DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Development and transportation costs of
space launch systems
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR FAS 4.1, 2007
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
2
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
1. The Cost History of "Space Access“
Q
Q
Q
Why is it important?
Q
Price for space transportation generally viewed as biggest obstacle to
growth of space commercialisation and exploration
Q
Cost for space transportation represents typically 25 – 70 % of a specific
space program
"Cost-per-Flight" definition for ELVs and RLVs:
Q
Vehicle Production Cost (Learning Factor)
Q
Direct Operations Cost: e.g. Propellants & Materials, Ground operations, flight &
mission planning, transport & recovery, refurbishment, fees & public damage
insurance
Q
Indirect Operations Cost: e.g. program administration & system management,
technical system support, launch site support & maintenance
Q
Insurance Cost for launcher & payload
Specific Transportation Costs (Cost per kg payload) depend strongly on payload size and
launch frequency
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
3
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Launch prices influenced by:
Q
Customer requirements (payload mass, size, orbit parameters)
Q
Bulk buys of launch vehicles & launch services
Q
Special launch services required
Q
World launch market competitive situation
Q
Launch demands – number of launches/payloads per year
Q
Insurance cost for launcher and payload (in case of ELVs), depending on
past launch vehicle reliability
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
4
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Specific Transportation Cost to LEO depend on launch vehicle size/ payload
capability
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
5
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Specific LEO Space Transportation Cost History
Q
Rapid cost decrease in the 60ies due to growth of launch vehicle size/capability
Q
LEO transportation costs did remain constant since 40 years between 40 and 100 MYr/Mg or
10 000 and 25000 USD/kg (2007)
Q
Further decrease only feasible with fully reusable launch vehicles
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
6
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
35000
Space Transportation Systems: Launch price to LEO
Athena 2 [$/kg]
Source: Futron 2002
Cos m os 3M [$/kg]
Specific Launch Price per kg [2000 US$]
30000
Pegas us -XL [$/kg]
The Prices for space transportation: LEO
Rockot [$/kg]
Start [$/kg]
Taurus [$/kg]
25000
Vega [$/kg]
Ariane 44L [$/kg]
Atlas 2AS [$/kg]
20000
Delta 2 (7920/5)
[$/kg]
Dnepr [$/kg]
Long March 2C [$/kg]
Long March 2E [$/kg]
15000
Soyuz [$/kg]
Ariane 5G [$/kg]
Ariane 5 ESC-A [$/kg]
10000
Long March 3B [$/kg]
Proton [$/kg]
Zenit 2 [$/kg]
Zenit 3SL [$/kg]
5000
Spec. Launch price
[$/k ]
0
0
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
5000
10000
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
15000
20000
Payload Mass to LEO [kg]
25000
7
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
LEO-Synthesis:
Q
General Trend: Approximately 7000-14000 US$/kg
Q
Specific launch prices decrease with size of launcher respectively
payload capability
Q
Launchers from Russia at lower end of launch price range
Q
Some launchers out of service or no more available for commercial
payloads (ITAR)
Q
For RLVs a significant price advantage for large systems predicted
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
8
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Specific GTO/GEO Space Transportation Cost History
1000
k$/kg
150
Myr/Mg
700 kg BoM
1400 kg
BoM
65
2800 kg
BoM
100
20
5600 kg
BoM
10
1960
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
1970
1980
1990
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
2000
2010
2020
9
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Specific GTO/GEO Cost
Space Transportation Systems: Launch price to GTO
35000
Ariane 44L [$/kg]
Source: Futron 2002
Atlas 2AS [$/kg]
Delta 2 (7920/5) [$/kg]
Specific Launch Price per kg [2000 US$]
30000
Long March 2C [$]
Long March 2E [$/kg]
Soyuz [$/kg]
Ariane 5G [$/kg]
25000
Ariane 5 ESC-A
[$/kg]
Long March 3B [$/kg]
Proton [$/kg]
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
2000
4000
6000
8000
Payload Mass to GT O [kg]
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
10000
10
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
GTO/GEO-Synthesis
Q
Transportation cost to GTO/GEO did decrease by a factor 2 due to the
introduction of LOX/LH2 upper stages (instead of solid kick motors)
Q
More effective specific cost reduction was the result of GEO payload
growth : by almost one order of magnitude !
Q
GTO - General Trend: Approximately 11000 US$/kg (larger systems) –
30000 US$/kg (smaller systems), size effect
Q
Ariane 5 with approx. 15 k€/kg competitive for GTO-Missions
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
1
1
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
2. Reusable Launch Systems vs. Expendable Vehicles
Q
Typically it is assumed, that re-usable launch vehicles reduce dramatically launch cost
by re-using flight hardware
Q
Numerous studies have shown that reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) are the only means
of further cost reduction.
