Author Topic: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?  (Read 22570 times)

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 40
The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« on: 10/07/2011 08:06 pm »
I'm curious how you all feel about the current state of NASA's HSF programs when compared to 2008. Personally, I feel we are better off now (the shuttle program end being a huge exception and unrelated to my focus here) than with the funding uncertainty and mismanagement problems that clouded CxP.

Be it, there still remains funding uncertainty in the big scheme of things (payloads for SLS, exploration vehicles, mission science, launch schedules, and so on), but not - at least - the core elements (launcher, crew capsule, launch pad upgrades, ground-based services, data relay satellites, etc.) have committed long-term funding. Compared to 2008, under CxP, the designs of that program's elements weren't close to being finalized so late into that program's funding and development cycle. My feeling is that *if* the current HSF development effort shows results - with whatever annual funding Congress grants them - confidence in the agency (at the legislation level) will grow and the odds of additional funding for things such as SLS payloads and exploration vehicles also will grow. This was what happened with the New Horizons flyby mission to Pluto. That program showed results annually with the funds Congress allocated; and Congress showed its satisfaction by appropriating the requested amount (or more than the requested amount on occasion) to that program.

Are we better off today than we were in 2008 or not? Vote 'yes' or 'no' or voice your opinion?

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #1 on: 10/07/2011 08:13 pm »
Honestly, I don't know if today we are better off than we were in 2008. I would, however, claim that we are better off than at the beginning of this year. Because now, at least, there is some sort of plan for the future.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2011 08:13 pm by aquanaut99 »

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #2 on: 10/07/2011 08:29 pm »
It strikes me that Ive just traded one set of hopes for another.   

In 2008, I hoped CxP would work then hoped it would get a funding bump and survive.

In 2011,  I hope SLS can make the finish line,  and hope that CC comes off without a hitch.

I'm just as much in the dark as before.   Many things could happen.   Though I do like the introduction of CC.

Offline demorcef

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • SCE to AUX
  • Chicago, IL
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #3 on: 10/07/2011 09:05 pm »
By 2010 we should have already had something flying to replace the Space Shuttle, so I think both 2008 and 2011 are failures.

However, 2011 is looking much much better...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #4 on: 10/07/2011 11:41 pm »
Under Constellation, we had just one system that we could pray and hope would work.

Now, we have much that same system (minus the unnecessary Ares I), but the elements are much further along (Orion is pretty darned close to flying unmanned... only 2 years until the 2013 test flight). Plus, we have at least two commercial crew systems that are pretty far along (and, of course, Falcon 9 has flown twice and Dragon flown and recovered once) and CRS is pretty close to operational (not as close as we'd liked).

On the other hand, Shuttle extension was a very real option in 2008 but today is pretty remote. That, and Congress is probably going to cut NASA's budget. And that Progress failure isn't very great for NASA HSF.

My personal opinion is that we are better off. If NASA is going to have their own launch vehicle, it makes a lot more sense for it to be SLS than Ares I (and I have a hard time believing there'd be much drive to finish Ares V once Ares I was developed... at least now NASA is focusing on a launch vehicle which isn't something that completely duplicates other launch vehicle capabilities and with great complication with thrust oscillation, etc), and all the commercial crew aspects are much more mature now than 3 years ago. ISS is finally complete (basically), and we've found more water on the Moon and Mars.

Part of the reason I prefer SLS over Ares I is that SLS (with even just the Delta IV upper stage) is actually capable of putting Orion through considerable delta-v, whereas Ares I can barely put it in LEO. Then again, if all NASA had was Ares I (and the EELVs and Falcon 9, etc), they'd be forced to use payload sizes which could be launched on multiple different launch vehicles, which is a good thing.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2011 11:54 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #5 on: 10/08/2011 12:11 am »
Im generally positive, for the reason's Robotbeat gave.

Also although I think it is foolish to put so little emphasis on technology development, I now console myself that perhaps there is a way of trading this surplus of launch capacity with payload technology development in other countries, simultaneously encouraging some of their technology budget away from rockets towards water recycling, robotics, solar power etc.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #6 on: 10/08/2011 12:59 am »
I had to give this some thought.
Things are not as good as I'd like them to be but over all HSF is in better shape today then in it was in 2008.

In 2008 they were planning on de orbiting ISS in 2016 and there was no commercial crew program.

Orion would have had nowhere to go between 2016 and when Ares V was ready.

« Last Edit: 10/08/2011 01:02 am by Patchouli »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #7 on: 10/08/2011 02:19 am »
Positive.

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #8 on: 10/08/2011 03:46 am »
Positive. I agree that there are more options now, like SpaceX. It seems NASA is in a better position for human spaceflight in 2011 than in 2008 because a lot of political bugs have been worked out. In 2008, were people sure that CxP would work (i.e. Ares I)? Now aren't people more sure that SLS will work?
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #9 on: 10/09/2011 02:50 am »
Cautiously optimistic;
   I feel that NASA has been given a Governors reprieve to bring new evidence forward that they can do the job; if they fail, then this is it, no last minute appeals;

they have to get it right this time, no errors, no over budgeting; they have been handed a rocket and capsule on a silver platter; they wasted a lot of time getting to this point, fighting congress; now it is time to right the mistakes made with Constellation, build this bird and get into Space;

LEO is taken care of, and has a momentum all it's own; it is BEO and the JWST that are priorities right now; getting them settled over the next decade are the true test of if NASA has learned anything in the time between 2008 and now;
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #10 on: 10/09/2011 03:15 am »
The shuttle was overbloated for it's limited capacity.

I guess I did enjoy seeing the ISS getting constructed but it's nothing more than a tin can science lab. Astronauts do experiments, take urine samples and come back down.

JPL has done all the real exploration with their rovers and probes.

Massive paranoia over sending humans into deep space exists.

I'm not sure what can be done to overcome it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #11 on: 10/09/2011 04:22 am »
The shuttle was overbloated for it's limited capacity.

I guess I did enjoy seeing the ISS getting constructed but it's nothing more than a tin can science lab. Astronauts do experiments, take urine samples and come back down.

JPL has done all the real exploration with their rovers and probes.

Massive paranoia over sending humans into deep space exists.

I'm not sure what can be done to overcome it.
As much as I think a more JPL-like approach to manned spaceflight is much better than the current way of doing NASA manned spaceflight, I do think that the lack of Shuttle (which, if we're really honest with ourselves, was pretty risky without the LAS--though nothing isn't risky in this business and I'd fly on Shuttle without question) combined with the only NASA launch vehicle having only an Orion to launch and not having a version without an upper stage may really force NASA to accept some of that risk and overcome some of that paranoia. Launching Orion with SLS with an upper stage from the get-go... It'd be kind of a waste of a lot of delta-v to just send it to LEO. The first manned flight of Orion is supposed to be around the Moon in a high orbit, something which has never been done before and which technically is the further from Earth than anyone has gone before.

There's no real scientific advantage to that sort of mission, in my opinion... But it would help overcome the paranoia you're talking about. Shuttle was a symbol of NASA since Enterprise first flew. It was where all the 'action' was (and has been since the end of Apollo), it took up basically most of the 'bandwidth' at several NASA centers. And it could never go beyond LEO. Now, those NASA centers which were so focused on Shuttle are going to focus on a manned spacecraft designed to be primarily operated beyond LEO and a launch vehicle which won't ever be flown in a configuration where it wouldn't be capable of sending Orion beyond LEO. A lot more of the 'action' is focused on beyond LEO.

Now, I personally think it's crazy that so much attention and energy is focused on a NASA-only launch vehicle compared to the quite effective Atlas, Delta, etc, which could easily be used for human spaceflight missions (with those resources being more efficiently used since the launch vehicles have many non-NASA payloads), but that's just the way several of the NASA centers (KSC, MSFC, and JSC mostly) are structured (plus the Congressional support). At least now, they have no reason why they can't go beyond LEO with their NASA-specific launch vehicle and NASA-specific spacecraft. And that's exciting to me, even as I see the points that such a NASA-specific launch vehicle isn't really helping the situation.

