|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
"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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Why The SM? (was Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program)
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Why The SM? (was Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program)
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 03:33 AM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Jason Donahue | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | February 1st 04 03:33 AM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Astronaut | Misc | 0 | January 31st 04 03:11 AM |
NASA Selects International Space Station Program Scientis | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 20th 03 06:38 AM |