapata, who works at Kennedy Space Center, the supply services offered by SpaceX and Orbital ATK have cost NASA two to three times less than if the space agency had continued to fly the space shuttle. For his analysis, Zapata attempted to make an "apples to apples" comparison between the commercial vehicles, through June 2017, and the space shuttle.

Specifically, the analysis of development and operational expenses, as well as vehicle failures, found that SpaceX had cost NASA about $89,000 per kg of cargo delivered to the space station. By the same methodology, he found Orbital ATK had cost $135,000 per kg. Had the shuttle continued to fly, and deliver cargo via its Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, it would have cost $272,000 per kg.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Virindi on Monday November 13 2017, @08:47PM (1 child)

    by Virindi (3484) on Monday November 13 2017, @08:47PM (#596449)

    For his analysis, Zapata attempted to make an "apples to apples" comparison between the commercial vehicles, through June 2017, and the space shuttle.

    This is the least "apples to apples" comparison possible!

    These other services are not currently manned. Putting crew on a space vehicle is much more expensive.

    The Space Shuttle, while originally sold as such, never practically aimed for budget ferrying. In practice the benefit was capability that other vehicles lacked, such as the ability to launch a heavy payload with humans aboard attached to a vehicle with a robotic arm for installation (see: ISS). Another one was the ability to capture and return satellites, or to repair an existing satellite (including carrying any number of needed parts).

    The Space Shuttle was never a simple "launch small supplies to a fixed station" system, except when it was being initially sold. It's not fair to compare it that way.

    If you want a real "apples to apples" comparison, compare to Progress.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:13AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:13AM (#596698) Journal
    No, you have to make these sort of comparisons because that's what the Shuttle was used for rather than what it was capable of. A key thing to remember here is that if NASA had worked on tasks rather than launch capabilities, it would have had less capabilities in term of launch infrastructure, but more capability and activities in space.