Lowering Launch Costs

[Tom Abbott]

Henry Spencer <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:

>In article <19970703032...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>DPHUNTSMAN <dphun...@aol.com> wrote:
>>...What you don't realize, though, is that there is no combination
>>of ELV concepts or extrapolation of ELV technologies that will
>>"drastically" lower the cost to orbit; i.e., the true CATS (cheap access
>>to space) mantra we all want...

>Actually, I would argue with this. I expect that a carefully designed
>expendable could get at least one order of magnitude in cost improvement,
>and possibly two. However, it would still remain marginal for CATS
>because of the costs of unreliability, which can be reduced -- the
>approaches I have in mind would improve reliability too -- but cannot be
>rendered negligible without the ability to flight-test the individual
>vehicles.

>>...the newest ELV on the horizon---the EELV being funded by the DOD---is
>>advertising only a 25% improvement in launch costs guaranteed; with a
>>possible goal--in only some configurations---of 50%...

>The problem with EELV is organizational, not technical -- the way it is
>being done and the people doing it guarantee that it will never be cheap.
>(In fact, I will go further: the revolution is not going to come from
>Boeing or LockMart, no matter how the program is run or what the vehicle
>specs say. Intel never made vacuum tubes.)

>>Bottom line: the drastic cost reduction needed to establish the human
>>future in space has no chance of being realized using throwaway rockets.

>They can't deliver the final goal, but they might be made good enough to
>get the ball rolling. I'm not convinced that this would be a good thing,
>however -- we'll need RLVs for that final goal, and cheaper ELVs would
>reduce the incentive to make the change.

In other words, let's substitute pipe dreams for concrete answers to
establishing ourselves in space. Let's wait on cheap RLV's. No
thanks, I'm tired of waiting. Give me a heavy-lift booster anytime.
And we can build one anytime, unlike these mythical RLV's.

Tom Abbott

External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm

Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org

National Space Society: http://www.nss.org

External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm

[Joseph Michael]

In article <5potdi$g...@usenet78.supernews.com>
tab...@intellex.com "Tom Abbott" writes:

>>>Bottom line: the drastic cost reduction needed to establish the human
>>>future in space has no chance of being realized using throwaway rockets.

This is wrong.

A reuseable craft spends a lot of energy getting into space, then
it burns it all up coming back down after having delivered a payload
of a couple of tons.

Consider instead over 70% of the craft as being the payload with a small
return module if you happen to have humans on board.

All that energy is now spent in putting the machine payload into orbit.

This is where I come in.

As you know, the science of space exploration and colonisation
can be reduced to simply manufacture of shape changing
fractal robotic cubes and tools of all sizes integrated with those cubes.
As there is always a size of cube to match the size of the tool, all
tools can be integrated on command into any machine within minutes
so that you can manufacture rockets, rovers, space ships, space
stations simply by transforming from one to the other.
If you needed tanks and other extended structures, the fractal robots
can roll out sheets of metal and weld them to make the structures you
require.

Here on earth, the idea of re-useable craft has to be replaced
with a fractal mechanoid that manufactures fractal rockets on
command integrating all the tooling needed for the mission. Basically,
with such a machine, you can assemble rockets of any size or complexity
within hours and a substantial percentage of the machine is
the fractal robot and tools all assembled the fractal way.
Items such as the metal tanks and external casing are all manufactured
to be dismantled by the robots once in space into extended structures
for space stations, radar dishes etc. under total automation.

The end result is that most of the vehicle sent into space is the
payload which is far more cheaper than re-useable craft.

.--------------------. .--------------------------.
| Joe Michael \______________________/ J...@stellar.demon.co.uk |
: \__________________________/:
| Futuristic . Shocking . Mind Blowing . Shape Changing Robots |
:-------. :
| \ http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/ |
`---------+--------------------------------------------------------------'

[Jim Kingdon]

>The problem with EELV is organizational, not technical -- the way it is
>being done and the people doing it guarantee that it will never be cheap.
>(In fact, I will go further: the revolution is not going to come from
>Boeing or LockMart, no matter how the program is run or what the vehicle
>specs say. Intel never made vacuum tubes.)

I'll agree with respect to LockMart.

Boeing is not nearly so clear-cut. There is certainly a significant
chance they'll continue in the government contractor mode. But there
are also significant signs of innovative thinking (and actions!)
there--Mir Pathfinder and Teledesic spring to mind--so I think it is
entirely possible they will be part of the revolution one way or
another.

[Ian Stirling]

Joseph Michael <J...@stellar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <5potdi$g...@usenet78.supernews.com>
: tab...@intellex.com "Tom Abbott" writes:

: >>>Bottom line: the drastic cost reduction needed to establish the human
: >>>future in space has no chance of being realized using throwaway rockets.

: This is wrong.

: As you know, the science of space exploration and colonisation

: can be reduced to simply manufacture of shape changing
: fractal robotic cubes and tools of all sizes integrated with those cubes.
: As there is always a size of cube to match the size of the tool, all

Is it me, or is this utterly ridiculous, from the look I had at this
page, it looks like little more than
"See the animation walking, Walk animation Walk."

Apart from the dramatic over-use of the word fractal, this is really
no different from what has been discussed in sci.nanotech for the
past few years.
Nano-bots when they finally get built are unlikely to be simple, or
easy to use for the first few decades.
However, they do have vast potential, if they are programmable, flexible
and RELIABLE!!!!!!!!
Basically, if you have several billion of these, massing well under a kilo,
each one running at very high clock speeds, it only takes one to go
wrong and decide to give up on the boring work and start making copies
of it'self out of available materials (rocks, trees, plants, people)
For it to be a real liability problem.

--
Ian Stirling. Designing a linux PDA, see http://www.mauve.demon.co.uk/
-----******* If replying by email, check notices in header *******-------
Among a man's many good possessions, A good command of speech has no equal.

[Tom Abbott]

J...@stellar.demon.co.uk (Joseph Michael) wrote:

>In article <5potdi$g...@usenet78.supernews.com>
> tab...@intellex.com "Tom Abbott" writes:

>>>>Bottom line: the drastic cost reduction needed to establish the human
>>>>future in space has no chance of being realized using throwaway rockets.

>This is wrong.

Yes, it is wrong, I didn't write what you're attributing to me. I
believe that's Henry's quote.

[Tom Abbott]

Henry Spencer <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:

>In article <5pn49g$6...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
>Stephen Gloor <sgl...@p086.aone.net.au> wrote:
>>>Why does there have to be a meantime? Why are we wasting time with crude
>>>half-measures, without even trying to find out whether we could do things
>>>right instead? If we can build economical RLVs today...
>>
>>I mean in the time between now and a fully operational RLV. When you
>>say today is that 5 years in the future or 10. There are no
>>operational RLVs today and there will not be for a few years yet...

>The same is true of hypothetical new expendables, which also take time
>to develop. The "time between now and a fully operational RLV" is not
>trivial, even assuming we start a determined effort today... but we can't
>wave a magic wand and create a cheap new expendable tomorrow either.

Not tomorrow, Henry, but we can build a working shuttle-derived
heavy-lift vehicle in about two to three years. You cannot say that
for a fully operational RLV. You can't say for sure that a fully
operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN
say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.

> The
>key issue is not what we fly on next week, because that answer is already
>predetermined: something that's flying today. The key issue is the time
>delay between operational readiness of a cheap new expendable (started
>today) and operational readiness of a small RLV (started today). It's not
>at all self-evident that this delay is long enough to make the expendable
>worthwhile.

RLV development timeframes could be five years or they could be 20
years. We can't plan a space program on this level of uncertainty.
Besides, RLV's will not serve every function of a space development
program, other types of launch vehicles such as heavy-lift, are also
needed. Since we have the ability and hardware already available for
heavy-lift, we might as well get started on it (and NASA is doing just
that), and incorporate the new RLV's into the program when they show
up, in five years or twenty years, or whenever.

[PBlase]

>>>Bottom line: the drastic cost reduction needed to establish the human
>>>future in space has no chance of being realized using throwaway
>>>rockets.
>>This is wrong.

>>A reuseable craft spends a lot of energy getting into space, then
it burns it all up coming back down after having delivered a payload
of a couple of tons.

Except that a reusable craft can be - gasp - REUSED, and the vast majority
of the cost of a space launch is the cost of the CRAFT, not the fuel. If I
can reuse a launcher 1,000 times, then obviously the cost of each launch
goes down by at least a factor of 1000. Actually it goes down by much
more, since a reusable launcher doesn't cost 1000 times what a one-shot
one does, more like 10 to 20 times. Although there is some more complexity
(though not much) the reusable launcher doesn't have to be hyper-reliable,
since it can be tested and wrung out beforehand. Besides, your insurance
costs go down significantly, since the launcher can be shown to work (the
actual craft carrying the cargo, not merely the design).

>As you know, the science of space exploration and colonisation
can be reduced to simply manufacture of shape changing
fractal robotic cubes and tools of all sizes integrated with those cubes.

...

>Items such as the metal tanks and external casing are all manufactured
to be dismantled by the robots once in space into extended structures
for space stations, radar dishes etc. under total automation.

1) Unfortunately, no one knows how to make such robots.
2) This is very little different from the nano-technology that has already
been suggested. Possibly a Good idea, but probably not practical for a
long time. BTW, R. L. Forward thought up fractal robots a decade ago in
"The Flight of the Dragonfly"
3) What if the cargo that I want up there is not something suitable for
making rockets out of (e.g. air), or what if I already have all of the
hardware up there that I want there.
4) Most of what needs to go up into orbit isn't going to be structure, it
will be electronics and other fine parts. It will be considerably more
reliable to fabricate these things on Earth, where the process can be more
controlled, and then ship it.
5) The problem of reliability still exists. I don't want to fly on a new
ship rigged up out of parts, I want to fly on one that has been put
through the ringer and had all of the bugs taken out.

[Joe Doyle]

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Joseph Michael wrote:

>
> Here on earth, the idea of re-useable craft has to be replaced
> with a fractal mechanoid that manufactures fractal rockets on
> command integrating all the tooling needed for the mission. Basically,
>

Pray tell, what exactly is a *fractal* rocket? If one were to
take that phrase at face value, one would have to imagine a large rocket,
built of smaller rockets, built of smaller rockets, ad nauseum. If one
were to not take that at face value, then I don't know what a "fractal
rocket" would be.
And of course, if one were to know anything about physics,
rocketry, molecular dynamics, engineering, computer science, etc., one
would stop posting garbage about "fractal" anything, anywhere.

-Joe Doyle

[pat]

In article <5potdi$g...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>Henry Spencer <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>Bottom line: the drastic cost reduction needed to establish the human
>>>future in space has no chance of being realized using throwaway rockets.
>

>>They can't deliver the final goal, but they might be made good enough to
>>get the ball rolling. I'm not convinced that this would be a good thing,
>>however -- we'll need RLVs for that final goal, and cheaper ELVs would
>>reduce the incentive to make the change.
>
> In other words, let's substitute pipe dreams for concrete answers to
>establishing ourselves in space. Let's wait on cheap RLV's. No
>thanks, I'm tired of waiting. Give me a heavy-lift booster anytime.
>And we can build one anytime, unlike these mythical RLV's.

yep, for which it has no funded mission.

so we should spend 3 billion or so in scarce funds so we can then
spend more money?

old tom, putting the cart before the horse again.

[pat]

In article <5q82ue$4...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>
>Henry Spencer <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:

>>The same is true of hypothetical new expendables, which also take time
>>to develop. The "time between now and a fully operational RLV" is not
>>trivial, even assuming we start a determined effort today... but we can't
>>wave a magic wand and create a cheap new expendable tomorrow either.
>
> Not tomorrow, Henry, but we can build a working shuttle-derived
>heavy-lift vehicle in about two to three years. You cannot say that
>for a fully operational RLV. You can't say for sure that a fully
>operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN

Wehrner von Braun thought we could get a single stage vehicle up
for the apollo program in only 3 more years then the Saturn V.
WvB thought re-usability elements could be put in the Saturn
in under 2 years.

Gee Tom, are you saying NASA is less competent then they used to be?

>say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
>shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
>and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.
>

if you don't mind spending billions to first build it.
and you don't mind that 7 years after it first flies that it
will be a museum piece.

we need a sustainable space architecture, and HLV's aren't part
of that picture.

Hell, the apollo LOR architecture was hated by Wiesner the Presidential
science adviser because it didn't provide sustainability.
EOR would build a sustainable architecture and have uses in civil
and military applications.

>> The
>>key issue is not what we fly on next week, because that answer is already
>>predetermined: something that's flying today. The key issue is the time
>>delay between operational readiness of a cheap new expendable (started
>>today) and operational readiness of a small RLV (started today). It's not
>>at all self-evident that this delay is long enough to make the expendable
>>worthwhile.
>
> RLV development timeframes could be five years or they could be 20
>years. We can't plan a space program on this level of uncertainty.

we can't plan a space program PERIOD.... Abbott, communism is dead,
why are you still breathing.

We need a comercial space presence, and that is RLV. RLV's mean
commerce, money, taxes and cost reduction. HLV is just one more
gasp from teh central planners.

>Besides, RLV's will not serve every function of a space development
>program, other types of launch vehicles such as heavy-lift, are also
>needed. Since we have the ability and hardware already available for

Who says? The communists say this. Tractor Trailers don't provide
every function of transportation, but 99.9% of all traffic still
fits inside a cargo container. You merely want a new government
spending program.

>heavy-lift, we might as well get started on it (and NASA is doing just
>that), and incorporate the new RLV's into the program when they show
>up, in five years or twenty years, or whenever.
>

The new RLV's won't show up without investment which your HLV will
bleed off.

pat

[Richard A. Schumacher]

>>The same is true of hypothetical new expendables, which also take time
>>to develop. The "time between now and a fully operational RLV" is not
>>trivial, even assuming we start a determined effort today... but we can't
>>wave a magic wand and create a cheap new expendable tomorrow either.

> Not tomorrow, Henry, but we can build a working shuttle-derived
>heavy-lift vehicle in about two to three years. You cannot say that
>for a fully operational RLV. You can't say for sure that a fully

Except for Kistler. T minus two years and counting...

>operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN

>say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
>shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
>and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.

$17 million per pop on Kistler.

> RLV development timeframes could be five years or they could be 20
>years. We can't plan a space program on this level of uncertainty.

Whistling in the dark.

--
Per US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227,
unsolicited commercial email is subject to a download
and archive fee of US$500. Use constitutes acceptance.

[Stephen Gloor]

p...@explorer.clark.net (pat) wrote:
>Wehrner von Braun thought we could get a single stage vehicle up
>for the apollo program in only 3 more years then the Saturn V.
>WvB thought re-usability elements could be put in the Saturn
>in under 2 years.

>Gee Tom, are you saying NASA is less competent then they used to be?

Actually I think they are. We used to be able to launch 100 (actually
I think it was more) tons to LEO for approx 600 million (Saturn V) .
The shuttle (ELV) manages 25 tons for 200-500 million a launch. Judge
for your self.

>if you don't mind spending billions to first build it.
>and you don't mind that 7 years after it first flies that it
>will be a museum piece.

>we need a sustainable space architecture, and HLV's aren't part
>of that picture.

Why will it be a museum piece. Any HLV can have reusable stages.
Also reusable does not imply fly-back. The upper stages in orbit
represent extremely valuable resources because of there position.
With careful design these upper stages can be re-used in orbit.

>we can't plan a space program PERIOD.... Abbott, communism is dead,
>why are you still breathing.

We can plan a Space Program. I don't think planning necessarily means
communism. I think this view (planning=communism) is pretty odd.

>We need a comercial space presence, and that is RLV. RLV's mean
>commerce, money, taxes and cost reduction. HLV is just one more
>gasp from teh central planners.

Just like the Shuttle (RLV)!!!!!

>Who says? The communists say this. Tractor Trailers don't provide
>every function of transportation, but 99.9% of all traffic still
>fits inside a cargo container. You merely want a new government
>spending program.

Who said HLLVs had to be developed by governments. Also one of the
largest government programs is the RLV program.

>The new RLV's won't show up without investment which your HLV will
>bleed off.

RLVs are bleeding off and slowing down the development of space. The
end is not LEO. The end is the humanisation and colonistation of the
Solar System and beyond.

*******************************************************
* Stephen Gloor sgl...@p086.aone.com.au *
* Perth *
* Western Australia *
*******************************************************

[Tom Abbott]

schu...@rsn.hp.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:

>>>The same is true of hypothetical new expendables, which also take time
>>>to develop. The "time between now and a fully operational RLV" is not
>>>trivial, even assuming we start a determined effort today... but we can't
>>>wave a magic wand and create a cheap new expendable tomorrow either.

>> Not tomorrow, Henry, but we can build a working shuttle-derived
>>heavy-lift vehicle in about two to three years. You cannot say that
>>for a fully operational RLV. You can't say for sure that a fully

>Except for Kistler. T minus two years and counting...

Richard, will Kistler have more capability than Pioneer
Rocketplane's RLV?

>>operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN
>>say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
>>shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
>>and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.

>$17 million per pop on Kistler.

Yes, but the $100 million for the shuttle-derived heavy-lifter get
us 100 tons in low-Earth orbit. How much does the $17 million for
Kistler get us, 2 tons?

>> RLV development timeframes could be five years or they could be 20
>>years. We can't plan a space program on this level of uncertainty.

>Whistling in the dark.

I don't see it that way.

[Phil Fraering]

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Stephen Gloor wrote:

> RLVs are bleeding off and slowing down the development of space. The
> end is not LEO. The end is the humanisation and colonistation of the
> Solar System and beyond.

But in order to get past LEO you first have to get _to_ LEO. We've
tried massive government semi-expendables for the past 20 years with
virtually no progress. Why are you saying that that _is_ progress and
that any (much smaller) resources used on RLV's are a "threat?"

Now I know you're saying "look at the shuttle, it's an RLV, and it
is an absolute failure!"

But the shuttle consumes much more money than development funds for
RLV's currently do. AND I've been arguing that the shuttle should be
scrapped for the last bloody decade. So stop saying I'm to blame for it.

And finally, you're the one who wants to keep the shuttle going, by
pretending to make a cheap HLV out of it. (Fat chance).

Phil

[pat]

In article <5qnto6$j...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>schu...@rsn.hp.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
>
>
> Richard, will Kistler have more capability than Pioneer
>Rocketplane's RLV?
>
>>>operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN
>>>say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
>>>shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
>>>and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.
>
>>$17 million per pop on Kistler.
>
> Yes, but the $100 million for the shuttle-derived heavy-lifter get
>us 100 tons in low-Earth orbit. How much does the $17 million for
>Kistler get us, 2 tons?
>

For those just tuning in, Abbott actually believes his numbers. :-(

pat

[Tom Abbott]

p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:

>pat

Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.

BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
How about those numbers, Pat. :)

[George Herbert]

Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>[...]

> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>
> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>How about those numbers, Pat. :)

I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C
launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about
$60 million each, and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
used SSMEs near their lifetime limits, the rest of the vehicle, integration,
and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200 million
per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.
That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
at four flights, it's $75m/flight.

Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs. A reasonable analysis
then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard if
economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100 tons
($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).

Shuttle-C only wins out economically if Kistler uses realistic commercial
financial practices and NASA doesn't and flys 3 or more flights per year
on the Shuttle-C, for which payloads appear nonexistent. Not to mention that
those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much, whereas Kistler is not
advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
than Kistler's.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gher...@crl.com

[pat]

In article <5qqo7g$1...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>
>>In article <5qnto6$j...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
says...
>>>
>>>schu...@rsn.hp.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard, will Kistler have more capability than Pioneer
>>>Rocketplane's RLV?
>>>
>>>>>operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN
>>>>>say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
>>>>>shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
>>>>>and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.
>>>
>>>>$17 million per pop on Kistler.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the $100 million for the shuttle-derived heavy-lifter get
>>>us 100 tons in low-Earth orbit. How much does the $17 million for
>>>Kistler get us, 2 tons?
>>>
>
>>For those just tuning in, Abbott actually believes his numbers. :-(
>
>>pat
>
>

> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>

I have made this argument before, but abbott wasn't taking his lithium.

Sigh.

Oh well, here we go again.

HLV _ SHuttle Derived- Expendable.

DDTE $5G. The Augustine commision stated this could be done for $2G,
but given their history of over-runs, I'd not expect anything less
then 4G, and that would be with severe penalty clauses for non-performance.

with the lobbysists lockheed owns, it is highly unlikely to expect
real performance from them.

Mission Fly-away costs.

ET : $80 M

2 SRB's $60M

3 SSME's Expended $100 Million.

Proportional overhead of KSC $250 Million. ($400 - $150M) due to simpler
servicing costs.(No Life support, no landing gear, TPS).

$50M consumed electronics (Sensors, communications, telemetry, GPC's)

So we can expect to drop $300 Million on hardware per vehicle, and
$250 Million in servicing costs..

Flight test program.

4 launches (Water, sand or expendable hardware).

$2G

SO DDTE looks to be anywhere between $5-$7G for a SHuttle-C.

Now assuming a space station, moon base and Mars base, we can
expect no more then 15 missions, so the derived costs per mission

run $250M + $7G/15 = $650 Million per mission.(100 Tons)

$6,000/ton base costs.

given an interest rate of 6% and 5 year developement program
we can add about 15% in costs onto that for interest.

the numbers of course get worse or better to some degree depending
upon flight rate, etc...

Now the abbott mind of course writes off developement costs
and interest and insists that lockheed can do this on schedule and
budget. HaHa.

Abbott also insists that a HLV can be made re-usable, but in which
case, the DDTE rises even higher, and the per mission servicing
costs rise as there are more systems to service.

I ballpark estimate a re-usable pod based system at $9G DDTE,
with an extra $50 Million in mission service costs, but a savings of
$100 million in consumed engines and a savings of $50 million
in consumed electronics.

I leave the mission costing for that model to any reader except Mr abbott.

George Herbert ran these numbers for anyone interested.

Now what would be interesting is a sensitivity analysis of
an HLV costs to Mission rate, DDTE and servicing costs.
My gut instinct is it is insensitive to all but mission rate
and on mildly sensitive to that.

I try to throw out of consideration ideas like writing off the
DDTE of an HLV, psychotic ideas like KSC increasing launch rates
or re-usable hardware being easy to develope from shuttle heritage
equipment.

Now this analysis has been done at least three times, and i'm going
to save it for re-posting in 6 weeks, when someone claims that
no figures exist.

> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>How about those numbers, Pat. :)

Kistler will recover their DDT&E, and I suspect they aren't
lying, unlike virtually any number I ever see from the shuttle
program office.

pat

[Tom Abbott]

gher...@crl6.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:

>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>[...]

>> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>>

>> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>>How about those numbers, Pat. :)

>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C

>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about
>$60 million each,

George, the last time I looked, the ET was about $46 million. I'll
agree on your cost for the SRB's.

>and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits,

A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
(SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
launch cost.

> the rest of the vehicle, integration,
>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200 million
>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.

These costs are considered fixed costs up to a certain number of
additional launches, and are also not included in the marginal launch
cost of launching an additional shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift
vehicle.

>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.

Amortization in this instance just confuses the issue, IMO. We
don't figure the space shuttle's development costs into the yearly
cost of launching shuttles and the same should apply to a heavy-lift
Shuttle-C. The $3 billion needed to build Shuttle-C is an investment
which will pay the space program back many times over.

>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs.

What Kistler's estimates don't include is the cost of handling their
payloads once they reach orbit. Orbital operations will quickly eat
up the $3 billion it would cost to build Shuttle-C.

> A reasonable analysis
>then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
>Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard if
>economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100 tons
>($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).

I don't agree with your numbers obviously, but even if we used them,
Shuttle-C is still competitive on price, and you still haven't
accounted for the cost of orbital operations which the Kistler method,
or any small-payload launcher, requires. The Shuttle-C method
requires no orbital assembly and does not incur these costs.

>Shuttle-C only wins out economically if Kistler uses realistic commercial
>financial practices and NASA doesn't and flys 3 or more flights per year
>on the Shuttle-C, for which payloads appear nonexistent.

Shuttle-C would pay for itself in one Moon mission. Consider:

Shuttle-C cost to build = $3 billion
Shuttle-C marginal launch cost = $100 million
Minimal Moon mission requires 500 tons be launched into low-Earth
orbit.
Cost to launch Moon mission using Shuttle-C heavy-lift = $3 billion
(development cost) and $500 million in marginal launch costs (5
Shuttle-C launches, each putting 100 tons in low-Earth orbit).

Total costs for Shuttle-C to launch a Moon mission = $3.5 billion.

Kistler's vehicle can launch 4.5 tons to low-Earth orbit for $17
million.

Total launch cost (110 launches) for Kistler to put 500 tons in
low-Earth orbit = $1.885 billion.
Cost of initial orbital facility and equipment to handle
110 payloads = $3 billion?
Cost of orbital handling of payloads per 100 tons of cargo = $1
billion (22 launches)

Total cost to NASA for Kistler to deliver 500 tons to low-Earth orbit
for the Moon mission = $8.885 billion.

Comparison:

Shuttle-C = $3.5 billion
Kistler = $8.885 billion

You'll notice I didn't include Kistler's development costs in the
figures. I didn't have to. :)

That's just for starters. For a sustained Moon and/or Mars program
Shuttle-C heavy-lift saves enormous amounts of money and time, not to
mention the safety factor of eliminating orbital assembly. Is there
any other choice?

>Not to mention that
>those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much,

I don't see how you can say that. USA is reducing cost of
operations and many improvements for the shuttle are coming, such as
liquid boosters which should lower costs and increase lift capacity,
and we can always add a fourth SSME to the Shuttle-C propulsion
boattail to increase the tonnage even more, and for the same marginal
launch costs! In fact, we should start out with a four-engined
Shuttle-C, like Zubrin describes.

> whereas Kistler is not
>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>than Kistler's.

These are unknowns.

[Phil Fraering]

On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Tom Abbott wrote:

> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
> (SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
> then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
> launch cost.

The shuttle has a fair amount of marginal costs on its SSME's and
also has to replace them fairly often.

Phil

[pat]

In article <5qn5fe$q...@news.mel.aone.net.au>, sgl...@p086.aone.net.au says...
>
>p...@explorer.clark.net (pat) wrote:
[HLV design costs]

>>if you don't mind spending billions to first build it.
>>and you don't mind that 7 years after it first flies that it
>>will be a museum piece.
>
>>we need a sustainable space architecture, and HLV's aren't part
>>of that picture.
>Why will it be a museum piece.

For the same reason the Saturn and energiya are museum pieces.

>Any HLV can have reusable stages.

which just drives up teh DDT&E costs.

>Also reusable does not imply fly-back. The upper stages in orbit
>represent extremely valuable resources because of there position.
>With careful design these upper stages can be re-used in orbit.

Which means even more spending for a program to use these
resources in orbit.

All you are talking about is now requiring a 30 billion dollar
annual program.

>>we can't plan a space program PERIOD.... Abbott, communism is dead,
>>why are you still breathing.
>We can plan a Space Program. I don't think planning necessarily means

We can't plan a space program. WE can't plan a computing program,
we can't plan an activity in which market activity can occur
or in which massive technological shifts are occuring.

