grakenverb - 20/2/2007 4:55 PMWhat would a Saturn V have cost today had the program continued? Would a launch have cost less than a shuttle launch, given all the time it takes to refurbish a shuttle for launch? In other words, would we have been better off if we had just continued manufacturing Saturns?
Malderi - 21/2/2007 5:37 AMBut for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well.
CuddlyRocket - 20/2/2007 11:53 PMQuoteMalderi - 21/2/2007 5:37 AMBut for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well.No, it doesn't. The optimum strategy is a large launcher for the pieces of the station and a small launcher for the crew (which is what the Russians did, albeit by necessity). The ISS would have been built far quicker and for much less money using the Saturn V, IVB and Apollo than it has been using the STS. The only reason it has been built using the current methodology is to give the STS something to do.
nobodyofconsequence - 21/2/2007 3:30 AMThe irony with the Shuttle and the Russians was the rush to do Buran, because of the fear that Shuttle re-usability would put them at an economic disadvantage, and the irony for the US was the inability to keep a good design evolving. While the Shuttle is a magnificent design, both US and Russia spent themselves into a hole for a "reusable" system.
nobodyofconsequence - 21/2/2007 2:30 AMCould it be that the Shuttle was an attempt to do "too much, too quickly" at the time, where waiting off a decade would have made a difference?...Or was the flexibility of the Shuttle just too much of a compromise any way you slice it?...
JonSBerndt - 21/2/2007 12:05 PMISS has been built by shuttle because it's all we've got right now.
... I would agree with Malderi that shuttle actually does work pretty well for building a space station.
One launch takes up the crew and payload. Is it the safest way to go? Maybe not.
Are there better ways? There are probably several alternative histories which if we had had the foresight to follow one of those would have resulted in a better situation - or simply a different set of problems.
But, that doesn't in itself negate the value of the shuttle.
Given the goals we have at this time and the tools we have available, the shuttle is uniquely well-suited to carrying out a space station construction endeavor.
CuddlyRocket - 21/2/2007 7:27 AMQuoteJonSBerndt - 21/2/2007 12:05 PMISS has been built by shuttle because it's all we've got right now.I don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.
CuddlyRocket - 21/2/2007 7:27 AMI don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.
JonSBerndt - 21/2/2007 1:58 PMQuoteCuddlyRocket - 21/2/2007 7:27 AMI don't believe the ISS would have been built if it wasn't for the fact that without the need to use it (because the US had nothing else) the Shuttle would have no purpose.That's right, I forgot. We have a great example of that concept in Mir, which was of course built for Soyuz to have something to do. Not.
Neither is the shuttle concept of a reusable space transport inherently flawed.
The rest of your comments seem to me to be neither logical nor objective...
... don't have time to respond to sniping at individual lines of a comment.
It's obvious that there is a big difference in viewpoints.
Malderi - 21/2/2007 9:19 PMThe Shuttle works pretty well for what its doing...
... and most ISS delays are coming from Russia and from the Columbia accident.
... any spacecraft disaster is going to cause years of delays - no matter what.
joema - 21/2/2007 11:28 PMThe shuttle flew from 1981 to 1993 before the space station Alpha concept was even announced. The shuttle continued to fly until December 1998 (about 18 years) before the first shuttle mission to ISS happened. It's true that during shuttle design in the 1970s, the requirements emphasized servicing a possible future space station. However the shuttle obviously can exist without ISS, as it did for 12 years before the space station was ever announced, and for 18 years before the first ISS mission.
CuddlyRocket - 22/2/2007 7:49 AMAnd let's consider spaceflight 'disasters':1967 - Soyuz 1 (1 fatality)1971 - Soyuz 11 (3 fatalities)1976 - Challenger (7 fatalities)2003 - Columbia (7 fatalities)
sandrot - 22/2/2007 9:23 AMI invite to consider in the cost comparison that Saturns/Apollo put 3 humans in LEO (yeah on the Moon too), while STS has capability for 7. Payloads have a value not for their weight but for what they can do. So maybe considering payload value STS has an advantage over Saturn.
Malderi wrote: But for things that need a crew - like, say, building a space station - the shuttle works pretty well.CuddlyRocket replied: "No, it doesn't."
CuddlyRocket wrote: "Presumably you only have time for people who agree with you?"
CuddlyRocket - 22/2/2007 6:49 AMAnd let's consider spaceflight 'disasters':1967 - Soyuz 1 (1 fatality)1971 - Soyuz 11 (3 fatalities)1976 - Challenger (7 fatalities)2003 - Columbia (7 fatalities)So four people have lost their lives on the Soyuz, though none since 1971, whereas 14 have lost their lives on the Shuttle, all since 1971.
CFE - 20/2/2007 11:56 PMI want to say that the shuttle's cost per flight has been determined by dividing the yearly program cost over the number of flights in a given year. The $500 mil figure is optimistic, probably based on 1985 (9 missions.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the shuttle program will receive ~$4B for this fiscal year (plus another ~$3B for ISS.) Hopefully NASA will get four missions off this year; depending on how you keep the books, each of those missions will cost either $1B or $1.75B.
JonSBerndt - 22/2/2007 7:41 PMMalderi's statement is exactly true, in my opinion. He did not say it was the cheapest, nor the best, nor the safest. He said it works, "pretty well". This is true, because of the shuttle's unique capabilities - a combination of payload capacity, crew contingent, robotic arm, downmass, etc. capabilities.
Thorny - 22/2/2007 7:54 PMShuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.
nobodyofconsequence - 23/2/2007 12:36 AMSo if I understand correctly, there isn't anything to be gained from saving anything from Shuttle if/when a future need for RLV eclipses ELV (e.g. substantially higher launch rate, like 20+, which nobody can foresee). And if it were to happen, there's nothing from Shuttle to reuse because 1) crew safety, 2) economically crew+cargo works too infrequently, 3) special design features like large cross-range serve no purpose. Does that capture it?
...the similar one for Saturn was "too big, too costly, and not flexible enough for variable needs".
So the orbiter concept as a means to combine engine reuse, crew escape on abort, cargo to orbit, orbital operations, and return is a dead-end, regardless of implementation or launch rate?
...and Ares I/V is just a retreat to retain limited cost and safety...
CuddlyRocket - 23/2/2007 1:53 AMQuoteThorny - 22/2/2007 7:54 PMShuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.Yes, but the Soyuz accidents were in the first ten years of manned spaceflight,
The Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not.
I don't know whether the decision to scrap the Saturns and go for the STS was correct or not - it possibly was, given the political position at the time and people's beliefs as to what was achievable and relevant. But, I do think it was wrong in hindsight. Mistakes need to be recognised so they aren't repeated and the space progam can move on.
Quote...and Ares I/V is just a retreat to retain limited cost and safety... No. It's a return to what works, but at greater capability and lower cost. And it provides capabilities the STS cannot. It's a re-grouping to move forward.
I will be extremely (and pleasantly!) surprised if Orion is able to get through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident, which is what it will need to beat the shuttle's overall record. Although at the flight rates NASA projects, Orion will never even fly 58 times throughout its lifetime.
Given NASA's budgets in the early 70's, scrapping the Saturn V was definitely the correct decision, with or without hindsight. Saturn V capability simply couldn't be sustained on those budgets, period, and there was no way NASA was going to get budget increases in that environment. Scrapping the Saturn IB is more questionable. And attempting to jump from the X-15 directly to a fully operational space shuttle was definitely the wrong decision. A program of continued low-rate Apollo CSM/Saturn IB flights in parallel with a series of X-vehicles to demonstrate candidate technologies for fully-reusable, high-flight-rate vehicles might have been the best way to go in hindsight.
It's moving forward only in the sense that it enables flight beyond LEO once more. It is definitely a step backwards in terms of doing what really needs to be done: reducing costs by increasing reusability and flight rate.
Jorge - 23/2/2007 9:58 AMIt's moving forward only in the sense that it enables flight beyond LEO once more. It is definitely a step backwards in terms of doing what really needs to be done: reducing costs by increasing reusability and flight rate.-- JRF
Jim - 23/2/2007 10:42 AM2. Developing an RLV, when there are no flight rates to support it, is much like some cities putting in light rail systems without the ridership to support them. There first must be a need. Just like heavy lift, built it and they will come also doesn't apply to RLV's. Just because an RLV is available means that flight rates will increase.
CuddlyRocket - 23/2/2007 1:53 AMThe Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not...
CuddlyRocket - 23/2/2007 1:53 AMQuoteThorny - 22/2/2007 7:54 PMShuttle didn't start flying until 1981, so of course its accidents have all been since 1971!The statistics, however, show Soyuz and Shuttle nearly equal, 2 fatal accidents each. Shuttle: 2 out of 117. Soyuz: 2 out of 96. Both are around 2%. The 14 Shuttle fatalities and 4 Soyuz fatalities comparison is misleading due to Shuttle's much larger crew capacity, the fatality rates are about the same: Soyuz 1.7%, Shuttle 2.0%.Yes, but the Soyuz accidents were in the first ten years of manned spaceflight, and were launched using Soviet technology, procedures and attitudes etc. Columbia was just over 4 years ago, and is a product of the (justifiably, IMO) much-vaunted US technology etc. The Soyuz is an inherently safe design (so far as these things go). The Shuttle is not.
Malderi - 20/2/2007 10:19 PMChris Kraft said in his book that had Apollo flown 20, 30 times on the Saturn V, they surely would've lost at least one crew. Apollo 13 was damn close and Apollo 12 got struck by lightning, among other things. In anything that high-engineering you're going to have problems. Just because you launch something on bigger boosters doesn't negate that. The Shuttle works pretty well...
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007 1:33 PMThe political rational for RLV is simply to shift industry economics so that as you do more launches, it gets easier to budget for a greater launch rate because the numbers keep getting better. Thats all an RLV is supposed to be.Perhaps the issue is we've never gotten to a true RLV? Because RLV experience is little compared to ELV? Maybe they can't exist, because they'd need to be made of "unobtainium"? Whats the answer here?
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007 2:10 PM...The economic point of a RLV over a ELV is the ambition that reuse multiplies the effect of economies of scale with the effect of reduced remanufacturing. In theory, even if you have a costly part, as long as it is effectively reused, it doesn't affect the subsequent LV economics.
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007 2:10 PM...With ELV's, the intent is simple/cheap only....
Thorny - 24/2/2007 6:49 PMIn spaceflight, as in most endeavors, it is foolish to proclaim any design as "safe".
There have been two fatal accidents, two non-fatal failures, and several near-misses (one as recently as 2003) in the Soyuz program. Is Soyuz safer, or just luckier?
JonSBerndt - 23/2/2007 10:53 PMDid you mean: "Just because an RLV is available doesn't mean that flight rates will increase". [?]
On the surface, it's hard to comprehend why someone would invest money in developing a system for which there was little perceived current need. There are already plenty of launch vehicles fielded. On the other hand, if you can offer a service for far less than existing providers can, then you have something unique to offer. Also, I have read that there are potential payloads to be developed, but are not currently, because the launch prices are too high. So, there is potential for the market to grow in predictable and even unpredictable ways.
I'm not convinced that developing an RLV specifically is as important as simply developing cheaper access to space.
Ducati94 - 21/2/2007 7:40 AMThe Saturn V flew 13 times with a max for 4 a year. The Saturn IB flew 7 times. What would be the effect of a longer life span on the program?
nobodyofconsequence - 26/2/2007 4:43 PMDr. Douglas D. Osheroff , Nobel prize winner, on the CAIB, spoke at Stanford that he thought the biggest mistake was in losing the ability to still fly Saturn. He was practically breaking down about it as he spoke.
MKremer - 26/2/2007 5:21 PMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 26/2/2007 4:43 PMDr. Douglas D. Osheroff , Nobel prize winner, on the CAIB, spoke at Stanford that he thought the biggest mistake was in losing the ability to still fly Saturn. He was practically breaking down about it as he spoke.Not to be Vulcan about it, but why didn't he do his utmost to do the same thing for the existing administration or a Congressional committee at the time involved?
edkyle99 - 26/2/2007 4:33 PMI've always thought that Saturn IB could have been saved, but NASA chose to sacrifice it first in an effort to keep a dim hope alive for Saturn V/Apollo. That's how I've interpreted events at any rate. - Ed Kyle
nobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007 2:43 PM... But if you could do true RLV's, esp. simple and cheap, they'd beat ELV's hands down.
lmike - 27/2/2007 4:32 AMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 24/2/2007 2:43 PM... But if you could do true RLV's, esp. simple and cheap, they'd beat ELV's hands down.That's the thing, IMHO, even *that* is disputable as we have no data points. And as such - an assumption. We need a simple and cheap RLV compete against a simple and cheap ELV* in the market we *do have* to prove anything one way or another. (sorry for perhaps a truism) Thanks for an interesting discussion to all.*[edit] or even a 'partial' ELV/RLV, some things are cheaper saved, some are [cheaper] discarded -- I'm not a pundit.
