4
$\begingroup$

There's been a lot of discussion about SpaceX's ~30% price reduction from re-use of the first stage, which got me to wondering: why exactly was the Space Shuttle so expensive to service and prep for re-launch?

I'm mostly interested in the actual servicing of the SSMEs themselves. They're fiendishly complicated, but does anybody know exactly what the main procedures were, and how much they cost? Or was it the case that other Orbiter processing tasks and low launch tempo were the biggest contributors to the cost?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

It varied throughout the program - the SSMEs changed a lot over its course. Columbia's original FMOF engines were only marginally OK for flight. Until the Pratt turbopump redesign, the high pressure turbopumps had to be overhauled after every mission. By the end, overhaul requirements were somewhat reduced.

Here is overview information on SSME ground servicing procedures as they were in 1989. All information is from SSME Pocket Data, RI/RD87-142. The table of contents lists the major procedures performed. I have included a scan of page 3-3.

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, that helps. This sounds like the long pole in the tent was the maintenance on the HPxTP interseals and the damage done to the bearings from the seals being not-quite perfect. Gotta love those lift-off valves! The main reason I came back to this topic was that I'm trying to get a handle on the maintenance load that SpaceX will carry in servicing the Merlins. Gas generator engines don't have to worry about interseals, so there's a reasonable chance that maintenance will be considerably diminished. That, and the whole decision not to fly a little brick spaceship, of course. $\endgroup$
    – TheRadicalModerate
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm also watching that with interest. Wish their process wasn't so opaque! $\endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 18:11
3
$\begingroup$

Besides the SSME, I've seen estimates that a new external tank cost \$40-\$50 million and each SRB cost \$40 million to refurbish/rebuild. Add to that the cost of inspecting and replacing the TPS tiles, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Another document describing all the OMRSDs (Orbiter Maintenance Requirements and Specifications Document) required for flight turnaround: https://gandalfddi.z19.web.core.windows.net/Shuttle/SSME_MPS_Info/SSME%20Test%20and%20Checkout%20-%2019980218686.pdf

From https://gandalf.azureedge.net/shuttle.html (If anybody knows a Docent at Endeavour (LA) or Enterprise (NY) please give them this link)

The first page of 10 pages of requirements: enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I do not know the answer to the SSME specific thing, but the main cost driver for the shuttle was the standing army of 20,000 some odd folk employed by NASA, ostensibly to support the Shuttle program. If you launch 0 times a year, you cost is almost the same as if you launch 10 times a year, for those 20,000 salaries and benefits, and offices for them to work in.

SpaceX is using a much smaller workforce.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ "ostensibly to support"? $\endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 15:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OrganicMarble Did the shuttle really need all those people? Could they have done it with less? of course they could of. So what is their purpose? Ostensibly to support the shuttle. In reality, a jobs program. Look at SLS, same issues. $\endgroup$
    – geoffc
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 16:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Since I worked in the program, I strongly disagree with your assertions. Could the manpower have been cut down? Somewhat. Was it solely a jobs program? No. $\endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ If you are disagreeing on absolutes, sure. Of course real people worked real jobs. But all 20,000 of them? Far too many employees, too top heavy. $\endgroup$
    – geoffc
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 17:12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I know you are just repeating things you have read, but you might want to think a little. What is your opinion that that number is too high based on? Compared to what? Other reuseable space planes designed in 1975? Come up with some facts about how the cost could have been reduced to operate the shuttle we had, not some magic vehicle, and I'll give your comments some weight. $\endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Commented May 17, 2016 at 17:14
-1
$\begingroup$

The shuttle was built with lots of unknowns, there were so many unknowns that the designers just could not think about unimportant things like the cost of reusing it. If there was a mark2 and then a mark3, mark4, etc the costs could have come down - but that would have required people admitting that got something wrong.

SpaceX is a set of changes to rocket designs that were already well understood, with the willingness to learn for each launch. Just think if the shuttle failed to land in one bit on it first few uses, but SpaceX got paid for doing their landing experiments, as they charge for the loads that they sent up.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have any references to back up your assertion that designers of the shuttle "could not think about...the cost of reusing it"? Cause I'm pretty sure that's 100% incorrect. $\endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Commented May 19, 2016 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ Look at what Feynman said about the disconnect between NASA's engineers and executives when he investigated the Challenger disaster. It the executives that had to believe in cost effect reusability so as to keep getting the funding….. $\endgroup$
    – Ian Ringrose
    Commented May 19, 2016 at 14:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.