$64 Billion and seventeen years to land on the moon. What's wrong with this picture?

jeff findley wrote in message ...
(ed kyle) writes:
... At four launches per year, each launch,
capable of putting roughly three EELV-Heavy equivalents
(75 metric tons) in LEO, would cost roughly $533 million -
probably putting it below the recently increased price point
per kg of EELV-Heavy.

This assumes you launch 4 SDV's every year. If you don't, all you
really save is the cost of an ET and the cost of two reloaded SRB's.
All other costs remain whether you launch 4 times or zero.


Per-launch costs are widely variable when figured on a
per-year average basis. A longer-term view is needed. The
same is pretty much true of the EELV programs. Right now,
the EELV effort is reportedly budgeted at about for around
$670 million per year (total for both EELVs), this to keep
the factories and launch sites open. Only three or four
EELV launches will happen this year, making the average cost
for each launch either $167 or $223 million. But over the
longer run, $4 billion is budgeted for 29 planned launches
through about 2009, making an average of $137 million for
each mission.

Costwise, EELV and SDV appear to work out to be roughly in
the same ballpark, at least for basic launch cost. An SDV
could prevail, however, when it comes to mission practicality
and reduced mission integration costs.

And yes, I think NASA would find missions for an average of
four SDVs per year if a lunar program was pursued. After all,
the agency found reasons to launch six or more shuttles in
most years, even before there was a place (ISS) for shuttle
to go.

- Ed Kyle

"Scott Lowther"

Had it been a *real*
space station, without the State Department mucking it up with
extraneous Russian crap, it'd be much better.

In order to be a real space station, it would require a real transfer
vehicle. The STS was supposed to launch weekly at about $50 million per
trip.

The Russian "crap", now otherwise known as the Kliper, comes a lot closer in
concept to being able to do this. But then they have no exclusive
franchise. England, Germany, Japan, and even the US could come up with an
improved design now that the STS has pointed the way.

It is tempting to buy in to the argument that competition is the way to get
to Mars, and that we would not have gotten to the Moon unless the Russans
were trying to do the same thing. On the basic level of putting the project
in motion, this was certainly true. But I somehow doubt that von Braun and
others were thinking "we need to beat the Russians" as much as "wow, let's
try to land on the Moon."

I would agree that the ISS is not necessarily improved by the contributions
of Russia compared to what the US could have achieved by expending the same
funds on its own in-house projects. But the Russians came in late in the
process. And they were operating under a Socialist economy, and worse a
corrupt economy. I think it is possible that with the right kind of
coordination that a Mars mission could achieve a net gain by involving the
participation of extra-national entities. I also believe that the US could
do it without outside participation. And I believe that there is a distinct
chance that economic factors involving energy supplies, demographics, etc.,
may impact the financial ability of the US to achieve a Mars landing. [If we
have to pay $10 a gallon for gas, and there is one retiree for each
employee, it may be a challenge just to keep the lights on.]

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Reliance on other
nations, especially those that are rife with anti-Americanism and
corruption, is a seriously bad idea.

Were it not for reliance on other nations, there would be e.g. no Apollo, no
Gemini, no Mercury, and no STS. Not all of the tracking stations and
emergency landing strips can be in the USA.

The USA itself is about as 'rife with anti-Americanism and corruption' as
any other country.

"Kent Betts" wrote in message
...
It is tempting to buy in to the argument that competition is the way to
get
to Mars, and that we would not have gotten to the Moon unless the Russans
were trying to do the same thing. On the basic level of putting the
project
in motion, this was certainly true. But I somehow doubt that von Braun
and
others were thinking "we need to beat the Russians" as much as "wow, let's
try to land on the Moon."

I tend to think that if JFK had lived, people would have lost interest and
the deadline would not have been met.

It also makes flying the shuttle more risky. There are many
emergency procedures on the shuttle that require people on-board. Not
the least of which is the contingency EVA for closing the payload bay
doors (if they don't close automatically).

Jeff

In the case of anything that needs done before reentry just leave the vehicle
in orbit till a manned crew can do a repair mission.

We might loose a vehicle because no one onboard but no one dies, a definite
positive.

I just wonder what changes might be made to the remaining shuttles to keep them
operating for specific jobs in a unmanned mode. Specifically if shuttle C
became a reality.

Brian Thorn writes:

On 01 Mar 2004 17:16:37 -0500, jeff findley
wrote:
Miss one luanch in a year, and your per launch cost goes up
significantly. Miss three launches, and your per luanch cost (for
that single launch) is likely to be in the $2 billion range. Miss all
four luanches, and your "per launch cost" for the year isn't even
defined.

