Quote from: the_other_Doug on 09/26/2015 01:51 amPostulate: There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years. (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate? Doesn't do any good if it could. The national infrastructure for spacecraft has to be beefed up if SLS is to fly more than Orion or 15ft diameter payloads.
Postulate: There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years. (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate?
Hence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.You haven't been paying attention. They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdfhttp://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssmehttp://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/
Quote from: 93143 on 09/24/2015 09:16 pmHence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.You haven't been paying attention. They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdfhttp://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssmehttp://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/The new estimate is that it takes over 3B/yr to fly SLS/Orion from 2018 to 2027 for SLS/Orion yearly solo shots.It then takes over $8B/year per the NASA budget to fly the SLS 2028 to 2046 mission set as it includes ISS Splashdown and abandons commercial crew. (Space Ops 3.83B, Exploration 4.35B, Crew 0.8B, R&D 0.42B). With only a flight per year in the early 2020s, it also adds $1B/yr Delta Heavy flights. If you start with the wrong architecture and LV/components, so much for afforadability and sustainability.
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?
Quote from: Brovane on 09/24/2015 07:28 pmIf the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online? Without any launch contracts who is paying for that? Actually it doesn't need any contracts to keep the production line open and the launch facilities in place. The DoD pays ULA $1B (that's "billion" with a B) cash each year to do just that - no launches required and no strings attached.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/24/2015 05:16 amAs to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this? NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.I'm talking about what they've already locked in. You yourself mentioned how they've been bragging about how efficient their new tooling is and how much touch labour it will save, and in the very post I'm quoting you mention the fact that they've designed the infrastructure for low-rate production. (Furthermore, ATK and Rocketdyne have been working to reduce costs as well.)
As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this? NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.
As an aside, I should acknowledge that the fact that they seem to be understaffed for production of two cores per year probably adds somewhat to the marginal cost of going to that rate. But if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for Shuttle, it's hard to see how that by itself could increase it by a whole lot. How much are these people paid?
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost". There are no facts to use to calculate it.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/26/2015 07:55 pmGive up on trying to figure out "marginal cost". There are no facts to use to calculate it.93143 has provided sources. They give us a rough idea about the marginal cost. We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.
If you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.
QuoteBut if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for ShuttleAnd stop trying to equate the manufacturing cost of the SLS to the Shuttle External Tank.
But if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for Shuttle
We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.
The whole point about SLS unit costs are that the production line is being setup to be at its lowest per unit cost at 1 per year. A higher or lower rate will increase the per unit cost. There is also a maximum rate due to the design of the tooling of 2 per year. To do higher rates a new set of tooling would be needed designed to support 5 or more (10) vehicle production rate per year. This is an overhead cost plus the unit margin costs such that until you get to a production rate of >3 the per unit cost will be more than the current 1 per year. As you move to the closer to 10 per year you may eventually get to the often quoted unit cost amount of $300M.The conclusion is that for production rates from .5 to 3 per year the unit costs ripple up and down but generally stay almost the same or greater than the current setup for 1 per year amount.
Okay, first you should probably define what you mean by "unit cost".
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/26/2015 07:55 pmIf you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.This isn't the first time anyone has designed a launch vehicle like this. NLS-1 made it through PDR, and a lot of information is available publicly.
Even the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares; it straight-up says so in the document, and the fact that the estimated fixed cost is very similar to that of the J-246 would seem to back this up.
The increase or decrease in the total cost of a production run for making one additional unit of an item. It is computed in situations where the break-even point has been reached: the fixed costs have already been absorbed by the already produced items and only the direct (variable) costs have to be accounted for.
Expenditure incurred in producing one unit of a good or service, computed usually as average cost.
NASA used to claim low marginal costs for the Shuttle, but now know at the end of the program that each flight cost $1.2B without development factored in.
When you talk about "marginal cost", that is for production SLS units. And so far not even a development or pre-production SLS has been built, much less flown.
The last contract I could find on the cost of the ET showed that it cost $173M/ea back in 2010 when procured in quantities of at least 17 units. So if the SLS 1st stage cost 3.2X the Shuttle ET that would be $554M/ea - no engines or other accessories.
To exactly which document do you refer? If to "ESD Integration; Budget Availability Scenarios" dated 19 August 2011 (attached to this post), where does the statement appear?
The specifics of the problem are this:1) For going from 1 to 2 the fixed costs are the same and the incremental cost per unit is the same so the marginal cost is equal to the incremental cost.2) For going from 2 to 3 the fixed costs increase by 50-80% but the incremental costs are the same. So the marginal cost for going from 2 to 3 is the 50-80% increase in fixed cost plus an incremental cost.3) Going from 3 to 4 is the same marginal cost value as that for going from 1 to 2.
As regards costs, is it possible that for example to increase the production rate Michoud would need more of these temporary storage fixtures? They wouldn't be expensive, perhaps, but they aren't zero cost either....
...We were discussing marginal costs associated with changes in flight rate...
That's an interesting question. What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year? It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...
I think the maximum production stated by NASA is by using the current or existing workforce. I think more can be made per year IF they ramp up production by adding extra shifts, and or weekend shifts. They were able to producte what, 4-6 Saturn V cores per year. Why not produce the same SLS cores. Surely they can produce more solid cores than two per year or even 4 per year. How long did it take them to produce 1,000 Minutemen's in the 1960's? 4-5 years?
Quote from: 93143 on 09/27/2015 09:15 pmThat's an interesting question. What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year? It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...Not really. The plant was designed from the get go with a certain amount of production in mind. Tooling, processes and procedures don’t scale the same efficiency at every production rate.