The Cost of Mir and the ISS

[GreenWolf]

First, some background. This debate started in another thread, and has, unfortunately, somewhat derailed it. So, I'm starting the thread so the debate has a home to live in where it won't wreck other threads.

Now, Yuri Koptev has said that the entire Mir program cost 4.2 billion dollars. (Link to web archive of NY Times article with his statement here.) This seems somewhat incongruous with the ISS's price tag of 150 billion dollars. (Multiple different sites make this claim, although I can't seem to find a primary source stating the ISS's cost.)

Is Koptev's statement accurate? If so what are some possible reasons for the low cost of Mir? Is the ISS's cost being inflated? More importantly, which one is an accurate indicator of the cost of future modular stations?

[Bill Phil]

Skylab wasn't modular. And it cost about 2.2 billion in it's day. About 10 billion today. That's easily explainable, they used off the shelf equipment to accomplish the station building. It had a similar mass and habitable volume to Mir, as well as crew number...

Come to think of it, the core of Mir was basically an advanced Salyut, correct? So, at least some of it was off the shelf...

Edited March 13, 2015 by Bill Phil

[GreenWolf]

Yep, the Mir core was DOS-7. Salyut 7 was DOS-6. The major difference was that Mir had six docking ports instead of two. And all of its additional modules were based off of the Functional Cargo Block, and launched atop Proton rockets. Skylab was launched atop a Saturn V, if I remember correctly. And the Saturn was not cheap.

[Bill Phil]

Yep, the Mir core was DOS-7. Salyut 7 was DOS-6. The major difference was that Mir had six docking ports instead of two. And all of its additional modules were based off of the Functional Cargo Block, and launched atop Proton rockets. Skylab was launched atop a Saturn V, if I remember correctly. And the Saturn was not cheap.

Yeah, I'd say the Saturn was at least half the total Skylab cost, perhaps more.

What's funny is that they could've built it using a bunch of Saturn IBs, if they had enough and enough of a budget.

But this is wierd, as Gemini was more expensive than BOTH, not combined, but separate.

[GreenWolf]

Maybe the question should be, why was Gemini so expensive?

[Bill Phil]

Mir being a bit off the shelf would probably explain it, too.

The ISS used the Shuttle, which cost, when dividing total cost by number of missions, about 1 billion per mission, with a total of 35 or 36 missions to the ISS, results in adding about 35 billion dollars to the price tag. Much of the USOS is pretty much brand new, as well. Brand new things are pretty expensive compared to off the shelf hardware with some modifications.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe the question should be, why was Gemini so expensive?

New hardware, testing, Titan IIs, GATVs, Atlas, things like that, I presume.

[GreenWolf]

I imagine that the ROS is probably cheaper than the USOS, since it uses more Functional Cargo Blocks and Salyut derivatives, just like Mir did. Which makes sense, since the ROS is mostly composed of pieces that were intended for Mir-2.

[Bill Phil]

I imagine that the ROS is probably cheaper than the USOS, since it uses more Functional Cargo Blocks and Salyut derivatives, just like Mir did. Which makes sense, since the ROS is mostly composed of pieces that were intended for Mir-2.

So, how can we put the values of the ISS on the same scale as the values of Mir? Then we can properly compare the two and diagnose the reason behind the ISS being more expensive. I suspect that it has to do with the USA being inexperienced with space stations, the Shuttle, and the completely new development required for the USOS.

[EzinX]

Everything I've ever heard or read says the Russians spend 1/10 the cost to develop almost the same capabilities. The reasons for it are myriad

1. Russians work for less

2. Everyone working for the Russian space agencies is generally working directly for the government

3. NASA subcontractors have an economic incentive to charge as much money as they possibly can, because they are guaranteed 10% of the tab or so as profit. One way to charge more money is to subcontract the work to another subcontractor, because they are going to charge more than simply sending the receipts for your materials and labor to NASA.

