Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11/28/2005, page 8
Dietrich E. Koelle
Ottobrunn, Germany
Regarding your article "Contrary Views," the NASA concept of using expendable launch vehicles for a Moon/Mars program will lead to excessive annual costs that may prove to be a dead end for the program (as for Apollo with Saturn V and eventually for the space shuttle). Also, using ELVs represents a high risk due to their inherent unreliability (AW&ST Oct. 24, p. 26).
Long-term manned space exploration is not economically feasible without a reusable launch vehicle. Where are the studies about the different launch vehicle options and payload size optimizations, including the related life-cycle costs? Of course, reuse of Saturn V and shuttle hardware reduces development cost, but will bring a high penalty for this advantage. Remember, the Office of Management and Budget wanted to save $5 billion for shuttle development, resulting in the solid rocket boosters plus external tank configuration.
Now, after more than 100 flights, the U.S. taxpayers must pay more than $30 billion in additional vehicle and flight operations costs, compared to those for using the originally anticipated fully reusable vehicles. Life-cycle costs are not a favorite subject for managers and especially not for politicians. They have left office when the real costs show up.
