Author Topic: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th  (Read 25472 times)

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« on: 05/18/2011 07:29 pm »
"House plans commercial cargo hearing "NASA's Commercial Cargo Providers: Are They Ready to Supply the Space Station in the Post-Shuttle Era?" on Thursday, May 26, at 10 am. The scheduled witnesses: Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office Ms. Gwynne Shotwell, President, Space Exploration Technologies Mr. Frank Culbertson, Jr., Senior Vice President and Deputy General Manager, Advanced Programs Group, Orbital Sciences Corporation"

http://law.hukuki.net/house-plans-commercial-cargo-hearing.htm

Wonder what the spin will be from both Orbital and Spacex. Months away at best. Could be end of the year if NASA approves Spacex combined COTS 2/3 mission.



« Last Edit: 05/18/2011 07:31 pm by mr. mark »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #1 on: 05/26/2011 02:27 pm »
The hearing charter
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #3 on: 05/26/2011 03:45 pm »
Webcast link:
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/science/60333/300_science-hall_110204.asx
Link not working for me, but perhaps the hearing is over...if anybody sees a link to a recording, could you please post it here?  Thanx.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #4 on: 05/26/2011 03:48 pm »
Webcast link:
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/science/60333/300_science-hall_110204.asx
Link not working for me, but perhaps the hearing is over...if anybody sees a link to a recording, could you please post it here?  Thanx.


It just ended.....cspan might have a repeat u might want to look that up.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto


Offline Chris Bergin

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #6 on: 05/26/2011 04:35 pm »
Thread trimmed back, members involved notified as to why.

I won't allow this forum to be an area where people can accuse officials of lying, and I won't allow responses which serve no purpose on here other than to start a fight.

I really don't think it's getting through to people that I won't allow this. I'll protect this forum even if I have to kick people off it or close it down to a restricted access area.

By all means, don't take it seriously, but I'll show you the door if so.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #7 on: 05/26/2011 05:15 pm »
Science Committee Chairman Hall said it best when he said to both Spacex and Orbital Science Corp. "You will have disapointments just, don't over promise us". That was probably the most honest and straight forward comment of the hearings and I think that is the feeling of the space community and it's supporters at large.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #8 on: 05/26/2011 10:45 pm »
Let me see if I can put this in a way that doesn't get my post deleted again.

An allegation was made by the committee that the COTS vehicles were far more expensive per pound than Shuttle or Progress, with the implication that this was a bad deal for the taxpayer.  However, when pressed on the assumptions, it became clear that this allegation was not based on a fair apples-to-apples cost comparison.

As I heard it from the Congressmen, the Shuttle numbers were the cost of a year of shuttle operations, at 4 flights per year, assuming a full Shuttle payload bay.  I think he said they came up with a number around $21k/lb.  Based on a budget just under $3B/yr for a 4 flight manifest (when in steady state), that's implying that you're getting 36000lb of useful payload to the station per Shuttle cargo flight.  I can't speak to whether that's optimistic or not, but that's how the numbers seem to come out.

For SpaceX, their contract is for flying 20mT of cargo over the course of 12 flights, or in other words, approximately 3700lb of cargo per flight, at a cost of $133M/flight or in other words, about $36k/lb. 

I find this comparison misleading though for several reasons:

1-Dragon's capacity is, I believe, 3300kg (7575lb), almost twice the payload NASA has chosen to fly on it.  Flying a capsule half-empty is definitely going to make it look more expensive on a $/lb basis.  If you did four flights at a full load like the STS comparison, the price would be $18k/lb, which is less than shuttle and comparable to Progress.

2-If the demand for ISS cargo is really only what NASA contracted the COTS suppliers for 40mT/3yrs = 29400lb/yr, and if you really do want it in 4 chunks per year to minimize the amount of time it would take to get an emergency spare up to ISS, which would imply flying the shuttles partially empty Shuttle would be around $100k/yr.  If the demand is actually higher per year, why aren't they contracting more of SpaceX's capability?

3-If the demand was really high enough to use 140,000lb per year (the total payload shuttle could take up per year to get that $21k/lb rage), and if you were using SpaceX's Dragon's full capacity per flight, you'd be talking about 18 flights per year...at which point I bet you the cost per pound would go down substantially.

Basically, I was really disappointed that the NASA and COTS witnesses were getting beaten up by an unflattering comparison that doesn't really look like it holds water if you do an actual apples to apples comparison. 

~Jon

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1098
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #9 on: 05/26/2011 10:54 pm »
The SpaceX website actually claims 6000 kg as the Dragon payload. Maybe that's not to the ISS orbit?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #10 on: 05/26/2011 11:04 pm »
The SpaceX website actually claims 6000 kg as the Dragon payload. Maybe that's not to the ISS orbit?

I used 3300kg based on what they put in their COTS-1 document.  I don't know if 6000kg is still a goal, or if that is no longer in the cards, so I picked the lower number to be conservative.  If you use 6000kg per dragon, the price drops to less than half of Progress.

~Jon

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #11 on: 05/27/2011 12:08 am »
The comments by Ms Shotwell indicate that they still consider 6000 kg to the ISS to be the payload capacity of the Dragon.  Of course, there's not just mass capacity limits, there's also volume capacity limits.  That said, I have heard some suggest that the 6000 kg includes the 1290 kg of propellant.  I think they are wrong and I think Ms Shotwell's comments today indicate they are wrong.

I'm sure there's some way to bake the numbers to get whichever answer you prefer.. I think history will be the best judge of which system turns out to be more efficient.  My personal view is that a firm fixed-price contract where the contractor has to cover any cost overruns is the best deal for NASA and the taxpayer.  It also supports the development of the industry, which has the kind of benefits we really care about: space development.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #12 on: 05/27/2011 12:16 am »
The capability of the MPLM is 18klb.  That is the number to be used for a shuttle flight

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #13 on: 05/27/2011 12:22 am »
The capability of the MPLM is 18klb.  That is the number to be used for a shuttle flight

I thought it was 9118kg.  18klb is 8164kg.  I guess the racks and such make up the difference?  It also has more volume than the Dragon. 

