Author Topic: Junk Cost Estimates Supplied to Augustine Committee Threaten to Sink NASA's HSF  (Read 25880 times)

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
http://www.marssociety.org/portal/AugustineNumbers/

Robert Zubrin thinks the Aerospace Corp is being used to provide a justification to kill HSF.

"The Augustine Committee may believe that by accepting such estimates they can push the Obama administration into supplying more funds to NASA. However the program they propose is so unattractive that the more likely result is that they will simply cause cancellation of the human exploration effort. "
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
At least Kennedy knew it would take some serious money to explore.  Bush didn't realize this.  I remember that when O'Keefe left I thought he might have been pushed out when he told Bush how much it was going to cost.  Remember O'Keefe was a budget guy.  I was in OSP when we went to exploration and we were not too far from putting a capsule on a Delta.  I was instantly concerned we would have a large gap in the program due to development costs.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 08/29/2009 08:12 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline marcus79

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8
Hello, I'm new here, this forum rocks, have been a longtime lurker. 8)

Zubrin is quite right in his critique, even though he partially spoils it by repeating his own plan for the nth time. There are some really strange budget holes in the AC model.

Other non-Cx elements going from $0.5B to $1B peak

Beyond LEO capability, from $0.1B to $1.6B peak

Other Cx elements from $0.3B to $2.1B peak

Tech development from $0.1B to $1.1B peak

Sidemount operational cost seem to be in the $4-5+B ballpark compared to shuttle's $3B (yea, you throw away more, but also no maintenance of orbiters).

The ground ops massive increase noted by Zubrin.

If you let go of some of these unspecified/unclear categories, you can have a better budget and can finance real things like a lunar lander.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Sidemount operational cost seem to be in the $4-5+B ballpark compared to shuttle's $3B (yea, you throw away more, but also no maintenance of orbiters).

The ground ops massive increase noted by Zubrin.

If you let go of some of these unspecified/unclear categories, you can have a better budget and can finance real things like a lunar lander.

STS is not 3 billion per year. At higher flight rates it has always been above 4 billion in current dollars.

Ground ops will go up as the infrastructure ages - most of it is decades old, costs will go up in the next years.

You also need to account for inflation. Costs in 2020 are a lot higher than they are now in absolute dollar figures.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
http://www.marssociety.org/portal/AugustineNumbers/

Robert Zubrin thinks the Aerospace Corp is being used to provide a justification to kill HSF.


The committee has been more than a disappointment.  I'm not sure if they're being used, or if they are trying to do the using. 

Either way, Zubrin is correct that U.S. Human Space Flight stands at the precipice right now.  Augustine has played a dangerous game and done little more than lay out a plan for NASA's deconstruction.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/29/2009 07:35 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline marcus79

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8

STS is not 3 billion per year. At higher flight rates it has always been above 4 billion in current dollars.

Ground ops will go up as the infrastructure ages - most of it is decades old, costs will go up in the next years.

You also need to account for inflation. Costs in 2020 are a lot higher than they are now in absolute dollar figures.

It is budgeted for $3-3.2B in AC own numbers, admittedly for the current flight levels. Sidemount has some extra costs in losing engines and the cargo holder, but there is no need for expensive orbiter maintenance. I don't think they assumed inflation rates up till the mid-2020s, so it should be more comparable than 50-75% more expensive.

Sure, ground equipment needs to be maintained/upgraded, but such a steep hike is unexpected. As are the really unclear and vague budget items. $15.9B to spend on unspecified tech development?? Or the cool $14.6B on 'other non-Cx elements' ???

It may be I'm missing things but the numbers seem strange, up to the point where you see random $0.1B differences for ISS for no real reason at all.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2009 07:59 pm by marcus79 »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
At least Kennedy knew it would take some serious money to explore.  Bush didn't realize this.

I disagree with this take.  VSE, the last thing that was publicly endorsed at the White House level, mandated a go-as-you-can-pay approach.  It was ESAS and Griffin's disdain for spiral development that screwed everything up.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

It is budgeted for $3-3.2B in AC own numbers, admittedly for the current flight levels. Sidemount has some extra costs in losing engines and the cargo holder, but there is no need for expensive orbiter maintenance. I don't think they assumed inflation rates up till the mid-2020s, so it should be more comparable than 50-75% more expensive.

Fixed costs are practically the same for the SDLV and Shuttle. Costs have come down right now, because the Shuttle is phased out, no ETs are ordered any more, no spare parts etc. We are in "fly-out" mode for quite some time already.

Operations costs for an cargo SDLV may be a bit lower, but overall that doesn't add up to very much. 5 billion in 2020 is a reasonable estimate for operations costs by the Committee if you ask me, as the average per year Shuttle cost was in the 4 billion-4.5 billion range in today's dollars over the length of the program. http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html

Quote
Sure, ground equipment needs to be maintained/upgraded, but such a steep hike is unexpected.

I cannot agree with that. Buildings, infrastructure etc. have a expected useful life of between 30-40 years in industry. After that you either need to abandon them and build new ones or invest heavily in renovation. The older the infrastructure gets the more money it needs.


Quote
As are the really unclear and vague budget items. $15.9B to spend on unspecified tech development?? Or the cool $14.6B on 'other non-Cx elements'???
They are not unspecified or vague. They include refueling technology, advanced propulsion, medical research, management, robotic precusor missions, advanced capabilities such as surface spacesuits, radiation research, nuclear reactor or other power source research and development etc. etc.

Sally Ride specifically mentioned that the technology line item is key for a solid beyond-LEO program.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
At least Kennedy knew it would take some serious money to explore.  Bush didn't realize this.

I disagree with this take.  VSE, the last thing that was publicly endorsed at the White House level, mandated a go-as-you-can-pay approach.  It was ESAS and Griffin's disdain for spiral development that screwed everything up.

Spiral development was a myth in my opinion.  I hated it the first time I heard about it.  I would go for block development as used many, many times very successfully.  But spiral is an impossible to implement project plan.  Do you have an SRR everyday of the spiral?  I have no idea how it could be done.

Can someone provide a single example of a spiral development project?  I can't think of one.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline marcus79

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8

Fixed costs are practically the same for the SDLV and Shuttle. Costs have come down right now, because the Shuttle is phased out, no ETs are ordered any more, no spare parts etc. We are in "fly-out" mode for quite some time already.

Operations costs for an cargo SDLV may be a bit lower, but overall that doesn't add up to very much. 5 billion in 2020 is a reasonable estimate for operations costs by the Committee if you ask me, as the average per year Shuttle cost was in the 4 billion-4.5 billion range in today's dollars over the length of the program. http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html


So, it would be $4B in current dollars. Hard to predict inflation in 2020 so lets keep it at this level for, say, 4 Sidemounts/year.


Quote

I cannot agree with that. Buildings, infrastructure etc. have a expected useful life of between 30-40 years in industry. After that you either need to abandon them and build new ones or invest heavily in renovation. The older the infrastructure gets the more money it needs.


That is true, but we would need more information what specifically where and why the money will have to go. It's an enormous increase and not yet specified to my knowledge.


Quote
They are not unspecified or vague. They include refueling technology, advanced propulsion, medical research, management, robotic precusor missions, advanced capabilities such as surface spacesuits, radiation research, nuclear reactor or other power source research and development etc. etc.

Sally Ride specifically mentioned that the technology line item is key for a solid beyond-LEO program.

Refueling technology has a separate budget in the excel. The other things you mention would better be tied to something specific and put in that budget. Like 'lunar systems' or 'asteroid mission'. It makes no sense to spend loosely a budget that size on all kinds of different items. They really need to specify better for their report.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Sidemount has some extra costs in losing engines and the cargo holder, but there is no need for expensive orbiter maintenance.

Some day you all will finally realize throwing away a whole spacecraft with all its fancy equipment is more costly than maintaining the "expensive" orbiter, with all its capabilities. And I am not even talking about throwing away the launch vehicle too (two of these per mission), and the second spacecraft ("mission module", lunar lander, a whole two stage manned vehicle by its own).

Well, we did learn this lesson in the late 1960ies, but it seems too long ago to remember. I am sure in a few years - too late - people will lament the mistakes. Some folks never will.

Analyst

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Sidemount has some extra costs in losing engines and the cargo holder, but there is no need for expensive orbiter maintenance.

Some day you all will finally realize throwing away a whole spacecraft with all its fancy equipment is more costly than maintaining the "expensive" orbiter, with all its capabilities. And I am not even talking about throwing away the launch vehicle too (two of these per mission), and the second spacecraft ("mission module", lunar lander, a whole two stage manned vehicle by its own).