Q
In addition, the expected flight reliablity should be one order of magnitude higher
compared to present ELVs
Q
Reusability is only justified for vehicles with more than 10 t LEO payload, with the cost
advantages increasing with payload size (factor 2 seems feasible at some 30 t and factor
10 at 100 t payload capability)
Q
No reusable launch vehicles have been developed up to now due to the constant launch
market and the relatively high investment required
Q
The US Space Shuttle Vehicle is not really reusable - only the Orbiter which is a manned
laboratory and return vehicle. The transportation cost are comparable to expendable
launch vehicles
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
1
2
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Cost Model: Typical launch cost constitution for ELV&RLV
Cost share Production Cost per flight
6.93
Operation Cost per flight
Average vehicle cost
Operation Cost per flight
Insurance cost per flight
Fix-Cost share Launch site
50.00
Recovery Cost per Flight
Average Refurbishment Cost per Flight
Insurance cost per flight
6.44
Fix-Cost share Launch site
80.90
25.00
0.97
1.72
8.09
2.49
14.34
(no re-financing of development cost)
ELV: ~153 M€/flight
Q
Q
Q
Q
Theoretical First Unit (TFU) 220 M€
6 flights/year, 30 years of operation
9 t to GTO
180 vehicles produced
~17 k€/kg payload to GTO
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
RLV: ~43 M€/flight
Q
Q
Q
Q
TFU 600M€
12 flights/year, 30 years of operation
4.5 t to GTO
Max. 100 flights per vehicle, 5 vehicles fleet
~9.7 k€/kg payload to GTO
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
1
3
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Q
For ELVs, the production cost are the largest cost share, for RLVs the
operations cost
Q
This is the reason for the relative cost advantage of RLVs versus ELVs
Q
A small fleet of RLVs can be competitive to expendable systems in the long-term
(30 years or so) as long as the fleet flies frequently
Q
in terms of absolute cost
Q
in terms of specific transportation cost
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
14
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Comparison of ELVs&RLVs: Influence of annual launch rate
500
Assumptions ELV: ~9 t to GTO
Cost per flight (CpF) [M€]
450
Assumptions RLV: ~4.5 t to GTO
- indire ct fix-cos t 300 M €/ye ar
- 30 ye ars of ope ration
- Le arning curve factor 0.875
400
- Ins urance rate 10% of ave rage ve hicle cos t
-
indire ct fix-cos t 300 M €/ye ar
30 ye ars of ope ration
m ax 100 flights / ve hicle , 5 ve hicle fle e t
Le arning curve factor 0.875
- Ins urance rate 1% of ave rage ve hicle cos t
350
ELV
300
250
200
RLV
150
100
Cost per f light ELV [MEURO]
Cost per f light RLV [MEURO]
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Annual numer of flights [1/a]
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
10
15
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Specific Transportation Costs [€/kg]
Comparison of ELVs&RLVs: Influence of annual launch mass to GTO
100000
Specif ic Cost per kg ELV [EURO/kg]
Specif ic Cost per kg RLV [EURO/kg]
90000
Total GTO-launch m as s (com m e rcial payloads ) in
2006: ~100t
80000
70000
Assumptions RLV: ~4.5 t to GTO
-
indire ct fix-cos t 300 M €/ye ar
30 ye ars of ope ration
Inte re s t rate 4%/a; inflation rate 3%/a
Le arning curve factor 0.875
- Ins urance rate 1% of ave rage ve hicle cos t
60000
Assumptions ELV: ~9 t to GTO
50000
-
40000
ELV
30000
indire ct fix-cos t 300 M €/ye ar
30 ye ars of ope ration
Inte re s t rate 4%/a; inflation rate 3%/a
Le arning curve factor 0.875
- Ins urance rate 10% of ave rage ve hicle cos t
20000
10000
RLV
0
0
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
20
40
60
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
80
100
120
Total payload mass to GTO per year [t]
140
16
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Influence of annual launch rate: Synthesis
Q
With used assumptions a 4.5 t-GTO-class RLV can be competitive to a 9 t-GTOclass ELV for same transported total mass, if annual launch rate exceeds ~3
flights per year (i.e. approx. 13 t to GTO per year)
Q
At very low annual launch rates, reliability likely decreases
Q
The specific cost advantage of RLV is about 50-60% and remains constant for
annual mass >~60t to GEO
Q
The total commercial payload mass to GTO in 2006 was ~100 t
¬
Taking into account today‘s competition in GTO-market (4-6 operators), an RLV
has to capture approx. 15-20% market share to be commercially competitive!
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
17
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
3. Future Cost Reduction Potential and Trends
Q
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
Q
Re-usability is the only way to achieve that goal
Q
The impediment for new systems (RLV&ELV) seems to be the enormous development
cost.
Specific Transportation Cost to GTO (€/kg)
30000
25000
ARIANE 5
20000
ARIANE 5
15000
AR.5 ECA
AR.5 ECB
AR.5 -2010
10000
(Goal)
GOAL:
5000
50 % Reduction
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
GTO PAYLOAD CAPABILITY (Mg)
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
15
16
18
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Q
A great variety of RLV-concepts has been studied in the past decades (e.g.) in ESA’s WLC,
FESTIP&FLPP Studies, ASTRA, Prepha, …)
Q
Development cost of RLVs are extremely different, depending on the concept and technology :
between 3 and 20 Billion Euros (1995)
Q
Winged vehicles are most expensive due to the combination of aircraft and space vehicle
requirements and technology
Q
The lowest development cost has the rocket-propelled ballistic re-usable vehicle (with
expendable upper stage)
Q
This comparison does not include
the cost for the development and
demonstration of enabling
technologies!
Q
Taking these cost into account,
less complex RLVs (and ELVs)
will benefit!
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
19
DGLR/CEAS European Air and Space Conference 2007
Q
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)
Q
The ballistic VTOL, which also promises the lowest transportation cost (about 30 % of
ARIANE 5) might be one of the promising options!
Cost-per-Flight (CpF)
10000
MYr
Space Shuttle
1000
ELVs
Sänger
100
Ball. RLV
No.of Launches per Year (LpA)
10
0
D. E. Koelle, R. Janovsky
2
4
6
8
DGLR Fachausschuss S4.1
10
12
14