I'll be cheering them on anyway. I think it's really good we're finally going beyond-LEO again, and even if it takes a couple decades to develop a real beyond-LEO payload besides Orion (just like it took Shuttle almost two decades before really starting to build ISS, which you could almost say was it's real mission), the 'action' is beyond LEO, so even though it's still a pretty inefficient way of doing it if you have a flat budget (the JPL approach of using Atlas V, etc, is much better, IMHO), there probably will eventually be beyond-LEO hardware built and flown. If they don't screw it up again.

But the pressure is on... there's no Shuttle to fall back on, so the chance of success is a little bit greater simply because the NASA centers in question can't afford to fail (and the launch vehicle can easily be scaled down or have quite a bit of performance shortfall while still being able to launch Orion without a problem... the opposite case of Ares I).

In the meantime, we have a huge manned space station which will stick around for at least the rest of this decade (several years longer than planned before) and commercial cargo/crew going on, all of which is pretty cool (and, if you include LEO rendezvous technology that would be needed for a Mars mission even with SLS, those along with the EELVs could function as replacements for SLS and Orion... which also keeps those working on SLS on their toes). And, of course, we still have the amazing unmanned spaceflight by NASA going to places never seen before up close (Ceres, Pluto, etc).
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 04:37 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #12 on: 10/09/2011 04:59 am »
Cautiously optimistic.  CCDev looking pretty good right now and so is Orion. 

Everything else on the HSF side is pretty much an all you can eat pork bbq sponsored in part by Senators Shelby, Nelson, Hutchison, Hatch, and Mikulski.

I know I am in the minority on this website.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #13 on: 10/09/2011 06:54 am »
Thanks for your great response Robobeat.

I do feel the "overcome paranoia about deep space" stuff is almost a mission in itself.

Sending men to flyby Mars or land on Phobos will be a big step in the right direction.

New moon missions are pointless unless you're going to build foundations for a lunar colony but can go a long way to generate public sentiment.

I think the more humans we can get into space the better.

Feels strange to have just 3 on ISS right now. Why is launching a man so complex when multiple countries are launching cargo into orbit almost constantly without drama?

I think within the next decade we will be looking at many manned launch vehicles all with good escape systems. The more we can put shuttle behind us the better.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #14 on: 10/09/2011 08:19 am »
We are better off today than in 2008. In spite of some major political confusion during the last two years, an affordable and politically sustainable long-term beyond low Earth orbit NASA human spaceflight program is now moving forward.

As Chris Bergin noted, "With all cylinders now firing on NASA’s exploration planning effort, the development and early mission schedule for the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion are starting to fall into place, with dramatic improvements being worked for NASA’s opening crewed Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) mission with the Orion (MPCV), which is moving to the left by two years."

And Deputy Administrator Lori Garver wisely commented, "The SLS heavy-lift rocket will take American astronauts farther into space than any human has ever gone before. It will expand our knowledge of the universe, reap benefits to improve life on Earth, inspire millions around the world and create good jobs right here at home."

Yep. 

I added the bold.

See: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/sls-mission-improving-crewed-moon-mission-2019/

Cheers!   :)
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #15 on: 10/09/2011 01:24 pm »
I think the HSF programme is still in complete flux. Funding issues after the next election could well end the SLS.

By the way I dont think SLS gets us beyond LEO. oTher vehicles launched on Sls do that.

Beyond the election issue I believe that spaceX is developing a disruptive technology in reusable rockets which if successful will end SLS. It will look ridiculous to spend 1billion on a 70 tonne launch when SPaceX are doing 40- 50 tonne launches for a few million dollars

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #16 on: 10/09/2011 01:44 pm »
Please don't blow too much smoke up SpaceX's bottom.

I'd prefer to see real results before making any statements about any operational capability they might have.

This might be off topic but those reusable rockets are just science fiction for now.

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #17 on: 10/09/2011 04:28 pm »
Well I agre spectre that it is speculative, but then so is SLS.

 If SLS is successful nothing will have changed we will still have launch systems costing 1 billion a pop which means that space development will be going nowhere fast.

If ELon MUsk is successful it will the biggest leap forward in space exploration since the V1. SOmething worth supporting I think.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #18 on: 10/09/2011 04:46 pm »
Well I agre spectre that it is speculative, but then so is SLS.

 If SLS is successful nothing will have changed we will still have launch systems costing 1 billion a pop which means that space development will be going nowhere fast.

If ELon MUsk is successful it will the biggest leap forward in space exploration since the V1. SOmething worth supporting I think.


Grossly over reaching. In fact, "since V1 sic V-2" is a buttnine comparision.  That have been other more significant leaps.

They were looking for 90%.  They aren't going to reach 50%.  50% is not gaming changing.

Also, it is not SLS vs Spacex, there are many other players, SNC, Boeing, OSC, ULA, etc
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 04:48 pm by Jim »

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #19 on: 10/09/2011 05:09 pm »
Well ELon Musk mentions a factor of 100 in his presentation. I expect that will be difficult to achieve because of fixed costs. But even a factorof 20 would make a huge difference.

Watch this presentation by ELon Musk if you are interested

http://www.c-span.org/Events/National-Press-Club-The-Future-of-Human-Spaceflight/10737424486/

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #20 on: 10/09/2011 05:10 pm »
And Elon's word is gospel

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #21 on: 10/09/2011 05:11 pm »
All those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systems

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #22 on: 10/09/2011 05:15 pm »
He is spending his companies money trying to make a huge difference in the cost of launch payloads into LEO. The single most important thing if you want to see much bigger leaps in human spce flight.

He mY succed he may not but as far as launch systems are concerned his success rate is much higher than another company this century. 2 new launch systems and 1 new space craft

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #23 on: 10/09/2011 05:23 pm »
This "century" is arbatary and meaningless.  And one of the systems is not in use.

Just keep drinking the koolade.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 05:23 pm by Jim »

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #24 on: 10/09/2011 05:33 pm »
You are very negative Jim, this guy is trying something which will make a big difference if he is successful, you sound like someone who wishes him to fail.


Why?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #25 on: 10/09/2011 05:47 pm »
You are very negative Jim, this guy is trying something which will make a big difference if he is successful, you sound like someone who wishes him to fail.
Why?

No, I am being realistic

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #26 on: 10/09/2011 05:52 pm »
Realistic? You have no more idea of his chance of success than I do.

He is spending company money on this, money he has spent developing falcon1, falcon 9, and now FAlcon heavy plus 4 variations of the merlin 1 engine and the dragon spacecraft. a solid background of achievement , maybe evan overachievement given the resouces at his command.

If he is successful it changes everything as far as space exploration is concerned

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #27 on: 10/09/2011 05:59 pm »
Realistic? You have no more idea of his chance of success than I do.


Have you reviewed any their proposals or seen their hardware?   

Have you participated in any launch campaign?  For different vehicles and contractors?

Havevyou worked for a commercial space company?

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #28 on: 10/09/2011 06:08 pm »
Well I am an engineer who worked for many years at a BAE systems developing missiles systems. So not a complete no nothing fool JIm what about you where did you learn to be such a cynic

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #29 on: 10/09/2011 06:11 pm »
Well I am an engineer who worked for many years at a BAE systems developing missiles systems. So not a complete no nothing fool JIm what about you where did you learn to be such a cynic

See above, I have done that
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 06:12 pm by Jim »

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #30 on: 10/09/2011 06:40 pm »
Worse...20+ month delay for...??? given that SLS is slowly morphing back into Ares V for the same reasons Ares-V became what it was; and MPCV = Orion.

Sure, Ares I was cancelled, but you didn't need to cancel the whole smash to do that...
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 06:43 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #31 on: 10/09/2011 07:55 pm »
Well, let's see calendar year 2008 NASA HSF versus today (I'll use planned 2012 to distinguish between pre-Shuttle and post-Shuttle eras).

2008 - NASA carried out 5 human spaceflights on Shuttle with 35 people aboard.  In addition 2 NASA astronauts and 2 IP astronauts were launched on Soyuz TMA.  Cargo to ISS included 1 Shutle resupply, 5 Progress vehicles and 1 ATV plus hardware brought up by the other 4 Shuttle flights.  Total cargo weight of approximately 170,000 lbs.

