[somenameforme]

Commonly thought - as well as intuitive, but 100% untrue. The entire Apollo program, from start to finish, cost $178 billion (in 2022 dollars), over 11 years. [1] That's a bit more than $16 billion a year. NASA's budget has been greater than $16 billion/year (in 2022 dollars) every year since 1963. [2]

And that was going from absolutely nothing - having never even put a man in orbit, to putting a man on the Moon, all in 8 years.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

[Retric]

Inflation adjustments don’t really work well for projects like this across such different periods. Project Mercury spent $277 million (1965) or 2.6 billion (2022) to get 20 uncrewed developmental flights and 6 crewed orbital launches plus all associated R&D.

Which seems insane by modern standards, Mercury however wasn’t quite that efficient, manpower costs for example have risen faster than inflation. Which makes a huge difference for non automated tasks like building novel spacecraft.

Similarly a barrel of oil in 1969 was $3.09 or 25$ today vs the actual price of 82$ today.

[somenameforme]

You're conflating rockets. The rockets used during the Mercury program [1] were literally retrofitted ICBMs designed to deliver nukes. It offered a great proof of concept and kept prices extremely low, but is nowhere near what's need for things like a Moon mission. It had a payload capacity of ~3,000 pounds!

As for oil, its price is largely driven by geopolitics, not inflation. In April 2020 prices were all the way down to below $20 a barrel. [2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_LV-3B

[2] - https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil

[Retric]

That doesn’t make as large a difference as you might think. The Falcon Heavy is dramatically cheaper than the Falcon 9 per kg even though it’s the same company and very similar hardware. Rockets just scale really well.

Also, those missions needed a capsule not just the rocket and more importantly a great deal of R&D.

PS: April 2020 prices were due to drastic decreases in demand due to the pandemic not politics. Many current oil ‘wells’ ie oil sands lose money at even 60$/barrel therefore the market price needs to be higher than that or supply is reduced.

[somenameforme]

If you haven't seen it, "The Right Stuff" is an absolutely awesome movie about this era. Of course it takes some dramatic liberties, but is overall also quite historically accurate. So one fun anecdote, that really happened, is that these capsules/suits were so barebones that there wasn't even urine collection. The pilot was expected to simply 'hold it.' In one launch, there was a delay of 4 hours and Alan Shepard ended up pissing his suit - resulting in short circuits among the telemetry. The solution on the next flights was for astronauts to wear rubber pants... seriously! [1]

Put another way, these guys were being treated like a glorified version of Laika [2], and they knew it. It was all about achieving the mission goal as quickly and cheaply as possible. Everything else was secondary. This sort of stuff wouldn't pass muster in a million years in modern times, which again gets back to the original topic.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury#Pilot_accommod...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika

[themadturk]

The book is even better than the (great) movie. The Mercury astronauts had to fight to get a window in the capsule and some amount of control over the attitude jets. They didn't mind being expendable -- they were test pilots, after all -- but they didn't want NASA to forget that they were pilots, not passengers.

[dotnet00]

That's comparing budget of a program to NASA's overall budget, ignoring that NASA hasn't been pouring its overall budget into a single lunar program since then (lack of political will), and ignoring that many of the recent landers are explicitly cheaper missions intended to have some risk of failure, either because the country attempting the landing has never done it before, or because they're trying to stimulate private competition in the industry.

[somenameforme]

Absolutely. But you're also not really considering that that was starting from literally nothing, and going at a hyper-accelerated rate. Now that we have that knowledge, to say nothing of a million other technological improvements, costs ought be dramatically lower. And indeed the Falcon Heavy's entire development cost about $500 million, over about 3 years of active development. [1]

The SLS, which is NASA's latest ship - being developed by Boeing/Lockheed, started 13 years ago and has, so far, cost more than $30 billion (the costs listed on Wiki are 5 years outdated). [2] If/when it is ever completed, its ideal goal will be to carry ~2x as much as a Falcon Heavy, at a launch cost about of well over 20x as much.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Conception_and_fu...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

[dotnet00]

I agree that costs should be lower, and they are indeed coming down. That's the intent of stimulating private competition, to replicate what Falcon did for rocketry.

We'd have gotten on this path sooner and the waste that is SLS wouldn't have existed, if Congress+MIC hadn't intentionally misaligned incentives to suppress progress in favor of profit for decades.

[numpad0]

SLIM is a $100m project, including half of the launch(rideshare with XRISM x-ray telescope on H-IIA), not a billion dollar JPL project on a dedicated Atlas V, so budget likely is a factor.

[somenameforme]

Any source on the mission cost? I'm quite curious. The best Wiki has is a page from 8 years ago that gave an estimated 'cost of development' (which is unclear if it includes e.g. launch costs) of $121.5 million. [1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Lander_for_Investigating...

[numpad0]

The "Budgets" page in JAXA website([1], will quote below) indeed don't have a detailed breakdown:

| Project name | Total development cost(projected) | Total development cost(as of Jan, Reiwa 5) | Planned launch fiscal year | Project phase | State of Project (total dev. cost, launch FY changes, etc.) | References |

| Small Lunar Lander Proving Craft(SLIM) | 180 oku-yen(~$121m) | 149 oku-yen(~$100.7m) | FY Reiwa 5 (FY2023) | Phase D (Production/testing phase) (snip) | March, Heisei 28: Project migration review at JAXA (...snip...) March, Heisei 30: At JAXA, changes of plan due to change in launch vehicle(Epsilon -> H-IIA rideshare), as well as change in launch dates. Incorporating the results, adjusted total development cost. (180 oku-yen -> 149 oku-yen) (...snip...) | (snip) |

There are few more media sources[2][3] that state 149 oku-yen[4] figure covers "part of the launch and initial operation". One of such articles[3] estimates Epsilon launch cost as 50 oku-yen or ~$35m, and theorizes change to H-IIA to be intending to save launch cost. Not sure if there are readily available English source, sorry for that - very few of us think in English and these deep topics rarely have English coverage.

1: https://www.jaxa.jp/about/transition/index_j.html

2: https://newswitch.jp/p/345

3: https://moonstation.jp/blog/lunarexp/slim/slim-launche-to-be...

4: 1 oku means 0.1 billion, 1 USD is ~150 yen, so 1 oku-yen is ~0.75 million dollar

[somenameforme]

Thanks for the links/translation! That's quite interesting. So is that to say it actually ended being done even substantially below budget?

[numpad0]

On budget, but at quite a small one for what it is. Epsilon all-solid launcher had anomalies and changes in these years too, so that could also be a reason for LV change.

[_y5hn]

Never underestimate a good dick measuring contest.