How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?
Progress does not mean stopping everything for some unspecified amount of time and then having someone, somewhere at some point in the future arbitrarily declaring that the "game-changing technologies" are now here and that all of the sudden we just move in mass exodus into the solar system.
Lonestar1, I wished I lived in your world as I rather consider the reality will be no BEO HSF by NASA for decades to come. All I see is Commercial LEO Taxis to ISS and steadily reducing NASA budgets.
Quote from: Dasun on 03/11/2010 05:25 amLonestar1, I wished I lived in your world as I rather consider the reality will be no BEO HSF by NASA for decades to come. All I see is Commercial LEO Taxis to ISS and steadily reducing NASA budgets.Welcome to reality. Isn't that what Analyst and others here (and sometimes even me) have been saying for ages?Sucks to always be right...
A Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle is capable of lowering costs to LEO to below $3,000 per kilogram. And those numbers are all based on the existing 4-seg costs, the existing SSME costs, existing ET costs (modified) and existing launch operations costs, so they are extremely high-confidence costing figures from an active, existing, program
There is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level.
Another potential saving would be to commercialize the SD-HLV solution, turning the whole operation over to the contractors and reducing NASA oversight considerably. If operated in a very similar "hands off" milestone-based manner to CRS and CCDev, the cost savings for an SD-HLV could be as much as 40% off the figure listed above. That's $1,800 per kg to LEO. That would certainly qualify as "game changing" in my book.
Quote from: robertross on 03/10/2010 11:38 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 03/10/2010 11:31 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 10:54 pmIf you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.AND it's a convenient way of 're-branding' an existing issue so that's passes.Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule... (we save $312M) !Darn logic!
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/10/2010 11:31 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 10:54 pmIf you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.AND it's a convenient way of 're-branding' an existing issue so that's passes.Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule... (we save $312M) !
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 10:54 pmIf you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.
If you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.
Lonestar1 how is a SD HLV not game changing enough for you?
We could have built the ISS for a fraction of what was spent using space shuttles if we had it 15 years ago.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/10/2010 11:48 pmQuote from: robertross on 03/10/2010 11:38 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 03/10/2010 11:31 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 10:54 pmIf you are accelerating an already-planned milestone, you are paying the customer to deliver sooner than originally negotiated. Thus, you are changing the requirements.Well since the original milestone targets have already come and gone, that's somewhat a mute point.AND it's a convenient way of 're-branding' an existing issue so that's passes.Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule... (we save $312M) !Darn logic! The logic is to spend an additional $2.4B a year to save $312M?(Again, I support a short shuttle extension, but primarily in the interest of mitigating the impact on the workforce)
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/11/2010 03:23 amThe answer to your question is in the question itself. How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?By having multiple players working the field, each with its own set of innovations and drives, you can accomplish far more than a single player, even if that player is the Federal government. Also, as private industry and capitalism works by different rules than the Feds, you have more varied mechanisms for making things happen; eg: Federal government could have never delivered Iridium for $25M, yet free enterprise did.Any legislation that works to undermine this new commercial process is simply working to preserve the status quo of $10K/kg launch costs; I believe that to be LoneStar1's concern. The European's have shown us that competition in the launch market works: they match the going rate of $4K/kg despite having high labor costs, socialized health care, etc, etc. We can do it as well.Quote from: OV-106 on 03/11/2010 03:23 amFurthermore, to use your examples above, does the computer or aviation industries stop doing what they were doing for an unspecified amount of time to go off and chase something new or do they follow on evolutionary approach and build on what has come before it and use that experience?Actually, there are several examples of game-changing technology that have transformed entire industries: the transistor and the jet engine are an excellent examples. A priori these technological innovations are impossible to predict; what is important is to foster an environment where money and resources are devoted to the search for them -- exactly the opposite of what the "PoR" was doing with its emphasis on tried and true, and its continual budget raids.
The answer to your question is in the question itself. How do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?
Furthermore, to use your examples above, does the computer or aviation industries stop doing what they were doing for an unspecified amount of time to go off and chase something new or do they follow on evolutionary approach and build on what has come before it and use that experience?