Some questions:1-if program were continued Saturn-V could have been more cheaper For exemple with reusable first stage? 2-Shuttle-C block II Payload is same of Saturn-V? 3-Shuttle-C block II is more cheap of Saturn-V? In yours opinion the real mistake is not have constructed Shuttle-B and Shuttle-C block II? http://www.astronautix.com/hires/zsjucomp.jpg
carmelo - 27/2/2007 9:34 AM Saturn 1-B would have been put in orbit wet workshops for a AAP 1974-80s program.Maybe with Big-Gemini instead Apollo.
lmike - 27/2/2007 4:32 AM That's the thing, IMHO, even *that* is disputable as we have no data points.
JonSBerndt - 27/2/2007 6:34 AM I've seen people support RLVs using cute "sound-bytes" like "only children throw things away after using them once", or "we shouldn't make launch vehicles like disposable razors"
Ducati94 - 28/2/2007 2:02 PMWith the current materials technology RLVs are super advanced and have thin margins or be extremely hard... to survive the reentry environment and have the capability to deliver a usable payload.
With NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature. Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.htmlQuoteWith NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature. Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch.
Quote from: bolun on 04/11/2011 08:08 pmhttp://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110411-fromwires-total-tab-shuttle-program.htmlQuoteWith NASA's space shuttle program winding down, Roger Pielke Jr. and Radford Byerly have tallied its lifetime costs in a letter to the journal Nature. Their findings, brought to us by The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy blog, show: The United States spent more than $192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the program from 1971 to 2010, or about $1.5 billion per launch. Holy thread necromancy, Batman!Using this particular accounting method will do Saturn V no favors... at $150 billion in today's dollars, and 27 total Saturn I/IB/V launches in the Apollo program (Skylab and ASTP are not included in the $150B figure), the average cost per Saturn launch would be $5.55 billion. Certainly the Saturn V would be more than that, I/IB less.
How would you address the demand side of the question?
1.Not sure of a general answer to this question, but the tactic SpaceX is using is to first have a launcher affordable enough to fill the niche left empty by the loss of the Delta II; this market when combined with ISS (and hopefully Bigelow) supply and personnel flights will provide a steady source of business for the Falcon 9.2.The second prong of their business tactic is to undercut and cannibalize the world launch market. That's the strategy behind Falcon Heavy; at $2.2k/kg they come in at half the price of the cheapest launch service in the market today while still being able to tout American expertise, technology and quality.A.Going forward, there are some lessons we need to learn not to repeat the worst of these systems:1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.
Quote from: jimgagnon on 04/11/2011 09:03 pm1.Not sure of a general answer to this question, but the tactic SpaceX is using is to first have a launcher affordable enough to fill the niche left empty by the loss of the Delta II; this market when combined with ISS (and hopefully Bigelow) supply and personnel flights will provide a steady source of business for the Falcon 9.2.The second prong of their business tactic is to undercut and cannibalize the world launch market. That's the strategy behind Falcon Heavy; at $2.2k/kg they come in at half the price of the cheapest launch service in the market today while still being able to tout American expertise, technology and quality.A.Going forward, there are some lessons we need to learn not to repeat the worst of these systems:1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.1. They have yet to get any missions in this class2. They haven't come in at that price yetA.1. Not true, see the subsidized operations of ESA, RSA and China.2. Where is the proof? Spacex is only getting niche contracts.3. Not proven
1) Launch to LEO is now a commodity on the world market, and the US needs to treat it as such; governments providing commodity services has always been an expensive mistake,2) Use of defense contractors for space systems dramatically increases costs over open market solutions,3) Vertically integrated launcher construction is not only possible but turns out to be the most affordable means of building and operating these vehicles.
SpaceX and roscosmos ect have nothing to do with the costs of Saturn vs space shuttle