SSP Funding from STS-107 through RTF

In the 2+ years that the Shuttle is grounded what happens to the
program's authorized funding? Is it all being spent on RTF activities?

It all goes to pay the shuttles stranding army and RTF costs.

after 4 flights a year the added costs for a additional flihght or two is
minimal
Hey this is my opinion

Bruce Palmer wrote in
et:

In the 2+ years that the Shuttle is grounded what happens to the
program's authorized funding? Is it all being spent on RTF activities?
Does it get deleted from the budget until RTF? Does it go into a
contingency/escrow fund? Does O'Keefe get to keep it? Is it rolled
forward into Plan X? Or does it just disappear into the ether?

It amounted to about $3 Billion per annum IIRC.

It goes to the same place it's always gone - to the salaries of the
personnel who work on the shuttle. Many people make the mistake of assuming
the shuttle budget is B = n*x, where B is the budget, n is the number of
flights, and x is some mythical "cost per flight". It's actually B = c +
n*x, where c is a constant overhead (mostly salaries) that represents most
of the budget. RTF activities have more than offset the small n*x savings.

--
JRF

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

On 23 Mar 2004 00:14:56 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:

In the 2+ years that the Shuttle is grounded what happens to the
program's authorized funding? Is it all being spent on RTF activities?

It all goes to pay the shuttles stranding army and RTF costs.

after 4 flights a year the added costs for a additional flihght or two is
minimal
Hey this is my opinion

For once, Bob is right.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 23 Mar 2004 00:14:56 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:

In the 2+ years that the Shuttle is grounded what happens to the
program's authorized funding? Is it all being spent on RTF activities?

It all goes to pay the shuttles stranding army and RTF costs.

after 4 flights a year the added costs for a additional flihght or two is
minimal
Hey this is my opinion

For once, Bob is right.

Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while.


--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 23 Mar 2004 00:14:56 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:

In the 2+ years that the Shuttle is grounded what happens to the
program's authorized funding? Is it all being spent on RTF activities?

It all goes to pay the shuttles stranding army and RTF costs.

after 4 flights a year the added costs for a additional flihght or two
is
minimal
Hey this is my opinion

For once, Bob is right.

Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while.

Gotta admit, I liked the typo "stranding army"




--
JRF

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

Bruce Palmer wrote in
. net:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Bruce Palmer wrote in
et:

In the 2+ years that the Shuttle is grounded what happens to the
program's authorized funding? Is it all being spent on RTF
activities?
Does it get deleted from the budget until RTF? Does it go into a
contingency/escrow fund? Does O'Keefe get to keep it? Is it rolled
forward into Plan X? Or does it just disappear into the ether?

It amounted to about $3 Billion per annum IIRC.

It goes to the same place it's always gone - to the salaries of the
personnel who work on the shuttle. Many people make the mistake of
assuming the shuttle budget is B = n*x, where B is the budget, n is
the number of flights, and x is some mythical "cost per flight". It's
actually B = c + n*x, where c is a constant overhead (mostly
salaries) that represents most of the budget. RTF activities have
more than offset the small n*x savings.

That's about what I thought. Still it seems that there must be _some_
savings. Propellants not bought,

Propellants are cheap.

overtime not worked,

Salaried workers generally don't get overtime. Hourly workers are mostly at
KSC. They're quite busy there; all three orbiters are in some stage of work
at the OPF.

electricity not needed,

Electricity is cheap.

tiles not needing replacement,

The tiles themselves are cheap.

training not being done.

There is still quite a bit of training going on. The large ASCAN classes of
1995, 1996, and 1998 created a huge backlog in the specialty training flows
(rendezvous, robotics, EVA) that is only now starting to thin out. Training
documents that were falling out-of-date while people were really busy are
being brought up-to-date. Generic integrated sims are being run frequently
to get all the flight-control disciplines fully certified. Some certified
flight controllers are taking advantage of the downtime by cross-training
in other disciplines. MMT simulations are being introduced in response to
the CAIB recommendation. The main reduction in training activity has been
flight-specific crew training, which is fairly dormant right now with the
exception of STS-114. STS-114 is involved in the development of new
techniques for RTF and is also integrating three new members of the crew.

It's no great revelation but it's an interesting perspective when you
consider the statement: The yearly cost of a complex space program
does not depend on whether or not you actually launch anything.

I would not consider this a general rule. It is true of NASA mainly because
the flight rate is so low. If Southwest Airlines only had three 737s and
flew them 4-8 times per year, the overhead would dominate their costs, too.

--
JRF

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

after 4 flights a year the added costs for a additional flihght or two is
minimal

I should add that RTF along with columbuia debris recovery and the
investigation makes current operations more costly
Hey this is my opinion