It's disappointing that an unbiased comparison isn't available.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline DaveJSC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • ISS FCR. Former Shuttle FCR
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #14 on: 05/27/2011 12:40 am »
I'll have to watch the video. Seems to be a lot of commercial outrage on twitter, so should be interesting.

The capability of the MPLM is 18klb.  That is the number to be used for a shuttle flight

More than that after the nose cone stowage was implemented.

And a quick one for Jon Goff, there probably needs to be a consideration for downmass. This is an often under-valued capability which is vital for the ISS. On downmass, Shuttle wins, but of course this is about upmass too, so an interesting cost exercise would be tough to calculate, but also important to note it is not just about upmass.

Add in seven crew, robotics, and so on, very hard to accurately calculate still.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #15 on: 05/27/2011 12:49 am »
1-Dragon's capacity is, I believe, 3300kg (7575lb), almost twice the payload NASA has chosen to fly on it.  Flying a capsule half-empty is definitely going to make it look more expensive on a $/lb basis.  If you did four flights at a full load like the STS comparison, the price would be $18k/lb, which is less than shuttle and comparable to Progress.

2-If the demand for ISS cargo is really only what NASA contracted the COTS suppliers for 40mT/3yrs = 29400lb/yr, and if you really do want it in 4 chunks per year to minimize the amount of time it would take to get an emergency spare up to ISS, which would imply flying the shuttles partially empty Shuttle would be around $100k/yr.  If the demand is actually higher per year, why aren't they contracting more of SpaceX's capability?

3-If the demand was really high enough to use 140,000lb per year (the total payload shuttle could take up per year to get that $21k/lb rage), and if you were using SpaceX's Dragon's full capacity per flight, you'd be talking about 18 flights per year...at which point I bet you the cost per pound would go down substantially.

Basically, I was really disappointed that the NASA and COTS witnesses were getting beaten up by an unflattering comparison that doesn't really look like it holds water if you do an actual apples to apples comparison. 

~Jon

1.  Contingency.  There is no way NASA can project out over that many flights what exactly it will need for ISS.  Therefore, you write the contract to be a *minimum* of 20 mT per CRS supplier.  The FFP is then based on that, where in reality they have purchased the Dragon/Cygnus with a lower-than-full generic amount of cargo, and can fill it up with the specific needs of the time.

2.  As I have said multiple times, ISS con-ops were designed around approximately 4 shuttle flights/year (which, by the way, was very doable) along with the normal (and not planned to change) flight rate of Progress, ATV and HTV. 

Shuttle manifest typically changes up to the very end, certainly the mid-deck items and other consumables based on late-breaking ISS requests.  This will likely be no different, based on whatever new constraints these new vehicles offer, and manifests will and likely change up to the last minute allowable within the concept of operations. 

3.  As far as demand goes, it is.  Sure it will vary a little hear and there but that was what was deemed necessary for "full utilization".  Now not only are we promising "full utilization" still, we are also stating ISS is the "new Moon" and presumably that means something beyond "full utilization".  As for number of SpaceX flights per year, they are not supposed to be the only game in town, Orbital has their own CRS contract. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #16 on: 05/27/2011 01:38 am »

More than that after the nose cone stowage was implemented.

And a quick one for Jon Goff, there probably needs to be a consideration for downmass. This is an often under-valued capability which is vital for the ISS. On downmass, Shuttle wins, but of course this is about upmass too, so an interesting cost exercise would be tough to calculate, but also important to note it is not just about upmass.

Add in seven crew, robotics, and so on, very hard to accurately calculate still.

Nose cone affected volume carried and not mass.  Robotics not needed on logistic mission.  Assembly is over.  Seven crew not needed for a smaller logistics carrier and the CRS spacecraft can stay docked longer.

Down mass is not vital  because the capability wasn't replaced.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 01:39 am by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #17 on: 05/27/2011 01:45 am »
Down mass is not vital  because the capability wasn't replaced.

Dragon will have downmass capability, certainly not what was normal operations, which was Dave's point I'm sure. 

However, it would also be fair to point out, not a single capability has yet been replaced.  There have been zero logistics runs to ISS by the CRS team, so probably not the best statement. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #18 on: 05/27/2011 02:01 am »
CxP wasn't going to be ready either. 

Shuttle is gone.  Need to accept that.  What is done, is done and to deal with what we have.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 02:03 am by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #19 on: 05/27/2011 02:15 am »
Prior to editing your post, you stated "we don't need the capability yet."  Now you say "shuttle is gone".  Both of your statements cannot be true. 

By the way, people have accepted it.  Doesn't mean it was a wise move for the hear and now so there was little reason for you to bring that up in the first place. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #20 on: 05/27/2011 02:24 am »
By the way, people have accepted it.  Doesn't mean it was a wise move for the hear and now so there was little reason for you to bring that up in the first place. 

Again, it doesnt matter if it was a wise move or not. That is history.  Harping on isnt going to change things. We have to deal with what we have.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 02:25 am by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #21 on: 05/27/2011 02:35 am »
Seemingly, I'm not the one "harping" on it.  Therefore, I won't engage you further on the subject. 

"What we have" is exactly the point.  That is, we have two systems in development and test, neither operational and neither having been anywhere near the ISS.  In other words, we "don't have it".

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #22 on: 05/27/2011 03:13 am »
FWIW, I wasn't trying to fault how CRS was setup, or trying to diss the space shuttle.  I was just pointing out that some people trying to attack CRS as a boondoggle were not doing a fair and accurate comparison when they made their attacks.  That is all.

