Cost of Trident Rocket Motors Jumps by 85 Percent

Cost of Trident Rocket Motors Jumps by 85 Percent

The cancellation of NASA’s Constellation rocket program last year and the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet has contributed to significant cost spikes for the solid fuel rocket motors the Navy uses on its Trident sea launched ballistic missiles which are the only solid rockets in use today.

The Navy has seen the cost of its Trident missile motors spike by roughly 85 percent for fiscal year 2012 over FY-11; the engines now cost $19.2 million versus $10.7 million apiece.

“If you look at it in terms of pure volume, NASA is about 70-plus percent of the solid rocket industry, we’re about 20 percent,” Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy’s chief of strategic systems, told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. “It would take ten Trident motor, first, second and third-stages in order to make one solid rocket motor booster for the Shuttle. So, in pure volume, NASA’s decision is one that causes the overhead [cost of building the motors] to be spread amongst the remaining programs.”


He went on to note that “we are the only strategic program of solid rocket motors that are currently in production so we are bearing that overhead shift.”

About 60 percent of the Trident motor cost spike is due to “overhead” increases, said Benedict.

The Navy is working with Lockheed and ATK, the two main supplies of solid rocket motors and parts, “as they try to develop not only a business plan but understand the larger plan for the” government’s future need for solid rocket motors.

The sea service and ATK have both streamlined workforces and overhead costs associated withe the Trident; the Navy expects to save about $10 million per year by reducing labor hours associated with the program, according to Benedict.

Meanwhile, the final version of the Pentagon’s report on the future of the solid rocket motor industrial base was approved by DoD acquisitions chief Ashton Carter yesterday, according to Benedict. That report is meant to give the Pentagon, NASA and solid rocket manufacturers to determine a way to keep that industry alive while keeping costs affordable in light of the current low demand for such motors.

Join the Conversation

Typical ATK BS — they find a way to do less or spend less while charging more for less.

Who could have ever seen this coming?

Last time I checked the Minute Man III is a solid fuel rocket. And a replacement for this rocket is in the works.

We should start immediately to fund prototypes of a small, medium and large ICBMs, heavy lift launcher for space payloads and super heavy lift for Mars missions, etc.

If the solid rocket industrial base is hurting how about the more esoteric technologies like guidance and RV’s.

Time to look for a new vendor. Maybe aerojet is interested. It would only take replacing one of the three motors to get ATK to pull their head out of their ass.

“So, in pure volume, NASA’s decision is one that causes the overhead [cost of building the motors] to be spread amongst the remaining programs.”

This is not the the economics of scale it is Military socialism at it’s finest. The costs of building 10 motors is billed to the American taxpayer when only one is actually delivered.

The general should be sacked for fraud and corruption.

We probably need to accelerate the development of the future shuttle to cut the costfof the rocket motors
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.b

Yes. This is very wrong: “…Trident sea launched ballistic missiles which are the only solid rockets in use today.”

There are obviously lots used by the Air Force, and several space launch vehicles other than the shuttle use solids as main stages or strap-on boosters.

The main point is still important though. The shuttle was the biggest buyer, and there is a decided lack of competition and industry capacity these days.

Anyone ever heard of OSC’s Pegasus, Taurus, and Minataur launch vehicle’s. They are solid propellent based rockets. Also, ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV use Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) on their Medium Plus configurations, Delta II uses SRBs for all configurations. This article is factually incorrect and the author did not do due diligence!

It does not always work that way — specialy when you mfg the chems in house at a gov facility your contracted to run. I have had too many dealing with ATK (& others) over contracts to trust anything they say without looking at it with a magnifying glass.

Yes, for the Atlas V launch vehicle Medium Plus configurations.

Yeah, but there is still quite a demand out there to leverage economy of scale purchasing. OSC and ULA buy SRMs and SRBs in great quantity. It could be justifiable to raise costs by 15–25%, but 85% is either poor management or fleecing of America for pure profit gouging sake!

Speaking of ” factually incorrect and the author did not do due diligence! ” Minotaur and Taurus are both based on retired ICBMs. In other words nobody is making motors as they already exist.

As for threatening to have Aerojet make a few Trident motors to “get ATK back in line” are you planning on duplicating the tooling and hiring people at Aerojet to make a few motors? And you think that will be cheap? In the meantime ATK fires their workforce and then where are you? Screwed is where.

Oh Jesus, not another round of the Great Engine War…I can just see it now, people calling for Aerojet to make an independent SRM that’s “compatible” with the Trident, just like GE did with F136 and F-35…because, after all, it’s all about “reducing costs through competition”. Never about another piglet trying to get its lips on that DoD teat…

I dont believe in wars in any means or respect. But I do believe in self defense, If these deterent tool were the only way we can defend ourself against an attacking enemy force.

I’ve been to both sets of privately owned Utah facilities. Instead of being price gouged, maybe its time the military took this need in-house.

To the poster “sferrin”

You wrote: “As for threatening to have Aerojet make a few Trident motors to ‘get ATK back in line’ are you planning on duplicating the tooling and hiring people at Aerojet to make a few motors? And you think that will be cheap?”

Crystal-clear logic, well laid out!

However, whether creating an artificial competitor to ATK is cheaper or not depends exclusively on monopolistic ATK’s usurious profit margin…

Why not ask Aerojet simply how much they would like to charge for each solid rocket engine for the Tridents? It’s just a question, and just asking can’t be expensive…

You know Jesus that well to use His name like you did. I take offense of you using His name in vain. Next time just use you lord,s name the devil.

He hangs out at my place every weekend, we grill steaks and watch hockey. (turns out Jesus is a Rangers fan. Try and figure THAT one out.)

Killroy was here.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.