Well, we did learn this lesson in the late 1960ies, but it seems too long ago to remember. I am sure in a few years - too late - people will lament the mistakes. Some folks never will.

Analyst
They want the shiny new toy, discarding the boring old toy, until they find that the new one doesn't allow them to do things they used to do with the old one.

No they can't do "total cost of ownership" with zero-based budgeting.

The russians get stuck reinventing "old" projects into new things all the time. Hard to imagine MSFC incrementally evolving Shuttle, warts (TPS, LES, et al) and all into a credible beyond LEO story in like manner (and no I don't mean DIRECT or Not Shuttle C).
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Well, Zubrin may be right but it's worth pointing out that he's entered the sour grapes field ahead of us.    He knows his choice is out, the rest of us peons are still waiting to get our personal ox gored.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Well, Zubrin may be right but it's worth pointing out that he's entered the sour grapes field ahead of us.    He knows his choice is out, the rest of us peons are still waiting to get our personal ox gored.
And Zurbins own cost estimates are widely considered to be on the extremely optimistic side. Quoting fellow extreme optimist Elon Musks estimates for the cost to develop heavy lift doesn't exactly help his case.

It's pretty clear to me that the members of the commission did not go into the process with a pre-formed conclusion they were going push through. The conclusion they did reach was obviously at odds with what they wanted. If they thought there was a realistic beyond LEO plan for the current budget, does anyone here doubt they would have jumped on it ? The idea that they went with inflated cost numbers in hopes of getting even more money doesn't pass the giggle test to me.

Offline Cons

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
You also need to account for inflation. Costs in 2020 are a lot higher than they are now in absolute dollar figures.

Yes, most people underestimate the effect of inflation.
Aerospace assumed a 2.25% inflation rate.
4B in FY09 -> 5.1B FY20 -> 6.24B FY29 just because of inflation.
(1.0225^11 = 1.28, 1.0225^20 = 1.56)

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
http://www.marssociety.org/portal/AugustineNumbers/

Robert Zubrin thinks the Aerospace Corp is being used to provide a justification to kill HSF.

"The Augustine Committee may believe that by accepting such estimates they can push the Obama administration into supplying more funds to NASA. However the program they propose is so unattractive that the more likely result is that they will simply cause cancellation of the human exploration effort. "

Yes, because we know cost estimates for space systems are ALWAYS too low. 

*sigh*  Same song, different verse.

NASA intentionally underestimates costs (such as for ISS) and gets hammered.

NASA (under Griffin and now with the commission as an extension) estimate costs best they can (forget about if you agree with the design or the outcomes) and they get hammered.

It's over.  I'm calling the exploration program for at least the next decade.  Time of death, 2009.  But the corpse may twitch for a while longer.  If alt-space can do it cheaper, let them.

/rant
« Last Edit: 08/29/2009 10:34 pm by mars.is.wet »

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
At least Kennedy knew it would take some serious money to explore.  Bush didn't realize this. 

Not true.  Bush (personally) signed up to providing the money, meaning he understood the magnitude of the costs.

Then, as deficits and other NASA costs grew (Katrina) he simply didn't.

Doesn't mean he didn't realize it.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

STS is not 3 billion per year. At higher flight rates it has always been above 4 billion in current dollars.

Ground ops will go up as the infrastructure ages - most of it is decades old, costs will go up in the next years.

You also need to account for inflation. Costs in 2020 are a lot higher than they are now in absolute dollar figures.

Great post simon.  You get it.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2009 10:22 pm by mars.is.wet »

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Can someone provide a single example of a spiral development project?  I can't think of one.

Danny Deger

I have lots.  But let's try modern models of cars.  (Accord, Camry, Escort)

Offline marcus79

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8


Yes, most people underestimate the effect of inflation.
Aerospace assumed a 2.25% inflation rate.
4B in FY09 -> 5.1B FY20 -> 6.24B FY29 just because of inflation.
(1.0225^11 = 1.28, 1.0225^20 = 1.56)


Well, it's no good putting that into a report since it weakens comparing things and inflation is hard to predict. And of course it's smarter to go with lower numbers for psychological reasons anyway.

I also think it's much smarter to tie budget to concrete stuff, like a lunar lander or asteroid mission hardware, and use that to develop systems required for it like new space suits. You can't just argue for spending $15B on general research, it'll be cut right away, which is what will likely happen to all these vague items.

Tags:
 

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