[AR] Re: Testing Scaling Law
- From: Ed LeBouthillier <codemonky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:00:52 -0700
On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 00:31 +0000, William Claybaugh wrote:
It is at least lazy to be suggesting that SpaceX's cost are 1/10 of
others; simple inspection of there pricing establishes that they are
no better than 1/4 that of competitors.
There seem to be several reports making the claim of upwards of 1/10th
of the cost (for development, not operations). Here's one:
For the Falcon 9 analysis, NASA used NAFCOM to predict the
development cost for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using two
methodologies:
1) Cost to develop Falcon 9 using traditional NASA
approach, and
2) Cost using a more commercial development approach.
Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that
the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a
traditional approach.
Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when
the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach.
Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA
would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion.
SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9
launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally,
approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch
vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9,
for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these
costs.
Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems Appendix B.
So, although it depends on which cost model is being referenced, it is
fair to say that SpaceX's development cost might have been 1/10th of
Nasa's.
How they relate to their competitors depends on a couple of
factors. Since no competitor has built anything exactly like the Falcon
9, it would be an extrapolation from costs to build other similar
systems. But my initial look suggests that the cost differences are
quite substantial.
Other related posts:
