Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Don't forget amortization of R&D costs

That is a complicated issue
Gary — (archived)

I believe(?) the amortization of the R&D costs was a major factor in caping the Shuttle's development effort at an unacceptable level. However I suspect that sort of argument could kill almost any aerospace R&D effort. As you know, the Boeing 747 R&D was originally funded by the USAF as a military transport aircraft in competition against the Lockheed C-5. The C-5 won the USAF flyoff but Boeing was crying all the way to the bank when they commercalized their design into a jet liner. Could Boeing have paid for the 747's R&D cost entirely on their own? I doubt it. Boeing wasn't prepared to pay for the R&D on the Blended Wing Body or the SonicCruiser. I see subsidizing the R&D work for totally new technology as an activity appropriate for government. Once the economic viability of a technology has been established then the commerical sector can jump in and run with it. Had NASA paid for a fully reusable Shuttle then it's quite possible that commercialization in Low Earth Orbit might have had economic feasibility. In that alternate future, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin could have been manufacturing in competition, the Space Shuttle analogs of the 747 and L-1011 to commerical customers. Right now that's simply not-an-option because the Shuttle is just a money eater and without commerical value.

Gary

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (44 posts)