~Jon

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #23 on: 05/27/2011 03:17 am »
I thought the Reps asked a reasonable question in regards to CRS contracts being awarded before COTS was done.. what was the need to do that?  Seemed like "spend it before you lose it" government budgeting.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #24 on: 05/27/2011 03:22 am »
The attached table is from the hearing charter, for those that didn't read it.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #25 on: 05/27/2011 03:29 am »
FWIW, I wasn't trying to fault how CRS was setup, or trying to diss the space shuttle.  I was just pointing out that some people trying to attack CRS as a boondoggle were not doing a fair and accurate comparison when they made their attacks.  That is all.

I think "attack CRS as a boondoggle" is stretching it a bit.  The issue was raised and there was a reasonable and civilized exchange; presumably there will be followup and staff will clarify the numbers.

Some members of the committee clearly fired a warning shot: "We get it.  But you gotta deliver.  Screw up and next time this will be much less comfortable for all involved."  Appropriate IMHO.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #26 on: 05/27/2011 03:31 am »
The attached table is from the hearing charter, for those that didn't read it.


I haven't had time to read anything yet (EVAs/shuttle flights always take precedence)  ;)

But it certain shows that shuttle really wasn't this big expensive vehicle draining the budgets when commercial could do it substantially cheaper. How you want to dissect the details is (as mentioned) up to the reader, but there is no question that

1) Shuttle still flies (though only this and 1 other flight left)
2) Shuttle has significant multi-role capabilities: large pressurized & unpressurized upmass & volume (with support), large pressurized & unpressurized downmass & volume (with support), crew capability
3) CRS is not flying yet, is behind schedule, and was given additional funds to accelerate the schedule

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #27 on: 05/27/2011 03:33 am »
Shuttle is also behind schedule.  ;)
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 Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #28 on: 05/27/2011 03:41 am »
Shuttle is also behind schedule.  ;)

And yet, it flies.
JRF

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #29 on: 05/27/2011 03:52 am »
Shuttle is also behind schedule.  ;)

And yet, it flies.

And also just to point out that was due to a payload problem and an issue with the ET that we wanted to make sure we understood.  Be happy about that too, because if we were done we would be that much closer to reducing the crew and the not "utilizing" the ISS.  The irony and reality so many chose not to see or accept.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 03:57 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #30 on: 05/27/2011 04:03 am »
It was, of course, supposed to be an ironic statement. :)
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 Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #31 on: 05/27/2011 04:20 am »
Is there a video of the hearing up yet anywhere? And, if not, will there be?

Thanks.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline MP99

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #33 on: 05/27/2011 07:15 am »
The SpaceX website actually claims 6000 kg as the Dragon payload. Maybe that's not to the ISS orbit?

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php:-
Quote
Dragon Highlights:

> 6,000 kg (13,228 lbs) payload up-mass to LEO; 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs) payload down-mass
> Payload Volume: 10 m3 (245 ft3) pressurized, 14 m3  (490 ft3) unpressurized
(My highlight)

The capability of the MPLM is 18klb.  That is the number to be used for a shuttle flight

Assuming 9,000 kg in 31m3, that gives a payload density of about 290 kg/m3. Or slightly less going by Jim's numbers.

This implies there is volume for around 2,900 kg of pressurised payload in 10 m3, which explains Jon's figure.

For SpaceX, their contract is for flying 20mT of cargo over the course of 12 flights, or in other words, approximately 3700lb of cargo per flight, at a cost of $133M/flight or in other words, about $36k/lb. 

I find this comparison misleading though for several reasons:

1-Dragon's capacity is, I believe, 3300kg (7575lb), almost twice the payload NASA has chosen to fly on it.  Flying a capsule half-empty is definitely going to make it look more expensive on a $/lb basis.  If you did four flights at a full load like the STS comparison, the price would be $18k/lb, which is less than shuttle and comparable to Progress.

1.  Contingency.  There is no way NASA can project out over that many flights what exactly it will need for ISS.  Therefore, you write the contract to be a *minimum* of 20 mT per CRS supplier.  The FFP is then based on that, where in reality they have purchased the Dragon/Cygnus with a lower-than-full generic amount of cargo, and can fill it up with the specific needs of the time.
(Jon's quote extended)

While both Shuttle & Dragon have substantial unpressurised cargo capability, ISTM that SpaceX have started selling the unpressurised space in the trunk for launching secondary payloads rather than assuming NASA will want it for cargo.

cheers, Martin

Offline MP99

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #34 on: 05/27/2011 07:43 am »
That was fast:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/052611_Shotwell%20Testimony.pdf


Quote
It bears noting that the average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115 million in today’s dollars.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #35 on: 05/27/2011 12:24 pm »
So, I've studied this thread carefully and want to clarify something that is bothering me intensely.

I'm not the best with numbers, but from what I can see from things like jongoff's calculations, it appears that the committees primary claim, that CRS costs more per pound than the Shuttle or Progress, is false.

I'm not talking about downmass or carrying humans or any of that other stuff, because the committee didn't really address that in their claim. I'm talking about the accusations they leveled against SpaceX and OSC regarding the cost of CRS.

Is this really the case? I'm hoping it's not, because the thought that the committee in charge of oversight of commercial cargo is that bad at crunching numbers is not one I want to even consider.

