Here we go again. No one at this American Thinker piece, neither the author or any of the commenters, has clue one about the new policy:
Now, with the Obama administration’s new “plan” for NASA effectively ending nationally funded human spaceflight, we drop a torch others are grabbing.
Where do they come up with this nonsense? How can one sanely characterize a policy that extends ISS until at least the end of the decade, and that has billions of dollars budgeted to buy crew services, as “ending nationally funded human spaceflight”?
NASA has long been planning to cancel the Shuttle program, which is understandable, considering budget constraints and the priority of the Constellation program. But to cancel both programs leaves the U.S. with no viable human space transport. The International Space Station, which represents a $100-billion investment by U.S. taxpayers, will be unreachable by scientists and astronauts from the U.S. without hitching a ride on Russian or Chinese space transport. This is unacceptable.
Or from commercial American services, which will be available much sooner than Ares/Orion. And later, he finally gets around to discussing this:
With the ending of the Constellation program, there are no future human missions for the U.S., except those made possible in commercial spaceflight. While commercial spaceflight is tremendous in its future implications, it will progress only in areas that have demonstrated a possible fiscal return…and space operations are so expensive and difficult that it is highly unlikely that any true exploration would occur. Commercial space flight is space exploitation, not space exploration. For the foreseeable future, an entity like NASA — which is nationally funded and not constrained by profits and losses — and a project such as Constellation is the best way to extend our reach into and knowledge of space. Robotic missions are all well and good for certain applications, but one does not learn anything about putting humans in space by putting robotic vehicles in space.
Sigh…
Where to start?
Look. We are simply transitioning from a mode in which NASA develops and operates its own earth-to-orbit vehicles to spec, to one in which it purchases transportation services to LEO for crew from private providers, as it has been doing for years for satellites and probes. No one said that NASA was “getting out of the planetary exploration business” when it launched LRO and LCROSS on a commercial Atlas, and if they had they would have rightly been considered insane. Why is it any different for astronauts?
Exploration starts when we get into LEO, not at Cape Canaveral.
And you cannot simultaneously know anything about Constellation and state that it is “the best way to extend our reach into and knowledge of space.” Constellation was a fiscal disaster waiting to happen. It was unaffordable both in terms of its development costs, and its operational costs. There are many better ways to accomplish that goal. The new policy is one of them.
Jeebus crow.
Let’s hope that Bigelow’s Washington clue brigade starts its work soon.
There are actually more clueful comments after that piece than there were after that Red State article. Of course, there are also the clueless comments (did you know NASA is responsible for the existence of microcomputers? đ ).
It’s time to refocus the debate.
Do we stay or do we go? There’s those who want to build an ISS on the Moon and there’s those who want to go beyond the Moon. It is an either-or decision. These are the battle lines, not ccdev.
Here’s my first volley, please join me: http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/07/reselling-mike-griffin.html
I guess the folks at American Thinker weren’t told what to think about space from the New Space spin machine đ
Really though, for the 99.5% of Americans who don’t live and breath space policy 24/7 its simple. American HSF equals NASA. No NASA rockets means we are abandoning HSF to foreign countries. Since most still link HSF with global leadership its also means we are abandoning our role as world leaders.
And since the last Shuttle will be on President’s Obama’s watch he will get the blame, even though the decision was made by President Bush.
I know, that is not what is happening, but its the perception in the eyes of many Americans and for most people perception equals reality. It will be interesting to see what stand the Tea Party folks will take on NASA and human spaceflight.
Thomas Matula at 6:58 pm
Wow, well said Thomas. Harsh truth.
I fantasize about Barak using the outrage of the repubs and partiers to ram through a doubling of NASA’s budget.
“Continuing” Constellation, but using the funds for Flex Path.
Socialism at its finest.
No no no — it’s like this: commercial space explor– I mean, exploitation, is icky and profit-driven and means McDonald’s on the moon and giant neon buildboards circling Jupiter and getting Saturn’s rings all polluted with… stuff. And casinos on Ganymede! That would be gross. On the other hand, “nationally funded human spaceflight” is good and spiritual and untainted by sleazy things like finding stuff we can use and making money. It’s all about being spiritual patriotic Americans In SPA-A-A-CE because we got on the moon first (we beat the Russkies! Because of our superior morality of course) and thus only the United States of America should rule SPA-A-A-CE. But not make money out of it — that would be wrong.
This really is the way a lot of people on both the right and left side of the tennis court think when the subject of space exploration and NASA comes up. It’s like a signal goes off in their brains and they’re kicked back to childhood when the Apollo crews really were gods and NASA could do no wrong and we put a man on the moon! Also in Star Trek no one had to have any money which means no one had to balance a checkbook or feel bad because they had to drive a beater instead of a Lexus. Talking about commercial business ventures in space just bores this type of mindset (space is your teenage fun adventureland) and makes them think of their own unbalanced checkbooks and how much they hate their jobs.
It’s just a simple failure of imagination…
it will progress only in areas that have demonstrated a possible fiscal return
So he’s saying, he can see humans to orbit but no farther. It just hasn’t occurred to him that any destination BEO can have a profit potential for private entities. This is not an uncommon failure of imagination even from people that post here and should know better. It just requires some time and education. People will catch on to the idea eventually (after which they will assume it was their idea all along… this is a constant amazement to me.)
Ken, it’s the classic giggle factor of space. I think the better question is: will it ever go away? What does the private sector have to do exactly to make the profit motive a sufficient replacement for “exploration” or whatever other euphemism you want to use for socialist space. I’d like to suggest that the heroic retrieval of, say, a billion dollars in platinum from a near earth asteroid or even the surface of the Moon would do the trick, but I don’t think it’ll happen. Instead, I think Musk will sell some seats to LEO and the world will say “how many of those seats can he really sell?” and dismiss the whole thing as a fad. And when those first manned DragonLabs fly everyone will say “hey, it’s temporary, those biotech companies will pay anything” and dismiss the whole thing as a fad. When the first commercial crew goes on a servicing mission to a commercial communications satellite they’ll still insist “but what about exploration?! There’ll never be a profit motive for going beyond Earth orbit!” and they’ll keep claiming that as incrementally the capability of space commercial activity gets better and better until some day someone crazy enough decides living there is better than commuting.
The “no profit beyond EO” argument makes me roll my eyes. By that logic, only the government would be building fighter planes, because there’s no profit in flying them. In both cases, the government can provide funding.
This makes me wonder what our jet fighters would be like if the government designed and built them. Flight safety would be assured, because they’d be unable to get off the ground…
Too be fair, I don’t think anyone in Obama’s administration or NASA really knows what the “new” plan is. It is so vague that we are forced to project our own pro or anti biases in an effort to figure out what the future has in store.
In any case, it will change with the election of a new President or congress and that means there really is no plan. I know Rand thinks we are taking baby steps in the right direction and that could be true.
I think it is important not to mis-characterize what people mean when they say that we wont have a HSF program anymore. On the one hand they are right because we wont have a government operated system like the space shuttle to launch our people into space. On the other they are wrong because we will still be sending people into space.
Whether or not you agree with their position, being worried about relying on the Russians or the new space industry are legitimate concerns. The only way those concerns will disappear are successful launches.
Let’s hope its sooner than later.
Wodun, “anyone”? Really? I think there’s plenty of people who do have an idea, they’re just not getting in front of a microphone and telling the drooling public in really small words what the plan is. We’ve had over 90 hours of public consultation (http://bit.ly/aD88w3) and years of policy development to get to this point.. there’s been failures which simply cannot be ignored.
I donât think anyone in Obamaâs administration or NASA really knows what the ânewâ plan is.
Anybody that can read a piece of paper can know what a plan is. What they can’t know is what will actually happen. This is the problem with statist, they think a plan represents reality, when reality is quite happy to ignore them. “No plan survives the first minute of battle.” Others, knowing any administrations plans, will make plans of their own, which are also subject to the unfolding realities.
> Thomas Matula Says: July 3rd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
> I guess the folks at American Thinker werenât told what
> to think about space from the New Space spin machine
How dare they not drink the Kool-AID!!!
