development and transportation costs of space launch systems

DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky

DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007

D. E. D. E. KoelleKoelle, R. Janovsky, R. Janovsky

DGLR FAS 4.1, 2007DGLR FAS 4.1, 2007

Development and transportation costs of Development and transportation costs of space launch systemsspace launch systems



22

1. The Cost History of "Space Access1. The Cost History of "Space Access““

WhyWhy isis itit importantimportant? ? Price Price forfor spacespace transportationtransportation generallygenerally viewedviewed as as biggestbiggest obstacleobstacle to to growth of growth of spacespace commercialisationcommercialisation and and explorationexplorationCostCost forfor spacespace transportationtransportation representsrepresents typicallytypically 25 25 –– 70 % of a 70 % of a specificspecificspacespace programprogram

"Cost"Cost--perper--Flight" definition for Flight" definition for ELVsELVs and and RLVsRLVs::Vehicle Production Cost (Learning Factor)Vehicle Production Cost (Learning Factor)Direct Operations Cost: e.g. Propellants & Materials, Ground opeDirect Operations Cost: e.g. Propellants & Materials, Ground operations, flight & rations, flight & mission planning, transport & recovery, refurbishment, fees & pumission planning, transport & recovery, refurbishment, fees & public damage blic damage insuranceinsuranceIndirect Operations Cost: e.g. program administration & system mIndirect Operations Cost: e.g. program administration & system management, anagement, technical system support, launch site support & maintenancetechnical system support, launch site support & maintenanceInsurance Cost for launcher & payloadInsurance Cost for launcher & payload

Specific Transportation Costs (Cost per kg payload) depend stronSpecific Transportation Costs (Cost per kg payload) depend strongly on payload size and gly on payload size and launch frequencylaunch frequency



33

LaunchLaunch pricesprices influencedinfluenced byby::

CustomerCustomer requirementsrequirements ((payloadpayload massmass, , sizesize, , orbitorbit parametersparameters))

BulkBulk buysbuys of of launchlaunch vehiclesvehicles & & launchlaunch servicesservices

Special Special launchlaunch servicesservices requiredrequired

World World launchlaunch marketmarket competitivecompetitive situationsituation

LaunchLaunch demandsdemands –– numbernumber of of launcheslaunches//payloadspayloads per per yearyear

InsuranceInsurance costcost forfor launcherlauncher and and payloadpayload (in (in casecase of of ELVsELVs), ), dependingdepending on on

pastpast launchlaunch vehiclevehicle reliabilityreliability



44

Specific Transportation Cost to LEO depend on launch vehicle size/ payload capability



55

Rapid cost decrease in the 60ies due to growth of launch vehicle size/capability

LEO transportation costs did remain constant since 40 years between 40 and 100 MYr/Mg or10 000 and 25000 USD/kg (2007)

Further decrease only feasible with fully reusable launch vehicles

Specific LEO Space Transportation Cost History



66

The Prices for space transportation: The Prices for space transportation: LEOLEO

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Athena 2 [$/kg]

Cosm os 3M [$/kg]

Pegasus-XL [$/kg]

Rockot [$/kg]

Start [$/kg]

Taurus [$/kg]

Vega [$/kg]

Ariane 44L [$/kg]

Atlas 2AS [$/kg]

Delta 2 (7920/5)[$/kg]Dnepr [$/kg]

Long March 2C [$/kg]

Long March 2E [$/kg]

Soyuz [$/kg]

Ariane 5G [$/kg]

Ariane 5 ESC-A [$/kg]

Long March 3B [$/kg]

Proton [$/kg]

Zenit 2 [$/kg]

Zenit 3SL [$/kg]

Spec. Launch price[$/k ]

Spec

ific

Laun

ch P

rice

per k

g [2

000

US$

]

Space Transportation Systems: Launch price to LEOSource: Futron 2002

Payload Mass to LEO [kg]



77

LEO-Synthesis:

General Trend: General Trend: ApproximatelyApproximately 70007000--14000 US$/kg 14000 US$/kg

SpecificSpecific launchlaunch pricesprices decreasedecrease withwith sizesize of of launcherlauncher respectivelyrespectivelypayloadpayload capabilitycapability

Launchers Launchers fromfrom RussiaRussia at at lowerlower end of end of launchlaunch priceprice rangerange

SomeSome launcherslaunchers out of out of serviceservice oror no no moremore availableavailable forfor commercialcommercialpayloadspayloads (ITAR)(ITAR)

For For RLVsRLVs a a significantsignificant priceprice advantageadvantage forfor large large systemssystems predictedpredicted



88

10

100

1000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

700 kg BoM

1400 kg BoM

2800 kg BoM

5600 kg BoM

Myr/Mg150

k$/kg

65

20

Specific GTO/GEO Space Transportation Cost History



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Ariane 44L [$/kg]

