CEV development cost rumbles

The 23Feb04 issue of Aviation Week reports that NASA is telling Congress
that the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the space agencies latest and
greatest orbiter replacement, will cost $15B to develop. Earlier NASA
estimated that the Orbital SpacePlane (OSP), last year's super-duper orbiter
replacement, would cost $10-13B (todays bucks). NASA keeps turning the crank
and coming up with the same numbers. The development cost of the original
orbiter was about $14B in today's money.

None of this is surprising because, even though the orbiter was designed
over 30 years ago, spacecraft technology hasn't changed much at all. The
CEV, the OSP and the orbiter all use the same technology, namely, Apollo
heritage technology. So when measured in constant dollars, the development
cost for these vehicles will be about the same, despite significant
differences in size and weight. Why? Because the cost of airframe structure
is a relatively small part of the development cost. It's the complex systems
(avionics, environmental control/life support, guidance, navigation,
communication, flight computer/software, hydraulics, thermal control, RCS,
APS, etc.) that determine the development cost and these systems are
essentially the same regardless of the size of the vehicle. There have been
no major breakthroughs in these complex systems during the last 30 years
that will cause a significant decrease in theirdevelopment cost.

Later
Ray Schmitt

"rschmitt23" wrote:

There have been
no major breakthroughs in these complex systems during the last 30 years
that will cause a significant decrease in theirdevelopment cost.

Nor is it written anywhere that there ever will be such a
breakthrough.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

rschmitt23 wrote:
that the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the space agencies latest and
greatest orbiter replacement, will cost $15B to develop.

I know that this would not be a popular suggestion, but how much would it cost
to build new shuttles nearly identical to the existing ones ?

How much more would it cost to add in all the improvements NASA has wished it
could do (electric APUs etc) ?

How much more would it cost to replace SRBs with liquid fueled flyback
boosters ? (or whatever technology is deemed best to replace the SRBs) ?

How much more would it cost to rework the engine area to make it simple, fast
and cheap to remove/replace engines ?

Would there be any significant advantage in having the SSMEs attached to the
ET instead of actual shuttle ? (either as a capsule with its parachutes for
re-usability, or using disposable engines).

Instead of dreaming of a totally radically new vehicle NASA has no idea how to
build, wouldn't it be more realistic to just build new and improved shuttles ?
If you start with the base model and then add each new improvement, at one
point, you will reach the "sorry, we can't afford this" level, at which point
your new shuttle's designed is finalised with only the improvements you can
afford ?

Yes, I know all the tooling for shuttle is gone. But the tooling for CEV
doesn't exist either. However, there are a lot of things about Shuttle which
are still manufactured (tiles, engines and I am sure countless other
components that are regularly replaced).

John Doe wrote in :

rschmitt23 wrote:
that the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the space agencies latest
and greatest orbiter replacement, will cost $15B to develop.

I know that this would not be a popular suggestion, but how much would
it cost to build new shuttles nearly identical to the existing ones ?

About $2 billion a copy, plus the fixed costs of getting the line going
again.

How much more would it cost to add in all the improvements NASA has
wished it could do (electric APUs etc) ?

Electric APU alone is in the $550 million range, IIRC.

How much more would it cost to replace SRBs with liquid fueled flyback
boosters ? (or whatever technology is deemed best to replace the SRBs)
?

In the range of $3-5 billion.

How much more would it cost to rework the engine area to make it
simple, fast and cheap to remove/replace engines ?

No idea.

Would there be any significant advantage in having the SSMEs attached
to the ET instead of actual shuttle ? (either as a capsule with its
parachutes for re-usability, or using disposable engines).

No. SSMEs are expensive. Throwing them away would be ridiculously
expensive. Developing a recovery capsule would take years, probably
hundreds of millions of dollars, and would add weight to the stack. RS-68s
would be cheaper but the Isp is significantly less, so performance would
suffer.