The history of every large government computing program has been
a failure.

>communism. I think this view (planning=communism) is pretty odd.

Central planners are just communists without guns.

>
>>We need a comercial space presence, and that is RLV. RLV's mean
>>commerce, money, taxes and cost reduction. HLV is just one more
>>gasp from teh central planners.
>Just like the Shuttle (RLV)!!!!!

the fundamental problem with STS is that it is run by the central
planners.

>
>>Who says? The communists say this. Tractor Trailers don't provide
>>every function of transportation, but 99.9% of all traffic still
>>fits inside a cargo container. You merely want a new government
>>spending program.
>Who said HLLVs had to be developed by governments. Also one of the
>largest government programs is the RLV program.

BBZZZTTT!!!!!

STS spending per annum $4G. ELV spending $1.5G

X-33 spending $300M. X-34 SPending $80M Bantam Technologies $20M

Boy, you need to update your facts.

>
>>The new RLV's won't show up without investment which your HLV will
>>bleed off.

>RLVs are bleeding off and slowing down the development of space. The
>end is not LEO. The end is the humanisation and colonistation of the
>Solar System and beyond.

You can't there without going to LEO.

Besides, you are in australia, so why don't you offer your advice
to your own government.

pat

[pat]

In article <5qqvv8$r...@crl6.crl.com>, gher...@crl6.crl.com says...

>
>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>>
>> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>>How about those numbers, Pat. :)
>
>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C
>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about

>$60 million each, and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits, the rest of the vehicle, integration,

>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200
million
>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.

>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.
>

>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs. A reasonable analysis

>then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
>Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard if
>economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100
tons
>($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).
>

>Shuttle-C only wins out economically if Kistler uses realistic commercial
>financial practices and NASA doesn't and flys 3 or more flights per year

>on the Shuttle-C, for which payloads appear nonexistent. Not to mention
that
>those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much, whereas Kistler is not

>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>than Kistler's.
>
>

>-george william herbert
>Retro Aerospace
>gher...@crl.com
>

Don't worry in 4 weeks, Abbott will be back, claiming that
Shuttle-C only costs $100 Million or that he's talking about
some other magic proposal that avoids all these costs.

Fanatics don't change their mind and won't change subject.

pat

[George Herbert]

Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:

>gher...@crl6.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
>>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C
>>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
>>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about
>>$60 million each,
>
> George, the last time I looked, the ET was about $46 million. I'll
>agree on your cost for the SRB's.

I got $59.something million apiece dividing the total output of
tanks per year by total payments to that factory from NASA
(which exclusively makes ETs); the "price per" isn't the whole
price paid for manufacturing them, which is a more fair price to
use for comparing.

>>and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits,
>
> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
>(SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
>then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
>launch cost.

Again, the reusable Shuttle-C proposals are more R&D expensive than
expendables of equal technology assumptions, and thus incur more
R&D amortization load. It comes out a wash.

>> the rest of the vehicle, integration,
>>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200 million
>>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.
>
> These costs are considered fixed costs up to a certain number of
>additional launches, and are also not included in the marginal launch
>cost of launching an additional shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift
>vehicle.

They should be. Again, excluding costs for arbitrary reasons is
a standard NASA procedure (some of it because costs are spread
very unevenly among many centers and contracts, some because it
artifically decreases the apparent shuttle per flight costs),
but is a mistake when trying to compare with a pure commercial
program. You have to compare apples to apples: if a cost is
figured into the price Kistler charges, then inclue the relevant
cost for NASA to build its own vehicle to do it. Excluding things
that are "traditionally" excluded, but Kistler would have to
include, leads to apples-to-oranges and invalid comparasions.

>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.
>
> Amortization in this instance just confuses the issue, IMO. We
>don't figure the space shuttle's development costs into the yearly
>cost of launching shuttles and the same should apply to a heavy-lift
>Shuttle-C. The $3 billion needed to build Shuttle-C is an investment
>which will pay the space program back many times over.

Ahh, but you should include it. Because if you don't you don't understand
what the real opportunity costs are of choosing Shuttle-C and what you
can do in other corners of decision space (i.e., Kistler, cheap
expendables, Pioneer, Kelly, etc). That $3b is wasted if NASA spends
it and then finds that Mitch and John and Walt (? Kistler) are willing
and able to fly adequately big payloads to the orbits for half the price
that Shuttle-C operations will cost per pound.

What NASA did in the past, how they did their accounting, how they do
it now still, are all irrelevant. Both corporate and public policy
accounting now standardly assume that rate-of-return and amortized
R&D costs should be included in overall comparasions, though politicians
sometimes avoid it.

>>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs.
>
> What Kistler's estimates don't include is the cost of handling their
>payloads once they reach orbit. Orbital operations will quickly eat
>up the $3 billion it would cost to build Shuttle-C.

And Shuttle-C won't have orbital handling costs, *especially* for
sending multi-satelite bundles off in controlled manners?

>> A reasonable analysis
>>then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
>>Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard if
>>economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100 tons
>>($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).
>
> I don't agree with your numbers obviously, but even if we used them,
>Shuttle-C is still competitive on price, and you still haven't
>accounted for the cost of orbital operations which the Kistler method,
>or any small-payload launcher, requires. The Shuttle-C method
>requires no orbital assembly and does not incur these costs.

The Shuttle-C incurs all sorts of costs trying to serve most of the
existing market (i.e., LEO light comsats; GEO mid-heavy comsats,
and redesigned station components to be 4x as big per unit).
Those costs on the payload end (in the equipment to seperate
the smaller payloads out and fly them where they need to end
up, and in re-designing station) should could against Shuttle-C
exactly as much as integration for big things launched in small
packages on {Kistler,Kelley,Pioneer,xxx} should be charged against
those launch platforms.

>>Shuttle-C only wins out economically if Kistler uses realistic commercial
>>financial practices and NASA doesn't and flys 3 or more flights per year
>>on the Shuttle-C, for which payloads appear nonexistent.
>
> Shuttle-C would pay for itself in one Moon mission. Consider:
>
>Shuttle-C cost to build = $3 billion
>Shuttle-C marginal launch cost = $100 million
>Minimal Moon mission requires 500 tons be launched into low-Earth
>orbit.
>Cost to launch Moon mission using Shuttle-C heavy-lift = $3 billion
>(development cost) and $500 million in marginal launch costs (5
>Shuttle-C launches, each putting 100 tons in low-Earth orbit).
>
>Total costs for Shuttle-C to launch a Moon mission = $3.5 billion.
>
>Kistler's vehicle can launch 4.5 tons to low-Earth orbit for $17
>million.
>
>Total launch cost (110 launches) for Kistler to put 500 tons in
>low-Earth orbit = $1.885 billion.
>Cost of initial orbital facility and equipment to handle
>110 payloads = $3 billion?
>Cost of orbital handling of payloads per 100 tons of cargo = $1
>billion (22 launches)
>
>Total cost to NASA for Kistler to deliver 500 tons to low-Earth orbit
>for the Moon mission = $8.885 billion.

Bunch of bad assumptions there, Tom. First of all, STOP using $100m/launch
for Shuttle-C: you are killing your credibility. You do not win arguments
by lowballing your own costs. Cost to launch those 500 tons to LEO is
thus about $4.25 billion ($250m/flight minimum) not $3.5b.

Secondly, you're assuming we need something on the order of ISS to
integrate payloads. That implicitly assumpes that the payload units
need to be integrated a lot on arrival and must be put together into
very large clusters. That is not necessarily true: quite a bit of
prior work shows that you can do just fine with smaller lunar cargo
and manned modules. Flying more of them is a bit more expensive
but not that much. You might not even need any integration at all.
You could fly the Kistler vehicle up with first kick stage, leave it
in orbit, fly back up with second kick stage, attach it to the first
(one docking, one physical assembly, and if designed right one
umbilical), and then a third flight with the payload for the flight.

>Comparison:
>
>Shuttle-C = $3.5 billion
>Kistler = $8.885 billion
>
>You'll notice I didn't include Kistler's development costs in the
>figures. I didn't have to. :)

Nor should you, it's in the $17m...

>That's just for starters. For a sustained Moon and/or Mars program
>Shuttle-C heavy-lift saves enormous amounts of money and time, not to
>mention the safety factor of eliminating orbital assembly. Is there
>any other choice?
>
>>Not to mention that
>>those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much,
>
> I don't see how you can say that. USA is reducing cost of
>operations and many improvements for the shuttle are coming, such as
>liquid boosters which should lower costs and increase lift capacity,
>and we can always add a fourth SSME to the Shuttle-C propulsion
>boattail to increase the tonnage even more, and for the same marginal
>launch costs! In fact, we should start out with a four-engined
>Shuttle-C, like Zubrin describes.

At least $20m/flight more, but yes, it's probably worth it.

>> whereas Kistler is not
>>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>>than Kistler's.
>
>These are unknowns.

Many. But ignoring many knowns is unwise.

[R.G. Lynn]

> Fanatics don't change their mind and won't change subject.
>
> pat

But for comparative neophytes like myself exchanges like the preceding
one provide a quick overview of the range of opinions and possibilities
which exist. Without arguements there would probably be precious little
said in this forum, it would certainly be far less interesting and those
among us without aerospace backgrounds, contacts or other sources of
information would never learn half of what we do, debate is the one of
the more efficient ways of arriving at `the truth'. Keep it coming :)

Robert

[Tom Abbott]

Phil Fraering <p...@stiletto.acadian.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Tom Abbott wrote:

>> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
>> (SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
>> then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
>> launch cost.

>The shuttle has a fair amount of marginal costs on its SSME's and

>also has to replace them fairly often.

>Phil

Phil, engine servicing is included in the fixed costs of the shuttle
budget, not in the marginal launch cost. It is assumed that the
workforce which currently services space shuttle engines can squeeze
one or more engine sets into their work schedule without increasing
the fixed costs, up to a certain number of extra flights. After that
number is reached, then the fixed costs must rise.

[pat]

In article <5r55ba$q...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>Phil Fraering <p...@stiletto.acadian.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Tom Abbott wrote:
>

>>> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
>>> (SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
>>> then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
>>> launch cost.
>

>>The shuttle has a fair amount of marginal costs on its SSME's and
>>also has to replace them fairly often.
>
>>Phil
>
> Phil, engine servicing is included in the fixed costs of the shuttle
>budget, not in the marginal launch cost. It is assumed that the

^^^^^^^

this assumption has been proven wrong every year for the last 20
years. It's so sad to see you peddling this story.

>workforce which currently services space shuttle engines can squeeze
>one or more engine sets into their work schedule without increasing
>the fixed costs, up to a certain number of extra flights. After that
>number is reached, then the fixed costs must rise.
>

[Tom Abbott]

"R.G. Lynn" <lyn...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

>Robert

I think Pat's definition of fanatic is anyone who doesn't agree with
him. :)

[Tom Abbott]

gher...@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:

>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>gher...@crl6.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
>>>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C
>>>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
>>>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about
>>>$60 million each,
>>
>> George, the last time I looked, the ET was about $46 million. I'll
>>agree on your cost for the SRB's.

>I got $59.something million apiece dividing the total output of
>tanks per year by total payments to that factory from NASA
>(which exclusively makes ETs); the "price per" isn't the whole
>price paid for manufacturing them, which is a more fair price to
>use for comparing.

George, the Department of Defense estimated the cost to add an extra
space shuttle flight to NASA's schedule at $50 million per launch.
NASA is putting out estimates of $50 million to $80 million to launch
an addtional shuttle, and claimed they launched the shuttle Columbia
for $59 million. And now, my friend, Robert Oler, communicates to me
over on Compuserve, that he is presently doing a study of space
shuttle launch costs for an unnamed Senator, and Robert estimates the
marginal launch costs at about $70 million per additional space
shuttle launch. Dividing the number of ET's flown per year into the
total ET budget does not give the true cost of adding one more ET to
the mix. The same goes for solid rocket boosters. ET's and solid
rocket boosters and the fuel that fills them are the marginal launch
costs. At any rate, I think I'm being generous in quoting a $100
million figure for the marginal costs of launching an additional space
shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle, considering that
several groups and individuals who should know, are quoting smaller
figures.

>>>and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>>>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits,
>>
>> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
>>(SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
>>then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
>>launch cost.

>Again, the reusable Shuttle-C proposals are more R&D expensive than
>expendables of equal technology assumptions, and thus incur more
>R&D amortization load. It comes out a wash.

Boeing seemed to think the reusable method was best.

>>> the rest of the vehicle, integration,
>>>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200 million
>>>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.
>>
>> These costs are considered fixed costs up to a certain number of
>>additional launches, and are also not included in the marginal launch
>>cost of launching an additional shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift
>>vehicle.

>They should be.

No they shouldn't. Preparing a payload should not be included in
the launch cost.

> Again, excluding costs for arbitrary reasons is
>a standard NASA procedure

I guess you'll have to accuse the DOD of doing the same thing
because they are estimating a lower cost than NASA. The reason I
emphasize marginal launch costs is to define what costs what, and
break the costs down instead of lumping everything together and
confusing everyone.

> (some of it because costs are spread
>very unevenly among many centers and contracts, some because it
>artifically decreases the apparent shuttle per flight costs),
>but is a mistake when trying to compare with a pure commercial
>program. You have to compare apples to apples: if a cost is
>figured into the price Kistler charges, then inclue the relevant
>cost for NASA to build its own vehicle to do it. Excluding things
>that are "traditionally" excluded, but Kistler would have to
>include, leads to apples-to-oranges and invalid comparasions.

Yes, that's right and I included every cost of Shuttle-C to NASA
just like I included ever cost to NASA of using Kistler--to the best
of my ability anyway.

>>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>>>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>>>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>>>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.
>>
>> Amortization in this instance just confuses the issue, IMO. We
>>don't figure the space shuttle's development costs into the yearly
>>cost of launching shuttles and the same should apply to a heavy-lift
>>Shuttle-C. The $3 billion needed to build Shuttle-C is an investment
>>which will pay the space program back many times over.

>Ahh, but you should include it. Because if you don't you don't understand
>what the real opportunity costs are of choosing Shuttle-C and what you
>can do in other corners of decision space (i.e., Kistler, cheap
>expendables, Pioneer, Kelly, etc). That $3b is wasted if NASA spends
>it and then finds that Mitch and John and Walt (? Kistler) are willing
>and able to fly adequately big payloads to the orbits for half the price
>that Shuttle-C operations will cost per pound.

I understand the opportunity costs to NASA and the taxpayers of
choosing Shuttle-C: NASA's first Moon/Mars launch will cost them $3.5
billion using Shuttle-C, and will cost about $8 billion using
Kistler's launch vehicle. NASA has an opportunity to save about $5
billion. Each subsequent launch of 500 tons to low-Earth orbit (one
Moon/Mars mission) would cost NASA $500 million using Shuttle-C, but
would cost about $2 billion using Kistler's launch vehicle. NASA has
an opportunity to save $1.5 billion per Moon/Mars mission using
Shuttle-C heavy-lift over a small-payload launcher like Kistler's.
BTW, these cost savings should also apply to your heavy-lift BDB,
assuming you can launch it for $100 million. :)

>What NASA did in the past, how they did their accounting, how they do
>it now still, are all irrelevant. Both corporate and public policy
>accounting now standardly assume that rate-of-return and amortized
>R&D costs should be included in overall comparasions, though politicians
>sometimes avoid it.

I think these are distractions, or rather, easily lead to
distractions. I would like to know what each nut and bolt cost.

>>>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs.
>>
>> What Kistler's estimates don't include is the cost of handling their
>>payloads once they reach orbit. Orbital operations will quickly eat
>>up the $3 billion it would cost to build Shuttle-C.

>And Shuttle-C won't have orbital handling costs, *especially* for
>sending multi-satelite bundles off in controlled manners?

The only job Shuttle-C should be doing is enabling NASA to develop
basic Moon and Mars bases. I don't want a federally subsidized
launcher competing on a commercial basis (yes, that includes the space
shuttle).

>>> A reasonable analysis
>>>then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
>>>Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard if
>>>economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100 tons
>>>($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).
>>
>> I don't agree with your numbers obviously, but even if we used them,
>>Shuttle-C is still competitive on price, and you still haven't
>>accounted for the cost of orbital operations which the Kistler method,
>>or any small-payload launcher, requires. The Shuttle-C method
>>requires no orbital assembly and does not incur these costs.

>The Shuttle-C incurs all sorts of costs trying to serve most of the
>existing market (i.e., LEO light comsats; GEO mid-heavy comsats,
>and redesigned station components to be 4x as big per unit).
>Those costs on the payload end (in the equipment to seperate
>the smaller payloads out and fly them where they need to end
>up, and in re-designing station) should could against Shuttle-C
>exactly as much as integration for big things launched in small
>packages on {Kistler,Kelley,Pioneer,xxx} should be charged against
>those launch platforms.

Yes, but George, I'm not promoting Shuttle-C for commercial use,
I'll let your heavy-lift BDB take care of that, if it is economically
feasible. Shuttle-C should be used strictly to expand our presence in
space, and for the cost of $3 billion we can open up the whole
Earth/Moon/Mars system at bargain basement prices for the taxpayers.

Actually, I thought I was being conservative. :) The $100 million
figure is the cost of the ET and the solid rocket boosters. Nothing
else is included in marginal launch costs. Adding in program costs to
the launch costs will increase the overall cost but it doesn't
increase the marginal launch cost. I believe we should separate
program cost from launch cost so we can see where efficiencies can be
realized. Lumping everything together confuses things, IMO.

>Secondly, you're assuming we need something on the order of ISS to
>integrate payloads.

I assume a basic human habitat which could probably be built for
$500 million using an External Tank, but if NASA is going to handle it
you know it will be more. The basic Laboratory Module and Habitat
Module and their connecting Nodes cost about $5.6 billion. Of course,
if you want to assemble at ISS, then you can rent space from NASA for
a lot less, I would imagine. :) But you still have to have an
orbital transfer vehicle, probably two, and NASA is talking about
spending $1 billion on the space station control module, which is
probably a good model for our orbital transfer vehicle.

> That implicitly assumpes that the payload units
>need to be integrated a lot on arrival and must be put together into
>very large clusters.

Well, you need about 80 tons of fuel to put a useful payload on the
Moon or Mars. You're going to have to do something with Kistler's 20
payloads of fuel, either attach them to a vehicle or empty them into a
larger fuel tank. Are you going to automate that?

> That is not necessarily true: quite a bit of
>prior work shows that you can do just fine with smaller lunar cargo
>and manned modules. Flying more of them is a bit more expensive
>but not that much. You might not even need any integration at all.

I would be interested in more details.

>You could fly the Kistler vehicle up with first kick stage, leave it
>in orbit, fly back up with second kick stage, attach it to the first
>(one docking, one physical assembly, and if designed right one
>umbilical), and then a third flight with the payload for the flight.

And what would be the purpose of doing this?

>>Comparison:
>>
>>Shuttle-C = $3.5 billion
>>Kistler = $8.885 billion
>>
>>You'll notice I didn't include Kistler's development costs in the
>>figures. I didn't have to. :)

>Nor should you, it's in the $17m...

I figured as much. Too late. :)

>>That's just for starters. For a sustained Moon and/or Mars program
>>Shuttle-C heavy-lift saves enormous amounts of money and time, not to
>>mention the safety factor of eliminating orbital assembly. Is there
>>any other choice?
>>
>>>Not to mention that
>>>those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much,
>>
>> I don't see how you can say that. USA is reducing cost of
>>operations and many improvements for the shuttle are coming, such as
>>liquid boosters which should lower costs and increase lift capacity,
>>and we can always add a fourth SSME to the Shuttle-C propulsion
>>boattail to increase the tonnage even more, and for the same marginal
>>launch costs! In fact, we should start out with a four-engined
>>Shuttle-C, like Zubrin describes.

>At least $20m/flight more, but yes, it's probably worth it.

If it's not reusable.

>>> whereas Kistler is not
>>>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>>>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>>>than Kistler's.
>>
>>These are unknowns.

>Many. But ignoring many knowns is unwise.

I'll take all the information I can get. :)

[pat]

In article <5r5b37$r...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

a more interesting example can be found by doing a dejanews search
under 'Goldin the "lithium" murderer'

;-)

[Tom Abbott]

p...@explorer.clark.net (pat) wrote:

>In article <5qqo7g$1...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>>
>>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5qnto6$j...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
>says...
>>>>
>>>>schu...@rsn.hp.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard, will Kistler have more capability than Pioneer
>>>>Rocketplane's RLV?
>>>>
>>>>>>operation RLV will be here in five years, or even ten years. We CAN
>>>>>>say for sure (as sure as things get in the rocket business) that a
>>>>>>shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle can be available in three years,
>>>>>>and that we can launch it for around $100 million per launch.
>>>>
>>>>>$17 million per pop on Kistler.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the $100 million for the shuttle-derived heavy-lifter get
>>>>us 100 tons in low-Earth orbit. How much does the $17 million for
>>>>Kistler get us, 2 tons?
>>>>
>>
>>>For those just tuning in, Abbott actually believes his numbers. :-(
>>
>>>pat
>>
>>

>> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>>

>I have made this argument before, but abbott wasn't taking his lithium.

>Sigh.

>Oh well, here we go again.

Well, Pat, I'm glad to see you finally put out some numbers, but oh
what a tangled web you weave. Is it any wonder people are confused
about costs?

>HLV _ SHuttle Derived- Expendable.

I see you're going to use the "worst-case" Shuttle-C scenario.
Boeing and I think the "reusable boattail" Shuttle-C might be a
better, cheaper way to go. We'll discuss it.

>DDTE $5G. The Augustine commision stated this could be done for $2G,
>but given their history of over-runs, I'd not expect anything less
>then 4G, and that would be with severe penalty clauses for non-performance.

The Presidential Augustine Commission never incurred any cost
overruns I'm aware of. :)

As for your dismissal of their $2 billion (1990) estimate to build
Shuttle-C, I would just say that $2 billion is what it cost to build
the last space shuttle, and a shuttle-derived heavy-lift Shuttle-C
cargo vehicle is a very abreviated version of the shuttle, so why
should a Shuttle-C cost more than building another shuttle? By all
rights, is should cost less, and the $2 billion cost to build the last
space shuttle includes all that government waste you worry so much
about.

>with the lobbysists lockheed owns, it is highly unlikely to expect
>real performance from them.

Huh?

>Mission Fly-away costs.

>ET : $80 M

>2 SRB's $60M

>3 SSME's Expended $100 Million.

Here are the figures from NASA's budget webpage:

http://booster.nasa.gov:443/codeb/budget/shuttle4.html#op

SHUTTLE OPERATIONS

BASIS OF FY 1998 FUNDING
REQUIREMENT (Thousands of Dollars)
(FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY 1998 shown)


External Tank 327,500 (96) 339,000 (97) 359,700 (98)

Space shuttle main engine 185,000 (96) 182,300 (97) 184,900 (98)

Reusable solid rocket motor 395,700 (96) 427,000 (97) 434,600 (98)

Solid rocket booster 153,300 (96) 150,400 (97) 157,700 (98)

Now according to these figures the ET costs $42 million per shuttle
launch (8 shuttle launches per year divided into $339 million); and
two solid rocket boosters come to about $72 million.

>Proportional overhead of KSC $250 Million. ($400 - $150M) due to simpler
>servicing costs.(No Life support, no landing gear, TPS).

I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional overhead." Are you
saying for example, that it cost more than some $60 million to
relaunch the space shuttle Columbia?

A Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle would require about the same level of
processing as the Columbia relaunch. Boeing was estimating they could
turn around their reusable two-SSME Shuttle-C derivative in 24 hours,
and I don't see why a three or four-engined Shuttle-C would be much
different (other than the solids). Normal processing for a space
shuttle launch is 90 days, so a Shuttle-C will require only a fraction
of the processing a space shuttle requires, if Boeing's claims are in
the ballpark.

>$50M consumed electronics (Sensors, communications, telemetry, GPC's)

A reusable Shuttle-C would reuse such things.

>So we can expect to drop $300 Million on hardware per vehicle, and
>$250 Million in servicing costs..

My figures come to something like $224 million for hardware for the
expendable Shuttle-C: ET= $42 million; three space shuttle main
engines = $60 million; two solid rocket boosters = $72 million; and
your expendable electronics =$50 million. Total =224. Servicing
costs = "zero." So we drop $224 million per vehicle.

Now for the Shuttle-C heavy-lifter with the reusable propulsion unit
the figures come out to: ET = $42 million; two solid rocket boosters =
$72 million. Total = $114 million Servicing costs = "zero." So we
drop $114 million per vehicle.

So your worst case scenario costs $550 million per vehicle, and my
best case scenario (ignoring estimates as low as $50 million) is $114
million per vehicle. Quite a discrepancy.

>Flight test program.

>4 launches (Water, sand or expendable hardware).

I can go along with four test flights, although it should be noted
that the space shuttle was carrying payloads not related to shuttle
testing, on its second flight into space.

>$2G

Four Shuttle-C test launches would cost about $100 million each, for
the hardware, for a total of $400 million.

>SO DDTE looks to be anywhere between $5-$7G for a SHuttle-C.

Not even close. Consider:

Found at:

http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/archives/87////870801.html

08/01/87

Rockwell to build 4th shuttle for $1.3 billion

By MARK CARREAU
Houston Chronicle

In a critical sense, construction of the new orbiter began even before
the Challenger accident. In early 1983, Congress authorized $400
million to build structural spare parts for the shuttle fleet,
components that will become the backbone of the new spacecraft.

About 90 percent of the work on those spares is complete. Components
include:

A crew cabin, aft fuselage, engine compartment and payload bay doors,
all built by Rockwell.

A midfuselage built by General Dynamics Corp.

Two wings, built by Grumman Aerospace Inc.

A vertical tail fin with speed brake assembly, built by Fairchild.

Re-entry rocket pods built by McDonnell Douglass Co."

Note that all these space shuttle components cost $400 million in
1983. They were built under those high-cost, inefficient government
contracts Pat loathes so much. Nestled among those space shuttle
components, is the engine compartment. Now, the engine compartment is
just about the only piece of the space shuttle that Shuttle-C needs to
turn the shuttle stack into a heavy-lift vehicle. We can surmise that
the engine compartment must cost less than $400 million to build. If
we take this engine compartment and add 3 space shuttle main engines
to it at a cost of about $60 million, we have built Shuttle-C's
propulsion module. All that's left is to attach a cargo container to
the top of the propulsion module and attach this combination to the ET
and solid rocket boosters and we have a Shuttle-C ready to launch.

Shuttle-C costs: propulsion module = $800 million (I'll just be
conservative and say the propulsion module does cost the entire $400
million and double it to account for 15 years of inflation); ET= $42
million; solid rocket boosters = $72 million; three space shuttle main
engines = $60 million. Total = $974 million. Adding in 4 test
flights at $400 million increases the cost to $1.4 billion. This
leaves $1.6 billion of Shuttle-C's $3 billion development budget (1997
dollars) left for such things as program costs and making the boattail
reusable. I think $3 billion to build a Shuttle-C is a reasonable
figure.

