Wiederverwendbare Raketen sind hier. Warum zahlt die NASA mehr, um Sachen in den Weltraum zu starten?
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/reusable-rockets-are-here-so-why-is-nasa-paying-more-to-launch-stuff-to-space/
Wiederverwendbare Raketen sind hier. Warum zahlt die NASA mehr, um Sachen in den Weltraum zu starten?
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/reusable-rockets-are-here-so-why-is-nasa-paying-more-to-launch-stuff-to-space/
5 Kommentare
> Kim uses NASA’s pricing data as the benchmark in his paper because the exact costs incurred by launch providers for each flight are proprietary.
And that’s the real reason why nobody has an answer to this, either LSPs are conducting vast amounts of price gouging and have no incentive to renegotiate, or reuse isn’t saving money. I’d lean towards the latter.
SLS is a jobs program. It is doing great on that front
My guess is they signed contracts years ago for X launches at $z/launch, and they’re obligated by the contracts.
Next contract bids will be cheaper, likely.
FWIW, nasa got out of the “cost+” business decades ago because too many contractors would bid low cost to win the contract, and then make up their “losses” with the “+” part. Cost+ also tends not to incentivize keeping costs down.
I found the paper. The paper looks at private launch providers only. Seems like its saying that price isnt decreasing and actually increasing. The paper says the prices decreased from the shuttles to private sector launches, but the prices of private launch providers are not decreasing with time for nasa.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/authShare/S0094576525002115/20250411T083200Z/1?dgcid=author&md5=ddbf26648ccb6b6fa5a0feed9f1317e1&cookieCheck](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/authShare/S0094576525002115/20250411T083200Z/1?dgcid=author&md5=ddbf26648ccb6b6fa5a0feed9f1317e1&cookieCheck)
The idea that reusable rockets are the way forward is mainly a wish of politicians. It’s leftover group-think from the Nixon era. There isn’t much evidence for it though.
This honestly isn’t that hard to understand if you’ve ever engineered anything. Making a machine durable enough and serviceable enough to be used repeatedly costs more money. The actual servicing of it between launches, thousand of manual checks, months of labor in some cases, costs money. Letting a rocket melt itself or fall into the sea is free.
Consider the Bic pen. Now consider a 1930s fountain pen. The vintage Mont Blanc will need to messed with and refilled daily. Many shirts and ink blotters will be consumed. The Bic just runs perfectly until you throw it away and grab another brand new perfect one. The MB was $50 in 1937. $1000 now. The Bic is $0.60.
Efficiency comes in many forms. If you’re trying to save metal the reusable is good. If you’re trying to save money it usually isn’t. This is why so many car parts can’t be rebuilt anymore…there’s nobody to pay the rebuilders.