OV, you're usually good for analysis. Is there anything that redeems the committee's claim in your eyes?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #36 on: 05/27/2011 12:24 pm »
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #37 on: 05/27/2011 12:32 pm »
Is this really the case? I'm hoping it's not, because the thought that the committee in charge of oversight of commercial cargo is that bad at crunching numbers is not one I want to even consider.
Some of the assumptions that went into the staff's calculations -- and the witness critique of that -- were covered in the hearing Q&A.  Edit: nope, wrong Rep., it was Rep. Brooks (R-AL), about 80 minutes into the archived webcast. 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 12:37 pm by psloss »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #38 on: 05/27/2011 12:41 pm »
And if the agency was really concerned about supporting the ISS logistics, it could buy HTV's or ATV's.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #39 on: 05/27/2011 12:57 pm »
ATV's can't be bought, because ESA does not sell them. ATV's are flown to provide logistics services to the ISS, in return for certain favors an/or services. Such as flying ESA astronauts on missions to the ISS. Same principle applies to HTV.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #40 on: 05/27/2011 01:00 pm »
I distinctly remember EADS/Astrium sending a representative to the Augustine committee to do a sales pitch for precisely that.

It was pretty funny too.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #41 on: 05/27/2011 01:09 pm »
I distinctly remember EADS/Astrium sending a representative to the Augustine committee to do a sales pitch for precisely that.

It was pretty funny too.


Nope. That was a sales pitch for ATV technology, more specifically a sales pitch for a vehicle based on current ATV technology. ATV as currently flying is an ESA owned spacecraft (well, the design is ESA owned). However, ESA allows the main contractors (such as EADS/Astrium and Thales Alenia Space) to commercially exploit technology developed (by named companies) for ATV. EADS/Astrium would not be selling an ATV, they would be selling a vehicle based on ATV technology. This vehicle would technically be (almost) identical to ATV, yet is would not be an ATV.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 01:10 pm by woods170 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #42 on: 05/27/2011 01:10 pm »
way to split hairs.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #43 on: 05/27/2011 01:14 pm »
way to split hairs.

Splitting hairs is actually a big thing in euro-space. You would be amazed by some of the nit-picking and hair-splitting going on in day-to-day ESA proceedings. A lot of that has to do with precisely laying out boundaries between what is ESA responsibility and what is contractor responsibility.

But, we're way off-topic here. Let's get back to the topic of this thread shall we?
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 01:17 pm by woods170 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #44 on: 05/27/2011 02:30 pm »
OV, you're usually good for analysis. Is there anything that redeems the committee's claim in your eyes?

I didn't watch the hearing, nor do I really care to.  The only thing I can point to and expand upon a little is the analysis I posted of Jon Goff's previous comment.  If you take the numbers on face value, they appear to be accurate.  However, as I stated I don't believe NASA intends to fly anything "half-full" and has left the exact details of the cargo manifest a "moving target" given they cannot say exactly what they will fly down to the specific detail for every single flight this far out. 

Given I expect Dragon and Cygnus to generally fly more-or-less full, this actually reduces the pound to orbit cost quoted.  However, given it is a FFP contract, SpaceX and Orbital should be making a profit given they signed the contract for this value and adding more cargo into the vehicle if it can handle it is really small potatoes. 

So, to boil it down, it means this.  SpaceX and Orbital are competetive.  They will bring new capabilities.  Yet, it shows also that shuttle is not the monstrosity that some have expounded on and called for it's termination because it is wildly expensive.  Clearly, it has capabilities Dragon and Cygnus do not, and to quantify what exactly that means in a direct apples-to-apples way is quite difficult to do because they are such different vehicles. 

Personally, I believe that a few are looking to hard at this and calling it an "attack" when in reality it was just simple math based on what was an average budget and the value of a contract.  Obviously, the staffer did not delve further, as far as I or anyone else knows, into what I believe some of the details are here and it is my understanding that SpaceX and Orbital reps attempted to correct that.  Oh well, it happens, and certainly it was not the first time nor will it be the last and the actual hearing is hardly the only time these people talk. 

The bigger question at hand, beyond tweaking price per pound to ISS, is when will they be ready and will it be an operation that they can sustain.  The clock is definitely ticking and very close to zero. 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 02:32 pm by OV-106 »
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
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #45 on: 05/27/2011 03:17 pm »
Quote from: OV
Personally, I believe that a few are looking to hard at this and calling it an "attack" when in reality it was just simple math based on what was an average budget and the value of a contract.  Obviously, the staffer did not delve further, as far as I or anyone else knows, into what I believe some of the details are here and it is my understanding that SpaceX and Orbital reps attempted to correct that. 

As an aside, this gets into how the staffers advise the congressional leaders. GIGO and all that.  How are the staffers held accountable?  'Cause how are the policymakers to make good decisions when they haven't been given an accurate overview by their staff?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline MP99

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #46 on: 05/27/2011 03:32 pm »
OV, you're usually good for analysis. Is there anything that redeems the committee's claim in your eyes?

I didn't watch the hearing, nor do I really care to.  The only thing I can point to and expand upon a little is the analysis I posted of Jon Goff's previous comment.  If you take the numbers on face value, they appear to be accurate.  However, as I stated I don't believe NASA intends to fly anything "half-full" and has left the exact details of the cargo manifest a "moving target" given they cannot say exactly what they will fly down to the specific detail for every single flight this far out. 

Given I expect Dragon and Cygnus to generally fly more-or-less full, this actually reduces the pound to orbit cost quoted.  However, given it is a FFP contract, SpaceX and Orbital should be making a profit given they signed the contract for this value and adding more cargo into the vehicle if it can handle it is really small potatoes.

How much pressurised cargo has been flown per year on Shuttle since ISS got up to the crew complement of six?

I suspect that's combined MPLM & mid-deck payloads?

cheers, Martin

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #47 on: 05/27/2011 03:58 pm »
How much pressurised cargo has been flown per year on Shuttle since ISS got up to the crew complement of six?

I suspect that's combined MPLM & mid-deck payloads?

cheers, Martin

I don't have the exact numbers.  But you would be correct that MPLM is more or less full and same for the mid-deck. 