đ
The new space spin that âof course NASA will do the stuff beyond LEOâ, skips or the bit about how do they do that after canceling development group or project to get that beyond LEO stuff to LEO. And the fact its looking like the costs to LEO with commercial crew will be as much to much more then currently under shuttleâŚ. which probably bends both their budget and capabilities.
Really Iâm not sure how the space Obamanistas think NASA will ever get past LEO in some mythical distant time? It took them decades to redevelop the skills needed to be the prime on Constellation without tripping over themselves, and they still arenât that good at it. Obviously no ones talking about subcontracting that out to commercials at lower costs, given the pork already staking on Commercial Crew will make it more pricy then shuttle â which everyone said was so expensive it was trapping NASA in LEO.
> == Really though, for the 99.5% of Americans who donât live
> and breath space policy 24/7 its simple. American HSF equals
> NASA. No NASA rockets means we are abandoning HSF to
> foreign countries.===
Yup. Surveys find HSF is NASAâs âbrandâ. If they donât do that, and arenât working to do that, they arenât. Hubble and Mars Rovers are cute â but thatâs not seen as NASA.
>== And since the last Shuttle will be on Presidentâs Obamaâs watch
> he will get the blame, even though the decision was made by President Bush.
You want to drive the ship of state, you take over responsibility for everything done before — especially politically.
đ
To be fair though â Obama could have stopped the Shuttle shut down. Politically it would be the simplest, cost wise it would have been a wash. He could they shut down and reexamine Constellation vrs VSE and develop alternate strategies, etc. It would have saved money, ruffled few feathers, etc.
>== It will be interesting to see what stand the Tea Party
> folks will take on NASA and human spaceflight.
So far they (the few that commented) were against the Obama plan and the canceling of VSE â beyond that, they want more funding for NASA and space, and for mil related, for national security â spin-offs, jobs generators. Seem to consider it one of the things you really need gov to do.
NC Congressional Candidate Frank Hurley Interviewed About NASA at Tea Party Rally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be38mgiyeJ8&feature=related.
> Wodun Says: July 4th, 2010 at 12:51 am
> Too be fair, I donât think anyone in Obamaâs administration
> or NASA really knows what the ânewâ plan is. It is so vague
> that we are forced to project our own pro or anti biases in an
> effort to figure out what the future has in store. ==
Obama said that was one of his biggest political strengths. His ability to get folk to read into whatever he says, whatever they want to hear.
Course if you actually do something, that ability to cloud folks minds unravels.
;/
But the faithful will insist hes on their sides â even if the sides are contradictory.
Also theres a fear factor. A lot of NewSpace folks strongly supporting Obamaspace, but reading into it huge amounts not there, if pushed admit its not there ââbut off course the rest must be intended, otherwise itâs the end of NASA and space exploration, and thatâs unthinkable.â So support is a form of whistling through the graveyard.
>== On the one hand they are right because we wont
> have a government operated system like the space
> shuttle to launch our people into space. On the other
> they are wrong because we will still be sending people into space.
Thatâs kind of pushing it. NASA will lose the ability to fly people to or in space. They will be forced to rely on the Russians. That is a shocking change, and politically dynamite.
> ken anthony Says: July 4th, 2010 at 5:20 am
>== This is the problem with statist, they think a plan
> represents reality, when reality is quite happy to ignore
> them. âNo plan survives the first minute of battle.â ==
The flipside though is no stated plan, means no promise to do anything.
Think of it like a contract (or requirements spec. if your into engineering). Its not carved in stone, circumstances or renegotiation’s in good faith can alter the results. But if you have nothing on paper, you have nothing promised. Nothing is owed you ever.
And the fact its looking like the costs to LEO with commercial crew will be as much to much more then currently under shuttleâŚ. which probably bends both their budget and capabilities.
I’d love to see the numbers that support this assertion. Depending on how you calculated the costs, a single Shuttle mission cost anywhere from a few hundred million dollars to over a billion*. To keep things in perspective, SpaceX has spent to date about $500 million total to build the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 including all systems development (engines, tanks, avionics, test stands, etc.), launch infrastructure development, and the Dragon capsule. For roughly the same amount of money, NASA built a mobile servicing tower for Ares. For roughly another $500 million, they flew a single test flight of the Ares I-X, a rocket with virtually no actual Ares flight hardware. Given that, it’s rather hard to see how commercial space will be as expensive as the Shuttle.
