_
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Abstract
After decommissioning the Space Shuttle in 2011, the federal
government had only one option for resupplying the International
Space Station (ISS) with cargo and crew: international space
transportation programs. Soon after this decision was made, NASA
decided to outsource the transport duties to commercial enterprises
while reviving deep space exploration. In our analysis, we compare
three options available to the U.S. government for ferrying people
and materials to the ISS: depending on space partnerships, using
private companies from the emerging space market, or developing the
Space Launch System (SLS). Four major benefits were weighted and
graded by estimation or using historical data to predict future
trends: leveraging technological and economic advancement,
international cooperation, national pride/prestige, and safety. On
the other hand, three major costs were calculated based on official
contracts already signed or historical data to predict future
costs. Our Cost Benefit Analysis suggests that the cost saving for
continuing agreements with foreign nations for crew and cargo
transport would be the greats benefit under the current budgetary
constraints. Course of Action (COA) 1 and COA 2 would be be more
expensive but create the ability for NASA to concentrate on future
technology and scientific advancements in space exploration.
Introduction
TheInternational Space Station(ISS) is a habitable,artificial
satellite inLow Earth Orbit (LEO). Its first components were
launched in 1998 by Americanspace shuttlesas well as by
RussianProtonandSoyuzrockets. The ISS serves as aresearch
laboratory in a space environment in which crewmembers conduct
experiments in biology, physics, astronomy, and meteorology. After
numerous debates leading up to 2014, the U.S. government announced
that it would keep ISS functioning until 2024, depending on the
stations structural soundness. The main purpose for extending the
life of the ISS from the U.S. standpoint was to allow for more
research in an effort to improve the human condition in a space
environment. NASA would also like to keep the commercial side of
space exploration alive as a means of establishing facilities that
it can potentially make use of in the future.In 2004, the United
States decided todecommission the space shuttleby the early 2010s
and rely on RussianSoyuz flightsto carry American astronauts back
and forth to the ISS (Holdren & Bolden, 2014). One of the major
reasons was the high cost of maintaining the aged space shuttle,
which varied between $750 million to $2 billion per flight
depending on the number of launches each year. The annual expense
NASA bears for the shuttle was roughly $4 billion, regardless the
number of launches. (Diamandis, 2014)NASA established a two-pronge
approach to human spaceflight and supply transport to ISS. First,
transport duties of crew and cargo were to be outsourced to the
private sector. Commercial companies could help provide crucial
resupply services like life essentials, critical hardware, and
scientific equipment, allowing NASA to pursue the goal of
exploration farther into space. In other words, new commercial
vehicles could take over the task of ferrying cargo and astronauts
to and from low-Earth orbit after the retirement of the Space
Shuttle, allowing Orion, NASAs new spacecraft, and its SLS rocket
to explore space beyond the Moon and eventually Mars. Contractors
SpaceX and Boeing were selected in 2014 as the prime carriers for
moving crew. SpaceX and Orbital ATK, in 2006 and 2008,
respectively, were selected to transfer supplies and cargo back and
forth to ISS. To conduct the CBA, we took into consideration the
following assumptions and constraints:1. A 10-year time horizon was
used. The main reason is that the White House decided to continue
funding ISS until at least 2024. The extension of ISS operation
will allow NASA and the international space community to accomplish
a number of important goals.2. Foreign affairs between U.S. space
partners, including Russia and China will not worsen. 3. The CBA
focused on measuring benefits and costs of delivering crew and
cargo to the ISS. In our costs, we also included elements of the
system such as launch vehicles and spacecraft that deliver
communications satellites or similar payloads to orbit. These costs
were included in the contracts signed between NASA and private
companies and, therefore, could not be separated. We did not take
into account any costs or benefits for defense contracts or
classified launches and missions.4. We relied on publicly available
data sources Including government reports, media, news
articles.
5. We did not include the following benefits, which are common
between the COAs and could be described as general benefits of
space exploration:a. Insights gained into Earths place in the
universe.b. The reduce risk of extinction due to galactic incidents
like the Suns death or black holes. c. Insights against threats
that the Earth faces, such as nuclear warfare, pandemics,
anthropogenic climate change, and disruptive technology. (Baum,
2009)
Calculation of Courses of Action
Standing
In our CBA we followed OMBs Circular guidelines and considered
U.S. citizens as the stakeholders of the whole ISS resupply
program. We did not take into account the global perspective.