Constellation going slow with (viewing from the projects I was involved in) flight dates slipping faster than calendar dates.  In other words when we started a project we were 4 years from flying and when we finished the project we were 6 years from flying, or similar numbers.  However, a plan was in place and there were no show stoppers, just the end dates that were unrealistic (and so was the budget).  Orion to fly on Ares-I with launch dates with humans onboard expected to slip to 2016 or 2017.

Good amount of Shuttle to Constellation knowledge being transferred among engineering community.

Usual uncertainties (one month or two) in Shuttle launch dates.  Progress/Soyuz launch on schedule.  Slight delays in ATV and HTV launches.


2012 - No NASA human spaceflights planned.  4 NASA astronauts and 2 IP astronauts expected to fly on Soyuz.  Reduction of 33 astronaut flights over 2008 (89% reduction).

Cargo expected to be from 7 Progress flights, 1 ATV, 2 HTVs, 4 Dragons and 1 Cygnus.  Total payload weight of 129,000 lbs assuming all schedules hold for 2012 (24% reduction).

SLS contracts not yet finalized.  MPCV/Orion work continuing but no actual flight dates with humans onboard (realistic or unrealistic) have been set for this decade.  MPCV/Orion currently is targeted for SLS but other launch vehicle choices have been speculated.   Program still being defined.

Human spacecraft not designed by NASA are in early stages of development with years of budgets and development needed before human spaceflight.

Limited knowledge transfer since large Shuttle layoffs have occurred.  All production of SSMEs, SRBs and tanks have been halted.  Hope for being restarted when SLS contracts are finalized.

NASA workforce for human spaceflight reduced by over 10,000 (closer to 14,000) since 2008.  Reduction in knowledge and capability for remaining NASA workforce.

Progress / Soyuz launches delayed (weeks) due to 2011 Soyuz launcher program.  ATV / HTV maturing and launch dates are realistic.  Significant delays in the launches of Cygnus and Dragon.  Significant uncertainties in projecting schedules for these two vehicles.



So, bottom line for me is our capabilities are currently significantly reduced from 2008.  While plans are in place to restore some of the capability, no firm dates for any human flights are in place.  Cargo to ISS strongly depends upon the success of Dragon for 2012 and maintaining schedules.

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/09/2011 07:57 pm by alk3997 »

Offline grr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #32 on: 10/11/2011 02:51 pm »
The exact same.
In 2008, we were looking at one HSF which was ares I and it was obvious that it was going to be after 2015 in spite of the many timelines and promises. The reason is that it was severely underfunded the entire 4 years.

The solution was then picked to have multiple different HSF systems. Makes perfect sense. If we depend on one system, then to build remotely we MUST depend on another nation.  Of course, the only 2 nations that have that are Russia and China.
 
In addition, to be able to support multiple HSF launchers, we need multiple destinations of which the majority MUST be outside of federal control. To pull this off, we need Bigelow and ideally IDC Dover to have space stations, and even lunar stations.

Now, we see congress again underfunding CCDev to the point, where we are looking at exactly 1 vehicle making it.   Worse, BA has had to lay off ppl. That will mean over a year of start-up time.
But by moving from the  shuttle, we are now looking at 1 private system (almost certainly Dragon/F9 or CST-100/Atlas). So, we will have to depend on Russia or China again, since it is becoming obvious that EU is about to have massive issues.

Had the house not been so politician oriented and more about the nation, they would have increased this years CCDev and allowed NASA to not just fund these vehicles, but also buy a BA unit to attach to the ISS. That would have gotten us not just the next internet style economy, but allowed private space to go to the moon.

Congress is killing America.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2011 03:12 pm by grr »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #33 on: 10/11/2011 06:43 pm »
NASA workforce for human spaceflight reduced by over 10,000 (closer to 14,000) since 2008.  Reduction in knowledge and capability for remaining NASA workforce.

I don't think the success of the HSF is measured by number of people employed.

STS workforce knows how to maintain just one particular LV, which is incidentally is the most expensive LV on this planet, $40k/kg in LEO.

This workforce knows little to nothing about development of new LVs (as evidenced by its failures to build a successor to STS).

This workforce knows little to nothing about economically optimizing existing LV it maintains, either. (No wonder - it never had a real incentive to do that. You taxpayer $$$ at work...)

Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #34 on: 10/11/2011 07:02 pm »
...
Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!), and makes them much easier to hire in the future.

An idle workforce is bad. There may be more or less efficient ways to solve that problem, but not doing anything about it (i.e. just putting them on unemployment) is dumb when the economy is the way it is right now.

Luckily, I think most will find other jobs, but remember that Florida also has a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the nation (as far as I know). How does it help the economy to have a bunch of experienced, working-age people sitting at home all day (at least until they manage to find jobs in this most difficult of times for job seeking)?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #35 on: 10/11/2011 07:29 pm »
...
Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)

There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.

HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #36 on: 10/11/2011 07:35 pm »
...
Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)

There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.
If you haven't noticed, it's quite possible the job situation is significantly different now in Florida than when you were last unemployed. Most fired will almost surely find other jobs and rather quickly, but many will not (or may be replacing others in the workforce who don't have an as impressive resume as a former NASA person). The overall employment rate is rather high, and the overall workforce is quite educated in many different areas (i.e. it's most certainly NOT structural unemployment), more widely educated than at any other time.

Quote
HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!
I agree, but I just wanted to respond to that one point.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2011 07:37 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #37 on: 10/11/2011 07:48 pm »
All those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systems

One thing I find so clever about Spacex's is their incremental approach to reusability.

This has allowed to them to get something flying still at a lower cost then the competition and put the naysayers to rest.

Commercial space flight is no longer a laughable matter.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2011 07:50 pm by Patchouli »

Offline grr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #38 on: 10/12/2011 01:40 am »
All those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systems

One thing I find so clever about Spacex's is their incremental approach to reusability.

This has allowed to them to get something flying still at a lower cost then the competition and put the naysayers to rest.

Commercial space flight is no longer a laughable matter.


First off, I am a strong supporter of private space and that includes SpaceX.
However, They have changed merlin 4x.
 B was considered a bust.
Always keep in mind that SpaceX could be barking up another wrong tree.

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #39 on: 10/12/2011 01:46 am »
NASA workforce for human spaceflight reduced by over 10,000 (closer to 14,000) since 2008.  Reduction in knowledge and capability for remaining NASA workforce.

I don't think the success of the HSF is measured by number of people employed.

STS workforce knows how to maintain just one particular LV, which is incidentally is the most expensive LV on this planet, $40k/kg in LEO.

This workforce knows little to nothing about development of new LVs (as evidenced by its failures to build a successor to STS).

This workforce knows little to nothing about economically optimizing existing LV it maintains, either. (No wonder - it never had a real incentive to do that. You taxpayer $$$ at work...)

Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?

You must have been reading someone else's append since I don't see any words that I wrote or even opinions that I expressed in your response, even if you attributed them to me.  You might try to be more accurate in your response in the future.

But, my point (if you care) was that NASA and the taxpayers lost a lot of knowledge about how to fly in space.  If you don't consider that important, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

And as far as economically optimizing a LV, have you ever done that?  Have you looked at the cost of flying Shuttle at the beginning of the program and at the end?  Maybe look at it per pound of payload (hint - we could carry much more payload at the end of the program than at the beginning) and don't forget to normalize for altitude/inclination.  Do you have those figures or are your sentences just baseless statements (statement without supporting facts - by the way $40k/kg is meaningless without other supporting information such as how it was computed and what other launch vehicles computed the exact same way come out to)?

And no, Shuttle is no longer the most expensive LV on the planet.  It no longer exists and is no longer an option for getting people into low Earth orbit.  We (the U.S.) don't have an option right now.

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/12/2011 02:51 am by alk3997 »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #40 on: 10/12/2011 01:51 am »
However, They have changed merlin 4x.
 B was considered a bust.
Always keep in mind that SpaceX could be barking up another wrong tree.

Iterating on a design is a beneficial engineering philosophy.

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #41 on: 10/12/2011 01:53 am »
...
Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)

There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.

HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!

Not that it is any of your business, but I haven't taken a single penny of unemployment and I actually resent your implication that all of us former Shuttle workers are lazy.  I wonder how we managed to launch all those flights?  Have you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?

However, I will note that if I had to take unemployment then I would do it, since it was some of my paycheck that went into paying for unemployment insurance (they call it insurance for a reason).  My co-workers are entitled to take approrpriate unemployment.

That said, I actually agree with you that looking for a job is a good thing.  I don't think you'll get any disagreements on that opinion.

Oh, and if NASA shouldn't provide jobs, then who works at NASA?  You must mean those meaningless NASA jobs that really don't exist but you want to get rid of them anyway.  If you have an example of these types of jobs, I'm all ears...

And rather than just bashing your statements, let me use the opportunity for a little education into the real world.  Your costs are driven by your requirements.  If your requirements state that 8 people need to watch an operation, then you're paying 8 salaries.  You may have other things for those 8 people to do between operations (good business practice dictates that) but you're still going to need those 8 people at some point.  Why do you need 8 people?  Maybe because it's a human rated vehicle and the loss of a crew is unacceptable.  That is again a dollars trade-off - how safe is safe enough?

If your requirements call for a design that requires servicing between each flight, then you have to pay for the servicing or a new design that doesn't need the refurb.  You can then make a trade-off for how many flights it will take to pay for the new design.  Why do you need the refurb?  Because you're unsure if the part will work through two flights would be one answer.  Willing to have the part fail during flight?  Then you can change tha requirement.  They are all requirements made by people and they all cost money.

This is where your money goes.  If you want to save money then change requirements.  Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/12/2011 02:47 am by alk3997 »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #42 on: 10/12/2011 01:56 am »
All those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systems


Commercial space flight is no longer a laughable matter.


Whether commercial space is ready or not, the future of human spaceflight now rests with it.  If it succeeds we have a way into low Earth orbit.  If it fails we have no more human spaceflight in the future (as is true right now except for ISS/Soyuz).

That's not a laughing matter....

Andy

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #43 on: 10/12/2011 03:52 am »
Have you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?

That might actually be a really interesting poll question...
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #44 on: 10/12/2011 04:04 am »
This is where your money goes.  If you want to save money then change requirements.  Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).

I'm drifting slightly off-topic, but out of curiosity, were there any sort of assessments of how much particular requirements actually contributed to safety? It seems one could easily have scenarios where a dubious requirement might remain, simply because one didn't want to be blamed/fired if a potential accident occurred. Was there any sort of incentive for removing dubious requirements?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #45 on: 10/12/2011 04:49 am »
I found myself somehow annoyed by the use of 2008....probably because that year was more exciting than this year as we were actually flying shuttles.

I'm curious how you all feel about the current state of NASA's HSF programs when compared to 2008. Personally, I feel we are better off now (the shuttle program end being a huge exception and unrelated to my focus here) than with the funding uncertainty and mismanagement problems that clouded CxP.

And that's what's annoyed me. I thought Human Space Flight involved flying. You're saying this is better off now we're NOT flying?

The plan is coming together, and that's gained a lot of responses, but let's not kid ourselves. NASA messed up the transition, badly - where we've got a more than capable vehicle (Endeavour) being signed off to a frakking exhibition today.

Going to take a lot more than happy clapping commercial space advocates and NASA powerpoints to get us back into what was actually conducted in 2008.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #46 on: 10/12/2011 05:08 am »
This is where your money goes.  If you want to save money then change requirements.  Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).

I'm drifting slightly off-topic, but out of curiosity, were there any sort of assessments of how much particular requirements actually contributed to safety? It seems one could easily have scenarios where a dubious requirement might remain, simply because one didn't want to be blamed/fired if a potential accident occurred. Was there any sort of incentive for removing dubious requirements?

I can only answer that from my perspective.  The culture was not one of "you'll be fired".  It was more one of "you'll possibily contribute to the death of your friends and collegues on a Shuttle flight and end the program".  You give me the choice of the two, I'll take the "fired" choice any day of the week.

To answer your question specifically, you would look at things on a change-by-change basis.  I'm not aware of a regular program-wide review to elmiinate unncessary testing (for instance) but we did do that on occasion - such as when a major modification was being done within a project.  However anytime that was done, you had to overcome a lot of "fear and superstition".  In other words, people would want to know the basis for getting rid of something that had supposedly been working for many years.  It was much easier to add new requirements when something didn't work and so we would add more testing or checking.

Edit: As I recall SSME was very good at deleting testing requirements when new versions of the SSME (Block I, Block II) came on-line. Reducing testing requirements was part of the justification for the money to make the upgrade.

Again, it's much easier to delete testing requirements when discussing it on a forum than it is in real life where if you are incorrect, someone might die and the entire Shuttle program ended.  However, when the ducks were in a row, it could be done.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2011 05:57 am by alk3997 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #47 on: 10/12/2011 05:28 am »
I found myself somehow annoyed by the use of 2008....probably because that year was more exciting than this year as we were actually flying shuttles.

I'm curious how you all feel about the current state of NASA's HSF programs when compared to 2008. Personally, I feel we are better off now (the shuttle program end being a huge exception and unrelated to my focus here) than with the funding uncertainty and mismanagement problems that clouded CxP.

And that's what's annoyed me. I thought Human Space Flight involved flying. You're saying this is better off now we're NOT flying?

The plan is coming together, and that's gained a lot of responses, but let's not kid ourselves. NASA messed up the transition, badly - where we've got a more than capable vehicle (Endeavour) being signed off to a frakking exhibition today.

Going to take a lot more than happy clapping commercial space advocates and NASA powerpoints to get us back into what was actually conducted in 2008.
I think people were assuming he was talking about the expected outlook of NASA's HSF in 2008 vs now. I did that, at least. In 2008, we were expecting to end the Shuttles, Ares I still had its issues, Orion wasn't anywhere near the state it is now, and commercial crew was still pretty far-fetched.

But as far as the actual instantaneous STATE...
I have to agree. Back then, we had the Shuttles AND the Soyuzes flying. At this precise moment, neither are flying (except for the one still in orbit docked at ISS), and ISS is down to 3 with a real chance of going to 0 for a short time. That's not good, not at all. I agree with you.

There are more hopes for the future, and they are more realistic (for both the commercial crew and SLS and Orion crowds... many people belong to both, including yourself), even though the beloved Shuttles are no longer flying. But essentially these are still hopes and haven't been actualized yet.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #48 on: 10/12/2011 06:23 am »
This is where your money goes.  If you want to save money then change requirements.  Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).

I'm drifting slightly off-topic, but out of curiosity, were there any sort of assessments of how much particular requirements actually contributed to safety? It seems one could easily have scenarios where a dubious requirement might remain, simply because one didn't want to be blamed/fired if a potential accident occurred. Was there any sort of incentive for removing dubious requirements?

I can only answer that from my perspective.  The culture was not one of "you'll be fired".  It was more one of "you'll possibily contribute to the death of your friends and collegues on a Shuttle flight and end the program".  You give me the choice of the two, I'll take the "fired" choice any day of the week.

To answer your question specifically, you would look at things on a change-by-change basis.  I'm not aware of a regular program-wide review to elmiinate unncessary testing (for instance) but we did do that on occasion - such as when a major modification was being done within a project.  However anytime that was done, you had to overcome a lot of "fear and superstition".  In other words, people would want to know the basis for getting rid of something that had supposedly been working for many years.  It was much easier to add new requirements when something didn't work and so we would add more testing or checking.

Edit: As I recall SSME was very good at deleting testing requirements when new versions of the SSME (Block I, Block II) came on-line. Reducing testing requirements was part of the justification for the money to make the upgrade.

Again, it's much easier to delete testing requirements when discussing it on a forum than it is in real life where if you are incorrect, someone might die and the entire Shuttle program ended.  However, when the ducks were in a row, it could be done.


Thank you very much for the incredibly informative response.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #49 on: 10/12/2011 10:05 am »
And that's what's annoyed me. I thought Human Space Flight involved flying. You're saying this is better off now we're NOT flying?

There is a lot of confusion about this (and Im not saying you are the one confused).

