Author Topic: NASA's $500 million launcher missing just one thing: the rocket it was made for  (Read 16272 times)

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/27/AR2010032702810.html

By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 28, 2010

CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA. -- Anyone need a $500 million, 355-foot steel tower for launching rockets into space?

There's one available at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Brand new, never been used.

Offline daver

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 951
This is what you get when you ignore the laws of economics.   

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
Maybe the Chinese could buy it?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
For scrap.

Analyst

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
Maybe the Chinese could buy it?

Or more accurately, maybe the Chinese could rent it until we're able to get our priorities straightened out.  And by that I mean scrapping the Obama non-plan and fund a viable alternative to the PoR.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Well since KSC is now the world's leading commercial space port, we could just rent the whole Pad 39 area out to the Chinese.

Offline ZANL188

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Put a Apollo / Saturn V mockup on it and haul it to the visitor center.... A regular monument to failed and short sighted space policy....

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Maybe the Chinese could buy it?

Or more accurately, maybe the Chinese could rent it until we're able to get our priorities straightened out.  And by that I mean scrapping the Obama non-plan and fund a viable alternative to the PoR.

Agreed. Although, I have an idea for what may be possible (not really sure about this but here it goes): So correct me if this is not possible (person or person in the know) but maybe we could do this: Assuming that a SDHLV was chosen, the existing pad 39 would need some modifications, primarily to allow for a crew acces to the top of a J 130 style rocket. This would mean adding some kind of structure to the top of the fixed service structure to allow for crew access to that level. Perhaps the top parts of the ares 1 mlp could be removed, retrofitted, and stuck to the top of the 39 A fixed service structure, thus saving metal and money. Thoughts?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Robson68

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
ebay it!, look great in my garden

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Put a Apollo / Saturn V mockup on it and haul it to the visitor center.... A regular monument to failed and short sighted space policy....

Not bad...use it to support a rocket for the visitor's center.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Why the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9

Offline scotty125

  • Museum Docent/Leicester City Fan
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 16
Fab a copy of the "Milk Stool" and mount the S1B from the Rocket garden.  It wouldn't be 100% accurate, but they had aTitan II with 2 first stages for gosh sakes! :)
"He who will not, when he may, when he should, he shall have nay."
TV Commercial - Gulf Oil during Apollo Landings

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Did it really cost $500million? I know CxP spending money, throwing it away literally, but just for the MLP and tower, without any equipments. Sounds wrong.

Analyst

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
"CONTRACT RELEASE : C08-025  NASA Awards Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher   
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program...
The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised. "
« Last Edit: 03/28/2010 07:51 pm by renclod »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised.

Just out of curiosity and confusion, does that mean what I think it means? Even the tower is over budget!
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Even $263 million seems ridiculously overpriced.

And why did it have to be built 5 or so years before its first use? So we could pay maintenance fees on it the whole time?

What exactly was the thinking there?

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
And why did it have to be built 5 or so years before its first use? So we could pay maintenance fees on it the whole time?

What exactly was the thinking there?

I think Ares I had an initial completion date of 2011 and that's why.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
It is $263 mils for *two* Ares I mobile launchers.
I guess the ML was required even for the I-Y test flight (was 2013 IIRC).

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Two towers for $263 million and now there's one for $500 million? WTF  :o
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
It's like when americans convert from lb to kg, see Gen.Bolden in Israel, two MLs for ~250 or two MLs at ~250 each, whatever...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
"CONTRACT RELEASE : C08-025  NASA Awards Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher   
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program...
The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised. "


That is for the basic structure and none of the utilities to support a launch vehicle.  No umbilical arms, no propellant lines, no ECS ducts, no data or comm lines.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
So is it safe to say that the $500 million figure in the headline is misleading?
Scott

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
No, when all those things are added, the cost would be around 500 million

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
So is it safe to say that the $500 million figure in the headline is misleading?

Yes $500 million is very misleading.  Like Jim said the 260 million figure was for two ML's without being outfitted.

I walked down the ML two weeks ago and although very impressive it does not have any launch vehicle related hardware installed.

The phase 2 work for arms, ground equipment, piping, HVAC etc was not awarded.  So what is there is what you get and it's far short of $500 million. 

Why let facts get in the way of a bad story.  No wonder the print media industry is in the crapper.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 1955
  • Likes Given: 0
If, and that is a very big if, the new ML is completed and completly fitted out, the price tag will end up in the $300 to $350 million range. That does NOT include design costs.
It also does NOT include modification work to LC39B.
When all the costs are added up, the cost to have LC39B and the new ML ready to go will be in the $500 million range.
Then there are the modifications to the VAB, add another $200 million.
Nothing is cheap when you are dealing with NASA.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
"CONTRACT RELEASE : C08-025  NASA Awards Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher   
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program...
The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised. "


That is for the basic structure and none of the utilities to support a launch vehicle.  No umbilical arms, no propellant lines, no ECS ducts, no data or comm lines.

