"Will we ever get to the moon again?"WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?What exactly do you mean by "we" ?
Apollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.It just was not sustainable. We will return to the moon and go beyond when we have a sustainable way of living and working in space. We are potentially seeing the very first steps now with the development of Commercial manned spaceflight. It will take a long time for commercial to start sending people beyond LEO, but you can be sure that when/where it does will be effectively permanent because someone will have found a profit to be made doing it.Government 'Flags and Footprints' are still valuable from a scientific and inspirational outlook. But we must accept that there is going to be a significant lag between a visit or two, and going to stay.
Quote from: Blackout on 10/19/2010 11:19 pmApollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.It just was not sustainable. We will return to the moon and go beyond when we have a sustainable way of living and working in space. We are potentially seeing the very first steps now with the development of Commercial manned spaceflight. It will take a long time for commercial to start sending people beyond LEO, but you can be sure that when/where it does will be effectively permanent because someone will have found a profit to be made doing it.Government 'Flags and Footprints' are still valuable from a scientific and inspirational outlook. But we must accept that there is going to be a significant lag between a visit or two, and going to stay.It all depends on your perspective. Sustainable? Had the Apollo program continued, do you think LESS money would have been spent than has been spent on the Shuttle and the ISS? Perhaps if the US had improved upon the Saturn V, we would be much further along now. How many billions have been spent on paper rockets? The last 30 years have been wasted, IMHO.
Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it. <snip>
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/20/2010 12:49 am"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was. It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles. What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year?
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/20/2010 12:49 am"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was. It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles. What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year? I'd take 2 lunar missions per annum over the 6 shuttle flights to LEO that we got annualy in the early 80's. And don't knock "flags and footprints" as I'm thinking you'll have to do a series of short duration missions, maybe quite a few, before you can even consider a continued presence similar to ISS...
Quote from: scotty125 on 10/20/2010 02:29 amQuote from: OV-106 on 10/20/2010 12:49 am"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was. It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles. What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year?A lot. Just examine the STS operations with the same argument: Once the orbiters were built, infrastructure (LC-39, VAB, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, how much would it really cost to fly the shuttle? More than everyone thought, due to fixed costs. (as debated hotly on this forum recently)And if you think STS fixed costs are expensive, I'm betting that Apollo fixed costs were *significantly* larger. (inflation adjusted)Otherwise, yes, the definition of "unsustainable" is probably not universally agreed upon in this context.
......And if you think STS fixed costs are expensive........
FinalFrontier, I was comparing Apollo vs STS costs. SLS was not mentioned.I have lots of opinions about your SLS projections, but I don't want to go off-topic.
In answer to your question not all that much. The entire NASA budget is set to be about 19 billion per year. The amount it would cost to launch a j130 or j246 rocket should cost quite a bit less than STS (about 883 mil per launch currently) because:Your not paying for STS refurbishingYou don't have to deal with other costs incurred with saftey related to STS and the shuttle's designYour only paying for two srbs, a tank, and 3-4 expendable engines. It should be noted that the first few flights will use stockpiled engines, so initally the engine cost is not in the picture.
... Sustainable? Had the Apollo program continued, do you think LESS money would have been spent than has been spent on the Shuttle and the ISS? Perhaps if the US had improved upon the Saturn V, we would be much further along now....
Good to see the discussion going on.. but I think people are missing a point: why is space so expensive?
But in its place we have the cost of an Orion which at the planned flight rates will cost about as much as a whole shuttle mission itself. Roughly $800 million.
That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.
Quote from: savuporo on 10/19/2010 11:51 pm"Will we ever get to the moon again?"WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?What exactly do you mean by "we" ?Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.
Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close...
Apollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.
Quote from: 93143 on 10/20/2010 06:45 amThat says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close... If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely.
We don't know how much Apollo would have cost to sustain, because no-one in power made a serious attempt to optimise costs. Rather than optimise an existing programme, NASA were more interested in engineering a new design (STS). Think greener grass. Only it isn't always...Without a very detailed analysis, you might as well be pulling Apollo continuation cost figures out of your arse. We simply cannot compare them properly.
Yes, it does.
... [we] were really just down to building the vehicles.
not all that much
... if the program were executed correctly ...
... other than beating the Russians ...
I blame it on the paperwork ...
Space is expensive because the knowledge envelope is so small in comparison to what we know of Earthly transport.
Humanity will eventually land men on the moon again...
If "we" means ...
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/20/2010 06:58 amQuote from: 93143 on 10/20/2010 06:45 amThat says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close... If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely. Don't worry, they won't relocate Orion from JSC to MSFC any time soon.
I've said this before on a previous thread, but since the same (damn) conversation has come up again...We don't know how much Apollo would have cost to sustain, because no-one in power made a serious attempt to optimise costs. Rather than optimise an existing programme, NASA were more interested in engineering a new design (STS). Think greener grass. Only it isn't always...Without a very detailed analysis, you might as well be pulling Apollo continuation cost figures out of your arse. We simply cannot compare them properly.
Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close... If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely.
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/20/2010 12:07 amQuote from: savuporo on 10/19/2010 11:51 pm"Will we ever get to the moon again?"WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?What exactly do you mean by "we" ?Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.Absolutely not. And depending on what is meant by "we" the answer varies wildly.If "we" means humanity, then yes, and the return to moon is already ongoing. If "we" means you and me, then the answer is no with a very high certainty.
I agree it could have been made cheaper, but making it significantly cheaper (and safer) would have required a significant amount of money up front, and that wasn't going to happen.
