psloss - 1/4/2008 5:27 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 1/4/2008 5:23 PMHere is how it should be done.http://www.google.com/virgle/index.htmlThe idea is likely to get lost in the joke.
Norm Hartnett - 1/4/2008 5:23 PMHere is how it should be done.http://www.google.com/virgle/index.html
jcopella - 1/4/2008 5:59 PMIf it was anybody but Branson.I suspect he'll end up having the last laugh.
Analyst - 1/4/2008 2:11 PMQuoteThe ESAS architecture ignored economic development of the solar system as a core value and the administration has been unwilling to fund a science project. Until this seeps into everyone's bones that this is the case, this will continue to happen.This is the part I never got: “Economic development of the solar system”. I still don’t and probably will never get it.What do you want to do “in the solar system” to make a profit? Because this is what "economic" means in the end (at least within the lifetime of the investor): profit. This profit - and with it the economic development - is soooo far into the future, we all born and living today will never see it. Everything economically useful will center arround earth, as all (few) current commercial space activities do (communication, earth observing, etc.). Because the people using and paying for these services live on earth, not on the Moon or elsewhere in the solar system. And the verse will stay this way for a long time. Noone there, noone benefitting, noone paying. Other than scientific interest, there is no reason for spaceflight - manned or unmanned - beyond the sphere of earth, where people live, can use it and pay for it.The same can be said about the “national security argument”. Military satellites in earth orbit effect people on earth, may decide wars on earth. This is not true for satellites arround Mars or elesewhere. Because there is noone who can enjoy any security beyond earth and therefore noone pays for it.So for a very long time - at least a decade, maybe longer - the economic development of the solar system is not possible and can’t be almost by definition. And national security is not enhanced by going to the moon, Mars and beyond (Maybe indirect, but this could be (and has been and still is) achieved much cheaper by dedicated development projects).So all what remains is science. And if the administration is unwilling to fund a science project, there will be nothing done in space beyond the sphere of earth. Apollo was a one time event, there will never be another Apollo – on steroids or not.Analyst
The ESAS architecture ignored economic development of the solar system as a core value and the administration has been unwilling to fund a science project. Until this seeps into everyone's bones that this is the case, this will continue to happen.
psloss - 1/4/2008 9:13 AMQuoteJIS - 1/4/2008 10:02 AMCan anybody explain me where all those money end up? Thousands of lost jobs means a lot of spare money every month. Unless they are going to pay hughe pensions and compensations.It looks like they are redirecting workload from KSC.I would presume that the document scheduled to be released in about three hours might address that, but you might also look at the NASA budget documentation:http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/For example, looking at the FY 2009 budget request, it looks like almost the entire shuttle operations budget is "moved" to Exploration / Constellation systems:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates.pdf
JIS - 1/4/2008 10:02 AMCan anybody explain me where all those money end up? Thousands of lost jobs means a lot of spare money every month. Unless they are going to pay hughe pensions and compensations.It looks like they are redirecting workload from KSC.
BeanEstimator - 1/4/2008 10:38 PMCan I ask a question here - are we all upset at the fact that there are job losses? Or are we upset at the number of job losses? Or is it some other sort of frustration (don't like VSE, don't like Ares, etc)?IMHO, it's real simple - Cx has to be cheaper than Shuttle to operate. Otherwise there is no $ for Lunar Development. Or the $ that are there, severely impact schedule and capability. You could also say Cx has to be cheaper than Shuttle because "collective wisdom" tells us Shuttle was too expensive to operate. YMMV there, but there does seem to be a current flowing against the "high" costs of Shuttle operation (regardless of whether you fly once or 4 times a year). For reference, you could ballpark Shuttle Ops in a given FY at approx 3.3-4.0B. (if someone has better numbers then so be it)Cost for NASA is not a materials game. It's a people and facilities game. (even with the 'unobtanium')If GO is to get cheaper, they must get the job done with less people. To me the answer would be the same regardless of architecture (DIRECT, EELV, or otherwise)...why? Because the challenge would be the same: reduce operations cost - either through people or facilities. I don't think you can really expect to just "do something for cheaper". Either you are doing less, or using less. That's how you make the biggest impact on cost overall.
wingod - 1/4/2008 10:51 PMWith the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch? A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility .....