Following the 10-year period under our assumption, we did not take
into consideration the benefits or costs for future generations.
Following OMB directives, we calculated all costs based entirely on
signed contracts between Federal Government and International space
agencies (like Russian RosCosmos) or private companies or NASA and
its partners.
Status Quo (International Partnership)NASA has been dependent on
international partnerships since the retirement of the space
shuttle fleet in mid 2011. Although there are many other privatized
companies now available for commercial orbital transportation
services, Russia has cornered the market for deliveries to and from
the International Space Station, especially when it concerns the
delivery of crew. Because the Russian Soyuz is the only vehicle in
the world that holds passengers, it is also the only vehicle
capable of emergency rescue missions.
Since its inception the U.S. government has signed multiyear
contracts in order to procure seats on the Russian transportation
vehicles. Comment by Matt: Not sure what inception this refers
to?This firm-fixed price modification covers comprehensive Soyuz
support, including all necessary training and preparation for
launch, flight operations, landing and rescue of six space station
crew members on long-duration missions. It also includes additional
launch site support, which was provided previously under a separate
contract. These services will provide transportation to and from
the International Space Station for U.S., and Canadian, European or
Japanese astronauts. (NASA, 2013)Comment by Matt: Need
reference
The price for Russian transportation has steadily increased over
the years, starting at approximately $55.8 million per seat for
transportation in 2013 and 2014, $63 million per seat in between
2014 and 2014 and almost $70.7 million per seat through 2017.
Thereafter, the U.S. anticipates using commercial transportation
vehicle, and privatized companies, such as Space X.Comment by Matt:
Needs to be reworded
COA-1 (Private Space Companies)
In order for NASA to transfer the necessary cargo and crew to
ISS after the space shuttle program decommission, the agency
decided to proceed with two different programs. The Commercial
Orbital Transport Services (COTS) program started in 2006 under the
flexibility of the Space Act Agreements, where the national space
agency subsidized the development and testing of commercial
replacements for the aging and expensive Space Shuttle fleet.
Commercial Resupply Services(CRS) contracts were awarded byNASAfor
delivery of cargo and supplies to theISS on commercially operated
spacecraft. The first CRS contracts were signed in 2008 and awarded
$1.6 billion toSpaceXfor 12 cargo transport missions and $1.9
billion toOrbital Sciences for 8 missions. This covered deliveries
to 2016 and the payoffs from this public investment include two new
American companies capable of launching NASAs Earth orbit payloads
creating the first entirely commercial options for non-governmental
customers.
Orbital Sciences Corporationis anAmerican company specializing
in the design, manufacture and launch of spaceandrocketsystems for
commercial, military and other government customers. They started
commencing cargo missions to ISS under the CRS contract in 2013
with theirCygnusspacecraft and theAntareslaunch vehicle.
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) was the first company to
ship private cargo to the International Space Station. The first
mission was in May 2012, utilizing its own rocket and spaceship,
the Dragon, which is also the only spacecraft in the world capable
of returning large amounts of cargo from space. (Loff, 2015).
SpaceX made widespread use of off- the-shelf components, which were
put together in a product architecture that was simpler than prior
approaches in developing its launch vehicles. Additionally, the
firm has customers from the private sector, military and
non-governmental entities to launch cargo into space. As the
company makes its money from new contracts for launch services,
SpaceX is firmly focused on developing efficient technology for
future space exploration. (Howell, 2014).In addition, a second
program called Commercial Crew Development(CCDev), is a
multiphasespace technology development program funded by theU.S.
government and administered byNASA. It is intended to stimulate
development of privately operated crew vehicles to low Earth orbit.
In 2014, Boeing and SpaceX received contracts to provide crewed
launch services to the ISS. For completion of the same contract
requirements, Boeing can receive up to $4.2 billion dollars, while
SpaceX can receive up to $2.6 billion dollars.Boeing Companyis an
Americanmultinational corporationthat designs, manufactures, and
sellsairplanes, rocketsandsatellites. It is the largest exporter in
the United States by dollar value and one of the worlds most
admired companies. Its CST-100(Crew Space Transportation)crew
capsuleis expected to fly to the International Space Station with
an astronaut aboard by 2017.
