Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123332 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #340 on: 01/19/2009 02:22 pm »
Ben,
The Lunar Outpost is critical.   A 4-person team on a short-duration "sortie" mission can produce somewhere about 336 man-hours of real work during their mission.

But the same 4-person team able to stay for a 6-month expedition could perform 8,640 man-hours of equivalent work during their stay.

They both use the same launchers, the same spacecraft, but you get an order of magnitude more return on investment courtesy of the outpost.

There should be a couple of test flights following sortie mission profiles to figure out the systems.   But starting the Outpost as soon as possible is critical.

What we would like is to have a minimum of four Cargo deliveries and two Crews to the moon each year until the outpost can be permanently staffed.   After that it would go to 3/3 and then 2/4 or even 1/5.   If the International Partners pay for the fuel as we've suggested, that would free-up sufficient NASA funding to be able to add one or two extra missions each year.   This plan aims to have the Outpost started in 2017, operational by 2020 and completed by 2022.   Outpost Complete marks the point where we can start putting serious money into the Mars program -- and we want to get on with that as soon as is humanly feasible.   If we do it at half that rate, it will be 2030 by the time we can start investing in the Mars hardware.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2009 02:23 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #341 on: 01/19/2009 02:24 pm »
Will, you're totally off with your estimates.

A fully operational Shuttle Program (not the one we have today which is half-way into Shutdown mode, I'm talking prior to STS-107) cost approximately $5 billion each year.   ISS another $2 billion/yr.   That was $7 billion *routinely* for the human spaceflight program.

The LSAM alone is going to be at least a $3 billion program annually.

And $4 billion wouldn't even cover the fixed costs of the Ares-I and Ares-V together, let alone the flight costs for any launches or spacecraft.

Trust me when I say that $8 billion is the lowest you're going to get a useful Lunar Exploration Architecture operating for, and that's about $4 billion below the current CxP estimates.

Ross.

They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's.  ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.

Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #342 on: 01/19/2009 02:42 pm »
Mars;
The information I have indicates that the ESAS team steered the "study" toward the "option" that was favored by Griffin. How that process actually worked internally I have no idea, nor does it really matter at this point. I have no interest in demonizing anyone; I only state what I know and where that leads my thought process and let others respond as they will, such as yourself. I understand what you're saying, but that still leaves me with the statement I paraphrased above which leads me to a different conclusion. If you have something to add to that that can shed more light on it I am not opposed to hearing it. In fact I am certainly interested in hearing it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #343 on: 01/19/2009 02:51 pm »

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.

First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.

Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.

The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.

Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares?  Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.

You are missing the point.
1. With Ares, there will never be a propellant depot. Ares costs too much to allow the funding to deploy one.


In a $100 Billion program, it's impossible to find funding for a depot?

You could defer the start of major spending on LSAM and EDS. That would cause a schedule slip, but they are unlikely to get enough funding to meet the arbitrary 2020 deadline anyway.

And if a fuel depot works, you can cut Ares V back in size, at a minimum eliminating the extra half RSRM segment and the sixth RS-68. The development and production synergy savings on that alone would more than pay for the depot.


Offline Swatch

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Official Aerospace Engineer as of June 13th, 2009
  • Cincinnati
    • ProjectApollo/NASSP: Virtual Systems and Flight Simulation of the Apollo Program
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #344 on: 01/19/2009 02:54 pm »

60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively. 


Well.... that's government schedules for you....
Ex-Rocket Scientist in Training, now Rocket Scientist!
M-F trying to make the world of the future a smaller place through expanding horizons...

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #345 on: 01/19/2009 02:55 pm »
Ben,
The Lunar Outpost is critical.   A 4-person team on a short-duration "sortie" mission can produce somewhere about 336 man-hours of real work during their mission.

But the same 4-person team able to stay for a 6-month expedition could perform 8,640 man-hours of equivalent work during their stay.

Ross.

I agree with you entirely on this. However, the benefits of moving from that to a 365 days a year permanently occupied outpost are less compelling.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #346 on: 01/19/2009 02:56 pm »
They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's.  ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.

Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.

I think I know part of what you're missing.   You aren't including the Program Integration and Operations costs in your figures.

The NASA Budget Request for 2009 lumped all those various costs together in one rather ambiguous lump -- my assumption is that they did so hoping it would not catch people's attention and it would help make everything look lower cost.   Well, that tactic seems to have worked to a degree.

But those PI&O costs are actually a conglomeration of another layer of costs which are actually still part of the costs for all the other individual elements -- and they account for a fairly large percentage actually.   It took me ages to get the underlying data though, but that clarifies it very well.

It is really amazing what they got away with in the FY2009 Request documents.   Its all there if you know what to look for, but who's going to go through that document with a fine toothed comb except a geek like me :)

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2009 03:14 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #347 on: 01/19/2009 03:05 pm »
Mars;
The information I have indicates that the ESAS team steered the "study" toward the "option" that was favored by Griffin. How that process actually worked internally I have no idea, nor does it really matter at this point. I have no interest in demonizing anyone; I only state what I know and where that leads my thought process and let others respond as they will, such as yourself. I understand what you're saying, but that still leaves me with the statement I paraphrased above which leads me to a different conclusion. If you have something to add to that that can shed more light on it I am not opposed to hearing it. In fact I am certainly interested in hearing it.

I sometimes wonder if the inclusion of weighted technical merit in these studies may not be a mistake. A two-axis decision matrix might give a better (or at least more easily defended) result. Expensive:Cheap and Hard:Easy? It'd give you a number anyone could understand. Then make the decision between architectures with similar numbers on relative technical merit. (This is more or less how I create software proposals for presentation to prospective clients whose in-house expertise is inadequate to judge technical merits of various solutions. I sell the architecture on those axial numbers, then make my own how-to decisions on relative technical merit.)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #348 on: 01/19/2009 03:16 pm »
I sometimes wonder if the inclusion of weighted technical merit in these studies may not be a mistake.

Agreed.   My Science prof beat it into us that if you ever show weighted scores, you had to also provide all the raw data in addition.   That way you guarantee to be 100% clear to everyone, every time.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #349 on: 01/19/2009 03:17 pm »
They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's.  ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.

Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.

I think I know part of what you're missing.   You aren't including the Program Integration and Operations costs in your figures.

The NASA Budget Request for 2009 lumped all those various costs together in one rather ambiguous lump -- my assumption is that they did so hoping it would not catch people's attention and it would help make everything look lower cost.   Well, that tactic seems to have worked to a degree.

But those PI&O costs are actually a conglomeration of another layer of costs which are actually still part of the costs for all the other individual elements -- and they account for a fairly large percentage actually.   It took me ages to get the underlying data though, but that clarifies it very well.

It is really amazing what they got away with in the FY2009 Request documents.   Its all there if you know what to look for, but who's going to go through that document with a fine toothed comb except a geek like me :)

Ross.

Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #350 on: 01/19/2009 03:18 pm »
Quote from: BogoMIPS
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?

Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?


Quite right... The per-unit cost of a 2-engine SSME core is considerably higher than a 2-engine RS-68 core, so thinking about payload-per-launch isn't the whole answer.

To answer your question, CEPE suggests J-120 (SSME) would put up 54.8mT, compared to 47.9 mT with RS-68s.

All well and good, but the point is that in this configuration the RS-68s are a better long term choice from a cost and growth (i.e. J-23x) perspective.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #351 on: 01/19/2009 03:20 pm »
Quote from: BogoMIPS
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?

Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?

Well identified.   Good kitty ;)

The thing I'm still trying to work out is which specific cost profile NASA is considering?

Are they planning to simply build current-spec SSME's (RS-25d) at ~$60m each, or are they planning a re-development first (~$500m) to turn them into 'expendable' SSME's (RS-25e) costing more like ~$30m each?

If it's the second, then they'll need 4-6 years to do the development & testing and they won't hit the 'break even' point until the 17th production engine (which would be on the 6th Jupiter-130 flight).   That sounds worthwhile to me.   I just don't know what NASA is thinking on this issue yet.


A third option might be to re-start production of the RS-25d and while those are being made, fund the development of the RS-25e, then phase those in whenever they are ready.   But funding both in parallel is quite an expensive option.


Its these sorts of things which have to be answered and then fed into the calculations to find out what's good value and what's not.

One thing is for certain though:   Individual SSME's are each more expensive than RS-68's.   And a greater number of SSME's are required to produce the same sort of performance as RS-68's in the larger Ares-V/Jupiter-232 configurations which are flying Upper Stages.   RS-68's are considerably better value there.