wingod - 1/4/2008 8:51 PMI wonder about this. With the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch? A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility as an EELV heavy is more than that and there is no expendable CEV. I doubt seriously that the cost per flight is going to be less than $500M dollars in the absolute worst case and that does not included the fixed overhead. Also, what about the fixed overhead at the contractor facilities that are building these things. Additionally, the ISS version is not the same hardware anymore as the Lunar version so there is a few billion extra DDT&E that was not accounted for before.
edkyle99 - 1/4/2008 12:01 AMQuotewingod - 1/4/2008 10:51 PMWith the expending of just about everything on the Ares 1/Orion system will it really be cheaper than a Shuttle launch? A number that I have seen here of $183M dollars for a launch strains credibility .....NASA is only planning two Ares I/Orion missions per year. The Agency would have to cut its annual human spaceflight program budget by a factor of 2.0-2.5 for it to be able to even *match* the current per-mission cost of the shuttle program. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that NASA's total annual human spaceflight budget will decline even while per-mission costs climb substantially. These Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight. Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight. - Ed Kyle
That aside, if NASA had done what they were told, and focused on economic activity then the "Architecture" would have ISRU as a central piece of the system.
There is no contradiction here in that originally it was the U.S. government that paid for the development of the panama canal (support trade), the "National" railroad of the 1860's and even the Interstate highway system today (along with Airports).
This is not that much different than COTS and anyone who says that ISRU is not possible, has simply not studied the problem.
The first step in this process is defining economic activity as a goal. That has been done and NASA completely dropped the ball on the implementation.
These Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight. Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight.
Analyst - 2/4/2008 2:32 AMSorry wingod, but you are still missing the point.QuoteThat aside, if NASA had done what they were told, and focused on economic activity then the "Architecture" would have ISRU as a central piece of the system.And who would use (buy) this propellant? The government conducting very few missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Noone who finally makes a profit nor the military. Because there will be noone who is benefitting. It will still be Boeing, LM, SpaceX or whoever selling their services to the government, just not on earth.QuoteThere is no contradiction here in that originally it was the U.S. government that paid for the development of the panama canal (support trade), the "National" railroad of the 1860's and even the Interstate highway system today (along with Airports).All these earthbound analogies are very bad. There were private people/companies with ships, railroad cars, automobiles doing the transportation business before all these projects started. There has been a demand to ship goods arround Cape Horn or across the continent and this transportation has been done long before these projects started. Because there were people living at these places, paying for these services. These government funded projects made the transportation business - which has already been there and making profits - easier, cheaper, faster etc.Spaceflight beyond the sphere of earth is totally different: There are (and for a very long time won’t) be people paying for any service. (There are still no people at the south pole who pay for being there.) There is no business other than government sponsored science, which is no business making a profit.Your analogy may work for transportation into earth orbit: There are already (limited) businesses (communication, earth observing, etc.), paid for by users living on earth. These businesses would probably expand with lower transportation (aka launch costs) costs into earth orbit. Enter cheaper launch vehicles, which probably have to be reuseable to be cheaper. But the “enabeler” government is turning away from RLVs, because the first and only try did not meet all expectations. As bad as anologies are, it’s like stopping building the national railrod when raching the Rockies. The government fails to help the (few) private businesses existing to make their business easier, cheaper, faster etc.QuoteThis is not that much different than COTS and anyone who says that ISRU is not possible, has simply not studied the problem.The buyer of COTS services will be the government, as will the buyer of propellant on the moon, Mars or beyond. This may be different with a propellant depot in LEO: Existing businesses (communication or earth observing satellite companies) may buy the fuel too. But the government can support these depots in LEO without going to the moon, Mars or beyond. Should they still go - something I really hope - they do it for science (forget prestige, this worked only once for Apollo), not for economic reasons nor for national security.QuoteThe first step in this process is defining economic activity as a goal. That has been done and NASA completely dropped the ball on the implementation.No, this has not been done, it has been said. But talk is cheap. There is no definition of what this activity will be, who will use and pay and who will turn a profit. Just because there is noone nor will be beyond the sphere of earth.QuoteThese Ares I/Orion missions seem almost certain to exceed $1 billion per flight. Some are suggesting that they might cost more than $2 billion per flight.True, sadly. And the bad reusable Shuttle will be cheap in retrospect – well, you can calculate it today already – despite offering much more capabilities.You can’t go to the moon on a LEO budget and so will remain in LEO. You will end up with less for more or the same money. Someday people will ask why this and maybe the next cycle will bring RLVs back. Because they worked, were less expensive for human spaceflight despite being first generation, and can help existing businesses within the sphere or earth, where people are, where profits can be made.Analyst
Through the first quarter 2008, job cuts totaled 200,656, up 2.4 percent from the 195,986 cuts in the same period in 2007.