COA-2 (NASAs Space Launch System)
The retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet in 2011 ended an era
where all of Americas space exploration and transportation of crew
and cargo were performed by one organization. This program was
initiated in the 1970s and originally intended to be replaced in
the 1990s. Due to stalled plans for the United States space
station, it was re-missioned to focus on completing the assembly of
the International Space Station, therefore extending the use of the
Space Shuttle to more than twice its initial intended life.
The follow-on NASA program was named Project Constellation that
was comprised of two different launch vehicles, the Ares I and
AresV, and the Orion Spacecraft. This program was never fully
funded by the US Government and in 2010, while the Space Shuttle
program was coming to an end, the Obama administration effectively
cancelled the Constellation program. Following the programs
termination administration asked Congress to endorse a plan that,
leveraged with NASA funds and allowed heavy reliance on private
industry programs to continue to deliver crews and cargo to the
International Space Station.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 passed by Congress states
that While commercial transportation systems have the promise to
contribute valuable services, it is in the United States national
interest to maintain a government operated space transportation
system for crew and cargo delivery to space (NASA, 2010). The Act
directs NASA to develop an SLS as a follow-on to the Space Shuttle
in order to access cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond
Low Earth Orbit . This project would enable the United States to
participate in global efforts to engage and develop this
increasingly strategic region. The Act also provides a series of
minimum capabilities that the SLS vehicle must achieve including
lifting a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), serving as a back-up
system for supplying and supporting cargo and crew delivery
requirements for the ISS.
NASA still intends to use the Orion Spacecraft for future crew
and cargo missions. The Space Launch System (SLS) would replace the
Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles with a single heavy expendable
launch vehicle. SLS will have two versions and capabilities
sufficient enough to meet the Congressional requirement and
becoming the most capable heavy lift vehicle ever built.
The Space Launch System will launch the Orion Spacecraft and may
support trips to the International Space Station if needed, and
utilize the upgraded NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The
initial flight is scheduled for November 2018 to carry the Orion
Spacecraft (unmanned) on a trip around the moon and a follow-on
mission with the Orion Spacecraft to an asteroid by 2025. Executing
further scientific research the culminating vision for this system
is to launch astronauts to a pre-determined asteroid and to put
boots on Mars.
BenefitsLeveraging technological and economic
advancementAccording to Scott Hubbard, professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics at Stanford University and former director of theNASA
Ames Research Center, for every dollar spent on the space program,
the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit (Dubner,
2008). In other words, every dollar going to one of our domestic
firms stays in the U.S., creates meaningful jobs, and makes the
most of Americas entrepreneurial advantages. Funding this
investment in Americas future follows in the steps of successful
Federal investment by jumpstarting industries, including the
transcontinental railroad, the Internet, and the Global Positioning
System. Such visionary investments have produced huge economic
returns that increased government revenues for decades. The
extension of ISS to at least 2024 will allow many more flights to
be added to the ISS cargo and crew services contract, resulting in
more competitive pricing, additional new private-sector bidders and
ultimately more U.S. commercial satellite launches.1. Status Quo:
Since the retirement of the space shuttle program after 30 years of
space flight, the use of Russian and other international partners
for space transportation has become NASAs only reliable option for
transportation of crew to and from the International Space Station.
It is for that reason that the United States has very little
benefit for the leverage of new technologies with this option.
Therefore, we evaluate the Status Quo contribution as 2 for the
purposes of Leverage for new technologies and advances for American
economy.2. Private Sector (COA 1): Private capital is seeing space
as a good investment, willing to fund individuals who are
passionate about exploring space, for adventure as well as profit.
What were once affordable only by nations, can now be lucrative,
public-private partnerships. To be more precise, companies and
investors are realizing that everything we hold of valuemetals,
minerals and energyare in near-infinite quantities in space. As
space transportation and operations become more affordable, what
was once seen as a wasteland will become the next gold rush. In
addition to allowing NASA to focus on extending humanitys presence
in space, NASA programs would stimulate efforts within the private
sector to develop and operate safe, reliable, and cost-effective
commercial space transportation systems. Besides supporting ISS,
these commercial capabilities will ultimately benefit the U.S.