*At the low end, some estimate it cost from $200-300 million to add a single additional Shuttle mission. However, this completely handwaves away the roughly $3 billion a year it cost to keep the “cast of thousands” needed to fly missions employed regardless of whether the Shuttle flew or not. At the high end, people simply divided NASA’s budget allocations for Shuttle operations by the number of flights to get the per mission cost. This is much closer to reality, IMO.
> Larry J Says: July 4th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
> == a single Shuttle mission cost anywhere from a few hundred million
> dollars to over a billion*. ===
GAO numbers are one extra shuttle mission costs $60 million
>== itâs rather hard to see how commercial space will be as expensive as the Shuttle.==
So far Obama’s proposed:
$6B in money to ‘facilitate” commercial crew from 2011-2015. Flights don’t start until 2015, and min cost per flight for EELVs are
$400M + the cost of whatever capsule is desired. Boeing and L/M expected
$4b-$6B to build a capsule to NASA standards. Also you need a “life boat” to replace Orion. Obama added a Orion life boat program – Which L/M says if NASA will take a hands off oversight policy (which is almost inconceivable) they could deliver that for about $5B to do it traditionally probably morelike $15B
So split the above over the 10 flights for commercial crew, plus the actually costs for KSC/JSC operations to support the flights, etc.
For comparison the total program costs per shuttle flights was $1.2B, Above could be from $1B-$3B per flight.
*>== the roughly $3 billion a year it cost to keep the âcast of thousandsâ
> needed to fly missions —
Yeah, but you have to keep them regardless of the ship. Its not that Shuttles that much of a turkey it needs that much hand holding. Its that all the crap NASA ads to its programs, and overhead to support its bases. The programs -any program – has to carry that.
Forgive my pessimism Trent đ
A large portion of the discontent people have with Obama’s plan is the totally inept way it was introduced and explained to the public.
It shouldn’t take the average joe to sit through 90 hours of testimony or reading industry related web sites on a daily basis to have a basic understanding of what will be going on. Especially when reading what the “experts” have to say can lead to many different opinions on what will be happening going forward.
Bad PR from NASA and the Obama administration. They should have close contacts with key reporters or editors at every major paper and cable news outlet. Miles Obrien might be gone from CNN but there are other anchors that are interested.
Flights donât start until 2015
Says who?
and min cost per flight for EELVs are $400M + the cost of whatever capsule is desired.
Where in the world did you come up with this number? Atlas prices are on the order of a hundred million, not four hundred million. You’re just making things up.
Boeing and L/M expected $4b-$6B to build a capsule to NASA standards.
That was a different capsule — a lunar capable one on a cost-plus contract. CST-100 is not going to cost anything like that. Neither does Dragon (which is essentially developed, other than another hundred million or so for escape system, and at most a billion for full flight test and certification).
Also you need a âlife boatâ to replace Orion. Obama added a Orion life boat program â Which L/M says if NASA will take a hands off oversight policy (which is almost inconceivable) they could deliver that for about $5B to do it traditionally probably morelike $15B
That was just a political bone to Colorado. It’s not going to survive, particularly with a price tag of $4.5B. It’s not needed — Dragon has long-duration capability. And you’re just making up numbers again out of thin air.
And youâre just making up numbers again out of thin air.
People do that a lot. Mostly on pro-SDLV side of the fence.
Kelly Starks Said: July 4th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“> == a single Shuttle mission cost anywhere from a few hundred million
> dollars to over a billion*. ===
GAO numbers are one extra shuttle mission costs $60 million”
Different blog, same math problem.
Kelly, you only get to add the $60M+ number if you have already spent $2.4B to do one or two flights. Do the calculations to see how much two flights of crew would cost. Unless you’re trying to do some sort of coupon deal:
“Buy 10 for $240M/seat, and we’ll throw in 5 more for just $12M/seat!”
