COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

TO INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Abstract
After decommissioning the Space Shuttle in 2011, the federal
government had only one option for resupplying the International Space
Station (ISS) with cargo and crew: international space transportation
programs. Soon after this decision was made, NASA decided to outsource the
transport duties to commercial enterprises while reviving deep space
exploration. In our analysis, we compare three options available to the U.S.
government for ferrying people and materials to the ISS: depending on space
partnerships, using private companies from the emerging space market, or
developing the Space Launch System (SLS). Four major benefits were
weighted and graded by estimation or using historical data to predict future
trends: leveraging technological and economic advancement, international
cooperation, national pride/prestige, and safety. On the other hand, three
major costs were calculated based on official contracts already signed or
historical data to predict future costs. Our Cost Benefit Analysis suggests that
the cost saving for continuing agreements with foreign nations for crew and
cargo transport would be the greats benefit under the current budgetary
constraints.

Course of Action (COA) 1 and COA 2 would be be more

expensive but create the ability for NASA to concentrate on future technology
and scientific advancements in space exploration.
Introduction
The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite
in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Its first components were launched in 1998 by
American space shuttles as well as by Russian Proton and Soyuz rockets.
The ISS serves as a research laboratory in a space environment in which
crewmembers conduct experiments in biology, physics, astronomy, and
meteorology. After numerous debates leading up to 2014, the U.S.
government announced that it would keep ISS functioning until 2024,

depending on the stations structural soundness. The main purpose for

extending the life of the ISS from the U.S. standpoint was to allow for more
research in an effort to improve the human condition in a space environment.
NASA would also like to keep the commercial side of space exploration alive
as a means of establishing facilities that it can potentially make use of in the
future.
In 2004, the United States decided to decommission the space
shuttle by the early 2010s and rely on Russian Soyuz flights to carry American
astronauts back and forth to the ISS (Holdren & Bolden, 2014). One of the
major reasons was the high cost of maintaining the aged space shuttle, which
varied between $750 million to $2 billion per flight depending on the number
of launches each year. The annual expense NASA bears for the shuttle was
roughly $4 billion, regardless the number of launches. (Diamandis, 2014)
NASA established a two-pronge approach to human spaceflight and
supply transport to ISS. First, transport duties of crew and cargo were to be
outsourced to the private sector. Commercial companies could help provide
crucial resupply services like life essentials, critical hardware, and scientific
equipment, allowing NASA to pursue the goal of exploration farther into
space. In other words, new commercial vehicles could take over the task of
ferrying cargo and astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit after the retirement
of the Space Shuttle, allowing Orion, NASAs new spacecraft, and its SLS
rocket to explore space beyond the Moon and eventually Mars. Contractors
SpaceX and Boeing were selected in 2014 as the prime carriers for moving
crew. SpaceX and Orbital ATK, in 2006 and 2008, respectively, were selected
to transfer supplies and cargo back and forth to ISS. To conduct the CBA, we
took into consideration the following assumptions and constraints:
1. A 10-year time horizon was used. The main reason is that the White
House decided to continue funding ISS until at least 2024. The extension of
ISS operation will allow NASA and the international space community to
accomplish a number of important goals.
2. Foreign affairs between U.S. space partners, including Russia and
China will not worsen.

3. The CBA focused on measuring benefits and costs of delivering

crew and cargo to the ISS. In our costs, we also included elements of the
system such as launch vehicles and spacecraft that deliver communications
satellites or similar payloads to orbit. These costs were included in the
contracts signed between NASA and private companies and, therefore, could
not be separated. We did not take into account any costs or benefits for
defense contracts or classified launches and missions.
4. We relied on publicly available data sources Including government
reports, media, news articles.
5.