I can tell you that here are what the last three MPLM flights massed at right after ET sep:

STS-133 (permanent MPLM) 260,750 pounds
STS-131 (MPLM) 262,069 pounds (also have a reference to approximately 17,00 pounds in the MPLM itself not sure how accurate it is)
STS-128 (MPLM) 261,821 pounds
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 04:07 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #48 on: 05/27/2011 04:03 pm »
Quote from: OV
Personally, I believe that a few are looking to hard at this and calling it an "attack" when in reality it was just simple math based on what was an average budget and the value of a contract.  Obviously, the staffer did not delve further, as far as I or anyone else knows, into what I believe some of the details are here and it is my understanding that SpaceX and Orbital reps attempted to correct that. 

As an aside, this gets into how the staffers advise the congressional leaders. GIGO and all that.  How are the staffers held accountable?  'Cause how are the policymakers to make good decisions when they haven't been given an accurate overview by their staff?

As a said, they seemingly *are* accurate for the assumptions made.  Were they perfect?  I don't know, I've spoken to that, but nothing ever is.  Also, as I said, the actual hearing is NOT the only time these groups talk with each other.  I wouldn't worry about it too much. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline MP99

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #49 on: 05/27/2011 05:31 pm »
How much pressurised cargo has been flown per year on Shuttle since ISS got up to the crew complement of six?

I suspect that's combined MPLM & mid-deck payloads?

cheers, Martin

I don't have the exact numbers.  But you would be correct that MPLM is more or less full and same for the mid-deck. 

I can tell you that here are what the last three MPLM flights massed at right after ET sep:

STS-133 (permanent MPLM) 260,750 pounds
STS-131 (MPLM) 262,069 pounds (also have a reference to approximately 17,00 pounds in the MPLM itself not sure how accurate it is)
STS-128 (MPLM) 261,821 pounds

Averaging 9 months between flights, that's 1,000kg or more (approaching 4m3) pressurised cargo per month. Although some will be building up supplies in case of further CRS delays, that's before the science utilisation is ramped up.

cheers, Martin

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #50 on: 05/27/2011 06:28 pm »
So, to boil it down, it means this.  SpaceX and Orbital are competetive.  They will bring new capabilities.  Yet, it shows also that shuttle is not the monstrosity that some have expounded on and called for it's termination because it is wildly expensive.  Clearly, it has capabilities Dragon and Cygnus do not, and to quantify what exactly that means in a direct apples-to-apples way is quite difficult to do because they are such different vehicles. 

Personally, I believe that a few are looking to hard at this and calling it an "attack" when in reality it was just simple math based on what was an average budget and the value of a contract.  Obviously, the staffer did not delve further, as far as I or anyone else knows, into what I believe some of the details are here and it is my understanding that SpaceX and Orbital reps attempted to correct that.  Oh well, it happens, and certainly it was not the first time nor will it be the last and the actual hearing is hardly the only time these people talk. 

The bigger question at hand, beyond tweaking price per pound to ISS, is when will they be ready and will it be an operation that they can sustain.  The clock is definitely ticking and very close to zero. 

OV-106 first of all it is not just a matter of cost per lbs to the ISS.  More importantly it is about freeing the agencies budget from the immense overhead let on by the shuttle. 

The Shuttle has been the bane of anyone who has wanted to take HSF beyond LEO.  One of the biggest reasons is that the Shuttle represents a huge fixed cost.  Meaning that even if the Shuttle sits on the ground and does nothing than it still costing you a huge amount of money.  About 3-4 billion per year if I remember correctly.  The actual incremental costs of the Shuttle are far less.  In theory you could push up the launch rate until its per lbs cost is low. 

These COTS contracts as well as deals with Russia and other nations are incremental.  For trips on the Soyuz NASA simply pays a certain price per launch, which is high, yet still comparable to the Shuttle. 

There are also other problems with the Shuttle like the fact that there are only 3 left and they are not making any more.

Lastly I think comparing the Shuttle, which has flown for over 30 years, to new COTS programs is not really fair.  The Shuttle has flown for 30 years, and has not gotten any cheaper nor will it.  COTS if done correctly will introduce competition, and as time goes on I expect costs to decrease.

Offline grdja

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #51 on: 05/27/2011 06:54 pm »
But you should also consider another possibility. No ISS extension beyond 2020. So COTS never has time to mature and get to point where providers are competing. And once ISS hits the ocean COTS providers lose their business for ever.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #52 on: 05/27/2011 07:01 pm »
There's something I don't quite grasp. Why are Orbital and SpaceX being held accountable for the early retirement of the Shuttle? Shouldn't that be responsibility of whoever made the decision at NASA HQ? When I watched the Hearing, some congressmen where very clear in telling (SpaceX and Orbital) that they had all the responsibility in their shoulders so they better don't drop the ball or else.
May be a l didn't read something, but if NASA chose not to have a plan B (or better yet, let CRS be the plan B, and switch if it was successful), shouldn't they be seriously questioning the NASA officials, rather than the contractors?

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #53 on: 05/27/2011 07:03 pm »
COTS service providers are not dependent on NASA.The majority of the 40 Spacex contracts are from commercial providers, 60%.There will also be the Bigelow station as well. So, a NASA centered commercial space will not always be the case. 
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 07:09 pm by mr. mark »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #54 on: 05/27/2011 07:05 pm »
But you should also consider another possibility. No ISS extension beyond 2020. So COTS never has time to mature and get to point where providers are competing. And once ISS hits the ocean COTS providers lose their business for ever.

Not exactly.  Many here claim COTS/CRS suppliers will be ready this year.  We'll see I guess.  It would seem, to me, nearly 9 years is sufficient time to "mature". 

