I was doing some research for a space piece I’m working on for the summer issue of The New Atlantis, and ran across this old post from five years ago, when I took apart one of Gregg Easterbrook’s nonsensical space policy columns:
He’s doing something worse than comparing apples to oranges–he’s comparing space capsules to commercial airliners. There is no way to infer the costs of one from the other–they are totally irrelevant to each other. One carries hundreds of people, has to fly thousands of times, provides its own propulsion, has to meet all requirements of FAA certification. The other is simply a can that carries four people or so, with basic subsystems like a reaction-control system, avionics, life support, with thermal protection and a recovery system if it’s going to do an entry. And in fact, it’s also “well-understood engineering,” and has been since 1968 or so. It may be expensive, but there’s no way to tell by looking at airliners.
The best way to tell is to do a parametric cost analysis on it. It’s basically an upgraded Apollo capsule (and perhaps service module for modest propulsion and additional consumables). We know how much that cost the first time, and it should be easier now, particularly considering the technology advances over the past four decades (e.g., computer microization). If NASA can’t develop that vehicle in a few years for a few billion, it should be disbanded.
Well, it’s been a few years, and more than a few billion…
It is amusing how some will use the cost projections of others to support an argument that something can’t be done; disregarding the fact that there is almost no upper limit to what a thing can be made to cost.
On the other hand, enough components with known price and mass exist with cost to orbit known that the only unknown is the cost of integration in orbit. Keep that simple and the total cost can be pretty well estimated.
Can’t make a capsule for 12 billion? How about 2 to 6 complete (from components you can buy off the shelf today) spaceships with over 2000 cubic meters of crew and cargo space sitting in orbit ready to go anywhere in the inner solar system? That’s what published numbers indicate to me. We could have them in orbit in less than five years if we wanted. But when it hasn’t been done, it so easy to say it can’t be done. Hogwash.
And NSF reports Orion is having major mass problems…
As to the Airliner vrs Space capsule argument. Adjusted for inflation the Apollo CM/SM cost more to develop then the Shuttle orbiter, not more per pound – more in total cost! And the orbiter weighs and cost about as much to develop as Concord.
Kinda blows a hole in that ELVs are cheaper then RLVs argument.
😉
Also I should have mentioned that a airliner is developed commercially, and commercial programs are generally several times cheaper then government – especially NASA – program to do the same thing.