Realistic SLS Launch Rate

[fredinno]

According to NASA, (http://www.space.com/17556-giant-nasa-rocket-space-launch-cost.html) an SLS would cost somewhere around $500 million per launch. On the other hand, the Shuttle costed about $450 million per launch (or over $1 Billion per launch, depending on your source), and had a average launch rate (excluding the launch pauses due to the Shuttle disasters) of 3-4 per year. Therefore, is it realistic to expect 2 launches of SLS per year for the Block I/IB and 1 launch per year for the Block II (post 2023), or am I being too optimistic?

[Hcube]

Probably too optimistic since SLS doesn't have as much uses and possible payloads as the shuttle did. And i'm pretty sure the price difference will end up being much bigger. I expect SLS to cost more than 500 million bucks by the time it has finished development

[SargeRho]

I think one or two a year would be "doable", but realistically, one every other year is more likely, if enough missions requiring it are funded.

[Capt. Hunt]

well, Apollo averaged about two per year, aside from a peak of 4 in 1969. I imagine that's probably the best tempo we can hope for, but at the same time SpaceX and Boeing/Bigelow Aerospace are going to be able to supplement SLS/Orion for station resupply and other LKO missions with the Dragon variants and CST-100, so that's not too bad. I suspect we'll see 5-6 launches per year between the three systems, with the contracted systems probably flying more often then NASA's SLS.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Capt. Hunt

[fredinno]

I think one or two a year would be "doable", but realistically, one every other year is more likely, if enough missions requiring it are funded.

The NASA baseline assumption is 1 per year.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably too optimistic since SLS doesn't have as much uses and possible payloads as the shuttle did. And i'm pretty sure the price difference will end up being much bigger. I expect SLS to cost more than 500 million bucks by the time it has finished development

The primary proposal on what to do with the SLS after ARM, is a Earth-Moon L2 Station, built to simulate the conditions of interplanetary voyages without resupply. I think you will want at least 1 launch of resupply SLS per year for that, at least initially- you don't want the crew to die due to lack of supplies.

[Requia]

If the goal is to simulate interplanetary conditions, you'd want to send all the supplies for the entire mission in the first launch.

The 500million a year figure includes the average for the R&D and reusable parts cost. The actual cost to add a mission should be more modest (though I'm not sure exactly what it is). The real limiting factor is the cost of payloads. Spirit and opportunity cost somewhere around 250 million for the launches (based on other recent Delta II launches), out of a budget of 820 million for the first 90 days. The nice thing about the shuttle was that the payload was mostly already sitting there. (Orion may have a similar effect htough, you do need to build a new one every time, but the R&D for the manned capability part of the mission will be done at least).

The fact that so much R&D cost has been sunk into them should help get SLS class missions funded though, congress is really bad about the Sunk Cost bias.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Requia

[78stonewobble]

Well, it will be whatever congress wants to pay for and wants to do in space.

And I suspect that the budget will run out before we get anywhere near the technical limitations of how fast one can produce the rockets.

I think, it's more interesting to ponder, what we could actually do, with around maksimum production of them. 3-4 launches a year. What kind of projects would be possible then?

[Nibb31]

The problem isn't the launch rate of the rocket. It's the production rate of any meaningful payloads. There are no launches manifested beyond EM-2 in 2021. There are no payloads in the pipe. There are no plans for any exploration missions and no budget. For a large payload to be ready for a hypothetical EM-3 in 2022, it would have to have been initiated in 2012, yet there is nothing. You don't launch a $500 million rocket to launch a $10 million payload. Whatever SLS launches is going to have to be big, heavy and super-expensive.

And $500 million is the (underestimated) cost of a single launch. It does not take into account the fixed costs associated with the infrastructure. Maintaining Michoud, Houston, the VAB, LC-39 and rest of the facilities for a single launch per year is going to be prohibitive if those costs can't be shared with other vehicles. When you spread those costs, you are going to be closer to a program cost of $1-2 billion per year for 1 launch every 1 or 2 years.

It's going to be really hard to justify the cost of all that infrastructure and standing army sitting around for 3 years between EM-1 and EM-2 (let alone any further launches). So hard, that it's pretty certain that it will be cancelled after EM-2.

