Updated OSP development cost revealed by NASA

Keith Cowling (NASAWatch) reports:

*OSP Costs, Shutting off Shuttle, and Markup plans
*Editor's note: Dennis Smith has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill. He
is telling staff that the cost of *getting to a CRV (crew return) capability
for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion. The *cost to get
the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability atop an EELV is still not
known - at least *Smith has not been able to prove those numbers to
Congress.


This is not surprising. The development cost of the original shuttle orbiter
was $13B in current dollars. The fact that the OSP is a 30,000 to
40,000-pound reusable spacecraft while the present orbiter dry weight with
SSMEs is about 180,000 pounds has little to do with development cost. We
knew as far back as the original Phase A shuttle work in 1969-70 that the
development cost of a manned reusable spacecraft is not a strong function of
the size of the aluminum airframe, which is relatively inexpensive. Most of
the development cost is in the complex systems (avionics, RCS, propulsion,
environmental control, APU, TPS, hydraulics, etc) and the design of these
systems is essentially the same regardless of the size of the airframe.

In the nearly 35 years since the original orbiter was designed, there have
been no technological quantum leaps that would significantly reduce the
development cost of these complex systems. Certainly the OSP will use modern
Pentium IV technology in its flight computers which is thousands of times
better than the clunky IBM 370 technology still flying in the orbiter. But
this will have little impact on development cost for a simple reason. Anyone
paying attention during the last 30 years knows that the cost of software
development far exceeds the cost of computer hardware. Case in point:
Boeing's struggle with the ISS software development.

Later
Ray Schmitt

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:47:07 -0700, "rschmitt23"
wrote:

Keith Cowling (NASAWatch) reports:

*OSP Costs, Shutting off Shuttle, and Markup plans
*Editor's note: Dennis Smith has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill. He
is telling staff that the cost of *getting to a CRV (crew return) capability
for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion.

This is not surprising. The development cost of the original shuttle orbiter
was $13B in current dollars.

$12 Billion?

Reusable First Stage for STS was predicted to cost $3 Billion or so
(and *that* was too expensive for NASA). Let's abandon this OSP
nonsense right now. Develop RFS, and spend $3 or $4 Billion more for
OV-106 or OV-201. Put another $1 Billion or so into B-58-type
encapsulated ejection seats fleetwide. We'll still come out $4 Billion
ahead, we'll still have MPLM round-trip capability, and we'll have a
vehicle cheaper to operate than the OSP/EELV and ATV/EELV combination
needed to replace Shuttle.

Certainly the OSP will use modern
Pentium IV technology in its flight computers which is thousands of times
better than the clunky IBM 370 technology still flying in the orbiter.

Far from a certainty. Pentium IVs are faster, not better. I doubt OSP
would use anything greater than Pentium/586. Or need it.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:47:07 -0700, "rschmitt23"
wrote:

Keith Cowling (NASAWatch) reports:

*OSP Costs, Shutting off Shuttle, and Markup plans
*Editor's note: Dennis Smith has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill.
He
is telling staff that the cost of *getting to a CRV (crew return)
capability
for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion.

This is not surprising. The development cost of the original shuttle
orbiter
was $13B in current dollars.

$12 Billion?

Reusable First Stage for STS was predicted to cost $3 Billion or so
(and *that* was too expensive for NASA). Let's abandon this OSP
nonsense right now. Develop RFS, and spend $3 or $4 Billion more for
OV-106 or OV-201. Put another $1 Billion or so into B-58-type
encapsulated ejection seats fleetwide. We'll still come out $4 Billion
ahead, we'll still have MPLM round-trip capability, and we'll have a
vehicle cheaper to operate than the OSP/EELV and ATV/EELV combination
needed to replace Shuttle.

Certainly the OSP will use modern
Pentium IV technology in its flight computers which is thousands of times
better than the clunky IBM 370 technology still flying in the orbiter.

Far from a certainty. Pentium IVs are faster, not better. I doubt OSP
would use anything greater than Pentium/586. Or need it.


I doubt it would even be a PC chip. The mission requirements will likely
bend towards radiation hardened milspec processors.

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

Far from a certainty. Pentium IVs are faster, not better. I doubt OSP
would use anything greater than Pentium/586. Or need it.


I doubt it would even be a PC chip. The mission requirements will likely
bend towards radiation hardened milspec processors.


Mind you, it's not that I have anything against the Intel chipset. Hubble
is happy with its 386s, and they're using IBM Laptops up on ISS. I'm just
thinking they might get better use out of a Hughes CIP, or perhaps even a
Mongoose.

Dosco

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
Reusable First Stage for STS was predicted to cost $3 Billion or so
(and *that* was too expensive for NASA). Let's abandon this OSP
nonsense right now. Develop RFS, and spend $3 or $4 Billion more for
OV-106 or OV-201. Put another $1 Billion or so into B-58-type
encapsulated ejection seats fleetwide. We'll still come out $4 Billion
ahead, we'll still have MPLM round-trip capability, and we'll have a
vehicle cheaper to operate than the OSP/EELV and ATV/EELV combination
needed to replace Shuttle.

Better bet: *don't* develop an RFS, nor build a replacement orbiter. The
best value to be had is to work with what we've got. Implement safety and
maintainability upgrades on the current fleet. Put the money into studying
real shuttle successors. If a CRV/CTV is still desired, then restart the
X-38 program, and derive operational craft from it.

Certainly the OSP will use modern
Pentium IV technology in its flight computers which is thousands of times
better than the clunky IBM 370 technology still flying in the orbiter.

Far from a certainty. Pentium IVs are faster, not better. I doubt OSP
would use anything greater than Pentium/586. Or need it.

Probably a mixed approach: something well-understood in high-radiation
environments (386/486) for the critical flight systems, with a more modern
processor for less critical stuff. Similar to what's done now.

--Chris

Chris Bennetts wrote:

Certainly the OSP will use modern
Pentium IV technology in its flight computers which is thousands of times
better than the clunky IBM 370 technology still flying in the orbiter.

Far from a certainty. Pentium IVs are faster, not better. I doubt OSP
would use anything greater than Pentium/586. Or need it.

Probably a mixed approach: something well-understood in high-radiation
environments (386/486) for the critical flight systems, with a more modern
processor for less critical stuff. Similar to what's done now.

Whatever they choose for CPU's the difficulty is getting them certified
for flight.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"starman" wrote in message
...
Chris Bennetts wrote:

Certainly the OSP will use modern
Pentium IV technology in its flight computers which is thousands of
times
better than the clunky IBM 370 technology still flying in the
orbiter.

Far from a certainty. Pentium IVs are faster, not better. I doubt OSP
would use anything greater than Pentium/586. Or need it.

Probably a mixed approach: something well-understood in high-radiation
environments (386/486) for the critical flight systems, with a more
modern
processor for less critical stuff. Similar to what's done now.

Whatever they choose for CPU's the difficulty is getting them certified
for flight.

The 286 and 386 were flight certified a long time ago.

Getting back to the real issue, will Congress really authorize that
kind of money for OSP?

In article , Explorer8939 wrote:
Getting back to the real issue, will Congress really authorize that
kind of money for OSP?

Well, a major prerequisite for that is a clear long-term plan for NASA
as outlined by NASA and approved by the White House (along with Congress).
That plan hasn't yet been outlined or decided upon.

Otherwise, they're going to be reluctant to essentially dump money down a
blackhole.

The administration having recently asked for $87B for other things... may
make it problematic for Congress to approve large funding requests by NASA
for such things as the OSP.

Members of Congress with states involving NASA jobs are more likely to go
along with a well-reasoned out goal and long-term plan, but it's less
certain that others will as well. A number of folks are holding their cards
close to their sleeves at the moment, pending presentation of a long-term
plan.

But beyond that, I couldn't really guess, not knowing the D.C. tea leaves.

-Dan

"rschmitt23" writes:

Keith Cowling (NASAWatch) reports:

*OSP Costs, Shutting off Shuttle, and Markup plans
*Editor's note: Dennis Smith has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill. He
is telling staff that the cost of *getting to a CRV (crew return) capability
for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion. The *cost to get
the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability atop an EELV is still not
known - at least *Smith has not been able to prove those numbers to
Congress.


This is not surprising. The development cost of the original shuttle orbiter
was $13B in current dollars. The fact that the OSP is a 30,000 to
40,000-pound reusable spacecraft while the present orbiter dry weight with
SSMEs is about 180,000 pounds has little to do with development cost. We
knew as far back as the original Phase A shuttle work in 1969-70 that the
development cost of a manned reusable spacecraft is not a strong function of
the size of the aluminum airframe, which is relatively inexpensive. Most of
the development cost is in the complex systems (avionics, RCS, propulsion,
environmental control, APU, TPS, hydraulics, etc) and the design of these
systems is essentially the same regardless of the size of the airframe.

This doesn't hold if OSP is a capsule based design, devoid of movable
aerodynamic surfaces, robotic arms, airlocks, APU's, SSME's, SRB's,
and the like. A properly done OSP ought to be an order of magnitude
simpler and cheaper than developing the shuttle. The fact that NASA
thinks OSP will cost as much to develop as the shuttle is a pitiful,
crying shame.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.