Norm Hartnett - 2/4/2008 10:51 AMJust to interject a little dose of reality here, QuoteThrough the first quarter 2008, job cuts totaled 200,656, up 2.4 percent from the 195,986 cuts in the same period in 2007.In the greater scheme of things 9,000 jobs over a three year period is a drop in the bucket.
If you look around at the space world today, you see a system that is dysfunctional to an extreme. From a $2 billion dollar Mars Science Laboratory, to a $12 billion dollar NPOESS (it started at $5 billion). You see a system that is groaning under the weight of its own antiquity.
"Geocentric mindset"
Space is larger than NASA's puny efforts at this time and the requirements of the nation in space are far larger than what the system can support today.
The first solution set is what we called "Ubiquitous Space Operations" defined as the ability to go anywhere and do anything, first in Cislunar space.
You say that there is no need for propellant in space, I beg to differ.
1) A couple of years ago, the first FIA launch by the defense department failed on orbit due to a software error. A robust propellant delivery system would have enabled a servicing craft to go up to that satellite, interface to it, and reboot the darn thing, which was the only problem. That loss was $2 billion for the spacecraft and about $7 billion for the DDT&E for it.2) On top of that we had to make global news and reveal an operational anti satellite capability, which cost another $60 million dollars just to shoot that bird down.
… then to cover the entire cislunar operational sphere.
This can be done at no more than the current budget for ESAS and you have the temerity to suggest that I am missing the point?
Analyst - 2/4/2008 12:23 PMQuoteIf you look around at the space world today, you see a system that is dysfunctional to an extreme. From a $2 billion dollar Mars Science Laboratory, to a $12 billion dollar NPOESS (it started at $5 billion). You see a system that is groaning under the weight of its own antiquity.I am sure improvements are needed and possible. But why isn’t the private, economic, profit making sector using this big opportunitiy you state and is doing better? Spaceflight is not easy or simple.Quote"Geocentric mindset"Because there is noone beyond this earth, nor are there resources we are even remotely capable (technically and cost effective) nor in need of using. And this stays true for a long time to come: Generations.QuoteSpace is larger than NASA's puny efforts at this time and the requirements of the nation in space are far larger than what the system can support today.Even these small steps done by NASA are very hard and expensive, and not because of the incompetence of everyone. If you were correct, why are other nations or the private sector not doing better?Please be a little more specific: What are these requirements of the nation, economically or military. Where are they founded?QuoteThe first solution set is what we called "Ubiquitous Space Operations" defined as the ability to go anywhere and do anything, first in Cislunar space.You fail to say what the “anything” is you will do “anywhere”. I see science, something very noble, but always hard to justify to the taxpayer, as the only thing we will do beyond the sphere of earth for the very long future. Please tell me the interests of the nation at … (put here any planet or moon in the solar system or the vacuum in between), economically or military.QuoteYou say that there is no need for propellant in space, I beg to differ.Please read again what I said: Propellant depots within the sphere of earth may be useful. But you can have these without expensive ways of going to the moon, Mars and beyond.Quote1) A couple of years ago, the first FIA launch by the defense department failed on orbit due to a software error. A robust propellant delivery system would have enabled a servicing craft to go up to that satellite, interface to it, and reboot the darn thing, which was the only problem. That loss was $2 billion for the spacecraft and about $7 billion for the DDT&E for it.2) On top of that we had to make global news and reveal an operational anti satellite capability, which cost another $60 million dollars just to shoot that bird down.1) You are talking about USA-193? I am not aware of the failure mode of USA-193 being know in public. Nor do I know if its costs are available. $2 billion sounds very high for a Delta II launched spacecraft. And why are the DDT&E costs lost? But anyway, how would a propellant depot fix the software error?2) Well, the government choose to do this, I am very sceptical they had to. It’s more likely they wanted. But all this has nothing to do with the topic.Quote… then to cover the entire cislunar operational sphere.One last time: Why cislunar sphere. And why beyond?QuoteThis can be done at no more than the current budget for ESAS and you have the temerity to suggest that I am missing the point?The current and planned budget is barely able to field a LEO reaching capsule and launcher at or after 2015, nothing more. Temerity: Please keep your tongue in check. No need to get personal.Analyst
James Lowe1 - 2/4/2008 12:50 PMLet's please keep it on the "6,400 jobs to be lost at KSC". Some of this is turning into opinionated 'venting'.