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

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 5th 08, 09:47 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Shuttle program extension?

Alexander DeClama wrote:
Perhaps a better way to put it is: the facilities themselves are fixed
costs. They are there whether you use them for 12 flights or 2. The
maintenance personnel, replacement parts, etc are all variable costs
because you use them only when needed. It's a mix of both.


If your facilities were built to sustain 12 flights per year, you would
be operating a certain number of facilities/buildings dedicated to
maintaining and preparing shuttles for flight. It is a fixed cost to
maintain a facility having a certain capacity, whether you use that
capacity to its fullest extent or not.

But you can scale back that capacity and cut costs. If the current
launch rate requires that you have multiple maintenance halls because
the current lauch rate requires that you be able to work on 2 shuttles
at the same time, it also means that you need to have 2 sets of crews
that do the maintenance work.

Once you decide to limit the lauch rate to a fraction of what your
current capacity is, then you can probably close (or retask) some of the
buildings and reduce your ground workforce since the reduce schedule
makes it possible to only require one maintenance hall/crew to do the
shuttle maintenance. And perhaps even use the same employees to work on
the pad to complete the preparations for launch since those employees
wouldn't have an orbiter waiting to be maintained.

So, if they were to extend the shuttle program with a very limited
flight rate, it might very well be possible to significantly lower the
ground fixed costs. It might work well as in interim measure until full
replacement of shuttle has been achieved. (manned and cargo).
  #42  
Old September 5th 08, 09:55 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Shuttle program extension?

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Then it's not a fixed cost.


Say you are an airport with 12 gates/jetways. You need to pay $X per
year to Jetway Corp for maintenance of the jetways. Those are fixed
costs associated with your ground based infrastructure. And you want 12
gates because you want the ability to accept 12 flights simultaneously.

But years later, when you accept that Podunk Airport will never have 12
flighst land at the same time, you can decide to let go of 8 gates and
only keep 4. You reduce your infrastructure and also reduce the costs of
maintaining those jetways, so from then on, your fixed costs are lower
because you have a smaller infrastructure to maintain.
  #43  
Old September 5th 08, 01:13 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Shuttle program extension?


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Then it's not a fixed cost.


Say you are an airport with 12 gates/jetways. You need to pay $X per
year to Jetway Corp for maintenance of the jetways. Those are fixed
costs associated with your ground based infrastructure. And you want 12
gates because you want the ability to accept 12 flights simultaneously.

But years later, when you accept that Podunk Airport will never have 12
flighst land at the same time, you can decide to let go of 8 gates and
only keep 4. You reduce your infrastructure and also reduce the costs of
maintaining those jetways, so from then on, your fixed costs are lower
because you have a smaller infrastructure to maintain.


You two are splitting hairs, but I tend to agree with John Doe. But, and
this is a *big* but, you can only reduce your fixed costs if you can
eliminate infrastructure and the jobs associated with that infrastructure.

Let's make up two examples.

Say a small aerospace vehicle program maintains two processing bays which
are needed to maintain a flight rate of 12 flights per year. The same
workers are used in both bays, because the work they do is very specialized
and with only 12 flights per year, you really don't need dedicated staff for
each bay. Ten years down the road, you decide you only need 6 flights per
year so you "close" one processing bay and use it to store one of the
vehicles in case you ever need it again. How much do you save by doing
this? Precious little. Since the bay is in the same building, and because
it's being used to store one of the vehicles, you don't save much in
building costs. You save almost zero in staff costs since there is no one
you can lay off since all the workers are specialized.

Say a small aerospace vehicle program maintains two processing buildings
which are needed to maintain a flight rate of 1200 flights per year.
Because the flight rate is so high, each building has its own dedicated
infrastructure. In other words the contents and staffing of the buildings
are identical and there is little to no "cross pollination" between the two.
Ten years down the road, you decide you only need 600 flights per year so
you lay off all the workers from one of the buildings and sell that building
and all of its contents. This includes selling half of your vehicles so you
don't even have to pay storage costs on them. How much do you save by doing
this? Obviously half of your fixed costs since you've sold off half of your
vehicles and buildings and laid off half your workers.

Which one of these is closer to the shuttle program? Do you really think
NASA is going to save much money by reducing the flight rate of a vehicle
that flies less than a dozen times per year? Even if buildings are
"closed", do you think NASA will sell them off or keep them in case they are
needed for Ares/Orion in the near future?

In the case of the shuttle, the fixed costs are just about fixed in stone.
The OMDP's in California aren't even done anymore. What else could really
be cut? There are already news reports that NASA, USA, and other
contractors are having trouble retaining key people in the shuttle
workforce, so I doubt you could even lay off many people by reducing the
flight rate to two per year. You really need two of just about everything,
in case you need to launch a rescue mission or in case something bad happens
to one of the facilities, pads, crawlers, MLP's, etc.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #44  
Old September 5th 08, 01:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Shuttle program extension?

