![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Rick C" wrote I think the idea is not that you'd h ave fewer launches per year, but fewer total flights. That's the idea -- that hardware doesn't stack up on the ground and overflow onto the tarmac at KSC -- where uplift was the bottleneck long before the neck was corked by the 107 catastrophe. At the same cost, you launch your components 30% faster, get to 'Assembly Complete' years sooner, and make all the users happier. Meanwhile, in this alternate reality, the Russians would have put their Mir-2 into the intended 65 deg orbit, as was planned from the start, for much better land and sea coverage AND that allows access from Plesetsk, breaking the stranglehold of a foreign spaceport. First unmanned Progress vehicles, and then manned Soyuzes, would have launched out of Plesetsk. And occasional NASA shuttle missions would also visit, perhaps to bring up US earth-observation modules for the hi-inc orbit, in support of occasional US guests on the Mir-2. Russians (aboard our shuttles) would visit ISS in its 32 or 33 deg orbit for science research, too. Two stations? Too perfect? Yeah, it never could have happened -- it LOOKED more wasteful, and when it comes to government budget decisions, appearance ALWAYS trumps reality. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:08:00 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote:
"Rick C" wrote I think the idea is not that you'd h ave fewer launches per year, but fewer total flights. That's the idea -- that hardware doesn't stack up on the ground and overflow onto the tarmac at KSC -- where uplift was the bottleneck long before the neck was corked by the 107 catastrophe. At the same cost, you launch your components 30% faster, get to 'Assembly Complete' years sooner, and make all the users happier. I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs. But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights which could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately provided. That was the statement being challenged. Gary |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gary Coffman" wrote in message I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs. But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights which could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately provided. That was the statement being challenged. OK, point well taken -- but you DO save the money spent on integration that made US modules much more expensive, and the money -- nearly a billion dollars -- spent to buy Russian space bargains. And finishing construction early IS a cash savings -- although finding a way to spend the savings could be a challenge. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:43:15 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs. But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights which could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately provided. That was the statement being challenged. OK, point well taken -- but you DO save the money spent on integration that made US modules much more expensive, Ok, I agree with that. Being able to fully outfit and test each module on the ground before launch is a major plus. Being able to autonomously dock those modules in orbit would have been an even bigger plus )only the Russians have demonstrated that capability). Restoring a heavy lift ELV system to launch them (US or Russian), so Shuttle could have been retired to museums, would have been an even larger plus (and actually would free up $5 billion a year). and the money -- nearly a billion dollars -- spent to buy Russian space bargains. Yeah, but I don't believe Lockmart equivalents to what was purchased from the Russians would have actually been less expensive. The Russians are the low cost supplier in this area. And finishing construction early IS a cash savings -- although finding a way to spend the savings could be a challenge. Finding a way for NASA to *hold onto* the savings would be the main problem. Congress has never had a problem finding ways to spend money, but there's no guarantee that it would be spent on space. Gary |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:07:36 GMT, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:28:21 -0400, Gary Coffman wrote: Ok, I agree with that. Being able to fully outfit and test each module on the ground before launch is a major plus. Being able to autonomously dock those modules in orbit would have been an even bigger plus (only the Russians have demonstrated that capability). Autonomous docking has its drawbacks, including the need to outfit each module with its own navigation, control, power, and propulsion systems. So you could have larger modules than Shuttle carries, but each module would have a big chunk of it devoted to just getting to ISS whereas the Shuttleborne modules are entirely useful payload. Look at the Proton-launched modules at ISS... each as large or larger than a Shuttleborne module externally, but each with considerably less useable internal volume. Good point, but the NCPP section doesn't necessarily scale directly with module size. The bigger the module, the less of it is lost to those purposes, and heavy lift allows you to launch bigger modules. That could mean fewer modules to Assembly Complete, or a bigger station. Restoring a heavy lift ELV