We did not include the following benefits, which are common

between the COAs and could be described as general benefits of space

exploration:
a. Insights gained into Earths place in the universe.
b. The reduce risk of extinction due to galactic incidents like the Suns death
or black holes.
c. Insights against threats that the Earth faces, such as nuclear
warfare,

pandemics,

anthropogenic

climate

change,

and

disruptive

technology. (Baum, 2009)

Calculation of Courses of Action
Standing
In our CBA we followed OMBs Circular guidelines and considered U.S.
citizens as the stakeholders of the whole ISS resupply program. We did not
take into account the global perspective. Following the 10-year period under
our assumption, we did not take into consideration the benefits or costs for
future generations. Following OMB directives, we calculated all costs based
entirely on signed contracts between Federal Government and International
space agencies (like Russian RosCosmos) or private companies or NASA
and its partners.
Status Quo (International Partnership)

NASA has been dependent on international partnerships since the

retirement of the space shuttle fleet in mid 2011. Although there are many
other privatized companies now available for commercial orbital transportation
services, Russia has cornered the market for deliveries to and from the
International Space Station, especially when it concerns the delivery of crew.
Because the Russian Soyuz is the only vehicle in the world that holds
passengers, it is also the only vehicle capable of emergency rescue missions.
Since its inception the U.S. government has signed multiyear contracts
in order to procure seats on the Russian transportation vehicles.
This firm-fixed price modification covers comprehensive Soyuz
support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch,
flight operations, landing and rescue of six space station crew
members on long-duration missions. It also includes additional launch
site support, which was provided previously under a separate contract.
These services will provide transportation to and from the International
Space Station for U.S., and Canadian, European or Japanese
astronauts. (NASA, 2013)
The price for Russian transportation has steadily increased over the
years, starting at approximately $55.8 million per seat for transportation in
2013 and 2014, $63 million per seat in between 2014 and 2014 and almost
$70.7 million per seat through 2017. Thereafter, the U.S. anticipates using
commercial transportation vehicle, and privatized companies, such as Space
X.
COA-1 (Private Space Companies)
In order for NASA to transfer the necessary cargo and crew to ISS after
the space shuttle program decommission, the agency decided to proceed with
two different programs. The Commercial Orbital Transport Services (COTS)
program started in 2006 under the flexibility of the Space Act Agreements,
where the national space agency subsidized the development and testing of
commercial replacements for the aging and expensive Space Shuttle fleet.

Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts were awarded by NASA for

delivery of cargo and supplies to the ISS on commercially operated
spacecraft. The first CRS contracts were signed in 2008 and awarded $1.6
billion to SpaceX for 12 cargo transport missions and $1.9 billion to Orbital
Sciences for 8 missions. This covered deliveries to 2016 and the payoffs from
this public investment include two new American companies capable of
launching NASAs Earth orbit payloads creating the first entirely commercial
options for non-governmental customers.
Orbital Sciences Corporation is an American company specializing in
the design, manufacture and launch of space and rocket systems for
commercial, military and other government customers. They started
commencing cargo missions to ISS under the CRS contract in 2013 with
their Cygnus spacecraft and the Antares launch vehicle.
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) was the first company to
ship private cargo to the International Space Station. The first mission was in
May 2012, utilizing its own rocket and spaceship, the Dragon, which is also
the only spacecraft in the world capable of returning large amounts of cargo
from space. (Loff, 2015). SpaceX made widespread use of off- the-shelf
components, which were put together in a product architecture that was
simpler than prior approaches in developing its launch vehicles. Additionally,
the firm has customers from the private sector, military and non-governmental
entities to launch cargo into space. As the company makes its money from
new contracts for launch services, SpaceX is firmly focused on developing
efficient technology for future space exploration. (Howell, 2014).
In

addition,

second

program

called

Commercial

Crew

Development (CCDev), is a multiphase space technology development

program funded by the U.S. government and administered by NASA. It is
intended to stimulate development of privately operated crew vehicles to low
Earth orbit. In 2014, Boeing and SpaceX received contracts to provide crewed
launch services to the ISS. For completion of the same contract requirements,
Boeing can receive up to $4.2 billion dollars, while SpaceX can receive up to
$2.6 billion dollars.

Boeing

Company is

an

American multinational

corporation that

designs, manufactures, and sells airplanes, rockets and satellites. It is the

largest exporter in the United States by dollar value and one of the worlds
most admired companies. Its CST-100 (Crew Space Transportation) crew
capsule is expected to fly to the International Space Station with an astronaut
aboard by 2017.
COA-2 (NASAs Space Launch System)
The retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet in 2011 ended an era where
all of Americas space exploration and transportation of crew and cargo were
performed by one organization. This program was initiated in the 1970s and
originally intended to be replaced in the 1990s. Due to stalled plans for the
United States space station, it was re-missioned to focus on completing the
assembly of the International Space Station, therefore extending the use of
the Space Shuttle to more than twice its initial intended life.
The follow-on NASA program was named Project Constellation that
was comprised of two different launch vehicles, the Ares I and AresV, and the
Orion Spacecraft.

