DocM Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 This should prove illustrative as to how much of a cost difference there is between private and government development projects. The final figures are in for the development of SpaceX's Falcon 9 launcher. These costs include the development of the Merlin 1 engine series, including the MVAC vacuum version, the Draco thrusters, the Falcon 1 testbed, 2 launch pads including infrastructure (Marshall Islands & KSC), 2 launch control facilities, Falcon 9 itself, test launches etc. The works. There are 3 figures; NASA: what it would cost using NASA culture & methods NAFCOM: NASA-Air Force COst Model - used for Atlas V & Delta IV SpaceX: their actual costs as calculated by the auditors Here's what they came up with - NASA: $3.977 billion NAFCOM: $1.695 billion SpaceX: $0.453 billion Kinda says it all. As for their vertical integration, making most things themselves, SpaceX estimates that for every $1 spent rolling their own hardware it would cost from $3 to $5 to outsource it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey B. Veteran Posted September 28, 2011 Veteran Share Posted September 28, 2011 Yes but Government anything has to go through so many hands for every step that it makes everything cost so much more for anything to get done, not to mention they overpay for a lot of things just because they are the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 That's precisely the point. This project used a different model - a way for NASA to reduce its outlays in return for SpaceX having greater autonomy. Instead of micromanaging every step NASA just set milestones and defined an end capability then turned SpaceX loose. They did the same for Orbital Sciences smaller & not man-rated Taurus 2, but its figures aren't in yet as it hasn't flown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts