Convert Space Shuttle to Tour Bus

[Warren Platts]

The Space Shuttle may seem like a boondoggle, with an amortized total cost of well over $1 billion US per flight. However, the marginal cost (the direct costs associated with one particular flight) is "only" around $60 million. Morever, since NASA will be retiring the shuttle in any case, the shuttle will be worth next to nothing to NASA itself once the last planned flight is over. :boohoo:

Note, however, there is one thing the shuttle can do that nothing else that exists or is on the drawing board can do. And that is to carry lots of people into orbit at once. With space tourism starting to take off, maybe one option would be to auction the fleet to the highest bidder who's serious about keeping them flying. That way, the potential buyer could save the R&D costs of designing a similar craft from scratch. :)

It seems to me there is a niche intermediate between the $20 million it costs for a week at the ISS and the 15-minute suborbital flights offered for $200,000 by Virgin Galactic. This would be the $2 million niche for spending the day in Earth orbit. What people really want is to say that they've been there and done that. Suborbital flights are kind of cheesy--you can't say you've really been to space until you've been in orbit. But the week in space at the ISS is overkill--and besides it costs 20 big ones, not to mention all that training you have to do. :sick:

So take the shuttle, and retrofit the cargo bay into a first-class passenger cabin. The bay is 60 feet X 15 feet. So you could have 10 rows of 2-2 1st-class lie-flat seats (seat pitch = 72 inches; seat width = 36 inches with 36 inches left over for the aisle). So, that's 40 seats at $2 million each: $80 million total for a $20 million profit per flight. The profit margin would be 33%--not bad. :think:

The flight plan, as I envision it, would be to launch in the morning after breakfast. Once safely in orbit, the bay doors would swing open, revealing a panoramic view of the Earth below. The passengers would be protected by a seamless ceiling of clear plexiglass. People would be free to float around the cabin to stretch out a little--but there wouldn't be enough room for gymnastics. A gourmet lunch with champaigne would be served. The shuttle would do four 90-minute orbits before landing in time for dinner. After all, who wants to spend more time than that on an airplane. :clap:

The only showstopper I can think of: How do you get the passengers to their seats while on the launch pad without killing them? :hand:

[Nicolas]

60 million to launch a shuttle? That sounds awfully cheap to me. Don't worry, I'm already running towards my SMAD. :)

Edit: SMAD 3rd edition 1999 lists 400 million dollar, with the note that there is no clear info and that it depends on the number of launches. Still 400 million is a LOT more than 60 million.

it lists shuttle costs per kg to LEo as 16400$. Assume a 75 kg person and a 15 kg seat+his part of making it pressurized, that's 90 kg or 1476000$. Funny enough, you'd run profits if you charge 2 million per person this way. What's the reason behind this discrepancy? 40*75 = 3000 kg is way too little mass to have a heavy beast such as the shuttle be efficient. You're flying "next to empty" as the cost/kg is based on a nicely filled cargo bay (at least, I assume it is based on maximum payload or at least average payload), not some decadent but light luxury package of too rich people :).

Assuming 40 people and 400 million $ (it's more these days IIRC), you'd have to charge 13 million/pax to run 33% profit. 20 million takes you a week into a spacestation, compared to a day in an overactive Concorde ;).

[Warren Platts]

60 million to launch a shuttle? That sounds awfully cheap to me. Don't worry, I'm already running towards my SMAD. :)

Edit: SMAD 3rd edition 1999 lists 400 million dollar, with the note that there is no clear info and that it depends on the number of launches. Still 400 million is a LOT more than 60 million.

it lists shuttle costs per kg to LEo as 16400$. Assume a 75 kg person and a 15 kg seat+his part of making it pressurized, that's 90 kg or 1476000$. Funny enough, you'd run profits if you charge 2 million per person this way. What's the reason behind this discrepancy? 40*75 = 3000 kg is way too little mass to have a heavy beast such as the shuttle be efficient. You're flying "next to empty" as the cost/kg is based on a nicely filled cargo bay (at least, I assume it is based on maximum payload or at least average payload), not some decadent but light luxury package of too rich people :).

Assuming 40 people and 400 million $ (it's more these days IIRC), you'd have to charge 13 million/pax to run 33% profit. 20 million takes you a week into a spacestation, compared to a day in an overactive Concorde ;).

The figure you're quoting must include amortized costs associated with the R&D phase since you say the figure depends on the number of launches.