economy by making domestic launch vehicles more competitive in
global markets. In turn, lower launch costs could bolster
opportunities for other space markets to grow.Therefore, we
evaluate COA-1 contribution as 5 for the purposes of Leverage for
new technologies and advances for American economy.3. NASAs Space
Launch System (COA 2): In compliance with the NASA Authorization
Act, NASA intends to utilize current investments, workforce and
infrastructure while leveraging the capabilities, experience and
innovation from the US private sector, thereby continuing the
reinvestment in the US economy. There are space related
manufacturing jobs throughout many states, but it is not just about
money and jobs. NASAs most important role might be that of funding
advanced space and science projects that are and will be valuable
to humanity as we venture forward. An example of this is the agency
plans to use its massive lift capability to carry nearly a dozen
nano-satellites to conduct science experiments beyond low Earth
orbit (Newton, 2015). "NASA is taking advantage of a great
opportunity to conduct more science beyond our primary focus of
this mission," said Jody Singer manager of the Flight Programs and
Partnerships Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville, Alabama. "While this new vehicle will enable missions
beyond Earth orbit, we're taking steps to increase the scientific
and exploration capability of SLS by accommodating small,
CubeSat-class payloads (Newton, 2015).Therefore we evaluate COA 2
contribution as 4 for the purposes of Leverage for new technologies
and advances for American economy.
International Cooperation
International context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that
is a valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look
at the International Space Station and marvel that the former
Soviet Union and the U.S. are now active space partners.
International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs. With a
partnership that includes 15 nations, space vehicles from the
United States, Russian Federation, European Union and Japan and
with 68 nations currently using the ISS in one way or another, this
unique orbiting laboratory is a clear demonstration of the benefits
to humankind that can be achieved through peaceful global
cooperation.Comment by Matt: Great paragraph
1. Status Quo: Ownership of [ISS] modules, station usage by
participant nations, and responsibilities for station resupply were
established by the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
This international treaty was signed on 28 January 1998 by the
United States of America, Russia, Japan, Canada and eleven member
states of the European Space Agency (Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). International Partnership
created the foundation for which the ISS was built and has
continued to operate. Because this partnership reaches back almost
20 years its is reasonable to continue a partnership with Russia
and other foreign nations for transportation to and from the space
station.And, according to CBS, international cooperation is key on
board the space station, including, but not limited to, use of the
Soyuz ferry:The Russian segment of the space station uses
electricity generated by NASA solar arrays, taps into the station's
computer network, uses NASA's communications satellites and relies
on U.S. gyroscopes and flight controllers at the Johnson Space
Center in Houston to keep the outpost properly oriented without
having to use precious rocket fuel.NASA, in turn, relies on the
Russians to ferry U.S. and partner astronauts to and from the
station aboard Soyuz spacecraft and to provide the rocket power
needed for major station maneuvers. And both sides share critical
life support systems and launch crewless cargo ships to keep the
station supplied. (Wiener-Bronner, 2014)Comment by Matt:
Reference?
Therefore, we evaluate the Status Quo contribution as 5 for the
purposes of international cooperation and context. 2. Private
Sector (COA 1): Private space companies follow the market rules
without paying attention to the international context of their
agreements. American U.S. launch carriers are expected to cooperate
with international companies and foundations on multiple levels
like using off-shelf materials and utilizing subcontractors from
multiple nations while they continuously provide orbital services
(cargo, crew, satellite) to their customers according to the market
demand. For example, SpaceX low launch prices attracted customers
from Asia and Europe to sign multiple lucrative contracts for about
50 launches representing close to $5 billion. Therefore, private
space companies international context has to do mostly with market
rules and less with international cooperation and hostility
reduction.Therefore, we evaluate COA-1 contribution as 2 for the
purposes of international cooperation and context. 3. COA 2 NASAs
Space Launch System (SLS): The development of the SLS and Orion
program is the U.S. Governments primary plan to take astronauts and
cargo farther into space than ever before and provide the
cornerstone for future space exploration efforts. With that comes a
unique position for the U.S., in that this new frontier is a new,
unfolding strategic environment. With the SLS program, the U.S. can
garner a foothold into advanced foreign policy and develop a
foundation in the international community from which to advance
cooperation and joint ventures into the unknown. This programs
eventual goal is to put boots on Mars, and with that goal, comes
unknown potential benefits from international partners such as
joining the astronaut team or joint robotic ventures to
scientifically explore other asteroids or planets.Therefore we
evaluate COA 2 contribution as 3 for the purposes of International
Cooperation and Context.National Pride and PrestigeHuman
spaceflight is an inspiring undertaking and a pinnacle of
technological achievement. National prestige requires that the U.S.