It is a pretty obvious assumption that Human Space Flight is about humans flying through space. It is right there in the name, the vehicles are the most visible aspect, I imagine most people who actually work in HSF are working on the various requirements of humans flying though space.

On the other hand I think there is a strong movement towards defining HSF as the goal of permanent human presence beyond low earth orbit.

These are not viable options right now but here are two examples that satisfy HSF by this criteria, have no flying, and would thrill me to bits:

(1) Advancing from rockets to wheels. Imagine a year with no humans flying through space because they are on a 2 year mission rolling around on the surface of another world, or for that matter just proving equipment for surviving such a mission via a two year mission in LEO would be an achievement.

(2) a self sufficient base on earth but separate from our biosphere and manufacturing all its own technology. Again, no flying yet this would demonstrate we had solved about 99% of the real problems preventing us colonizing another world.


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #50 on: 10/12/2011 01:52 pm »
Two points for RobotBeat's several comments.

And two points to Jim for introducing me to a new term:  "buttnine".

Two points to Andy3997 for: "If your requirements state that 8 people need to watch an operation, then you're paying 8 salaries."  NASA management needs streamlining.  Plus, the additional insight into testing and ops and all.

No points to Cornelius for reposting Elon's remarks.  Elon can say "100 times cheaper" with no blame from me.  Aim a mite hi, and if he can bring down costs 10 times, it will be great.  His speeches and presentations and statements about optimistic futures are fine as they stand.  It is a mistake to conclude that they are gospel and that thus they are evidence of something.

No points to GoSpacex for observing, "That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me".  As is well known, the jobs aren't available.

As to the OP.  Slightly worse, due to premature shuttle retirement, current corporate insider trading on SLS, and nearly complete total lack of leadership from the WH on this issue.

And don't get me started about the crinoids.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #51 on: 10/12/2011 02:00 pm »

Are we better off today than we were in 2008 or not? Vote 'yes' or 'no' or voice your opinion?

In 2008 NASA's human spaceflight potential or actual BEO and LEO missions were on a high speed train that was headed for a long bridge that 'continuing political confusion' or 'gross incompetence' or 'world political and economic issues' would soon destroy.

Despite everything, Orion was saved due to some strong political efforts. And a vaguely Direct SLS now has the bipartisan political support of Congress and the current President. Some of our Spaceship Earth's economic and crew problems are now gone.

Despite the huge NASA human spaceflight post Space Shuttle transition fiasco, and whoever was responsible for it, we now have started to build a sustainable and functional bridge that will get us to NASA's extensive future of international human spaceflight missions to the Moon, NEOs, Mars, Ceres, and many other wonderful and interesting places.

NASA human space flight is better off now than it was in 2008 precisely because we have survived and learned. The known and unknowns of 2008's future almost did us in.

For a minute or two in 2008 I thought there was a good chance that some of my loved ones and I would soon end up dead. It didn't happen.

Today's NASA, and a lot of other things too, look pretty good to me.


Cheers!
 
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #52 on: 10/12/2011 03:28 pm »
And as far as economically optimizing a LV, have you ever done that?

No, I didn't. However, I did not promise to create a system for cheap and frequent access to LEO: NASA did. How close STS is to the promised figures?

Quote
Do you have those figures or are your sentences just baseless statements (statement without supporting facts - by the way $40k/kg is meaningless without other supporting information such as how it was computed and what other launch vehicles computed the exact same way come out to)?

Crudely: STS requires $4bn per year. STS flies 4-5-6 times par year. Useful payload is ~20 tons max (sorry, wings and TPS are not payload, so don't bother pulling that trick). That means $40k/kg in LEO.

What is your estimate?

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #53 on: 10/12/2011 03:37 pm »
...
Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)

There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.

HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!

Not that it is any of your business, but I haven't taken a single penny of unemployment and I actually resent your implication that all of us former Shuttle workers are lazy.

I didn't imply that.
However, successful HSF requires a bit more than simply being not lazy.

Quote
Have you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?

I sure hope they will succeed in the key metric - they will do it for MUCH LESS than STS, creating a *sustainable* HSF, not dependent on public funds for survival - the thing NASA failed to do.

Quote
Your costs are driven by your requirements.  If your requirements state that 8 people need to watch an operation, then you're paying 8 salaries.  You may have other things for those 8 people to do between operations (good business practice dictates that) but you're still going to need those 8 people at some point.  Why do you need 8 people?  Maybe because it's a human rated vehicle and the loss of a crew is unacceptable.  That is again a dollars trade-off - how safe is safe enough?

You were saddled with a very complex and fragile system which needs lots of operations and testing to make it somewhat safe to fly on it. I know it.

But who are to blame? What is this evil force which made NASA use STS?

Isn't it NASA itself?

Why you don't see that the wound is entirely self-inflicted?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #54 on: 10/12/2011 04:14 pm »
There is legitimate criticism to make of NASA (as heterogeneous as that organization is...), but you're doing it wrong.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #55 on: 10/13/2011 12:24 pm »
And as far as economically optimizing a LV, have you ever done that?

No, I didn't. However, I did not promise to create a system for cheap and frequent access to LEO: NASA did. How close STS is to the promised figures?

Quote
Do you have those figures or are your sentences just baseless statements (statement without supporting facts - by the way $40k/kg is meaningless without other supporting information such as how it was computed and what other launch vehicles computed the exact same way come out to)?

Crudely: STS requires $4bn per year. STS flies 4-5-6 times par year. Useful payload is ~20 tons max (sorry, wings and TPS are not payload, so don't bother pulling that trick). That means $40k/kg in LEO.
....


....
Quote
Have you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?

I sure hope they will succeed in the key metric - they will do it for MUCH LESS than STS, creating a *sustainable* HSF, not dependent on public funds for survival - the thing NASA failed to do.


As many folks are well aware, the Space Shuttle fleet provided far more than simply access to LEO and their 'cargo' included an airlock. It isn't reasonable to define the "key metric" without noting the other and possibly far more important 'metrics'. Devisers of straw arguments can compare a pizza with an olive and the Space Shuttles with a space taxi without noting the real and major differences in those items while making their respective selective 'comparisons'. It might be a good idea to keep in mind the following.

"'Mr Spencer stated that the Space Shuttle fleet is the only spacecraft that is equipped with the airlocks, life support supplies, and robotic arm needed to support the required two-person spacewalking repair crew,' noted the ASAP report into his comments."

"He noted that the letter’s authors and endorsers also believe that the loss of the ISS would destroy the commercial viability of commercial cargo and crew, which is essential for the U.S. return to manned spaceflight if the Shuttles are retired. Keeping the Space Shuttles in service would maintain vital backup contingency for possible risks to U.S. manned spaceflight and the ISS business for the emerging commercial space industry."

From: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/lawmakers-told-shuttle-restart-questions-are-years-too-late/
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 12:27 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #56 on: 10/13/2011 03:18 pm »
Your arguments *might* make more sense if you would simply note that Shuttle is past history now.  Arguing against a system that doesn't even exist anymore seems kind-of pointless, unless you're using those arguments to design a new system or have invented a time machine.  I don't see either of those options in your discussions.

So, fine, you're right; we're all wrong.  What does that buy you?

Shuttle flew 133 successful flights where payloads were put in LEO and launched BEO which we would not have had without Shuttle.  I still have 100+ human spaceflights that I worked on and that I wouldn't have had without Shuttle.  I wish we were still flying since we have no other vehicle flying right now or in the near (and possibly distant) future.  That doesn't seem to be a good alternative to me (which gets us back to on-topic).

Andy

P.S. Did you know that over half of the payload weight currently in LEO was delivered by Shuttle?
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 03:53 pm by alk3997 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #57 on: 10/14/2011 03:03 pm »
....

Bait and switch.
....

STS has failed to achieve its promised cost, by more than an order of magnitude. Now you are retroactively changing the goalposts. You are cheating.


I know a little bit about cheap transportation. I used to have a really cute small car. It was cheap and fun to drive until some big cars turned it into a compressed accordion of smashed metal with me inside of it breathing lots of gasoline fumes. That wasn't fun. My next car was built like a tank and not cheap. If you are lucky, you get to live and learn, right?   

Doesn't every launcher sometimes have a bad day?

That is a lesson we've learned the hard way, haven't we?