ULA has stated that after spending $1.3B to upgrade Delta IV Heavy, they would charge $300M/flight to put Orion or whatever overweight capsule you want to fly into LEO. For Atlas V, $400M to upgrade it for commercial crew, then $130M/flight for the launcher. ULA does not provide capsules or payloads, so you have to provide your own. Still a bargain compared to the Shuttle.
As Rand already pointed out, commercial capsules will cost less that $1B to build, and since they are usable, will not cost much to fly. And SpaceX has stated that they will charge $20M/seat to LEO on Falcon 9/Dragon. They provide the capsule, you just buy the ticket.
You, my friend, should stop drinking your own Shuttle Kool-Aid.
GAO numbers are one extra shuttle mission costs $60 million
That number has no basis in reality.
But if you have nothing on paper, you have nothing promised.
Paperwork is the one thing government is expert at producing.
It may not be that these people don’t understand the new space policy, it’s just that they don’t want to, and this lack of understanding isn’t just because they’re addicted to the old Apollo model. Their opposition to the new policy could simply be a gut reaction against anything Obambi does. I’m not particularly fond of the man myself, but in this case at least, people have to be careful about throwing out the baby with the bath water.
http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/07/theres-no-business-like-show-business.html
> Rand Simberg Says: July 4th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
>> Flights donât start until 2015
> Says who?
NASA, bolden, folks like that.
> Where in the world did you come up with this number? Atlas prices
> are on the order of a hundred million, not four hundred million.
> Youâre just making things up.
Well until the last sentence it was a seriouis question.
>> Boeing and L/M expected $4b-$6B to build a capsule to NASA standards.
> That was a different capsule â a lunar capable one on a cost-plus contract.
No, that one was projected to cost $20B. $4b-$6B was just for the commercial crew. Orion life boat MIGHT be that cheap â if NASA changes there oversignt and management rules. [Donât hold your breath.]
> CST-100 is not going to cost anything like that. Neither does Dragon =
Dragons not in the running, neither probably is CST.
>> Also you need a âlife boatâ to replace Orion. Obama added a
>> Orion life boat program â Which L/M says if NASA will take a hands off oversight policy (which is almost inconceivable) they could deliver that for about $5B to do it traditionally probably morelike $15B
> That was just a political bone to Colorado. Itâs not going to
> survive, particularly with a price tag of $4.5B ==
Political bones are the most survivable things in budgets, especially with pricetages starting in the $5B range â and almost certainly going to $15B like full Orion was going to be..
>==. Itâs not needed â Dragon has long-duration capability. ==
Doesnât mater. No way in hell is congress going to take the political risk of using Dragon. 2 years ago I thought they had a shot â no more.
Also, Dragons to cheap.
>==And youâre just making up numbers again out of thin air.
Whining really doesnât suit you.
> Larry J Says: July 4th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
>> GAO numbers are one extra shuttle mission costs $60 million
> That number has no basis in reality.
People often say that about auditor results they donât like.
Course given NASA legendary bad book keeping its more open to debate, but the GAOâs the best avalible â and its hard to argue where extra margin costs would be?
> ken anthony Says: July 4th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
>> But if you have nothing on paper, you have nothing promised.
> Paperwork is the one thing government is expert at producing.
And vague, misleading public statements.
> Michael G. Gallagher Says: July 4th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
> It may not be that these people donât understand the new
> space policy, itâs just that they donât want to, and this lack
> of understanding isnât just because theyâre addicted to the
> old Apollo model. Their opposition to the new policy could
> simply be a gut reaction against anything Obambi does. ==
Your getting dangerously close to Janeane Garofalo territory.
Obama was deliberately being vague â its his normal and preferred way â and even the best experts in space industry, advocacy groups, and congress, canât nail down what Obamaâs plan means.
Orion life boat program … $15B
That’s nuts. For $15b I could put 4 to 6 spaceships (2k m^3) in orbit from off the shelf parts.
>> Flights donât start until 2015
> Says who?
NASA, bolden, folks like that.
Who at NASA? When did they say it?
