Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program

(Andres del Pozo) writes:

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
Soyuz, Progress, ATV, and HTV will all still remain in service after
Shuttle retirement. It is also possible that early versions of
Constellation will be available for unmanned cargo delivery to ISS
after 2010.

Why ESA should keep developing its ISS hardware? The final capacity of
three astronauts is not going to be enough for doing meaningful
research with Columbus, the european laboratory. If Columbus is not
going to be used, why ESA is going to pay its share of ISS maintenance
with ATV?

Probably the japanese agency is thinking the same.

It would certainly be nice if NASA would make one CEV available at ISS
at all times for crew rotation and evacuation purposes. They could
sell this to congress as additional long term testing for the CEV in
support of its eventual use on long term lunar and Mars missions.
Unfortunately, by the time it would become available for such a
mission, it may be very late in the ISS program.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

jeff findley wrote:
It would certainly be nice if NASA would make one CEV available at ISS
at all times for crew rotation and evacuation purposes.

Since we have absolutely no idea what the mythical "CEV" will look like, and
won't have any idea until real funds are allocated to NASA for its
development. And until the mythical CEV is close enough to actual production,
there are good chances that it could be cancelled due to cost overruns,
leaving only the Shuttle for another 10 years.

My bet would be on the CEV to never materialise. Then, in a couple of years,
when they realise that time is *really* running out on the shuttles, they will
scramble to build updated copies of the shuttle. Same basic design, but with
all the improvements NASA had wanted for the shuttle.


Also, if each CEV turns out costing 200 million bucks, then it would still
come out cheaper to buy Soyuz at $60 million from the russians.

John Doe writes:

jeff findley wrote:
It would certainly be nice if NASA would make one CEV available at ISS
at all times for crew rotation and evacuation purposes.

Since we have absolutely no idea what the mythical "CEV" will look like, and
won't have any idea until real funds are allocated to NASA for its
development. And until the mythical CEV is close enough to actual production,
there are good chances that it could be cancelled due to cost overruns,
leaving only the Shuttle for another 10 years.

Once ISS is "complete", there is no real point to continuing shuttle
flights. At that point, the entire shuttle program should be
dismantled and the money spent on the CEV (and its missions).

My bet would be on the CEV to never materialise. Then, in a couple of years,
when they realise that time is *really* running out on the shuttles, they will
scramble to build updated copies of the shuttle. Same basic design, but with
all the improvements NASA had wanted for the shuttle.

It's a fatally flawed design. It didn't happen after Challenger (even
though it was offered to NASA by the contractor), and I don't see this
happening in the future.

Also, if each CEV turns out costing 200 million bucks, then it would still
come out cheaper to buy Soyuz at $60 million from the russians.

Politically, it's better to spend far more than $200 million at home
(the cost of a shuttle flight will surely go up post-Columbia) than it
is to send $60 million to Russia for a Soyuz. A hypothetical $200
million CEV flight is still going to be far cheaper than a
post-Columbia shuttle flight.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Also, if each CEV turns out costing 200 million bucks, then it would still
come out cheaper to buy Soyuz at $60 million from the russians.


Is therwe ANY CHANCE the US manned launcher could be cheaper than soyuz?

jeff findley wrote:

... snip ...

It's a fatally flawed design. It didn't happen after Challenger (even
though it was offered to NASA by the contractor), and I don't see this
happening in the future.

It has performed its mission well. If you could replace the TPS and
hypergolic systems you would (a) significantly reduce the number of man
hours to turn-around an orbiter for its next flight and (b) considerably
improve safety margins. Throw in a new booster that doesn't place the
orbiter at risk of debris impact on ascent and all of a sudden it's
looking pretty good.

Of course you'd still have the huge ongoing costs associated with
maintaining the SSME inventory, but any new vehicle is going to have to
deal with:

- Thermal protection
- Engines
- Hypergolics
- Booster

The EELV mfgrs are probably going to push hard for a CEV that can be
lofted by their existing launch vehicles. Seems to make sense. I can't
wait to see what the initial requirements for CEV look like.

If you take the goals of "faster, better, cheaper" and change them to
"better, cheaper, safer" do you still have a situation where you can
only get 2 out of 3? It would be better if you could get 3 out of 4
from "faster, better, cheaper, safer" because with the proposal to
stretch out the funding (to avoid dramatic budget busting) you could
throw out "faster" and wind up with a pretty good system.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

Bruce Palmer writes:
If you take the goals of "faster, better, cheaper" and change them to
"better, cheaper, safer" do you still have a situation where you can
only get 2 out of 3? It would be better if you could get 3 out of 4
from "faster, better, cheaper, safer" because with the proposal to
stretch out the funding (to avoid dramatic budget busting) you could
throw out "faster" and wind up with a pretty good system.

Safer is a subset of "better". Faster, better, cheaper is a generic
project management slogan. Where I work, we define the terms
something like this:

Faster = shortening of project SCHEDULE
Better = improved CONTENT delivered with higher QUALITY
Cheaper = less project COST

So, your four variables are schedule, content, quality, and cost. If
you change one of these variables, you undoubtedly impact the one or
more of the remaining variables. Where I work, schedule is always
fixed to a release schedule, high quality is something customers
expect, and cost is always fixed at a higher level of management. At
the bottom of the food chain, at least where I work, we only have
control over content.

Note that faster, better, cheaper can be true if you can get salaried
workers to work more hours and/or to work more productively. Since
working more hours doesn't generally work over long periods of time
(you have to compensate these employees somehow, or they eventually
burn out and leave), the only thing you can really do is increase
productively.

In the end, I look at "Faster, better, cheaper" as being more of a
project management issue to be solved by increasing productivity of
projects through improved project management techniques (i.e. shipping
jobs off-shores where labor is cheaper).

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Hallerb wrote:

Is therwe ANY CHANCE the US manned launcher could be cheaper than soyuz?

No. Labour costs are much higher in western countries than in other
countries.

--Chris

"Chris Bennetts" wrote in message
...
Hallerb wrote:

Is therwe ANY CHANCE the US manned launcher could be cheaper than soyuz?

No. Labour costs are much higher in western countries than in other
countries.


So the obvious answer there is to reduce the amount of labor required.
Which is one thing they're attempting with the EELV program. At least on
the checkout/launch end.



--Chris

So the obvious answer there is to reduce the amount of labor required.
Which is one thing they're attempting with the EELV program. At least on
the checkout/launch end.


Well Russia now has that plan for a six person manned launcher. no doubt they
lack the money to build it

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...21804soyuz.htm

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


"Chris Bennetts" wrote in message
...
Hallerb wrote:

Is therwe ANY CHANCE the US manned launcher could be cheaper than
soyuz?

No. Labour costs are much higher in western countries than in other
countries.


So the obvious answer there is to reduce the amount of labor required.
Which is one thing they're attempting with the EELV program. At least on
the checkout/launch end.

Sure, you can reduce costs quite substantially by reducing the amount of
labour required, but getting launch costs down to Russian levels will take
a lot of doing, and is probably impossible using American workers.

--Chris