Launch Economics

1
Launch Economics TechnologyJeff GreasonMarch
23, 2011

• If you want to lower cost, then lower cost

2
The repetitive fallacy

• rockets have reached their limits of efficiency.
  Therefore we need something better
• . And yet rockets keep winning.
• Efficiency Amount of what you want divided by
  theoretical limit of what you can get
• What do we want?
• Thrust to weight?
• Specific Impulse/Thermal efficiency?
• Cost?

3
The Grand Challenge

• Provide economical, reliable, and safe access to
  space
• This is the RIGHT challenge, but
• Is this a technology problem?
• If so, what technologies?

4
Isp

• Typical state of the art is gt97 of theoretical
  efficiency for a given propellant chemistry.
• 3 increase in Isp can offer 10 increase in
  delivered payload to orbit
• What do we expect cost of engines to do with
  increased efficiency? More than 10 higher!
• Note that same applies to exotic propellant
  chemistries with similar costs and benefits

5
Thrust/Weight

• On the grand average, state of the art engines
  mass perhaps 2 of vehicle dry mass
• If thrust/weight DOUBLED, save perhaps 1 of
  vehicle dry mass. That improves payload to orbit
  by something on order of 5-10
• What will engine cost do? More than 10 higher!
• Therefore, an engine with higher T/W and higher
  Isp and HIGHER COST is a net LOSER current
  hydrocarbon boost efforts are going the wrong
  way

6
What drives cost?

• very simplified, ignoring amortization, tax, etc.
•  
• If its expendable, this simplifies to
• And, of course, divide by payload to get cost/lb

7
Expendables

• Decrease annual cost of the line
• Progress being made at ULA, SpaceX on this
• Increase units produced per year
• Technology can have huge influence on this by
  changing mission designs to use MORE of a
  standard size launcher rather than custom!
• Decrease incremental cost of launcher
• Engine cost a big driver here
• XCOR is working in this area 5-10x reductions
  possible, makes 30 reductions in production
  cost of upper stages
• A funded effort for a LOW PRODUCTION COST booster
  engine might pay similar dividends at booster
  level

8
Mission design the biggest driver

• At current launch rates, the cost of production
  line is the biggest term
• Therefore, regardless of theoretical arguments
  about best size booster.
• Using MORE boosters of a production line shared
  with other customers will nearly always be LOWER
  launch cost than a new booster.
• Until production lines for existing boosters
  become capacity saturated
• Next best is to use booster with common
  components, so economies of scale happen at
  component level
• So, for example, if NASA launches 2 140 tonne
  boosters/year, it will cost 2-3B/year for that
  launch capacity. If NASA launches 8 35 tonne
  boosters/year from existing lines, it will cost
  1-1.8B/year for that launch capacity.
• This is more powerful than ANY ELV technology
  knob gt2X reductions
• This neglects ROI on the development cost, which
  only strengthens the case
• Paradoxically, this means the 1 technology area
  for cheaper ELV boost is NOT a booster technology
  but a PAYLOAD technology that allows missions to
  be broken up into standard pieces within the
  industrial base shared with other missions
• On orbit propellant storage transfer
• Automated rendezvous and docking
• Lighter weight docking/berthing mechanisms

9
Reusability

• Increased flights/unit a very powerful knob, AS
  LONG AS cost/flight doesnt wipe it out
• XCOR has demonstrated orders of magnitude
  reduction in propulsion cost/flight at small
  scale and this can be extended to larger systems
• The missing technology is an orbital entry,
  descent, landing system and thermal protection
  that allows gas and go operations
• recovery from an orbital flight in a ready to
  fly condition
• With system weights that do not dominate the mass
  lofted to orbit
• Note that RLV development cost tends to scale
  STRONGLY with system size so that a smaller RLV
  with frequent flights is economically superior to
  a larger one with infrequent flights
• This means mission model technologies are,
  again, the biggest driver

10
Whats the biggest ROI technology?

• 1) Technologies that permit big missions built
  with more flights of smaller launch vehicles
• Market pull rather than technology push
• 2) land and refly thermal protection concepts
• 3 (but 1 within this technology area) Lower
  COST engines of ADEQUATE performance