|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
At the moment, people are blaming the cost of Shuttle ops as to why the US
has no new way to send humans into space. Of course everyone knew the pitfalls of restricting budgets, as exactly the same thing happened at the end of Apollo. Now third time lucky? Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN. Humph. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
On 24/09/2010 6:07 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
At the moment, people are blaming the cost of Shuttle ops as to why the US has no new way to send humans into space. Of course everyone knew the pitfalls of restricting budgets, as exactly the same thing happened at the end of Apollo. Now third time lucky? Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN. Humph. Brian Replacement? Why not simply add components to the existing structure? Similar to what's being done with ISS, but on a much larger scale. There's also the point that, for most things, a station as large as ISS isn't needed - have a look at a Salyut-sized station - similar-sized modules also formed the basis of Mir, so it's expandable if needed. I've said from the beginning of my time on these groups that the U.S. doesn't need to use STS to launch station modules - Delta IV heavy is even more powerful than the Proton used by Russia/USSR, so would be able to deliver larger modules. And D-IV-H is much less expensive than STS. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:07:46 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote: At the moment, people are blaming the cost of Shuttle ops as to why the US has no new way to send humans into space. Well, sort of. But had we not cancelled OSP in 2003-ish, it would probably be ready to fly now (or already operational) with Delta IV-Heavy for much less than the $9 billion we spent for Gemini-on-Steroids, FSB, LAS, and a launch tower that will never be used. But OSP had "plane" in its name, and that made it EEEVVIIILLL after Columbia, so in yet another over-reaction to an accident, NASA killed it and wanted a capsule (because parachute never fail.) Of course everyone knew the pitfalls of restricting budgets, as exactly the same thing happened at the end of Apollo. Now third time lucky? Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN. Nobody wants the one we have, a major replacement is politically impossible. If we need something in the 2020s, we can probably just buy a Bigelow module. Brian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:38:20 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote: I've said from the beginning of my time on these groups that the U.S. doesn't need to use STS to launch station modules - Delta IV heavy is even more powerful than the Proton used by Russia/USSR, so would be able to deliver larger modules. And D-IV-H is much less expensive than STS. Less expensive, but not much. Delta IV-Heavy is in the $500 million per flight arena, while Shuttle is around $800 million. But remember, modules launched on Delta would need their own propulsion, control and guidance systems, greatly cutting into payload and increasing cost. Brian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
On 29/09/2010 8:58 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:38:20 +1000, Alan Erskine wrote: I've said from the beginning of my time on these groups that the U.S. doesn't need to use STS to launch station modules - Delta IV heavy is even more powerful than the Proton used by Russia/USSR, so would be able to deliver larger modules. And D-IV-H is much less expensive than STS. Less expensive, but not much. Delta IV-Heavy is in the $500 million per flight arena, while Shuttle is around $800 million. But remember, modules launched on Delta would need their own propulsion, control and guidance systems, greatly cutting into payload and increasing cost. Brian Shuttle is around $1.3 BILLION per launch. Delta IV Heavy is around 250-300 at the moment, but with more launches, becomes it would be less expensive still. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:29:30 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote: Less expensive, but not much. Delta IV-Heavy is in the $500 million per flight arena, while Shuttle is around $800 million. But remember, modules launched on Delta would need their own propulsion, control and guidance systems, greatly cutting into payload and increasing cost. Shuttle is around $1.3 BILLION per launch. No, you only get that by counting every dollar ever spent on the Shuttle and dividing it by total number of flights. That's not how much it costs to fly a Shuttle today. NASA's FY 2009 budget was $2.9 billion for the Shuttle program and $732 million for "Space and Flight Support". There were five flights in FY 2009. $742 million per flight. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210020main_N...es_Summary.pdf Delta IV Heavy is around 250-300 at the moment, but with more launches, becomes it would be less expensive still. NASA's Outer Planets Assessment Group reported $486 million in 2007. (Hence, they recommended the less-powerful Atlas 551.) The $486 million figure was in the cost details appendix in this document, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdf But that table has since been deleted as "details not available for public release" (surprise, surprise.) Discussion of it at the time was here... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...topic=9350.180 and while Jim does later write that such a price is what NASA pays and not a commercial price, we are talking about what NASA would pay. Brian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
"Brian Gaff" wrote in
: Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN. Why keep it up if you can get more profit from rebuilding it from scratch again ? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
On 17 Oct 2010 14:08:30 GMT, Jose Pina Coelho
wrote: Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN. Why keep it up if you can get more profit from rebuilding it from scratch again ? That's a humongous 'if'. Brian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
Brian Thorn wrote in
: On 17 Oct 2010 14:08:30 GMT, Jose Pina Coelho wrote: Will anyone learn anything from not funding a replacement ahead of decommisioning of the ISS? From what I read nobody seems to be thinking about it at all AGAIN. Why keep it up if you can get more profit from rebuilding it from scratch again ? That's a humongous 'if'. Only the private sector realizes profits. And if they get contracted for a new full space station instead of "add 5 modules to the existing one" they get ore profit. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Falling into the same trap as Shuttle has
Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA's Outer Planets Assessment Group reported $486 million in 2007. (Hence, they recommended the less-powerful Atlas 551.) The $486 million figure was in the cost details appendix in this document, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdf But that table has since been deleted as "details not available for public release" (surprise, surprise.) Thanks for that pointer, note also there are actually two tables in this document. Table 4.10-1 (pg 4-66) JSO Baseline Cost by Level 2 WBS which breaks out the cost of a D-IVH LV at $486 million and a cost-reduced study in Chapter 5 "DESCOPED MISSION IMPLEMENTATION" that removes two instruments for launching on an Atlas V-551 where the cost estimate in Table 5.10-1 (pg 5-5) listing it at $191 million. Can't find mention of any second stage for the D-IVH configuration, whereas Centaur is mentioned for Atlas V-551, surely there is an orbital insertion upper stage in this design for D-IVH, where am I missing it? Interesting proposal. Where does it stand? Let me guess, awaiting funding... Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | January 11th 06 06:38 PM |
Any SPACE where a PARTiCLE is, is DiSCRETE; [Whether it's "falling" or, NOT falling.!!] ```Brian. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 11th 06 06:38 PM |
Fiendish Trap of THE ULTIMATE TROLL | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 28th 05 12:22 AM |
Stuff falling off Shuttle, NASA says "Not embarrassing" | James | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 13th 05 11:45 AM |