Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The SLS is designed for a 500m cost per launch. This was a test flight using the very expensive Delta IV rocket, not the SLS rocket, currently in development.

For reference, the Saturn V cost (fixed for 2014 inflation) is 3b per launch. The Space Shuttle cost 1.5b per flight. So this system is fairly cheap historically, especially considering how much lifting power the Block II configuration will provide.

Interesting that we went from 3b to 1.5b from the Saturn V to the STS, half, but this time are going from 1.5b to 500m, a third.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

For those interested, the new Gerard R. Ford class aircraft carrier costs 14b in R&D and 9b in construction and costs 2.5b a year to run (including other ships in carrier group). If I'm doing my math right, something like the SLS, and its lifetime of missions (excluding Mars), is comparable to having another carrier in the US military. Currently we have ten carriers and two under construction.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/cv-list.asp

That are the projections, right? How much security is there, that the real costs will be quite that number?

The Space Shuttle once also should be much more affordable than it really was ....

Also to compare the Saturn V with one Space Shuttle lift is really not fair at all ... since the Saturn V could carry much more weight, as much I know as the Shuttle in one lift (more than 100tons for the Saturn V vs. 24 tons for the Space Shuttle into a low orbit).

It's a bit sad (in terms of lost opportunities to put mass in orbit) to recall that the Shuttle, empty, weighed about 86 tons. This weight went to orbit every time whether the mission needed people or not. So the launch to LEO capability of the Shuttle was actually about 110 tons, on par with the Saturn V.

Yes, you are making the classic "we spend X for the defense project and that would buy Y."

You aren't adding anything to the conversation because it never changes anything. Can we try some non-classic thinking? Maybe we can add something new to the discussion .

I don't think I am. I'm just trying to put that cost into some perspective. Its comparable to a aircraft carrier in some ways. I'm not necessarily advocating for cutting the military spending. If people are comfortable with taxation for one of those carriers then they should, arguably, be comfortable for taxation for the SLS.

I think people have distorted ideas of what space travel really costs. Describing it as a 13th carrier puts thing into perspective.

An aircraft carrier is a mobile city with a nuclear reactor, and hundreds of warplanes that serves a purpose for decades. I think it's a big stretch to make any kind of comparison. It really only confuses the issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com