This is why DIRECT continues to favor the RS-68.   But if there were a technical show-stopper -- like for example if the ablative nozzle could never be utilized with the SRB's -- then we would have to put the SSME's back in the mix again -- along with the development cost for adding a Regen to the RS-68.   But there hasn't been a single bit of data to indicate such a problem exists, even with the unpleasant Base Heating effects on Ares-V.

Ross.

In the area of safety...do SSME's increase the LOM/LOC numbers? Then again, if we have to go with an expendable version of the SSME, the commonality with the Shuttle goes out the window anyway.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #352 on: 01/19/2009 03:21 pm »
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

Yes, already discussed many times, search "SSPDM".

Ok, will do.  Thanks.  Didn't know it had been previously discussed (before I got on this forum).

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #353 on: 01/19/2009 03:23 pm »
Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?

Off the top of my head, its somewhere under Exploration Systems > Constellation Systems.

Gads, that can't be good.   I've memorized it.   :(

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #354 on: 01/19/2009 03:40 pm »
In the area of safety...do SSME's increase the LOM/LOC numbers? Then again, if we have to go with an expendable version of the SSME, the commonality with the Shuttle goes out the window anyway.

That is an excellent question.

It all depends on how you wish to quantify the figures.

Technically, PWR say that RS-68 should be more reliable than SSME because it has considerably fewer parts and operates at lower internal pressure levels.

The specific figures PWR quote are .9983 reliability for SSME and .9987 reliability for RS-68.

Those equate to one failure every 588 uses for SSME and 1 in 769 for RS-68.

The SSME figure seems about right given the improvements made since the two in-flight failures we have had.   The RS-68 figure is impossible to tell for sure though, because we haven't had nearly enough flights or even tests to get sufficient data points yet.   All we do know is that they haven't had a failure in flight yet and even when they abused the engines quite a bit on the test stands the 68's just kept on tickin' -- which is certainly quite encouraging, but isn't really 'proof' yet.   If we still haven't had an RS-68 failure after 769 of them have flown, I would say we're right on the money.   Until then its really just an educated guess -- albeit a good one from a highly experienced source.   In the absence of any other data, you've got to go with it.


Now, obviously if you have to have 3 SSME's in order to do the equivalent work of 2 RS-68's on the smaller vehicle, the presence of an extra engine is going to skew the figures negatively for that configuration.

The mere presence of an extra engine would constitute a far larger impact to LOM/LOC than the individual engine failure rates do in this particular example.

So, to answer the original question, PWR indicates that the SSME would slightly reduce the LOM/LOC, not improve it compared to the RS-68.   And the presence of additional engines would reduce it even more significantly.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2009 03:45 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #355 on: 01/19/2009 03:56 pm »
Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?

Off the top of my head, its somewhere under Exploration Systems > Constellation Systems.

Gads, that can't be good.   I've memorized it.   :(

Ross.

On this chart, would it be under "Constellation Operations" I don't see either Exploration Systems or Constellation Systems listed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg352417#msg352417
« Last Edit: 01/19/2009 03:56 pm by Will »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #356 on: 01/19/2009 04:01 pm »

The mere presence of an extra engine would constitute a far larger impact to LOM/LOC than the individual engine failure rates do in this particular example.

So, to answer the original question, PWR indicates that the SSME would slightly reduce the LOM/LOC, not improve it compared to the RS-68.   And the presence of additional engines would reduce it even more significantly.

Ross.

Unless after a certain point in the powered portion of the mission you could continue the mission with just 2 engines at higher thrust level. That gives you an engine-out capability which actually improves LOM/LOC.

For example, the Jupiter-120 can continue to orbit on a single engine after ~45 seconds of 2-engine power - instead of aborting.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2009 04:03 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mnewcomb

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #357 on: 01/19/2009 04:04 pm »
I've asked about SSME a few times before. I think the ONLY reason to use SSME is if you want to fly ASAP. If you have more $$$ than time.

So, all you really have to do is modify the ET to support a payload on top and some [unmodified] SSMEs on the bottom. It's more expensive, but all you are doing is modifying the ET structure and building some avionics.

But, since Orion is the long pole in the tent, there is no need to fly ASAP.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #358 on: 01/19/2009 04:17 pm »
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload).  These include:

* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM
* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.
* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.

Ben, I need to correct a few bits there.