This program was never fully funded by the US

Government and in 2010, while the Space Shuttle program was coming to an
end, the Obama administration effectively cancelled the Constellation
program. Following the programs termination administration asked Congress
to endorse a plan that, leveraged with NASA funds and allowed heavy
reliance on private industry programs to continue to deliver crews and cargo
to the International Space Station.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 passed by Congress states that
While commercial transportation systems have the promise to contribute
valuable services, it is in the United States national interest to maintain a
government operated space transportation system for crew and cargo delivery
to space (NASA, 2010). The Act directs NASA to develop an SLS as a
follow-on to the Space Shuttle in order to access cis-lunar space and the
regions of space beyond Low Earth Orbit . This project would enable the

United States to participate in global efforts to engage and develop this

increasingly strategic region.

The Act also provides a series of minimum

capabilities that the SLS vehicle must achieve including lifting a Multi-Purpose
Crew Vehicle (MPCV), serving as a back-up system for supplying and
supporting cargo and crew delivery requirements for the ISS.
NASA still intends to use the Orion Spacecraft for future crew and
cargo missions. The Space Launch System (SLS) would replace the Ares I
and Ares V launch vehicles with a single heavy expendable launch vehicle.
SLS will have two versions and capabilities sufficient enough to meet the
Congressional requirement and becoming the most capable heavy lift vehicle
ever built.
The Space Launch System will launch the Orion Spacecraft and may
support trips to the International Space Station if needed, and utilize the
upgraded NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The initial flight is

scheduled for November 2018 to carry the Orion Spacecraft (unmanned) on a

trip around the moon and a follow-on mission with the Orion Spacecraft to an
asteroid by 2025. Executing further scientific research the culminating vision
for this system is to launch astronauts to a pre-determined asteroid and to put
boots on Mars.

Benefits
Leveraging technological and economic advancement
According to Scott Hubbard, professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics
at Stanford University and former director of the NASA Ames Research
Center, for every dollar spent on the space program, the U.S. economy
receives about $8 of economic benefit (Dubner, 2008). In other words, every
dollar going to one of our domestic firms stays in the U.S., creates meaningful
jobs, and makes the most of Americas entrepreneurial advantages. Funding
this investment in Americas future follows in the steps of successful Federal
investment by jumpstarting industries, including the transcontinental railroad,

the Internet, and the Global Positioning System. Such visionary investments
have produced huge economic returns that increased government revenues
for decades. The extension of ISS to at least 2024 will allow many more flights
to be added to the ISS cargo and crew services contract, resulting in more
competitive pricing, additional new private-sector bidders and ultimately more
U.S. commercial satellite launches.
1. Status Quo: Since the retirement of the space shuttle program after 30
years of space flight, the use of Russian and other international partners for
space

transportation

has

become

NASAs

only

reliable

option

for

transportation of crew to and from the International Space Station. It is for

that reason that the United States has very little benefit for the leverage of
new technologies with this option.
Therefore, we evaluate the Status Quo contribution as 2 for the purposes of
Leverage for new technologies and advances for American economy.
2. Private Sector (COA 1): Private capital is seeing space as a good
investment, willing to fund individuals who are passionate about exploring
space, for adventure as well as profit. What were once affordable only by
nations, can now be lucrative, public-private partnerships. To be more precise,
companies and investors are realizing that everything we hold of value
metals, minerals and energyare in near-infinite quantities in space. As
space transportation and operations become more affordable, what was once
seen as a wasteland will become the next gold rush. In addition to allowing
NASA to focus on extending humanitys presence in space, NASA programs
would stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and operate safe,
reliable, and cost-effective commercial space transportation systems. Besides
supporting ISS, these commercial capabilities will ultimately benefit the U.S.
economy by making domestic launch vehicles more competitive in global
markets. In turn, lower launch costs could bolster opportunities for other
space markets to grow.
Therefore, we evaluate COA-1 contribution as 5 for the purposes of
Leverage for new technologies and advances for American economy.