>Now assuming a space station, moon base and Mars base, we can
>expect no more then 15 missions, so the derived costs per mission

If we change crews on a Moonbase every six months, we'll need a
minimum of 4 heavy-lift launches per year. A ten year Moon program
would therefore require 40+ heavy-lift launches. A Mars program would
use similar numbers although producing fuel on Mars would probably cut
that in half. I would say there is a market for at least 60
heavy-lift launches if we plan on exploring the Moon and Mars on any
kind of sustained basis. The ability to produce fuel in space would
reduce these numbers, since most of what Shuttle-C would launch would
be fuel.

>run $250M + $7G/15 = $650 Million per mission.(100 Tons)

>$6,000/ton base costs.

>given an interest rate of 6% and 5 year developement program
>we can add about 15% in costs onto that for interest.

>the numbers of course get worse or better to some degree depending
>upon flight rate, etc...

They get better or worse depending on who you ask.

>Now the abbott mind of course writes off developement costs
>and interest and insists that lockheed can do this on schedule and
>budget. HaHa.

>Abbott also insists that a HLV can be made re-usable,

Me and Boeing.

> but in which
>case, the DDTE rises even higher,

Well, I have $1.6 billion to play with. That ought to cover it.

> and the per mission servicing
>costs rise as there are more systems to service.

A short turnaround of about a week couldn't be too costly. Fish the
Shuttle-C propulsion module out of the ocean, attach another payload
to it, attach this combination to an ET and solid rocket boosters and
we're ready to go again.

>I ballpark estimate a re-usable pod based system at $9G DDTE,

I'll bet you do.

>with an extra $50 Million in mission service costs, but a savings of
>$100 million in consumed engines and a savings of $50 million
>in consumed electronics.

>I leave the mission costing for that model to any reader except Mr abbott.

>George Herbert ran these numbers for anyone interested.

>Now what would be interesting is a sensitivity analysis of
>an HLV costs to Mission rate, DDTE and servicing costs.
>My gut instinct is it is insensitive to all but mission rate
>and on mildly sensitive to that.

>I try to throw out of consideration ideas like writing off the
>DDTE of an HLV,

I don't write it off, it's included in the calculations.

> psychotic ideas like KSC increasing launch rates

They already did, it was called the Columbia relaunch.

>or re-usable hardware being easy to develope from shuttle heritage
>equipment.

Boeing doesn't agree with you.

>Now this analysis has been done at least three times, and i'm going
>to save it for re-posting in 6 weeks, when someone claims that
>no figures exist.

I think it needs a little work.

>> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>>How about those numbers, Pat. :)

>Kistler will recover their DDT&E,

If we put Kistler in charge of launching our Moon/Mars mission they
will certainly recover their development costs because the American
taxpayer will end up subsidizing them to the tune of billions of
dollars. And that's just for the first mission. The bottom line is
what it costs the taxpayers to develop space, and heavy-lift saves
billions of dollars over any other method of doing so, including
Kistler's.

> and I suspect they aren't
>lying, unlike virtually any number I ever see from the shuttle
>program office.

[Tom Abbott]

p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:

>In article <5qqvv8$r...@crl6.crl.com>, gher...@crl6.crl.com says...
>>
>>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>>[...]

>>> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>>>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>>>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>>>

>>> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>>>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>>>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>>>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>>>How about those numbers, Pat. :)
>>

>>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C
>>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
>>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about

>>$60 million each, and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits, the rest of the vehicle, integration,

>>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200
>million
>>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.

Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.

>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.

What's this hangup you have with amortization? NASA isn't a
commercial entity.

>>
>>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs. A reasonable analysis

>>then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
>>Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard if
>>economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100
>tons
>>($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).
>>

>>Shuttle-C only wins out economically if Kistler uses realistic commercial
>>financial practices and NASA doesn't and flys 3 or more flights per year

>>on the Shuttle-C, for which payloads appear nonexistent. Not to mention
>that
>>those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much, whereas Kistler is not

>>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>>than Kistler's.
>>

>Don't worry in 4 weeks, Abbott will be back, claiming that

>Shuttle-C only costs $100 Million or that he's talking about
>some other magic proposal that avoids all these costs.

More like 24 hours. You aren't very good at estimates, are you. :)

>Fanatics don't change their mind and won't change subject.

You seem to have a certain mind-set yourself, which you won't
change.

[M R Atkinson]

Tom Abbott wrote:
>
> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
> who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
> million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
> NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.
>

From the Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates:

Shuttle operations $2,494,400,000 for 7 flights = 356,000,000 per
flight.
This is with a 3% workforce overtime limit, I doubt that the current
workforce could manage more than 8 flights per year.

The propulsion side of things is broken down into

External tank $46,785,000 per flight
SSME $26,428,000 per flight
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor $56,528,000 per flight
Solid Rocket Booster $21,900,000 per flight

Launch and landing operations are $108,647,000 per flight

There are also orbiter and systems integration tasks but it is
unclear how much of these would be relevent to Shuttle-C.

There are also shuttle safety and performance upgrade costs to
facilities and subsystems.

However, there are other budget lines which can conceal hidden shuttle
work, Space Communications Services, Safety Reliability and Quality
Assurance, etc.

It is hard to see how anyone could come up with a figure as low as
$120 million for a shuttle launch. The true figure for a reusable
Shuttle-C is probably nearer $250 million, even using a crazy
accounting scheme which does not factor in R&D costs or the cost
of money. Adding those in brings the cost up to $400 million or so
depending on launch rate and R&D cost.

--
Mike Atkinson (Senior Research Engineer)
E-Mail: M.R.At...@nortel.com Nortel Technology
Telphone: +44 1279 402660 (6-742-2660) London Road, Harlow
http://bhars219.bnr.co.uk/~mra/ (behind firewall) Essex, CM17 9NA, UK

[George Herbert]

Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> What's this hangup you have with amortization? NASA isn't a
>commercial entity.

Simple. Investing the People's money should use the same assumptions
as general economics uses for corporate and any other investment.
Just because it's a government entity doesn't mean it should ignore
the implications of spending money now and later, different options,
the costs and benefits of those options.

It has, as I stated repeatedly, now become standard to calculate
rates of return in government engineering projects as well as
in commercial activities. You don't just throw money at things
and sink costs; you have to account for whether it's going to
give you benefits later, and that accounting is by return on investment
methods.

It's particularly pernicious to try and compare a commercial system
which requires covering capital costs in its overall cost methodology
with a government funded project which breaks the current guidelines
and fails to address ROI concerns. For apples and apples, compare
the identical projects with fully commercial funding methodologies
including ROI, and then again with your government-sunk-funds-
are-sunk methodology assuming NASA decided to develop the K-1
instead of Kistler doing it commercially (or with your favorite
alternative vehicle, or better with all of them).

[M R Atkinson]

Tom Abbott wrote:
>
> gher...@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
>
> >Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
> >>gher...@crl6.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
> >>>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a Shuttle-C
> >>>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
> >>>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about
> >>>$60 million each,

[ lots of cost arguements snipped]

[ snipped moon mission comparison ]

> >>Comparison:
> >>
> >>Shuttle-C = $3.5 billion
> >>Kistler = $8.885 billion
> >>

I hestitate to intrude into this thread but here goes:

There are several factors, which neither of you seem to have taken
into account.

Firstly, the marginal cost of the shuttle (an increase
from 7 to 8 flights per year) are probably quite low, but the marginal
cost of going from 7 to 12 flights per year will be proportionaly much
higher. This is because the existing facilities could cope with 8
flights but not 12, also the manpower costs would not increase much
as the existing workforce could probably cope with one more launch.

Secondly, you really must account for the ROI on R&D for both
Shuttle-C and Kistler, however the intrest on US Treasury Bonds (8% ?)
is much less than that demanded by a venture capitalist (25% ?).

Thirdly, amortization of R&D cost is the major component in a RLV,
this must be accounted for in both Suttle-C (lets assume reusable for
now) and Kistler. The Kistler figure of $17M per flight must assume
some flight rate. This flight rate is probably pretty conservative
and will be increased enormously for Moon or Mars missions. The cost
of flights for Kistler will approach their marginal cost, probably in
the $5M range.

Fourth, the true cost of Moon missions will include far more
than just the launch cost, anything which cuts down the R&D expenses
even at the cost of increased launch is probably worth it. I'm not
sure how this would pan out, but my guess is that many medium sized
modules fitted together would make the cheapest solution, if so
neither Kistler or Shuttle-C would be optimum. For Mars missions it
seems that Mars Direct is about as cheap as you can get, which would
favour something like Shuttle-C but slightly larger.

Lastly, having listened to the arguements my best estimate of costs
would be:

500t/year to LEO

Shuttle-C (reusable) - $4m/t
Shuttle-C (non-reusable) - $4.2m/t
Kistler - $2m/t

However I consider the extra R&D cost associated with breaking payloads
into 4.5t chunks probably means that they would come out about the
same in overall mission costs.

[pat]

In article <5r0epr$9...@crl3.crl.com>, gher...@crl3.crl.com says...

>
>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>gher...@crl6.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:

>> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
>>(SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
>>then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
>>launch cost.
>
>Again, the reusable Shuttle-C proposals are more R&D expensive than
>expendables of equal technology assumptions, and thus incur more
>R&D amortization load. It comes out a wash.
>

it's worse then that. if the Re-usable HLV slips on schedule, or
get's fewer flights thenthe cost per mission rises dramatically.

Small fleet vehicles are very sensitive to capitalization costs.

>>> the rest of the vehicle, integration,
>>>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200
million
>>>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.
>>
>> These costs are considered fixed costs up to a certain number of
>>additional launches, and are also not included in the marginal launch
>>cost of launching an additional shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift
>>vehicle.
>
>They should be. Again, excluding costs for arbitrary reasons is
>a standard NASA procedure (some of it because costs are spread
>very unevenly among many centers and contracts, some because it
>artifically decreases the apparent shuttle per flight costs),
>but is a mistake when trying to compare with a pure commercial
>program. You have to compare apples to apples: if a cost is
>figured into the price Kistler charges, then inclue the relevant
>cost for NASA to build its own vehicle to do it. Excluding things
>that are "traditionally" excluded, but Kistler would have to
>include, leads to apples-to-oranges and invalid comparasions.

Most of teh shuttle fans are forced to misrepresent shuttle costs
to avoid any honest debate over the manned space program.

>
>>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>>>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>>>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>>>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.
>>
>> Amortization in this instance just confuses the issue, IMO. We
>>don't figure the space shuttle's development costs into the yearly
>>cost of launching shuttles and the same should apply to a heavy-lift
>>Shuttle-C. The $3 billion needed to build Shuttle-C is an investment

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>which will pay the space program back many times over.
>

I'm kind of surprised George let abbott get away with this.

Anyone who took 8th grade business math knows 'An investment has a
return on funds allocated".

I buy a condo, because i in part consider the cost of renting an apartment
against the cost of the mortgage.

I buy a car considering the cost of bus fare, taxis,,,

NASA buying $3G worth of Dow stocks is an investment which will
pay back the space program many times over.

NASA investing in an ION engine for planetary probes pay off
in savings compared to conventional propulsion for those missions.

There is no evidence SHuttle-C will will produce any return on investment.

>Ahh, but you should include it. Because if you don't you don't understand
>what the real opportunity costs are of choosing Shuttle-C and what you
>can do in other corners of decision space (i.e., Kistler, cheap
>expendables, Pioneer, Kelly, etc). That $3b is wasted if NASA spends
>it and then finds that Mitch and John and Walt (? Kistler) are willing
>and able to fly adequately big payloads to the orbits for half the price
>that Shuttle-C operations will cost per pound.

in fact bythe time NASA finished building an HLV, Kelly would be more
likely to have an HLV built privately.

>
>What NASA did in the past, how they did their accounting, how they do
>it now still, are all irrelevant. Both corporate and public policy
>accounting now standardly assume that rate-of-return and amortized
>R&D costs should be included in overall comparasions, though politicians
>sometimes avoid it.
>

and shuttle fans.

>
>>> A reasonable analysis

>
>The Shuttle-C incurs all sorts of costs trying to serve most of the
>existing market (i.e., LEO light comsats; GEO mid-heavy comsats,
>and redesigned station components to be 4x as big per unit).
>Those costs on the payload end (in the equipment to seperate

don't forget the heavy insurance penalty a Shuttle-C pays
against a small RLV.

the RLV being a proven vehicle with a small risk profile will
not require much insurance cover, while the SHuttle-C carrying
several billion dollars inpayload, will require very expensive
insurance cover.

>
>> Shuttle-C would pay for itself in one Moon mission. Consider:
>>

If we were doing a moon mission. Saturn paid for itself on
one moon mission too, but ti wasn't sustainable, and it was
abandoned.

Simple economics, the bane of communists.

>Bunch of bad assumptions there, Tom. First of all, STOP using $100m/launch
>for Shuttle-C: you are killing your credibility. You do not win arguments

Tom likes being incredible ;-)

>>Comparison:
>>
>>Shuttle-C = $3.5 billion
>>Kistler = $8.885 billion
>>
>>You'll notice I didn't include Kistler's development costs in the
>>figures. I didn't have to. :)
>
>Nor should you, it's in the $17m...

Tom doesn't understand costing, so it's not surprising he makes
such elementary mistakes.

I'd be highly amused to see his financial portfolio.

>> I don't see how you can say that. USA is reducing cost of
>>operations and many improvements for the shuttle are coming, such as
>>liquid boosters which should lower costs and increase lift capacity,

USA may reduce costs, but they are highly unlikely to increase launches.

Liquid boosters are extraordinarily unlikely to get funded.

Congress does not want to invest money into STS.

>>and we can always add a fourth SSME to the Shuttle-C propulsion
>>boattail to increase the tonnage even more, and for the same marginal
>>launch costs! In fact, we should start out with a four-engined
>>Shuttle-C, like Zubrin describes.
>
>At least $20m/flight more, but yes, it's probably worth it.
>
>>> whereas Kistler is not
>>>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>>>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>>>than Kistler's.
>>
>>These are unknowns.
>
>Many. But ignoring many knowns is unwise.
>
>

yeah, but if you ignore unknowns, lie about knowns and generally
whine a lot you can operate the shuttle program.

pat

[pat]

In article <5r59bl$q...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>gher...@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
>
>>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>>gher...@crl6.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
>>>>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a
Shuttle-C
>>>>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on
the
>>>>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about
>>>>$60 million each,
>>>
>>> George, the last time I looked, the ET was about $46 million. I'll
>>>agree on your cost for the SRB's.
>
>>I got $59.something million apiece dividing the total output of
>>tanks per year by total payments to that factory from NASA
>>(which exclusively makes ETs); the "price per" isn't the whole
>>price paid for manufacturing them, which is a more fair price to
>>use for comparing.
>
> George, the Department of Defense estimated the cost to add an extra
>space shuttle flight to NASA's schedule at $50 million per launch.

They are Lying.

>NASA is putting out estimates of $50 million to $80 million to launch
>an addtional shuttle, and claimed they launched the shuttle Columbia
>for $59 million. And now, my friend, Robert Oler, communicates to me

More Lies from the NASA shuttle Office.

>over on Compuserve, that he is presently doing a study of space
>shuttle launch costs for an unnamed Senator, and Robert estimates the
>marginal launch costs at about $70 million per additional space
>shuttle launch. Dividing the number of ET's flown per year into the

your friend is either deluded or stupid. If you aren't misrepresenting
his position.

>total ET budget does not give the true cost of adding one more ET to
>the mix. The same goes for solid rocket boosters. ET's and solid
>rocket boosters and the fuel that fills them are the marginal launch
>costs. At any rate, I think I'm being generous in quoting a $100
>million figure for the marginal costs of launching an additional space
>shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle, considering that
>several groups and individuals who should know, are quoting smaller

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>figures.

shouldn't it be groups and individuals who should know better;-)

Gee tom, if the Shuttle was such a cheap and effective launcher,
how come the DoD abandoned it in favor of the Titan 4?

what? The DoD just wanted to spend a few billion on the T4 when
the shuttle is so much cheaper and flexible?

>
>
>
>>>>and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>>>>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits,
>>>
>>> A reusable Shuttle-C would purchase the space shuttle main engines
>>>(SSME) once, with the money coming from the construction budget, and
>>>then reuse them, so their costs are not figured into the marginal
>>>launch cost.
>
>>Again, the reusable Shuttle-C proposals are more R&D expensive than
>>expendables of equal technology assumptions, and thus incur more
>>R&D amortization load. It comes out a wash.
>
> Boeing seemed to think the reusable method was best.

best for boeing profits, no-one else.

>
>>>> the rest of the vehicle, integration,
>>>>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200
million
>>>>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.
>>>
>>> These costs are considered fixed costs up to a certain number of
>>>additional launches, and are also not included in the marginal launch
>>>cost of launching an additional shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift
>>>vehicle.
>
>>They should be.
>
> No they shouldn't. Preparing a payload should not be included in
>the launch cost.

it is the only way to determine mission costs.

>
>> Again, excluding costs for arbitrary reasons is
>>a standard NASA procedure
>
> I guess you'll have to accuse the DOD of doing the same thing
>because they are estimating a lower cost than NASA. The reason I

So DoD lies? tell me something new.

>emphasize marginal launch costs is to define what costs what, and
>break the costs down instead of lumping everything together and
>confusing everyone.
>

Because if you admitted to the total program costs, nobody would
listen to you.

The last time NASA did a Moon base proposal, it was $200 Billion
dollars, using your favorite HLV.

>> (some of it because costs are spread
>>very unevenly among many centers and contracts, some because it
>>artifically decreases the apparent shuttle per flight costs),
>>but is a mistake when trying to compare with a pure commercial
>>program. You have to compare apples to apples: if a cost is
>>figured into the price Kistler charges, then inclue the relevant
>>cost for NASA to build its own vehicle to do it. Excluding things
>>that are "traditionally" excluded, but Kistler would have to
>>include, leads to apples-to-oranges and invalid comparasions.
>
> Yes, that's right and I included every cost of Shuttle-C to NASA
>just like I included ever cost to NASA of using Kistler--to the best
>of my ability anyway.

your best isn't good enough.

you'd be expelled from any business school.

>
>>>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the
flight
>>>>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>>>>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>>>>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.
>>>
>>> Amortization in this instance just confuses the issue, IMO. We
>>>don't figure the space shuttle's development costs into the yearly
>>>cost of launching shuttles and the same should apply to a heavy-lift
>>>Shuttle-C. The $3 billion needed to build Shuttle-C is an investment
>>>which will pay the space program back many times over.
>
>>Ahh, but you should include it. Because if you don't you don't understand
>>what the real opportunity costs are of choosing Shuttle-C and what you
>>can do in other corners of decision space (i.e., Kistler, cheap
>>expendables, Pioneer, Kelly, etc). That $3b is wasted if NASA spends
>>it and then finds that Mitch and John and Walt (? Kistler) are willing
>>and able to fly adequately big payloads to the orbits for half the price
>>that Shuttle-C operations will cost per pound.
>
> I understand the opportunity costs to NASA and the taxpayers of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>choosing Shuttle-C: NASA's first Moon/Mars launch will cost them $3.5
>billion using Shuttle-C, and will cost about $8 billion using
>Kistler's launch vehicle. NASA has an opportunity to save about $5
>billion. Each subsequent launch of 500 tons to low-Earth orbit (one

your statement here, only proves you don't understand opportunity costs.
i usggest you find a college textbook on economics and look it up.

>Moon/Mars mission) would cost NASA $500 million using Shuttle-C, but
>would cost about $2 billion using Kistler's launch vehicle. NASA has
>an opportunity to save $1.5 billion per Moon/Mars mission using
>Shuttle-C heavy-lift over a small-payload launcher like Kistler's.
>BTW, these cost savings should also apply to your heavy-lift BDB,
>assuming you can launch it for $100 million. :)
>

throwing in a few siley faces does not offset repeated lies.

Lie 1 : 500 tons to LEO would cost $500 Million.

that's 5 missions. or approximately 60% of the launch capacity
at KSC in any one year. So what you are saying is that the largest
single dedicated user of KSC should only pay marginal costs, while
the smaller users of KSC should pay all the fixed costs....

it is this continous self delusion that marks abbott as needing some
serious professional help.

>>What NASA did in the past, how they did their accounting, how they do
>>it now still, are all irrelevant. Both corporate and public policy
>>accounting now standardly assume that rate-of-return and amortized
>>R&D costs should be included in overall comparasions, though politicians
>>sometimes avoid it.
>
> I think these are distractions, or rather, easily lead to
>distractions. I would like to know what each nut and bolt cost.
>

no you don't. you don't want to know costs. everytime you get
told them, you start squealing about marginal costs.

funny, when i go to the movies, the marginal costs for me is about
2 cents. funny, i can't get into the theater for 2 cents.

>>>>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs.
>>>
>>> What Kistler's estimates don't include is the cost of handling their
>>>payloads once they reach orbit. Orbital operations will quickly eat
>>>up the $3 billion it would cost to build Shuttle-C.
>
>>And Shuttle-C won't have orbital handling costs, *especially* for
>>sending multi-satelite bundles off in controlled manners?
>
> The only job Shuttle-C should be doing is enabling NASA to develop
>basic Moon and Mars bases. I don't want a federally subsidized
>launcher competing on a commercial basis (yes, that includes the space
>shuttle).
>

which of course reduces teh number of missions for Shuttle-C.

funny, if a BDB is viable for Commercial missions, why shouldn't it
be viable for Moon missions?

you didn't think very hard.

>figure is the cost of the ET and the solid rocket boosters. Nothing
>else is included in marginal launch costs. Adding in program costs to

at least you are admitting to your deceptions.

>the launch costs will increase the overall cost but it doesn't
>increase the marginal launch cost. I believe we should separate
>program cost from launch cost so we can see where efficiencies can be
>realized. Lumping everything together confuses things, IMO.

Dont' confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up -- Sen Smith 1974.

pat

[pat]

In article <5r6ooa$4...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

you are teh only person confused.

>>HLV _ SHuttle Derived- Expendable.
>
> I see you're going to use the "worst-case" Shuttle-C scenario.
>Boeing and I think the "reusable boattail" Shuttle-C might be a
>better, cheaper way to go. We'll discuss it.
>

it's actually the shortest line Developement item.

>>DDTE $5G. The Augustine commision stated this could be done for $2G,
>>but given their history of over-runs, I'd not expect anything less
>>then 4G, and that would be with severe penalty clauses for non-performance.
>
> The Presidential Augustine Commission never incurred any cost
>overruns I'm aware of. :)
>
> As for your dismissal of their $2 billion (1990) estimate to build
>Shuttle-C, I would just say that $2 billion is what it cost to build
>the last space shuttle, and a shuttle-derived heavy-lift Shuttle-C
>cargo vehicle is a very abreviated version of the shuttle, so why
>should a Shuttle-C cost more than building another shuttle? By all

because a replacement shuttle required very few engineers and draftspeople.
a shuttle-C requires more engineers, more design work then making
a duplicate of an existing fleet vehicle.

>rights, is should cost less, and the $2 billion cost to build the last

it should, but it won't. not given the way NASA-Boeing work.

>space shuttle includes all that government waste you worry so much
>about.

also, 8 years ago, there was a shuttle factory line open.
it's closed and the tooling dispersed or destroyed.

that means spending more money to re-start.

>
>>with the lobbysists lockheed owns, it is highly unlikely to expect
>>real performance from them.
>
> Huh?

own enough lobbyists and you own congress. who needs to work when
they have congressional aid.

>
>>Mission Fly-away costs.
>
>>ET : $80 M
>
>>2 SRB's $60M
>
>>3 SSME's Expended $100 Million.
>
>
> Here are the figures from NASA's budget webpage:
>
>http://booster.nasa.gov:443/codeb/budget/shuttle4.html#op
>
>
>
> SHUTTLE OPERATIONS
>
> BASIS OF FY 1998 FUNDING
> REQUIREMENT (Thousands of Dollars)
>(FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY 1998 shown)
>
>
>External Tank 327,500 (96) 339,000 (97) 359,700 (98)
>
>Space shuttle main engine 185,000 (96) 182,300 (97) 184,900 (98)
>
>Reusable solid rocket motor 395,700 (96) 427,000 (97) 434,600 (98)
>
>Solid rocket booster 153,300 (96) 150,400 (97) 157,700 (98)
>
> Now according to these figures the ET costs $42 million per shuttle
>launch (8 shuttle launches per year divided into $339 million); and
>two solid rocket boosters come to about $72 million.

so my numbers are reasonable.

>
>>Proportional overhead of KSC $250 Million. ($400 - $150M) due to simpler
>>servicing costs.(No Life support, no landing gear, TPS).
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional overhead." Are you
>saying for example, that it cost more than some $60 million to
>relaunch the space shuttle Columbia?
>

proportional overhead := fixed costs / mission rate.

and yes it costs more then $60 million to re-launch columbia.

> A Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle would require about the same level of
>processing as the Columbia relaunch. Boeing was estimating they could

wrong. Direct lie. A Shuttle-C would require testing prior to assembly
as it is expendable. all wiring, structures and systems need detailed
check-out, just like the Saturn V did. expect some 5,000 test points to
run.

for a Shuttle-C re-usable, it's worse, because you have to fish it
out of the ocean.

>turn around their reusable two-SSME Shuttle-C derivative in 24 hours,

They were no doubt kidding themselves.

>and I don't see why a three or four-engined Shuttle-C would be much
>different (other than the solids). Normal processing for a space
>shuttle launch is 90 days, so a Shuttle-C will require only a fraction
>of the processing a space shuttle requires, if Boeing's claims are in
>the ballpark.

big IF. and if boeing isn't even in the same city? then what?

this is how we got stuck with SHuttle in the first place.

>
>>$50M consumed electronics (Sensors, communications, telemetry, GPC's)
>
> A reusable Shuttle-C would reuse such things.
>

so you aren't denying my figures for this scenario. that's good.

>>So we can expect to drop $300 Million on hardware per vehicle, and
>>$250 Million in servicing costs..
>
> My figures come to something like $224 million for hardware for the
>expendable Shuttle-C: ET= $42 million; three space shuttle main
>engines = $60 million; two solid rocket boosters = $72 million; and
>your expendable electronics =$50 million. Total =224. Servicing
>costs = "zero." So we drop $224 million per vehicle.
>

so call it $275 Million for hardware. Servicing never costs zero.
don't be ridiculous. it's things like that which make you a clown.

> Now for the Shuttle-C heavy-lifter with the reusable propulsion unit
>the figures come out to: ET = $42 million; two solid rocket boosters =
>$72 million. Total = $114 million Servicing costs = "zero." So we

^^^^

>drop $114 million per vehicle.

Not enough lithium in the water, i see.

>
> So your worst case scenario costs $550 million per vehicle, and my
>best case scenario (ignoring estimates as low as $50 million) is $114
>million per vehicle. Quite a discrepancy.

Well sure. you are trying to mis-represent your costs, and
I'm trying to tell the truth.