[rest of unsupported and nonsensical assertions snipped]
Kelly Starks Said: July 4th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
The problem here Kelly, is that a number of people don’t believe your numbers because they can’t verify them. You could be right, but I know I like to validate information independently, and you rarely give any source details other than vague things like “NASA, bolden, folks like that.”. Or you say that program costs will go 3x unless “NASA changes there oversignt and management rules.”
I’m an old spreadsheet guy, and when I was putting together financial projections for my programs, everything had to add up correctly or I couldn’t have confidence that my spreadsheet models worked correctly (and thus my projections would be wrong). I also run the numbers for commercial space services and government space programs, and I feel I am pretty thorough.
When I find additional information that I can verify, I’ll use it to explain the choices we face. My goal is to find the way that we can do the most in space, at the least practical cost (not cheapest). I don’t own stock in any companies with ties to space, so I’m more capitalistic in my choices – may the best product win.
It’s one thing to have opinions. It’s another to claim facts over and over, and not support them, despite requests to do so – it looks like you are making things up.
People often say that about auditor results they donât like.
Course given NASA legendary bad book keeping its more open to debate, but the GAOâs the best avalible â and its hard to argue where extra margin costs would be?
I don’t buy it. The NASA website says $450 million per flight. I’d trust that a bit more than this alleged GAO number.
I might add that refurbishing/replacing the three SSMEs alone probably cost more than $60 million per flight.
I suspect the $60 M figure is the amount you save if you cancel a shuttle launch for which you have already bought the expendable components and done much of the planning/training. To actually add another shuttle launch would cost considerably more.
I have a quick question I will post here.
Where did these proposed changes come from? Lori Garver? I doubt it. She has spent her life within the space establishment working on policy. Charlie Bolden? Again, I doubt it. His career looks like a typical astronaut’s. Independent rebels don’t typically get far either in the astronaut corps or the Marine Corps.
It is fairly easy to show that NASA and its plans have major problems. Just read the Columbia accident report. It is not kind to the NASA establishment. The Augustine committee’s work of late has simply reinforced that view.
I will make a wild guess that the shift in policy is due to Elon Musk and other New Space people in California. That could explain why it was rolled out in less than neat terms.
I will make another comment. While I am not a Tea Partier, I know some people who are clearly in that camp. They are bright and much better informed than the typical American — but are also clearly not extremely space focused. They oppose the new plan. They continue to do so even after I have pointed them at this website. I suspect their attitudes could be due to general hostility to Obama and desire to not see America fall behind in an area in which the country was seen as the clear leader — by a long shot.
Chuck Divine Said: July 5th, 2010 at 5:39 am
“Where did these proposed changes come from?”
If you mean where did the ideas for the new space plan come from, then I would say the largest public source of them was the Augustine Commission. Or at least it provided justification when it intersected with already decided changes.
For the CxP cancellation, I would say that the Augustine Commission provided the most public validation of how expensive and underachieving it was, and the commission’s conclusions helped to soften the blow when it was proposed to be cancelled.
A number of the technology programs were probably coming from a number of people both internally and externally, finally freed of the budgetary & program confines of Griffin and CxP.
Going back to the Moon is a worthy goal, and building new space hardware is challenging and fun in it’s own rite, but Constellation was crowding out so many other good small technology programs, and it would have left us without much capability outside of the limited goals of program. If we want to do more in space, Constellation was vacuuming up too many resources.
To a certain degree, the same has been happening with the Shuttle and ISS, so with the ISS construction complete, the Shuttle program ending and CxP proposed to end, a lot of smaller initiatives could become visible again. We won’t have a large program to be the focus at NASA.
Is this good? I hope so, but some people clearly feel that without a large program and goal, that NASA will no longer be important. I don’t want to keep a large program around just for that reason, but time will tell how the new direction affects NASA.
> ken anthony Says: July 4th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
>> Orion life boat program ⌠$15B
> Thatâs nuts. For $15b I could put 4 to 6
> spaceships (2k m^3) in orbit from off the shelf parts.
Hey Ares-I/Orion was originally to cost $50B to develop. Even NASA thought they could replace Shuttle with a fully reusable new CATS craft of same capabilities for that. And of course commercially it could be done for a fraction of that.