Who is seriously interested in paying for a ride on a launch vehicle where its cost is the only metric worth discussing?

How many customers will be willing to pay for a ride on a launcher where its cheapness is the "key metric" on the day after 'that cheapest ride to LEO' has a serious accident?

Hopefully you weren't also one of those folks in 1972 that sent money to some mailbox address to buy a piece of lovely cheap mountain land in Florida. They sort of promised they would get around to building the mountain in a few years, but that didn't exactly work out too well. Maybe the lesson to be learned is not to completely believe any salesperson.


Edited.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2011 09:11 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #58 on: 10/15/2011 01:06 am »
Have you looked at the cost of flying Shuttle at the beginning of the program and at the end?  Maybe look at it per pound of payload (hint - we could carry much more payload at the end of the program than at the beginning) and don't forget to normalize for altitude/inclination.

You mean what it was promised to do?

In May 1971, they were estimating operational costs of only $27~ million per launch in 2010 dollars for Shuttle.

Even by 31 January 1977, despite the shuttle now being only minimally reusable, the estimates were still pretty low -- the "NASA Recommendations" by the Carter-Mondale Transition Planning Group had STS cost per launch being $50~ million per launch in 2010 dollars.

The original specs were 65,000 lbs to 210 nm.i at 28.5 deg inclination; that's $415~/lb in 2010 dollars using the 1971 estimates; and $769~/lb in 2010 dollars using the 1977 estimates.

But whoops! In the end shuttle cost a mighty $450~ million per flight; for $6,923~/lb

By contrast, the full up Saturn V stack could deliver about 240,000~ lbs to that same orbit and inclination according to the Saturn V Payload Planner's Guide by Douglas Aircraft; for a cost of about $1 billion in 2010 dollars; or about $4,166/lb.

But of course, we never built the second run of Saturn Vs, or developed the Saturn INTermediates; because even those massively reduced cost to orbit Saturns (around $2,500/lb in 2010 dollars); didn't look economically good against the fraudulent numbers for the Space Shuttle; because by those fake numbers, you could put a million pound station (aka ISS) into orbit for only $770 million, against $4,166 million for Saturn V or $2,500~ million or so for the INT vehicles.

« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 07:03 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #59 on: 10/15/2011 04:08 am »
You don't have a Saturn V and now you don't have a Shuttle.  You got nothing.  Sure makes sense to me (not really, for anyone who might miss the sarcasm).

Your numbers on a Saturn V are wrong anyway, but again the argument is irrelevent unless you're going to use the numbers to be a guide for how to build a future space launcher.  You don't seem to be doing that.

But thank you for pointing out that we did almost hit the 65,000 lbs (just shy of that) of payload with the superlightweight ET.  No one realizes that for the originally referenced LEO target, the payload weight would have been over 60K lbs with the superlightweight ET.  I think the reason no one noticed was that we were flying to Station orbits which were far from the referenced LEO target.


But again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights.   Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 07:10 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #60 on: 10/15/2011 04:16 am »
But again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights.   Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.

Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 04:16 am by Jason1701 »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #61 on: 10/15/2011 04:34 am »
But again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights.   Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.

Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.

How about LEO in 10 and BEO in 25 - 40?  Still better?  You got nothing right now and any number you throw out is just a guess as to the future.  And, there is no real plan right now either.  It's just numbers people come-up with based on no plans.  We don't even have a good guess at a budget right now.

« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 04:37 am by alk3997 »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #62 on: 10/15/2011 04:39 am »
But again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights.   Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.

Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.

How about LEO in 10 and BEO in 25 - 40?  Still better?  You got nothing right now and any number you throw out is just a guess as to the future.  And, there is no real plan right now either.  It's just numbers people come-up with based on no plans.  We don't even know have a good guess at a budget right now.

Commercial Crew in 2016 seems reasonable. Do you think 2021 is a better estimate?

Even if we stick to the SLS, a manned flight around the moon in 2021 is a worst-case scenario. Throwing around 2036-2051 before we go BEO is ridiculous.

Perhaps you should decrease your uncertainty by reading some of this site's articles on SLS plans and CC milestones.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 04:43 am by Jason1701 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #63 on: 10/15/2011 05:24 am »
....

You mean what it was promised to do?

In May 1971, they were estimating operational costs of only $27~ million per launch in 2010 dollars for Shuttle.

Even by 31 January 1977, despite the shuttle now being only minimally reusable, the estimates were still pretty low -- the "NASA Recommendations" by the Carter-Mondale Transition Planning Group had STS cost per launch being $50~ million per launch in 2010 dollars.

The original specs were 65,000 lbs to 210 nm.i at 28.5 deg inclination; that's $415~/lb in 2010 dollars using the 1971 estimates; and $769~/lb in 2010 dollars using the 1977 estimates.

But whoops! In the end shuttle cost a mighty $450~ million per flight; for $6,923~/lb

By contrast, the full up Saturn V stack could deliver about 240,000~ lbs to that same orbit and inclination according to the Saturn V Payload Planner's Guide by Douglas Aircraft; for a cost of about $1 billion in 2010 dollars; or about $4,166/lb.
....



I love the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft and the Space Shuttles. I also recognize the obvious fact that they had very different capabilities and missions to do in helping America, and its allies, and our opponents 'win' the Cold War. NASA human spaceflight was and is primarily about international politics and some of the peaceful and important aspects of our broadly defined national security. Rocket technology is great, but without the political money we won't see Mr. and Ms. Buck Rogers turning Lunar polar ice into rocket propellant anytime soon.

The LEO space taxis and the SLS/Orion capabilities and missions will be different than those of the Space Shuttles and the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft. Using only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense. Payloads/spacecraft are expensive, whatever they may contain, and can drive up the mission costs more than the launcher.

Both the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft and the Space Shuttles were retired at least five years too early. Throwing away an important national asset with valuable capabilities before you even have a reliable replacement is quite foolish.

The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008 is difficult to usefully discuss or analyze on the sole basis of any one aspect, even if that particular element is what you feel most comfortable in discussing. The crew of the Spaceship Earth has many long-term economic and political concerns that will need to be addressed during our preparations to send national and international longboat spacecraft back to the Moon and then onward to NEOs, Mars and Ceres.


Edited.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2011 09:09 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #64 on: 10/15/2011 06:10 am »
Using only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense.

Except the whole rationale for the Space Shuttle program was to provide cheap, routine flights to orbit. It did neither.

It really had only two major points going for it, compared to prior spacecraft families:

1.) The ability to land on land, reducing mission operational costs, since you didn't have to pay $$$ to the Navy for diverting warships etc; but this is not a clear advantage, since there were many Gemini/Apollo studies aimed at providing land landing capability.

2.) The capability to bring back significant amounts of mass down. This is shuttle's only real advantage; and was never really quite used in the shuttle program, other than a couple of one shot missions such as STS-51A.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 06:11 am by RyanCrierie »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #65 on: 10/15/2011 06:12 am »
Ryan, are your Saturn V cost numbers representative of the marginal cost? If so, it would mean more to find the total cost of the Saturn V program and then divide by the number of vehicles produced. Doing this for Shuttle gives an average cost of $1.5 billion, far more than the $450 million you cited, and yielding a cost in orbit of $23,077/lb.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 06:13 am by Jason1701 »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #66 on: 10/15/2011 01:27 pm »
But again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights.   Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.

Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.

How about LEO in 10 and BEO in 25 - 40?  Still better?  You got nothing right now and any number you throw out is just a guess as to the future.  And, there is no real plan right now either.  It's just numbers people come-up with based on no plans.  We don't even know have a good guess at a budget right now.

Commercial Crew in 2016 seems reasonable. Do you think 2021 is a better estimate?

Even if we stick to the SLS, a manned flight around the moon in 2021 is a worst-case scenario. Throwing around 2036-2051 before we go BEO is ridiculous.

Perhaps you should decrease your uncertainty by reading some of this site's articles on SLS plans and CC milestones.

Thanks but I'll use my sources which I eventually see out here.  Yes, SLS to the Moon in 2021 is dependent upon Congress, at least two administrations, a lot of engineering that has to work right and a lot of events that will happen between now and then.