Use it for a cell phone tower? or a realistic Space Needle visitors center? See what's left to the far south?
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
They should go ahead and build the roller coaster escape system, it can be the newest theme park ride at the visitors center.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
They should go ahead and build the roller coaster escape system, it can be the newest theme park ride at the visitors center.

That part always seemed strange to me. Since the whole tower was movable, the end to that crew escape 'ride' would have to be anchored on a fixed tower, just as tall as this tower, with some kind of draw bridge connecting them at the top. Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...
« Last Edit: 03/29/2010 04:23 am by Lars_J »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Put a Apollo / Saturn V mockup on it and haul it to the visitor center.... A regular monument to failed and short sighted space policy....
Altering it to look like a Saturn launch tower and put one of the Saturn rockets on display on it would probably be the best use for it.

It was made to work with just Ares I a rocket that probably will never be built.
 ULA and Spacex would not want it as it would take too much work to change it to work with their LVs.

Spacex even tore down the old Titian Mobile Service Structure at LC-40 and built their own vs converting the existing tower.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2010 05:21 am by Patchouli »

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Ad Astra
  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Harrisburg, PA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...

And THAT, my friend, is the problem with the entire Ares I vehicle.  Would it work? Sure.  Could it work? Sure.  Was it the best design possible?  No way!  The design for Ares I was impractical [in my humble opinion] who's real purpose was to keep ATK and Lockheed Martin in business.  There was no real innovation in the design, but it featured plenty of needless engineering to make the stupid, functional.

And people wonder why the program was canceled.

I know this comment will piss off the defenders of Ares I, but this is my opinion. 
"Well, as you can see, we have another problem."
 - James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise

Offline Capt. Nemo

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • USS Nautilus
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I sincerely doubt that either ATK or Lockheed-Martin would have gone out of business if they didn't have the Ares 1 program to work on.
"You can't declare yourself the boss of a chicken farm when you've only got one egg."  - Chinese saying

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Maybe we should clean sheet a new HLV such that it fits this tower.  Hey, it would save $500 million right off the bat, eh?  And we'd be taking one of the best parts (hee hee) of cancelled Constellation and using it within the context of the president's proposed budget, just like Bolden has been saying we should do.   ;)
Scott

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
Quote
Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...

And THAT, my friend, is the problem with the entire Ares I vehicle.  Would it work? Sure.  Could it work? Sure.  Was it the best design possible?  No way!  The design for Ares I was impractical [in my humble opinion] who's real purpose was to keep ATK and Lockheed Martin in business.  There was no real innovation in the design, but it featured plenty of needless engineering to make the stupid, functional. 

OK, prove it! Let's see the data to support your statement.

Oh, it's only your opinion. Sorry I missed that.

Just accuse tons of honorable people it was a payola payoff. Lots of people have made that accusation, and it sure makes Ares look like a bad deal. But saying it, and proving it are two different things. 

And that should make anyone upset, pro-Ares or not.


 

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...

And THAT, my friend, is the problem with the entire Ares I vehicle.  Would it work? Sure.  Could it work? Sure.  Was it the best design possible?  No way!  The design for Ares I was impractical [in my humble opinion] who's real purpose was to keep ATK and Lockheed Martin in business.  There was no real innovation in the design, but it featured plenty of needless engineering to make the stupid, functional. 

OK, prove it! Let's see the data to support your statement.

Oh, it's only your opinion. Sorry I missed that.

Just accuse tons of honorable people it was a payola payoff. Lots of people have made that accusation, and it sure makes Ares look like a bad deal. But saying it, and proving it are two different things. 

And that should make anyone upset, pro-Ares or not.


 

The unaddressed issue here is whether or not "quod erat demonstrandum" constitutes "proof." So the question for you is whether you will accept circumstantial evidence, or whether you demand "documents that will stand up in court." Of course, more than one man has gone to the electric chair on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Offline HIPAR

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • NE Pa (USA)
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Certainly the tower was built in accordance with a complex schedule requiring parallel acquisition of numerous subsystems. Until it's directed otherwise, the tower is an integral component of a complex system.

As for pricing, estimate the man-hours for design, man-hours for construction, inspections, costs of compliance with government regulations (that have nothing to do with the actual work) and the cost of materials.  Double those for administrative overhead/G&A.  And yes, allow the contractor at least 10% profit .. I know that idea is currently not in vogue.

