CEV cost SKYROCKETING!

So much for solids reuse saving $ Its time to put CEV on a expendable


Editor's note: According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal
estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for
Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch
Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up
to around $3 billion.

Posted by kcowing at 12:59 PM | Permalink

Bob Haller wrote:
So much for solids reuse saving $ Its time to put CEV on a expendable

Editor's note: According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal
estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for
Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch
Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up
to around $3 billion.

That's because they went to a five-segment booster, which has
to be developed, rather than an already-existing four-segment
booster. Of course, the resulting smaller upper stage and the
switch to J-2X instead of SSME should save money, but I
wonder how much.

They could do ISS CEV missions on a four-segment RSRM and
a J-2X upper stage, but not the heavier CEV lunar missions.

- Ed Kyle

On 6 Apr 2006 11:52:05 -0700, "ed kyle" wrote:


Editor's note: According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal
estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for
Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch
Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up
to around $3 billion.

That's because they went to a five-segment booster, which has
to be developed, rather than an already-existing four-segment
booster. Of course, the resulting smaller upper stage and the
switch to J-2X instead of SSME should save money, but I
wonder how much.

Note also that it isn't really costing any more money, it's just that
the 5-segment booster upgrades now have to be paid in FY07-12 instead
of waiting to be paid for by the CaLV contract post-Shuttle.

They could do ISS CEV missions on a four-segment RSRM and
a J-2X upper stage, but not the heavier CEV lunar missions.

I wonder why they don't start simple then... go with the existing SRB,
and improve it later on. What's the rush to have the moon version by
2012 when we don't need it until 2016 at the earliest?

Or better yet, scrap the whole frelling idea and just contract Boeing
or Lockmart to upgrade an EELV, then tackle the CaLV issues later on
when there's less budget pressure.

Brian

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
So much for solids reuse saving $ Its time to put CEV on a expendable


Editor's note: According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal
estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for
Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch
Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up
to around $3 billion.

Posted by kcowing at 12:59 PM | Permalink

Are they so reliable that you can't post a link?

George

My paste is from nasawatch. Thats pretty reliable and keith gets some
juicy stuff from time to time.

Looks like the CEV is going to have more in common with apollo than
shuttle, or perhaps more appropiately its on a fast track to the next
ISS, big promises followed by bloated and yet unrealistic budgets.

Meanwhile the shuttle program has a disaser surfacing daily with wierd
accidents all around.

the agency is very sick and going to kill another crew......

then congress will remove people from nasa mission...

Brian Thorn wrote:
They could do ISS CEV missions on a four-segment RSRM and
a J-2X upper stage, but not the heavier CEV lunar missions.

I wonder why they don't start simple then... go with the existing SRB,
and improve it later on. What's the rush to have the moon version by
2012 when we don't need it until 2016 at the earliest?

Then it would cost $4 billion instead of $3 billion ($1 billion for
4-segment CEV first stage and $3 billion for 5-segment CaLV
booster.

Or better yet, scrap the whole frelling idea and just contract Boeing
or Lockmart to upgrade an EELV, then tackle the CaLV issues later on
when there's less budget pressure.

This might cost even more because a new upper stage, at
least, would need to be developed.

Less budget pressure later on? We can hope, but the aging
Boomers are going to be a bigger and bigger budget drag
until they all finally die.

- Ed Kyle

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
My paste is from nasawatch. Thats pretty reliable and keith gets some
juicy stuff from time to time.

Looks like the CEV is going to have more in common with apollo than
shuttle, or perhaps more appropiately its on a fast track to the next
ISS, big promises followed by bloated and yet unrealistic budgets.

Meanwhile the shuttle program has a disaser surfacing daily with wierd
accidents all around.

the agency is very sick and going to kill another crew......

then congress will remove people from nasa mission...

Apollo was a very successful program. So if they can improve on that using
new technology, why not. If it costs a little more, so what? Aren't you
tired of the government paying for the most elaborate contraptions built by
the lowest bidder? I know I am.

George

"ed kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian Thorn wrote:
They could do ISS CEV missions on a four-segment RSRM and
a J-2X upper stage, but not the heavier CEV lunar missions.

I wonder why they don't start simple then... go with the existing SRB,
and improve it later on. What's the rush to have the moon version by
2012 when we don't need it until 2016 at the earliest?

Then it would cost $4 billion instead of $3 billion ($1 billion for
4-segment CEV first stage and $3 billion for 5-segment CaLV
booster.

Or better yet, scrap the whole frelling idea and just contract Boeing
or Lockmart to upgrade an EELV, then tackle the CaLV issues later on
when there's less budget pressure.

This might cost even more because a new upper stage, at
least, would need to be developed.

Less budget pressure later on? We can hope, but the aging
Boomers are going to be a bigger and bigger budget drag
until they all finally die.

- Ed Kyle

And then the Xers become a bigger and bigger budget drag? Do you see a
pattern developing here?

George

"George" wrote in message
news:vYkZf.670292$084.566183@attbi_s22...

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
My paste is from nasawatch. Thats pretty reliable and keith gets some
juicy stuff from time to time.

Looks like the CEV is going to have more in common with apollo than
shuttle, or perhaps more appropiately its on a fast track to the next
ISS, big promises followed by bloated and yet unrealistic budgets.

Meanwhile the shuttle program has a disaser surfacing daily with wierd
accidents all around.

the agency is very sick and going to kill another crew......

then congress will remove people from nasa mission...

Apollo was a very successful program.

Successful in fulfilling Kennedy's goals. Not in opening the new frontier.

So if they can improve on that using
new technology, why not. If it costs a little more, so what?

Because we couldn't afford to sustain Apollo as it was. Remember, two
missions were cancelled.

Aren't you
tired of the government paying for the most elaborate contraptions built
by
the lowest bidder? I know I am.

So the solution is to pick a higher bidder? No thanks.



George

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...

"George" wrote in message
news:vYkZf.670292$084.566183@attbi_s22...

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
My paste is from nasawatch. Thats pretty reliable and keith gets some
juicy stuff from time to time.

Looks like the CEV is going to have more in common with apollo than
shuttle, or perhaps more appropiately its on a fast track to the next
ISS, big promises followed by bloated and yet unrealistic budgets.

Meanwhile the shuttle program has a disaser surfacing daily with wierd
accidents all around.

the agency is very sick and going to kill another crew......

then congress will remove people from nasa mission...

Apollo was a very successful program.

Successful in fulfilling Kennedy's goals. Not in opening the new
frontier.

It did what it was designed to do, and lived up to those expectations
(getting us to the moon and back). The Shuttle has never lived up to its
expectations.

So if they can improve on that using
new technology, why not. If it costs a little more, so what?

Because we couldn't afford to sustain Apollo as it was. Remember, two
missions were cancelled.

We didn't hae a 9 trillion dollar economy then, either. So what is your
point?

Aren't you
tired of the government paying for the most elaborate contraptions built
by
the lowest bidder? I know I am.

So the solution is to pick a higher bidder? No thanks.

Right. Let's pick more low bidders and end up with another piece of ****.

George