[Bill Phil]

It would be a shame if SLS is canceled. So much effort put into it and all for only a couple launches.

SLS will probably cost about one billion USD per launch, which is prett bad. But it is a large rocket, so if it wasn't expensive that would be weird.

The cost would be prohibitive. One launch every few years seems likely.

[Frozen_Heart]

I put 1 every 3 years but that's too generous. I reckon it will launch once or twice on test flights and then never again.

[SelectHalfling0]

There was an article that I read (Natgeo I think) that said if fully funded an SLS could launch two to three times per year (of course, who would ever fully fund space travel).

[Guest]

Over an average of it's lifetime, i think we'll see something like 2 launches every 3 years.

[fredinno]

It would be a shame if SLS is canceled. So much effort put into it and all for only a couple launches.

SLS will probably cost about one billion USD per launch, which is prett bad. But it is a large rocket, so if it wasn't expensive that would be weird.

The cost would be prohibitive. One launch every few years seems likely.

The SLS Block I would have about the same lift as the shuttle, so it should cost similar amounts of money princess launch in my opinion.

[CatastrophicFailure]

The problem isn't the launch rate of the rocket. It's the production rate of any meaningful payloads. There are no launches manifested beyond EM-2 in 2021. There are no payloads in the pipe. There are no plans for any exploration missions and no budget. For a large payload to be ready for a hypothetical EM-3 in 2022, it would have to have been initiated in 2012, yet there is nothing. You don't launch a $500 million rocket to launch a $10 million payload. Whatever SLS launches is going to have to be big, heavy and super-expensive.

And $500 million is the (underestimated) cost of a single launch. It does not take into account the fixed costs associated with the infrastructure. Maintaining Michoud, Houston, the VAB, LC-39 and rest of the facilities for a single launch per year is going to be prohibitive if those costs can't be shared with other vehicles. When you spread those costs, you are going to be closer to a program cost of $1-2 billion per year for 1 launch every 1 or 2 years.

It's going to be really hard to justify the cost of all that infrastructure and standing army sitting around for 3 years between EM-1 and EM-2 (let alone any further launches). So hard, that it's pretty certain that it will be cancelled after EM-2.

I don't like this, but I agree with it. Plus, IIRC SpaceX's Falcon Heavy will have a similar payload capacity at a fraction of the cost, IF SpaceX can deliver on their promise of reusability. And so far, they've been keeping their promises, if somewhat delayed.

[Nibb31]

The SLS Block I would have about the same lift as the shuttle, so it should cost similar amounts of money princess launch in my opinion.

Except that the Shuttle didn't throw away 4 heavy lift engines on each flight, or a Service Module that takes 2 years to build.

- - - Updated - - -

There was an article that I read (Natgeo I think) that said if fully funded an SLS could launch two to three times per year (of course, who would ever fully fund space travel).

The more important question is who will fund the two-billion-dollar payloads to go on top of that one-billion-dollar rocket?

[fredinno]

I don't like this, but I agree with it. Plus, IIRC SpaceX's Falcon Heavy will have a similar payload capacity at a fraction of the cost, IF SpaceX can deliver on their promise of reusability. And so far, they've been keeping their promises, if somewhat delayed.

"Similar" as in, at least 20T less capacity to LEO. 20 T of anything is a lot.

[jwenting]

realistic launch rate for SLS is ONCE.

After the first launch the budget will be cut to zero, so there's never another launch.

[CatastrophicFailure]

"Similar" as in, at least 20T less capacity to LEO. 20 T of anything is a lot.

But if it's 20T of fuel, for example, and can be sent on a second launch, still at a lower cost..

[Dkmdlb]

what we could actually do, with around maksimum production of them. 3-4 launches a year. What kind of projects would be possible then?

Manned Mars mission. But there's one problem:

There are no plans for any exploration missions and no budget.

[78stonewobble]

The problem isn't the launch rate of the rocket. It's the production rate of any meaningful payloads. There are no launches manifested beyond EM-2 in 2021. There are no payloads in the pipe. There are no plans for any exploration missions and no budget. For a large payload to be ready for a hypothetical EM-3 in 2022, it would have to have been initiated in 2012, yet there is nothing. You don't launch a $500 million rocket to launch a $10 million payload. Whatever SLS launches is going to have to be big, heavy and super-expensive.

And $500 million is the (underestimated) cost of a single launch. It does not take into account the fixed costs associated with the infrastructure. Maintaining Michoud, Houston, the VAB, LC-39 and rest of the facilities for a single launch per year is going to be prohibitive if those costs can't be shared with other vehicles. When you spread those costs, you are going to be closer to a program cost of $1-2 billion per year for 1 launch every 1 or 2 years.

It's going to be really hard to justify the cost of all that infrastructure and standing army sitting around for 3 years between EM-1 and EM-2 (let alone any further launches). So hard, that it's pretty certain that it will be cancelled after EM-2.

For comparison the Saturn V and it's heavy lift capability supposedly came at a price of 494 million US$ (inflation adjusted US$ 3.18 billion in 2015) per rocket including launch.

I don't like this, but I agree with it. Plus, IIRC SpaceX's Falcon Heavy will have a similar payload capacity at a fraction of the cost, IF SpaceX can deliver on their promise of reusability. And so far, they've been keeping their promises, if somewhat delayed.

The Falcon Heavy... Has the same basic problem. If noone is willing to pay for it or for payloads for it. Then it will not get used. Possibly it will be used to launch multiple satellites a few times, but if noone wants to pay for scientific payloads, then it will never fly with them.

[Nibb31]

The difference between SLS and Falcon Heavy is that the Falcon infrastructure and boosters are shared with Falcon 9. They can build a FH on demand whenever the need arises. If nobody orders one, it's no big deal because it doesn't cost much to maintain the capability.

[CatastrophicFailure]

For comparison the Saturn V and it's heavy lift capability supposedly came at a price of 494 million US$ (inflation adjusted US$ 3.18 billion in 2015) per rocket including launch.

The Falcon Heavy... Has the same basic problem. If noone is willing to pay for it or for payloads for it. Then it will not get used. Possibly it will be used to launch multiple satellites a few times, but if noone wants to pay for scientific payloads, then it will never fly with them.

Get the cost low enough, and entrepreneurs will suddenly start finding uses for it. Like that Mars reality tv show, or rich folks who want to go play Neil Armstrong on the moon. Doesn't have to be pure science.

[fredinno]

There are plans- there's SLS reports for everything from NEO missions to manned Flybys, to giant Telecopes. None concrete, yet, but that allows the next president to make the choice on where to go, allowing for greater flexibility and reducing the chance of project cancellation. I know my viewpoint is unpopular, but there's still 8 or so years till we need a post ARM mission. We have some time.

- - - Updated - - -

Man, I knew there would be SpaceX fanboyism, but man, is it strong. Falcon Heavy doesn't have to be in competition with SLS; it can be used to supplement the larger launcher for smaller components that can be attached over many launches (Manning of a mothership to Mars, for example.)

[Kryten]

The difference between SLS and Falcon Heavy is that the Falcon infrastructure and boosters are shared with Falcon 9. They can build a FH on demand whenever the need arises. If nobody orders one, it's no big deal because it doesn't cost much to maintain the capability.

The difference is also, y'know, the gigantic gulf in payload capability to most orbits. Falcon heavy is in the rough ballpark of Ariane 5 and Delta IVH for most BLEO trajectories, implying that it could replace it directly as some have in this thread is ridiculous.

[hieywiey]

I think that the SLS will only be used to it's full potential if a President challenges the nation to do something like JFK did with Apollo. Congress didn't care how much Apollo cost, they just cared that they landed on the moon before the Soviets. If a future president wants to land people from their country on Mars before another country, congress would fund it no matter how expensive it is. The SLS will definitely have fewer launches per year than the Shuttle, because less of it is reusable. But, the Shuttle's $1 billion pricetag may have partially because it was not expendable; the reusable-ness was more of an advantage in launches per year than cost. Mainly due to recovery costs from the boosters and refurbishing everything. The SLS' first flight should be a manned lunar landing, since we should at least get something out of it besides a circumlunar flyby and a asteroid rendezvous before it gets cancelled. Orion imo should have a Soyuz-like orbital module on top in the form of a BA-330.