Moving the SSMEs to the bottom of the ET would mean reworking the MLPs,
TSMs and the flame trenches on the pads. It would also significantly change
the thermal/acoustic environment at the base of the SRBs.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
How much more would it cost to replace SRBs with liquid fueled flyback
boosters ? (or whatever technology is deemed best to replace the SRBs) ?


NASA replowed this ground in 2001-02 as part of the so-called Space Launch
Initiative (SLI) effort. The SLI folks spent time and money on studying a
shuttle replacement consisting of a fully-reusable two-stage vehicle with a
large flyback booster. The development cost was an estimated $30-35B (in
today's bucks). Sean O'Keefe had several independent studies made to keep
the SLI folks honest and these came up with essentially the same numbers.
Not surprising. When I worked on the original shuttle Phase A effort
(1969-70) at McDonnell Douglas, this two-stage monster was our baseline for
awhile and our estimated development cost was $37B (in today's money).
Again, not surprising that these numbers agree despite over 30 years of
separation, because the technology remains the same.

How much more would it cost to rework the engine area to make it simple,
fast
and cheap to remove/replace engines ?

Don't know.


Would there be any significant advantage in having the SSMEs attached to
the
ET instead of actual shuttle ? (either as a capsule with its parachutes
for
re-usability, or using disposable engines).

Each SSME costs about $50M to manufacture (current dollars). NASA spends
about $200M per year (current dollars) to maintain the SSME inventory. The
shuttle flies, on average, 5.5 times per year. So 15-18 SSMEs are flown each
year. So NASA is paying about $11M per SSME flown. If you can build an SSME
substitute (e.g. Rocketdyne's RS-68 that powers the Delta IV CBC) for less
than $11M per copy, then you might consider strapping a few of these engines
to the bottom of the ET and dumping them into the Indian Ocean along with
that tank.

BTW, NASA studied a similar configuration in the late 1970s when it became
evident that the shuttle could not meet the USAF requirement to place 32,000
pounds payloads launched out of VAFB into a polar reference orbit (100 nm
altitude circular orbit at 90 deg inclination). NASA and Martin figured out
how to beef up the structure in the bottom of the ET to attach liquid or
solid rocket boosters to give the shuttle more lift for the launches to
polar orbit.


Instead of dreaming of a totally radically new vehicle NASA has no idea
how to
build, wouldn't it be more realistic to just build new and improved
shuttles ?
If you start with the base model and then add each new improvement, at one
point, you will reach the "sorry, we can't afford this" level, at which
point
your new shuttle's designed is finalised with only the improvements you
can
afford ?


What improvements? As I mentioned at the start of this thread, there have
been no "improvements" made in spacecraft and launch vehicle technology
during the last 30 years that will produce large reductions in either
development cost or operations costs. Why? First, because the technology is
difficult ( especially in the high temperature materials area, where I spent
about 15 years of my aerospace career) and we have been in a region of
diminishing returns since the early 1970s. And, second, there just hasn't
been much R&D money spent during the last 30 years on this technology. For
example, there has been only one new high thrust engine developed in the
last 20 years, namely, the RS-68, which, BTW, is a legacy engine that relies
heavily on technology developed in the late 1960s for the excellent
Rocketdyne J-2S engine, which, in turn, was a simplified version of the
venerable J-2S engine that powered the 2nd and 3rd stages of von Braun's
Saturn V ELV.

Yes, I know all the tooling for shuttle is gone. But the tooling for CEV
doesn't exist either. However, there are a lot of things about Shuttle
which
are still manufactured (tiles, engines and I am sure countless other
components that are regularly replaced).

"rschmitt23" wrote in message
news:h6T0c.24678$aZ3.5432@fed1read04...


technology
during the last 30 years that will produce large reductions in either
development cost or operations costs. Why? First, because the technology
is
difficult ( especially in the high temperature materials area, where I
spent
about 15 years of my aerospace career) and we have been in a region of
diminishing returns since the early 1970s. And, second, there just hasn't
been much R&D money spent during the last 30 years on this technology. For
example, there has been only one new high thrust engine developed in the
last 20 years, namely, the RS-68, which, BTW, is a legacy engine that
relies
heavily on technology developed in the late 1960s for the excellent
Rocketdyne J-2S engine, which, in turn, was a simplified version of the
venerable J-2S engine that powered the 2nd and 3rd stages of von Braun's
Saturn V ELV.

Oops, that should be "J-2" engines, not J-2S, on the Saturn V.

On or about Mon, 1 Mar 2004 19:27:09 -0800, rschmitt23
made the sensational claim that:
What improvements? As I mentioned at the start of this thread, there have
been no "improvements" made in spacecraft and launch vehicle technology
during the last 30 years that will produce large reductions in either
development cost or operations costs.

My opinion is still do at least Orbiter Mark II. Start with a design for
which we know what's good, bad, and ugly. Or 30 years from now we'll be
saying what a shame...the Saturn V never really got refined, nor did the
shuttle orbiters. I know about the upgrades program, and how different
the vehicles are now than when they were built, but still, to refine the
design without the restrictions of well, not being able to build one *new*
might be a good idea. For god's sake, Columbia was a freak accident, now all
of a sudden the shuttle is a deathtrap we need to sweep under the rug ASAP?
Bleh.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

LooseChanj wrote:

My opinion is still do at least Orbiter Mark II. Start with a design for
which we know what's good, bad, and ugly. Or 30 years from now we'll be
saying what a shame...the Saturn V never really got refined, nor did the
shuttle orbiters. I know about the upgrades program, and how different
the vehicles are now than when they were built, but still, to refine the
design without the restrictions of well, not being able to build one *new*
might be a good idea. For god's sake, Columbia was a freak accident, now
all of a sudden the shuttle is a deathtrap we need to sweep under the rug
ASAP? Bleh.

A fleet of OV-200s would be a fine idea. The price isn't bad, and the
vehicle would be based on a reasonably well-understood design.
Unfortunately, it'll never get up due to the lack of a launch escape
system.

I strongly agree with your point about the perception of shuttle going from
a boring, routine, reliable workhorse to a deathtrap in an instant. Yes, we
did mismanage signs that something bad may be about to happen. We're all
much wiser now and we are adopting a much more conservative approach to
potential flight safety issues. It's very unfortunate that it took the loss
of Columbia and her crew for us to come to this point.

It's not so much the space shuttle system that's the real deathtrap, it's
the way we have managed it in the past. Had we managed any other vehicle
the way we managed the space shuttle, we would have suffered a major
failure, although a LES may have prevented loss of life.

--Chris

Chris Bennetts wrote:

A fleet of OV-200s would be a fine idea. The price isn't bad, and the
vehicle would be based on a reasonably well-understood design.
Unfortunately, it'll never get up due to the lack of a launch escape
system.

Oh? Let me borrow the time machine you used to see the designs for
the OV-200 series, I need to check out some future stock prices.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

On or about Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:14:15 +1100, Chris Bennetts
made the sensational claim that:
A fleet of OV-200s would be a fine idea. The price isn't bad, and the
vehicle would be based on a reasonably well-understood design.
Unfortunately, it'll never get up due to the lack of a launch escape
system.

I recall some discussion in this group about the crew cabin's toughness. Why
not just make the *entire* structure the crew escape...something. *Not* an
ejectable "pod" though. What I'm thinking is toughen up the pressure vessel,
let the vehicle break up around it, and keep the crew cabin intact. Not
necessarily intact, as in "self contained vehicle", but rather simply a box
with people in it that can take a little punishment. The next bit in my plan
is tricky, getting rid of that box when you're at altitudes that would allow
"bail-out". Ideally, it should be able to just go "poof" and the crew be out
in the open, just like that. Perhaps big blowout panels? Say the aft bulkhead.
A CG that will ensure that the cabin stabilizes nose down. Astros lean their
seats all the way back and just unbuckle, opening their chutes when they're
clear of the "wreck". I know there's some serious issues and problems with
this approach, but does it sound like a non-starter? And note that this is
strictly something to be incorporated into the OV-200 series.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen