Webcast link:http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/science/60333/300_science-hall_110204.asx
Quote from: 2552 on 05/26/2011 02:49 pmWebcast link:http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/science/60333/300_science-hall_110204.asxLink 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.
The SpaceX website actually claims 6000 kg as the Dragon payload. Maybe that's not to the ISS orbit?
The capability of the MPLM is 18klb. That is the number to be used for a shuttle flight
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
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.
Down mass is not vital because the capability wasn't replaced.
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.
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.
The attached table is from the hearing charter, for those that didn't read it.
Shuttle is also behind schedule.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/27/2011 03:33 amShuttle is also behind schedule. And yet, it flies.
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
Quote from: jongoff on 05/26/2011 10:45 pmFor 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.
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.
That was fast:http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/052611_Shotwell%20Testimony.pdf
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.
http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-aeronautics-%E2%80%93-hearingarchive is on the right.. it's windows media.
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.
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.
way to split hairs.
OV, you're usually good for analysis. Is there anything that redeems the committee's claim in your eyes?
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.
Quote from: Diagoras on 05/27/2011 12:24 pmOV, 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
Quote from: OVPersonally, 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?
Quote from: MP99 on 05/27/2011 03:32 pmHow 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, MartinI 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 poundsSTS-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
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: OV-106 on 05/27/2011 02:30 pmSo, 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.
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?
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 05/27/2011 06:28 pmOV-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)
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.
Your not making any sense.
Number of Orbiters remaining = 3
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.htmlMPLM Empty - 4,082 kgMPLM Stuffed -13,154 kgMr. 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 downSTS-100 - 8,811 mass up 6,763 mass downSTS-105 - 9,467 mass up 7,799 mass downSTS-108 - 9,228 mass up 8,693 mass downSTS-111 - 10,753 mass up 9,140 mass downSTS-114 - 8,301 mass up 9,110 mass downSTS-121 - 9,588 mass up 8,124 mass downSTS-126 - 12,748 mass up 6,966 mass downSTS-128 - 12,601 mass up 8,927 mass downSTS-131 - 12,371 mass up 9,242 mass down* Bold is maxThere are more examples of the charter cooking the books, but this is a good one.
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 05/28/2011 12:01 amThe 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.htmlMPLM Empty - 4,082 kgMPLM Stuffed -13,154 kgMr. 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 downSTS-100 - 8,811 mass up 6,763 mass downSTS-105 - 9,467 mass up 7,799 mass downSTS-108 - 9,228 mass up 8,693 mass downSTS-111 - 10,753 mass up 9,140 mass downSTS-114 - 8,301 mass up 9,110 mass downSTS-121 - 9,588 mass up 8,124 mass downSTS-126 - 12,748 mass up 6,966 mass downSTS-128 - 12,601 mass up 8,927 mass downSTS-131 - 12,371 mass up 9,242 mass down* Bold is maxThere 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
Quote from: MP99 on 05/28/2011 08:14 amQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 05/28/2011 12:01 amThe 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.htmlMPLM Empty - 4,082 kgMPLM Stuffed -13,154 kgMr. 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 downSTS-100 - 8,811 mass up 6,763 mass downSTS-105 - 9,467 mass up 7,799 mass downSTS-108 - 9,228 mass up 8,693 mass downSTS-111 - 10,753 mass up 9,140 mass downSTS-114 - 8,301 mass up 9,110 mass downSTS-121 - 9,588 mass up 8,124 mass downSTS-126 - 12,748 mass up 6,966 mass downSTS-128 - 12,601 mass up 8,927 mass downSTS-131 - 12,371 mass up 9,242 mass down* Bold is maxThere 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, MartinSir, 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.
an MLPM has NEVER carried more than 12,748 lbs up.
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.
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.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 05/27/2011 08:54 pmNumber of Orbiters remaining = 3Actually it's now 2. Discovery is out of the game.
Quote from: robertross on 05/27/2011 09:15 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 05/27/2011 08:54 pmNumber of Orbiters remaining = 3Actually it's now 2. Discovery is out of the game.Actually now its 1.