3. NASAs Space Launch System (COA 2): In compliance with the NASA
Authorization Act, NASA intends to utilize current investments, workforce and
infrastructure while leveraging the capabilities, experience and innovation
from the US private sector, thereby continuing the reinvestment in the US
economy.

There are space related manufacturing jobs throughout many

states, but it is not just about money and jobs. NASAs most important role
might be that of funding advanced space and science projects that are and
will be valuable to humanity as we venture forward.
An example of this is the agency plans to use its massive lift capability
to carry nearly a dozen nano-satellites to conduct science experiments
beyond low Earth orbit (Newton, 2015). "NASA is taking advantage of a
great opportunity to conduct more science beyond our primary focus of this
mission," said Jody Singer manager of the Flight Programs and Partnerships
Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "While this
new vehicle will enable missions beyond Earth orbit, we're taking steps to
increase the scientific and exploration capability of SLS by accommodating
small, CubeSat-class payloads (Newton, 2015).
Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 4 for the purposes of
Leverage for new technologies and advances for American economy.
International Cooperation
International context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that is a
valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look at the International
Space Station and marvel that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. are now
active space partners. International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs.
With a partnership that includes 15 nations, space vehicles from the United
States, Russian Federation, European Union and Japan and with 68 nations
currently using the ISS in one way or another, this unique orbiting laboratory is
a clear demonstration of the benefits to humankind that can be achieved
through peaceful global cooperation.
1. Status Quo: Ownership of [ISS] modules, station usage by participant
nations, and responsibilities for station resupply were established by the

Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This international treaty

was signed on 28 January 1998 by the United States of America, Russia,
Japan, Canada and eleven member states of the European Space Agency
(Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). International Partnership
created the foundation for which the ISS was built and has continued to
operate.

Because this partnership reaches back almost 20 years its is

reasonable to continue a partnership with Russia and other foreign nations for
transportation to and from the space station.
And, according to CBS, international cooperation is key on board the space
station, including, but not limited to, use of the Soyuz ferry:
The Russian segment of the space station uses electricity generated
by NASA solar arrays, taps into the station's computer network, uses
NASA's communications satellites and relies on U.S. gyroscopes and
flight controllers at the Johnson Space Center in Houston to keep the
outpost properly oriented without having to use precious rocket
fuel. NASA, in turn, relies on the Russians to ferry U.S. and partner
astronauts to and from the station aboard Soyuz spacecraft and to
provide the rocket power needed for major station maneuvers. And
both sides share critical life support systems and launch crewless
cargo ships to keep the station supplied. (Wiener-Bronner, 2014)

Therefore, we evaluate the Status Quo contribution as 5 for the purposes of

international cooperation and context.
2. Private Sector (COA 1): Private space companies follow the market rules
without paying attention to the international context of their agreements.
American U.S. launch carriers are expected to cooperate with international
companies and foundations on multiple levels like using off-shelf materials
and utilizing subcontractors from multiple nations while they continuously
provide orbital services (cargo, crew, satellite) to their customers according to
the market demand. For example, SpaceX low launch prices attracted
customers from Asia and Europe to sign multiple lucrative contracts for about

50 launches representing close to $5 billion. Therefore, private space

companies international context has to do mostly with market rules and less
with international cooperation and hostility reduction.
Therefore, we evaluate COA-1 contribution as 2 for the purposes of
international cooperation and context.
3. COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS): The development of the SLS
and Orion program is the U.S. Governments primary plan to take astronauts
and cargo farther into space than ever before and provide the cornerstone for
future space exploration efforts. With that comes a unique position for the
U.S., in that this new frontier is a new, unfolding strategic environment. With
the SLS program, the U.S. can garner a foothold into advanced foreign policy
and develop a foundation in the international community from which to
advance cooperation and joint ventures into the unknown. This programs
eventual goal is to put boots on Mars, and with that goal, comes unknown
potential benefits from international partners such as joining the astronaut
team or joint robotic ventures to scientifically explore other asteroids or
planets.
Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 3 for the purposes of
International Cooperation and Context.
National Pride and Prestige
Human spaceflight is an inspiring undertaking and a pinnacle of
technological achievement. National prestige requires that the U.S. continue
to be a leader in space, and that includes human exploration. History tells us
that great civilizations dare not abandon exploration and it should be part of
what the United States does in its desire to be as a leader; one to be admired
for its continued willingness to invest money and effort in pushing the frontiers
of human activity. A significant portion of Americans in high technology
careers attribute their inspiration to pursue a challenging educational program
to their childhood excitement about human space exploration programs. A
recent MIT study showed that number to be 40% among current aerospace
engineering undergraduates (AIAA, 2011). The human space exploration