Also, I thought the point of all of this was to help create a market that can exist in addition to, and independently of, NASA.  Certain advocacy groups claim that market does exist and is just ready to be unleashed.  They say, I thought, that there were going to 10,000 new jobs (or something like that) created.  So far, I haven't seen numbers that would begin to show we are pace for that even if you give some wiggle room for the slightly smaller government funding for commercial. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #55 on: 05/27/2011 07:10 pm »
There's something I don't quite grasp. Why are Orbital and SpaceX being held accountable for the early retirement of the Shuttle? Shouldn't that be responsibility of whoever made the decision at NASA HQ? When I watched the Hearing, some congressmen where very clear in telling (SpaceX and Orbital) that they had all the responsibility in their shoulders so they better don't drop the ball or else.
May be a l didn't read something, but if NASA chose not to have a plan B (or better yet, let CRS be the plan B, and switch if it was successful), shouldn't they be seriously questioning the NASA officials, rather than the contractors?

Nobody is accusing SpaceX and Orbital of the impending shuttle retirement fiasco.  It would be ridiculous to do so.

What they (Congress) were implying is, because of that decision by NASA HQ, that HQ has now placed all the responsibility on SpaceX and Orbital to perform.  HQ, or at least the ones with ultimate authority, did this by pushing nothing but commercial and, at least seemingly by all known data, considering nothing else. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #56 on: 05/27/2011 07:16 pm »
So, to boil it down, it means this.  SpaceX and Orbital are competetive.  They will bring new capabilities.  Yet, it shows also that shuttle is not the monstrosity that some have expounded on and called for it's termination because it is wildly expensive.  Clearly, it has capabilities Dragon and Cygnus do not, and to quantify what exactly that means in a direct apples-to-apples way is quite difficult to do because they are such different vehicles. 

Personally, I believe that a few are looking to hard at this and calling it an "attack" when in reality it was just simple math based on what was an average budget and the value of a contract.  Obviously, the staffer did not delve further, as far as I or anyone else knows, into what I believe some of the details are here and it is my understanding that SpaceX and Orbital reps attempted to correct that.  Oh well, it happens, and certainly it was not the first time nor will it be the last and the actual hearing is hardly the only time these people talk. 

The bigger question at hand, beyond tweaking price per pound to ISS, is when will they be ready and will it be an operation that they can sustain.  The clock is definitely ticking and very close to zero. 

OV-106 first of all it is not just a matter of cost per lbs to the ISS.  More importantly it is about freeing the agencies budget from the immense overhead let on by the shuttle. 

The Shuttle has been the bane of anyone who has wanted to take HSF beyond LEO.  One of the biggest reasons is that the Shuttle represents a huge fixed cost.  Meaning that even if the Shuttle sits on the ground and does nothing than it still costing you a huge amount of money.  About 3-4 billion per year if I remember correctly.  The actual incremental costs of the Shuttle are far less.  In theory you could push up the launch rate until its per lbs cost is low. 

These COTS contracts as well as deals with Russia and other nations are incremental.  For trips on the Soyuz NASA simply pays a certain price per launch, which is high, yet still comparable to the Shuttle. 

There are also other problems with the Shuttle like the fact that there are only 3 left and they are not making any more.

Lastly I think comparing the Shuttle, which has flown for over 30 years, to new COTS programs is not really fair.  The Shuttle has flown for 30 years, and has not gotten any cheaper nor will it.  COTS if done correctly will introduce competition, and as time goes on I expect costs to decrease.

Then I challenge you to take on the posts I have made on this topic with actual facts instead of silly arm-waving and speculation.  I have addressed the numbers.  You did not (except for nullifying your entire argument in the first place when you say Soyuz costs are comparable to shuttle)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 07:16 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #57 on: 05/27/2011 08:06 pm »
ATV's can't be bought, because ESA does not sell them. ATV's are flown to provide logistics services to the ISS, in return for certain favors an/or services. Such as flying ESA astronauts on missions to the ISS. Same principle applies to HTV.

Is't it true one of the Contractors that make the ATV is manufacturing the Cargo carrier for Orbital?

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #58 on: 05/27/2011 08:10 pm »
Is't it true one of the Contractors that make the ATV is manufacturing the Cargo carrier for Orbital?



http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Cygnus_fact.pdf

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #59 on: 05/27/2011 08:54 pm »
OV-106 first of all it is not just a matter of cost per lbs to the ISS.  More importantly it is about freeing the agencies budget from the immense overhead let on by the shuttle. 

The Shuttle has been the bane of anyone who has wanted to take HSF beyond LEO.  One of the biggest reasons is that the Shuttle represents a huge fixed cost.  Meaning that even if the Shuttle sits on the ground and does nothing than it still costing you a huge amount of money.  About 3-4 billion per year if I remember correctly.  The actual incremental costs of the Shuttle are far less.  In theory you could push up the launch rate until its per lbs cost is low. 

These COTS contracts as well as deals with Russia and other nations are incremental.  For trips on the Soyuz NASA simply pays a certain price per launch, which is high, yet still comparable to the Shuttle. 

There are also other problems with the Shuttle like the fact that there are only 3 left and they are not making any more.

Lastly I think comparing the Shuttle, which has flown for over 30 years, to new COTS programs is not really fair.  The Shuttle has flown for 30 years, and has not gotten any cheaper nor will it.  COTS if done correctly will introduce competition, and as time goes on I expect costs to decrease.

Then I challenge you to take on the posts I have made on this topic with actual facts instead of silly arm-waving and speculation.  I have addressed the numbers.  You did not (except for nullifying your entire argument in the first place when you say Soyuz costs are comparable to shuttle)

Your not making any sense. 

First of all, the points I brought up are not related to anything you have posted before except for your statement regarding the Shuttle. 

Secondly number support an argument, they do not make one.  You want numbers here you go.  You welcome to ask me to support an assertion I made with numbers and references.  Disregarding an argument for lack of numbers does not make any sense.