This is the government, not just NASA.

Notwithstanding all the politics and conspiracy theories, I believe the tower was built in good faith by honest people. 

---  CHAS
« Last Edit: 03/29/2010 02:24 pm by HIPAR »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Cough...........<wispers> Use the upper half of ares 1 tower for an extension in heigt of pad 39 FSS....cough......could be useful for HLV if one gets built..........cough......otherwise make it a lawn ornament..........cough............ :P
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Ares1 mlp: most expensive yet coolest looking lawn gnome ever.
We will call it: Pork gnome. :D
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Why the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.

Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built.  Why the rush?  Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?

It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done.  We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?!  Oh the humanity!

Reminds me of the joke about the difference between the AF and the Marines.  When the Marines are told to build an air base, they take the money and put in good runways, hangars, maintenance shops, a security perimeter, etc.  When they run out of money they have to go back to Congress to beg for a little cash for a crappy barracks and a tiny mess hall.  When the AF is told to build a base, they go build the swimming pool and the Golf course, and the officer's club, and all the nice barracks, and go back to Congress to beg for money for the actual runways, hangars, and security perimeter.....

~Jon
« Last Edit: 03/29/2010 03:11 pm by jongoff »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Why the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.

Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built.  Why the rush?  Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?

It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done.  We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?!  Oh the humanity!


Maybe it was for the following reasons:

1.  IOC was still being carried as 2015, with some hopes of still being 2013 (take that as you will but there was internal documentation saying that)

2.  GSE needed to be designed still in some regards, procured/built and installed.  This also includes data lines, swing arms, purge systems, etc

3.  All this GSE needed to be functionally tested, validated, etc after installation.

4.  ICD's probably still needed to be verified.

5.  Integrated testing of the stack/pad was also probably planned.

While clearly some believe they always know better, these were most likely some of the reasons.  Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. 

It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too. 
« Last Edit: 03/29/2010 06:17 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 1591
  • Likes Given: 334
Why the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.

Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built.  Why the rush?  Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?

It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done.  We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?!  Oh the humanity!


Maybe it was for the following reasons:

1.  IOC was still being carried as 2015, with some hopes of still being 2013 (take that as you will but there was internal documentation saying that)

2.  GSE needed to be designed still in some regards, procured/built and installed.  This also includes data lines, swing arms, purge systems, etc

3.  All this GSE needed to be functionally tested, validated, etc after installation.

4.  ICD's probably still needed to be verified.

5.  Integrated testing of the stack/pad was also probably planned.

While clearly some believe they always know better, these were most likely some of the reasons.  Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. 

It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too. 

OV-106, you are correct.  It was going to take a few years to outfit the ML.  Helium dewers, Tilt Up Umbilical Arms, propellent lines, etc. all had to be installed and tested.  Plus NASA KSC has to use the money when they get it even if part of the system (the rocket) is behind schedule.  It also didn't help that when NASA paid for the ML construction a couple of years ago the price of steel was sky high. 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Why the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.

Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built.  Why the rush?  Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?

It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done.  We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?!  Oh the humanity!


Maybe it was for the following reasons:

1.  IOC was still being carried as 2015, with some hopes of still being 2013 (take that as you will but there was internal documentation saying that)

2.  GSE needed to be designed still in some regards, procured/built and installed.  This also includes data lines, swing arms, purge systems, etc

3.  All this GSE needed to be functionally tested, validated, etc after installation.

4.  ICD's probably still needed to be verified.

5.  Integrated testing of the stack/pad was also probably planned.

While clearly some believe they always know better, these were most likely some of the reasons.  Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. 

It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too. 

OV-106, you are correct.  It was going to take a few years to outfit the ML.  Helium dewers, Tilt Up Umbilical Arms, propellent lines, etc. all had to be installed and tested.  Plus NASA KSC has to use the money when they get it even if part of the system (the rocket) is behind schedule.  It also didn't help that when NASA paid for the ML construction a couple of years ago the price of steel was sky high. 

What I find funny is how many people are bemoaning the cost, the lack of a rocket for it, when how it is built right now is actually at the most useful state for alternative lift options.  Think on it for a moment, a milkstool with a Falcon 9, Atlas V or Delta IV on top of it.  Since it has not had it's critical systems installed, it is just a skeleton ready for whatever we so choose to mount on it.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Think on it for a moment, a milkstool with a Falcon 9, Atlas V or Delta IV on top of it.  Since it has not had it's critical systems installed, it is just a skeleton ready for whatever we so choose to mount on it.