Hell adjusting for inflation the projected development cost of Ares-I & V/Orion/Altair (just the development costs) were $100B, compared to inflation adjusted $130B for the whole space race!!
I think that staggering waste was what was really driving Congress nuts. They wanted the program â they just wanted NASA to stop screwing around!
>Rand Simberg Says: July 4th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
>>>> Flights donât start until 2015
>>> Says who?
>>NASA, bolden, folks like that.
> Who at NASA? When did they say it?
Rand donât you read the stuff you link to in your own blog?! The whole commercial crew program is to do crew transfer(maybe) after the Soyuz contracts run out in 2015, until they abandon station in 2020 and all defined NASA HSF missions end. 2 flights a year for crew transfer, 5 years..?
Your becoming a troll in your own blog!
> Karl Hallowell Says: July 5th, 2010 at 4:12 am
> I might add that refurbishing/replacing the three SSMEs alone probably cost more than $60 million per flight.
??
Since the P&W refit its morelike a couple million preflight.
Hell I think the engines only cost about $80? Yeah.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4379
Humm â not getting posted when I submit â perhaps in peaces?
Part 1
>Coastal Ron Says:
>
> The problem here Kelly, is that a number of people donât believe
> your numbers because they canât verify them. You could be
> right, but I know I like to validate information independently, and
> you rarely give any source details other than vague things like
> âNASA, bolden, folks like that.â. Or you say that program costs
> will go 3x unless âNASA changes there oversignt and management rules.â
A lot of what I say is from memory, or rules of thumb in industry (like NASA rules and processes driving costs way up.) or from current articles I presume someone posting here would have read. [Though Its strange Iâm getting attacked on normal aerospace rules of thumb by folks stating they are aerospace managers?]
Part 2
Bottom line though âObama did state support for $6B for KSC to âfacilitate commercial crewâ
http://www.space.com/news/commercial-spaceflight-nasa-budget-100623.html
Obama said Orion would be retained for crew life boat and L/M said if nASA relaxed its oversite a Orion-based crew rescue craft could be developed for cost for the international space station $4.5B- $5.5B
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100618-orion-lifeboat-cost.html
part 3
I canât find the GAO numbers estimating Orion was going to cost $20B, and Ares-I was to cost $30 but.
gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844 shows Ares I and Orion represent up to $49 billion
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/science/space/18nasa.html?_r=3&ref=us
shows Ares alone going up to $35. And Iâm tired of looking, so can assume thetotal for Orion is $15B rather then the $20B I remember.
Part 5
So, so far, if L/M gets its light NASA oversight program Obamaâs proposed $6B+$5B=$11B for commercial crew/Life boat. If L/M doesnât get that (likely) its $6B + $15B ? = $21B ish?
Divide by 10 flights and your at $1.1B to $2.1B so far, perflight. Compared to Shuttles $1.2B per flight currently discussed by the program manager. This does not include any operational costs for any CC flights from 2015-2020. Nor cost to develop or tailor a capsule for Commercial crew. But its already at or well above shuttles preflight costs.
>== Itâs one thing to have opinions. Itâs another to claim facts
> over and over, and not support them, despite requests to do so ==
How often do any of us give references? And Iâm quoting commonly listed numbers. And the damn boards often choke if I add URLS!!
Part4
So far we spent about $3.6B on Orion
flightglobal (dot) com/articles/2010/02/04/338000/obamas-commercial-spaceflight-incurs-political-wrath.html
, leaving about $16 if you take mu$20-B memory, or $11B from above.
Kelly Starks Said: July 5th, 2010 at 9:53 am
“A lot of what I say is from memory, or rules of thumb in industry (like NASA rules and processes driving costs way up.) or from current articles I presume someone posting here would have read. [Though Its strange Iâm getting attacked on normal aerospace rules of thumb by folks stating they are aerospace managers?]”
Your opinions are one thing, and though I may not agree with them, they are, in a sense, equivalent to my opinions.
The part that is getting you into trouble is when you assert “facts”. What seems like “rules of thumb” are not hard and fast rules in the government contracting world. You may have heard them around the office, but they don’t exist in the financial world of government contracting, or even commercial contracting.