continue to be a leader in space, and that includes human
exploration. History tells us that great civilizations dare not
abandon exploration and it should be part of what the United States
does in its desire to be as a leader; one to be admired for its
continued willingness to invest money and effort in pushing the
frontiers of human activity. A significant portion of Americans in
high technology careers attribute their inspiration to pursue a
challenging educational program to their childhood excitement about
human space exploration programs. A recent MIT study showed that
number to be 40% among current aerospace engineering undergraduates
(AIAA, 2011). The human space exploration program is a catalyst for
research and innovation, drawing youth Americans to participate and
contribute in these exciting endeavors. Leadership in space brings
with it economic growth, technological prowess, and national pride,
and contributes to American global leadership more broadly.
(Dubner, 2008).
1. Status Quo: The U.S is a proud nation and prides itself on
its international partnership and innovative budgetary execution.
Because of these reasons the national prestige continues to be low
as the reliance on our international partners drives our ability to
provide for transportation services to the U.S. portion of ISS.
However it also serves as a driving force to facilitate NASAs
development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation
capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and
cost-effective access to and from the space station and low-Earth
orbit beginning in 2017. (NASA, 2013) Comment by Matt:
referenceTherefore we evaluate the Status Quo contribution as 3 for
the purposes of National Pride and Prestige.2. Private Sector (COA
1): Human spaceflight has captivated the public imagination,
inspired national pride, and enabled generations to see limitless
possibilities in the new frontier. Private companies offer a new
generation of vehicles to explore space and increase American
prestige and pride, inspiring society members. All space companies
are American owned (Boeing is the biggest exporter in dollars for
US economy) and they advertise their activities through press and
social media, passionately expressing their dream to become the
alternative mean (next to NASA) for space exploration, in order to
inspire and engage the next generation of American explorers in the
act of journey and innovation.Therefore we evaluate COA 1
contribution as 3 for the purposes of National Pride and
Prestige.3. COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS): This is a
critical juncture for NASA to build and provide a Space Launch
System and a Multi-purpose (Orion) Spacecraft. This makes use of
our own human spaceflight skills and a unique knowledge base that
NASA has worked feverishly over the last 50 years, to enable and
inspire current and future generations of engineers, scientists and
explorers. If this talent is lost, it wont be just to the private
sector, but more importantly, potentially outside the United
States. This effort is in keeping with our space leadership ideals
and a necessary step to ensure that we are on a path to regain and
not relinquish our advancements in space exploration. The NASA
Authorization Act for 2016 has been forwarded to the full House for
a vote. An example of National Pride is the effort outlined in the
bill to conduct a well-publicized competition among students in
elementary and secondary schools to name the elements of the
administrations exploration program (Clark, 2015).
Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 4 for the purposes
of National Pride and Prestige.
Safety Experts and scientists of the current generation of new
space projects, many pursued by small companies lacking pedigrees
in rocketry or related technologies, argue that malfunctions and
crashes always have been part of perfecting cutting-edge space
hardware. On average, over the past few decades, one out of the
first three launches of both government and privately developed new
rockets failed to perform as expected. For example, SpaceX had
three early launch failures and officials feared for its very
survival before their new family of rockets demonstrated increased
reliability. (Pasztor & Ostrower, 2015). For our analysis
purposes, we did not include any lunch failures or accidents that
did not have an impact on human factor. Instead, we concentrated on
ranking Courses of Action regarding their safety in relation with
their history of accidents (Status Quo) or predicting the chances
of fatal accidents for COA-1 and COA-2. In our case, the higher the
grade, the safer a course of action would be.1. Status Quo: No
program is 100% safe. The space shuttle fleet was extended beyond
its intended life cycle and only created an increased probability
for accidents and fatalities. Evidence shows that from1668 total
launches, 5 major accidents a total of 19 died. Additionally, 13
astronauts, test pilots, and other personnel have died during 9
training/ test flights and 174 civilians due to rocket crashes and
maintenance accidents. (Kyle, 2015).
Therefore we evaluate Status Quo contribution as 2 for the
purposes of Safety.2. Private Sector (COA 1): According to official
launch lists, SpaceX managed to launch 18 different missions by
June 2015 and Orbital ATK launched 5 missions during the same
period, without any serious accidents (no fatalities or injuries).
