Shuttle dumped within 5 years

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years.
The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.


Anyone want to take a shot at which design they're going to pick, and why?

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle.

Your right, the Shuttle is the best bargain around. Do you want to buy a
Shuttle ticket? I bet you just can't wait to buy a ticket on the weekly shuttle
and spend the week on Island One for a vacation. The Shuttle was right on the
money. Nobody can beat the shuttle for reasonable prices to orbit, its all
because the Space Shuttle is reusable that no expendible rocket can beat the
low cost of the Shuttle. In fact Space shuttles have taken over the whole
launch business, launching just about anything since it does not make economic
sense to use expendable rocket boosters anymore.

Tom

(TKalbfus) :

What the article fails to mention is that the 2008 date is for the
unmanned
CRV version. CTV would fly much later.

I think Shuttle will be around till at least 2012. There just isn't
anything
else on the path to production that can handle the up- and down-mass of
Shuttle.

And it spends the next 4 years doing what? Isn't it cheaper to develop a
life
support system for the CRV than it is to launch an empty shuttle with 4
crew
members aboard? So I guess the CRV is exposed to the vacuum of space and it
will take 4 years to develop a technology to seal it so that it will hold
an
atmosphere within. And the technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere
and
storing compressed oxegen long enough for the up and down flight have yet
to be
developed for this spacecraft and its going to take a further ambitious 4
year
project so that people can actually ride in this spacecraft, so in the
meantime
they'll have to use expensive empty shuttles for crew transfers. Is ther
something wrong with this picture?

Tom

No, it sounds like today's NASA alright.

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
Down mass isn't really needed, except for Hubble return.

Sure it is. There are plans to change out experiment racks, and those can
only be changed out through the use of an MPLM.

Up mass: A Delta 4 Heavy has similar up mass, at a much lower (though
still too high) cost.

And there's nothing to put on top of it, nor budget to build something.

-Kim-
*my opinions, not my employers'*

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:11:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

If they can not save money using OSP/ATV/EELV compination then they are
doing it wrong.

There's no way to "do it right." As long as their goals in space
remain so trivial, it will be very expensive from a unit cost basis.
One of the reasons that Shuttle has never been replaced is that
there's no replacement that can be cheaper than continuing to operate
it, once you take into account the development costs and low usage.

NASA is bound to get some funds to replace the Shuttle. Once those initial
funds are included it should be easily possibly.
A four man OSP 8-15 ton OSP should be a lot cheaper then building a
replacement shuttle. We might even get 5 or so for the price of one
replacement shuttle. There should be no new tech here just known technology.
Remember one of the things that keeps shuttle costs up is low use the new
OSP is pretty much guaranteed 12-20 flights a year, with 6-7 just for crew
and the rest unmanned for cargo.

"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
Down mass isn't really needed, except for Hubble return.

Sure it is. There are plans to change out experiment racks, and those can
only be changed out through the use of an MPLM.

Up mass: A Delta 4 Heavy has similar up mass, at a much lower (though
still too high) cost.

And there's nothing to put on top of it, nor budget to build something.

If NASA uses a little common sense they should be able to adopt the
technology from the OSP to an expendable ATV which could be launched aboard
the heavies.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:11:01 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

If they can not save money using OSP/ATV/EELV compination then they are
doing it wrong.

The only way it will save significant money versus Shuttle is if
Shuttle per-flight costs go up considerably as a result of STS-107.

I don't think they will.

Brian

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 22:13:45 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

NASA is bound to get some funds to replace the Shuttle.

That's not a given. It very well might, but at $12 billion for OSP,
Congress might put off replacing the Shuttle again and just offer a
couple of billion for Shuttle upgrades.

Remember one of the things that keeps shuttle costs up is low use the new
OSP is pretty much guaranteed 12-20 flights a year, with 6-7 just for crew
and the rest unmanned for cargo.

a. That assumes ISS grows to 6 or 7 crew, which is far from certain.

b. 20 flights a year is way out there. That's 13 flights a year for
cargo. At the very least, the US ATV will have cargo comparable to
Europe's ATV... about 15,000 lbs. That's versus 20,000 lbs for
Shuttle/MPLM, which is manifested for four flights per year. So we're
looking at 6 US ATV flights per year to replace Shuttle delivered
cargo. Add a 7th for good measure, to handle things like water that
Shuttle delivers for free. And if ISS does not grow past Core
Complete's three crew... a distinct possibility if Congress ponies up
big bucks for OSP or Shuttle Upgrades... you'll need fewer resupply
flights.

Brian

On 01 Sep 2003 20:30:03 GMT, (TKalbfus) wrote:

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle.

Your right, the Shuttle is the best bargain around. Do you want to buy a
Shuttle ticket?

Irrelevant, tickets aren't for sale.

I bet you just can't wait to buy a ticket on the weekly shuttle
and spend the week on Island One for a vacation.

You're hooked on illegal narcotics if you think EELV/OSP is going to
get us any closer to this goal.

The Shuttle was right on the
money. Nobody can beat the shuttle for reasonable prices to orbit, its all
because the Space Shuttle is reusable that no expendible rocket can beat the
low cost of the Shuttle.

Let's look at the numbers...

One Shuttle launch: $500 million.

One EELV: About $125 million per launch for the high-end medium-class.
One ATV: Europe is claiming its ATV will cost $50 million and carry
15,000 lbs of cargo.
One OSP: Price unknown. A safe bet is at least as expensive as ATV.
$50 million.

That's $175 million to send 15,000 lbs of cargo to ISS, and another
$175 million to send 4 crew to ISS.

$350 million for fewer crew and less cargo than Shuttle to ISS. To
equal Shuttle, you need one more flight, possibly a mixed crew/cargo
mission if the crew OSP has a couple of thousand pounds cargo
capacity.

$525 million for EELV/OSP/ATV versus $500 million for Shuttle.

It's possible Shuttle costs will rise as a result of STS-107, but it
is also possible that ATV/OSP will be much more expensive than $50
million a copy, unless by some miracle Boeing or LockMart aren't
involved (don't hold your breath). And it is possible the EELV-Heavy
will be selected instead of the -Medium, especially if Delta IV is
chosen because of its availability after the EELV contract fiasco.

Brian

It's possible Shuttle costs will rise as a result of STS-107, but it
is also possible that ATV/OSP will be much more expensive than $50
million a copy, unless by some miracle Boeing or LockMart aren't
involved (don't hold your breath). And it is possible the EELV-Heavy
will be selected instead of the -Medium, especially if Delta IV is
chosen because of its availability after the EELV contract fiasco.

Brian

Larger expendable booster are more cost compedative on a per pound basis
assuming their fully loaded. Imagine launching a shuttle payload worth of
Pegasi launchers and how much that would cost. It was originally assumed that
the Shuttle would be more economical because you would use the same launch
equipment over and over again, any fool could see that or thought they did, but
the Devil was in the details and the details turned out to be awfully
expensive. I think if the OSP is developed, it should come in different sizes.
One version holds 4 people, I see no reason why you can't have a larger version
that will hold 6 or 8. I also think it should be designed to sit atop of more
than one kind of booster, a medium heavy, a heavy, and possible a Saturn V
class rocket. The mission would determine what kind of booster is needed, and
what the OSP can't hold should go inside a separate cargo area of the booster
itself, kind of the way the Apollo LM was housed. The OSP holds stuff that
needs to come back to Earth intact. I hope NASA doesn't have a "one size fits
all" mentality.

Tom