>
>
>>Flight test program.
>
>>4 launches (Water, sand or expendable hardware).
>
> I can go along with four test flights, although it should be noted
>that the space shuttle was carrying payloads not related to shuttle
>testing, on its second flight into space.

so was the early saturn I test series, but that's a freebie.
Ask the people at ESA how expensive free A-5 launches can become.

>>$2G
>
> Four Shuttle-C test launches would cost about $100 million each, for
>the hardware, for a total of $400 million.
>

Once again, you are mis-representing things.

I was talking of an expended vehicle, and you immediately pop in with
your best case scenario.

>>SO DDTE looks to be anywhere between $5-$7G for a SHuttle-C.
>
> Not even close. Consider:
>
>Found at:
>
>http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/archives/87////870801.html
>
>08/01/87
>
>Rockwell to build 4th shuttle for $1.3 billion
>
>By MARK CARREAU
>Houston Chronicle
>
>
>In a critical sense, construction of the new orbiter began even before
>the Challenger accident. In early 1983, Congress authorized $400
>million to build structural spare parts for the shuttle fleet,
>components that will become the backbone of the new spacecraft.
>
>About 90 percent of the work on those spares is complete. Components
>include:
>
>A crew cabin, aft fuselage, engine compartment and payload bay doors,
>all built by Rockwell.
>
>A midfuselage built by General Dynamics Corp.
>
>Two wings, built by Grumman Aerospace Inc.
>
>A vertical tail fin with speed brake assembly, built by Fairchild.
>
>Re-entry rocket pods built by McDonnell Douglass Co."
>
>
> Note that all these space shuttle components cost $400 million in
>1983. They were built under those high-cost, inefficient government
>contracts Pat loathes so much. Nestled among those space shuttle

they were also built in a factory not available, using spares no
longer available.

>components, is the engine compartment. Now, the engine compartment is
>just about the only piece of the space shuttle that Shuttle-C needs to
>turn the shuttle stack into a heavy-lift vehicle. We can surmise that
>the engine compartment must cost less than $400 million to build. If

Bad guess. you need a factory first.

>we take this engine compartment and add 3 space shuttle main engines
>to it at a cost of about $60 million, we have built Shuttle-C's
>propulsion module. All that's left is to attach a cargo container to

how much will this cargo container cost?????

>the top of the propulsion module and attach this combination to the ET
>and solid rocket boosters and we have a Shuttle-C ready to launch.

sure,, for about $8 billion DDTE.

>
>Shuttle-C costs: propulsion module = $800 million (I'll just be
>conservative and say the propulsion module does cost the entire $400

When Tom is being conservative, add a factor of 5 to his figures.
when he's being optimistic add a factor of 10.

>million and double it to account for 15 years of inflation); ET= $42
>million; solid rocket boosters = $72 million; three space shuttle main
>engines = $60 million. Total = $974 million. Adding in 4 test
>flights at $400 million increases the cost to $1.4 billion. This
>leaves $1.6 billion of Shuttle-C's $3 billion development budget (1997
>dollars) left for such things as program costs and making the boattail
>reusable. I think $3 billion to build a Shuttle-C is a reasonable
>figure.
>

in your dreams.

>
>>Now assuming a space station, moon base and Mars base, we can
>>expect no more then 15 missions, so the derived costs per mission
>
> If we change crews on a Moonbase every six months, we'll need a
>minimum of 4 heavy-lift launches per year. A ten year Moon program

crew changes don't need a HLV. they need a apollo CM and a centaur.

>would therefore require 40+ heavy-lift launches. A Mars program would

a ten year moon program will never be funded.

>use similar numbers although producing fuel on Mars would probably cut
>that in half. I would say there is a market for at least 60
>heavy-lift launches if we plan on exploring the Moon and Mars on any
>kind of sustained basis. The ability to produce fuel in space would
>reduce these numbers, since most of what Shuttle-C would launch would
>be fuel.

which of course drives up SHuttle-C costs, by reducing flight rate.

>
>>run $250M + $7G/15 = $650 Million per mission.(100 Tons)
>
>>$6,000/ton base costs.
>
>>given an interest rate of 6% and 5 year developement program
>>we can add about 15% in costs onto that for interest.
>
>>the numbers of course get worse or better to some degree depending
>>upon flight rate, etc...
>
> They get better or worse depending on who you ask.

don't ask people who make money off the contracts, and you get the
truth.

>
>>Now the abbott mind of course writes off developement costs
>>and interest and insists that lockheed can do this on schedule and
>>budget. HaHa.
>
>>Abbott also insists that a HLV can be made re-usable,
>
> Me and Boeing.

boeing will do this for a price.

if it's sch a great concept, why won't boeing do this with commercial
money and sell launches to NASA???

>
>> but in which
>>case, the DDTE rises even higher,
>
> Well, I have $1.6 billion to play with. That ought to cover it.
>

not a chance.

>> and the per mission servicing
>>costs rise as there are more systems to service.
>
> A short turnaround of about a week couldn't be too costly. Fish the
>Shuttle-C propulsion module out of the ocean, attach another payload
>to it, attach this combination to an ET and solid rocket boosters and
>we're ready to go again.
>

Try not to be too foolish in public.

a SRB takes 90 days to fish out and recycle, and tha'ts
with no moving parts.

>>I ballpark estimate a re-usable pod based system at $9G DDTE,
>
> I'll bet you do.
>
>>with an extra $50 Million in mission service costs, but a savings of
>>$100 million in consumed engines and a savings of $50 million
>>in consumed electronics.
>
>>I leave the mission costing for that model to any reader except Mr abbott.
>
>>George Herbert ran these numbers for anyone interested.
>
>>Now what would be interesting is a sensitivity analysis of
>>an HLV costs to Mission rate, DDTE and servicing costs.
>>My gut instinct is it is insensitive to all but mission rate
>>and on mildly sensitive to that.
>
>>I try to throw out of consideration ideas like writing off the
>>DDTE of an HLV,
>
> I don't write it off, it's included in the calculations.

funny, how come you keep complaining when george amortizes DDT&E?

>
>> psychotic ideas like KSC increasing launch rates
>
> They already did, it was called the Columbia relaunch.

yeah, that only took 84 days. Gee, whiz. and that was without
any payload integration.

>
>>or re-usable hardware being easy to develope from shuttle heritage
>>equipment.
>
> Boeing doesn't agree with you.

congress doesn't agree with you.

>
>>Now this analysis has been done at least three times, and i'm going
>>to save it for re-posting in 6 weeks, when someone claims that
>>no figures exist.
>
> I think it needs a little work.
>
>

> If we put Kistler in charge of launching our Moon/Mars mission they

>will certainly recover their development costs because the American
>taxpayer will end up subsidizing them to the tune of billions of
>dollars. And that's just for the first mission. The bottom line is
>what it costs the taxpayers to develop space, and heavy-lift saves
>billions of dollars over any other method of doing so, including
>Kistler's.
>

If we put boeing in charge, we end up subsidizing them to the
tune of billions of dollars. and that's just for the first mission.
The bottom line is what it costs taxpayers to develope space and
Heavy lift costs billions of dollars over other methods of doing so,
including MacDac's.

>> and I suspect they aren't
>>lying, unlike virtually any number I ever see from the shuttle
>>program office.
>
>
>
>

do tom, are you willing to admit the shuttle office lied about costs
before?

pat

[Brian S. Thorn]

On 24 Jul 1997 17:43:10 GMT, p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:

>Gee tom, if the Shuttle was such a cheap and effective launcher,
>how come the DoD abandoned it in favor of the Titan 4?

- The Shuttle was an "all eggs in one basket" problem.

- DoD was having a horrible time keeping its Shuttle payloads
secret.

- DoD wasn't at all pleased having to work with a civilian agency
(NASA) to launch its most important payloads.

- The Shuttle, to the DoD, was "not invented here".

- The Shuttle had a particularly bad time meeting schedule.

- The Shuttle is expensive.

>what? The DoD just wanted to spend a few billion on the T4 when
>the shuttle is so much cheaper and flexible?

It seems to me the DoD simply traded one expensive, difficult
to launch, unreliable booster for another. They still have all their
eggs in one basket, because nothing but Titan IV can put the
heavy spysats in polar orbit. The Titan IV is far behind the schedule
it was originally supposed to maintain. The Titan IV is terribly
expensive. It takes a very long time to prepare and launch a Titan IV.
The Air Force is now developing a better vehicle to replace the
expensive, difficult to launch, unreliable current booster.

Sound familiar?

-Brian

[pat]

In article <5r7ijb$7...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>
>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>
>>In article <5qqvv8$r...@crl6.crl.com>, gher...@crl6.crl.com says...
>>>
>>>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>>>[...]

>>>> Pat is correct. I do believe my numbers or at least I think they
>>>>are in the ballpark, and I haven't seen a good argument yet that would
>>>>point to any other conclusion. You are welcome to make one, Pat.
>>>>

>>>> BTW, I looked up Kistler's numbers: They claim they should be able
>>>>to put 4.5 tons in low-Earth orbit for $17 million. That would come
>>>>to about $377 million for Kistler to put 100 tons in LEO (22
>>>>launches). Shuttle-C can do it for around $100 million (one launch).
>>>>How about those numbers, Pat. :)
>>>

>>>I have said this before, and will say it again: $100 million for a
Shuttle-C
>>>launch is at least a factor of 2 lowball from actual costing, based on the
>>>costs for the components. The SRBs are $60 million/pair; the ET is about

>>>$60 million each, and SSMEs are around $20 million each. Even if you use
>>>used SSMEs near their lifetime limits, the rest of the vehicle,

integration,
>>>and operations costs appear to require minimal margainal costs of $200
>>million
>>>per flight. More realistic estimates cluster around $220-250m/flight.
>

> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
>who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
>million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
>NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.

so if a STS launch costs only $50Million, then it's simple enough to
take 8 flights, to fund the program, which out of a NASA budget of $3.5
G for STS ops, means that there is over $3G left over to build your
HLV. Gee, NASA should be able to fund this without any New start money.

why are you bothering us, instead of finding out where the
zeta reticulans are hiding this money, after all we now know there
is plenty of money.

>
>>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc). If the flight
>>>rate is less than 10/year, scale appropriately. For example, if you only
>>>use two flights a year, 0%/10yr requires $150m/flight amortization,
>>>at four flights, it's $75m/flight.
>

> What's this hangup you have with amortization? NASA isn't a
>commercial entity.

amortization gives you true mission costs.

you don't have a problem with the truth, do you?

>
>>>
>>>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs. A reasonable

analysis
>>>then is Kistler ($17m/4.5 tons, abt. $3.75m/ton ) versus a more median
>>>Shuttle-C estimate with the 4 flight/year 0%/10yr amortization (standard
if
>>>economically shallow government reasoning) at about $300m/flight for 100
>>tons
>>>($3.0m/ton) or 2 flights/year at about $375m/flight ($3.75m/ton).
>>>

>>>Shuttle-C only wins out economically if Kistler uses realistic commercial
>>>financial practices and NASA doesn't and flys 3 or more flights per year

>>>on the Shuttle-C, for which payloads appear nonexistent. Not to mention
>>that

>>>those Shuttle-C costs won't be coming down much, whereas Kistler is not

>>>advertising prices nearly as cheap as they will eventually get if markets
>>>grow and there are lots of cheaper RLV or ELV proposals bouncing around
>>>than Kistler's.
>>>
>

>>Don't worry in 4 weeks, Abbott will be back, claiming that
>>Shuttle-C only costs $100 Million or that he's talking about
>>some other magic proposal that avoids all these costs.
>
> More like 24 hours. You aren't very good at estimates, are you. :)
>

it's always hard to gauge fanatics.

>>Fanatics don't change their mind and won't change subject.
>
> You seem to have a certain mind-set yourself, which you won't
>change.
>
>

funny, you can't get anyone to agree with you.

pat

[pat]

In article <33D77F...@nortel.com>, M.R.At...@nortel.com says...

>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
>> who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
>> million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
>> NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.
>>
>

any re-usable shuttle-C program is going to need Landing gear,
TPS, additional software support work per mission, a recovery fleet,,,

Abbott is engaged in massive hand waving and denial when he claims
that it's only $100 million.

recovery just doesn't add much.

here's a typical abbott dialogue on the subject:

PRB : " O&M costs are going to be high on a reusable Shuttle-C because
you need to fix the landing gear and drag chutes between missions"

"Abbott : " Oh that's okay, boeing thinks it'd cost only 50 cents
to recover the engines at sea"

PRB : "Well then you have millions in costs to have a recovery fleet,
integrate the pods, repair the TPS from water damage, fix the
engines after a salt bath, and put the pods onto a cargo container,
which will also cost many tens of millions of dollars"

Abbott : "All those costs are covered in the DDTE, of $2G, just ask
norm augustine".

PRB : " Cargo containers, fleets, and all the above are O&M costs"

Abbott :" But we could go to mars and the stars"

PRB : "You write the check".

the only way to justify shuttle-C is to blatantly lie about the costs.

the problem is NASA blatantly lied about the costs of STS and Freedom,
and got lots of money as a reward. when they told the truth about
apollo costs, the saturn V ended up as a bird sanctuary.

the result is a culture of deception at many NASA centers.

the point of the SFF and SAS is to dramatically lower launch costs
so as to bypass these snakepits of prevarication and allow the
market to operate in LEO.

step one, IMHO is to let the russians in full bore, from there,
the new generation RLV companies can compete witht he russians
and the BDB fellows.

pat

[Tom Abbott]

p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:

>In article <33D77F...@nortel.com>, M.R.At...@nortel.com says...
>>
>>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>>
>>> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
>>> who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
>>> million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
>>> NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.
>>>
>>
>>From the Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates:
>>
>>Shuttle operations $2,494,400,000 for 7 flights = 356,000,000 per
>>flight.

Mike, the $356 million per shuttle flight is for the first seven
flights. The "marginal launch cost" theory is that an eighth shuttle
could be squeezed into the schedule for the cost of a new ET and solid
rocket boosters, and without increasing fixed costs. A new ET and
solid rocket boosters comes to $114 million using the 1997 budget
figures. The relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago, didn't
cost NASA an extra $356 million, as your "per flight" figure above
would imply. According to NASA, it cost $55 million to "process" the
shuttle and $8 million to process the cargo.

>>This is with a 3% workforce overtime limit, I doubt that the current
>>workforce could manage more than 8 flights per year.

On what do you base this assumption? Every organization has some
slack in it, which can be harnessed when necessary. I guarantee you
more work gets done when the boss is in the room that when the boss is
gone. Besides, processing a Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle would take a
week or two, as compared to 3 months for a space shuttle.

>>
>>The propulsion side of things is broken down into
>>
>> External tank $46,785,000 per flight
>> SSME $26,428,000 per flight
>> Reusable Solid Rocket Motor $56,528,000 per flight
>> Solid Rocket Booster $21,900,000 per flight

For a reusable Shuttle-C the cost of the space shuttle main engines
(SSME) would be paid for during construction and the engines would be
reused a certain number of launches so this would not be a marginal
launch cost. For a throwaway Shuttle-C, we have to buy new engines
for each launch and it would be a marginal launch cost.

>>
>>Launch and landing operations are $108,647,000 per flight

These are "fixed costs" which the theory assumes will not increase
up to a certain number of extra launches and landings.

>>
>>There are also orbiter and systems integration tasks but it is
>>unclear how much of these would be relevent to Shuttle-C.

I think we can safely say the space shuttle requires much more
preparation than a Shuttle-C would require.

>>
>>There are also shuttle safety and performance upgrade costs to
>>facilities and subsystems.

This has nothing to do with marginal launch costs unless it
increases the cost of the ET or solid rocket boosters.

>>
>>However, there are other budget lines which can conceal hidden shuttle
>>work, Space Communications Services, Safety Reliability and Quality
>>Assurance, etc.

These are fixed costs which theory says won't go up.

>>
>>It is hard to see how anyone could come up with a figure as low as
>>$120 million for a shuttle launch.

All you have to do is figure out how much the ET and solid rocket
boosters cost and you have the marginal launch cost.

> The true figure for a reusable
>>Shuttle-C is probably nearer $250 million, even using a crazy
>>accounting scheme which does not factor in R&D costs or the cost
>>of money. Adding those in brings the cost up to $400 million or so
>>depending on launch rate and R&D cost.

Well, we have a practical example of space shuttle marginal launch
costs in the relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago. It did
not cost NASA an extra $400 million or even an extra $250 million to
launch it. According to NASA, it cost a little over $60 million.

>>
>>--

Some of Pat's comments:

>any re-usable shuttle-C program is going to need Landing gear,
>TPS, additional software support work per mission, a recovery fleet,,,

That's the beauty of building shuttle-derived heavy-lifters, all
that stuff is already available.

>Abbott is engaged in massive hand waving and denial when he claims
>that it's only $100 million.

I claim the marginal launch costs are around $100 million or less.
The marginal launch costs are the ET and the solid rocket boosters,
and their fuel. Nothing else. The figures for these pieces of
hardware can be found on the NASA budget website, and my $100 million
figure is real close (you'll forgive me for rounding it off). The
debate is whether any other costs besides these are incurred to launch
an extra shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle. Of course
there are preparations to be done for any launch, but the question is
can these preparations be done by the current space shuttle workforce
without excessive overtime and without having to hire new people and
building new facilities. We've just reflown the shuttle Columbia for
about $60 million, so we know the Kennedy workforce has the margin
and flexibility to squeeze at least one more flight in. The question
is how many more can they do this way. If they could do four more
without increasing the fixed costs, we could continuously sustain a
Moonbase for $400 million per year in launch costs (four Shuttle-C
launches per year).

[snip]

[StarFurie]

Guys, something that might stop your fighting (or at least give you
something new to fight about) can be found at the two following sites:

http://www.nss.org/adastra/booster.html
http://www.nss.org/adastra/booster2.html

These are online reprints of a pair of articles that appeared in the
May/June & July/August issues of _Ad_Astra,_ the magazine of the National
Space Society. The authors of the articles are Ron Jones, a aerospace
engineer who works as a consultant in the DC area, and Buzz Aldrin. Yes
that Buzz Aldrin, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National
Space Society. Oh, and he walked on the Moon too.

To see how this idea might actually work, check out the book Buzz
coauthored with John Barnes _Encounter_With_Tiber._

Star...@aol.com
NSS Member
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province." - Francis Bacon
"Human kind cannot bear very much reality." - T. S. Eliot

[pat]

In article <5rej3f$o...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>
>>In article <33D77F...@nortel.com>, M.R.At...@nortel.com says...
>>>
>>>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
>>>> who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
>>>> million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
>>>> NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.
>>>>
>>>
>>>From the Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates:
>>>
>>>Shuttle operations $2,494,400,000 for 7 flights = 356,000,000 per
>>>flight.
>
> Mike, the $356 million per shuttle flight is for the first seven
>flights. The "marginal launch cost" theory is that an eighth shuttle
>could be squeezed into the schedule for the cost of a new ET and solid
>rocket boosters, and without increasing fixed costs. A new ET and
>solid rocket boosters comes to $114 million using the 1997 budget

inside every big lie, there should always be a germ of truth.

it is always possible to claim, one more mission can be done,
but one HLV mission per year, won't do the US any good. That's a
simple observation. 4 HLV missions per year are not a marginal activity.
they are a major activity.

besides, marginal costing is only useful as an analytical tool,
not as a planning tool as anyone with any organizational experience knows.

the people bearing full price, inherently resent the people getting the
discount. airlines operate oftentimes on a marginal costing basis.
(Staff seat priveliges, stand by fares, 21 day book in advance fares,,,]
but they offset these by level of service. people paying full fare
are getting certain priveliges and benefits for this.

those 7 STS missions are going to resent getting the disproprtionate
share of overhead billing. in fact, at least in defense contracting,
use of marginal cost basis overhead shifting between programs is
a felony crime, and one of my employers amongst others were
convicted of this, several high officers went to jail, and
the firm was fined millions of dollars.

now what you are suggesting, is that NASA engage in said same activity,
and you wonder why people get upset.

>figures. The relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago, didn't
>cost NASA an extra $356 million, as your "per flight" figure above
>would imply. According to NASA, it cost $55 million to "process" the
>shuttle and $8 million to process the cargo.
>

we will see if NASA is able to actually process an extra flight
this year. if all they did was reshuffle the flight order,
that is not a achievement.

>>>This is with a 3% workforce overtime limit, I doubt that the current
>>>workforce could manage more than 8 flights per year.
>
> On what do you base this assumption? Every organization has some

it's not an assumption, it's a track record. the STS was supposed to
get flying in 1977, instead it slipped 4 years, producing a flight rate
of 0. in every year, from 1981 to 1991, the NASA management promised
a huge increase in flight rate. they were LYING!. since your hated
enemy came in, he has said the STS is not capable of exceeding 10/year
and the expectable flight rate is 6-8 per year depending upon budget
expenses. funny, now a few members of the shuttle mafia are
again claiming the magical 25/year, why am I skeptical?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

>slack in it, which can be harnessed when necessary. I guarantee you
>more work gets done when the boss is in the room that when the boss is
>gone. Besides, processing a Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle would take a
>week or two, as compared to 3 months for a space shuttle.

that is nothing but either a total lie or complete handwaving.

a re-usable shuttle C will have all the major problems of an STS
in re-processing.

TPS, Propulsion, Landing gear, Pyros, Thermal radiators, GNC,

the only savings will come from skipping life support and the RMS.

also the more shuttle heritage components, the more O&M goes up.

also the more shuttle heritage, the less the throw weight.

I just don't see how a re-usable Shuttle-C can achieve a significant
throw weight. then you have penalty weight for wings, gear,
weight and balance restrictions,,,,, the only win is ditching
life support and the airlock, the crew cabin and some tolerable risk
onlanding ops.

YOu constantly hand wave about how a Shuttle-C could be made reusable,
but dramatically fail to ever describe it's operational design.

the more it looks like a shuttle the less weight it can carry and
the more it costs to run, the less it looks like a shuttle, the
more it costs to design, and the more it costs to run because of
the differences.

there is a reason, even the NASA folks were only opting for a
expendable Shuttle-C, and a reason why even they dumped it.

>>>
>>>The propulsion side of things is broken down into
>>>
>>> External tank $46,785,000 per flight
>>> SSME $26,428,000 per flight
>>> Reusable Solid Rocket Motor $56,528,000 per flight
>>> Solid Rocket Booster $21,900,000 per flight
>
> For a reusable Shuttle-C the cost of the space shuttle main engines
>(SSME) would be paid for during construction and the engines would be
>reused a certain number of launches so this would not be a marginal
>launch cost. For a throwaway Shuttle-C, we have to buy new engines
>for each launch and it would be a marginal launch cost.

as long as you entertain this marginal cost fallacy, you will
never be taken seriously.

marginal costing is done only for one time things.
"Bill, give me a ride to the train station, i'll pay you $5".
Mary, while you are headed to new york, pick me up X, I'll give
you $20".

marginal costs analysis are a way to go broke in a business.

>
>>>
>>>Launch and landing operations are $108,647,000 per flight
>
> These are "fixed costs" which the theory assumes will not increase
>up to a certain number of extra launches and landings.

that extra is probably 1.

>
>>>
>>>There are also orbiter and systems integration tasks but it is
>>>unclear how much of these would be relevent to Shuttle-C.
>
> I think we can safely say the space shuttle requires much more
>preparation than a Shuttle-C would require.

well, we can't safely say that as you have never described your
wonder vehicle, except by handwaving.

tell us size, shape, mass, landing mode, and then your claim
might have some merit.

>
>>>
>>>There are also shuttle safety and performance upgrade costs to
>>>facilities and subsystems.
>
> This has nothing to do with marginal launch costs unless it
>increases the cost of the ET or solid rocket boosters.

marginal costs have nothing to do with real costs.

>
>>>
>>>However, there are other budget lines which can conceal hidden shuttle
>>>work, Space Communications Services, Safety Reliability and Quality
>>>Assurance, etc.
>
> These are fixed costs which theory says won't go up.

theory.

>
>>>
>>>It is hard to see how anyone could come up with a figure as low as
>>>$120 million for a shuttle launch.
>
> All you have to do is figure out how much the ET and solid rocket
>boosters cost and you have the marginal launch cost.

add in the launch processing costs too. for a new vehicle, that
will be far more significant. going from the saturn I to IB led
to tremendous delays in KSC processing. same again to teh S-V.

>
>> The true figure for a reusable
>>>Shuttle-C is probably nearer $250 million, even using a crazy
>>>accounting scheme which does not factor in R&D costs or the cost
>>>of money. Adding those in brings the cost up to $400 million or so
>>>depending on launch rate and R&D cost.
>
> Well, we have a practical example of space shuttle marginal launch
>costs in the relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago. It did
>not cost NASA an extra $400 million or even an extra $250 million to
>launch it. According to NASA, it cost a little over $60 million.

NASA routinely lies, so i never listen to them on STS costing.

>
>>>
>>>--
>
>Some of Pat's comments:
>
>>any re-usable shuttle-C program is going to need Landing gear,
>>TPS, additional software support work per mission, a recovery fleet,,,
>
> That's the beauty of building shuttle-derived heavy-lifters, all
>that stuff is already available.
>

all that stuff is expensive to service. the beauty of STS systems
is how many people they employ.

>>Abbott is engaged in massive hand waving and denial when he claims
>>that it's only $100 million.
>
> I claim the marginal launch costs are around $100 million or less.
>The marginal launch costs are the ET and the solid rocket boosters,
>and their fuel. Nothing else. The figures for these pieces of

yeah, ignore the real costs, if they frighten you.

>hardware can be found on the NASA budget website, and my $100 million
>figure is real close (you'll forgive me for rounding it off). The
>debate is whether any other costs besides these are incurred to launch
>an extra shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle. Of course
>there are preparations to be done for any launch, but the question is
>can these preparations be done by the current space shuttle workforce
>without excessive overtime and without having to hire new people and
>building new facilities. We've just reflown the shuttle Columbia for
>about $60 million, so we know the Kennedy workforce has the margin
>and flexibility to squeeze at least one more flight in. The question
>is how many more can they do this way. If they could do four more
>without increasing the fixed costs, we could continuously sustain a
>Moonbase for $400 million per year in launch costs (four Shuttle-C
>launches per year).
>

if pigs could fly, we wouldn't need NASA.

pat

[pat]

In article <5rc6b7$a...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>
>>In article <5r59bl$q...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
says...
>>>
>>

>>Gee tom, if the Shuttle was such a cheap and effective launcher,
>>how come the DoD abandoned it in favor of the Titan 4?
>

> Congress instructed them to after Challenger.
>

Did Congress tell them to abandon VAFB or Classified missions?

How come they the DoD was still running classified missions in 1990?

Boy these government guys are slow....

Of course, you want these really slow people to launch a quick fast
cheap HLV mission...

>>what? The DoD just wanted to spend a few billion on the T4 when
>>the shuttle is so much cheaper and flexible?
>>>

So If the T4 has so much marginal cost, and the shuttle so few,
why did the congress tell them to pick the higher costing option?

after all each T4 mission costs $400 Million, and a STS mission
only costs $100 million, why would they do this?

