|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:40:41 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: Now this in Monicagate terms is called "Parsing The Question". You wrote a space editorial column that appeared in Fox News up till at least Feb. 18th of 2004, but claimed you did it for free. A claim that is true. And almost without exception, they were simply republished posts from my blog. Here you state you are writing the column for them: http://makeashorterlink.com/?G40852D9C "Sat, Mar 15 2003 11:27 pm On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:56:55 +1100, in a place far, far away, "Alan Erskine" alanersk... http://groups.google.com/groups/unlock?msg=6480c6638297d6e6&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.space.history/browse_thread/thread/cc98ca8b6c242451/74a840fc57e7d54a%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dsci.space.histor y%2Brand%2Bsimberg%2Bfox%2Bcolumn%26rnum%3D10%26hl made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand, I'm using your comment about a smart individual as a quote. I agree and concur completely! Glad to know that you don't always consider me insane. ;-) Actually, I wrote a Fox News column on this subject a few months ago, about what I called the "emergent stupidity," or the "committee effect." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58726,00.html cites snipped In what way does this disprove anything I've said? They all ended up as Fox columns. They all started as posts on my blog. There was only one exception--a column that they commissioned, and paid me fifty bucks for, the Monday after Challenger. This one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77350,00.html That still doesn't constitute my "working for Fox News," any more than it does for any free-lancer who gets paid by a publication for an article. And if I implied that you aren't nuts, Pat, I apologize. Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile. Put me back there, please. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
Rand Simberg wrote:
Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile. Put me back there, please. You are indeed in my killfile on space.history and space.policy, but I'd like to keep an eye on you here, if for nothing else than the unintended humor content. Pat |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:37:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J. McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: :::There's no reason to believe that CEV will reduce the cost of manned :::spaceflight. :: ::When compared to Shuttle, a hideously expensive system? :: ::Yes, even when compared to Shuttle. : :Got numbers for cost to orbit? : :No, but they can be estimated, as described below. Well, not so much description, from what I see. Perhaps you have a different 'below' than I do? No, I told you. Add up the development costs, The CEV is also intended as a moonship and marsship and lifeboat. You can't allocate all the development costs to the LEO ferry role. and the ongoing operational costs (including the costs of launching the cargo that is no longer launched by the manned vehicle, but can be by the Shuttle), divide by the flight rates, and you get an infrastructure that costs as much, or more than, the Shuttle. Even ignoring the amortization of the development costs, the marginal costs of the Shaft + CEV launch will be at least a couple hundred million, to deliver four crew instead of seven. Shuttle's marginal cost are about the same, to deliver a crew of seven, plus fifty thousand pounds of payload. The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS. NASA figures that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven CEV flights. Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs, since the shuttle has historically suffered an orbiter loss and multiyear standdown every fifty flights or so. Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings, control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive main engines. Will McLean |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:55:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will
McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: No, I told you. Add up the development costs, The CEV is also intended as a moonship and marsship and lifeboat. You can't allocate all the development costs to the LEO ferry role. I'm not. I'm including the cost for lunar flights as well (and I think that the notion that it will be used for Mars is hype, not reality). and the ongoing operational costs (including the costs of launching the cargo that is no longer launched by the manned vehicle, but can be by the Shuttle), divide by the flight rates, and you get an infrastructure that costs as much, or more than, the Shuttle. Even ignoring the amortization of the development costs, the marginal costs of the Shaft + CEV launch will be at least a couple hundred million, to deliver four crew instead of seven. Shuttle's marginal cost are about the same, to deliver a crew of seven, plus fifty thousand pounds of payload. The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS. I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot. And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do. NASA figures that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven CEV flights. I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights? Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs. since the shuttle has historically suffered an orbiter loss and multiyear standdown every fifty flights or so. What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns? Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings, control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive main engines. The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have one, you're fooling yourself. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:55:09 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: No, I told you. Add up the development costs, The CEV is also intended as a moonship and marsship and lifeboat. You can't allocate all the development costs to the LEO ferry role. I'm not. I'm including the cost for lunar flights as well (and I think that the notion that it will be used for Mars is hype, not reality). and the ongoing operational costs (including the costs of launching the cargo that is no longer launched by the manned vehicle, but can be by the Shuttle), divide by the flight rates, and you get an infrastructure that costs as much, or more than, the Shuttle. Even ignoring the amortization of the development costs, the marginal costs of the Shaft + CEV launch will be at least a couple hundred million, to deliver four crew instead of seven. Shuttle's marginal cost are about the same, to deliver a crew of seven, plus fifty thousand pounds of payload. The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS. I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot. And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do. NASA figures that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven CEV flights. I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights? Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs. since the shuttle has historically suffered an orbiter loss and multiyear standdown every fifty flights or so. What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns? Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings, control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive main engines. The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have one, you're fooling yourself. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
Rand Simberg wrote:
The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS. I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot. And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do. The CEV should be able to bring back a fair amount unmanned, although not as much as the shuttle. NASA figures that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven CEV flights. I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights? They claim they can do the ISS crew rotation and resupply with the CEV for $1.5 billion less than the shuttle (Budgeted at $4 billion for 2006). Plus more reboost capacity than the shuttle. Even if the savings are half that amount, that adds up to real money over time. Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs. The chance of failure becomes zero when you're grounded. That sounds like a marginal cost to me. What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns? I think it will have less of them because there are fewer ways for the simpler vehicle to fail. And standdowns can be less protracted when the return to flight doesn't have to be a manned one without an escape system. Titan standdowns haven't been nearly as protracted as shuttle ones, nor was the post Apollo 13 standdown. Also, replacing a capsule is less expensive than replacing the orbiter. Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings, control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive main engines. The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have one, you're fooling yourself. The shuttle standing army is so huge that even a moderate reduction adds up to significant savings. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. Apologies for the two previous postings with no new content. Posts in the course of composition were sent in error. Will McLean |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:29:04 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will
McLean" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The CEV is sized to carry up to six, and the shuttle can't carry anything like fifty thousand pounds of payload to ISS. I wasn't thinking ISS per se, just LEO. But it can still carry a lot. And bring it back, which CEV will be unable to do. The CEV should be able to bring back a fair amount unmanned, although not as much as the shuttle. Nowhere near as much, and only in small pieces. NASA figures that it can do the ISS crew rotation and logistics with six or seven CEV flights. I assume that that's why they've oversized the CLV--otherwise, you could have a lot smaller vehicle that could just deliver the crew in a CM, and then mate it to the SM/LSAM in LEO. OK, so what's their estimate of the costs for those six or seven flights? They claim they can do the ISS crew rotation and resupply with the CEV for $1.5 billion less than the shuttle (Budgeted at $4 billion for 2006). Beware of NASA cost analysts bearing claims... I'll bet that they're not amortizing *any* of the development costs in that claim. Plus more reboost capacity than the shuttle. That's because they're not reboosting it very smart. It doesn't make sense to reboost using the Shuttle, given its own mass. It would be better to have a smaller tug that you'd refuel. Even if the savings are half that amount, that adds up to real money over time. Yes, *if*. Marginal costs for the shuttle include failure costs No, they don't. Average costs do, but not marginal costs. The chance of failure becomes zero when you're grounded. That sounds like a marginal cost to me. If you want to play that game, then you have to do it as an expected value, which is pretty low on any given flight. What makes you think that CEV/CLV won't have failures and standdowns? I think it will have less of them because there are fewer ways for the simpler vehicle to fail. And standdowns can be less protracted when the return to flight doesn't have to be a manned one without an escape system. Titan standdowns haven't been nearly as protracted as shuttle ones No, but Titan has effective standdowns even when it's supposedly operational, considering what a pad queen it is. nor was the post Apollo 13 standdown. Also, replacing a capsule is less expensive than replacing the orbiter. That's certainly the case. One wonders what the eventual production run and fleet size will end up being. Also, shuttle maintains the standing army to service a large, complex, finicky tile covered orbiter with wings, control surfaces, hydraulics, landing gear and maintenance intensive main engines. The army may not be as large, but if you think that CEV won't have one, you're fooling yourself. The shuttle standing army is so huge that even a moderate reduction adds up to significant savings. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. Not if you have to spend a bunch of billion up front, when the billions are worth a lot more. Note that I'm not defending the Shuttle, or advocating its continuance. I just think that if the goal is to reduce costs, this is just about the worst possible approach to that, short of continuing Shuttle. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:59:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Will"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Plus more reboost capacity than the shuttle. That's because they're not reboosting it very smart. It doesn't make sense to reboost using the Shuttle, given its own mass. It would be better to have a smaller tug that you'd refuel. Still, it's one way the CEV offers more logistic capability than we have at the moment. But we could have it at the moment by simply carrying a Progress in the payload bay. :-) The chance of failure becomes zero when you're grounded. That sounds like a marginal cost to me. If you want to play that game, then you have to do it as an expected value, which is pretty low on any given flight. A small chance of a huge cost is still significant. Assume an optimistic 1% loss rate for the shuttle. I don't think that's so optimistic, at this point. A $10 billion standdown, $2 billion lost orbiter and $400 million accident investigation and cleanup. 1% of 12.4 billion is $124 million. And that doesn't attempt to quantify the opportunity cost of payload delays. At this point, the replacement cost of the Orbiter is irrelevant, since we're retiring it anyway, and not going to replace it. There's no reason for an accident investigation to cost $400M. Fixes to the system resulting from it might, but not the investigation itself. The only real costs are the delay costs. But one has to factor in the delay costs of waiting for the CEV/CLV to happen as well, even disregarding the potential for downtime from accidents of its own. And I think you underestimate the probability of this, particularly when the system is brand new. The shuttle standing army is so huge that even a moderate reduction adds up to significant savings. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money. Not if you have to spend a bunch of billion up front, when the billions are worth a lot more. Yes, but if you are going to spend the money anyway for other reasons, then lower operating costs are a plus. We're no longer willing to accept the suvivability of the shuttle, we want to go beyond LEO, and we promised to provide an ISS lifeboat. But we're not going to end up saving much money (or accomplishing much more, except we'll be sending a few government employees to the moon, instead of sending them to LEO annually), the way they've chosen to achieve those goals. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program
Rand Simberg wrote:
At this point, the replacement cost of the Orbiter is irrelevant, since we're retiring it anyway, and not going to replace it. There's no reason for an accident investigation to cost $400M. If you want another crew to get on it there is. "So what made the last one fail?" "How the hell should we know? They do that now and then." "I'm a little queasy about flying on it if we don't know what's wrong with it." "And I'm a little queasy about giving you your next paycheck....now just get on board the damn thing...now." "I have some reservations about this..." "And I have a gun...now get on board...RIGHT NOW!" :-D Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Jason Donahue | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | February 1st 04 03:33 AM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Astronaut | Misc | 0 | January 31st 04 03:11 AM |
NASA Selects International Space Station Program Scientis | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 20th 03 06:38 AM |