The initial plan for future launches includes 45-55 more launches
scheduled until 2020 for Space X, 5-7 for Orbital ATK and 6-8 for
Boeing, respectively. Today, private companies have increased
access to new technology without any constraint in material and
parts manufacturers and markets combined with state of the art
testing practices in partnership with NASA technicians as part of
the Space Act Agreement. Therefore we assume that while the Space
Shuttle program executed their missions with a 98.5% success rate,
the private companies projects would experience equal to or greater
than percentages.Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 3 for
the purposes of Safety.3. COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS): As
there have been no launches with the SLS Program, the legacy Space
Shuttle program can provide us with some historical background. The
first space-worthy launch of the Columbia was on 12 April, 1981 and
the final mission was flown by the Atlantis in July of 2011. In the
30 years of the Space Shuttle program, there were 135 missions
flown with only two accidents in which two orbiters were destroyed
and a loss of 14 astronauts. The SLS program is currently planned
for an initial unmanned flight of the Orion and follow-on missions
thereafter. Due to new technology and refined manufacturing and
testing practices our assumption is that while the Space Shuttle
program executed their missions with a 98.5% success rate, the SLS
program would experience equal to or greater than percentages.
Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 3 for the purposes of
Safety and Fatalities.
In summary, the weighted benefits described above can be
concluded in the following table:
Table 1
Benefits of Crew and Cargo Transportation to ISS
BenefitsStatus QuoCOA-1 COA-2Benefits of Crew and Cargo
Transportation to ISS 254International Cooperation 423National
prestige/pride 334Safety 233Total 11 13 14
CostsSTATUS QUOWhile NASA continues to use the international
orbital transportation systems available for cargo and crew, the
federal government is not required to include maintenance and
development cost when analyzing the Status Quo. Any additionally
cost that would be assumed, such as training and processing and
preparations are all included in the estimated per seat
expense.Comment by Matt: restructure these paragraphs based on our
discussions today.For the purpose of this CBA FY15-FY17 are
calculated using current cost data and FY18-FY2024 are calculated
using an approximate eight percent increase every three years. This
eight percent is an estimated trend in prices increases annotated
from FY13 and FY14 contracts,NASA has signed a new deal that will
keep American astronauts flying on Russian spacecraft through early
2017 at a cost of $70.7 million per seat about $8 million more per
astronaut than the previous going rate.The $424 million deal is
good for six seats aboard Russia's Soyuz space capsules. Under the
agreement, Soyuz vehicles will now ferry NASA astronauts to and
from the International Space Station through 2016, with return and
rescue services extending until June 2017.The previous contract
provided Soyuz flights for NASA astronauts through 2015, at a cost
of roughly $62.7 million per seat. (WALL, 2013)NASA has been
dependent on the Soyuz since the retirement of its space shuttle
fleet in July 2011. The agency is currently encouraging American
private spaceflight firms to develop their own astronaut taxis
under its Commercial Crew Program.
Table 2
Costs of Status Quo (International Partnerships) in $
millions
Costs FY 15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24Launch
141.3 141.3 141.3 152.6 152.6 152.6 164.9 164.9 164.9 164.9
Maintenance n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/an/an/an/a n/aDevelopment n/a n/a
n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/an/a n/aTotal Costs 70.7 70.7 70.7 76.4 38.2 0
0 0 0 0Discount Rates 1.07 1.072 1.073 1.074 1.075 1.076 1.077
1.078 1.079 1.0710
Note 1: Present Value of Total Cost in real dollars =
(Launch+Development+Maintenance)t/(1+i)t, for t=0-9 and
r=0.07Note2: Total Present Value = $ 1069.91 millions
COA-1 Private Sector (SpaceX, Orbital ATK, Boeing)
Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts were awarded in
December 2008 to two different American private companies. Under
the terms of the CRS contracts, Orbital was awarded a contract
worth $1.9 billion to deliver 8 flights of cargo to ISS. SpaceX was
awarded a contract worth $1.6 billion for 12 CRS delivery flights
using its capsule-shaped Dragon spacecraft. Those contracts are
through 2016. At the current time, SpaceX has launched 6 out of 12
(50%) missions, and Orbital has delivered 3 out of 8 (37.5%).