>
>>>>Again, the reusable Shuttle-C proposals are more R&D expensive than
>>>>expendables of equal technology assumptions, and thus incur more
>>>>R&D amortization load. It comes out a wash.
>>>
>>> Boeing seemed to think the reusable method was best.
>
>>best for boeing profits, no-one else.
>

I guess you agree that a Reusable Shuttle-C is best only for boeing profits.

>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, excluding costs for arbitrary reasons is
>>>>a standard NASA procedure
>>>
>>> I guess you'll have to accuse the DOD of doing the same thing
>>>because they are estimating a lower cost than NASA. The reason I
>
>>So DoD lies? tell me something new.
>

> You seem to be surrounded by liars, Pat.
>

I live in Washington DC, sometimes, it seems everyone I know lies to
keep in practice. Heck, the average sub-human here wouldn't know
the truth if it bit them on the ass. A common complaint about
some people is they won't tell enough lies.

>>>emphasize marginal launch costs is to define what costs what, and
>>>break the costs down instead of lumping everything together and
>>>confusing everyone.
>>>
>
>>Because if you admitted to the total program costs, nobody would
>>listen to you.
>

> I included all costs. If I overlooked one point it out.
>

KSC overhead.
RLV processing costs.

right now the KSC line is fully committed processing missions.
it takes an incredible bit of luck to ever sneak in an extra payload,
so your claims about more capacity are just empty.

if NASA could get more flights out, they'd have done it a long
time ago. they never were able to get above ten without killing
people and they've always averaged 8.

>>The last time NASA did a Moon base proposal, it was $200 Billion
>>dollars, using your favorite HLV.
>

> What's your point?
>

that an HLV merely ties into a multi hundred billion dollar program.

merely wishing on a star isn't going to cut costs.

NASA won't get $100 G, so why build something that requires more
spending behind it.

>>
>>>>Ahh, but you should include it. Because if you don't you don't
understand
>>>>what the real opportunity costs are of choosing Shuttle-C and what you
>>>>can do in other corners of decision space (i.e., Kistler, cheap
>>>>expendables, Pioneer, Kelly, etc). That $3b is wasted if NASA spends
>>>>it and then finds that Mitch and John and Walt (? Kistler) are willing
>>>>and able to fly adequately big payloads to the orbits for half the price
>>>>that Shuttle-C operations will cost per pound.
>>>
>>> I understand the opportunity costs to NASA and the taxpayers of
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>choosing Shuttle-C: NASA's first Moon/Mars launch will cost them $3.5
>>>billion using Shuttle-C, and will cost about $8 billion using
>>>Kistler's launch vehicle. NASA has an opportunity to save about $5
>>>billion. Each subsequent launch of 500 tons to low-Earth orbit (one
>
>
>>your statement here, only proves you don't understand opportunity costs.
>

> It also shows you didn't get the joke.

>
>>i usggest you find a college textbook on economics and look it up.
>

> I don't need anything fancy, just the bottom line please.
>

you don't understand bottom lines either, so you won't get this.

opportunity cost is not the cost of doing X, it is the cost of
not doing all other courses of action, because you do X.

If we do HLV S-C, then we don't do Nuclear thermal, or RLV or
reduce the budget deficit, or do more discovery missions or
X vehicles,,,,,

If we do Something else, then you can argue the opportunity cost
of not doing the moon missions and shuttle-C.

>>>Moon/Mars mission) would cost NASA $500 million using Shuttle-C, but
>>>would cost about $2 billion using Kistler's launch vehicle. NASA has
>>>an opportunity to save $1.5 billion per Moon/Mars mission using
>>>Shuttle-C heavy-lift over a small-payload launcher like Kistler's.
>>>BTW, these cost savings should also apply to your heavy-lift BDB,
>>>assuming you can launch it for $100 million. :)
>>>
>
>>throwing in a few siley faces does not offset repeated lies.
>

> I don't appreciate being called a liar.
>

when you repeatedly state things that are not true, true only if
you omit vital information, or tortured reasoning, then at some point
it just becomes lying or lawyering.

> Maybe I'll attend the next cheap access to space conference.
>

you might learn something.

>>Lie 1 : 500 tons to LEO would cost $500 Million.
>

> In marginal launch costs, yes, assuming workforce costs don't
>increase.
>

bad assumption.

>>that's 5 missions. or approximately 60% of the launch capacity
>>at KSC in any one year. So what you are saying is that the largest
>>single dedicated user of KSC should only pay marginal costs, while
>>the smaller users of KSC should pay all the fixed costs....
>

> The user of KCS is the American taxpayer and they should care about
>the bottom line, not about how the costs are divided up.
>

well, the only way the taxpayer can decide if something is worthwhile
is by determining the costs. this way they can look at the opportunity
costs.

>>>>What NASA did in the past, how they did their accounting, how they do
>>>>it now still, are all irrelevant. Both corporate and public policy
>>>>accounting now standardly assume that rate-of-return and amortized
>>>>R&D costs should be included in overall comparasions, though politicians
>>>>sometimes avoid it.
>>>
>>> I think these are distractions, or rather, easily lead to
>>>distractions. I would like to know what each nut and bolt cost.
>>>
>
>>no you don't. you don't want to know costs. everytime you get
>>told them, you start squealing about marginal costs.
>

> You mean the cost figures you were putting out? That wasn't
>squealing you heard from me, it was laughing.

Laugh while you can monkey boy. -- Dr Lizardo.

>
>>funny, when i go to the movies, the marginal costs for me is about
>>2 cents. funny, i can't get into the theater for 2 cents.
>

> You could if you owned the theater.
>

and the distributors would freak out when the head counts come in
wrong, because they don't look at marginal costs.

If i owned a movie theater, would it be good business to let in
150 school kids every day to see the movies for a nickel?
it's not like ti costs anything, after all, the theater is almost
all fixed price???

>>>>>>Kistler's estimated $17m/flight includes those costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> What Kistler's estimates don't include is the cost of handling their
>>>>>payloads once they reach orbit. Orbital operations will quickly eat
>>>>>up the $3 billion it would cost to build Shuttle-C.
>>>
>>>>And Shuttle-C won't have orbital handling costs, *especially* for
>>>>sending multi-satelite bundles off in controlled manners?
>>>
>>> The only job Shuttle-C should be doing is enabling NASA to develop
>>>basic Moon and Mars bases. I don't want a federally subsidized
>>>launcher competing on a commercial basis (yes, that includes the space
>>>shuttle).
>>>
>
>>which of course reduces teh number of missions for Shuttle-C.
>

> A sustained Moon and/or Mars program would keep Shuttle-C busy. A
>minimum of four Shuttle-C launches per year.
>

but what if the public decided to dump shuttle, entirely, after all
we have ISS built, and russian soyuz capsules, and french crew capsules.

what does that do to your HLV costs????

>>> Yes, but George, I'm not promoting Shuttle-C for commercial use,
>>>I'll let your heavy-lift BDB take care of that, if it is economically
>>>feasible. Shuttle-C should be used strictly to expand our presence in
>>>space, and for the cost of $3 billion we can open up the whole
>>>Earth/Moon/Mars system at bargain basement prices for the taxpayers.
>>>
>
>>funny, if a BDB is viable for Commercial missions, why shouldn't it
>>be viable for Moon missions?
>

> It is, except one has never flown, which gives it a slight
>disadvantage compared to a shuttle-derived heavy-lifer.
>

if an HLV is not viable for commercial missions, then one should
really question if the government mission is correct.

>>>figure is the cost of the ET and the solid rocket boosters. Nothing
>>>else is included in marginal launch costs. Adding in program costs to
>
>>at least you are admitting to your deceptions.
>

> And those deceptions would be?

leaving out costs.

>

[Tom Abbott]

p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:

>In article <5rej3f$o...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>>
>>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <33D77F...@nortel.com>, M.R.At...@nortel.com says...
>>>>
>>>>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
>>>>> who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
>>>>> million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
>>>>> NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From the Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates:
>>>>
>>>>Shuttle operations $2,494,400,000 for 7 flights = 356,000,000 per
>>>>flight.
>>
>> Mike, the $356 million per shuttle flight is for the first seven
>>flights. The "marginal launch cost" theory is that an eighth shuttle
>>could be squeezed into the schedule for the cost of a new ET and solid
>>rocket boosters, and without increasing fixed costs. A new ET and
>>solid rocket boosters comes to $114 million using the 1997 budget

>inside every big lie, there should always be a germ of truth.

>it is always possible to claim, one more mission can be done,
>but one HLV mission per year, won't do the US any good. That's a
>simple observation. 4 HLV missions per year are not a marginal activity.
>they are a major activity.

Pat, you just stated that we could probably launch one extra space
shuttle without increasing fixed costs and I think most people would
agree. We also have an example of this happening with the relaunch of
Columbia, although a brand new shuttle mission would require more
processing than Columbia did because Columbia's cargo was already
loaded.

I agree that one HLV launch per year wouldn't do use much good, but
I think we both agree we could do a lot with 4 HLV launches per year.
Your argument is that we might be able to launch an extra shuttle for
little or no cost over the marginal cost but we wouldn't be able to do
4 without some budget increase. This is certainly possible and
probably likely, but I would contend that the preparations required to
launch 4 HLV's would be the equivalent of the preparations required to
launch one extra shuttle from scratch, since the HLV will only require
about a week or two of processing (the length of time required to
prepare the ET and solid rocket boosters), verses the three months of
preparation required for one space shuttle. If this is the case, then
we ought to be able to squeeze 4 HLV's into the launch schedule about
as easily as we could squeeze one shuttle launch in.

>besides, marginal costing is only useful as an analytical tool,
>not as a planning tool as anyone with any organizational experience knows.

That's my point in using it: I want to separate out the costs into
their individual budgets. That way, if our program costs are too
high, we can differentiate between what it costs to launch and the
other associated costs, and we will therefore have a better idea of
where to find the things that need fixing.

>the people bearing full price, inherently resent the people getting the
>discount. airlines operate oftentimes on a marginal costing basis.
>(Staff seat priveliges, stand by fares, 21 day book in advance fares,,,]
>but they offset these by level of service. people paying full fare
>are getting certain priveliges and benefits for this.

There is only one customer we're concerned with here: the American
Taxpayers. They are spending the same amount of money regardless of
the bookkeeping gymnastics. That being the case, I say the bookeeping
gymnastics are irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the bottom
line.

>those 7 STS missions are going to resent getting the disproprtionate
>share of overhead billing.

What possible difference would it make?

> in fact, at least in defense contracting,
>use of marginal cost basis overhead shifting between programs is
>a felony crime, and one of my employers amongst others were
>convicted of this, several high officers went to jail, and
>the firm was fined millions of dollars.

Using marginal costs is not illegal, using marginal costs to
misrepresent the facts is--when applied to government contracts,
anyway. Using marginal costs does not necessarily equate with
misrepresenting the facts. It's how they are used.

>now what you are suggesting, is that NASA engage in said same activity,
>and you wonder why people get upset.

I'm not suggesting that NASA engage in any illegal activity.

>>figures. The relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago, didn't
>>cost NASA an extra $356 million, as your "per flight" figure above
>>would imply. According to NASA, it cost $55 million to "process" the
>>shuttle and $8 million to process the cargo.
>>

>we will see if NASA is able to actually process an extra flight
>this year. if all they did was reshuffle the flight order,
>that is not a achievement.

Yes, this will be something to watch. It is convenient (for me at
least) to have this example to point to. It couldn't have come at a
better time.

>>>>This is with a 3% workforce overtime limit, I doubt that the current
>>>>workforce could manage more than 8 flights per year.
>>
>> On what do you base this assumption? Every organization has some

>it's not an assumption, it's a track record. the STS was supposed to
>get flying in 1977, instead it slipped 4 years, producing a flight rate
>of 0. in every year, from 1981 to 1991, the NASA management promised
>a huge increase in flight rate. they were LYING!.

NASA flew 10 shuttle flights in a 12 month period in 1985.

> since your hated
>enemy came in,

I don't hate Dan Goldin, I just think his policies are extremely
detrimental to human spaceflight and space development. I'd probably
love him to death if he were over at the Department of Agriculture.

> he has said the STS is not capable of exceeding 10/year
>and the expectable flight rate is 6-8 per year depending upon budget
>expenses. funny, now a few members of the shuttle mafia are
>again claiming the magical 25/year, why am I skeptical?

>Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Well, you have reason to be skeptical, but NASA is projecting 12
shuttle/shuttle-C launches in 2005, and 15 launches by 2007. Even if
you are correct that NASA can only launch 10 shuttles per year, if
four Shuttle-C preparations are equal to one shuttle preparation, then
we could fly 8 shuttles and 8 HLV per year with the current
workforce's capabilities. Eight HLV launches per year would be enough
to sustain a continuous presence on both the Moon and Mars (the big
HLV's that is).

>>slack in it, which can be harnessed when necessary. I guarantee you
>>more work gets done when the boss is in the room that when the boss is
>>gone. Besides, processing a Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle would take a
>>week or two, as compared to 3 months for a space shuttle.

>that is nothing but either a total lie or complete handwaving.

I base the HLV preparation figure on Boeing's claim to be able to
turnaround their two-SSME Shuttle-C clone in 24 hours. Since Boeing's
vehicle doesn't use solid rocket boosters, and the real Shuttle-C
does, the amount of preparation time for the solid rocket boosters
will have to be added to the 24 hour turnaround period.

>a re-usable shuttle C will have all the major problems of an STS
>in re-processing.

>TPS, Propulsion, Landing gear, Pyros, Thermal radiators, GNC,

>the only savings will come from skipping life support and the RMS.

All I can say is Boeing claimed a 24 hour turnaround and their
vehicles uses all the equipment you list above.

>also the more shuttle heritage components, the more O&M goes up.

>also the more shuttle heritage, the less the throw weight.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Shuttle-C will give us
enough throwweight, although it looks like NASA is currently planning
on building the smallest Shuttle-C (80 tons to LEO) instead of
something big enough to eliminate orbital operations (more on this
later!).

>I just don't see how a re-usable Shuttle-C can achieve a significant
>throw weight.

The space shuttle currently puts about 105 tons in low-Earth orbit.
Zubrin's four-engined shuttle-derived vehicle could put 150 tons in
low-Earth orbit. With the ability to put 110tons-150tons in LEO we
can eliminate orbital assembly for Moon and Mars missions entirely (an
80-ton capacity Shuttle-C will not do so, which is why it should be
rejected in favor of a heavier version).

> then you have penalty weight for wings, gear,
>weight and balance restrictions,,,,,

Boeing's design does not have wings, or gear. It lands in the ocean
using parachutes and is recovered by ship. Boeing already did a drop
test of a prototype propulsion module containing a space shuttle main
engine. They dropped the propulsion module in the ocean, then fished
it out of the water, took the propulsion module back to the factory
and fired off the SSME.

> the only win is ditching
>life support and the airlock, the crew cabin and some tolerable risk
>onlanding ops.

You seem to have in mind a vehicle more like the shuttle Enterprise
but gutted of its crew compartment (not a bad idea but it can only
lift 35 or 40 tons to LEO). The Shuttle-C I'm referring to just uses
a propulsion module which carries a payload container on top, and
parachutes back to Earth after launch.

>YOu constantly hand wave about how a Shuttle-C could be made reusable,
>but dramatically fail to ever describe it's operational design.

All you have to do is ask questions. I'll answer them to the best
of my ability.

>the more it looks like a shuttle the less weight it can carry and
>the more it costs to run, the less it looks like a shuttle, the
>more it costs to design, and the more it costs to run because of
>the differences.

>there is a reason, even the NASA folks were only opting for a
>expendable Shuttle-C, and a reason why even they dumped it.

Well, NASA has apparently changed its mind (because of Boeings
success, IMO) because they are going to use a reusable Shuttle-C named
Magnum which can put 80 tons in low-Earth orbit.

>>>>
>>>>The propulsion side of things is broken down into
>>>>
>>>> External tank $46,785,000 per flight
>>>> SSME $26,428,000 per flight
>>>> Reusable Solid Rocket Motor $56,528,000 per flight
>>>> Solid Rocket Booster $21,900,000 per flight
>>
>> For a reusable Shuttle-C the cost of the space shuttle main engines
>>(SSME) would be paid for during construction and the engines would be
>>reused a certain number of launches so this would not be a marginal
>>launch cost. For a throwaway Shuttle-C, we have to buy new engines
>>for each launch and it would be a marginal launch cost.

>as long as you entertain this marginal cost fallacy, you will
>never be taken seriously.

>marginal costing is done only for one time things.
>"Bill, give me a ride to the train station, i'll pay you $5".
>Mary, while you are headed to new york, pick me up X, I'll give
>you $20".

>marginal costs analysis are a way to go broke in a business.

In this case, marginal costs are a way to show the taxpayers they
can save big bucks on their space program, by efficiently using the
space development hardware and launch infrastructure they have already
paid for and put in place.

>>
>>>>
>>>>Launch and landing operations are $108,647,000 per flight
>>
>> These are "fixed costs" which the theory assumes will not increase
>>up to a certain number of extra launches and landings.

>that extra is probably 1.

You may be right. The next question is: if fixed costs do increase
when we add the second extra launch, how much do they increase? If
it's a minimal increase, we are still in business.

>>
>>>>
>>>>There are also orbiter and systems integration tasks but it is
>>>>unclear how much of these would be relevent to Shuttle-C.
>>
>> I think we can safely say the space shuttle requires much more
>>preparation than a Shuttle-C would require.

>well, we can't safely say that as you have never described your
>wonder vehicle, except by handwaving.

>tell us size, shape, mass, landing mode, and then your claim
>might have some merit.

This Shuttle-C would consist of one External Tank and two Solid
Rocket Boosters, just like in a conventional shuttle stack. Instead
of attaching a space shuttle to the side of the ET, as is done during
a regular shuttle launch, we will just take the shuttle's propulsion
module (just imagine we took a big knife and cut the engine
compartment off of a shuttle) and attach it to the side of the ET.
The cargo container would attach to the top of the propulsion module.
We could use a second ET for the cargo container, so just imagine two
ET's connected together with a space shuttle engine compartment bolted
to the bottom of one of them. I would suggest we go remove the
propulsion module from the shuttle Enterprise and use it as our
propulsion "boattail" but it would probably be just as cheap to build
a new one.

>>
>>>>
>>>>There are also shuttle safety and performance upgrade costs to
>>>>facilities and subsystems.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with marginal launch costs unless it
>>increases the cost of the ET or solid rocket boosters.

>marginal costs have nothing to do with real costs.

Marginal costs have everything to do with launch costs. Your "real"
costs include program costs and everything else, and are part of the
program but they should not figure in to the launch costs.

>>
>>>>
>>>>However, there are other budget lines which can conceal hidden shuttle
>>>>work, Space Communications Services, Safety Reliability and Quality
>>>>Assurance, etc.
>>
>> These are fixed costs which theory says won't go up.
>theory.

>>
>>>>
>>>>It is hard to see how anyone could come up with a figure as low as
>>>>$120 million for a shuttle launch.
>>
>> All you have to do is figure out how much the ET and solid rocket
>>boosters cost and you have the marginal launch cost.

>add in the launch processing costs too. for a new vehicle, that
>will be far more significant. going from the saturn I to IB led
>to tremendous delays in KSC processing. same again to teh S-V.

Shuttle-C should be similar enough to the shuttle that it shouldn't
require any special handling which would increase costs, one of the
benefits of using shuttle-derived vehicles.

>>
>>> The true figure for a reusable
>>>>Shuttle-C is probably nearer $250 million, even using a crazy
>>>>accounting scheme which does not factor in R&D costs or the cost
>>>>of money. Adding those in brings the cost up to $400 million or so
>>>>depending on launch rate and R&D cost.
>>
>> Well, we have a practical example of space shuttle marginal launch
>>costs in the relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago. It did
>>not cost NASA an extra $400 million or even an extra $250 million to
>>launch it. According to NASA, it cost a little over $60 million.

>NASA routinely lies, so i never listen to them on STS costing.

NASA isn't the only one quoting figures in this range.

>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>
>>Some of Pat's comments:
>>
>>>any re-usable shuttle-C program is going to need Landing gear,
>>>TPS, additional software support work per mission, a recovery fleet,,,
>>
>> That's the beauty of building shuttle-derived heavy-lifters, all
>>that stuff is already available.
>>

>all that stuff is expensive to service. the beauty of STS systems
>is how many people they employ.

>>>Abbott is engaged in massive hand waving and denial when he claims
>>>that it's only $100 million.
>>
>> I claim the marginal launch costs are around $100 million or less.
>>The marginal launch costs are the ET and the solid rocket boosters,
>>and their fuel. Nothing else. The figures for these pieces of

>yeah, ignore the real costs, if they frighten you.

I don't ignore them, I just want to keep them separated.

>>hardware can be found on the NASA budget website, and my $100 million
>>figure is real close (you'll forgive me for rounding it off). The
>>debate is whether any other costs besides these are incurred to launch
>>an extra shuttle or shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle. Of course
>>there are preparations to be done for any launch, but the question is
>>can these preparations be done by the current space shuttle workforce
>>without excessive overtime and without having to hire new people and
>>building new facilities. We've just reflown the shuttle Columbia for
>>about $60 million, so we know the Kennedy workforce has the margin
>>and flexibility to squeeze at least one more flight in. The question
>>is how many more can they do this way. If they could do four more
>>without increasing the fixed costs, we could continuously sustain a
>>Moonbase for $400 million per year in launch costs (four Shuttle-C
>>launches per year).
>>

>if pigs could fly, we wouldn't need NASA.

>pat

They can't so we'll have to keep NASA flying.

[Michael P. Walsh]

pat wrote:
>
> In article <5rc6b7$a...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
> >
> >p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <5r59bl$q...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
> says...
> >>>
> >>
> >>Gee tom, if the Shuttle was such a cheap and effective launcher,
> >>how come the DoD abandoned it in favor of the Titan 4?
> >
>

> Did Congress tell them to abandon VAFB or Classified missions?
>
> How come they the DoD was still running classified missions in 1990?
>
> Boy these government guys are slow....
>

---
---
---
Pat, Classified missions did not disappear after 1990. In case
you haven't noticed there are still some either unfriendly or
not too friendly countries to the U.S. around the world including
Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea.

I suspect we still want to keep tabs on our new friends the
CIS and look at some things that China may not want to let
on the ground CIA agents look at.

Some time ago some of us (other than you and Tom) in this
newsgroup had some discussion of Titan vs. Shuttle and one thing
that seemed mutually agreeable was that the Defense
Department wanted to control all aspects of the
operations and they couldn't do that with the Shuttle.
The DOD was basically forced onto the Shuttle by the
NASA "put everything on the Shuttle" power-play in
the 1980's and took the first chance they got at
going back to the Titan.

This entire path is so muddy that I suggest that
you and Tom Abbott forget the Titan and go back to
arguing about RLV vs. Shuttle-C. I actually believe
that there are good arguments for a HLV if there
were a sufficient number of missions available,
but I think it is a bit late for Shuttle-C.

Mike Walsh

[pat]

In article <33DB85...@pacbell.net>, mp_w...@pacbell.net says...

>
>pat wrote:
>>
>> In article <5rc6b7$a...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
says...
>> >
>> >p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <5r59bl$q...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
>> says...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Gee tom, if the Shuttle was such a cheap and effective launcher,
>> >>how come the DoD abandoned it in favor of the Titan 4?
>> >
>>

>> Did Congress tell them to abandon VAFB or Classified missions?
>>
>> How come they the DoD was still running classified missions in 1990?
>>
>> Boy these government guys are slow....
>>

>---
>---
>---
>Pat, Classified missions did not disappear after 1990. In case
>you haven't noticed there are still some either unfriendly or
>not too friendly countries to the U.S. around the world including
>Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea.

let me enhance.

why did the DoD run classified missions on the STS through 1990.

>
>I suspect we still want to keep tabs on our new friends the
>CIS and look at some things that China may not want to let
>on the ground CIA agents look at.
>
>Some time ago some of us (other than you and Tom) in this
>newsgroup had some discussion of Titan vs. Shuttle and one thing
>that seemed mutually agreeable was that the Defense
>Department wanted to control all aspects of the
>operations and they couldn't do that with the Shuttle.
>The DOD was basically forced onto the Shuttle by the
>NASA "put everything on the Shuttle" power-play in
>the 1980's and took the first chance they got at
>going back to the Titan.

well, they were forced onto STS, but then also got
to specify the vehicle characteristics.
they also spent $6 Billion on VAFB-SLC6, and Discovery
so that they could have one all-up, totally controlled vehicle.

when it became brutally obvious in 1982, that they had been
totally decieved on flight rate, they opted for T4, which utterly
failed on it's launch rate.

I hear, a few months ago, a T4 totally disintegrated. no it didn't do
this after engine start, it did it before. the NTO leaked out of the
vehicle, and ate every inch of electric wiring in the bird and
payload.

>
>This entire path is so muddy that I suggest that
>you and Tom Abbott forget the Titan and go back to
>arguing about RLV vs. Shuttle-C. I actually believe
>that there are good arguments for a HLV if there
>were a sufficient number of missions available,
>but I think it is a bit late for Shuttle-C.
>
>

the problem with a Shuttle-C is it now requires a immediate commitment
to Moon-Mars.

if the S-C had been done as part of Fred, it'd have been okay, but
it's useless now.

[Greg d. Moore]

pat wrote:
>
> if pigs could fly, we wouldn't need NASA.
>

Oh come on pat, you know that's not true. For one thing, NASA could be
more full of pork than it is already.

And in addition, NASA would have to design things such as the Pig Waste
Recovery System for $1.4 billion. Test a pig's inner ear balance in
orbit and all other sorts of pork barrel projects!

> pat

--
Greg D. Moore President moo...@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com/
518-273-8602

[King David]

Some Apollo astronauts talk about space and are on space panels, some
astronauts, like T.K. Mattingly are heading up projects for space (T.K.
is V.P. of the X-33/VentureStar program, and some astronauts lie through
their teeth and sell off "core" space programs (Bill Anders) for
Stockholder profit.

[Frank Crary]

In article <5r7ijb$7...@usenet78.supernews.com>,

Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr

>>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc)...

> What's this hangup you have with amortization? NASA isn't a
>commercial entity.

I think the problem is that you are not describing a level playing field.
In principle, I don't think tax dollars should be used to drive
private companies out of business by subsidizing their competition.
_Even_ if that competition is a government agency. In any case,
commercial entity or not, development costs and their amortization are
a real part of NASA's costs. You might argue that NASA isn't supposed
to be turning a profit, so amortizing the costs with a zero rate of return
are appropriate (i.e. just dividing the development costs by the
total number of flights). But that ignores the fact that the federal
government could spend its money on other things. If, for example, the
money went into reducing the national debt, there would be $3 billion
less debt for the government to pay interest on. If memory serves,
they are paying something like 5% interest on the debt, or $150 million
per year on $3 billion dollars spent on anything other than debt
reduction. Amortizing at a 5% rate of return is mathematically
similar to this cost, and is a reasonable measure of the true
costs to the federal government.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

[pat]

In article <5rgjqj$8...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

without dramatically increasing fixed costs. short sprints are
possible, but any long term increase means a major increase in
spending, which is just not justifiable.

Goldin stated years ago, the Maximum sustainable planned flight rate
is 8. nothing in 20 years has ever disagreed with this.

