Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

Pat Flannery ) wrote:
: 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.

Yes, yes, Rand is often unintentionally humorous. The single "yes" and
"no" answers when he's confused. Not knowing what ad hominem means as he's
attacking someone rather than their point. Stuff like that.

Let's see how he sets himself up for the next one...

Eric

: Pat

h (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, and the ongoing
perational 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.

Except you cheat the numbers because you don't include the development
and infrastructure development costs of the Shuttle in *that* number.

:::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.
:
:How can I examine reasons that you havent provided? I have in fact
:examined the system quite thoroughly.

Then expound. Try to stick to comparing apples to apples and not
rigging the numbers.

:You see a difference there? I don't.
:
:The difference is that I've provided reasons why it won't reduce
:costs, and I'm still waiting for you to provide a single one that it
:will, despite your claiming that we have "every" reason to do so.

The reason it won't reduce costs is because you're cheating the
numbers.

::: 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.
:
:No, I do rational economic analysis.

No, you compare apples and aardvarks because you cheat the numbers.

:It would pay to do something new if the something new actually reduced
:costs. Building cost-effective space transports would do so. CEV +
:Shaft + HLV will not.

So you say. But then you cheat the numbers to make them come out the
way you want them to.

:Yeah, that's a real balanced view of how to arrive at a decision -
:NOT.
:
:Remind me not to ever ask you for investment advice.

You couldn't afford my fees and you won't listen to anyone else,
anyway, so I doubt you need to worry.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

"Will McLean" wrote in news:1139851715.574247.133400
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Rand Simberg wrote:

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).

Which might be a valid comparison if ISS crew rotation/resupply were *all*
that the shuttle is doing. Most of the remaining shuttle flights are for
ISS *assembly*, which CEV/CLV will not be capable of.

--
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 Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:25:57 -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:

:No, I told you. Add up the development costs, and the ongoing
perational 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.

Except you cheat the numbers because you don't include the development
and infrastructure development costs of the Shuttle in *that* number.

That is not *cheating*. I told you, they're sunk. We have no choice
over whether or not to spend them, because that expenditure has
already taken place, and we don't have a time machine. When you're
making a decision to make a future investment in something that's
ostensibly to save you money, you *have to* include the investment as
part of the total costs.

:::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.
:
:How can I examine reasons that you havent provided? I have in fact
:examined the system quite thoroughly.

Then expound. Try to stick to comparing apples to apples and not
rigging the numbers.

I'm not "rigging the numbers." I'm comparing costs from this point
forward.

:Remind me not to ever ask you for investment advice.

You couldn't afford my fees and you won't listen to anyone else,
anyway, so I doubt you need to worry.

I wouldn't take your advice for free, if this is typical of it.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:04:45 -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:


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.

Not really. You'd find crews to fly regardless.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

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).

Which might be a valid comparison if ISS crew rotation/resupply were *all*
that the shuttle is doing. Most of the remaining shuttle flights are for
ISS *assembly*, which CEV/CLV will not be capable of.

--

If the shuttle were to continue after 2010, it would be performing
logistics flights at approximately the same annual operating cost.

The CEV/CLV *could* do assembly, delivering modules instead of the
unpressurized cargo module. They've chosen not to do that, choosing not
to modify modules designed to launch on the shuttle. But there's
nothing impossible about it.

Will McLean

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:22:48 -0500, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:51:39 -0600, in a place far, far away,
(Todd Bandrowsky) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I think O'Keefe is doing a decent enough job. I like killing the OSP
and moving towards a CEV. That will make manned flight a lot cheaper
for the US, which is huge.

There's no reason to believe that CEV will reduce the cost of manned
spaceflight.

Sorry, I didn't mean to resurrect such an old thread--I just switched
news hosts, and my .newsrc was confused. It does seem to have kicked
off an interesting discussion, though.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:16:41 -0500, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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 question to the class. Why *does* NASA insist on making the SM
part of the CEV, since it's only needed (at least as far as its
current size goes) for the lunar missions? They could potentially put
some of its functionality into the CM, make the CM roomier, while
reducing the overall CEV launch weight, and get rid of the extra
segment in the Satay. Then for the lunar missions, launch the SM
along with the rest of the lunar stack, since you have to do an
orbital rendezvous anyway.

Is it just because they're trying to stay as Apollo like as possible?

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:23:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will
McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

OK, so question to the class. Why *does* NASA insist on making the SM
part of the CEV, since it's only needed (at least as far as its
current size goes) for the lunar missions? They could potentially put
some of its functionality into the CM, make the CM roomier, while
reducing the overall CEV launch weight, and get rid of the extra
segment in the Satay. Then for the lunar missions, launch the SM
along with the rest of the lunar stack, since you have to do an
orbital rendezvous anyway.


Because given the limited number of times the vehicle will go to ISS,
it doesn't pay to develop a significantly different version optimised
for that role.

It would be optimized for both roles.

And the CaLV is already maxed out carrying the LSAM and EDS.

It would be easier (and make more sense) to make that bigger, than the
Satay.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:16:41 -0500, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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 question to the class. Why *does* NASA insist on making the SM
part of the CEV, since it's only needed (at least as far as its
current size goes) for the lunar missions? They could potentially put
some of its functionality into the CM, make the CM roomier, while
reducing the overall CEV launch weight, and get rid of the extra
segment in the Satay.

The choice of an Apollo-like ablative heat shield means that
trying to protect propulsion module equipment, especially
an engine bell, would add a lot of mass to the reentry
module, and probably drive up overall spacecraft mass.
When the reentry module gets heavier, parachute (and
terminal retro) recovery systems get more complicated in
a hurry too. If they used a lighter heat shield system
(shuttle tiles?), it might be an easier problem to tackle.

- Ed Kyle