John Doe wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Then it's not a fixed cost.
:
:Say you are an airport with 12 gates/jetways. You need to pay $X per
:year to Jetway Corp for maintenance of the jetways. Those are fixed
:costs associated with your ground based infrastructure. And you want 12
:gates because you want the ability to accept 12 flights simultaneously.
:
:But years later, when you accept that Podunk Airport will never have 12
:flighst land at the same time, you can decide to let go of 8 gates and
nly keep 4. You reduce your infrastructure and also reduce the costs of
:maintaining those jetways, so from then on, your fixed costs are lower
:because you have a smaller infrastructure to maintain.
:

Capital costs and fixed costs are not necessarily the same thing. You
seem to be assuming that they are.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #45  
Old September 5th 08, 03:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Sep 4, 11:50*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
:
:
: Don't bother. *You're usually wrong.
:
:You know, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while Fred. *You're not
:even that lucky.
:

Oh, I don't know. *I keep finding you.

:
:
: :
: :The fixed costs of my local airport are a LOT lower than JFK. *Of course my
: :local airport handles a lot less passengers than JFK.
: :
: :So yes, fixed costs CAN vary depending on how you size the program.
: :
:
: Then they're not 'fixed costs'.
:
:By your definition then, nothing can ever be "fixed costs".
:

Hogwash. *Go look up the real definition of 'fixed cost', which you
'cleverly' snipped.

:
:
: See definition above.
:
: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
:
on't worry, a lot of people have offered you a map, you keep turning them
:down.
:
:
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *--G. Behn

Gee, arguing with a .sig now? *The epitome of Usenet cluelessness...


Those who post quotes as you always do, need to ahere to them more
than anyone else. THAT is why you post them. You think WE need them,
but really YOU need them.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson


  #46  
Old September 5th 08, 04:02 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Sep 4, 3:03*pm, Alexander DeClama wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:00*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Sep 4, 1:20*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:


John Doe wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:


:
: They're called 'fixed costs' because they're FIXED. *They don't change
: no matter what your flight rate is.
:
:
:I think this is an over-simplification. *If your ground infrastructure
:is setup to handle X flights per year and this requires that one shuttle
:enter maintenance phase before another one is finished, it means that
:you need 2 maintenance bases, and enough employees to process 2 shuttles
:concurrently (or even more if a 3rd shuttle is in a heavy maintenance
hase monopolising a maintenance bay and employees for months/year)
:


If they scale with flight rates then they are not fixed costs. *That's
not "over-simplification". *That's the bloody definition of fixed
costs.


What in the history of mankind has ever been fixed that was dubbed
"fixed cost"?


Even gold at $35 an ounce as a fixed cost changed. Nothing is fixed
WRT cost, Freddy. Given enough time.


Eric


Doesn't apply.

"Fixed" denotes the fact that no matter what you do, you have to pay
for x item. *If you rent an apartment, your rent is a fixed cost.


Over the term of the contract. Many apartments have hidden costs as
well.

*The
electric bill is a fixed cost, because most complex if not all require
you to have electric service to move in. *Your cable and internet
service is not a fixed cost. *Car insurance is a fixed cost by law.


Until you get into an accident and then they change your premium.
And if insurance companies have fixed costs, then why are all the
premiums different?

Further, since the cost of insurance is fixed by lawa as you state,
then what is the fixed cost?

Collision coverage is not.


Fixed costs are singular. That is, the cost is fixed for a single
transaction at a single time. Your delusion of "fixed cost" is naive
like the manner in which Fred sees it. Economies don't function on
fixed anything as we live in a changing world. To claim something is a
fixed cost is simple-minded at best. It gives the buyer the illusion
of secuirity over a single time interval related to a cost. Even tax
rates change and taxes are probable the most "fixed" anything when it
comes to money.

  #47  
Old September 5th 08, 10:34 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Shuttle program extension?

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Say you are an airport with 12 gates/jetways. You need to pay $X per
:year to Jetway Corp for maintenance of the jetways. Those are fixed


Capital costs and fixed costs are not necessarily the same thing. You
seem to be assuming that they are.


jetway maintenance costs would not be capital costs. They would be fixed
costs to operate the airport no matter how many flights you have.

Getting rid of excess jetways allows you to perhaps sell some jetways
(selling off capital) but more importantly, it allows you to reduce your
fixed annual maintenance costs.

When you consider the recent decisions on the shuttle, the shuttle
program was to run at full speed until 2010 and then abruptly stop. So
there would be no reason to scale back infrastructure to save costs
since you wanted to have all of the capacity you could get to ensure you
could deliver the number of flights within that time frame.

But, if a decision is made to extend the shuttle by a number of years
with a limited number of flights, then it may make sense to review the
ground infrastructure and scale it down to match the needed flight rate
for the next decade or however long the shuttle might be fliying at a
reduced rate.
  #48  
Old September 5th 08, 11:57 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Sep 5, 5:34�pm, John Doe wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Say you are an airport with 12 gates/jetways. �You need to pay $X per
:year to Jetway Corp for maintenance of the jetways. Those are fixed
Capital costs and fixed costs are not necessarily the same thing. �You
seem to be assuming that they are.


jetway maintenance costs would not be capital costs. They would be fixed
costs to operate the airport no matter how many flights you have.