>agree. We also have an example of this happening with the relaunch of
>Columbia, although a brand new shuttle mission would require more
>processing than Columbia did because Columbia's cargo was already
>loaded.

actually, to be honest, the columbia re-flight is actually a
terribly scathing damnation of the STS program.

Columbia required almost no payload processing, the vehicle came
back in good clean shape, and still required 84 days to process
and re-launch. this is outrageous.

as for the costs figures, that's pretty arbitrary.

so, the typical mission takes 120 days to process, including payload,
and the best possible case, still took 84 days. that's abomnable.

>
> I agree that one HLV launch per year wouldn't do use much good, but
>I think we both agree we could do a lot with 4 HLV launches per year.

which is about what apollo did. so what it means is that with
4 launches per year, we get some flags, some footprints and we
lose space for another 20 years. i'm sorry, that's a very unappealing
premise for me.

>Your argument is that we might be able to launch an extra shuttle for
>little or no cost over the marginal cost but we wouldn't be able to do
>4 without some budget increase. This is certainly possible and

not only is it possible, it is backed by 20 years of shuttle history.
with billions spent and invested, they have never been able to up
the aunch rate, past 9 without killing people.

>probably likely, but I would contend that the preparations required to
>launch 4 HLV's would be the equivalent of the preparations required to
>launch one extra shuttle from scratch, since the HLV will only require
>about a week or two of processing (the length of time required to
>prepare the ET and solid rocket boosters), verses the three months of
>preparation required for one space shuttle. If this is the case, then

given teh use of common shuttle systems, the assumption is it will
require teh same or more time, unless you can clearly demonstrate
any other proposition.

SSME servicing, will be the same or worse on a S-C, vehicle integration
will be the same or worse. payload integration will be the same or worse,
as KSC is not configured to handle 100 ton payloads....

all you save is the life support servicing, a minor element.

>we ought to be able to squeeze 4 HLV's into the launch schedule about
>as easily as we could squeeze one shuttle launch in.

MAJOR FALLACY ALERT.

every time the shuttle-C has been examined, the operating costs and
developement costs have been so severe, that all parties have
abandoned it.

merely wishing and hoping, will not change that. this same dangerous
delusion is what killed the challenger crew.

>
>
>>besides, marginal costing is only useful as an analytical tool,
>>not as a planning tool as anyone with any organizational experience knows.
>
> That's my point in using it: I want to separate out the costs into
>their individual budgets. That way, if our program costs are too
>high, we can differentiate between what it costs to launch and the
>other associated costs, and we will therefore have a better idea of
>where to find the things that need fixing.

yeah, KSC. SHutdown KSC, and we can solve the problems in STS.

>
>>the people bearing full price, inherently resent the people getting the
>>discount. airlines operate oftentimes on a marginal costing basis.
>>(Staff seat priveliges, stand by fares, 21 day book in advance fares,,,]
>>but they offset these by level of service. people paying full fare
>>are getting certain priveliges and benefits for this.
>
> There is only one customer we're concerned with here: the American
>Taxpayers. They are spending the same amount of money regardless of
>the bookkeeping gymnastics. That being the case, I say the bookeeping
>gymnastics are irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the bottom
>line.
>

the bottom line is that they will be spending billions on a subject
they are unconvinced is neccesasary.

>>those 7 STS missions are going to resent getting the disproprtionate
>>share of overhead billing.
>
> What possible difference would it make?
>

well imagine you were program manager of a manned STS mission, and
that if some idiot were forced to pay their fair share of costs, you
could have money to fund upgrades to the manned space equipment.

the overhead you are forcing onto that program, means they lose
money to upgrade engines, electronics, maintenance facilities,
spares,,,,,

you tell that to his/hers crews that they don't get new gear, because
some other program is getting a free ride, and watch the HLV crew
get lynched.

>> in fact, at least in defense contracting,
>>use of marginal cost basis overhead shifting between programs is
>>a felony crime, and one of my employers amongst others were
>>convicted of this, several high officers went to jail, and
>>the firm was fined millions of dollars.
>
> Using marginal costs is not illegal, using marginal costs to
>misrepresent the facts is--when applied to government contracts,

but that's what you are doing. using marginal costs to misrepresent.

>anyway. Using marginal costs does not necessarily equate with
>misrepresenting the facts. It's how they are used.

you want to misrepresent the facts.

>
>>now what you are suggesting, is that NASA engage in said same activity,
>>and you wonder why people get upset.
>
> I'm not suggesting that NASA engage in any illegal activity.

sure you are.

>
>
>>>figures. The relaunch of the shuttle Columbia a few weeks ago, didn't
>>>cost NASA an extra $356 million, as your "per flight" figure above
>>>would imply. According to NASA, it cost $55 million to "process" the
>>>shuttle and $8 million to process the cargo.
>>>
>
>>we will see if NASA is able to actually process an extra flight
>>this year. if all they did was reshuffle the flight order,
>>that is not a achievement.
>
> Yes, this will be something to watch. It is convenient (for me at
>least) to have this example to point to. It couldn't have come at a
>better time.

your example is not that great. the vehicle took 84 days to process,
which at best only adds 30 days into the processing manifest.

>
>>>>>This is with a 3% workforce overtime limit, I doubt that the current
>>>>>workforce could manage more than 8 flights per year.
>>>
>>> On what do you base this assumption? Every organization has some
>
>>it's not an assumption, it's a track record. the STS was supposed to
>>get flying in 1977, instead it slipped 4 years, producing a flight rate
>>of 0. in every year, from 1981 to 1991, the NASA management promised
>>a huge increase in flight rate. they were LYING!.
>
> NASA flew 10 shuttle flights in a 12 month period in 1985.

yep,a nd amonth later blew up the challenger.

which as a non STS-Freak, may be useful. we push the manifest,
blow up a vehicle, shut down STS, and HLV costs explode, terminating
government launch ops.

>
>> since your hated
>>enemy came in,
>
> I don't hate Dan Goldin, I just think his policies are extremely
>detrimental to human spaceflight and space development. I'd probably
>love him to death if he were over at the Department of Agriculture.
>

I think his policies are about the best we can get for having a
space faring civilization. you just don't like him because he
has squashed your favorite hobby horse, twice. ET stations and
HLV.

>> he has said the STS is not capable of exceeding 10/year
>>and the expectable flight rate is 6-8 per year depending upon budget
>>expenses. funny, now a few members of the shuttle mafia are
>>again claiming the magical 25/year, why am I skeptical?
>
>>Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
>
> Well, you have reason to be skeptical, but NASA is projecting 12
>shuttle/shuttle-C launches in 2005, and 15 launches by 2007. Even if

it's just the routine delusion from JSC, happens every 5 years.

>you are correct that NASA can only launch 10 shuttles per year, if
>four Shuttle-C preparations are equal to one shuttle preparation, then

Big IF, unsupported by any facts.

>we could fly 8 shuttles and 8 HLV per year with the current
>workforce's capabilities. Eight HLV launches per year would be enough
>to sustain a continuous presence on both the Moon and Mars (the big
>HLV's that is).

well, if we did 8 HLV's and dumped STS, is possible, but that means
passing off ISSA logistics to the french and russians, for say
$400M per year. but what is likely to occur, is if we do a moonbase,
is to see it shut down after ayear or so, as too expensive and unsustainable.

>
>>>slack in it, which can be harnessed when necessary. I guarantee you
>>>more work gets done when the boss is in the room that when the boss is
>>>gone. Besides, processing a Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle would take a
>>>week or two, as compared to 3 months for a space shuttle.
>
>>that is nothing but either a total lie or complete handwaving.
>
> I base the HLV preparation figure on Boeing's claim to be able to
>turnaround their two-SSME Shuttle-C clone in 24 hours. Since Boeing's
>vehicle doesn't use solid rocket boosters, and the real Shuttle-C
>does, the amount of preparation time for the solid rocket boosters
>will have to be added to the 24 hour turnaround period.

that time period is enormous, a 2 engine Shuttle-C lite is a much
smaller vehicle, which means less preparation, and i think boeing is
kidding themselves, if they think ti'll be processable in 24 hours.
these are SSME's.

>
>>a re-usable shuttle C will have all the major problems of an STS
>>in re-processing.
>
>>TPS, Propulsion, Landing gear, Pyros, Thermal radiators, GNC,
>
>>the only savings will come from skipping life support and the RMS.
>
> All I can say is Boeing claimed a 24 hour turnaround and their
>vehicles uses all the equipment you list above.

Boeing is likely deluded, or proposing a seriously de-rated vehicle,
which drives up the $/ton figure.

>
>>also the more shuttle heritage components, the more O&M goes up.
>
>>also the more shuttle heritage, the less the throw weight.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Shuttle-C will give us
>enough throwweight, although it looks like NASA is currently planning
>on building the smallest Shuttle-C (80 tons to LEO) instead of
>something big enough to eliminate orbital operations (more on this
>later!).

which shuttle-C, this is what i can't stand about your fanaticism.

you've got 9 different shuttle-C's in your inventory, any one of
which can meet any criticism, but none of which are economically
justifiable.

if the complaint is mision costs, then suddenly it's the reusable one.

if processing costs are the issue, then it's the boeing one, but the
boeing one won't do 100 tons, but that's okay, because you've got
a 4 engine version,,,, this is tedious.

Stick with one version, if you want to be taken seriously.

>
>>I just don't see how a re-usable Shuttle-C can achieve a significant
>>throw weight.
>
> The space shuttle currently puts about 105 tons in low-Earth orbit.

more like 40 qith abort constr

[M R Atkinson]

Tom Abbott wrote:
> I base the HLV preparation figure on Boeing's claim to be able to
> turnaround their two-SSME Shuttle-C clone in 24 hours. Since Boeing's
> vehicle doesn't use solid rocket boosters, and the real Shuttle-C
> does, the amount of preparation time for the solid rocket boosters
> will have to be added to the 24 hour turnaround period.
>

> The space shuttle currently puts about 105 tons in low-Earth orbit.
> Zubrin's four-engined shuttle-derived vehicle could put 150 tons in
> low-Earth orbit. With the ability to put 110tons-150tons in LEO we
> can eliminate orbital assembly for Moon and Mars missions entirely (an
> 80-ton capacity Shuttle-C will not do so, which is why it should be
> rejected in favor of a heavier version).
>

> Boeing's design does not have wings, or gear. It lands in the ocean
> using parachutes and is recovered by ship. Boeing already did a drop
> test of a prototype propulsion module containing a space shuttle main
> engine. They dropped the propulsion module in the ocean, then fished
> it out of the water, took the propulsion module back to the factory
> and fired off the SSME.
>

> You seem to have in mind a vehicle more like the shuttle Enterprise
> but gutted of its crew compartment (not a bad idea but it can only
> lift 35 or 40 tons to LEO). The Shuttle-C I'm referring to just uses
> a propulsion module which carries a payload container on top, and
> parachutes back to Earth after launch.
>

> Well, NASA has apparently changed its mind (because of Boeings
> success, IMO) because they are going to use a reusable Shuttle-C named
> Magnum which can put 80 tons in low-Earth orbit.

Tom, just what are you advocating?

Is it the traditional Shuttle-C which uses Shuttle components where
possible, solid rocket boosters, the shuttle external tank and a
propulsion module which uses three SSME and a side mounted payload?
This could probably put between 80 and 105 tonne into LEO depending
on details like inclination, height, etc. R&D costs are relitively
low, and the payload as you point out is less than you really need
for Mars missions, although Moon missions are probably doable with
it.

Is it Boeing's version? Which could hardly be called a Shuttle, just
about the only component it seems to have in common from your
description is the SSME, at least I assume that as its characteristics
are different the external tank would optimise to be significantly
different than the current Shuttle ET. I would be intrested to
hears what is included in the 24 hour turnaround period, it seems
too short to fish them out the sea, (where would they land?) return
them to base inspect them fit them to a new launcher, and do a
complete count down on a vehicle of that complexity.

Or is it Zubrin's Ares launcher, which uses the SSME again but
otherwise is new?

Of the three I would plump for Ares. If we want to go go to Mars,
the Moon and have cheaper space stations, this seems the best
option. it won't be cheap, but probably pays for itself by reducing
other costs, particularly the ability to integrate the whole vehicle
on the ground.

This is the first time I have heard the name Magnum, do you have a
reference and can you say more about it?

[pat]

In article <33DDA9...@nortel.com>, M.R.At...@nortel.com says...

>
>Tom Abbott wrote:
>> I base the HLV preparation figure on Boeing's claim to be able to
>> turnaround their two-SSME Shuttle-C clone in 24 hours. Since Boeing's

>> Well, NASA has apparently changed its mind (because of Boeings

>> success, IMO) because they are going to use a reusable Shuttle-C named
>> Magnum which can put 80 tons in low-Earth orbit.
>

>Tom, just what are you advocating?
>
>Is it the traditional Shuttle-C which uses Shuttle components where
>possible, solid rocket boosters, the shuttle external tank and a
>propulsion module which uses three SSME and a side mounted payload?
>This could probably put between 80 and 105 tonne into LEO depending
>on details like inclination, height, etc. R&D costs are relitively
>low, and the payload as you point out is less than you really need
>for Mars missions, although Moon missions are probably doable with
>it.
>
>Is it Boeing's version? Which could hardly be called a Shuttle, just
>about the only component it seems to have in common from your
>

>Or is it Zubrin's Ares launcher, which uses the SSME again but
>otherwise is new?
>

this is the essential complaint i have with abbott.

he's gotten 15 different shuttle-C ideas, and they are all
priced at teh best possible price, and are all virtually free to
operate.

This isn't policy discussion, it's hucksterism.

Sorry, I bought 40 tons of snake oil on the STS, and I learned
to recognize it.

pat

[Kirk Sorensen]

T.K. Mattingly is no longer program manager of the X-33. Jerry Rising has
"risen" to assume his position, with Cleon Lacefield taking Jerry's old job and
Paul Landry as X-33 chief engineer, with Bob Baumgartner as RLV program
manager.

Kirk Sorensen

[MAL]

>Gee tom, if the Shuttle was such a cheap and effective launcher,
>how come the DoD abandoned it in favor of the Titan 4?

>what? The DoD just wanted to spend a few billion on the T4 when
>the shuttle is so much cheaper and flexible?

DoD abandoned Shuttle to make sure they could get to space. They
ditched Shuttle to wait out the failure investigation, and eventually
dumped it entirely. They grabbed the only program that could possibly
deliver payloads originally manifested for Shuttle (CELV) and made the
T-4 program. Titan and Shuttle launches are somewhat comparable in
price. T-4 is a little cheaper, but a delay of a month or so for a
launch will put it's cost over an on-time shuttle.

They are both relics.

[Tom Abbott]

fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:

>In article <5r7ijb$7...@usenet78.supernews.com>,
>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>>>That's not including any amortization of the R&D cost for the Shuttle-C,
>>>>which at $3 billion worth of R&D and 10 flights/year would be at *least*
>>>>$30m/flight (zero ROR/10 yr payback) and more likely much more (10%/10yr
>>>>gives you $45m/flight, 10%/5yr gives you $75m/flight, etc)...

>> What's this hangup you have with amortization? NASA isn't a
>>commercial entity.

>I think the problem is that you are not describing a level playing field.
>In principle, I don't think tax dollars should be used to drive
>private companies out of business by subsidizing their competition.

I don't either.

>_Even_ if that competition is a government agency. In any case,
>commercial entity or not, development costs and their amortization are
>a real part of NASA's costs. You might argue that NASA isn't supposed
>to be turning a profit, so amortizing the costs with a zero rate of return
>are appropriate (i.e. just dividing the development costs by the
>total number of flights). But that ignores the fact that the federal
>government could spend its money on other things. If, for example, the
>money went into reducing the national debt, there would be $3 billion
>less debt for the government to pay interest on. If memory serves,
>they are paying something like 5% interest on the debt, or $150 million
>per year on $3 billion dollars spent on anything other than debt
>reduction. Amortizing at a 5% rate of return is mathematically
>similar to this cost, and is a reasonable measure of the true
>costs to the federal government.

> Frank Crary
> CU Boulder

Frank, the taxpayers could save $3 billion by not building a
Shuttle-C. But that savings would be eaten up the first time an RLV
company was employed to launch a Moonbase. And if the RLV company is
contracted to supply said Moonbase, the cost to the taxpayers will be
billions more dollars than if they had used Shuttle-C to do their
Moonbase.

The only costs the taxpayers should be interested in is how much
total will it cost to place our Moonbase on the Moon and how much
total will it cost to support that Moonbase. Shuttle-C wins every
time over RLV, when the bottom line is considered.

Return on investment, and amortization are diversions from the
taxpayer's bottom line.

[Tom Abbott]

M R Atkinson <M.R.At...@nortel.com> wrote:

>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>> Realistic estimates for shuttle marginal launch costs, from people
>> who have actually looked at the numbers, cluster around the $50-$120
>> million per flight. You can get the $120 million figure by looking at
>> NASA's budget webpage and doing a little simple division.
>>

>From the Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates:

>Shuttle operations $2,494,400,000 for 7 flights = 356,000,000 per
>flight.

>This is with a 3% workforce overtime limit, I doubt that the current
>workforce could manage more than 8 flights per year.

And why would you doubt that, Mike?

>The propulsion side of things is broken down into

> External tank $46,785,000 per flight
> SSME $26,428,000 per flight
> Reusable Solid Rocket Motor $56,528,000 per flight
> Solid Rocket Booster $21,900,000 per flight

>Launch and landing operations are $108,647,000 per flight

>There are also orbiter and systems integration tasks but it is

>unclear how much of these would be relevent to Shuttle-C.

>There are also shuttle safety and performance upgrade costs to
>facilities and subsystems.

>However, there are other budget lines which can conceal hidden shuttle

>work, Space Communications Services, Safety Reliability and Quality
>Assurance, etc.

>It is hard to see how anyone could come up with a figure as low as

>$120 million for a shuttle launch.

Well, according to the figures you posted above, the marginal launch
costs (the ET and SRB's) come to $123 million. If the shuttle
workforce were able to work just one extra launch into the schedule
without increasing personnel or undue overtime, then why do you find
it so hard to believe the $120 million launch figure? Columbia's
relaunch costs will probably come out to about half that much, but
more on that later. :)

> The true figure for a reusable
>Shuttle-C is probably nearer $250 million,

I think you should account for the extra $130 million you are adding
into the figure.

> even using a crazy
>accounting scheme which does not factor in R&D costs or the cost
>of money.

What's that got to do with how much it costs to launch something?
You're talking about what it cost to build, not launch.

> Adding those in brings the cost up to $400 million or so
>depending on launch rate and R&D cost.

Well, we don't add in the space shuttle's development costs either,
so why should we do so for a Shuttle-C?

[Tom Abbott]

M R Atkinson <M.R.At...@nortel.com> wrote:

>>>>Tom Abbott wrote:

> [ snipped moon mission comparison ]

>> >>Comparison:
>> >>
>> >>Shuttle-C = $3.5 billion
>> >>Kistler = $8.885 billion
>> >>

>I hestitate to intrude into this thread but here goes:

>There are several factors, which neither of you seem to have taken
>into account.

>Firstly, the marginal cost of the shuttle (an increase
>from 7 to 8 flights per year) are probably quite low,

Thanks for your support, Mike. :)

> but the marginal
>cost of going from 7 to 12 flights per year will be proportionaly much
>higher.

It will probably be higher, but "much?" How much? The extra costs
may not be unreasonable and may be quite cost effective.

> This is because the existing facilities could cope with 8
>flights but not 12,

NASA is projecting 15 shuttle/shuttle-derived launches from KSC by
2007. I'm not aware that they are proposing an increase in
facilities, although that is certainly possible.

> also the manpower costs would not increase much
>as the existing workforce could probably cope with one more launch.

That is a major question to be answered. Another major question is
how much less processing time and manpower will a Shuttle-C require as
compared to a space shuttle. Boeing was claiming a 24-hour turnaround
on their Shuttle-C clone, so it doesn't sound like it would require a
whole lot of maintenance, certainly not as much as a space shuttle
which takes 3 or 4 months to process. You said above that you thought
NASA could probably squeeze one more extra flight in without
increasing processing costs, so are four Shuttle-C's equal to one
shuttle in processing time and manpower requirements? If so, does
this mean we could launch four Shuttle-C's with little extra cost
other than the marginal launch costs, if we can do one space shuttle
that way?

>Secondly, you really must account for the ROI on R&D for both
>Shuttle-C and Kistler, however the intrest on US Treasury Bonds (8% ?)
>is much less than that demanded by a venture capitalist (25% ?).

No I really don't think I have to account for ROI. NASA isn't in
the business of making money, they are in the business of spending
money, and they should spend as little as possible to accomplish any
particular goal. That is what NASA and the taxpayers should consider,
not "how can we jumpstart commercial space."

>Thirdly, amortization of R&D cost is the major component in a RLV,
>this must be accounted for in both Suttle-C (lets assume reusable for
>now) and Kistler.

No, no, no. Kistler is a private company and amortization is
necessary for them. Shuttle-C is government and doesn't have the need
to amortized anything. RLV proponents are the ones that need this.

> The Kistler figure of $17M per flight must assume
>some flight rate. This flight rate is probably pretty conservative
>and will be increased enormously for Moon or Mars missions. The cost
>of flights for Kistler will approach their marginal cost, probably in
>the $5M range.

Well, all I can go by is their published figure of $17 million per
flight. Keep in mind that they haven't flown yet and their vehicle
weight may increase so their flight cost may be higher than $17
million rather than lower. There are many, many unknowns in all this,
which is another plus for Shuttle-C: there are very few unknowns with
Shuttle-C.

>Fourth, the true cost of Moon missions will include far more
>than just the launch cost,

Yes, but the costs to put tonnage on the Moon is the point of
comparison for heavy-lift verses RLV. The other costs for Moon and
Mars missions would be common to both types of launch vehicles.

> anything which cuts down the R&D expenses
>even at the cost of increased launch is probably worth it.

It would be my contention that Shuttle-C requires less development
than the RLV, and has a higher degree of assurance of success.

> I'm not
>sure how this would pan out, but my guess is that many medium sized
>modules fitted together would make the cheapest solution,

No way will any scenario that uses multiple modules be cheaper than
a scenario that does no orbital assembly. The danger factor is also
much greater for a multiple module scenario. Orbital operations
aren't cheap or safe. The latest Soyuz automatic docking screwup
comes to mind.

> if so
>neither Kistler or Shuttle-C would be optimum. For Mars missions it
>seems that Mars Direct is about as cheap as you can get, which would
>favour something like Shuttle-C but slightly larger.

The larger the better. NASA's new "Magnum" heavy-lifter is
seriously underpowered, but maybe that's just for making the pitch to
Congress, and when they do get funding, they'll pop up and say, "Oh,
we just have to add that fourth SSME to Shuttle-C's boattail, Senator.
It will cut our launch rate and costs in half, and will eliminate the
danger of orbital assembly." And the Senator will say, "Well, if
that's the case, go right ahead." Hey, I can dream, can't I! :)

>Lastly, having listened to the arguements my best estimate of costs
>would be:

>500t/year to LEO

> Shuttle-C (reusable) - $4m/t
> Shuttle-C (non-reusable) - $4.2m/t
> Kistler - $2m/t

Of course, I disagree with your figures. You didn't figure the
costs of orbital assembly into Kistler's figure, for example.

>However I consider the extra R&D cost associated with breaking payloads
>into 4.5t chunks

The payloads won't even be 4.5 ton chunks since 4.5 tons is the
maximum load for Kistler, and some of that weight is accounted for by
the cargo container.

> probably means that they would come out about the
>same in overall mission costs.

I figured that Shuttle-C's $3 billion development cost would be
cancelled out by the $3 billion Kistler would have to spend (or NASA)
to handle Kistler's several dozen modules on-orbit. And that's just
for the first Moon mission. After that, Shuttle-C launches its next
payload for the marginal launch cost ($100 million) plus any
processing costs, while Kistler's cost for the next mission is about
$227 million plus an unknown amount for orbital assembly costs. Each
subsequent Shuttle-C launch saves the taxpayers $100 million+ over
Kistler, not to mention eliminating the need to assemble 25 or 30
modules into something in orbit. ISS only has about 12 modules. What
does that tell you?.

[pat]

In article <5soate$e...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>
>>In article <5r7i

> The only costs the taxpayers should be interested in is how much
>total will it cost to place our Moonbase on the Moon and how much
>total will it cost to support that Moonbase. Shuttle-C wins every
>time over RLV, when the bottom line is considered.
>
> Return on investment, and amortization are diversions from the
>taxpayer's bottom line.
>
>Tom Abbott
>

the taxpayers bottom line is affected by ROI, and amortization.

sorry your favorite solutions dies on this.

pat

[pat]

In article <5soh28$e...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...
>
>M R Atkinson

> Well, all I can go by is their published figure of $17 million per
>flight. Keep in mind that they haven't flown yet and their vehicle
>weight may increase so their flight cost may be higher than $17
>million rather than lower. There are many, many unknowns in all this,
>which is another plus for Shuttle-C: there are very few unknowns with
>Shuttle-C.

and all the knowns point to what a disastrously expensive
elephant a shuttle-C will be.

You just keep denying that all those millions are real money.

>
>>Fourth, the true cost of Moon missions will include far more
>>than just the launch cost,
>
> Yes, but the costs to put tonnage on the Moon is the point of
>comparison for heavy-lift verses RLV. The other costs for Moon and
>Mars missions would be common to both types of launch vehicles.
>

however, if a working RLV is up and running, then what is the
business decision to expand a Kistler or Kelly or Pioneer vehicle
to 10 ton payloads?

somehow businesses make better decisions then governments do
on business decisions. funny how that works out.

>> anything which cuts down the R&D expenses
>>even at the cost of increased launch is probably worth it.
>
> It would be my contention that Shuttle-C requires less development
>than the RLV, and has a higher degree of assurance of success.
>

it requires less technical risk, until you start re-using it, then
you acquire ton's of risk. salt water immersion, sinking,
TPS damage...

>> I'm not
>>sure how this would pan out, but my guess is that many medium sized
>>modules fitted together would make the cheapest solution,
>
> No way will any scenario that uses multiple modules be cheaper than
>a scenario that does no orbital assembly. The danger factor is also
>much greater for a multiple module scenario. Orbital operations

That is a raw assumption, not a factual statement.

>aren't cheap or safe. The latest Soyuz automatic docking screwup
>comes to mind.

funny how they managed to dock anyways.

>
>> if so
>>neither Kistler or Shuttle-C would be optimum. For Mars missions it
>>seems that Mars Direct is about as cheap as you can get, which would
>>favour something like Shuttle-C but slightly larger.
>
> The larger the better. NASA's new "Magnum" heavy-lifter is
>seriously underpowered, but maybe that's just for making the pitch to
>Congress, and when they do get funding, they'll pop up and say, "Oh,
>we just have to add that fourth SSME to Shuttle-C's boattail, Senator.
>It will cut our launch rate and costs in half, and will eliminate the
>danger of orbital assembly." And the Senator will say, "Well, if
>that's the case, go right ahead." Hey, I can dream, can't I! :)
>

the senate will say "GO right ahead, don't exceed budget cap
or slip schedule, or redesign, to meet costs and schedule"

this is what occurs.

