Marginal cost for 1 flight is not even close to 3 billion.
And extrapolating operation costs from development costs is just as silly.
You can't bill 100% of the cost of maintaining SLS/Orion to the gateway in a scenario where they are being used for lunar landings as well.
Bob Zubrin is totally not on board. I'm shocked <video link elided -- Proponent>
The most interesting thing is how the panel came about. It was originally to have been a debate on the proposition "The Deep Space Gateway has merit" -- but Zubrin couldn't find anyone willing to argue the affirmative!
However, as soon as Zubrin said this, someone In the audience volunteered to advocate for DSG!I did not find him particularly convincing except in so far as he argued that DSG is a testing ground for the Lockheed Martin hab module for a Mars mission.
Absent a big budget bump, the program needs an absolute reduction in its transportation costs so it can afford a reasonable number of payloads and missions and a safe launch rate.
Similarly, SLS/Orion/Ground Systems was $3.6B in 2016 and is projected to be $3.8B in 2022, when EM-2 flies and SLS/Orion achieves a certain level of operability.
STS development ramped up to $4B+/yr. (in 2010 dollars) by 1976 and the STS budget never fell significantly under that level until the program's end. Operations grew to consume the budget left by development ramping down. In fact, STS operations were in the $6-7B/yr. range from 1982-1992.
Current NASA funded HSF development programs:
That is 8 significant individual initiatives. Obviously, the pipeline needs to be emptied somewhat before piling on more development programs.
...That is tankage equivalent to ~3-5 SLS missions. STS didn't expend any engines, but at $38 million per RL-10 and $58 million per RS-25, we are talking in the neighborhood of $700 million per year for 2 missions(Block 1B with EUS).
There doesn't seem to be much correlation between launch rate and cost.
The major factor for SLS/Orion costs are no SLS/Orion or SLS/Orion.
1/2/3 launches per year is a relatively minor factor.
Thusly, DSG logistical support is essentially also a minor factor. Crew can be rotated with excess Orion capacity. It can be deployed and supplied with excess SLS capacity.
Deep Space Habitats(NextSteps partnership), EM-1 co-manifested payloads
Starliner, Dragon V2, Dream Chaser cargo.
Current NASA funded HSF development programs: SLS Block 1, SLS Block 1B, Orion,
Quote from: Proponent on 10/15/2017 05:46 pmThe most interesting thing is how the panel came about. It was originally to have been a debate on the proposition "The Deep Space Gateway has merit" -- but Zubrin couldn't find anyone willing to argue the affirmative! at a Mars Society convention, thats hardly surprising.
LOL, you didn't pick up that he only came up there to put up intentionally preposterous opposition ? He says as much directly to Zubrin in last couple of seconds
Quote from: savuporo on 10/15/2017 02:32 amBob Zubrin is totally not on board. I'm shocked <video link elided -- Proponent>Thanks much -- that was actually quite interesting. Zubrin tears into DSG, pointing out, among other things, that never before in the history of planning for missions to Mars (or the moon), dating back to von Braun, has anyone said that a cis-lunar station is desirable. He also points out that justifying the DSG as a base for tele-operation of lunar rovers is hard to justify when there are now self-driving vehicles capable of coping with Los Angeles traffic.A NASA Ames employee, speaking on her own and not representing NASA's views, says clearly that NASA should buy transportation to Mars from SpaceX (I thinks that's wrong: it should request bids from industry). She also says that characterizing any current martian life is a prerequisite to sending humans.The most interesting thing is how the panel came about. It was originally to have been a debate on the proposition "The Deep Space Gateway has merit" -- but Zubrin couldn't find anyone willing to argue the affirmative! However, as soon as Zubrin said this, someone In the audience volunteered to advocate for DSG!I did not find him particularly convincing except in so far as he argued that DSG is a testing ground for the Lockheed Martin hab module for a Mars mission. I think that could be a valid point if a decision had been made to develop (and fund!) Lockheed Martin's Mars architecture.But no defense of DSG as a way to the lunar surface is offered. And note that the topic of this thread is about DSG as a step toward Mars, not the moon.At this point, I have fairly firmly convinced that DSG is a bad idea. Therefore, it is quite possible that I am missing or under-weighting pro-DSG arguments. I encourage DSG's supporters to watch the video to see whether they can find support for DSG that I have overlooked.
Did we not already establish your manufacturing experience does not apply to these Aerospace programs?
Please stop stating your opinion as undeniable facts.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 10/15/2017 09:12 pmDeep Space Habitats(NextSteps partnership), EM-1 co-manifested payloadsThese are low single to tens of millions of dollars. They're not even a rounding error in the Exploration Budget.
Again, absent early ISS retirement or a multi-billion boost to the NASA topline, there is no pot of money to free up to funds for new exploration developments. Expect consequent delays in DSG (or any other exploration hardware) until ISS retirement, over and above the emerging delays on EM-1.
@Coastal Ron Did we not already establish your manufacturing experience does not apply to these Aerospace programs? Please stop stating your opinion as undeniable facts.
Quote from: Khadgars on 10/16/2017 03:12 pm@Coastal Ron Did we not already establish your manufacturing experience does not apply to these Aerospace programs? Please stop stating your opinion as undeniable facts.Manufacturing is an enormous part of aerospace programs. I am baffled why you think it would be irrelevant.
13 payloads
If this was the case, the administration couldn't propose a 2018 cut of $550 million USD
The fact is, without funding new developments as older ones get completed, the result is almost invariably a smaller NASA budget.
$550 million USD... That is ballpark what a lunar lander would cost (per year) to develop.
Play the ball not the man, please. Casting aspersions on each other's experience and relevance is only sort of helpful at best.
]The DSG could be used to build the lunar base. For example the SLS would throw 40 tonne habitats to the DSG. The station's reusable lander would take the habitats down to the lunar surface. Same for heavy cargoes going to Mars.Building the DSG 10 tonnes at a time is just using Orion on SLS as a Shuttle building the ISS. With a heavy lift launch vehicle lift most of the spacestation in a single launch, like SKYLAB. Enhancements like refuelling facilities may need additional launches.