4. Congress has an incentive to encourage #3

5. If NASA gets someone killed, they face losing everything. Thus, they are enormous incentives to not lose crew.

6. The only way to lose a government job is to do something that makes your or the agency look bad. See #5. Spending extra money is ok.

7. You can get a 90% as good solution to virtually any problem spending a lot less money.

8. Sometimes volume makes up for inefficiency - see the various Soyuz launches.

And so on and so forth. I fully believe this.

Heck, SpaceX could get a station in orbit for 4.4 billion, with money to spare. That's what, 4 falcon heavy launches, where the falcon heavy is just 3 of their existing rocket cores bolted together? So they need to develop a station to launch. I bet Bigelow aerospace could give them something that would work, cheap.

[GreenWolf]

Maybe we can try and breakdown the costs. So what exactly contributes to the cost of a space station?

• Station launch costs. Obviously, if your launcher costs a billion dollars a flight, things are gonna get expensive real quick.
  
• Resupply launch costs. Same as above. If your resupply missions cost billions, that adds up even faster.
  
• R&D costs. If you've never built a station before, learning how to do it can be expensive.
  
• Module construction costs. Building the modules takes time and money. Again, if you've never done this before, it won't be cheap.
  
• Cost of assorted infrastructure. Communications relays, launch facilities, employee salaries. These all require money.
  

Anything I'm missing?

Edit:

Everything I've ever heard or read says the Russians spend 1/10 the cost to develop almost the same capabilities. The reasons for it are myriad

1. Russians work for less

2. Everyone working for the Russian space agencies is generally working directly for the government

3. NASA subcontractors have an economic incentive to charge as much money as they possibly can, because they are guaranteed 10% of the tab or so as profit. One way to charge more money is to subcontract the work to another subcontractor, because they are going to charge more than simply sending the receipts for your materials and labor to NASA.

4. Congress has an incentive to encourage #3

5. If NASA gets someone killed, they face losing everything. Thus, they are enormous incentives to not lose crew.

6. The only way to lose a government job is to do something that makes your or the agency look bad. See #5. Spending extra money is ok.

7. You can get a 90% as good solution to virtually any problem spending a lot less money.

8. Sometimes volume makes up for inefficiency - see the various Soyuz launches.

And so on and so forth. I fully believe this.

Heck, SpaceX could get a station in orbit for 4.4 billion, with money to spare. That's what, 4 falcon heavy launches, where the falcon heavy is just 3 of their existing rocket cores bolted together? So they need to develop a station to launch. I bet Bigelow aerospace could give them something that would work, cheap.

These are all good points. I never really thought of the number 3 angle, although it really should have been obvious.

Edited March 13, 2015 by GreenWolf

[Bill Phil]

Maybe we can try and breakdown the costs. So what exactly contributes to the cost of a space station?

• Station launch costs. Obviously, if your launcher costs a billion dollars a flight, things are gonna get expensive real quick.
  
• Resupply launch costs. Same as above. If your resupply missions cost billions, that adds up even faster.
  
• R&D costs. If you've never built a station before, learning how to do it can be expensive.
  
• Module construction costs. Building the modules takes time and money. Again, if you've never done this before, it won't be cheap.
  
• Cost of assorted infrastructure. Communications relays, launch facilities, employee salaries. These all require money.
  

Anything I'm missing?

I don't think so...

Should we consider the USOS to be separate from the ROS? Or not? I mean, it is the International Space Station​ for a good reason...

[Tommygun]

Anything I'm missing?

Well the ISS is 320% heavier than Mir was.

[Bill Phil]

Well the ISS is 320% heavier than Mir was.

that's a detail that would determine number of launches and subsequently, cost. I concur.

How about number of Proton Launches (assuming only Proton is used, which, it wasn't)

Mir: 7

ISS: 23

Rounded up because you can't have half a launch. Well, you can... But that's not important.