[Tom Abbott]

gher...@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:

>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>> What's this hangup you have with amortization? NASA isn't a
>>commercial entity.

>Simple. Investing the People's money should use the same assumptions
>as general economics uses for corporate and any other investment.

George, you are arguing a different subject here. At first the
argument was whether it was cheaper to do Moon/Mars missions using
Shuttle-C heavy-lift or using new RLV's. And my assertion was that
the total cost of a Moon/Mars mission was much less if launched by a
heavy-lift vehicle than if launched by RLV's.

Now, it seems you are saying that we shouldn't count the bottom line
for a certain project, but instead you make the argument that putting
Shuttle-C's money into RLV's is an "investment" which presumably will
pay off in some unknown future.

This is the reason to use amortization and other economic
manipulations: to try to justify RLV's. It won't work for anyone who
cares to look at the bottom line. You can't amortirize out of
existence the fact that for a Moon program, Heavy-lift will cost the
taxpayers about half what an RLV would cost to put a base on the Moon.
If you want a good investment, here it is.

>Just because it's a government entity doesn't mean it should ignore
>the implications of spending money now and later, different options,
>the costs and benefits of those options.

I absolutely agree and think heavy-lift is just as viable in this
game as any other kind of launch vehicle. In fact, heavy-lift is the
most viable of all options for some jobs.

>It has, as I stated repeatedly, now become standard to calculate
>rates of return in government engineering projects as well as
>in commercial activities.

It's a smokescreen in this case.

> You don't just throw money at things
>and sink costs; you have to account for whether it's going to
>give you benefits later, and that accounting is by return on investment
>methods.

That's one method. There are other methods, which I'll be happy to
show you.

>It's particularly pernicious to try and compare a commercial system
>which requires covering capital costs in its overall cost methodology
>with a government funded project which breaks the current guidelines
>and fails to address ROI concerns.

No, it isn't. All you have to figure is which one costs the most to
the taxpayer to perform a certain task. Once this information is
known, you pick the one that costs the least.

> For apples and apples, compare
>the identical projects with fully commercial funding methodologies
>including ROI, and then again with your government-sunk-funds-
>are-sunk methodology assuming NASA decided to develop the K-1
>instead of Kistler doing it commercially (or with your favorite
>alternative vehicle, or better with all of them).

Don't take this the wrong way, George, but these kinds of
methodologies obscure the real situation, as far as NASA and the space
program and the taxpayers are concerned, IMO.

[Jacob McGuire]

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 12-Aug-97 Re: Lowering Launch
Costs by Tom Abb...@intellex.com

> This is the reason to use amortization and other economic
>manipulations: to try to justify RLV's.

Heh.

I'd be careful making such statements, as one of these days, someone
is going to come out and say "Fine. Only marginal costs matter.
VentureStar can launch 50,000 pounds into LEO at a marginal cost of
$20M."

Then what are you going to say?

Not much, I predict.

(Hint: amortizing development costs is NOT the way to make RLV's look good)

--
Jake McGuire mcg...@andrew.cmu.edu
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're
talking about some real money - Sen Everett Dirksen

[Jacob McGuire]

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 14-Aug-97 Re: Lowering Launch
Costs by p...@clark.net

>>> This is the reason to use amortization and other economic
>>>manipulations: to try to justify RLV's.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> I'd be careful making such statements, as one of these days, someone
>>is going to come out and say "Fine. Only marginal costs matter.
>>VentureStar can launch 50,000 pounds into LEO at a marginal cost of
>>$20M."
>>
>> Then what are you going to say?
>

>I'm going to say VS is too damn expensive, and stupid.
>
>Of course, this is pretty close to what i say now.

Well, obviously. In what way does this relate to what I posted? I
was merely attempting to refute Tom's assertion that amortization and
other economic manipulations were used to justify RLV development, by
pointing out that if you use the same accounting techniques that he uses
for Shuttle-C, on an RLV, the RLV looks dramatically better.

RLV advocates use amortization issues mainly to be honest, and to
advocate smaller rather than larger RLV's.

>
> Um Jake.
>
> I have 2 masters in business and public administration, along with
> my BS. I am not trying to make anything 'Look Good', as a Advocate
> of the Space-Frontier Foundation, I want things to 'Be Good'.

So?

> That to me means getting Real costs, not marginal costs down to some
> arbitrary figure.

I agree totally. Again, I was merely pointing out that even using
bogus "marginal cost" arguments, doing an "apples-to-apples" comparison
leaves Shuttle-C less attractive than RLV.

[pat]

In article <UnwTFSS00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu
says...
>
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 12-Aug-97 Re: Lowering Launch
>Costs by Tom Abb...@intellex.com

>> This is the reason to use amortization and other economic
>>manipulations: to try to justify RLV's.
>
> Heh.
>
> I'd be careful making such statements, as one of these days, someone
>is going to come out and say "Fine. Only marginal costs matter.
>VentureStar can launch 50,000 pounds into LEO at a marginal cost of
>$20M."
>
> Then what are you going to say?

I'm going to say VS is too damn expensive, and stupid.

Of course, this is pretty close to what i say now.

>

> Not much, I predict.
>
> (Hint: amortizing development costs is NOT the way to make RLV's look
good)
>

Um Jake.

I have 2 masters in business and public administration, along with
my BS. I am not trying to make anything 'Look Good', as a Advocate
of the Space-Frontier Foundation, I want things to 'Be Good'.

That to me means getting Real costs, not marginal costs down to some
arbitrary figure.

pat

[pat]

I'm sorry jake, I totally misunderstood your posting.
I am sorry for wasting your time.

pat

[Nothing new follows]
In article <UnwjdTy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu
says...
>
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 14-Aug-97 Re: Lowering Launch
>Costs by p...@clark.net

>>>> This is the reason to use amortization and other economic
>>>>manipulations: to try to justify RLV's.
>>>
>>> Heh.
>>>
>>> I'd be careful making such statements, as one of these days, someone
>>>is going to come out and say "Fine. Only marginal costs matter.
>>>VentureStar can launch 50,000 pounds into LEO at a marginal cost of
>>>$20M."
>>>
>>> Then what are you going to say?
>>
>>I'm going to say VS is too damn expensive, and stupid.
>>
>>Of course, this is pretty close to what i say now.
>

> Well, obviously. In what way does this relate to what I posted? I
>was merely attempting to refute Tom's assertion that amortization and
>other economic manipulations were used to justify RLV development, by
>pointing out that if you use the same accounting techniques that he uses
>for Shuttle-C, on an RLV, the RLV looks dramatically better.
>
> RLV advocates use amortization issues mainly to be honest, and to
>advocate smaller rather than larger RLV's.
>
>>

>> Um Jake.
>>
>> I have 2 masters in business and public administration, along with
>> my BS. I am not trying to make anything 'Look Good', as a Advocate
>> of the Space-Frontier Foundation, I want things to 'Be Good'.
>

> So?

>
>> That to me means getting Real costs, not marginal costs down to some
>> arbitrary figure.
>

[Jeff Greason]

In article <UnwjdTy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jacob McGuire
<mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

|> I agree totally. Again, I was merely pointing out that even using
|> bogus "marginal cost" arguments, doing an "apples-to-apples" comparison
|> leaves Shuttle-C less attractive than RLV.

Correct. Actually, I thought your post was pretty good. RLV advocates
generally talk about costs including amortization of the vehicles because
they want to see some company start flying on a for-profit basis, and
that means those costs can't just be wished away.

But if you want to argue marginal costs, expendables look awful. If you
want to argue costs including amortization, they actually look less bad,
since the development cost is lower than an RLV.

Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.
============================================================================
Jeff Greason "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
<gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> and do the other things, not because they
<gre...@ix.netcom.com> are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK

[pat]

In article <5t9vn5$1ql$1...@news.or.intel.com>, gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com says...

>
>
>In article <UnwjdTy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jacob McGuire
><mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>|> I agree totally. Again, I was merely pointing out that even using
>|> bogus "marginal cost" arguments, doing an "apples-to-apples" comparison
>|> leaves Shuttle-C less attractive than RLV.
>

the other thing is that even if RLV is more expensive then an HLV
for Mars and moon missions, it'd still be preferable in that
an RLV will be a lower cost entry solution, needing no DDTE,
meaning a scalable MARS solution can get on line.

if RLV only can put 1 ton on mars, then we start determining how to
do mars in 1 ton packages. or we grow a slightly larger economical
2nd generation RLV, for much cheaper then a HLV that becomes a
lawn ornament in fron of MSFC.

pat

[Tom Abbott]

p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:

>In article <5t9vn5$1ql$1...@news.or.intel.com>, gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com says...
>>
>>
>>In article <UnwjdTy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jacob McGuire
>><mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>|> I agree totally. Again, I was merely pointing out that even using
>>|> bogus "marginal cost" arguments, doing an "apples-to-apples" comparison
>>|> leaves Shuttle-C less attractive than RLV.
>>

>the other thing is that even if RLV is more expensive then an HLV
>for Mars and moon missions, it'd still be preferable in that
>an RLV will be a lower cost entry solution, needing no DDTE,
>meaning a scalable MARS solution can get on line.

Pat, so even if HLV is cheaper, you would rather go with the other
option. Is that it? If you want to subsidize RLV, just say so, and
maybe we can work out a separate program for you.

>if RLV only can put 1 ton on mars, then we start determining how to
>do mars in 1 ton packages.

Doing Mars in one-ton packages will be much more costly and riskier
than doing Mars using direct-launch heavy-lift, for the next decade or
so.

> or we grow a slightly larger economical
>2nd generation RLV, for much cheaper then a HLV

Why don't we just do that now and skip the intermediate RLV steps?
Answer: that may take SOME time. Especially, considering that even
the first generation of RLV has yet to fly successfully.

We can do heavy-lift (HLV) right now. Let's get busy.

> that becomes a
>lawn ornament in fron of MSFC.

I think there will always be a requirement to move large amounts of
tonnage in the most efficient way. Shuttle-C may be just the start.

[pat]

In article <5ti2kp$t...@usenet45.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>
>
>>the other thing is that even if RLV is more expensive then an HLV
>>for Mars and moon missions, it'd still be preferable in that
>>an RLV will be a lower cost entry solution, needing no DDTE,
>>meaning a scalable MARS solution can get on line.
>
> Pat, so even if HLV is cheaper, you would rather go with the other
>option. Is that it? If you want to subsidize RLV, just say so, and
>maybe we can work out a separate program for you.
>

no, i want a system where I can reasonably run a program without depending
upon new start money.

to do an HLV, means 3-4 billion minimum in DDTE dollars, plus, for
30 tons of hardware plus 16 billion dollars in DDTE for surface
hab gear. that means 20 billion before we get to orbit.(and i'm
being generous, it's much more like 80-160 billion)

the probability of getting that funding in a continous lump,
in a short enough time to avoid technology fade is almost zero.

if we use an existing RLV, that means no DDTE, and I can architect
a mission, using 1 ton increments, meaning $10-80 Million dollar
annual funding wedges, and if the systems can be interconnected
or inter-operated, a series of un-manned/manned support missions
can be built over this each mission will avoid technolgy fade,
political risk and stagnation.

waiting 20 years to get a project going is unacceptable in the
21st century, which is what your mission will do.

>>if RLV only can put 1 ton on mars, then we start determining how to
>>do mars in 1 ton packages.
>
> Doing Mars in one-ton packages will be much more costly and riskier
>than doing Mars using direct-launch heavy-lift, for the next decade or
>so.

pathfinder puts the lie to that assertion.

>
>> or we grow a slightly larger economical
>>2nd generation RLV, for much cheaper then a HLV
>
> Why don't we just do that now and skip the intermediate RLV steps?
>Answer: that may take SOME time. Especially, considering that even
>the first generation of RLV has yet to fly successfully.
>

the market is there for a light RLV, a mars mission will create
a market for a 2nd generation RLV, if the feds want to make a
market great, but why create a new zeppelin?

> We can do heavy-lift (HLV) right now. Let's get busy.
>
>> that becomes a
>>lawn ornament in fron of MSFC.
>
> I think there will always be a requirement to move large amounts of
>tonnage in the most efficient way. Shuttle-C may be just the start.

to date, the only requirement to move heavy tonnage was Apollo.
where are the remaining saturns? lawn ornaments at KSC.

the historical record shows that in the thousands of launches done
by humans, only about 25 have required heavy lift and even apollo
could have been done by the C-3 saturn, and possibly created a
space infra-structure.

pat

[Jim Chestek]

In article <5ti2kp$t...@usenet45.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom
Abbott) wrote:

> p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>
> >In article <5t9vn5$1ql$1...@news.or.intel.com>, gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com says...
> >
>

> >if RLV only can put 1 ton on mars, then we start determining how to
> >do mars in 1 ton packages.
>
> Doing Mars in one-ton packages will be much more costly and riskier
> than doing Mars using direct-launch heavy-lift, for the next decade or
> so.
>

Tom; Knock it off with this HLV nonsense. You are preaching to the
choir, and even the choir does not believe. HLV is NOT going to happen
for a very long time to come, so why not give it up and put your energies
into something that CAN happen, such as CATS. (aka RLV)

I don't think anybody is seriously talking about doing Mars in one ton
packages. Only the tiny start-up companies are talking of a couple of
tons to LEO. Venture Star is talking 10 tons or more to LEO. That will
translate into several tons to Mars, depending upon the type of propulsion
used. On orbit assemble on ten ton chunks into a viable Mars expedition is
not something to be feared, but offers a chance to really learn how to
operate in LEO. Building such an expedition with hundred pound blocks
would be a formidible challenge, but at ten tons, each element can be
pretty much self contained, so that hooking them together will be a simple
matter.

Jim Chestek che...@widomaker.com
co-author of "Doomsday Asteroid"

*** Asteroids will be our friends if we will meet them halfway. ***

[StarFurie]

In article <5tj1kt$8...@clarknet.clark.net>, p...@clark.net (pat) writes:

>ball park, i'd guess 2 tons at a minimum, 5 tons maybe if
>you want to be conservative.
>
>Fairchild did some studies on extensible satellites, and had
>some good results in small packages.
>
>pat

A big question here is what type of mission are you flying. Is it a fast
dash, a slow cruise, or a split-sprint mission? Are you slowing down with
fuel or aerobreaking? Are you taking adavantage of indigenus <sp?> fuel?
Are you using inflateable structures or solid Al? There are a lot of
variables here that need to be pinned down before we can decide on what's a
good launcher for the mission.

Star...@aol.com
"No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars or sailed to an
uncharted land or opened a new heaven to the human spirit." - Helen Keller
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province." - Francis Bacon
"Human kind cannot bear very much reality." - T. S. Eliot

[Tom Abbott]

che...@widomaker.com (Jim Chestek) wrote:

>In article <5ti2kp$t...@usenet45.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom
>Abbott) wrote:

>> p...@clark.net (pat) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5t9vn5$1ql$1...@news.or.intel.com>, gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com says...
>> >
>>
>> >if RLV only can put 1 ton on mars, then we start determining how to
>> >do mars in 1 ton packages.
>>
>> Doing Mars in one-ton packages will be much more costly and riskier
>> than doing Mars using direct-launch heavy-lift, for the next decade or
>> so.
>>

> Tom; Knock it off with this HLV nonsense. You are preaching to the
>choir, and even the choir does not believe. HLV is NOT going to happen
>for a very long time to come,

Hi, Jim. Well, NASA claims they're going to build an HLV for manned
Mars missions. You say we don't have a formal Mars mission? You're
correct, but NASA is going to build a new vacuum chamber which they
say is specifically for testing equipment for a manned Mars mission.
Looks to me like NASA is going ahead with the infrastructure even
though there isn't a formal proposal. HLV may be closer than you
think.

> so why not give it up and put your energies
>into something that CAN happen, such as CATS. (aka RLV)

We've had this argument before haven't we. :) I think CATS will
take care of itself in its own good time, although I would be happy to
help it along in every way possible, short of killing the manned space
program.

> I don't think anybody is seriously talking about doing Mars in one ton
>packages.

I believe Pat was serious when he proposed it.

> Only the tiny start-up companies are talking of a couple of
>tons to LEO. Venture Star is talking 10 tons or more to LEO. That will
>translate into several tons to Mars, depending upon the type of propulsion
>used.

Yes, but how much is 10 tons to low-Earth orbit going to cost using
VentureStar? Remember all those promises made for the space shuttle?
Sure you do.

> On orbit assemble on ten ton chunks into a viable Mars expedition is
>not something to be feared, but offers a chance to really learn how to
>operate in LEO. Building such an expedition with hundred pound blocks
>would be a formidible challenge, but at ten tons, each element can be
>pretty much self contained, so that hooking them together will be a simple
>matter.

You sound like Dan Goldin describing the international space station
assembly process, and he's doing it in 20-ton chunks. No problem, he
says. We'll see.

Direct-launch Heavy-lift would eliminate all these questions.
On-orbit assembly of anything is a big unknown, whereas heavy-lift is
straightforward. Initial space development and exploration should be
done in the least complicated manner possible, and that means
heavy-lift. Let's leave the surprises to Mir and ISS.

[George Herbert]

Jeff Greason <gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote:
>gher...@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert) writes:
>|> Ok, we have an idea that breaking missions up into
>|> smaller pieces hits a point of diminishing returns, where
>|> the problems caused by assembly in orbit become more than
>|> those avoided by not having to make larger launchers.
>|> So, now that we all agree on that basic idea (I think),
>|> where is that point? 1 ton too small? 5 tons? 10 tons?
>
>I haven't looked at this as seriously as you have for Lunar
>Millenium, but I'd say the best near-term use is likely to
>be a mix of one or two "mid-size" payloads and a whole lot
>of RLV flights of arbitrarily small size.

Possibly, however....

>As I posted a few days back, just taking out food & water
>from a Mars-Direct hab stack gets it down to Proton/Ariane-5/
>Titan IV/Shuttle weight capabilities. If I were planning one
>to lift off between 2002 and 2007, I'd plan it on that basis.
>I'd design the biggest piece not to exceed the smallest of
>those vehicles (Ariane 5), so I'd be darned sure that no
>matter what, I'd still have a launcher around (the probability
>of *all* these vehicles being out of service before 2007,
>without a similar-sized replacement coming on line, is
>very small). If a Venture-Star class RLV comes on line, it
>can carry these also, but we don't have to count on that.

If you want to launch in 2002 we're 3-5 years behind schedule
for starting the Mars EVA suit development. But I digress...

>That gets you ~20 tons and ~200 cubic meters of volume. If
>you need more volume for something, use an inflatable.

I poked around at the starting parameters and I think that the
winner for minimum useful size is 5 tons. That was based on assuming:
* 2 crew per "module"
* minimum module size has to have 7-day life support
capability in emergency completely built in to the
module, but not recycling for long term LS or long
term consumables, and that unit has to launch in one
pre-integrated piece
* module should include aerobrake/landing

Obviously a complete vehicle will need modules with the rest
of the long term components, but they all seem to be logically
dividable by function, whereas a life-pod module for the crew
to retreat to in an emergency really should be done all up
on the ground and all tuned just right before launch.
I also don't want those modules having to be integrated with
aeroshells and landing hardware in flight.

At a first approximation, entry and landing hardware is 25% of
module gross mass. The people and their life support hardware
to above spec mass in at around 650 kg. Sizing the pressure
vessel to large enough that it's a useful living space (if the
"rooms" are too small then they'll drive people nuts, even if
there are a lot of them) gives about 4.5 meter diameter.
That pressure vessel ends up massing about 1500 kg, though
that was a fairly conservative design for the cabin.
Put that all together and the absolute minimum module
is about 3 tons. 4 tons has 850 kg of useful mass for
other hardware (such as, for example, electrical power
and guidance hardware... not yet factored in 8-).
5 tons has about 1600 kg of useful mass beyond the
minimum requirements.

One additional driver in size is that you hit a limit
on rover size based on the module size. I think that some
of the utility analysies of rovers have underestimated the
size required to support 2 people for a week out on a
traverse and get useful things done and tend to lean
towards 2-4 ton pressurized traverse rovers being much
more useful than smaller ones.

>Now I'd design the rest to go up in logistics flights. We
>can have a few pieces (like the propellant tanks), go up
>in ~7000 lb. pieces. That would fit on the larger private
>RLV's (Kistler, possibly ROTON-C), and if not, ELV options
>abound. The rest should be in ~3000-4000 lb pieces at most,
>but since the overwhelming majority of the remaining mass
>is water, food, and propellant, it isn't sensitive to the
>size of the piece. However, we *do* need a demonstrated
>high-readiness on-orbit cryogenic transfer technology; NASA
>still has time to demonstrate that cheaply before serious
>mission planning would begin.

Good thinking.

>You certainly can do it without the "one big piece"; but
>I suspect in the near term accepting one large piece that's
>within the capability of the upper end of commercial launchers
>saves most of the complexity.
>
>This way, you don't ever have to do on orbit assembly except
>docking, transferring packages, and pumping propellant.

Docking modules together should be an acceptable approach,
although what functions need to be shared, and the number
of modules, need further analysis. I personally muchly
like larger modules for crew cabins but have a gut feeling
we're overestimating the difficulties of smaller ones,
hence the analysis.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gher...@crl.com

[George Herbert]

Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>gher...@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert) wrote:
>>One thing to keep in mind is that we're not talking about
>>launching people off until 2010 or so at the earliest
>>(and that would be pushing a whole lot). Allowing the
>>architecture to stay flexible for several more years as
>>we watch the various CATS options sort themselves out
>>some more is probably a wise choice.
>
> I don't know, George. I sure would hate for the US space program to
>sit around for ANOTHER 20 years waiting for something to happen.

I don't think anyone wants to sit around doing nothing.
However, a few things we definitely need before a go commit:
* MGS grade imagery of much of the surface
* better chemical and mineralogical data
* sample return

We need these to plan in detail where to go and with what,
and design parameters for the surface hardware.
We won't have all that until 2002 at best and likely 2004 or 2006.
If you want to go right now, we need to start flying 4 or more
unmanned probes each launch window, not 1-2. Goldin seems to
be enthusiastic, but not *that* enthusiastic.

Part of the argument for waiting a bit is that we may well be in
a significant period of change in launch services; waiting to see
where we end up may enable significant additional cost savings or
capabilities. I have no desire to spend 3 years R&D and 6-7 billion
dollars and have Congress tell me "No, you can't spend $4 billion
more on a Shuttle-C, the reusables are ten times cheaper and we
want to cancel the whole shuttle program, S-C included, right now.
Start over again using them."

>> Ok, we have an idea that breaking missions up into
>>smaller pieces hits a point of diminishing returns, where
>>the problems caused by assembly in orbit become more than
>>those avoided by not having to make larger launchers.
>>So, now that we all agree on that basic idea (I think),
>>where is that point? 1 ton too small? 5 tons? 10 tons?
>

> For the habitat, I think 20 tons is minimum. That's about the size
>of a space station module, which is pretty cramped, IMO. The solution
>for the habitat is right under our nose, though. NASA can deliver
>more ET's to orbit than you or they can use, and you won't find a
>better, cheaper, or more spacious habitat anywhere. So now the
>question is: can you outfit an ET in orbit just using RLV pilots, and
>without having orbital facilities available, other than what is
>carried on the pilot's vehicle?

I think we can dock modules together with just RLV pilots.
Internal fitout probably takes dedicated staff on orbit,
and is much more difficult....

I also suspect we can go under 20 tons, though we'll find out
with more analysis.

[George Herbert]

Frank Crary <fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:

>George Herbert <gher...@crl7.crl.com> wrote:
>>>As I posted a few days back, just taking out food & water
>>>from a Mars-Direct hab stack gets it down to Proton/Ariane-5/
>>>Titan IV/Shuttle weight capabilities. If I were planning one
>>>to lift off between 2002 and 2007, I'd plan it on that basis.
>>

>>If you want to launch in 2002 we're 3-5 years behind schedule
>>for starting the Mars EVA suit development. But I digress...
>

>George, I think you are getting a little too used to current
>industry practices. Expecting it would take 8-10 years to
>develop the suits is a heavily padded estimate. I'm fairly
>sure Retro could do it in under years. We've already got
>the basic concept. At this point, we'd need to do some tests
>to validate my bioheat transfer model, design the suit layup
>based on the idea, redesign the existing PLSS hardware by
>deleting items, outsource the production and test the design.
>I really doubt that would take eight years.

Sure, it's padded, because there is no way in hell I am going to
give any number in public that might possibly lead to my sitting
there in front of congress explaining why the Mars mission can't
launch on time because I haven't made the silly space suits work
yet, with the eyes of the whole world watching my discomfort on
CSPAN the whole time...

Good managers double most cost and time estimates.
Really Really Good managers do that and then turn the
product in in half the time and cost they announced.
It's safer to use the longer estimates and insist that
the middle managers work towards the real half-ish time
target, leaving the rest for handling accidents, slips
that can't be avoided, failed R&D elements etc.
On any big enough project something will go wrong
somewhere and if you haven't planned around that you
end up with overall slips and egg on your face.

[Frank Crary]

In article <5ttnqb$k...@crl7.crl.com>,

George Herbert <gher...@crl7.crl.com> wrote:
>> I don't know, George. I sure would hate for the US space program to
>>sit around for ANOTHER 20 years waiting for something to happen.

>I don't think anyone wants to sit around doing nothing.
>However, a few things we definitely need before a go commit:
> * MGS grade imagery of much of the surface
> * better chemical and mineralogical data
> * sample return
>We need these to plan in detail where to go and with what,
>and design parameters for the surface hardware.

I disagree. Note, for example, that no data of this sort was available
concerning the Moon, when the Apollo program started, and the chemical
data and sample returns came, for the most part, from the Apollo missions
themselves. All the things you list would be nice, but I don't think
they are necessary for a manned Mars mission. They certainly aren't
necessary at the start of the program (i.e. five to ten years before
the first launch.) Many aspects of a manned Mars mission can be
developed without this information. As long as you fix the payload
which must be delivered to the surface, you can start work on the
launch vehicle, life support system, etc. and put off the design
of the surface hardware until you have more data. How you get to
Mars isn't significantly affected by what you plan to do once you
land (except for very basic issues like a week versus a couple of years
stay time.) That's important, because you can start work on the items
that will take longest to develop. The life support system, for
example, has to keep working for perhaps five years, while the
surface hardware only has to work on the surface (26 months, if memory
serves.) That means adequate testing of the life support system
would take at least three years longer than testing of the surface
hardware. Starting on the life support system before you fix the
details of the surface hardware would safe alot of time. The same
applies to a number of other items. In addition, if the mission
plans to use in situ fuels, the source of resources would almost
certainly be the atmosphere of Mars. We understand the atmosphere
of Mars and (with the Pathfinder data) the dust environment well
enough that we could start work on a fuel plant today. (Strictly
speaking, we actually started work on it several years ago...)