Therefore, the remaining costs for 2015 are $1,435.83 millions and
for 2016 $1050.41 millions, respectively.The second round of
contracts,CRS2, will cover deliveries from 2017 until 2024, and are
expected to be awarded in September of 2015. The expected budget
for CRS 2 is between $1 billion and $1.4 billion a year from 2017
to 2024, according to NASA officials. (Leone, 2015). Therefore we
estimated an average of $1,200 million launch cost per year during
that period. Finally, there are no plans for further funding of
private companies for cargo services to ISS after the COTS
termination program in 2013.In 2014, NASA announced that Boeing and
SpaceX have received contracts to provide crewed launch services to
the ISS until 2014. For completing the same contract requirements,
Boeing can receive up to $4.2 billion, while SpaceX can receive up
to $2.6 billion. Both Boeing and SpaceX were awarded the same set
of requirements and the award covers both development and launch
costs through CCtCap program fundingUS$3.42 billionover the years
2015-2019 as well asUS$3.4 billionfor operational crew resupply to
the ISS. Thus the total costs are divided for every fiscal year
accordingly and their average were estimated as 425 million for
launching and 684 million for developing, respectively.Comment by
Matt: Not sure if this has been spelled out previously, if not,
please spell out.Regarding the maintenance factor, all three
companies do not publicly expose their costs, mainly due to
competitive reasons, but also because maintenance requirements
depend on the reusability of space launchers and their parts, which
cannot be estimated. Instead, their total maintenance costs are
included in their final offer for the COTS and CCtCAP programs, as
derivative costs of their launch and development projects, thus
could not be separated from them. Thus, we do not include any
maintenance cost for all three companies in our COA-1 cost
table.
Table 3
Costs of COA-1 Private Sector (SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing) in $
millions
Costs FY 15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24Launch
662.83 1317.08 1625 1625 1625 1625 1625 425 425 425Maintenance n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/an/an/a n/a n/aDevelopment 684 684 684 684 684
n/an/an/a n/a n/aTotal Costs 1346.08 2001.08 2.309 2309 2309 1625
1625 425 425 425Discount Rates 1.07 1.072 1.073 1.074 1.075 1.076
1.077 1.078 1.079 1.0710
Note 1: Present Value of Total Cost in real dollars =
(Launch+Development+Maintenance)t/(1+i)t, for t=0-9 and r=0.07Note
2: Total Present Value = $ 11,088.22 millionsNote 3: No plans for
extra funding of private companies for further development of their
space rockets and vehicles.Note 4: Maintenance cost is included in
launch and development cost
COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS)As we have been unable to
find reliable cost estimates of an SLS launch available anywhere,
it is our assumption that the costs will be higher than the
historical costs for the Space Shuttle given that they both have a
similar payload capability. The Shuttle averaged about $1B per
launch and $1.5B per launch if you included development costs. For
the purposes of this CBA we will use the historical amount of $1B
per launch for the SLS vehicle. NASA announced that the SLS
completed a development milestone known in agency terminology as
Key Decision Point C (KDP-C), a review that confirms that the SLS
program is ready to proceed with full-scale development. The review
established an estimated cost of $7.021 billion for SLS development
from February 2014 through its first launch (Faust, 2014). The
estimated development cost for the SLS and Orion programs are $3B a
year for at least 10 years. This is the figure that I will use in
the cost matrix. Additionally, I have planned for only one launch
per year as determining the additional costs of numerous launches
in a year would not be worthwhile data and based on the current
budget for NASA, one launch per year would exhaust their budget.As
there is no maintenance cost for the expendable SLS vehicle, the
above launch costs only include the SLS as it is a one-time use,
expendable rocket. The Operation and Maintenance costs will include
the amount to recover and maintain the Orion MPCV prior to the next
years launch. The Orion MPCV will land in salt water and will have
to be disassembled and rebuilt after each recovery. It is currently
unclear how much damage will result from a water based landing to
the capsule and for the purposes of this CBA, those costs will be
included in the Maintenance costs. Additionally added is the
maintenance and operations cost for the Kennedy Space Center. These
costs are currently estimated at roughly $2B per year, given one
launch per year. This will be the figure used for the purposes of
this CBA.