Getting rid of excess jetways allows you to perhaps sell some jetways
(selling off capital) but more importantly, it allows you to reduce your
fixed annual maintenance costs.

When you consider the recent decisions on the shuttle, the shuttle
program was to run at full speed until 2010 and then abruptly stop. So
there would be no reason to scale back infrastructure to save costs
since you wanted to have all of the capacity you could get to ensure you
could deliver the number of flights within that time frame.

But, if a decision is made to extend the shuttle by a number of years
with a limited number of flights, then it may make sense to review the
ground infrastructure and scale it down to match the needed flight rate
for the next decade or however long the shuttle might be fliying at a
reduced rate.


Pittsburgh international airport is walling off parts of 2 terminals
to reduce the fixed costs of lighting heating maintaing the closed
sections, traffic ios way off and USAIR downsizing more today.....

fixed costs can change
  #49  
Old September 6th 08, 01:42 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Shuttle program extension?



Martha Adams wrote:
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:36:28 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:


Schedule pressure on a single flight, or series of flights, is not the
same thing as a program being rushed.


How many flights does it take until the program is, in fact, rushed?

Brian


======================================

The idea of lifting off on a single one of those SRBs
came into focus for me when I saw a proposal described
here in sci.space.policy, for a three-ton weight on
springs (surely with friction dampers too) to absorb
and damp the vibration. *Three tons of dumb steel* on
a spacecraft? !!?


On the first stage, you can get away with extra weight far more than on
the upper stage(s).
Considering how much the SRB weighs already (around 96 tons for the
Shuttle variant at launch) three extra tons doesn't add all that much
weight in proportion to overall weight.

Somebody is spinning like Road
Runner up a wrong tree, and no Wiley Coyote in sight.
It sounds to me like a severe fault in upper level
management.

I haven't heard yet why those SRBs vibrate longitudinally
in liftoff. Is the burning rate of the solid fuel too
pressure sensitive?


Any large solid fuel motor undergoes what's called "organ pipe
resonance" while firing; the trick is to prevent it from increasing in
intensity to the point where it destroys the motor by vibrating it to
pieces.
This was one of the major problems faced by designers of large solid
fuel motors after WWII.
If you look at this cutaway of a Nike-Ajax SAM solid-fuel booster from
the 1950's, you will note "resonance rods" are incorporated into its
fuel grain to "de-tune" it and prevent a dangerous harmonic vibration
from developing while it fires:
http://ed-thelen.org/booster.gif

Pat
  #50  
Old September 6th 08, 04:06 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
J Waggoner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Shuttle program extension?

Derek,

Even the head of the shuttle program in 1986 said the flight schedule
was AMBITIOUS to say the least.. 12 flights? perhaps 20? Cmon
what kind of Holocaust hoax man are you.

Secondly didn't I see you trying to sell a bridge near Brooklyn? LOL

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:42:33 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Martha Adams wrote:
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:36:28 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:


Schedule pressure on a single flight, or series of flights, is not the
same thing as a program being rushed.

How many flights does it take until the program is, in fact, rushed?

Brian


======================================

The idea of lifting off on a single one of those SRBs
came into focus for me when I saw a proposal described
here in sci.space.policy, for a three-ton weight on
springs (surely with friction dampers too) to absorb
and damp the vibration. *Three tons of dumb steel* on
a spacecraft? !!?


On the first stage, you can get away with extra weight far more than on
the upper stage(s).
Considering how much the SRB weighs already (around 96 tons for the
Shuttle variant at launch) three extra tons doesn't add all that much
weight in proportion to overall weight.

Somebody is spinning like Road
Runner up a wrong tree, and no Wiley Coyote in sight.
It sounds to me like a severe fault in upper level
management.

I haven't heard yet why those SRBs vibrate longitudinally
in liftoff. Is the burning rate of the solid fuel too
pressure sensitive?


Any large solid fuel motor undergoes what's called "organ pipe
resonance" while firing; the trick is to prevent it from increasing in
intensity to the point where it destroys the motor by vibrating it to
pieces.
This was one of the major problems faced by designers of large solid
fuel motors after WWII.
If you look at this cutaway of a Nike-Ajax SAM solid-fuel booster from
the 1950's, you will note "resonance rods" are incorporated into its
fuel grain to "de-tune" it and prevent a dangerous harmonic vibration
from developing while it fires:
http://ed-thelen.org/booster.gif

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
Shuttle program extension? Flyguy Space Shuttle 175 September 22nd 08 04:18 PM
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? Widget Policy 1 July 4th 06 03:51 PM
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! Steve W. Space Shuttle 0 August 9th 05 09:59 PM
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped John Slade Space Shuttle 7 August 2nd 05 04:35 AM
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program JazzMan Space Shuttle 23 February 19th 04 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 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.