program is a catalyst for research and innovation, drawing youth Americans to

participate and contribute in these exciting endeavors. Leadership in space
brings with it economic growth, technological prowess, and national pride, and
contributes to American global leadership more broadly. (Dubner, 2008).
1. Status Quo: The U.S is a proud nation and prides itself on its international
partnership and innovative budgetary execution. Because of these reasons
the national prestige continues to be low as the reliance on our international
partners drives our ability to provide for transportation services to the U.S.
portion of ISS. However it also serves as a driving force to facilitate NASAs
development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with
the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost-effective access to and from the
space station and low-Earth orbit beginning in 2017. (NASA, 2013)
Therefore we evaluate the Status Quo contribution as 3 for the purposes of
National Pride and Prestige.
2. Private Sector (COA 1): Human spaceflight has captivated the public
imagination, inspired national pride, and enabled generations to see limitless
possibilities in the new frontier. Private companies offer a new generation of
vehicles to explore space and increase American prestige and pride, inspiring
society members. All space companies are American owned (Boeing is the
biggest exporter in dollars for US economy) and they advertise their activities
through press and social media, passionately expressing their dream to
become the alternative mean (next to NASA) for space exploration, in order to
inspire and engage the next generation of American explorers in the act of
journey and innovation.
Therefore we evaluate COA 1 contribution as 3 for the purposes of National
Pride and Prestige.
3. COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS): This is a critical juncture for
NASA to build and provide a Space Launch System and a Multi-purpose
(Orion) Spacecraft. This makes use of our own human spaceflight skills and a
unique knowledge base that NASA has worked feverishly over the last 50

years, to enable and inspire current and future generations of engineers,

scientists and explorers. If this talent is lost, it wont be just to the private
sector, but more importantly, potentially outside the United States. This effort
is in keeping with our space leadership ideals and a necessary step to ensure
that we are on a path to regain and not relinquish our advancements in space
exploration. The NASA Authorization Act for 2016 has been forwarded to the
full House for a vote. An example of National Pride is the effort outlined in the
bill to conduct a well-publicized competition among students in elementary
and secondary schools to name the elements of the administrations
exploration program (Clark, 2015).
Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 4 for the purposes of National
Pride and Prestige.

Safety
Experts and scientists of the current generation of new space
projects, many pursued by small companies lacking pedigrees in rocketry or
related technologies, argue that malfunctions and crashes always have been
part of perfecting cutting-edge space hardware. On average, over the past
few decades, one out of the first three launches of both government and
privately developed new rockets failed to perform as expected. For example,
SpaceX had three early launch failures and officials feared for its very survival
before their new family of rockets demonstrated increased reliability. (Pasztor
& Ostrower, 2015). For our analysis purposes, we did not include any lunch
failures or accidents that did not have an impact on human factor. Instead, we
concentrated on ranking Courses of Action regarding their safety in relation
with their history of accidents (Status Quo) or predicting the chances of fatal
accidents for COA-1 and COA-2. In our case, the higher the grade, the safer a
course of action would be.
1. Status Quo: No program is 100% safe.

The space shuttle fleet was

extended beyond its intended life cycle and only created an increased
probability for accidents and fatalities. Evidence shows that from1668 total