Quote from: Proponent on 10/20/2010 03:37 pmI agree it could have been made cheaper, but making it significantly cheaper (and safer) would have required a significant amount of money up front, and that wasn't going to happen.Do any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability?In many ways we are in a similar position now, with those arguing to maintain and evolve what we have winning this time.I know there were significant safety concerns on Apollo. For some reason I am thinking it was mostly on the LEM itself. I think that in an alternate history, people might have accepted a ramp-down in capability and missions, as opposed to a total scrapping of it, for a while to evolve the systems and make some changes.Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?
Quote from: Blackout on 10/20/2010 03:33 amBut in its place we have the cost of an Orion which at the planned flight rates will cost about as much as a whole shuttle mission itself. Roughly $800 million.The "planned flight rates" in this case are four flights in ten years.At four per year (two ISS, two lunar), Orion is about $200M per unit all-in. Sustaining costs are about $200M/year in the HEFT study, or maybe $300M/year for the crewed-ascent version. That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.
Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?
Quote from: orbitjunkie on 10/20/2010 03:54 pmRight now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.
In answer to the OP. Yes. But beauracrats do tend to be nitpickers and add a lot of paper. And pols tend not to be productive or reflective or cooperative. And "sustainability" is an emotional term which means whatever the poster wants it to mean. And, stop me if you heard this before, but Constellation is a Monolith I'd Like to Forget.
I would caution against 'the bureaucrats hold up everything' argument. The Soviet/Russian program was state-dominated but seems to have had little of NASA's paperwork focus. Also, I do think that for large-scale projects there is a clear need for central authority to bring it all together in a systems-engineering manner. Large companies also do this (and get criticized for their bureaucratic ways).
Quote from: savuporo on 10/20/2010 07:44 amQuote from: Lars_J on 10/20/2010 12:07 amQuote from: savuporo on 10/19/2010 11:51 pm"Will we ever get to the moon again?"WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?What exactly do you mean by "we" ?Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.Absolutely not. And depending on what is meant by "we" the answer varies wildly.If "we" means humanity, then yes, and the return to moon is already ongoing. If "we" means you and me, then the answer is no with a very high certainty.Gee, you never to told us you actually went to the moon! Let me try to explain it to you... What part of the question "Will we ever get to the moon again?" is hard to understand? Note the emphasis of *again*. So guess again... Do you think "we" in the original question meant A) humanity or B) "you and me"?
Quote from: avollhar on 10/20/2010 05:31 pmQuote from: orbitjunkie on 10/20/2010 03:54 pmRight now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.It's not valid and it is a ridiculous statement.
Do any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability?
I know there were significant safety concerns on Apollo.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/20/2010 05:35 pmQuote from: avollhar on 10/20/2010 05:31 pmQuote from: orbitjunkie on 10/20/2010 03:54 pmRight now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.It's not valid and it is a ridiculous statement. It is valid and the line of thinking of which you subscribe to is not only in the minority and wrong, the programs that exist with this thinking are about to become extinct. Constellation - ExtinctSTS - ExtinctOrion - Major OverhaulThese big (delusional) projects of grandeur are done. We simply cannot do these projects with the funding that will be given to NASA. Deal with it. NASA is a jobs program for politicians. But do not believe me.http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/09/more_huntsville_layoffs_loom_a.htmlShelby fought for CxP for jobs. Never mind that it was economically impossible. I think that is the hardest thing for government employees to understand. Washington is no longer going to send you blank checks.Between CxP and MSL, a lot of people don't think NASA can do it anymore. Add on the success of Orbital, SpaceX, and Biglow and now the movers and shakers are giving serious consideration to new space companies. But what do I know; I'm just a teacher and a fly on the wall giving inputs when asked for.VRRE327
...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement....
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/21/2010 02:50 am...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement....You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/21/2010 03:07 amQuote from: OV-106 on 10/21/2010 02:50 am...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement....You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)Well then, I guess that would include the likes of ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc. So where do you go now?
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/21/2010 03:32 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/21/2010 03:07 amQuote from: OV-106 on 10/21/2010 02:50 am...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement....You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)Well then, I guess that would include the likes of ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc. So where do you go now? I agree.
Quote from: orbitjunkie on 10/20/2010 03:54 pm1. Right now the biggest a large political issues are is maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. 2. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days?3. I think there is a very valid point. 4. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper...
1. Right now the biggest a large political issues are is maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. 2. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days?
There's a Palin joke in here, somewhere.
I would caution against 'the bureaucrats ... the program exists to support the bureaucracy
The "we" part is hard to understand.
We stand to potentially gain a lot of knowledge
If history shows humans don't ever go to the moon again it is safe to assume a nuclear war happened.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight...
The incoming Congress ... will hold [NASA] accountable like never before.
Quote from: orbitjunkie on 10/20/2010 03:54 pmDo any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability? Attached is a Bellcomm memo about a low-cost version of the S-IVB, which was proposed as the second stage of a low-cost intermediate launch vehicle (ILV) capable of orbiting roughly 100 klb. The memo briefly mentions using three launches for continuing manned lunar missions. It seems to me, though, that this ILV would have been too large to be very economical.Attached is a Boeing study tugs combined with Saturns. One section deals with trans-lunar trajectories.
Today, a year (and a few weeks) after the LCROSS impact, the science results have finally been released; I'll let the press release speak for itself:QuoteThe suite of LCROSS and LRO instruments determined as much as 20 percent of the material kicked up by the LCROSS impact was volatiles, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm(Posted in Policy, as this strengthens the lunar ISRU hand quite a bit.)
The suite of LCROSS and LRO instruments determined as much as 20 percent of the material kicked up by the LCROSS impact was volatiles, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
So obviously people were looking at less expensive and more efficient ways of operating the Apollo/Saturn system. What if these were allowed to come to maturity? My argument still stands. We would not have been flying the same J-mission Apollo for 25+ years. Is the Soyuz of today the same as the Soyuz of 1967? Aside from exterior moldline, no it's not.