See all the other threads about the total chaos surrounding the "whatever".
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Since it has not had it's critical systems installed, it is just a skeleton ready for whatever we so choose to mount on it.

According to the article SpaceX is not interested in using it. I'm not sure about the others, but they probably aren't either.

See all the other threads about the total chaos surrounding the "whatever".

?
« Last Edit: 03/29/2010 06:57 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
ebay it!, look great in my garden

Does clematis grow that hi?

And FinalFrontier...all that coughing.  Are you sick?  Then stay away from the thread, lest you pass on your cold to someone else...

Seriously, can his tower be used by a different rocket?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

See all the other threads about the total chaos surrounding the "whatever".

?

Well, there is no plan for anything....

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20894.msg565424#msg565424

Ah I see what you mean. The maturity of "commercial". It's not really for this thread though.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline johng

  • Johnny Space Commander
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Deland, FL
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
ebay it!, look great in my garden

Does clematis grow that hi?

And FinalFrontier...all that coughing.  Are you sick?  Then stay away from the thread, lest you pass on your cold to someone else...

Seriously, can his tower be used by a different rocket?

Look around here for a Delta IV plan in pdf format. I read it. I think it was written by lockheed. It included the use of the OPFs as horizontal processing for the boosters, which then get towed to the VAB for stacking on the adapted MLP/mobile launcher. Definitely looked like it could make use of this thing. No milkstool involved.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

Look around here for a Delta IV plan in pdf format. I read it. I think it was written by lockheed. It included the use of the OPFs as horizontal processing for the boosters, which then get towed to the VAB for stacking on the adapted MLP/mobile launcher. Definitely looked like it could make use of this thing. No milkstool involved.

Where is such a document?  Never have seen the OPF's used for Delta.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

OV-106, you are correct.  It was going to take a few years to outfit the ML.  Helium dewers, Tilt Up Umbilical Arms, propellent lines, etc. all had to be installed and tested.  Plus NASA KSC has to use the money when they get it even if part of the system (the rocket) is behind schedule.  It also didn't help that when NASA paid for the ML construction a couple of years ago the price of steel was sky high


A little OT, but just a little plug when people consider historical inflation figures in their budget forecasts.

I still feel we are going to get hard in the 'not too distant' future. Be it steel, aluminum...but more importantly energy.

Sorry for the OT...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too. 

No stones coming from this direction today.  After writing that, I read some more and saw that this was a) mostly just the structure, not the whole pad, b) that the $500M was probably closer to the total cost for a finished pad if they kept working on it.  It's still a lot of money, but not so ridiculous in hind-sight.

~Jon

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
...  Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. 

It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too. 

Clearly there's a lot of extra work to be done, but:

<stone>

Surely it's actually better to spread the money over as few years as possible? A project such as the MLP would have relatively fixed management & other annual overheads. Say they amount to $50m pa:

Over a 3 year project, that's $150m.
Over a 10 year project, that's $500m. (plus inflation)

Seems to me that part of the reason for Constellation's enormous cost, is that it just runs for too long. And every delay just adds to that.

I suggest that running 9 projects for 9 years concurrently is plumb crazy.  Far better to run 3 projects for 3 years 3 times.

</stone>
« Last Edit: 03/30/2010 07:35 am by kkattula »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Someone on another thread commented how big this tower looks next to the pretty thin tower for Falcon 9
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Someone on another thread commented how big this tower looks next to the pretty thin tower for Falcon 9

It is because it is ridiculously oversized for any rocket, except perhaps the Saturn V. Even for Ares I it is over the top. There simply was no need for such a huge mobile structure.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Someone on another thread commented how big this tower looks next to the pretty thin tower for Falcon 9

It is because it is ridiculously oversized for any rocket, except perhaps the Saturn V. Even for Ares I it is over the top. There simply was no need for such a huge mobile structure.

What?  It was sized for Ares 1.  Why would anyone go out and build a structure larger and taller than was necessary?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Why would anyone built a 100m high rocket, when a few miles down the coast an existing 60m rocket can be launched, from an existing pad, using an existing tower ... ? Having the same or higher capability than the 100m high rocket. Why?

Analyst
« Last Edit: 03/30/2010 08:39 pm by Analyst »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The comment above was about the tower integration with the rocket.  Not the policy decision to use that rocket. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Why would anyone built a 100m high rocket, when a few miles down the coast an existing 60m rocket can be launched, from an existing pad, using an existing tower ... ? Having the same or higher capability than the 100m high rocket. Why?

There's no point asking us, Analyst.  Go and ask Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz.  As far as I know, they're the ones that designed the thing and decided it was the only way to do crew launch.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0