Here are some number for you if that is what you want.
Shuttle's fixed costs = $2.5B/year
Shuttle's total per cost flight atomized over lifetime = $1.5 billion

NASA Soyuz fixed costs = 0 (because NASA does not pay for upkeep)
NASA price for 12 space station crew members = $753 million

Number of Orbiters remaining = 3

In any case I was just explaining to you that the problem associated with the Shuttle did not have to do necessarily with the cost per lbs to the station.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #60 on: 05/27/2011 08:59 pm »
Your not making any sense. 


Ok.  I'll let others be the judge of that.  Thank you for your opinion though. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #61 on: 05/27/2011 09:15 pm »

Number of Orbiters remaining = 3


Actually it's now 2. Discovery is out of the game.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #62 on: 05/28/2011 12:01 am »
How much pressurised cargo has been flown per year on Shuttle since ISS got up to the crew complement of six?

I suspect that's combined MPLM & mid-deck payloads?

cheers, Martin

I don't have the exact numbers.  But you would be correct that MPLM is more or less full and same for the mid-deck. 

I can tell you that here are what the last three MPLM flights massed at right after ET sep:

STS-133 (permanent MPLM) 260,750 pounds
STS-131 (MPLM) 262,069 pounds (also have a reference to approximately 17,00 pounds in the MPLM itself not sure how accurate it is)
STS-128 (MPLM) 261,821 pounds

OV-106,

The numbers used by Ken Monroe and the staff we incorrect.  We need to look at what they consider "cargo".  You use the MPLM.  My source data is here:  http://mplm.msfc.nasa.gov/mission.html

MPLM Empty - 4,082 kg
MPLM Stuffed -13,154 kg

Mr. Monroe used the stuffed figure for total cargo weight.  However, the actual usable cargo would be 13,154 - 4082 = 9072kg or 19958.4 lbs. 

However, an MLPM has NEVER carried more than 12,748 lbs up.  Here is the break down by mission:

STS-102 - 10,213 mass up  6,540 mass down
STS-100 - 8,811 mass up  6,763 mass down
STS-105 - 9,467 mass up  7,799 mass down
STS-108 - 9,228 mass up  8,693 mass down
STS-111 - 10,753 mass up  9,140 mass down
STS-114 - 8,301 mass up  9,110 mass down
STS-121 - 9,588 mass up  8,124 mass down
STS-126 - 12,748 mass up  6,966 mass down
STS-128 - 12,601 mass up  8,927 mass down
STS-131 - 12,371 mass up  9,242 mass down

* Bold is max

There are more examples of the charter cooking the books, but this is a good one. 

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #63 on: 05/28/2011 01:21 am »
There's something I don't quite grasp. Why are Orbital and SpaceX being held accountable for the early retirement of the Shuttle? Shouldn't that be responsibility of whoever made the decision at NASA HQ? When I watched the Hearing, some congressmen where very clear in telling (SpaceX and Orbital) that they had all the responsibility in their shoulders so they better don't drop the ball or else.
May be a l didn't read something, but if NASA chose not to have a plan B (or better yet, let CRS be the plan B, and switch if it was successful), shouldn't they be seriously questioning the NASA officials, rather than the contractors?

Yep...and both Bush and Obama White House officials as well, for never requesting the funds that were authorized, starting in 2005, which could have avoided or at the very least dramatically minimized the gap. Can't really even blame the appropriators, because the allocations they get to divide among their agencies is determined by the Budget Resolution, which is, by and large, based on the Administration Request. So for them to increase NASA $ above the requested level, they would have to take an "offset" of that amount of money out of someone else's "budgetary hide."
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline MP99

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #64 on: 05/28/2011 08:14 am »
The numbers used by Ken Monroe and the staff we incorrect.  We need to look at what they consider "cargo".  You use the MPLM.  My source data is here:  http://mplm.msfc.nasa.gov/mission.html

MPLM Empty - 4,082 kg
MPLM Stuffed -13,154 kg

Mr. Monroe used the stuffed figure for total cargo weight.  However, the actual usable cargo would be 13,154 - 4082 = 9072kg or 19958.4 lbs. 

However, an MLPM has NEVER carried more than 12,748 lbs up.  Here is the break down by mission:

STS-102 - 10,213 mass up  6,540 mass down
STS-100 - 8,811 mass up  6,763 mass down
STS-105 - 9,467 mass up  7,799 mass down
STS-108 - 9,228 mass up  8,693 mass down
STS-111 - 10,753 mass up  9,140 mass down
STS-114 - 8,301 mass up  9,110 mass down
STS-121 - 9,588 mass up  8,124 mass down
STS-126 - 12,748 mass up  6,966 mass down
STS-128 - 12,601 mass up  8,927 mass down
STS-131 - 12,371 mass up  9,242 mass down

* Bold is max

There are more examples of the charter cooking the books, but this is a good one.

If MPLM is volume limited (?) to 5.8mT, then Dragon at 10m3 would be volume limited to 1.9mT.

Interesting that SpaceX's "20mT over 12 flights" = 1.7mT per flight.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 05/28/2011 08:15 am by MP99 »

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #65 on: 05/29/2011 12:47 am »
An interesting take on the hearing - http://www.teainspace.com/a-fraudulent-charter/
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #66 on: 05/29/2011 01:08 am »
The numbers used by Ken Monroe and the staff we incorrect.  We need to look at what they consider "cargo".  You use the MPLM.  My source data is here:  http://mplm.msfc.nasa.gov/mission.html

MPLM Empty - 4,082 kg
MPLM Stuffed -13,154 kg

Mr. Monroe used the stuffed figure for total cargo weight.  However, the actual usable cargo would be 13,154 - 4082 = 9072kg or 19958.4 lbs. 