That and the off the shelf aspects of much of Mir would very likely make it cheaper. They already had Progress, a very effective DOS module, DOS-6, which they gained valuable experience with, and the launcher was used for quite some time, amortizing it somewhat.

So, I would say it's mostly due to the Shuttle, and the USOS being less off the shelf. As well as other factors, but the big ones are the ones I mentioned.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Bill Phil

[GreenWolf]

So the main cost of the ISS, does, in fact, come from the US. Guess it's a good thing we pay the largest share of its cost.

Edit: If the shuttle and the lack of off-the-shelfness for the USOS is the main reason for the high cost of the ISS, should we expect future stations to be cheaper? Someone already pointed out that using Falcon Heavies, we could build a pretty cheap station. What kind of modules could/would be used on it? Bigelow Transhabs? FCBs? More DOS cores?

Edited March 13, 2015 by GreenWolf

[Bill Phil]

Could the US build a Mir-class station with EELV launches comparatively cheaply, though?

Perhaps if we create a standardized module base we could. And if we could, we can, and if we can, I think we should.

I mean, it's basically a necessity to go to Mars, right?

[GreenWolf]

The other thing the Russians have is the Functional Cargo Block. Almost every single one of their non-core modules has been some variation on the FGB, mostly because it already exists and it works really well. We'd need something similar, in addition to a standardized core. The problem is, we don't have anything like the TKS to grab an FGB from, since the Shuttle was our main logistics vehicle for ages. Perhaps some sort of ATV derived module? Or buy some FGBs from the Russians?

[Tommygun]

The other thing the Russians have is the Functional Cargo Block. Almost every single one of their non-core modules has been some variation on the FGB, mostly because it already exists and it works really well. We'd need something similar, in addition to a standardized core. The problem is, we don't have anything like the TKS to grab an FGB from, since the Shuttle was our main logistics vehicle for ages. Perhaps some sort of ATV derived module? Or buy some FGBs from the Russians?

A modified Unity Node?

[GreenWolf]

A modified Unity Node?

Maybe as a core. The six CBMs would make it really useful in that capacity. I still favor using a modified ATV as a cargo block though, similar to what they did with the Leonardo ATV once its mission was done.

Edit: Derp, Leonardo was a Multipurpose Logistics Module, not an ATV. Not sure how I got them confused. Regardless, the MPLM would actually work really well as both a core and a cargo block, since the Harmony node is basically a modified MPLM.

Double Edit: Huh, apparently the ATV is also derived from the MPLM. Maybe we do have our FGB after all.

Edited March 13, 2015 by GreenWolf

[Bill Phil]

Maybe as a core. The six CBMs would make it really useful in that capacity. I still favor using a modified ATV as a cargo block though, similar to what they did with the Leonardo ATV once its mission was done.

Edit: Derp, Leonardo was a Multipurpose Logistics Module, not an ATV. Not sure how I got them confused. Regardless, the MPLM would actually work really well as both a core and a cargo block, since the Harmony node is basically a modified MPLM.

Double Edit: Huh, apparently the ATV is also derived from the MPLM. Maybe we do have our FGB after all.

A modified ATV as a USA FGB? It has a similar mass, less connection nodes, and half as much habitable volume. Heavily modified, I guess?

Let's see...

Maybe give a hard shell? Pictures show it has some kind of soft skin, probably for meteorite protection. Make it more durable, lasting decades. More connection nodes. More volume, as well as more solar panel power and life support to operate on its own for a few months with no resupply.

With some developments, I could see it in use as an "FGB".

EDIT: The Atlas V's greatest payload capacity is a few tons short of 20.75 mT. We may need an adapted Delta IV. That's not all bad, but DIVs can be up to twice the price of an Atlas V.