launches, 5 major accidents a total of 19 died. Additionally, 13 astronauts,

test pilots, and other personnel have died during 9 training/ test flights and
174 civilians due to rocket crashes and maintenance accidents. (Kyle, 2015).
Therefore we evaluate Status Quo contribution as 2 for the purposes of
Safety.
2. Private Sector (COA 1): According to official launch lists, SpaceX managed
to launch 18 different missions by June 2015 and Orbital ATK launched 5
missions during the same period, without any serious accidents (no fatalities
or injuries). The initial plan for future launches includes 45-55 more launches
scheduled until 2020 for Space X, 5-7 for Orbital ATK and 6-8 for Boeing,
respectively. Today, private companies have increased access to new
technology without any constraint in material and parts manufacturers and
markets combined with state of the art testing practices in partnership with
NASA technicians as part of the Space Act Agreement. Therefore we assume
that while the Space Shuttle program executed their missions with a 98.5%
success rate, the private companies projects would experience equal to or
greater than percentages.
Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 3 for the purposes of Safety.
3. COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS): As there have been no
launches with the SLS Program, the legacy Space Shuttle program can
provide us with some historical background. The first space-worthy launch of
the Columbia was on 12 April, 1981 and the final mission was flown by the
Atlantis in July of 2011. In the 30 years of the Space Shuttle program, there
were 135 missions flown with only two accidents in which two orbiters were
destroyed and a loss of 14 astronauts. The SLS program is currently planned
for an initial unmanned flight of the Orion and follow-on missions thereafter.
Due to new technology and refined manufacturing and testing practices our
assumption is that while the Space Shuttle program executed their missions
with a 98.5% success rate, the SLS program would experience equal to or
greater than percentages. Therefore we evaluate COA 2 contribution as 3
for the purposes of Safety and Fatalities.

In summary, the weighted benefits described above can be concluded in the

following table:
Table 1
Benefits of Crew and Cargo Transportation to ISS
Benefits
Status Quo
Benefits of Crew and
Cargo Transportation to ISS
2
International Cooperation
4
National prestige/pride
3
Safety
2
Total
11

COA-1
5
2
3
3
13

COA-2
4
3
4
3
14

Costs
STATUS QUO
While NASA continues to use the international orbital transportation
systems available for cargo and crew, the federal government is not required
to include maintenance and development cost when analyzing the Status
Quo. Any additionally cost that would be assumed, such as training and
processing and preparations are all included in the estimated per seat
expense.
For the purpose of this CBA FY15-FY17 are calculated using current
cost data and FY18-FY2024 are calculated using an approximate eight
percent increase every three years. This eight percent is an estimated trend
in prices increases annotated from FY13 and FY14 contracts,
NASA has signed a new deal that will keep American astronauts flying
on Russian spacecraft through early 2017 at a cost of $70.7 million per seat
about $8 million more per astronaut than the previous going rate.
The $424 million deal is good for six seats aboard Russia's Soyuz space
capsules. Under the agreement, Soyuz vehicles will now ferry NASA
astronauts to and from the International Space Station through 2016, with
return and rescue services extending until June 2017. The previous contract
provided Soyuz flights for NASA astronauts through 2015, at a cost of roughly
$62.7 million per seat. (WALL, 2013)

NASA has been dependent on the Soyuz since the retirement of its
space shuttle fleet in July 2011. The agency is currently encouraging
American private spaceflight firms to develop their own astronaut taxis under
its Commercial Crew Program.
Table 2
Costs of Status Quo (International Partnerships) in $ millions
Costs
FY 15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Launch
141.3 141.3 141.3 152.6 152.6 152.6 164.9 164.9 164.9 164.9
Maintenance
n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Development
n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Costs
70.7 70.7 70.7 76.4 38.2
0
0
0
0
0
Discount
Rates
1.07 1.072 1.073 1.074 1.075 1.076 1.077 1.078 1.079 1.0710
Note 1: Present Value of Total Cost in real dollars =
(Launch+Development+Maintenance)t/(1+i)t, for t=0-9 and r=0.07
Note2: Total Present Value = $ 1069.91 millions

COA-1 Private Sector (SpaceX, Orbital ATK, Boeing)

Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts were awarded in
December 2008 to two different American private companies. Under the terms
of the CRS contracts, Orbital was awarded a contract worth $1.9 billion to
deliver 8 flights of cargo to ISS. SpaceX was awarded a contract worth $1.6
billion for 12 CRS delivery flights using its capsule-shaped Dragon spacecraft.
Those contracts are through 2016. At the current time, SpaceX has launched
6 out of 12 (50%) missions, and Orbital has delivered 3 out of 8 (37.5%).
Therefore, the remaining costs for 2015 are $1,435.83 millions and for 2016
$1050.41 millions, respectively.
The second round of contracts, CRS2, will cover deliveries from 2017
until 2024, and are expected to be awarded in September of 2015. The
expected budget for CRS 2 is between $1 billion and $1.4 billion a year from
2017 to 2024, according to NASA officials.