For instance, I already provided you with a quote from Lockheed Martin that said:
âIf I were utterly unconstrained by funding requirements and asked to provide my best estimate of what would be a rational test program, itâs in the range of $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion,â Joanne Maguire, executive vice president of Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, said in a June 17 interview.â
You took that and applied your “rule of thumb” to say that if NASA was involved, it would increase the contract 3-4X. Don’t you think Lockheed Martin knows how to estimate government programs?
Other than your thumb, you give no other reasons why this would be, like additional testing, or redesigns, or even that NASA would want more PDR’s. It’s this kind of vagueness coupled with your huge numbers that makes it sound so unbelievable. It makes comparison to other proposals impossible, and if so, why should we waste any time with them?
Partly I respond to your posts because you write so many of them, and I feel that some balance needs to be supplied. But I would rather be talking about the technologies that are possible, instead of the ones that are not.
> Coastal Ron Says: July 5th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Kelly Starks Said: July 5th, 2010 at 9:53 am
>> âIf I were utterly unconstrained by funding requirements and asked
>> to provide my best estimate of what would be a rational test program,
>> itâs in the range of $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion,â Joanne Maguire,
>> executive vice president of Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space
>> Systems, said in a June 17 interview.â
> You took that and applied your ârule of thumbâ to say that if NASA was
> involved, it would increase the contract 3-4X. ==
That and the fact the current program for Orion was 3-4 times what the L/M rep said the cost would be if NASA took a hands off oversight role (which was part of the above quote you left out.
Given the program is now bugeted at $15B-$20B, and Joanne Maguire said with lower NASA oversight it could be done for about $5B.
> Other than your thumb, you give no other reasons why this would be, ==
Untrue.
Kelly Starks Said: July 5th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“That and the fact the current program for Orion was 3-4 times what the L/M rep said the cost would be if NASA took a hands off oversight role (which was part of the above quote you left out.”
I’ve read the article a number of times, and I don’t see any mention of added costs. The missing part you allude to says:
“Maguire said hitting that price range would require a âdepartureâ from the agencyâs standard supervisory role. âWeâre looking at, and really making some suggestions to NASA about how they might streamline this program,â she said. âPart of that is looking at the real value-add of some of the oversight that they were anticipating providing.â”
Nowhere does it say what $$ that would “save”. Where are you getting this “3-4 times” stuff?
“Given the program is now bugeted at $15B-$20B, and Joanne Maguire said with lower NASA oversight it could be done for about $5B.”
What budget? Whose budget?
As a point of reference, I looked up the original contract with Lockheed Martin, and they signed on to create Orion for $3,885,932,174. And by the way, that’s with all the overhead of dealing with NASA. You can read the contract and see all the stuff they have to do – it’s normal technical stuff, not unusual for a company like Lockheed Martin, who deals with the government for the majority of their revenue.
Getting back to your budget numbers. If Constellation is cancelled, then Orion goes away too, so there is nothing in the FY11 budget proposal for Orion.
For the Orion lifeboat, as I’ve already shown you previously, NASA has told Congress that they don’t know what the Orion lifeboat costs would be, and they don’t even know if they would use Orion. It does not exist in their budget proposal – I’ve read it.
Can you tell anyone where you’re getting your information from, because it’s not coming from NASA or Lockheed Martin? This is why I have a hard time believing your “facts”, because I can’t verify them.
Coastal Ron,
I can see I did not communicate clearly — at least to you.
Where did the proposed changes come from? I made a few brief comments that I don’t think they came from either Lori Garver or Charlie Bolden.
So. Who did propose them to the Obama team? Clearly not the aerospace establishment — at least in my view. The Democratic Party is very strong in California. SpaceX is there as well. Did Musk — through California connections — make the recommendations for change?
I do know about the intellectual heritage of the proposed changes.
Chuck Divine Said: July 5th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“I can see I did not communicate clearly â at least to you.”
Could have been on my end, but I wasn’t sure exactly what you meant by “Where did the proposed changes come from?” What changes specifically?
Not that I have any inside knowledge, and I’ve pretty much said all I can divine on how the proposed FY11 NASA budget was determined. Maybe someone else would comment if they had more details…