The one thing to remember is that so far what this administration says and what it does are two very different things.  The only thing I have seen that match is what they say initially and what happens are somewhat the same.  And what candidate Obama said was that he would delay exploration by 10  years and move the money into education.  Well we've got a lot of outreach going on and a 10 year delay in exploration is about right.

He also as President said he would go to an asteroid (Moon wasn't interesting enough - remember) in 2025 and then go to Mars (orbit) in the 2030s.  There were no other destinations (including the Moon) discussed nor has the President (or more importantly OMB) directly endorced a Moon mission.  All that has been rumored are lower level charts that have not yet been formally approved.  I don't even recall our NASA Administrator formally stating that the Administration has approved a Moon mission.

So that leaves us with what has been announced (not speculated about here).  That is an asteroid in 2025.   However, no asteroids are available that meet the criteria for "docking" with one (you really can't land on one that meets the criteria in the traditional sense) until 2033.  So, let's see that's 21 years for BEO and LEO depends upon how long we are going to wait before trying out SLS (or whatever the next flavor-of-the-budget cycle is).

Besides this is all irrelevent.  There is no way OMB (propose) or Congress (dispose) will continue to fund a non-flying human space program for 10 years.  It becomes too easy to zero-out.  As far as non-NASA developed spacecraft, NASA is their only true customer.  Will funding last there?  There is no business case I've seen for non-NASA developed spacecraft without NASA.  They also have a lot of the learning curve left to go, even if funding holds out.

So, yes 10 years for LEO and 20, 25, 35 years for BEO have just as much basis as any other numbers you'll throw out there.

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 01:56 pm by alk3997 »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #67 on: 10/15/2011 01:29 pm »





I love the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft and the Space Shuttles. I also recognize the obvious fact that they had very different capabilities and missions to do in helping America, and its allies, and our opponents 'win' the Cold War. NASA human spaceflight was and is primarily about international politics and some of the peaceful and important aspects of our broadly defined national security. Rocket technology is great, but without the political money we won't see Mr. and Ms. Buck Rogers turning Lunar polar ice into rocket propellent anytime soon.

The LEO space taxis and the SLS/Orion capabilities and missions will be different than those of the Space Shuttles and the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft. Using only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense. Payloads/spacecraft are expensive, whatever they may contain, and can drive up the mission costs more than the launcher.

Both the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft and the Space Shuttles were retired at least five years too early. Throwing away an important national asset with valuable capabilities before you even have a reliable replacement is quite foolish.

...



Amem...

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #68 on: 10/15/2011 01:35 pm »
Yup, that makes sense.  You don't have a Saturn V and now you don't have a Shuttle.  You got nothing.  Sure makes sense to me (not really, for anyone who might miss the sarcasm).

Considering the alternative is continuing to fly an experimental craft that killed two complete crews; and eats up so much of NASA's budget that there's no money to develop anything new.....

Quote
Your numbers on a Saturn V are wrong anyway

Stages to Saturn gives the cost for SA-501 (Apollo 4) as being $135m (1967); which works out to $881~ million in 2010.

The Apollo 15 Press kit gives the cost for SA-510 as being $185m (1971); which works out to $966~ million in 2010.

But hey, let's just use the 300 n.mi curve in the attached image (about 220 klbs) to be super conservative, along with a $1 billion in 2010 USD launch tag.

That gives us a price of $4,545/lb; a pretty hefty reduction compared to Shuttle's $6,923/lb.

Before you start harping about the higher inclinations needed for space stations such as Skylab...

Study of an Evolutionary Interim Earth Orbit Program dated 6 April 1971 gives the payload parameters for a two stage Saturn V to the orbital parameter of 235 nautical miles high and 50 degree inclination used by Skylab as being 197,000 pounds -- actual payload to that position would be 170,000~ lbs to account for shroud mass and to provide a safety margin in case of an underperforming booster.

The costs given for SAT-INT-21 in Nuclear Shuttle Definition Study, Phase III Final Report -- Volume I Executive Summary were $107 million in FY1971 dollars; or $576~ million in 2010 dollars.

Essentially, $3,388/lb~ to Skylab orbit, if you don't need the even more expensive S-IVB, or have to do all the extra checks to provide safety for a manned launch.

And, you can try to change history all you want, but I know of nothing that will do this.  When you or anyone invents a time machine, your arguments will be relevant but until then history is what it is.  But, if we would like to go down this track, everyone gets to have an alternate Saturn-based history and really go off-topic.

So, in my version of your alternate Saturn-based universe, you likely killed a crew or two on Saturn - there wasn't much redundancy there and Congress in the late 1970s probably was trying to save some money and stopped production anyway since the Carter Administration didn't need the Saturns for arms control (see the reasons why Shuttle fundint was continued even with Mondale as VP).  We ended up with even more lawn furniture as a result (kind of like all the Redstones that are at many space centers).

These alternate universe things don't always end-up for the better.  So you might have seen human spaceflight end in the late 1970s instead since now there was no Shuttle and no Saturn.  I hope you've factored that into your analysis because the cost of restarting a line is much greater than continuing a production line.

Edit: Also let me point out that the Saturn production was stopped at the time of the Shuttle decision.  So, Saturn was already dead and would have had to be resurected to continue.  So, that would require redoing engineering and restarting production.  It ain't cheap and it takes test flights.  Those all add money to the cost estimates.

Case in point, an Apollo Guidance Computer could not have been built in the 1970s.  Manufacturing capabilities had improved so much that an AGC would not have been possible.  So, you build something better - new design, new testing, new software.  All that takes money and adds development risk.  So, again, my point is that not everything is rosy in a re-started Saturn history.


Andy
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 02:50 pm by alk3997 »

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #69 on: 10/15/2011 01:39 pm »
Using only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense.

Except the whole rationale for the Space Shuttle program was to provide cheap, routine flights to orbit. It did neither.

It really had only two major points going for it, compared to prior spacecraft families:

1.) The ability to land on land, reducing mission operational costs, since you didn't have to pay $$$ to the Navy for diverting warships etc; but this is not a clear advantage, since there were many Gemini/Apollo studies aimed at providing land landing capability.

2.) The capability to bring back significant amounts of mass down. This is shuttle's only real advantage; and was never really quite used in the shuttle program, other than a couple of one shot missions such as STS-51A.

On #2 - really?  10s of Spacelab flights, MPLMs, LDEF, Eureca, JHU (Japanese Flying Unit), tonnes of middeck experiments, etc.  I think you need to research what we did with the downweight.  You might be surprised.

And as far as Apollo / Gemini on land, the paraglider failed in the timeframe provided.  While some of the technical parts would have been worked out with money / time, the redundancy issue would still have been there.  Braking rockets / airbags still hold out the most promise.

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 01:55 pm by alk3997 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #70 on: 10/15/2011 02:05 pm »
As an interesting aside, the initial estimates for JWST were rather low too, weren't they?  This time, from my limited perspective of observing the SLS design and funding process so far, there seems to be a better telling of the financial picture for SLS.

I think shuttle's retirement was premature and ungraceful, but that cannot be helped at the moment.  When Andy3997 observes, "people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights.   Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore", it gets me to wonder at the lilkihood of SLS's success, especially when the politics of the decision making process are so hidden and unpredictable.  Nevertheless, SLS is the program; it is best, I'd say, to get with the program, while watching the program managers like a hawk.  SLS could be good for manned and unmanned missions.

Quote
Considering the alternative is continuing to fly an experimental craft that killed two complete crews...

A lot of people are sick and tired of hearing this false argument.  All of the craft are "experimental" and the probability of future deadly accidents will always be a positive number.]

Since the Moon mission has been tentatively raised by some on the L2 side, it seems that some people are concluding, prematurely, that SLS has a mission, and that the "rocket without a mission" argument is thus invalid.  I am glad that Mr. Shannon is researching various missions for SLS; I've heard a number of comments here about, wait and see what he concludes.  Personally, I've been waiting for forty years for NASA to be directed to do the next thing: Go back to the Moon to stay.  I'm tired of waiting.  We were promised this in about 1963.