(Leone, 2015). Therefore we

estimated an average of $1,200 million launch cost per year during that
period. Finally, there are no plans for further funding of private companies for
cargo services to ISS after the COTS termination program in 2013.

In 2014, NASA announced that Boeing and SpaceX have received

contracts to provide crewed launch services to the ISS until 2014. For
completing the same contract requirements, Boeing can receive up to $4.2
billion, while SpaceX can receive up to $2.6 billion. Both Boeing and SpaceX
were awarded the same set of requirements and the award covers both
development and launch costs through CCtCap program fundingUS$3.42
billion over the years 2015-2019 as well as US$3.4 billion for operational crew
resupply to the ISS. Thus the total costs are divided for every fiscal year
accordingly and their average were estimated as 425 million for launching and
684 million for developing, respectively.
Regarding the maintenance factor, all three companies do not publicly
expose their costs, mainly due to competitive reasons, but also because
maintenance requirements depend on the reusability of space launchers and
their parts, which cannot be estimated. Instead, their total maintenance costs
are included in their final offer for the COTS and CCtCAP programs, as
derivative costs of their launch and development projects, thus could not be
separated from them. Thus, we do not include any maintenance cost for all
three companies in our COA-1 cost table.

Table 3
Costs of COA-1 Private Sector (SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing) in $ millions
Costs
FY 15 FY16
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
FY24
Launch
662.83 1317.08 1625 1625 1625 1625 1625 425 425 425
Maintenance n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Development 684
684
684 684 684 n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Total Costs 1346.08 2001.08 2.309 2309 2309 1625 1625 425 425 425
Discount
Rates
1.07 1.072 1.073 1.074 1.075 1.076 1.077 1.078 1.079 1.0710
Note 1: Present Value of Total Cost in real dollars = (Launch+Development+Maintenance)t/
(1+i)t, for t=0-9 and r=0.07
Note 2: Total Present Value = $ 11,088.22 millions
Note 3: No plans for extra funding of private companies for further development of their
space rockets and vehicles.
Note 4: Maintenance cost is included in launch and development cost

COA 2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS)

As we have been unable to find reliable cost estimates of an SLS
launch available anywhere, it is our assumption that the costs will be higher
than the historical costs for the Space Shuttle given that they both have a
similar payload capability. The Shuttle averaged about $1B per launch and
$1.5B per launch if you included development costs. For the purposes of this
CBA we will use the historical amount of $1B per launch for the SLS vehicle.
NASA announced that the SLS completed a development milestone
known in agency terminology as Key Decision Point C (KDP-C), a review that
confirms that the SLS program is ready to proceed with full-scale
development. The review established an estimated cost of $7.021 billion for
SLS development from February 2014 through its first launch (Faust, 2014).
The estimated development cost for the SLS and Orion programs are $3B a
year for at least 10 years. This is the figure that I will use in the cost matrix.
Additionally, I have planned for only one launch per year as determining the
additional costs of numerous launches in a year would not be worthwhile data
and based on the current budget for NASA, one launch per year would
exhaust their budget.
As there is no maintenance cost for the expendable SLS vehicle, the
above launch costs only include the SLS as it is a one-time use, expendable
rocket.

The Operation and Maintenance costs will include the amount to

recover and maintain the Orion MPCV prior to the next years launch. The
Orion MPCV will land in salt water and will have to be disassembled and
rebuilt after each recovery. It is currently unclear how much damage will
result from a water based landing to the capsule and for the purposes of this
CBA, those costs will be included in the Maintenance costs.

Additionally

added is the maintenance and operations cost for the Kennedy Space Center.
These costs are currently estimated at roughly $2B per year, given one launch
per year. This will be the figure used for the purposes of this CBA.
Table 4
Costs of COA-2 NASAs Space Launch System (SLS) in $ millions
Costs
FY 15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
FY24
Launch
n/a
n/a
n/a
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Maintenance 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Development 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
Total Costs
5000 5000 5000 6000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
Discount
Rates
1.07 1.072 1.073 1.074 1.075 1.076 1.077 1.078 1.079 1.0710
Note 1: Present Value of Total Cost in real dollars = (Launch+Development+Maintenance)t/
(1+i)t, for t=0-9 and r=0.07
Note 2: Total Present Value = $ 39,511.40 millions

