bad_astra - 1/9/2006 12:00 PM3.9 Billion and seven years, coupled with a 4 years lapse in human spaceflight capabilty in order to get Orion ready so that it can visit ISS a few times before 2016 (maybe). Is Orion that complicated? STS didn't take this long to get operational and that included the launch vehicle. This does not include the LSAM costs or Ares I development costs. Anyone know what gives? The more I think about it, the less I can understand how it can possibly take that much time to build this thing.
josh_simonson - 1/9/2006 5:26 PMHow did it go? Fast, reliable, cheap; pick two
bad_astra - 1/9/2006 10:24 PMQuotejosh_simonson - 1/9/2006 5:26 PMHow did it go? Fast, reliable, cheap; pick twoThat's a fallacy
MKremer - 1/9/2006 8:50 PMNot a fallacy. The trials and tribulations of Space-X from concept to where they are today are a good example.
wannamoonbase - 2/9/2006 11:00 AMThe three elements of any project are:1) Scope (what you are delivering)2) Resources (money, people and everything needed to produce the deliverable)3) Quality (how good your deliverable is).
kraisee - 2/9/2006 7:55 PMBut today there's a lot of scientific research done by NASA (non aero/space related) which they didn't do at that time.Ross.
Avron - 2/9/2006 2:33 PMI also think the demands of the client of the CEV are a lot more work intesive in terms of analysis, than what could have been done in the 70's, and along with that all the documentation and reviews..
This is something western engineers learnt from the Japanese.