We propose building a 'cradle' which we refer to as an SSPDM (Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module) which would be designed to carry one of the standard Shuttle/ISS MPLM's to orbit one last time.   The SSPDM may or may not have an integral RCS system -- specifically depending on Orion's capabilities.   The SSPDM would be a disposable unit for carrying any remaining Shuttle Payloads one last time.   Once the payload (MPLM in this case) is finished with, it would be taken away by the accompanying Orion and placed into a safe orbit where it would burn up in the atmosphere.   The Orion would safely return home alone.

The SSPDM is also planned to be the basis for launching a future Orion-based Hubble Servicing Mission somewhere in the 2014 time-frame too.   After that mission the SSPDM would either be disposed of safely, or would be fitted with its own guidance and control systems and would be placed into an orbit compatible with Hubble, but a few hundred miles distant.   There it would remain, along with all the tools needed to perform any future servicing missions, ready for an Orion crew to dock with and bring back to the telescope once again.

We always liked the idea of the un-crewed Orion being an option for cargo-only deliveries and cargo down-mass capabilities.   Theoretically at least, a cargo-only variant of Orion could still be produced -- although neither CxP nor DIRECT have a budget allocation for it in the plans at this time.   It remains an option though.

And currently our suggestion is to utilize the slightly larger Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage for the Lunar Flyby mission in December 2013 (45th anniversary of Apollo 8).   The reason being that the DIVHUS has a greater propellant load than the Centaur-V1 and therefore a higher total impulse for that mission.   A side-effect of this choice to use the Delta hardware is that together with the human-rated RS-68's, the Jupiter would cover more than half the total costs of human-rating the Delta-IV Heavy for human use -- making it a very cost-effective option to consider.

Hope that helps clarify the situation a little.

Ross.

Great minds think alike.  Figured I wouldn't be the first to think of such a thing.   On a different thread, a guy was hassling me saying we wouldn't need to take any more components to the ISS after the Shuttles.  Which I thought was silly.  The AMS is only tenatively scheduled for another Shuttle launch, money's not been allocated for it last I heard.  There's a few other modules that were partially built and then cancelled that could possibly be finished and sent up.  Or, if they'd been scrapped and recycled, perhaps they could be built again.  The plans have already been done, all the engineering has been done, and in some cases, they were already partially built (Crew Hab Module, Centrifuge module, and there's a Russian modules or two).  Not to mention of one of the existing modules has a catestrophic failure, there would logically be a need to send up a replacement module.  Also, perhpas a new, not yet developed module could be added?  One of those Bigelo inflatable habitation modules or something?

Just seems silly that a space station designed to have components of Space Shuttle cargo bay size, with Space Shuttle abilities wouldn't have some need to be able to replecate those sizes and abilities.

So I was very happy to see the SSPDM concept. 

I was thinking more along the lines of not so much a cargo delivery system, but a utility module for satillite servicing and/or longer durration orbital missions that won't visit the ISS.  The Orion just seems prety small for anything of any duration. Like a SpaceHab module for example.  Something with some elbow room, and perhaps a better viewport arrangement for operation of the manipulator arm (although I suppose with cameras, you don't necessarily need viewports).  It could have an airlock, or Orion itself could be the airlock, and EVA's could exit via Orion's door visa vi Apollo 9.

And could such a unit be parked into an orbit that would allow it's reuse on future satillite servicing/long duration Orion missions?  Or would it have to be discarded?

Just interesting to speculate on the additional options the extra 20mt of launching ability of the J120, as well as boistering the argument for the DIRECT path because of those options and flexability.
The Shuttle gave us that ability due to it's already fairly generous habitation space, and then with the addition of a SpaceHab module in the cargo bay.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #359 on: 01/19/2009 04:17 pm »
On this chart, would it be under "Constellation Operations" I don't see either Exploration Systems or Constellation Systems listed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg352417#msg352417

The PI&O costs are actually split across a number of categories there.   For example, Flight Ops are under Operations, Facility Construction is under Development.

Actually, it's even more complex than that.   Some actually change part-way through, for example Ares-I Flight Operations are initially part of Constellation Development because the test flights are part of the Development Program, but once the system goes operational, they actually move over into the Constellation Operations category.

Jeez, I recall when we managed to pull all this stuff together last April, I remember we spent *weeks* getting it all organized correctly for Oberman.   It gave me such a headache trying to understand it with half-a-dozen of the financial guys all cross-talking at the same time!   We just started work on this years, so I've got it all to look forward to again! :D LOL

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

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