Cost/Benefit Comparison
Table 5
Costs and Benefits of Crew and Cargo Transportation to ISS in $ millions
Benefits
Status Quo
COA-1
COA-2
Benefits of Crew and
Cargo Transportation to ISS
2
5
4
International Cooperation
4
2
3
National prestige/pride
3
3
4
Safety
2
3
3
Costs
Launch
Maintenance
Development
Total Costs

Status Quo
1,069.90
n/a
n/a
1,069.90

COA-1
8,263.68
2,804.54
n/a
11,088.22

COA-2
4,397,92
14,045.39
21,068.09
39,511.40

Policy Recommendations
As the preponderance of NASAs total funding is going into the SLS
program, money would be better spent to develop private industry rockets and
provide current payments due to the Russians for space station crew
launches. This would enable NASA to provide adequate funding for the many
on-going research and development projects needed for deep-space
exploration.
Additionally, NASA astronauts could perform many more deep-space
missions with the alternate launchers. The much smaller unit cost and lower
operating expense of these other rockets would permit these more-frequent
missions. More ambitious robotic missions would be feasible for the same
reason all within NASAs current budget. Again, NASA proposed this very
stratagem before Congress forced SLS on the space agency (Boozer, 2014)
Its time for U.S. citizens to insist that NASAs budget go towards
advancing the entire nations long-term future in space, not just short-term
employment for certain areas of the country. By advancing more rapidly into
space, the country will create many more American jobs in the future than will
come from NASA spinning its wheels with SLS and Orion (Boozer, 2014).

References
AIAA, I. P. (2011). Enabling U.S. Leadership of Human Spaceflight. ().The
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
doi:https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/Issues_and_Advocacy/Space/Human_
Spaceflight_Leadership_Information_Paper_022510.pdf
Baum, S. (2009). Costbenefit analysis of space exploration: Some ethical
considerations. Space Policy, 25(2), 75.
doi:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964609000198
Boozer, R.D.. 10 Feb 2014. Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASAs Rocket to
Nowhere? Retrieved from http://www.space.com/24628-will-spacex-kill-nasasls.html
Clark, S. 3 May 2015. New name for Space Launch System gets backing of
lawmakers. Retrieved from http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/03/new-namefor-space-launch-system-gets-backing-of-lawmakers/
Diamandis, P. (2014). Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?. Retrieved from
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405274870338290457505935040933
1536
Dubner, S. (2008). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics
Quorum. Retrieved from http://freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-spaceexploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/
Foust, J. 27 Aug 2014. SLS Debut likely to slip to 2018. Retrieved from
http://spacenews.com/41690sls-debut-likely-to-slip-to-2018/
Holdren, J. P., & Bolden, C. (2014). Obama Administration Extends
International Space Station until at Least 2024. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/08/obama-administration-extendsinternational-space-station-until-least-2024
Howell, E. (2014). SpaceX: First Private Flights to Space Station. Retrieved
from http://www.space.com/18853-spacex.html

Kyle, E. (2015). Launch Vehicle by Success Rate . Retrieved from

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2015.html#rate
Leone, D. (2015). NASA Preparing Follow-on Commercial Cargo Delivery
Contract . Retrieved from http://spacenews.com/39595nasa-preparing-followon-commercial-cargo-delivery-contract/
Loff, S. (2015). NASA Hails Success of Commercial Space Program.
Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-hails-success-ofcommercial-space-program
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010,
retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf
NASA. (2013). NASA Extends Crew Flight Contract with Russian Space
Agency | NASA. Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/apr/HQ_C13027_Soyuz_Services.html
Newton, K. 17 Jun 2015. NASAs Space Launch System to Boost Science
with Secondary Payloads. Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-to-boostscience-with-secondary-payloads.html
Pasztor, A., & Ostrower, J. (2015). Commercial Space Industry Faces Hurdles
After Recent Accidents. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/accidentsraise-questions-about-future-of-commercial-space-travel-1414889728
Wall, M. (2013, April 30). NASA to Pay $70 Million a Seat to Fly Astronauts on
Russian Spacecraft. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/20897-nasarussia-astronaut-launches-2017.html
Wiener-Bronner, D. (2014, March 25). NASA Is Paying Russia $71 Million for
a Ride to Space. Retrieved from
http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/03/nasa-is-paying-russia-71-million-fora-ride-to-space/359559/)