However, an MLPM has NEVER carried more than 12,748 lbs up.  Here is the break down by mission:

STS-102 - 10,213 mass up  6,540 mass down
STS-100 - 8,811 mass up  6,763 mass down
STS-105 - 9,467 mass up  7,799 mass down
STS-108 - 9,228 mass up  8,693 mass down
STS-111 - 10,753 mass up  9,140 mass down
STS-114 - 8,301 mass up  9,110 mass down
STS-121 - 9,588 mass up  8,124 mass down
STS-126 - 12,748 mass up  6,966 mass down
STS-128 - 12,601 mass up  8,927 mass down
STS-131 - 12,371 mass up  9,242 mass down

* Bold is max

There are more examples of the charter cooking the books, but this is a good one.

If MPLM is volume limited (?) to 5.8mT, then Dragon at 10m3 would be volume limited to 1.9mT.

Interesting that SpaceX's "20mT over 12 flights" = 1.7mT per flight.

cheers, Martin

Sir, isn't 9,072 kg = to 9.072 Metric Tons?

I just hit two websites and they both said that 9,072 kg = 9.072 mT. 

I do not pack MLPMs so I cannot give you the answer.  However, you can stuf 9.072 Metric tons of stuff inside, depending on volume.  Moreover, Ms Shotwell said they could stuff Dragon full of cargo and SpaceX would not charge more.

NASA is buying a service from SpaceX and Orbital.

VR
TPIS
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline MP99

Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #67 on: 05/29/2011 08:30 am »
The numbers used by Ken Monroe and the staff we incorrect.  We need to look at what they consider "cargo".  You use the MPLM.  My source data is here:  http://mplm.msfc.nasa.gov/mission.html

MPLM Empty - 4,082 kg
MPLM Stuffed -13,154 kg

Mr. Monroe used the stuffed figure for total cargo weight.  However, the actual usable cargo would be 13,154 - 4082 = 9072kg or 19958.4 lbs. 

However, an MLPM has NEVER carried more than 12,748 lbs up.  Here is the break down by mission:

STS-102 - 10,213 mass up  6,540 mass down
STS-100 - 8,811 mass up  6,763 mass down
STS-105 - 9,467 mass up  7,799 mass down
STS-108 - 9,228 mass up  8,693 mass down
STS-111 - 10,753 mass up  9,140 mass down
STS-114 - 8,301 mass up  9,110 mass down
STS-121 - 9,588 mass up  8,124 mass down
STS-126 - 12,748 mass up  6,966 mass down
STS-128 - 12,601 mass up  8,927 mass down
STS-131 - 12,371 mass up  9,242 mass down

* Bold is max

There are more examples of the charter cooking the books, but this is a good one.

If MPLM is volume limited (?) to 5.8mT, then Dragon at 10m3 would be volume limited to 1.9mT.

Interesting that SpaceX's "20mT over 12 flights" = 1.7mT per flight.

cheers, Martin

Sir, isn't 9,072 kg = to 9.072 Metric Tons?

I just hit two websites and they both said that 9,072 kg = 9.072 mT. 

I do not pack MLPMs so I cannot give you the answer.  However, you can stuf 9.072 Metric tons of stuff inside, depending on volume.  Moreover, Ms Shotwell said they could stuff Dragon full of cargo and SpaceX would not charge more.

NASA is buying a service from SpaceX and Orbital.

Eh? Surely the point of your original post was that the MPLM has never carried more than 64% of the possible cargo mass to orbit, implying it's very strongly volume limited?

Quote
an MLPM has NEVER carried more than 12,748 lbs up.

Carried = cargo, not stuffed mass.

12,748 lbs = 5784 kg = 5.784 mT. Which is 64% of 9.072 mT.



...or, maybe you screwed up the units in your post, and you really meant that MPLMs have flown with 97% of their maximum flight mass, which would give 8,666 kg cargo?

cheers, Martin

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #68 on: 05/29/2011 12:49 pm »
I understand now.

Max is still 9.072 mT.  However, the max flow weight is 5.784 mT.  However, Mr. Monroe maxed MLPM weight for his example.  It would be helpful if someone from KSC could speak to this.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #69 on: 05/29/2011 01:09 pm »
Why KSC?

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #70 on: 05/29/2011 07:17 pm »
I am pretty sure that once some of the commercial crew vehicles com online they will be used to lift cargo as well, after all why do you need room for seven propel if you are only going to fly four station crewmembers at a time, even with a commercial pilot flying that is still two empty seats! Plenty of excess capacity for cargo.  Just wonder if that will require a cRS contract or not.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #71 on: 05/29/2011 07:46 pm »
I am pretty sure that once some of the commercial crew vehicles com online they will be used to lift cargo as well, after all why do you need room for seven propel if you are only going to fly four station crewmembers at a time, even with a commercial pilot flying that is still two empty seats! Plenty of excess capacity for cargo.  Just wonder if that will require a cRS contract or not.


Yes. NASA requires that the empty seats be able to carry 100 kg of cargo instead.

Quote
The CTS shall transport 100 kilograms (220.5 lbm) of ISS Program specified pressurized cargo to the ISS during a single launch. [...] The spacecraft shall transport an additional 100 kg (220.5 lbm) of cargo in any seat location that is not occupied by crewmembers.  The spacecraft crew compartment design shall accommodate the volume, mass, and mounting accommodations required to carry this additional cargo.
 
See pages 28 and 29:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23304.msg734986#msg734986

« Last Edit: 05/29/2011 08:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #72 on: 06/02/2011 05:46 am »

Number of Orbiters remaining = 3


Actually it's now 2. Discovery is out of the game.

Actually now its 1.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: House SSTC Hearing Commercial Cargo MAY 26th
« Reply #73 on: 06/02/2011 01:19 pm »

Number of Orbiters remaining = 3


Actually it's now 2. Discovery is out of the game.

Actually now its 1.

Really? How? Presumably referring to Endeavour.

OMS pods, RCS...they are all still intact. Still 2.

Tags:
 

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