system to launch them (US or Russian), so Shuttle could have been retired to museums, would have been an even larger plus (and actually would free up $5 billion a year). Um, no. Shuttle's annual budget is around $3 billion, not $5 billion. And you wouldn't save even $3 billion, since you're heavy lift ELV won't be free and you still have to get your astronauts to ISS some other way. You're heavy lift ELV will be a long way from free. Saturn V cost over $1 Billion each to launch in today's dollars. So three of those a year, and you've already matched your annual Shuttle costs (for five or six flights a year.) You have a lot more cargo to ISS with those three flights, but you still don't have a crew on ISS. You'd have to put an Apollo or similar spacecraft on top of the stack to get crew to ISS on the same flight, but that will raise the cost of each flight. Unfortunately, you only need your heavy lift ELV for a few flights (total ISS mass is to be around 1 million pounds, Saturn V had 200,000 lbs. payload capacity.) Once ISS is completed, your new ELV is overkill for the resupply application. So your ELV cost a few billion dollars to develop and you only get maybe a half-dozen flights out of it. I'm not going to overly thrash old ground, but Saturn V and Energia development has already been paid for by other programs. *If* we or the Russians had *retained* that capability, the development cost wouldn't have counted against ISS construction. I agree that developing a *new* heavy lift vehicle strictly for ISS construction would be a bad economic deal, unless other programs could use it too. Some of the really large BDB concepts do look better than Saturn or Energia, but you'd need other missions for them than just building ISS to make it worthwhile to proceed with them. Space enthusiasts could certainly come up with those missions (back to the Moon, Mars missions, etc), but whether they could sell them to Congress is another matter. After that, you need a smaller, cheaper vehicle to get supplies and crews to ISS. So you have to design and build one, or buy Russian. Politicians aren't going to let you buy Russian, so you have to spend a few billion more to develop a crew taxi. OSP is already reported to be projected at $12 billion in development costs. Its unclear if that includes an unmanned cargo transport as well as the crew taxi. But in OSP's case, you have to launch crew and resupply on separate flights. Launch costs of an OSP/Cargo Vehicle on a Delta IV-Heavy will optimistically be around $200 million. But you need twice as many launches to replace the Shuttle (which does crew and resupply on the same flight.) That's $400 million to replace a $500 million Shuttle flight. Add in the $12 billion development costs, and it simply doesn't make economic sense. If we're going to retire Shuttle, replace it with something that is actually much cheaper to operate and doesn't just shift funds from one expensive system to another. If you can't do that, just build a replacement for Columbia for $3 billion or so and move on. Well, sure. I do suspect that OSP is going to be an expensive turkey. But it doesn't *have* to be that way. The various stretch Apollo or Big Gemini type concepts look cheaper (IMHO passively safer too). IMHO launching an *airplane* into space just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Just get the spacecraft back through the atmosphere in one piece, then use a real airplane, or a truck or ship, to move it around on the Earth, if desired, after its mission is over. A Swiss army knife isn't a very good knife, scissors, or nail file, and costs more to develop and operate than those items individually. Single purpose vehicles can generally be designed to do particular jobs better and cheaper than a one vehicle does it all approach. Gary |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On or about Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:07:36 GMT, Brian Thorn
committed multiple counts of: You're *bang bang bang* *Your* post was fine otherwise. -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:56:43 GMT, LooseChanj
wrote: On or about Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:07:36 GMT, Brian Thorn committed multiple counts of: You're *bang bang bang* *Your* post was fine otherwise. Drat! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gary Coffman" wrote in message Finding a way for NASA to *hold onto* the savings would be the main problem. Congress has never had a problem finding ways to spend money, but there's no guarantee that it would be spent on space. Fully agree -- and hence, NASA has never had any real motive to save money. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"James Oberg"
Fully agree -- and hence, NASA has never had any real motive to save money. Congress likes to spend money. Cheney wanted to stop the Osprey, but since the program involved 200 companies in 38 states, Congress overruled him and continued the program. Funding has as much to do with politics as budget concerns. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Russians suspected suit trouble from the start | JimO | Space Station | 3 | March 3rd 04 03:11 PM |
U.S. Space Weather Service in Deep Trouble | Al Jackson | Policy | 1 | September 25th 03 08:21 PM |
Russians Save ISS From Serious Trouble?? | Gary Coffman | Space Station | 10 | July 7th 03 05:29 AM |