4 ms·

For reference, the amortized cost of a shuttle launch ended up being $1.45 billion ($196 billion / 135), with the recurring (per-launch) cost as $450 million of

For reference, the amortized cost of a shuttle launch ended up being $1.45 billion ($196 billion / 135), with the recurring (per-launch) cost as $450 million of that (?). For comparing with the article's figures, $1.00 (1975) = $1.53 (1980) = $4.18 (2011). (So you could compare, e.g. the $22.4 million 1975 estimate with either $108 M or $347 M). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

fennecfoxen 13y ago
You're linking to the BLS's CPI data, but you really don't want to deflate currency figures for the Space Shuttle using the CPI. Use something like the percentage of GDP: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ "Putting a man on the moon: [...] How much would that be today? If we used the CPI, it would be $160 billion, but this would not be a very good measure since the CPI does not reflect the cost of rockets and launch pads. ... [as] a way to consider the "opportunity cost" to society, the best measure might be the cost as a percent of GDP, and that number would be $453 billion. "
- wtallis 13y ago
  Using percent of GDP as an answer to the question of "How much would that be today?" is absurd, because our economy today is not only larger but more efficient at converting raw materials and manpower into working spacecraft. The question it really answers is something like "How daunting of an investment was that, in terms of today's economy?", though even that doesn't properly convey that such an investment made today would accomplish far more.
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    Okay. To some extent that's fair, but on the other hand "opportunity cost to society" is just a fancy way of saying the same thing as "how daunting of an investment was that" so the quoted statement is hardly in disagreement per se :) Of course, there are also plenty of alternative measures available at the linked site which could be better than either percent-of-GDP or CPI. (I'm leaving their use as an exercise to the reader...)
Spooky23 13y ago
To be fair, the late 70s inflation made it impossible to predict the price of anything well. My dad had some state GO bonds that paid something like 22% from 1980 or so. Also remember that a big part of the shuttle program was to keep the engineers at NASA and the various contractors from Apollo in business. It was seen as as strategic need, just like how we build submarines and tanks even when we don't need them

fennecfoxen 13y ago

You're linking to the BLS's CPI data, but you really don't want to deflate currency figures for the Space Shuttle using the CPI. Use something like the percentage of GDP: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ "Putting a man on the moon: [...] How much would that be today? If we used the CPI, it would be $160 billion, but this would not be a very good measure since the CPI does not reflect the cost of rockets and launch pads. ... [as] a way to consider the "opportunity cost" to society, the best measure might be the cost as a percent of GDP, and that number would be $453 billion. "

wtallis 13y ago
Using percent of GDP as an answer to the question of "How much would that be today?" is absurd, because our economy today is not only larger but more efficient at converting raw materials and manpower into working spacecraft. The question it really answers is something like "How daunting of an investment was that, in terms of today's economy?", though even that doesn't properly convey that such an investment made today would accomplish far more.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Okay. To some extent that's fair, but on the other hand "opportunity cost to society" is just a fancy way of saying the same thing as "how daunting of an investment was that" so the quoted statement is hardly in disagreement per se :) Of course, there are also plenty of alternative measures available at the linked site which could be better than either percent-of-GDP or CPI. (I'm leaving their use as an exercise to the reader...)

Spooky23 13y ago

To be fair, the late 70s inflation made it impossible to predict the price of anything well. My dad had some state GO bonds that paid something like 22% from 1980 or so. Also remember that a big part of the shuttle program was to keep the engineers at NASA and the various contractors from Apollo in business. It was seen as as strategic need, just like how we build submarines and tanks even when we don't need them