4 ms·
This is a huge success for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Both the total development costs ($1.7B and $2.8B for Crew Dragon and Starliner, respectively) and th
by tectonic 6y ago
This is a huge success for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Both the total development costs ($1.7B and $2.8B for Crew Dragon and Starliner, respectively) and the per-seat costs ($60-67M and $91-99M) have outperformed all other NASA crewed programs since the early days of the agency. For comparison, development costs for the Space Shuttle were $27.4B, while Orion is estimated at $23.7B.
(From https://orbitalindex.com https://orbitalindex.com)
- mam2 6y agoYeah well even a mac pro nowadays is cheaper than a zx80 in the 90's
- snoshy 6y agoWhile it's undeniable that technological progress has reduced costs for space technologies over the past decades, this has not translated into reduced prices available to NASA. Much of this has to do with cost-plus contracts offered to Boeing, Lockheed, etc. as well as defense-driven propping up of these old-space contractors with little progress to show for NASA programs. What SpaceX is bringing to the table is a significant step up in capabilities offered to NASA at a fraction of the prices offered by Boeing et al.
- jorblumesea 6y agoBut how much of that cost was initial R&D vs what SpaceX was doing? It's hard to compare costs given that it feels like much of NASA space development was science research into how to actually do it, paving the way for future projects. There are many examples of successful commercial programs that could only exist because of huge ("unprofitable") government R&D behind it. Google maps, the entire internet, commercial space flight, commercial aviation... I'm not arguing against their success, it's remarkable. I just wonder if this is more nuanced.
- tectonic 6y agoYes, there were likely other costs, but from NASA's perspective, their costs were way lower. For example, for their first investment of $396M in commercial cargo deliveries to the ISS with SpaceX, they got the development of the Cargo Dragon, the Falcon 9, and the KSC launch site.
- wolf550e 6y agoSLS and Orion were developed in the 21st century, when there was no need for new basic science research, and their development costs are staggering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_history_and_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_his...
- yakz 6y agoThose also act as jobs programs, though.
- dahfizz 6y agoAnd nobody works at spacex?
- ineedasername 6y agoThat's not because of NASA's poor work though, much of the cost bloat there was due to the legislation that dictated how those programs had to operate, like sole-sourcing components, requiring use of Space Shuttle components furthering vendor lock in, etc. It's not a testament to NASA's failings, its a testament to politicians' self-serving legislation.
- rossdavidh 6y agoTrue that, but that would point to the need to do this outside of NASA.
- ineedasername 6y agoI would say it should lead to reform in the legislative process for these sorts of projects. This launch represents the triumph of private enterprise, yes, but there is a strategic need for the US to have such capabilities independently of the ups & downs of private industry. So I would say it points to the need to have a blended approach. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself.