A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 24th 10, 09:07 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

At the moment, people are blaming the cost of Shuttle ops as to why the US
has no new way to send humans into space. Of course everyone knew the
pitfalls of restricting budgets, as exactly the same thing happened at the
end of Apollo. Now third time lucky? Will anyone learn anything from not
funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read
nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN.

Humph.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old September 26th 10, 02:38 AM posted to sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

On 24/09/2010 6:07 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
At the moment, people are blaming the cost of Shuttle ops as to why the US
has no new way to send humans into space. Of course everyone knew the
pitfalls of restricting budgets, as exactly the same thing happened at the
end of Apollo. Now third time lucky? Will anyone learn anything from not
funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read
nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN.

Humph.

Brian


Replacement? Why not simply add components to the existing structure?
Similar to what's being done with ISS, but on a much larger scale.

There's also the point that, for most things, a station as large as ISS
isn't needed - have a look at a Salyut-sized station - similar-sized
modules also formed the basis of Mir, so it's expandable if needed.

I've said from the beginning of my time on these groups that the U.S.
doesn't need to use STS to launch station modules - Delta IV heavy is
even more powerful than the Proton used by Russia/USSR, so would be able
to deliver larger modules. And D-IV-H is much less expensive than STS.
  #3  
Old September 28th 10, 11:54 PM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:07:46 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

At the moment, people are blaming the cost of Shuttle ops as to why the US
has no new way to send humans into space.


Well, sort of. But had we not cancelled OSP in 2003-ish, it would
probably be ready to fly now (or already operational) with Delta
IV-Heavy for much less than the $9 billion we spent for
Gemini-on-Steroids, FSB, LAS, and a launch tower that will never be
used.

But OSP had "plane" in its name, and that made it EEEVVIIILLL after
Columbia, so in yet another over-reaction to an accident, NASA killed
it and wanted a capsule (because parachute never fail.)

Of course everyone knew the
pitfalls of restricting budgets, as exactly the same thing happened at the
end of Apollo. Now third time lucky? Will anyone learn anything from not
funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read
nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN.


Nobody wants the one we have, a major replacement is politically
impossible. If we need something in the 2020s, we can probably just
buy a Bigelow module.

Brian
  #4  
Old September 28th 10, 11:58 PM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:38:20 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:


I've said from the beginning of my time on these groups that the U.S.
doesn't need to use STS to launch station modules - Delta IV heavy is
even more powerful than the Proton used by Russia/USSR, so would be able
to deliver larger modules. And D-IV-H is much less expensive than STS.


Less expensive, but not much. Delta IV-Heavy is in the $500 million
per flight arena, while Shuttle is around $800 million. But remember,
modules launched on Delta would need their own propulsion, control and
guidance systems, greatly cutting into payload and increasing cost.

Brian
  #5  
Old September 29th 10, 01:29 AM posted to sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

On 29/09/2010 8:58 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:38:20 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:


I've said from the beginning of my time on these groups that the U.S.
doesn't need to use STS to launch station modules - Delta IV heavy is
even more powerful than the Proton used by Russia/USSR, so would be able
to deliver larger modules. And D-IV-H is much less expensive than STS.


Less expensive, but not much. Delta IV-Heavy is in the $500 million
per flight arena, while Shuttle is around $800 million. But remember,
modules launched on Delta would need their own propulsion, control and
guidance systems, greatly cutting into payload and increasing cost.

Brian


Shuttle is around $1.3 BILLION per launch. Delta IV Heavy is around
250-300 at the moment, but with more launches, becomes it would be less
expensive still.
  #6  
Old September 29th 10, 05:13 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:29:30 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

Less expensive, but not much. Delta IV-Heavy is in the $500 million
per flight arena, while Shuttle is around $800 million. But remember,
modules launched on Delta would need their own propulsion, control and
guidance systems, greatly cutting into payload and increasing cost.


Shuttle is around $1.3 BILLION per launch.


No, you only get that by counting every dollar ever spent on the
Shuttle and dividing it by total number of flights. That's not how
much it costs to fly a Shuttle today.

NASA's FY 2009 budget was $2.9 billion for the Shuttle program and
$732 million for "Space and Flight Support". There were five flights
in FY 2009. $742 million per flight.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210020main_N...es_Summary.pdf

Delta IV Heavy is around
250-300 at the moment, but with more launches, becomes it would be less
expensive still.


NASA's Outer Planets Assessment Group reported $486 million in 2007.
(Hence, they recommended the less-powerful Atlas 551.)

The $486 million figure was in the cost details appendix in this
document,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdf
But that table has since been deleted as "details not available for
public release" (surprise, surprise.)

Discussion of it at the time was here...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...topic=9350.180
and while Jim does later write that such a price is what NASA pays and
not a commercial price, we are talking about what NASA would pay.

Brian
  #7  
Old October 17th 10, 03:08 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jose Pina Coelho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

"Brian Gaff" wrote in
:

Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of
decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking
about it at all AGAIN.


Why keep it up if you can get more profit from rebuilding it from scratch
again ?
  #8  
Old October 17th 10, 04:45 PM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

On 17 Oct 2010 14:08:30 GMT, Jose Pina Coelho
wrote:


Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of
decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking
about it at all AGAIN.


Why keep it up if you can get more profit from rebuilding it from scratch
again ?


That's a humongous 'if'.

Brian
  #9  
Old October 17th 10, 10:51 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jose Pina Coelho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 17 Oct 2010 14:08:30 GMT, Jose Pina Coelho
wrote:


Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of
decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be
thinking about it at all AGAIN.


Why keep it up if you can get more profit from rebuilding it from
scratch again ?


That's a humongous 'if'.


Only the private sector realizes profits. And if they get contracted for a
new full space station instead of "add 5 modules to the existing one" they
get ore profit.
  #10  
Old January 24th 11, 03:28 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has

Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA's Outer Planets Assessment Group reported $486 million in 2007.
(Hence, they recommended the less-powerful Atlas 551.)

The $486 million figure was in the cost details appendix in this
document,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdf
But that table has since been deleted as "details not available for
public release" (surprise, surprise.)


Thanks for that pointer, note also there are actually two tables in this
document. Table 4.10-1 (pg 4-66) JSO Baseline Cost by Level 2 WBS which breaks
out the cost of a D-IVH LV at $486 million and a cost-reduced study in Chapter
5 "DESCOPED MISSION IMPLEMENTATION" that removes two instruments for launching
on an Atlas V-551 where the cost estimate in Table 5.10-1 (pg 5-5) listing it
at $191 million.

Can't find mention of any second stage for the D-IVH configuration, whereas
Centaur is mentioned for Atlas V-551, surely there is an orbital insertion
upper stage in this design for D-IVH, where am I missing it?

Interesting proposal. Where does it stand? Let me guess, awaiting funding...

Dave
 




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
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. brian a m stuckless Policy 0 January 11th 06 07:38 PM
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 January 11th 06 07:38 PM
Fiendish Trap of THE ULTIMATE TROLL Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 December 28th 05 01:22 AM
Stuff falling off Shuttle, NASA says "Not embarrassing" James Space Shuttle 0 July 13th 05 11:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.


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.