The Incredibly Growing/Shrinking Station
PeterAltschuler1
its proposed size increase and decrease all over again. What is going on now is
nothing new and follows the pattern. First the station was the Power Tower.
Then, it grew to become the Dual Keel. Then it shrunk to the I-beam. Then, it
shrunk again to become Freedom. Then it grew with Russian participation to ISS.
Then, it grew again with the U.S. adding Node 3, CRV, propulsion Module, and
maybe Transhab. Now, it's shrinking again. After this round of cuts, trust me,
NASA WILL find a way to make the station grow again. Even Bush's budget says
that NASA will find a way to add the cut elements back into after they declare
"station complete". If any good comes out of this, it will be that NASA is
being forced to rethink the program, to come up with new innovative ideas and
control costs. New concepts are already flowing out from NASA, and its
partners. New concepts, such as stretched Node 3 and redesign of the Enterprise
Module. The real cut probably will be $1-2 billion, not $4 billion. First, the
$4 billion overrun estimate is probably much inflated, as we will find out in
coming weeks. Second, sympathetic Congressmen will find new funds for the
station (Bush's Republican allies in Congress are already stating they don't
want the station cut). And third, NASA will find creative ways to cut costs,
through better management and more efficient use of hardware. For whatever
shortfall NASA has in hardware, I believe NASA should deal with it as follows:
(a) rent habital space on Enterprise
(b) require Japan and ESA to elimate some science racks on their respective
modules, so that their modules could house one astronaut each, as a temporary
measure, until...
(c) Transhab is built at a later date (after all the current funds are spent,
and built as a separate human mission mission to Mars program).
(d) Buy more Soyuz from Russia; continue CRV as an experimental new craft, to
be fully deployed as a riund trip vehicle at a future date.
PixelCat
news:20010305185149...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> Module. The real cut probably will be $1-2 billion, not $4 billion.
Why do people insist on referring to a refusal to pay extra for *overruns*
as a cut? It's not a cut. If my kid tells me it took longer to do his
chores this week than he expected, and I should boost his allowance, and I
refuse to, he's not getting a cut.
--
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 Sheila (aka Leather Goddess) lost her right to
lecture PKs and grief players on fair play.
Peter D. Richeson
not necessarily the amount paid.
PixelCat
news:3AA51DD1...@boeing.com...
> PixelCat wrote:
> > "PeterAltschuler1" <peteralt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010305185149...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> > > Module. The real cut probably will be $1-2 billion, not $4 billion.
> > Why do people insist on referring to a refusal to pay extra for
*overruns*
> > as a cut? It's not a cut. If my kid tells me it took longer to do his
> > chores this week than he expected, and I should boost his allowance, and
I
> > refuse to, he's not getting a cut.
> but if you reduce the amount of chores you "cut back" on what he does.
> not necessarily the amount paid.
Not the same. Going back to the original scenario: GWB is refusing to
write another blank check to NASA (ok, he's refusing to write a $4B check).
That's *not* a cutback. A cutback would be if he said "You guys clearly
can't manage your money, so you're only getting a $13B budget instead of a
$14.5B (or $17.5B) one".
JF Mezei
> Why do people insist on referring to a refusal to pay extra for *overruns*
> as a cut? It's not a cut.
The international agreements to build the station are based on deliverables,
not on budgets.
The 4 billion was spent in the past. Where did NASA get that money ? If NASA
is allocated only a certain amount of money per year, how could it spend more
than it was given without the government giving it more money ? And if the
government already gave NASA the permission to spend that extra 4 billion in
the past, why would it be an issue now ?
Or is this a case of NASA benefitting from the russian delays since it had not
only 2 more years to build Destiny, but also 2 more budgets each having
perhaps 2 billion allocated to the station, allowing NASA to spend a total of
4 additional billions ?
Had Russia not had any delays, and Zvezda operational in 1998, NASA would have
had 2 fewer years to build Destiny. Does this mean that NASA would not have
had sufficient funds to built Destiny, Z1 and P6 ?
Where did the 4 billion overrun that NASA has already spent come from ? Did
NASA borrow money from banks ?
rk
> > Why do people insist on referring to a refusal to pay extra for *overruns*
> > as a cut? It's not a cut.
>
> The international agreements to build the station are based on deliverables,
> not on budgets.
Budgets for the Executive Branch are based on US law.
> The 4 billion was spent in the past. Where did NASA get that money ? If NASA
> is allocated only a certain amount of money per year, how could it spend more
> than it was given without the government giving it more money ? And if the
> government already gave NASA the permission to spend that extra 4 billion in
> the past, why would it be an issue now ?
>
> Or is this a case of NASA benefitting from the russian delays since it had not
> only 2 more years to build Destiny, but also 2 more budgets each having
> perhaps 2 billion allocated to the station, allowing NASA to spend a total of
> 4 additional billions ?
>
> Had Russia not had any delays, and Zvezda operational in 1998, NASA would have
> had 2 fewer years to build Destiny. Does this mean that NASA would not have
> had sufficient funds to built Destiny, Z1 and P6 ?
>
> Where did the 4 billion overrun that NASA has already spent come from ? Did
> NASA borrow money from banks ?
You have asked 7 questions in this post; that puts you over budget.
I shall add some information from AW&ST: http://www.aviationnow.com/iss
NASA planners hope they can save the CRV by
"rephasing" it as part of a larger revision of the station
assembly sequence forced by the shortfall, which results
from a congressional cap of $25 billion on station
spending. Russian delays and a $986-million overrun at
Boeing have pushed station cost estimates over that limit.
So, it appears that there was "congressional cap of $25 billion."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rk A designer has arrived at perfection
stellar engineering, ltd. not when there is no longer anything
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM to add, but when there is no longer
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design anything to take away - Bentley, 1983
Edward Lyons
watched
> its proposed size increase and decrease all over again. What is going on
now is
> nothing new and follows the pattern. First the station was the Power
Tower.
> Then, it grew to become the Dual Keel. Then it shrunk to the I-beam. Then,
it
> shrunk again to become Freedom. Then it grew with Russian participation to
ISS.
> Then, it grew again with the U.S. adding Node 3, CRV, propulsion Module,
and
> maybe Transhab. Now, it's shrinking again.
Indeed, it is a cyclical thing. The next administration (if Bush emulates
his father by not gaining reelection) would probably introduce changes of
its own. These things are all politically driven, and seem to indicate that
no new administration can resist the temptation to change what its
predecessor(s) wrought.
> After this round of cuts, trust me,
> NASA WILL find a way to make the station grow again. Even Bush's budget
says
> that NASA will find a way to add the cut elements back into after they
declare
> "station complete". If any good comes out of this, it will be that NASA is
> being forced to rethink the program, to come up with new innovative ideas
and
> control costs. New concepts are already flowing out from NASA, and its
> partners. New concepts, such as stretched Node 3 and redesign of the
Enterprise
> Module.
What Node 3? If the current plan comes to fruition, with the US contribution
regarded as "complete" once Node 2 is launched (so NASA can "meet" its
international obligations), hten where does Node 3 (stretched, or not) fit
in? Apparently nowhere, and I'm somewhat surprised not to have seen this
mentioned anywhere before.
> The real cut probably will be $1-2 billion, not $4 billion.
A refusal in advance to spend extra money is not a "cut".
> First, the
> $4 billion overrun estimate is probably much inflated, as we will find out
in
> coming weeks. Second, sympathetic Congressmen will find new funds for the
> station (Bush's Republican allies in Congress are already stating they
don't
> want the station cut).
There is no doubt that there will be a vigorous political debate about ISS.
Not least because the current intent will not enable NASA fully to meet its
international obligations. Simply launching and attaching the European and
Japanese hardware is only a part of the deal -- the rest of the obligation
is to enable this hardware to be used through to the projected end-of-life
of the Station. This means 51% utilisation of both Columbus and Kibo by
European and Japanese nationals respectively, according to the agreements
signed by NASA and its international partners. Without a stretched Node 3 or
other substitute for the Hab module, and the additional life support
systems -- never mind the CRV --, ISS will be limited to just three crew.
This will not allow the Europeans or Japanese to utilise their hardware,
unless NASA agrees to eliminate a huge proportion of resident crew positions
for its own astronauts.
> And third, NASA will find creative ways to cut costs,
> through better management and more efficient use of hardware.
It is long overdue (as it is for most bureaucracies) for NASA to be taught
the lesson that if it does not reform and become managerially efficient and
fiscally prudent in its activities that it will suffer the consequences of
not being bankrolled indefinitely. NASA really has only itself to blame for
the current difficulties.
> For whatever
> shortfall NASA has in hardware, I believe NASA should deal with it as
follows:
>
> (a) rent habital space on Enterprise
>
> (b) require Japan and ESA to elimate some science racks on their
respective
> modules, so that their modules could house one astronaut each, as a
temporary
> measure, until...
Presumably you mean eliminate some _NASA_ science racks (not European or
Japanese), since it is NASA which is at fault here.
>
> (c) Transhab is built at a later date (after all the current funds are
spent,
> and built as a separate human mission mission to Mars program).
>
It will be a long, long time before sufficient funds are invested in a
prospective human Mars mission. This option, then, is not really an
option -- unless TransHab funding came from non-government sources. The
"larger Enterprise" solution would be far more likely.
> (d) Buy more Soyuz from Russia; continue CRV as an experimental new craft,
to
> be fully deployed as a riund trip vehicle at a future date.
It is inevitable that more Soyuzes will be required, if the downsizing goes
ahead as outlined.
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
PeterAltschuler1
is why the Bush Administarion is upset. Because NASA can't give an answer.
Somehow "business as usual" has cost this gave oversight that may lead to NASA
Administrator Dan Golden's removal, because he should have seen this coming.
Naturally, that is why there has already been the removal of the program's
director, and the already announced restructuring, as NASA scrambles for an
explanation. It could be Boeing's fault. If it is, Boeing should be held
responsible.
JF Mezei
>
> "Where did the $4 billion cost overrun come from" is the $64,000 question.
Where did the money come from to spend that 4 billion in cost overruns that
have already occured ?
Dwayne Allen Day
: Indeed, it is a cyclical thing. The next administration (if Bush emulates
: his father by not gaining reelection) would probably introduce changes of
: its own. These things are all politically driven, and seem to indicate that
: no new administration can resist the temptation to change what its
: predecessor(s) wrought.
An overly simplistic explanation. NASA would not have gotten an extra $4
billion no matter who was in the White House.
D