By the same token, launch six SDVs (say, four lunar flights, JIMO, and
a Pentagon NMD payload) and the costs come down further. You need to
average costs over more than a year.

Agreed. I'd also include those years between shutting down the shuttle
program and the first launch of the new SDV. Enough of those years
and you start negating the cost "benefit" of using SDV in the first
place.

The point has been made that new EELV facilities will need to be built
if there isn't an SDV. While this is true, if you time it correctly,
you won't build those facilities until you've firmed up when you need
them. In the mean time, EELV would continue to fly with existing
facilities, which would increase our experience with the vehicles and
hopefully find lingering problems before NASA would need them for
manned flights.

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

(Hallerb) writes:
In the case of anything that needs done before reentry just leave the vehicle
in orbit till a manned crew can do a repair mission.

This may be possible for some failures, but the failure of the payload
bay doors to close is a sticky issue. The best way to fix this is to
have someone in an EMU, in the payload bay, crank the doors closed.
Now you've got someone in an EMU you have to get down on your unmanned
shuttle. At this point, you've started down a slippery slope. You
might as well stick a commander and pilot in the shuttle to fly down,
since they increase the reliability of the vehicle and increase the
safety to the crewman who's (in the worst case scenario) stuck riding
in the back of the payload bay.

We might loose a vehicle because no one onboard but no one dies, a definite
positive.

Not so. We've only got three vehicles left. Planning on flying them
unmanned increases the risk you'll lose one. You believe that losing
an orbiter will end the program. I believe that if this is the case,
it won't make a difference if the shuttle is unmanned. The program
will end due to lack of available orbiters to fly the required
missions.

I just wonder what changes might be made to the remaining shuttles to keep them
operating for specific jobs in a unmanned mode. Specifically if shuttle C
became a reality.

If Shuttle C becomes reality, there isn't much of a reason to ever fly
a shuttle again. It's upmass would be far less than Shuttle C, and
there isn't a real requirement for downmanss, outside of returning
lunar/martain samples and astronauts.

Shuttle C (or any other SDV) means the orbiters would go to museums.
The biggest reason you must retire the orbiters is to free up funds to
fly the SDV. NASA can't have its cake and eat it too.

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

"Kent Betts" wrote in message
...
There is no product. There is no profit.



So, in your opinion, there is no reason for going back to the Moon? The
only practical reason for sending people is profit - profit cannot, with
current or projected technology, be 'made' without people for maintenance
and operations. Machines are too intricate to maintain adequately with
other machines; if that were possible, there would be no aircraft or car
mechanics.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Alan Erskine" wrote:


The problem is that once again (at least with this sketchy outline) is
that once again we find 'and then magic occurs' when it comes to
industrialization. I'd like to see the original document and see if
it actually addresses this issue.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Do I remove "nospam" from your email addy?

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

y be possible for some failures, but the failure of the payload
bay doors to close is a sticky issue. The best way to fix this is to
have someone in an EMU, in the payload bay, crank the doors closed.
Now you've got someone in an EMU you have to get dow

Ahh he enters the old crew cabin and leaves out the airlock to his docked or
nearby vehicle. No reason for him to remain in the shuttle for landing.


Not so. We've only got three vehicles left. Planning on flying them
unmanned increases the risk you'll lose one. You believe that losing
an orbiter will end the program. I believe that if this is the case,
it won't make a difference if the shuttle is unmanned. The program
will end due to lack of available orbiters to fly the required
missions.

I just wonder what changes might be made to the remaining shuttles to keep
them
operating for specific jobs in a unmanned mode. Specifically if shuttle C
became a reality.

If Shuttle C becomes reality, there isn't much of a reason to ever fly
a shuttle again. It's upmass would be far less than Shuttle C, and
there isn't a real requirement for downmanss, outside of returning
lunar/martain samples and astronauts.

Shuttle C (or any other SDV) means the orbiters would go to museums.
The biggest reason you must retire the orbiters is to free up funds to
fly the SDV. NASA can't have its cake and eat it too.

Jeff
--

Loosing a unmanned orbiter wouldnt end the program. Its that sticky issue of
human death that can end it.

You believe having it manned increases its safety margins.

Just how many times did having a pilot at the controls save a orbiter?

Telepresence with the pilot safe on the ground and triple redundant remote
controls could likely accomplish the same thing.