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/11/2010 03:23 amHow do you honestly expect us to get from where we are today to what you just described above, in less time than the "POR", yet for less money?By doing things more cost-effectively, of course. Which isn't very hard to do, when the POR called for spending tens of billions of dollars to replace the Space Shuttle with a system that was more expensive.Quote from: OV-106 on 03/11/2010 03:23 amProgress does not mean stopping everything for some unspecified amount of time and then having someone, somewhere at some point in the future arbitrarily declaring that the "game-changing technologies" are now here and that all of the sudden we just move in mass exodus into the solar system.No, that wouldn't be progress -- that would be the Plan of Record. NASA was going to shut down the Space Shuttle, drop the International Space Station into the ocean, just so it could send its few remaining astronauts to the Moon in a giant space capsule. Except there was no game-changing technology. Under General Bolden's plan, NASA will continue to operate the International Space Station, enhance its abilities with new research facilities like the long-planned animal centrifuge, and possibly expand the station with new inflatible modules. Commercial space transportation providers will shorten the gap in American spaceflight to ISS, and competition from multiple companies will help keep costs down. NASA will work with private companies to develop orbital propellant depots that will reduce or eliminate the need for new, expensive heavy lift vehicles for missions to the inner solar system. Companies like SpaceX, Boeing, and Bigelow will be developing capsules and modules that will be readily adaptable to interplanetary missions. Centennial Challenges will be encouraging the development of new companies and new ideas. Commercial ReUsable Suborbital Research will make space research available to scientists who could never afford it before. NASA's Near Earth Asteroid programs will seek out and develop methods of deflecting asteroid threats, thus avoiding possible global exctinction events. Does that not seem worth doing?
By having multiple players working the field, each with its own set of innovations and drives, you can accomplish far more than a single player, even if that player is the Federal government. Also, as private industry and capitalism works by different rules than the Feds, you have more varied mechanisms for making things happen; eg: Federal government could have never delivered Iridium for $25M, yet free enterprise did.
Why is it not very hard to do? Give me specifics. Define "more cost effective". Seems fairly subjective to me.
Define game-changing technology.
You are a program manager and it your job to go make "game-changing" technology. Where do you start? What are your objectives? How long will it take before you have results? What will your needed budget profile be for how many years in order to make it "game-changing"? Once it is invented, how long will you require to validate it, transfer it to another entity so that it can be used in an operational state?
For the rest of that paragraph, where exactly do you get all of that? There is no documentation except the budget, which is a proprosal from the Administration and uses only some of what you mention above as "possible examples". It specifically states that. There are no contracts for any of this and therefore you cannot say any of that will happen.
Quote from: kraisee on 03/11/2010 03:25 amThere is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level. You're obviously not familar with the full range of plans that are out there. Falcon 9 is not the only concept, and it's certainly not the cheapest. Capsules and expendable rockets are not the only way to get into space. They're a stop-gap at best, a dead-end at worst.
Some additional comments from John Shannon in the SpacePolitics blog;http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/10/hanging-on-to-the-shuttle/Those are in the comments section to the blog. Posts are linked directly, but you can search for "John Shannon wrote @ March 10th, 2010 at 11:04 pm"
Quote from: Lonestar1 on 03/11/2010 06:38 amQuote from: kraisee on 03/11/2010 03:25 amThere is absolutely nothing in the US now, or currently planned (including Falcon-9 and Falcon-9 Heavy), which even hopes to get launch costs down below that level. You're obviously not familar with the full range of plans that are out there. Falcon 9 is not the only concept, and it's certainly not the cheapest. Capsules and expendable rockets are not the only way to get into space. They're a stop-gap at best, a dead-end at worst. Is this hush-hush, or should I have heard of this project?How far along are they?
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/10/2010 11:48 pmQuote from: robertross on 03/10/2010 11:38 pmOf course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule... (we save $312M) !Darn logic! The logic is to spend an additional $2.4B a year to save $312M?(Again, I support a short shuttle extension, but primarily in the interest of mitigating the impact on the workforce)
Quote from: robertross on 03/10/2010 11:38 pmOf course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule... (we save $312M) !Darn logic!
Of course with a shuttle extension we don't need an accelerated cargo schedule... (we save $312M) !
phantom,I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's. The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:Current Manifest:ET-135 = STS-131ET-136 = STS-132ET-137 = STS-134ET-138 = STS-133ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.Ross.