Table 4
Costs of COA-2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS) in $ millions
Costs FY 15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24Launch
n/an/a n/a 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Maintenance 2000 2000
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Development 3000 3000 3000
3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 Total Costs 5000 5000 5000 6000
3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 Discount Rates 1.07 1.072 1.073 1.074
1.075 1.076 1.077 1.078 1.079 1.0710
Note 1: Present Value of Total Cost in real dollars =
(Launch+Development+Maintenance)t/(1+i)t, for t=0-9 and r=0.07Note
2: Total Present Value = $ 39,511.40 millions
Cost/Benefit Comparison
Table 5
Costs and Benefits of Crew and Cargo Transportation to ISS in $
millions
BenefitsStatus QuoCOA-1 COA-2Benefits of Crew and Cargo
Transportation to ISS 254International Cooperation 423National
prestige/pride 334Safety 233
CostsStatus QuoCOA-1 COA-2 Launch
1,069.908,263.684,397,92Maintenance n/a2,804.5414,045.39Development
n/an/a21,068.09Total Costs 1,069.9011,088.2239,511.40
Policy Recommendations
As the preponderance of NASAs total funding is going into the
SLS program, money would be better spent to develop private
industry rockets and provide current payments due to the Russians
for space station crew launches. This would enable NASA to provide
adequate funding for the many on-going research and development
projects needed for deep-space exploration.Additionally, NASA
astronauts could perform many more deep-space missions with the
alternate launchers. The much smaller unit cost and lower operating
expense of these other rockets would permit these more-frequent
missions. More ambitious robotic missions would be feasible for the
same reason all within NASAs current budget. Again, NASA proposed
this very stratagem before Congress forced SLS on the space agency
(Boozer, 2014)Its time for U.S. citizens to insist that NASAs
budget go towards advancing the entire nations long-term future in
space, not just short-term employment for certain areas of the
country. By advancing more rapidly into space, the country will
create many more American jobs in the future than will come from
NASA spinning its wheels with SLS and Orion (Boozer, 2014).
ReferencesAIAA, I. P. (2011). Enabling U.S. Leadership of Human
Spaceflight. ().The American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
doi:https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/Issues_and_Advocacy/Space/Human_Spaceflight_Leadership_Information_Paper_022510.pdfBaum,
S. (2009). Costbenefit analysis of space exploration: Some ethical
considerations. Space Policy, 25(2), 75.
doi:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964609000198Boozer,
R.D.. 10 Feb 2014. Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASAs Rocket to
Nowhere? Retrieved from
http://www.space.com/24628-will-spacex-kill-nasa-sls.html
Clark, S. 3 May 2015. New name for Space Launch System gets
backing of lawmakers. Retrieved from
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/03/new-name-for-space-launch-system-gets-backing-of-lawmakers/Diamandis,
P. (2014). Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536Dubner,
S. (2008). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics
Quorum. Retrieved from
http://freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/Foust,
J. 27 Aug 2014. SLS Debut likely to slip to 2018. Retrieved from
http://spacenews.com/41690sls-debut-likely-to-slip-to-2018/Holdren,
J. P., & Bolden, C. (2014). Obama Administration Extends
International Space Station until at Least 2024. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/08/obama-administration-extends-international-space-station-until-least-2024Howell,
E. (2014). SpaceX: First Private Flights to Space Station.
Retrieved from http://www.space.com/18853-spacex.htmlKyle, E.
(2015). Launch Vehicle by Success Rate . Retrieved from
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2015.html#rateLeone, D. (2015).
NASA Preparing Follow-on Commercial Cargo Delivery Contract.
Retrieved from
http://spacenews.com/39595nasa-preparing-follow-on-commercial-cargo-delivery-contract/Loff,
S. (2015). NASA Hails Success of Commercial Space Program.
Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-hails-success-of-commercial-space-programNational
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010,
retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdfNASA. (2013). NASA
Extends Crew Flight Contract with Russian Space Agency | NASA.
Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_C13-027_Soyuz_Services.htmlNewton,
K. 17 Jun 2015. NASAs Space Launch System to Boost Science with
Secondary Payloads. Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-to-boost-science-with-secondary-payloads.htmlPasztor,
A., & Ostrower, J. (2015). Commercial Space Industry Faces
Hurdles After Recent Accidents. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com/articles/accidents-raise-questions-about-future-of-commercial-space-travel-1414889728Wall,M.
(2013, April 30). NASA to Pay $70 Million a Seat to Fly Astronauts
on Russian Spacecraft. Retrieved from
http://www.space.com/20897-nasa-russia-astronaut-launches-2017.htmlWiener-Bronner,D.
(2014, March 25). NASA Is Paying Russia $71 Million for a Ride to
Space. Retrieved from
http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/03/nasa-is-paying-russia-71-million-for-a-ride-to-space/359559/)
