A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 10th 06, 11:47 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:40:41 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Now this in Monicagate terms is called "Parsing The Question".
You wrote a space editorial column that appeared in Fox News up till at
least Feb. 18th of 2004, but claimed you did it for free.



A claim that is true. And almost without exception, they were simply
republished posts from my blog.


Here you state you are writing the column for them:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G40852D9C
"Sat, Mar 15 2003 11:27 pm
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:56:55 +1100, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" alanersk...
http://groups.google.com/groups/unlock?msg=6480c6638297d6e6&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.space.history/browse_thread/thread/cc98ca8b6c242451/74a840fc57e7d54a%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dsci.space.histor y%2Brand%2Bsimberg%2Bfox%2Bcolumn%26rnum%3D10%26hl
made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Rand, I'm using your comment about a smart individual as a quote. I

agree
and concur completely!


Glad to know that you don't always consider me insane. ;-)

Actually, I wrote a Fox News column on this subject a few months ago,
about what I called the "emergent stupidity," or the "committee
effect."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58726,00.html


cites snipped

In what way does this disprove anything I've said? They all ended up
as Fox columns. They all started as posts on my blog. There was only
one exception--a column that they commissioned, and paid me fifty
bucks for, the Monday after Challenger.

This one:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77350,00.html

That still doesn't constitute my "working for Fox News," any more than
it does for any free-lancer who gets paid by a publication for an
article.

And if I implied that you aren't nuts, Pat, I apologize.

Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile. Put me back there, please.

  #22  
Old February 11th 06, 03:32 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

Rand Simberg wrote:

Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile. Put me back there, please.



You are indeed in my killfile on space.history and space.policy, but I'd
like to keep an eye on you here, if for nothing else than the unintended
humor content.

Pat

  #23  
Old February 12th 06, 02:37 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:29:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
:McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:::There's no reason to believe that CEV will reduce the cost of manned
:::spaceflight.
::
::When compared to Shuttle, a hideously expensive system?
::
::Yes, even when compared to Shuttle.
:
:Got numbers for cost to orbit?
:
:No, but they can be estimated, as described below.

Well, not so much description, from what I see. Perhaps you have a
different 'below' than I do?

::I think there
::is every reason to believe that CEV will somewhat reduce the cost of
::manned spaceflight.
::
::"Every reason"? There is, as I said, *no* reason.
:
:I know you did. I disagree with you.
:
:You say there's *every* reason, yet you have yet to provide a single
ne.

And you say there is *no* reason without examining any of them. You
see a difference there? I don't.

:: I don't think it will reduce it *enough*, but I
::think it's pretty obvious that it will reduce it when compared to the
::most expensive way to get to space that currently exists.
::
::Nope. Run the numbers, including development costs, and count the
::flights, and crew trips, for the money.
:
:Do I get to include development costs for the Shuttle on its side of
:the ledger?
:
:No, because those are already sunk.

In other words, you rig the game. Therefore, it will NEVER pay to do
anything new because you'll always want to lump the development costs
into the first mission.

Yeah, that's a real balanced view of how to arrive at a decision -
NOT.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

  #24  
Old February 12th 06, 10:55 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:37:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

:::There's no reason to believe that CEV will reduce the cost of manned
:::spaceflight.
::
::When compared to Shuttle, a hideously expensive system?
::
::Yes, even when compared to Shuttle.
:
:Got numbers for cost to orbit?
:
:No, but they can be estimated, as described below.

Well, not so much description, from what I see. Perhaps you have a
different 'below' than I do?


No, I told you. Add up the development costs,


The CEV is also intended as a moonship and marsship and lifeboat. You
can't allocate all the development costs to the LEO ferry role.


and the ongoing
operational costs (including the costs of launching the cargo that is
no longer launched by the manned vehicle, but can be by the Shuttle),
divide by the flight rates, and you get an infrastructure that costs
as much, or more than, the Shuttle. Even ignoring the amortization of
the development costs, the marginal costs of the Shaft + CEV launch
will be at least a couple hundred million, to deliver four crew
instead of seven. Shuttle's marginal cost are about the same, to
deliver a crew of seven, plus fifty thousand pounds of payload.


The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry
anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS. NASA figures
that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven
CEV flights.

Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs, since the shuttle
has historically suffered an orbiter loss and multiyear standdown every
fifty flights or so. Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to
service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings,
control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive
main engines.