The $60 million figure I used is for marginal costs per launch that do not take into account the costs associated with developing the shuttle program (R&D and construction costs). I got the figure from the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_program#Costs), so you can take it with a grain of salt. (It states a total cost per flight of $1.3 billion.)

But for figuring profit and loss on a tourism venture, I think we can eliminate the R&D costs since NASA is going to write those costs off anyway. Once the shuttle program is finished, the retired shuttles will only be worth what a museum is willing to pay for them, so I figure a space entrepreneur could pick them up for comparatively bargain basement prices at a government auction.

[CJSF]

The following issue would have to be addressed, presumably:

http://www.space.com/news/ft_070604_aging_orbiters.html

CJSF

[Larry Jacks]

There are a lot of other issues that you'd also have to address, such as:

1. The Shuttle launch pads are going to be converted to launch the Ares vehicles.
2. The Shuttle servicing personnel are going to be working on the new vehicles.
3. The mission control equipment, software, and personnel are going to the new program.
4. The Vehicle Assembly Building will also be converted.
5. Who would pay for all of the training equipment and personnel needed to fly a Shuttle mission?

In short, all of the things needed to fly Shuttle missions are going to be reassigned or retrofitted once the Shuttles are terminated.

[Nicolas]

-the shuttle cargo bay is not pressurized
-the shuttle cargo bay has no windows

[Nicolas]

The figure you're quoting must include amortized costs associated with the R&D phase since you say the figure depends on the number of launches.

The $60 million figure I used is for marginal costs per launch that do not take into account the costs associated with developing the shuttle program (R&D and construction costs). I got the figure from the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_program#Costs), so you can take it with a grain of salt. (It states a total cost per flight of $1.3 billion.)

But for figuring profit and loss on a tourism venture, I think we can eliminate the R&D costs since NASA is going to write those costs off anyway. Once the shuttle program is finished, the retired shuttles will only be worth what a museum is willing to pay for them, so I figure a space entrepreneur could pick them up for comparatively bargain basement prices at a government auction.

The GAO accounts 400 million per flight. If that included R&D, wouldn't they be paying R&D twice?

[JustAFriend]

I had also heard $300-500million per flight.

That puts the $80million ticket sales per flight at a VERY losing end of the equation.

....and one disaster would put a $4-5 BILLION lawsuit at NASA's throat, effectively shutting it down forever....

[Warren Platts]

:sad: Oh ye of little faith! Allow me to relieve your FUD:

First, some economics. If you buy a car for $10,000 and drive it for 100,000 miles, your total cost per mile will be 10 cents per mile for the upfront costs plus whatever you spend on gas, maintenance, insurance, parking and traffic tickets. However, if your parents just give you the car, your only costs are what I call the marginal costs: the gas, maintenance, insurance, parking, etc.

Alternatively, maybe you could pick up the same car at a government auction for $100, a negligible amount.

The Space Shuttle is just like the car, except that the government had to build it itself, rather than just going to a dealership and buying a new one. So NASA had huge upfront costs that (on a per flight basis) dwarfed the cost of fuel, pilots, mechanics and such by like a factor of 20. So now they have a 25 year-old Cadillac they're sick of driving and want a new vehicle. Can't blame them for that. However, a 1982 Caddy with 150K miles on it isn't going to be worth very much, but it still might have a lot of good miles left in it, if the proper buyer is willing to fix it up a little bit. So the buyer can pick up the 1982 Caddy for a low upfront cost, and then his only costs will be mostly just the marginal costs associated with actually driving the thing.

Same with the shuttle. It cost a lot to buy, but now that it's used, it isn't worth very much. So if someone were to pick it up now, they would have comparitively very low upfront costs compared to what it cost NASA to put it together. Thus, the main cost for someone flying a used Space Shuttle at this point in time will just be the marginal costs for the fuel and maintenance and pilot and ground control salaries. And that is about $60,000,000--compared to around $30,000,000 for a Soyuz IIRC. But whereas a Soyuz has room for one paying passenger, a shuttle has room for 40 (or even 80 if we packed them in there economy style--but we wouldn't want to do that.:hand:)

So, these costs you people are throwing around in the hundreds of millions are: (1) the total cost to NASA--that includes all upfront costs divided by the total number of flights; (2) vastly lower than the true total costs to NASA, which are more like $1.3 billion.

As for technical objections:

1. As I said in the OP, the passenger compartment would have a plexiglass dome to keep everyone from getting sucked into the vacuum of space--basically it'll be Spacelab with the sinks and tabletops replaced with seats;

2. the cargo doors don't have windows--that's why they will be opened during orbit--but we could also have LED monitors on the back of the seat in front of you so you could watch the view from the cockpit while taking off and landing;

3. perhaps the government could be persuaded to leave one of the shuttle pads alone to be leased by the private company that keeps flying the shuttles--if not, new facilities could be constructed in New Mexico where land is cheap;

4. ground control and maintenance personnel could be hired from the people NASA is going to lay off when it dumps the shuttle program;

5. If NASA won't lease the vehicle assembly building, a new one will be built in New Mexico where construction worker wages are cheap;

6. Pilots will be hired from ex-NASA shuttle pilots;

7. The helium and nitrogen tanks may have to be replaced;

8. All passengers who take the trip will have to sign waiver forms up the yin-yang and take out expensive life insurance policies so that NASA won't get sued.

Any other worries?

Now, does anybody have any ideas about how to load 40 passengers into an airplane standing on its hind end? Something besides lowering them down the aisle on a cable Coast Guard-style? :D

[novaderrik]

i seem to recall that back in the 80's, NASA had drawn up some pics of a potential module that fit in the cargo bay of the shuttle that had a bunch of seats similar to an airliner. it would have been a practical way to get large numbers of people up to the big space station that they were gonna build- they were gonna launch a shuttle like every other week.
or maybe it was just something i saw in a Weekly Reader or Reader's Digest or something that would be a cool thing for NASA to do..

[Dave J]

...add about $400M for liability insurance...won't happen, the lawyers will kill it.

[Noclevername]

i seem to recall that back in the 80's, NASA had drawn up some pics of a potential module that fit in the cargo bay of the shuttle that had a bunch of seats similar to an airliner. it would have been a practical way to get large numbers of people up to the big space station that they were gonna build- they were gonna launch a shuttle like every other week.
or maybe it was just something i saw in a Weekly Reader or Reader's Digest or something that would be a cool thing for NASA to do..

Yeah, there were a lot of cool "artist's renderings" of what was supposedly going to happen in just a few years. And that's all we got-- pretty pictures. Nowadays, most of them look as dated as the Jetsons.

[Nicolas]

LED monitors

I think you meant LCD? I don't think people would pay millions to go into space and not see it with their own eyes, so I would go for a compartment with windows as you described.

Anyway if the R&D of the shuttle is already paid for, why does the GAO still account 400 million costs per shuttle flight? As I asked, aren't they paying R&D twice then? I know the reasoning of spreading R&D over flighs such that in total every launch costs launch costs + R&D/flights, but it appears to me that GAO should only account for launch costs as they accounted R&D costs already during development.

I find sources stating 400-500 million is the launch cost if you assume 8 missions per year and divide annual program costs by 8. 1.3 billion is that figure if you add R&D. An extra flight on top of that 8 is 45-100 million extra. So if that's correct, you'd need to fly an awful lot in order to get at 60 million per launch. You'd have to fly a lot more than the turnaround time allows for. Even if you buy them for 1 dollar each and ignore the investments you have to make in building the platform, VAB etc, you're still looking at 400-500 million per flight if you fly 8 times per year, and say 60 million extra per extra flight, a process which is severly limited by a large TAT. You can't simply say that a shuttle flight is 60 million if you need 3.2 billion per year to be able to fly any shuttle anyway (ok, subtract 8 times 60 is 480 million, so 2.8 billion excluding any flights).

Let's see, we've got 2.8 billion plus say 60 million per flight. Let's put a 10 million limit on ticket price. So you'd need 2.8 billion + x*60 million < 40*x*10 million. so 2.8 billion < 340 million*x So x would have to be at least 9 flights per year for break even. Per extra flight you get 340 million profit. So let's say 10 flights per year. That is doable, but quite a full schedule. Then there's extra costs for building the VAB including all maintenance facilities, launch pad including tower, fueling systems, water systems, port to bring in new ET's and refitted SRB's, transporter, large pressurized crew module... Including inflation, building yourself a crawler would already cost about 90 million. Can't buy from NASA, they'll need them for future transports (they've used them since ay before the shuttle). If your VAB + launch pad would somehow cost 1.3 billion, which is less than half what it cost NASA for a simpler SatV launch pad + VAB, an we take 10 flights per year, you'd still need to fly for 5 years before making profits. Moreover, you'd need an investor to pump at least 2 billions into the program which he will only see making money if you have at least 50 fully loaded, successful flights. That is assuming thatold, X-rated craft will fly 50 flights without serious problems (I'm not even talking accidents here, but serious maintenance and downtime). Take 75 days TAT, that means that for 10 flights or one flight every 36 days, you need to have 2 shuttles in use at all times and a VAB large enough to process both shuttles at the same time. You'd need a third one ready, because any problem with either shuttle would eat away all profits for that year. Note that post-challenger assessment required 4 shuttles to achieve 12 flights per year.

I missed the pararaph about the plexiglass in the OP, sorry.

As for building a launch pad: I think ground costs are the least of the worries. You'll need a tower, control centre, VAB, something to move the stack from the VAB to the launch pad, water spray system, etcetc. NASA will not leave one of the shuttle pads intact, they'll change them for Orion.

Getting the pax inside shouldn't be a problem: secure them with climbing ropes. Have a ladder on the floor of the middle aisle. Use seats that rotate, let everyone climb up to their row, slide into their seat which is facing normal orientation relative to the vertical, buckle up. Rotate all seats 90 degrees (to the same attitude asthe crew seats of the shuttle). Done. Really, getting pax in is the last of the problems.

[Warren Platts]

OK, I tracked down the references for the USD 60.000.000. It's a newsgroup posting dating from 1996 adjusted for inflation. :liar: Need to do some more research on that.


As for building a launch pad: I think ground costs are the least of the worries. You'll need a tower, control centre, VAB, something to move the stack from the VAB to the launch pad, water spray system, etcetc. NASA will not leave one of the shuttle pads intact, they'll change them for Orion.
Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 6 (http://www.answers.com/topic/vandenberg-afb-space-launch-complex-6)(the abandoned Space Shuttle launch pad) was leased to Boeing for their Delta IV rockets, and the same article says that SLC 3 will be used by Lockheed. So the thing to do would be to lease a launch complex from Vandenberg. It cost $4 billion to covert SLC 6 into a shuttle base (that still had lots of problems and would have needed more work). However, since you'd be running a sight-seeing operation, you want polar orbits to get the maximum diversity of scenery out of your 4 orbits. This consideration in itself almost makes Vandenberg mandatory. However, if it really costs $4 billion to build a launch facility, then it would take 200 flights--presuming you could net $20,000,000 profit each flight--to make back the $4 billion. And 200 flights is probably the most you could expect to squeeze out of the 3 surviving shuttles. So the thing to do would be to keep using the shuttle pads at KSC. That space complex is loaded with launch pads all over the place, so it shouldn't be too big of a deal if they built the Orion complex at a different pad.

Sure, this is all pie in the sky. But, it's going to a shame to let the shuttle concept just die. If mass quantities of humans are ever to get into space in a big way, it will take airliner-sized spacecraft to do that. So just give the remaining shuttles to anyone who can make a go of it to tide them over while they do a redesign on the shuttle. Keep the same basic design using the same SRBs and fuel tanks, so all you've got to do is build a next generation orbiter. In an earlier post, Nicolas pointed out that humans are about 1/3 less dense than ordinary space payloads, so, keeping the same thrust package, an orbiter redesigned for carrying passengers could possibly be made quite a bit larger to accomodate more than 40 passengers comfortably.


Getting the pax inside shouldn't be a problem: secure them with climbing ropes. Have a ladder on the floor of the middle aisle. Use seats that rotate, let everyone climb up to their row, slide into their seat which is facing normal orientation relative to the vertical, buckle up. Rotate all seats 90 degrees (to the same attitude asthe crew seats of the shuttle). Done. Really, getting pax in is the last of the problems.
I like the rotating seats idea, but having to climb five stories up a ladder might be a bit much for someone Warren Buffet's age. :neutral:

[Jens]

I would think the 1%-2% "catastrophic failure" rate would also be a damper on plans to use it to put people in orbit. Well, people climb Mt. Everest, which is even more dangerous (I think 10% death rate), so maybe it wouldn't after all.

[djellison]

That space complex is loaded with launch pads all over the place, so it shouldn't be too big of a deal if they built the Orion complex at a different pad.

It would be a big deal. It would be a huge frickin' deal. One of the reasons behind the design of Ares 1 and Ares V is so that they can use the existing infrastructure - i.e. VAB, Crawlers, 39A and B, launch and test control facilities. Then you have the ET manufacturing, SRB manufacturing - all to be turned over to the required parts for Ares 1 and Ares V. The crux of their design is to carry on with the workforce, production lines etc that already exist. If you wanted to fly the shuttle at the same time - you would have to build new facilities over the whole of the USA to increase the capacity for building ET's, SRB's, SSME's. The cost would be enormous.

You couldn't launch Polar Orbits from KSC - you would have to do it from V'berg where no appropriate facility exists - The Vandenberg facility has been handed over for Delta IV launches (including the Delta IV heavy).

Furthermore the payload capacity of the Shuttle is reduced from its maximum of around 55,000 lbs for a launch out of KSC - down to 17,000 lbs for polar orbits due to the loss of the extra boost by heading out in the direction of the Earths rotation.

Life support - currently you have the capacity onboard for 7 people for about 14 days plus conting. That's less than 3 days with a compliment of 40. Sure - you can redesign them totally to accomodate a longer duration - but only at significant cost - cost you've not even considered.

The Shuttle has always been a *******isation of rocket, glider, capsule and payload launcher - jack of all trades, master of none. I'll be sad to see it go - but it's not before it's time. They're already 25+ years old - you're talking about operating them till they're 40+. Maybe in the pages of a sci-fi novel, but no-one who understands an iota of what's involved would propose it realistically.

And ignoring the dozens of issues that render it fundamentally impossible - if it were ever done and if I had the cash - I wouldn't fly on STS given its safety record, I'd pay $20M to fly on a Soyuz to the ISS for a week.

Doug

[Van Rijn]

Yeah, there were a lot of cool "artist's renderings" of what was supposedly going to happen in just a few years. And that's all we got-- pretty pictures. Nowadays, most of them look as dated as the Jetsons.

It hurts a bit to look at them. It wouldn't be practical, but the Shuttle could hold quite a few passengers.

Take a look here, if you want (you'll have to scroll down to see the passenger module drawings):

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_space_tourist.shtml

They were talking about perhaps 74 passengers.

[Jens]

How about a better use. Launch them fairly horizontally toward say Tokyo, and ditch the external tank and boosters over the Pacific, then glide into Narita airport.

Or alternatively, strap them to oil tankers to get the things moving. :)

[Nicolas]

I think the only use for these craft in a few years is a museum.

[Noclevername]

I think the only use for these craft in a few years is a museum.


:clap::clap::clap:

I certainly would'nt trust my neck to these dinosaurs.

[Nicolas]

But until that point, I hope they can do whatever they planned with them. They're old, they didn't live up to expectations, but what they do they do very well.

[Warren Platts]

It would be a big deal. It would be a huge frickin' deal. One of the reasons behind the design of Ares 1 and Ares V is so that they can use the existing infrastructure - i.e. VAB, Crawlers, 39A and B, launch and test control facilities. Then you have the ET manufacturing, SRB manufacturing - all to be turned over to the required parts for Ares 1 and Ares V. The crux of their design is to carry on with the workforce, production lines etc that already exist. If you wanted to fly the shuttle at the same time - you would have to build new facilities over the whole of the USA to increase the capacity for building ET's, SRB's, SSME's. The cost would be enormous.
It cost only $200,000,000 to convert the SLC 6 to the new Delta IV launch pad, and the Orion is just an overgrown Delta IV. As for building more SRB's and such, that's a good thing: the more they make, the cheaper they'll become, so having a privately run shuttle service, alongside the government Orion program would benefit both programs because of the cheaper SRB's.


You couldn't launch Polar Orbits from KSC - you would have to do it from V'berg where no appropriate facility exists - The Vandenberg facility has been handed over for Delta IV launches (including the Delta IV heavy).

Furthermore the payload capacity of the Shuttle is reduced from its maximum of around 55,000 lbs for a launch out of KSC - down to 17,000 lbs for polar orbits due to the loss of the extra boost by heading out in the direction of the Earths rotation.
Nicolas says that:

Assume a 75 kg person and a 15 kg seat+his part of making it pressurized, that's 90 kg . . . 40*75 = 3000 kg
So Nicolas could be off by a factor of 5 and polar orbits would be doable. So if you did 6 orbits at 90 minutes each, you could take off at 8AM and be back by 5PM. In that time the Earth would spin 135o. On at least one of those orbits, the sunrise/sunset might last several minutes each, which would probably be pretty cool to watch.

Life support - currently you have the capacity onboard for 7 people for about 14 days plus conting. That's less than 3 days with a compliment of 40. Sure - you can redesign them totally to accomodate a longer duration - but only at significant cost - cost you've not even considered.
Well, I was only contemplating day trips, but I suppose for $2M, you should get small sleeper birth like on trains for a long weekend.


The Shuttle has always been a *******isation of rocket, glider, capsule and payload launcher - jack of all trades, master of none. I'll be sad to see it go - but it's not before it's time. They're already 25+ years old - you're talking about operating them till they're 40+. Maybe in the pages of a sci-fi novel, but no-one who understands an iota of what's involved would propose it realistically.
Doug
OK, I agree that the shuttle's are pretty much done and need to be retired. But for passenger service, the basic shuttle design is still the best out there IMHO.

[Larry Jacks]

There's a reason why the Air Force abandoned plans for launching Shuttles out of Vandenberg 20 years ago. Actually, there are several reasons. One of them was concern about an explosion due to hydrogen entrapment.

All of the critical infrastructure needed to launch Shuttles out of Vandenberg is long gone. After Shuttle missions end at the Cape - scheduled for 2010 - there won't be any infrastructure there either. You can't just hand-wave this issue away. Launch, training, and operations infrastructure are crucial to Shuttle operations and would cost billions to recreate.

Face it, it simply isn't going to happen.

[CJSF]

Yeah.. but .. but

It'd be NEAT!

CJSF

[Nicolas]

JayUtah's transvestite space cows would also be neat. Ain't gonna happen.

[novaderrik]

how much money could a private company save on launch costs simply by not making up a logo for each flight, which is made into patches and printed on all the mission stationery..
that's probably a couple million dollars and a few years pf preparation saved right there.
then, factor in that you don't have to train each passenger for 3 years on the proper way to flip a toggle switch or tighten a bolt, and there's a LOT more money saved there.
then, you have to factor in that each passenger wouldn't fly from flight control to the launch pad in their own private fighter jets just so they can look like macho supermen- not at the companies expense, anyways- and there's probably a couple million more saved right there.
really, giving the shuttle to private interests could only result in much cheaper flights once the basic infrastructure is there.
who knows- after a while, the price per passenger would come down, and the profits would go up and there would be more and more shuttles built and the originals would be phased out over time.
i know it won't happen.. but there is a way to make it work.

[Nicolas]

how much money could a private company save on launch costs simply by not making up a logo for each flight, which is made into patches and printed on all the mission stationery..
that's probably a couple million dollars and a few years pf preparation saved right there.

I hope that "couple millions" and "years of preparation" was tongue in cheek?

Of course a simple flight is cheaper than a mission, but that 60 million per extra flight is just the price of the flight, NOT the price of the mission. That 3.2 billion per year is the price to make the things fly 8 times, not the price of those 8 mission.

A shuttle is not and never will be cheap. A new shuttle is massively expensive and will always be so. Building a new shuttle infrastructure is extremely expensive. Simply having these shuttles and not doing anything with them, but keeping them in good shape is expensive.

Look at my assessment above: you'd have to fly 12 times per year -quite the max of realism- to have profits when counting just the flight costs. Add to that the startup costs of, oh let's say building an advanced spaceport and mission control centre, a 40 passenger space rated, luxury crew cabin, medical check centre for the passengers, hotel for the passengers (you want to keep them somewhere in case you can't launch due to weather), etcetc. Saving on mission logos is not going to pull this thing straight.

Yes, doing the same mission (in this case, flight basically) over and over again does make things cheaper in the long term. But not massively cheaper. Many of the costs, very large costs, remain. And your private company will also want a logo, will need space suits for at least the crew, and the passengers will need an astronaut badge. They will need to wear special shoes or at least overshoes. You will need a cleaning crew and loads of eeeeew bags. Costs, costs, costs. But indeed, you don't need to design a missoin logo every time...

[CJSF]

T-38s aren't fighter jets, and I thought they were used in mission support. Don't the flight hours count for their air-time as service pilots, too? (Not sure I'm saying that right.)

CJSF

[Nicolas]

Yeah, they have to keep their flying hours to keep their wings, and I don't think the 14 days non stop "flying" the STS or ISS count. The same or at least similar craft are used in support of the mission (landing) as chase planes indeed.

Oh, do add a very long runway and some chase planes to the costs of your private company.

[Warren Platts]

OK, I've been crunching numbers all day. Here's what's barely conceivable. It takes about $10bn to design a new airliner--so let's just go with that. The B-2 supposedly cost around $20bn to develop, but that was a brand new concept (the old B-42 notwithstanding). A new orbiter would keep the SRB's and main shuttle engines, so they wouldn't have to be redesigned. Sheilding technology has also been developed, and we're not trying to make a new shuttle stealthy.

B-2's are about the most advanced planes flying, and they cost about $2bn each in total. There's a fleet of 20 of them, so total cost we'll say $40bn; so that roughly entails a construction cost of $1bn each. So, we'll go with that.

So, we could redesign an orbiter for $10bn, and build a fleet of 10 shuttles for $1bn each, for a total cost of $20bn. I was hoping NASA would let us keep their launch facilities, but Larry Jacks insists that they will not. The Vandenberg facility cost $4bn to convert for shuttle launching. So let's just say $5bn for a new facility. I say build it in Hawaii. That way you could launch in any direction since you're out in the middle of the ocean. Alcantera Brazil might also be a good choice.

So we've got $25bn in startup costs. If we amortize over 10 years, that's $2.5bn per year. Hopefully, since the operation will be managed by private businessmen who know what they're doing, we might reasonably suppose that the annual overhead could be kept at around $1bn per year. Let's also say that we can get the marginal cost per flight down to $20mn per flight.

Now the redesigned shuttle will make used of composite materials, so it will be lighter, and somewhat bigger than the old shuttle, so that it can carry 100 people in first-class-style seats. Moreover, the redesign will take a close look at the bottlenecks for turn-around time, and get it down to two weeks. So each shuttle can do 20 flights per year for 10 years--that's 200 total flights each before they have to be retired. There's 10 shuttles doing 20 sorties each per year, so that's 200 flights per year--about 4 per week.

(One thing I've noticed is that for 90 minute orbits, the problem of landing where you launched from is not trivial. So, unless you launched from Alcantara in a boring equatorial orbit, each flight would have to last 24 hours without major delta-v--I think. . . .)

Since marginal cost is $20mn per flight, at 200 flights per year, marginal costs are $4bn per year. Total cost breakdown per year:

1. $4bn marginal costs
2. $1bn overhead
3. $1bn R&D amortization
4. $1bn shuttle construction amortization
5. $0.5bn launching facility amortization

Total cost per year: $7.5bn

Our investors will want a return that will be at least or probably better than they would get by investing $25bn in some hedge fund somewhere. So let's say they want a 33% profit margin. So to make $2.5bn profit per year, they'll have to gross $10bn per year.

There's 200 flights per year; thus, to gross $10bn, you need to gross $50mn per flight. Thus, you have to convince 20,000 people per year to shell out $500,000 each in order to make this business fly.

And that's the main problem: the market for half million dollar flights just isn't that big. In the mid-90's, a consortium of six major aerospace companies did some market research: Table 1. (http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/researching_the_space_tourism_market.shtml) On table one, on the optimistic demand curve, there might be 20,000 people willing to fly for $100,000 each. But even this is way to high. The only real marketing data we have on space tourism are the people going to the ISS for $20mn each. Each of these men and women are probably billionaires, and there are about 1,000 billionaires in the world. If the average billionaire is worth $2bn, that suggests that about 1 person in a thousand per year is willing to squander about 1% of their net worth on an excursion into space.

So, for $500,000 flights, people who are worth at least $25mn to $50mn are going to be the main market demographic. Assuming there are 10mn millionaires on the planet, and 1,000 billionaires, by interpolating on a log-log scale, I estimate that there are maybe 200,000 people on the planet who are worth at least $25mn. If 1 out of a thousand of them wants to fly in a year, that's only 200 people who have both the willingness and the means to fly in space at $500,000 per trip. If you'll return to Table 1 on the link, you'll see that my backwards way of figuring out the market size is in the ballpark for what the middle column says (200 people willing to pay $100,000 in 1995 dollars.)

That's 2 flights per year with a redesigned shuttle.

Bottom Line: If you want to go to space, you'd better get off your butt and start selling a lot of software. . . . :D

[Nicolas]

I would like to see the face of the big boss at the SRB refilling plant when you tell him he has to have a pair of SRB's fully ready every 2 days :).

As for building a base in Hawaii, it's nice to look up the size of KSC and Hawaii...

[djellison]

I'm sure the population of Hawaii would be delighted at having their back yard turned into a range.

Where do you fit the day long on-orbit inspection of the heatshield - or are you intending to just risk it and hope the 1:100 shot doesn't happen? Were do you fit your contingency for poor weather at the landing facility? What capacity do you have for returning the vehicles to the launch facility? Where do you expect to get tens of billions of startup money? Where do you expect to find that many idiotically rich customers ( and to fly on a composites rich new development of a very flawed launch vehicle - they would have to be idiots ). How do you plan that many launches when the Shuttle countdown sequence is more than 4 days long? Even IF it were in any way feasable ( which it is not ) - I would rather fly on SS2 or Soyuz than this.

Stop pretending there is any iota of realism in this. It's a work of fiction - nothing more - just like moving Hubble. Do some napkin-maths and you think you've got it worked out. You haven't. Not even slightly.

Doug

[novaderrik]

don't forget about advertising revenue..
i mean, come on, what large corporation wouldn't want their log plastered on the side of a space ship, with their stuff used on board and sold to the passengers? this would bring the cost down a bit.
it might not be that hard to find some investors- maybe that guy building the 60 storey house or any of them any Silicon Valley and Seattle technology Billionaires might want to get in on it.
of course, if it could be profitable, they'd already be all over it..

[Noclevername]

Or the movie industry. Maybe in the future, Shuttle mission costs will be measured in "Waterworlds per launch"... ;)

[Ara Pacis]

The best way to make money with the Shuttles would be to cut up the tiles, send out a piece to every american as a momento of "Your taxes at work" and wait for people to try to sell them on ebay and collect the sales taxes from everyone who actually reports the sales on their tax returns. Okay, maybe that's extreme, but the shuttle program is a good example of a bad example. It'd be cheaper to hire Burt Rutan to design a space tourbus for you instead.

However, I think that you should realize that a lot of the current shuttle costs are labor. Forget Vandenberg, you should pay off some Mexican officials and build in Baja. Good luck.

[Warren Platts]

I would like to see the face of the big boss at the SRB refilling plant when you tell him he has to have a pair of SRB's fully ready every 2 days :).

As for building a base in Hawaii, it's nice to look up the size of KSC and Hawaii...
Yeah, he's going to lose his job because they're going to outsource it to a Brazilian company. But not before he gets to spend a couple of months down there to show them how to run the factory! :doh:


I'm sure the population of Hawaii would be delighted at having their back yard turned into a range.
It would be good for the economy, but the toxic SRB's would be bad for the ecology. Really, if the EPA did it job like it's supposed to, toxic SRB's would be outlawed. So that's definitely one problem with SRB's. They can't be scaled up because the pollution gets to be too much; relying on SRB's to get into space in a big way is ultimately self-defeating.

Where do you fit the day long on-orbit inspection of the heatshield - or are you intending to just risk it and hope the 1:100 shot doesn't happen? Inspection could be done by remote control camera; there would always be another flight on line that could be sent up to evacuate the passengers if it became necessary.

Were do you fit your contingency for poor weather at the landing facility? What capacity do you have for returning the vehicles to the launch facility?
Any 3-mile runway will do; vehicles will be returned on top of an old 747 for an extra cost of about $1 million.

Where do you expect to get tens of billions of startup money? My buddy Bill said he would pay for it if I punched the buttons.

Where do you expect to find that many idiotically rich customers? Actually, I myself said that was the fatal flaw in the doomed scheme. The business plan called for 20,000 passengers per year, but I claimed that it would be more likely that on the order of 200 people per year would actually fork over a half-million dollars for an excursion into space. Considering that Virgin Atlantic has about 600 people people per year willing to pay $200,000, then an estimate of 200 people per year willing to pay $500,000 is in the right order of magnitude ballpark. But clearly, 200 customers per year is not nearly enough to make a go of it.

How do you plan that many launches when the Shuttle countdown sequence is more than 4 days long?The schedule calls for one flight every other day, so the standard countdown will be 2 days long, but the redesign will be capable of a safe 1 day countdown.


Stop pretending there is any iota of realism in this. It's a work of fiction - nothing more - just like moving Hubble. Do some napkin-maths and you think you've got it worked out. You haven't. Not even slightly.

Sir, my napkin maths demonstrate that I haven't worked out a profitable space tourism business plan based on the shuttle or an evolutionary descendant of the shuttle.