Atlas 2AS [$/kg]

Delta 2 (7920/5) [$/kg]

Long March 2C [$]

Long March 2E [$/kg]

Soyuz [$/kg]

Ariane 5G [$/kg]

Ariane 5 ESC-A [$/kg]Long March 3B [$/kg]

Proton [$/kg]

Spec

ific

Laun

ch P

rice

per k

g [2

000

US$

]Space Transportation Systems: Launch price to GTOSource: Futron 2002

Payload Mass to GTO [kg]

99

Specific GTO/GEO Cost



1010

GTO/GEO-Synthesis

Transportation cost to GTO/GEO did decrease by a factor 2 due to the

introduction of LOX/LH2 upper stages (instead of solid kick motors)

More effective specific cost reduction was the result of GEO payload

growth : by almost one order of magnitude !

GTO - General Trend: Approximately 11000 US$/kg (larger systems) –

30000 US$/kg (smaller systems), size effect

Ariane 5 with approx. 15 k€/kg competitive for GTO-Missions



1111

2. Reusable Launch Systems vs. Expendable Vehicles2. Reusable Launch Systems vs. Expendable Vehicles

TypicallyTypically itit isis assumedassumed, , thatthat rere--usableusable launchlaunch vehiclesvehicles reducereduce dramaticallydramatically launchlaunch costcostbyby rere--usingusing flightflight hardwarehardware

NumerousNumerous studiesstudies havehave shownshown thatthat reusablereusable launchlaunch vehiclesvehicles ((RLVsRLVs) ) areare thethe onlyonly meansmeansof of furtherfurther costcost reductionreduction. .

In In additionaddition, , thethe expectedexpected flightflight reliablityreliablity shouldshould bebe oneone order of order of magnitudemagnitude higherhighercomparedcompared to to presentpresent ELVsELVs

ReusabilityReusability isis onlyonly justifiedjustified forfor vehiclesvehicles withwith moremore thanthan 10 t LEO 10 t LEO payload,payload, withwith thethe costcostadvantagesadvantages increasingincreasing withwith payloadpayload sizesize ((factorfactor 2 2 seemsseems feasiblefeasible at at somesome 30 t and 30 t and factorfactor10 at 100 t 10 at 100 t payloadpayload capabilitycapability))

No No reusablereusable launchlaunch vehiclesvehicles havehave beenbeen developeddeveloped up to up to nownow duedue to to thethe constantconstant launchlaunchmarketmarket and and thethe relativelyrelatively high high investmentinvestment requiredrequired

TheThe US US SpaceSpace Shuttle Shuttle VehicleVehicle isis notnot reallyreally reusablereusable -- onlyonly thethe OrbiterOrbiter whichwhich isis a a mannedmannedlaboratorylaboratory and and returnreturn vehiclevehicle. . TheThe transportationtransportation costcost areare comparablecomparable to to expendableexpendablelaunchlaunch vehiclesvehicles



1122

Cost Model:Cost Model: TypicalTypical launchlaunch costcost constitutionconstitution forfor ELV&RLVELV&RLV

ELV: ~153 M€/flightTheoretical First Unit (TFU) 220 M€6 flights/year, 30 years of operation9 t to GTO180 vehicles produced

~17 k€/kg payload to GTO

RLV: ~43 M€/flightTFU 600M€12 flights/year, 30 years of operation4.5 t to GTOMax. 100 flights per vehicle, 5 vehicles fleet

~9.7 k€/kg payload to GTO

(no (no rere--financingfinancing of of developmentdevelopment costcost))

80.90

14.34

8.09

50.00Average vehicle costOperation Cost per flightInsurance cost per flightFix-Cost share Launch site

6.93

6.44

0.97

1.72

2.49

25.00

Cost share Production Cost per flight

Operation Cost per flight

Recovery Cost per Flight

Average Refurbishment Cost per Flight

Insurance cost per flight

Fix-Cost share Launch site



1133

For For ELVsELVs, , thethe productionproduction costcost areare thethe largestlargest costcost shareshare, , forfor RLVsRLVs thetheoperationsoperations costcost

ThisThis isis thethe reasonreason forfor thethe relative relative costcost advantageadvantage of of RLVsRLVs versusversus ELVsELVs

A A smallsmall fleetfleet of of RLVsRLVs cancan bebe competitivecompetitive to to expendableexpendable systemssystems in in thethe longlong--termterm(30 (30 yearsyears oror so) as so) as longlong as as thethe fleetfleet flies flies frequentlyfrequently

in in termsterms of absolute of absolute costcost

in in termsterms ofof specificspecific transportationtransportation costcost



1414

Comparison of Comparison of ELVs&RLVsELVs&RLVs: Influence of annual launch rate: Influence of annual launch rate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cost per f light ELV [MEURO]

Cost per f light RLV [MEURO]

Assumptions RLV: ~4.5 t to GTO- indirect fix-cost 300 M€/year- 30 years of operation- m ax 100 flights / vehicle , 5 vehicle fleet- Learning curve factor 0.875- Insurance rate 1% of average vehicle cost

Cos

t per

flig

ht (

CpF

) [M

€]

Annual numer of flights [1/a]

Assumptions ELV: ~9 t to GTO- indirect fix-cost 300 M €/year- 30 years of operation- Learning curve factor 0.875- Insurance rate 10% of average vehicle cost

RLV

ELV



1515

Comparison of Comparison of ELVs&RLVsELVs&RLVs: Influence of annual launch mass to GTO: Influence of annual launch mass to GTO

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Specif ic Cost per kg ELV [EURO/kg]

Specif ic Cost per kg RLV [EURO/kg]

Total GTO-launch m ass (com m ercial payloads) in 2006: ~100t

Assumptions RLV: ~4.5 t to GTO- indirect fix-cost 300 M€/year- 30 years of operation- Interest rate 4%/a; inflation rate 3%/a- Learning curve factor 0.875- Insurance rate 1% of average vehicle cost

Assumptions ELV: ~9 t to GTO- indirect fix-cost 300 M€/year- 30 years of operation- Interest rate 4%/a; inflation rate 3%/a- Learning curve factor 0.875- Insurance rate 10% of average vehicle cost

Total payload mass to GTO per year [t]

Spec

ific

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

osts

[€/

kg]

RLV

ELV



1616

Influence of annual launch rate: SynthesisInfluence of annual launch rate: Synthesis

WithWith usedused assumptionsassumptions a 4.5 a 4.5 tt--GTOGTO--classclass RLV RLV cancan bebe competitivecompetitive to a 9 to a 9 tt--GTOGTO--classclass ELV ELV forfor samesame transportedtransported total total massmass, , ifif annualannual launchlaunch rate rate exceedsexceeds ~3 ~3 flightsflights per per yearyear ((i.ei.e. . approxapprox. 13 t to GTO per . 13 t to GTO per yearyear))

At At veryvery lowlow annualannual launchlaunch ratesrates, , reliabilityreliability likelylikely decreasesdecreases

TheThe specificspecific costcost advantageadvantage of RLV of RLV isis aboutabout 5050--60% and 60% and remainsremains constantconstant forforannualannual massmass >~60t to GEO>~60t to GEO

TheThe total total commercialcommercial payloadpayload massmass to GTO in 2006 was ~100 tto GTO in 2006 was ~100 t

TakingTaking intointo accountaccount todaytoday‘‘ss competitioncompetition in in GTOGTO--marketmarket (4(4--6 6 operatorsoperators), an RLV ), an RLV has to has to capturecapture approxapprox. 15. 15--20% 20% marketmarket shareshare to to bebe commerciallycommercially competitivecompetitive!!



1717

3. Future Cost Reduction Potential and Trends3. Future Cost Reduction Potential and Trends

The goal for any new system should be to reduce the specific transportation cost by approx 50% or more, compared to at that best time existing systems

Re-usability is the only way to achieve that goal

The impediment for new systems (RLV&ELV) seems to be the enormous development cost.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16GTO PAYLOAD CAPABILITY (Mg)

50 % Reduction

ARIANE 5

ARIANE 5

AR.5 ECA

AR.5 ECB

AR.5 -2010

(Goal)

GOAL:

Spec

ific

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

ost t

o G

TO (€

/kg)



1818

A great variety of RLV-concepts has been studied in the past decades (e.g.) in ESA’s WLC, FESTIP&FLPP Studies, ASTRA, Prepha, …)

Development cost of RLVs are extremely different, depending on the concept and technology : between 3 and 20 Billion Euros (1995)

Winged vehicles are most expensive due to the combination of aircraft and space vehiclerequirements and technology

The lowest development cost has the rocket-propelled ballistic re-usable vehicle (withexpendable upper stage)

This comparison does not include the cost for the development and demonstration of enabling technologies!

Taking these cost into account, less complex RLVs (and ELVs) will benefit!



1919

10

100

1000

10000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Space Shuttle

ELVs

Sänger

Ball. RLV

Cost-per-Flight (CpF)

MYr

No.of Launches per Year (LpA)

The way to overcome this impediment is to select that launch vehicle, having the lowest total cost (life cycle cost including development cost and cost for technology development & demonstration)

The ballistic VTOL, which also promises the lowest transportation cost (about 30 % of ARIANE 5) might be one of the promising options!

development and transportation costs of space launch systems

Documents