Will McLean

  #25  
Old February 12th 06, 11:16 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:55:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will
McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

No, I told you. Add up the development costs,


The CEV is also intended as a moonship and marsship and lifeboat. You
can't allocate all the development costs to the LEO ferry role.


I'm not. I'm including the cost for lunar flights as well (and I
think that the notion that it will be used for Mars is hype, not
reality).

and the ongoing
operational costs (including the costs of launching the cargo that is
no longer launched by the manned vehicle, but can be by the Shuttle),
divide by the flight rates, and you get an infrastructure that costs
as much, or more than, the Shuttle. Even ignoring the amortization of
the development costs, the marginal costs of the Shaft + CEV launch
will be at least a couple hundred million, to deliver four crew
instead of seven. Shuttle's marginal cost are about the same, to
deliver a crew of seven, plus fifty thousand pounds of payload.


The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry
anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS.


I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot.
And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do.

NASA figures
that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven
CEV flights.


I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you
could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a
CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their
estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights?

Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs


No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs.

since the shuttle
has historically suffered an orbiter loss and multiyear standdown every
fifty flights or so.


What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns?

Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to
service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings,
control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive
main engines.


The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have
one, you're fooling yourself.

  #26  
Old February 13th 06, 02:45 AM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:55:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will
McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

No, I told you. Add up the development costs,


The CEV is also intended as a moonship and marsship and lifeboat. You
can't allocate all the development costs to the LEO ferry role.


I'm not. I'm including the cost for lunar flights as well (and I
think that the notion that it will be used for Mars is hype, not
reality).

and the ongoing
operational costs (including the costs of launching the cargo that is
no longer launched by the manned vehicle, but can be by the Shuttle),
divide by the flight rates, and you get an infrastructure that costs
as much, or more than, the Shuttle. Even ignoring the amortization of
the development costs, the marginal costs of the Shaft + CEV launch
will be at least a couple hundred million, to deliver four crew
instead of seven. Shuttle's marginal cost are about the same, to
deliver a crew of seven, plus fifty thousand pounds of payload.


The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry
anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS.


I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot.
And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do.





NASA figures
that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven
CEV flights.


I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you
could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a
CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their
estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights?

Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs


No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs.

since the shuttle
has historically suffered an orbiter loss and multiyear standdown every
fifty flights or so.


What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns?

Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to
service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings,
control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive
main engines.


The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have
one, you're fooling yourself.


  #27  
Old February 13th 06, 06:29 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

Rand Simberg wrote:


The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry
anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS.


I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot.
And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do.


The CEV should be able to bring back a fair amount unmanned, although
not as much as the shuttle.


NASA figures
that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven
CEV flights.


I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you
could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a
CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their
estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights?


They claim they can do the ISS crew rotation and resupply with the CEV
for $1.5 billion less than the shuttle (Budgeted at $4 billion for
2006). Plus more reboost capacity than the shuttle.

Even if the savings are half that amount, that adds up to real
money over time.


Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs


No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs.


The chance of failure becomes zero when you're grounded. That sounds
like a marginal cost to me.



What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns?



I think it will have less of them because there are fewer ways for the
simpler vehicle to fail. And standdowns can be less protracted when the
return to flight doesn't have to be a manned one without an escape
system. Titan standdowns haven't been nearly as protracted as shuttle
ones, nor was the post Apollo 13 standdown. Also, replacing a capsule
is less expensive than replacing the orbiter.


Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to
service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings,
control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive
main engines.


The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have
one, you're fooling yourself.


The shuttle standing army is so huge that even a moderate reduction
adds up to significant savings. A billion here and a billion there and
pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Apologies for the two previous postings with no new content. Posts in
the course of composition were sent in error.

Will McLean

  #28  
Old February 13th 06, 06:39 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:29:04 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will
McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry
anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS.


I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot.
And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do.


The CEV should be able to bring back a fair amount unmanned, although
not as much as the shuttle.


Nowhere near as much, and only in small pieces.

NASA figures
that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven
CEV flights.


I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you
could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a
CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their
estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights?


They claim they can do the ISS crew rotation and resupply with the CEV
for $1.5 billion less than the shuttle (Budgeted at $4 billion for
2006).


Beware of NASA cost analysts bearing claims...

I'll bet that they're not amortizing *any* of the development costs in
that claim.

Plus more reboost capacity than the shuttle.


That's because they're not reboosting it very smart. It doesn't make
sense to reboost using the Shuttle, given its own mass. It would be
better to have a smaller tug that you'd refuel.

Even if the savings are half that amount, that adds up to real
money over time.


Yes, *if*.

Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs


No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs.


The chance of failure becomes zero when you're grounded. That sounds
like a marginal cost to me.


If you want to play that game, then you have to do it as an expected
value, which is pretty low on any given flight.


What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns?



I think it will have less of them because there are fewer ways for the
simpler vehicle to fail. And standdowns can be less protracted when the
return to flight doesn't have to be a manned one without an escape
system. Titan standdowns haven't been nearly as protracted as shuttle
ones


No, but Titan has effective standdowns even when it's supposedly
operational, considering what a pad queen it is.

nor was the post Apollo 13 standdown. Also, replacing a capsule
is less expensive than replacing the orbiter.


That's certainly the case. One wonders what the eventual production
run and fleet size will end up being.

Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to
service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings,
control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive
main engines.


The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have
one, you're fooling yourself.


The shuttle standing army is so huge that even a moderate reduction
adds up to significant savings. A billion here and a billion there and
pretty soon it adds up to real money.


Not if you have to spend a bunch of billion up front, when the
billions are worth a lot more.

Note that I'm not defending the Shuttle, or advocating its
continuance. I just think that if the goal is to reduce costs, this
is just about the worst possible approach to that, short of continuing
Shuttle.

  #29  
Old February 13th 06, 09:50 PM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:59:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Plus more reboost capacity than the shuttle.


That's because they're not reboosting it very smart. It doesn't make
sense to reboost using the Shuttle, given its own mass. It would be
better to have a smaller tug that you'd refuel.


Still, it's one way the CEV offers more logistic capability than we
have at the moment.


But we could have it at the moment by simply carrying a Progress in
the payload bay. :-)

The chance of failure becomes zero when you're grounded. That sounds
like a marginal cost to me.


If you want to play that game, then you have to do it as an expected
value, which is pretty low on any given flight.


A small chance of a huge cost is still significant. Assume an
optimistic 1% loss rate for the shuttle.


I don't think that's so optimistic, at this point.

A $10 billion standdown, $2
billion lost orbiter and $400 million accident investigation and
cleanup. 1% of 12.4 billion is $124 million. And that doesn't attempt
to quantify the opportunity cost of payload delays.


At this point, the replacement cost of the Orbiter is irrelevant,
since we're retiring it anyway, and not going to replace it. There's
no reason for an accident investigation to cost $400M. Fixes to the
system resulting from it might, but not the investigation itself. The
only real costs are the delay costs.

But one has to factor in the delay costs of waiting for the CEV/CLV to
happen as well, even disregarding the potential for downtime from
accidents of its own. And I think you underestimate the probability
of this, particularly when the system is brand new.

The shuttle standing army is so huge that even a moderate reduction
adds up to significant savings. A billion here and a billion there and
pretty soon it adds up to real money.


Not if you have to spend a bunch of billion up front, when the
billions are worth a lot more.


Yes, but if you are going to spend the money anyway for other reasons,
then lower operating costs are a plus. We're no longer willing to
accept the suvivability of the shuttle, we want to go beyond LEO, and
we promised to provide an ISS lifeboat.


But we're not going to end up saving much money (or accomplishing much
more, except we'll be sending a few government employees to the moon,
instead of sending them to LEO annually), the way they've chosen to
achieve those goals.

  #30  
Old February 14th 06, 08:04 AM posted to sci.space.moderated,sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

Rand Simberg wrote:


At this point, the replacement cost of the Orbiter is irrelevant,
since we're retiring it anyway, and not going to replace it. There's
no reason for an accident investigation to cost $400M.




If you want another crew to get on it there is.
"So what made the last one fail?"
"How the hell should we know? They do that now and then."
"I'm a little queasy about flying on it if we don't know what's wrong
with it."
"And I'm a little queasy about giving you your next paycheck....now just
get on board the damn thing...now."
"I have some reservations about this..."
"And I have a gun...now get on board...RIGHT NOW!" :-D

Pat

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 04 03:26 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective Jason Donahue Amateur Astronomy 3 February 1st 04 04:33 AM
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective Astronaut Misc 0 January 31st 04 04:11 AM
NASA Selects International Space Station Program Scientis Ron Baalke Science 0 August 20th 03 06:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.