As to its second "flagship" mission, that would be an orbiting sat at Mars, equipped with scopes and sensors and acting as the relay station for a small robotic "constellation" of rovers searching for life.

But the "official" viewpoint is to visit a rock to see how fast it tumbles.  The officials seem to be mocking the more important missions, for no good reason.  SLS may have a "mission", in the typical hairsplitting definition which has nearly brought NASA down, but it is a dorky mission.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2011 07:10 pm by Chris Bergin »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline jramsey1

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #71 on: 10/15/2011 02:40 pm »
Folks -

New to posting here - so let me say I enjoy the lively and informed debate on the forums. It's encouraging for the future to see the passion in these discussions that you find in very few places - and certainly nowhere in mainstream media. I have followed HSF all my life and have a renewed interest as I've hit the 40 yr old mark this year - be it nostalgia, mortality, or possibly a mental break in progress  :o

Absolutes.  If we boil it down isn't that what the net is of thee discussions?  We've evolved to a point in society where everyone expects an absolute outcome and ROI for any large, complex endeavor.  I know there are many aerospace professionals on this site far surpassing my level of knowledge on the subject - but when we talk of HSF - specifically BEO - there still remains plenty of unknowns or less than 'absolutes' in our collective knowledge catalog- thus the paranoia referenced in the threads - and a center of mass hit in my opinion to the larger problem.

PRA has evolved to a point over the past few decades where we have a sense of risk like never before - During Apollo we knew there was much we didn't know - but had tangible and intangible drivers pushing us past our comfort zone as a whole - which was aided by a not so laser-focused and systematic sense of risk to many digits to the right of the decimal.

So here we are - better than 2008?  I think certainly a better sense of direction and 'relative' level of commitment and from my perspective much more public discourse .  The sins of the past are also front and center, be they roads not traveled, waste, and unfortunately in Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia - negligence.  All of it is healthy, and necessary for achieving a goal as lofty and appropriate for mankind as Mars - we'll all be better for it.   

The professionals that pursue this endeavor understand and accept the risks - it's time for the rest of us to do the same - and recognize in terms of risk vs reward that comparison is a no-brainer.  Waste, mis-management, incompetence, and negligence should never be tolerated - in any program of any kind - but there needs to be a tolerance for discovery and removing levels of uncertainty as we go on some scale - which will ultimately require some degree of trial and error- let's face it - we still 'don't know what we don't know'...

Thanks again to all of you for investing time to participate in the debate - for those of us who it inspires new thoughts and perspectives - I thank you. 

Btw - This 40-yr space nerd is going to put his money where his mouth is - not knowing if it will ever turn into anything going back to school for the AE degree starting in January.. maybe before I'm totally over the hill I can be more of an active participant myself

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #72 on: 10/15/2011 07:16 pm »
Welcome to the site's forum jramsey1.

Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jramsey1

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #73 on: 10/15/2011 08:58 pm »
Welcome to the site's forum jramsey1.

Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.

Thanks Chris - and as a former military officer I couldn't agree more - our progress as a nation was built upon their shoulders and ultimately their last full measure of devotion.  May we never forget. 

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #74 on: 10/16/2011 02:49 pm »
Welcome to the site's forum jramsey1.

Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.

Thanks Chris - and as a former military officer I couldn't agree more - our progress as a nation was built upon their shoulders and ultimately their last full measure of devotion.  May we never forget. 

Going back to school isn't easy, so congratulations!  Welcome here and I wish you the best.

Getting back on topic - you going back to school to join the ranks of those trying to make human spaceflight better would be a positive of 2011 over 2008.  Best of luck!

Andy

P.S.  While I can't talk about Apollo 1 or STS-51L directly, don't think of 107 as negligence.  It was more of having too many balls in the air at once.  That we missed the warning sign on STS-112, was because of all the other issues going-on at the same time.  I believe (my opinion only) that STS-112 was our chance to have prevented the accident but we didn't make the connection with running into 500+ mile per hour foam and RCC damage while the program was looking at BSTRA balls, flowliners, SRB sep motor debris, and a whole host of other things.

« Last Edit: 10/16/2011 02:55 pm by alk3997 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #75 on: 10/16/2011 03:06 pm »

On #2 - really?  10s of Spacelab flights, MPLMs, LDEF, Eureca, JHU (Japanese Flying Unit), tonnes of middeck experiments, etc.  I think you need to research what we did with the downweight.  You might be surprised.


Aside from MPLM's, a very small percentage.  Most of the non module Spacelabs could have been done with regular spacecraft and cheaper.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #76 on: 10/17/2011 02:01 pm »
[quote author=RyanCrierie link=topic=27004.msg818992#msg818992

....

2.) The capability to bring back significant amounts of mass down. This is shuttle's only real advantage; and was never really quite used in the shuttle program, other than a couple of one shot missions such as STS-51A.
[/quote]

And a Space Shuttle brought itself back for reuse. Sometimes I wonder what the ongoing cost of a throwaway module with equal capabilities to the Space Shuttle and a large capsule would have cost. Then I wonder if a parachute landing would have been as impressive around the world and as helpful to everyone on the planet in 'winning' the ultra expensive Cold War. The Space Shuttles were an impressive and effective tool in that conflict despite whatever anyone may try to claim to the contrary.

I'm glad we had the Space Shuttle missions and that they helped to put an end to the bloody Cold War by helping build the ISS, take international crew members into LEO, and demonstrate America's diverse LEO capabilities.

I'm not big on trying to 'rewrite' history because the 1980's and 1990's could have easily turned out much worse than they did. There are far too many unknowns in most of history to believe we are now wiser and somehow magically better tuned into the relevant variables at those many critical points in our history and somehow able to make better choices than were made by the folks who made those historical decisions.       
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline alk3997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #77 on: 10/17/2011 02:47 pm »
...and don't forget the side benefit of "forcing" the Soviet Union to build a replica (five flight-worthy airframes in various stages of completion, I believe) to counteract the "military advantage" of the Shuttle.  How many resources were diverted to that endeavor and how much did that contribute to the end of the cold war?  The alternate universe would not have that indirect benefit.  It might, however, have continued N1 flights, to counteract the continued Saturns, which means no NK-33 engines for Taurus II.

I'm working on the downmass question, including Jim's statement, but have been traveling so I don't have numbers yet.

Andy
« Last Edit: 10/17/2011 02:49 pm by alk3997 »

Offline jramsey1

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The state of NASA's HSF today compared to 2008?
« Reply #78 on: 10/21/2011 01:11 am »
Many thanks Andy.

I get your point on 107. I may be victim of too much mainstream editorial on the subject and it would certainly be logical for PROP-oriented issues to be primary focus and 'distracting' from others.  I guess my vivid memories as a child of the hyper-focus and concern around TPS and the sheer physics of the mass at that velocity still make me scratch my head.  Don't take that as an indictment of negligence of any one individual - I think the institution came to trust the integrity of that particular system so much that the simplest concept for catastrophic failure came to seem improbable.  I can understand that - I run operations and engineering (ok~ cookbook engineering) for a large IT Outsourcer / System Integrator and it's the simple things that bite us on a daily basis because we just trust they'll work as a function of MTBF and other prior reliability metrics while we concentrate on the sexy and complex things which keep us up at night.. Not that hard to imagine - even in high-risk human spaceflight operations. 



Welcome to the site's forum jramsey1.

Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.

Thanks Chris - and as a former military officer I couldn't agree more - our progress as a nation was built upon their shoulders and ultimately their last full measure of devotion.  May we never forget. 

Going back to school isn't easy, so congratulations!  Welcome here and I wish you the best.

Getting back on topic - you going back to school to join the ranks of those trying to make human spaceflight better would be a positive of 2011 over 2008.  Best of luck!

Andy

P.S.  While I can't talk about Apollo 1 or STS-51L directly, don't think of 107 as negligence.  It was more of having too many balls in the air at once.  That we missed the warning sign on STS-112, was because of all the other issues going-on at the same time.  I believe (my opinion only) that STS-112 was our chance to have prevented the accident but we didn't make the connection with running into 500+ mile per hour foam and RCC damage while the program was looking at BSTRA balls, flowliners, SRB sep motor debris, and a whole host of other things.



Tags:
 

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