EDIT 2: Using a modified Unity Node with life support and essentially a Canadarm, it could be done. It has a similar habitable volume as the core of Mir, and with modifications it could have life support, power, and plenty of other stuff. Plus, it already has quite a lot of berthing ports, and using other modules that are similar to the adapted Unity Node (AUN?), minus the birthing ports on some sides, we could have quite an "FGB". But it would need to be extended, with life support and the ability to unload cargo from a cargo vehicle.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Bill Phil

[GreenWolf]

Well, the ATV is already set up to allow for a rear docking port. So not too much modification there. An MPLM could be used as well, although it would probably need to be modified more heavily to operate on its own. As for the core, some kind of Tranquility node derivative would probably work. Most of our existing ISS modules are based off of the MPLM in one way or another, which makes sense when you realize the MPLM was designed to fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay. But anything we build in the future will probably be descended from the MPLM as well.

Edit in response to your second edit: A modified Unity node would work great as a core. If we setup some kind of automated docking system like the Russians have, we might not even need the Canadarm. An arm might be useful for unloading cargo, but something like the Strela cranes could be used instead. For the cargo block, we have a lot of options. Modified AUN, upgraded ATV, modified MPLM, or maybe even a straight up FGB if the Russians will sell some to us. Would it be better to have a separate habitation module though, instead of using space inside the core a cargo block?

Edited March 13, 2015 by GreenWolf

[Nibb31]

The ATV program is over. The assembly lines have been dismantled. The contractors have been disbanded. Besides, it's not American, it's European. The companies working on it are now working on the Orion service module.

The US does have Cygnus, which is basically a small hab module attached to a tug module. It's cheap and modular and still in production, so you would probably be better off with that. The tug is based on a generic spacecraft bus, so you could probably attach it to something like an ISS Node. Maybe you could just stick a CBM on the end of the tug so that you can dump it once its cargo module is attached to the station.

[Tommygun]

I thought Cygnus was based off a Multipurpose Logistics Module?

Edit: I guess it was only very distantly related.

[Albert VDS]

Aren't there other things included in the total cost of the ISS.

Things like the on Earth training facilities, the "swimming pools" with submerged replicas of ISS modules.

Training of crew and ground team. The logistics and combining several different systems.

And of course the launching of crew and supplies.

[Nibb31]

Absolutely. You also need to include the Mission Control Centers (each country has its own), the engineering support, the administrative overhead, the science committees, etc... The main cost is the thousands of people who are involved in all those tasks.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought Cygnus was based off a Multipurpose Logistics Module?

Edit: I guess it was only very distantly related.

No, it's much smaller, but uses the same techniques.

[Rune]

Ok, this is a bit of a TL;DR, but I tried to at lest skim over most of the discussion, and it's quite fascinating. Now to throw in my two cents.

Station programs, especially the ones that keep on going for a long length of time like ISS, are dominated by mostly two things, logistics and operations costs.

Operations costs, like Nibb says, are basically keeping the small horde of managers and engineers that support ISS operations fed and clothed, and driving nice cars and the like. This is not often spoken of, but I gather there are huge inefficiencies here in the ISS program due to its multinational nature. Not to mention that due to its scientific purpose and the fact that it's still one of the firsts stations ever built, it is reasonable to expect it being inherently more expensive than any follow-on that benefits from the experience of this program. For example, a hypothetical "commercial" successor to the ISS could use a single ground control center with fewer, more efficiently distributed managerial personnel, get communication coverage through satellite links instead of costly to maintain ground stations, and keep in the payroll a much smaller engineering department if it used hardware with a significant heritage.

The second big ticket expenditure are the logistics of the thing: resupply and crew rotations, basically. There you have much more rocket launches than for the construction part (if your program is successful, at least), and a big unit price on the rockets will quickly be felt in the bottom line (shuttle, I'm looking at you). There, too, we can expect a big decrease from the ISS figure in future stations, perhaps an even more dramatic one, mostly because the new rockets are not only going to be much cheaper than shuttle, we can also expect them to be cheaper than traditional rockets, now that we are moving away form cold war designs with an eventual promise of at least partial (useful) reusability.

Rune. Reusing SRBs doesn't count as reusability in my book.