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

[Frank Crary]

In article <5ttlfq$k...@crl7.crl.com>,

George Herbert <gher...@crl7.crl.com> wrote:
>>As I posted a few days back, just taking out food & water
>>from a Mars-Direct hab stack gets it down to Proton/Ariane-5/
>>Titan IV/Shuttle weight capabilities. If I were planning one
>>to lift off between 2002 and 2007, I'd plan it on that basis.
>

>If you want to launch in 2002 we're 3-5 years behind schedule
>for starting the Mars EVA suit development. But I digress...

George, I think you are getting a little too used to current

industry practices. Expecting it would take 8-10 years to
develop the suits is a heavily padded estimate. I'm fairly
sure Retro could do it in under years. We've already got
the basic concept. At this point, we'd need to do some tests
to validate my bioheat transfer model, design the suit layup
based on the idea, redesign the existing PLSS hardware by
deleting items, outsource the production and test the design.
I really doubt that would take eight years.

>One additional driver in size is that you hit a limit

>on rover size based on the module size. I think that some
>of the utility analysies of rovers have underestimated the
>size required to support 2 people for a week out on a
>traverse and get useful things done and tend to lean
>towards 2-4 ton pressurized traverse rovers being much
>more useful than smaller ones.

I agree, but I don't think this affects the required launch mass.
You can play some games with the traverse rover designs and
get it down to one tonne components. The NASA reference mission
assumes that all traverses will involve at least two rover
(so one can help the other if it gets stuck, and so there is
a way to return to the landing site if one brakes and can't be
fixed.) So they are really talking about two, one tonne rovers,
which is more comfortable than one, one tonne rover and easier
to land that a single rover of twice the size. But I still think
that's not big enough: The one tonne rover concepts have about
as much room as a mid-sized car. In an emergency, two people
could share that much space for a week or two without killing
each other, and one person could deal with it for a nominal
traverse. But I don't think it leaves enough room for useful
work in addition to living space. But you can improve on that
while still landing one tonne components. A good alternative
(for a number of reasons) is a tractor-trailer combination.
Use the existing ideas for the tractor (i.e. make it a cab
that one, or in an emergency, two people can live in) and
have it tow another one tonne trailer, which would be a pressurized
compartment for additional room and working space. For a
minimal two-person traverse with two such rovers, you would
have three or four tonnes of pressurized volume (you might
want the second rover to tow something other than a pressurized
compartment...) which is the sort of mass you suggest. But you
wouldn't need to land anything larger than one tonne components.

However, the landed mass is not the only constraint, either for
rovers or habitat modules. An unfortunate fact is that they tend
to have a low density. I agree that a five tonne module would
give a modest but acceptable amount of living space, but I'm
not sure a RLV could launch it. Such a module would be long
and wide, relative to a five tonne commercial satellite. So we're
talking about the ability to launch a light but large object,
which means payload volume is as important a limit as payload mass.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

[George Herbert]

Brian S. Thorn <bth...@airmail.net> wrote:

>fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>>The one tonne rover concepts have about
>>as much room as a mid-sized car. In an emergency, two people
>>could share that much space for a week or two without killing
>>each other,
>

>Ah, but didn't Frank Borman and Jim Lovell do exactly that
>for two weeks aboard Gemini 7?

Yes, but they weren't getting out and doing serious physical
exercise (which EVAs will be, even with better suits...)
for 8 hrs a day and then having to sit cooped up in that
sort of space for the remaining 16 hrs/day.

Ideally that's one such rover per person during normal ops,
and they won't be doing EVAs during emergencies (much),
but personally I think it's not enough. In particular,
the space needed to don and doff suits isn't so small,
and you may well need to doff one and do emergency
repairs to it during an extended traverse...

[Jim Chestek]

In article <5to352$n...@usenet45.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom
Abbott) wrote:

>
> Yes, but how much is 10 tons to low-Earth orbit going to cost using
> VentureStar? Remember all those promises made for the space shuttle?
> Sure you do.
>

If LockMart makes their goal, 10 tones will cost $20 million. If they
don't come pretty close to that goal, then we (U.S./NASA/LockMart) needs
to pronounce the program a failure, and START OVER. Saying, XX preogram
is a afilure seems to be impossible for government agancies. XX vehicle
"was not validated in this test" seems to be as close to honesty as
government can handle.

Jim Chestek che...@widomaker.com or
72510...@compuserve.com

[Frank Crary]

In article <B47A29B529F0E679.754D68CC...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,

Brian S. Thorn <bth...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>The one tonne rover concepts have about
>>as much room as a mid-sized car. In an emergency, two people
>>could share that much space for a week or two without killing
>>each other,

>Ah, but didn't Frank Borman and Jim Lovell do exactly that
>for two weeks aboard Gemini 7?

Yes, and I would hardly call that good working conditions. For a
Mars traverse, you would want the crew to do daily EVAs, or at least
every other day. Some on-site analysis of samples is also desirable.
These things require a significantly greater amount of space than
a Gemini capsule or the space that would be available in a one tonne rover.
If they can't do those things, then you are just driving around, like
tourists who never get out of the car. I'm not sure if the Gemini 7
mission did _any_ EVAs, let alone a dozen. Under similar conditions,
I doubt that a Mars traverse could do any useful work.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

[Graham Nelson]

In article <5u7vt7$b...@lace.colorado.edu>, Frank Crary
<URL:mailto:fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:

[Prospect of two weeks in a small Mars rover cabin]

> Yes, and I would hardly call that good working conditions. For a
> Mars traverse, you would want the crew to do daily EVAs, or at least
> every other day. Some on-site analysis of samples is also desirable.
> These things require a significantly greater amount of space than
> a Gemini capsule or the space that would be available in a one tonne rover.

A significant problem with continually getting in and out of a tiny
cabin will be sand, too. The Apollo LM interiors became filthy with
lunar regolith-dust, which caked into all the wrinkles of the suits
and coated every instrument brought in. Some kind of vestibule or
airlock with a vacuum cleaner might be a godsend. And are the crew
going to wear space-suits continually for two weeks? Bear in mind
that the Gemini capsules were tiny, but at least zero-gravity allowed
the space to be well-used. The same won't hold on Mars.

> If they can't do those things, then you are just driving around, like
> tourists who never get out of the car. I'm not sure if the Gemini 7
> mission did _any_ EVAs, let alone a dozen. Under similar conditions,
> I doubt that a Mars traverse could do any useful work.

Actually, I wonder if a small unmanned rover teleoperated by an
astronaut back at a Hab site wouldn't be a good idea? There's a
lot to be said for sight-seeing. Site-seeing, it would be in this
case.

--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom

[Tom Abbott]

"Michael P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>

>>
>> Direct-launch Heavy-lift would eliminate all these questions.
>> On-orbit assembly of anything is a big unknown, whereas heavy-lift is
>> straightforward. Initial space development and exploration should be
>> done in the least complicated manner possible, and that means
>> heavy-lift. Let's leave the surprises to Mir and ISS.
>>

>---
>---
>---
>Tom, here I have a philosophical difference with you, as well as a
>caveat about your last sentence. ISS is scheduled to start happening
>next year, and as it progresses we should get a great deal of experience
>with assembly in space. Of course, the Russians already have some
>with the various modules they added to MIR.

>I believe the first requirement for long range exploration of
>both the Moon and Mars should be the development of an orbital
>space facility.

I agree with that, Mike.

> Practically, I believe this would best be
>accomplished by a combination of Heavy Launch Vehicles to
>put up fairly large units to be assembled in orbit and
>Reusable Launch Vehicles for resupply of consumables and
>personnel.

>Don't tell me both aren't capable of being done for economic
>reasons. For one thing, the RLVs have a wide range of other
>uses so, in time, they will be developed.

I have said on several occasions that we should and can afford to do
both RLV's and Heavy-lift.

>Speaking of time, the expected time period for the mission
>is very critical on what choices are made for a launch
>vehicle (See my reply to Geroge Herbert in another thread).

I would like to see it happen in my lifetime.

>Feel perfectly free to disagree with my opinions.

I very seldom do. :)

[Tom Abbott]

Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:

>tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:

>...
>> If VentureStar can't make their $20 million per launch claim, that
>> just makes Shuttle-C look even better than it already does.

>You really like VentureStar because it's designed by the same incompetents
>that are doing shuttle now.

I don't understand what you are getting at, Phil. I have no
particular affection for VentureStar. In fact, I have remained
neutral and have said very little about VentureStar, other than to
compare its claimed costs to a heavy-lift vehicle, the other day; and
VentureStar comes out second best in that calculation. Of course, all
other launch vehicles do, too. :)

>Have you considered the possibility of what VentureStar would do as built
>now, with its massive (for an RLV) payload? It isn't carrying 8 tons at a
>time; it's more like 30.

Could you elaborate?

[Phil Fraering]

tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:

> > If LockMart makes their goal, 10 tones will cost $20 million.
>

> Jim, this means LockMart can put one Moon/Mars mission in orbit for
> $240 million (120 tons to low-Earth orbit = 12 VentureStar launches @
> $20 million per launch), plus $3 billion in low-Earth orbit handling
> costs to handle VentureStar's 12 payloads. This is about the same
> cost as building and launching a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle to
> put 120 tons in low-Earth orbit in one launch.

If roton makes their goal with the bladed model, it'll cost
20,000 lbs * $ 50 = 1 million.

The best way to stop this sort of thing is to build another shuttle
type program and not achieve economies of scale in either launcher
construction or launch rate.

(And for those just tuning in, "economies of scale" refers to mass
production, not building something as big as possible. Detroit doesn't
build cars that seat 5000. They mass-produce.)

Nice job, Abbott... keep up the good work. If you succeed, we'll be
stuck here forever, except for a couple astronauts on another "flags
and footprints" mission, if they don't die on it.

Phil

Phil Fraering "Somewhere in the back of her mind, she had always
p...@globalreach.net had a vision of the Slowness as a stifling darkness
whirr... ching! lit at best by torches, the domain of cretins and
/Will work for *tape*/ mechanical calculators." - V. Vinge, _A Fire Upon The
Deep_

[Jeff Greason]

In article
<873enok...@lungold.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>, Phil
Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> writes:
|> glbr...@aol.com (GLBRAD01) writes:
|>
|> > Particularly galleons and 'East Indiamans'? Why do we have supertankers
|> > carrying oil around the world today, instead of thousands upon thousands
|> of
|> > smaller, faster, cheaper, tankers? Why do we have anything larger than
|> > light destroyers in the world's navies? We could have lots more of them.
|> > Why did we ever build supercarriers instead of hundreds of lighter,
|> > smaller, faster, cheaper, escort carriers?
|>
|> You have a point here. But you've forgotten: we got around to building
|> the big ships _after_ getting a handle on how to build the little ones.
|>
|> > I ask idiot questions because it is idiocy to keep on designing down
|> > space transport, only to have the smaller, faster, cheaper, few and fewer
|> > ever built naturally go into cost overruns and continuously push up prices
|> > to space.
|>
|> The current launch vehicle attempts to date have been the Saturn, the
|> Shuttle, Energia, and various expendables that haven't really been
|> serious attempts. Neither the Shuttle, Saturn, nor Energia have been
|> "smaller, faster, or cheaper."

Gentlemen, you're unlikely to ever convince anyone based on "dueling
analogies".

There probably is an optimum size for cargo transport from Earth to
orbit for chemical rockets; but nobody really knows what that is.

In any event, we are very far from having the luxury of worrying about
what that will be; and it depends sensitively on the size of the market.

While most people I know agree that the space launch market is elastic
to some degree (at least below a "threshold" price), *today's* market
is what drives available investment. Since today's market is relatively
small, and you *must* have a high flight rate (for ELV *or* RLV) for
reasonably low costs, that dictates a comparatively small vehicle as the
first problem tackled by commercial ventures.

Once the market has started to expand significantly, there will be
several vendors in different sizes of vehicle, and we will see whether
the market will pay a premium price for slightly larger loads. I happen
to think the optimum size will still be relatively small, but there's
really no way to be sure.

[GLBRAD01]

Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:

>glbr...@aol.com (GLBRAD01) writes:
>
Wrong comparisons.. .
>
>Actually, _for exploration_, the Portugese and Spanish used caravels that
>were usually under 75-100 feet in length. I know some of the ships on
>Columbus's expeditions were converted Basque trading/fishing vessels.
>
>> Particularly galleons and 'East Indiamans'? ...

>
>You have a point here. But you've forgotten: we got around to building
>the big ships _after_ getting a handle on how to build the little ones.
>
>> I ask idiot questions because it is idiocy to keep on designing down
>> space transport, only to have the smaller, faster, cheaper, few and fewer
>> ever built naturally go into cost overruns and continuously push up prices
>> to space.
>
>The current launch vehicle attempts to date have been the Saturn, the
>Shuttle, Energia, and various expendables that haven't really been
>serious attempts. Neither the Shuttle, Saturn, nor Energia have been
>"smaller, faster, or cheaper."
>

>Finally, keep in mind that carriers don't go into combat, and aren't
>meant to. The combat vehicles are usually a bunch of relatively small
>(compared to the carrier) fifty-ton fighters carried by the carrier.
>
>Look at the Battle of Midway. The Carriers did not engage the Japanese
>fleet; they launched little Scout Bomber Douglases that went and sank
>Japanese carriers and other vessels.
>
>And the backbone of the US battle effort in the Pacific was borne by
>submarines, which sank more than half the Japanese surface fleet.
>While the standard US fleet boat was a little larger than its equivalent
>in other navies, it was still much smaller than a battleship.
>
>> The difference the Santa Marias of Columbus's era made in the
>> Atlantic ...

>Only after they'd been opened up by the smaller ships.
>
>
>> Nothing to date but Saturn and Energia ...
>
>And those are the ones that are particularly vulnerable to bureaucratic
>shutdown. Heck, isn't the shuttle up there with Energia in takeoff mass?
>
>> implosion of the smallness in everything in space business). Even ISS is
>> far too small to ever be cost efficient in the ocean sea of space. Again,
>> as I said, I am not qualified to argue the science of engineering. I simply
>> know something about the history of mass and individual transportations,
>> sea, land, and air: What was success and what was failure, the when's of
>> success and failure, and the why's.
>> GLB (O'Neiller)
>
>
>Phil Fraering

The Santa Maria (117ft.) was the only decked ship. The Pinta and Nina
(both app. 50ft.) both caravels. You know your ships here.
The point I press though is upscaling. Columbus's second voyage out was
in 17 ships, with between 1,000 and 1,500 crew and colonists. Nothing from
the first voyage really justified such a costly effort. But upscaling
rather than down scaling worked. It was that second and larger effort that
anchored the whole future to self-sustainability, though it too did not
return a commercial profit anywhere near costs. But its purpose was first
colonization, then commerce and profit. That was Columbus's doing, his
priority demand as the base premise. With colonization as the accepted base
premise by the crown, rather than commerce or Christianization, the second
two did not have to show immediate returns on expenses and investment, only
the first had to be pursued as to means and carried out soonest. That is
not to say nobody began looking to profit immediately, just that it was not
the first motive, the most immediate or highest priority motive. A
permanent anchorage came first. With that came momentum which appears to
ease up on costs which in turn begins to allow returns over costs.
Colonization, as first priority for planning, means and ends, did the job
of acquiring time for commerce to get set and take off. The economy of time
was, even then, atrocious for commercial endeavor to be the immediate
motive, the first priority, though return was always at the top of the
dream list. Permanent anchorage, placement, in the new frontier had to come
first, as Columbus fought for, for his second and third voyages. The means
were then designed for that, and the rest followed in the natural order of
things human.
GLB (O'Neiller)

[GLBRAD01]

(And for those just tuning in, "economies of scale" refers to mass
production, not building something as big as possible. Detroit doesn't
build cars that seat 5000. They mass-produce.)

Nice job, Abbott... keep up the good work. If you succeed, we'll be
stuck here forever, except for a couple astronauts on another "flags
and footprints" mission, if they don't die on it.

Phil

Wrong comparisons. Why don't container companies mass produce aircraft
and/or boats small enough to carry one container apiece over the water ways
of the world? Why don't the airlines mass produce twin engine Lear jets to
carry all passengers and package freight between all world destinations,
rather than Boeing 7x7s and their like? Why not simply design down the size
of all loads carried more and more, rather than design up the shipping
carrying those loads? Why didn't the Portuguese, Spanish, English and
French mass produce the smaller and more efficient all waterway and all
purposeful Viking longboats to carry passengers and designed down freight
around the world's sea ways, instead of ever larger sailing ships?

Particularly galleons and 'East Indiamans'? Why do we have supertankers
carrying oil around the world today, instead of thousands upon thousands of
smaller, faster, cheaper, tankers? Why do we have anything larger than
light destroyers in the world's navies? We could have lots more of them.
Why did we ever build supercarriers instead of hundreds of lighter,
smaller, faster, cheaper, escort carriers?

I ask idiot questions because it is idiocy to keep on designing down
space transport, only to have the smaller, faster, cheaper, few and fewer
ever built naturally go into cost overruns and continuously push up prices

to space. The difference the Santa Marias of Columbus's era made in the
Atlantic was it was costly in size, costly to build and operate a ship that
big (for the era), but cheaper in cargo carrying per ship due to capacity
per ship and greater reusability in the long run of that carrying capacity
(not so many trips to get any specified amount of cargo or passengers to
their destination). It was and is the advantage of the larger, slower, more
initially expensive ship over the smaller, faster, cheaper, better Golden
Hind type. The larger and larger ships were the ships that truly opened up
the world's frontiers. Nothing to date but Saturn and Energia could be
considered large or larger. And the space frontier is not about to be
opened. It is the new sea, the new ocean. Little as I know of rocketry and
space transport to date, I've been taught seafaring history and economics.
In aspect, there isn't any difference in the two frontiers, the past's and
the future's, whatsoever. Larger transport is what will open it, not
smaller, no matter the numbers of the smaller (and from the get go, there
won't be as many as ten built of the smaller, before the cost causes

[Phil Fraering]

glbr...@aol.com (GLBRAD01) writes:

> Wrong comparisons. Why don't container companies mass produce aircraft
> and/or boats small enough to carry one container apiece over the water ways
> of the world? Why don't the airlines mass produce twin engine Lear jets to
> carry all passengers and package freight between all world destinations,
> rather than Boeing 7x7s and their like? Why not simply design down the size
> of all loads carried more and more, rather than design up the shipping
> carrying those loads? Why didn't the Portuguese, Spanish, English and
> French mass produce the smaller and more efficient all waterway and all
> purposeful Viking longboats to carry passengers and designed down freight
> around the world's sea ways, instead of ever larger sailing ships?

Actually, _for exploration_, the Portugese and Spanish used caravels that

were usually under 75-100 feet in length. I know some of the ships on
Columbus's expeditions were converted Basque trading/fishing vessels.

> Particularly galleons and 'East Indiamans'? Why do we have supertankers

> carrying oil around the world today, instead of thousands upon thousands of
> smaller, faster, cheaper, tankers? Why do we have anything larger than
> light destroyers in the world's navies? We could have lots more of them.
> Why did we ever build supercarriers instead of hundreds of lighter,
> smaller, faster, cheaper, escort carriers?

You have a point here. But you've forgotten: we got around to building

the big ships _after_ getting a handle on how to build the little ones.

> I ask idiot questions because it is idiocy to keep on designing down

> space transport, only to have the smaller, faster, cheaper, few and fewer
> ever built naturally go into cost overruns and continuously push up prices
> to space.

The current launch vehicle attempts to date have been the Saturn, the

Shuttle, Energia, and various expendables that haven't really been
serious attempts. Neither the Shuttle, Saturn, nor Energia have been
"smaller, faster, or cheaper."

Finally, keep in mind that carriers don't go into combat, and aren't
meant to. The combat vehicles are usually a bunch of relatively small
(compared to the carrier) fifty-ton fighters carried by the carrier.

Look at the Battle of Midway. The Carriers did not engage the Japanese
fleet; they launched little Scout Bomber Douglases that went and sank
Japanese carriers and other vessels.

And the backbone of the US battle effort in the Pacific was borne by
submarines, which sank more than half the Japanese surface fleet.
While the standard US fleet boat was a little larger than its equivalent
in other navies, it was still much smaller than a battleship.

> The difference the Santa Marias of Columbus's era made in the

> Atlantic was it was costly in size, costly to build and operate a ship that
> big (for the era), but cheaper in cargo carrying per ship due to capacity
> per ship and greater reusability in the long run of that carrying capacity
> (not so many trips to get any specified amount of cargo or passengers to
> their destination). It was and is the advantage of the larger, slower, more
> initially expensive ship over the smaller, faster, cheaper, better Golden
> Hind type. The larger and larger ships were the ships that truly opened up
> the world's frontiers.

Only after they'd been opened up by the smaller ships.

> Nothing to date but Saturn and Energia could be
> considered large or larger.

And those are the ones that are particularly vulnerable to bureaucratic

shutdown. Heck, isn't the shuttle up there with Energia in takeoff mass?

> implosion of the smallness in everything in space business). Even ISS is

> far too small to ever be cost efficient in the ocean sea of space. Again,
> as I said, I am not qualified to argue the science of engineering. I simply
> know something about the history of mass and individual transportations,
> sea, land, and air: What was success and what was failure, the when's of
> success and failure, and the why's.
> GLB (O'Neiller)

[Frank Crary]

In article <ant301007868M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,

Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[Prospect of two weeks in a small Mars rover cabin]
>> Yes, and I would hardly call that good working conditions. For a
>> Mars traverse, you would want the crew to do daily EVAs, or at least
>> every other day. Some on-site analysis of samples is also desirable.
>> These things require a significantly greater amount of space than
>> a Gemini capsule or the space that would be available in a one tonne rover.

>A significant problem with continually getting in and out of a tiny
>cabin will be sand, too. The Apollo LM interiors became filthy with
>lunar regolith-dust, which caked into all the wrinkles of the suits
>and coated every instrument brought in.

The problem is somewhat more serious on Mars. The experiments on the
Viking landers suggested that the soil might be chemically active
(i.e. when mixed with water.) Dust contamination of habitats is definitely
something to be avoided. Fortunately, the problem isn't all that
different from the occupational health and safety issue faced by
many industries.

>...Some kind of vestibule or

>airlock with a vacuum cleaner might be a godsend.

Given the mass limits on a traverse rover, I don't think that would
be practical. An alternative might be a variation on my tractor/trailer
idea. If one put the living quarters in the trailer, and essentially
used the cab of the tractor as an airlock, as well as working space,
you could get such a vestibule with minimal additional mass. That would
require a flexible, pressurized connection between the cab and the trailer.

>...And are the crew

>going to wear space-suits continually for two weeks? B

Definitely not. The sanitary facilities in a space suit aren't up to it.
I think 24 hours in iron is about all you could manage. However, they
might end up wearing suits (probably with the helmets off) whenever
they were outside the habitat trailer (i.e. in the cab while driving,
etc.)

>> If they can't do those things, then you are just driving around, like
>> tourists who never get out of the car. I'm not sure if the Gemini 7
>> mission did _any_ EVAs, let alone a dozen. Under similar conditions,
>> I doubt that a Mars traverse could do any useful work.

>Actually, I wonder if a small unmanned rover teleoperated by an
>astronaut back at a Hab site wouldn't be a good idea? There's a
>lot to be said for sight-seeing. Site-seeing, it would be in this
>case.

That's actually part of the NASA reference mission. However, it isn't
the only thing you would want the astronauts to do. Given a decent
traverse rover and suit design, they can also get out on the surface
and do some serious field geophysics. The capability of a person in
the field is far greater than that of a teleoperated rover. For a
Mars Direct or NASA reference type mission, you could probably do
to manned traverses, ranging as far as 500 km from the landing site
and lasting perhaps a month each, with frequent stops along the way
and a week on site at a particularly interesting location. That's worth
alot, but it only covers a tiny fraction of the planet's surface.
Some of the crew would stay at the landing site, and driving teleoperated
rovers would allow more limited coverage of a greater fraction of Mars.
Also a teleoperated rover in advance of the manned traverse might be
a good idea. Terrestrial traverses (e.g. in the antarctic) rarely
travel in a straight line and have benefited greatly from advance
information about the route.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

[Tom Abbott]

Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:

>tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:

>> > If LockMart makes their goal, 10 tones will cost $20 million.
>>
>> Jim, this means LockMart can put one Moon/Mars mission in orbit for
>> $240 million (120 tons to low-Earth orbit = 12 VentureStar launches @
>> $20 million per launch), plus $3 billion in low-Earth orbit handling
>> costs to handle VentureStar's 12 payloads. This is about the same
>> cost as building and launching a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle to
>> put 120 tons in low-Earth orbit in one launch.

>If roton makes their goal with the bladed model, it'll cost
>20,000 lbs * $ 50 = 1 million.

IF. I'll believe it when I see it. I certainly wouldn't plan the
future on it before that time.

>The best way to stop this sort of thing is to build another shuttle
>type program and not achieve economies of scale in either launcher
>construction or launch rate.

>(And for those just tuning in, "economies of scale" refers to mass

>production, not building something as big as possible. Detroit doesn't
>build cars that seat 5000. They mass-produce.)

>Nice job, Abbott... keep up the good work. If you succeed, we'll be
>stuck here forever, except for a couple astronauts on another "flags
>and footprints" mission, if they don't die on it.

I fail to see how NASA building heavy-lift vehicles, will turn back
the tide of private enterprise in space. Rather, heavy-lift will
enhance private space enterprise, in my opinion.

[Jeff Greason]

In article <5u2jdq$l...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank
Crary) writes:
|>
|> In article <5ttnqb$k...@crl7.crl.com>,

|> George Herbert <gher...@crl7.crl.com> wrote:
|> >> I don't know, George. I sure would hate for the US space program to
|> >>sit around for ANOTHER 20 years waiting for something to happen.
|>
|> >I don't think anyone wants to sit around doing nothing.
|> >However, a few things we definitely need before a go commit:
|> > * MGS grade imagery of much of the surface
|> > * better chemical and mineralogical data
|> > * sample return
|> >We need these to plan in detail where to go and with what,
|> >and design parameters for the surface hardware.
|>
|> I disagree. Note, for example, that no data of this sort was available
|> concerning the Moon, when the Apollo program started, and the chemical
|> data and sample returns came, for the most part, from the Apollo missions
|> themselves. All the things you list would be nice, but I don't think
|> they are necessary for a manned Mars mission.

Note also the statistics for average human population on Luna over time.

If we had known about the moon in 1962 a bit more about the mineraological
properties, I think there's a pretty good chance that, *if* we'd still
gone, we'd have been able to stay. I don't disagree that you can start
work on long-lead items early; not funding on-orbit propellant transfer
demonstration and not having any significant funding for Mars pressure
suits is, IMO, pretty stupid (I used to say the same about CELSS work,
but that seems to have picked up a bit).

But I really think we need chemical (not just elemental) analysis of
the surface; because (as policy difference between us), I think that
if there's to be a government megaprogram, it ought to be aimed not
just at visiting, but at *staying*. If it's just flags, footprints,
and rocks, then I don't think it should be done at today's prices.

And if you wait for the prices to start coming down, you can't do serious
mission architecture until a bit more is known about the future launch
options.

P.S. CELSS can certainly use more work, and I think some serious work on
a magnetic radiation shield for the transit would also fit in the "long
lead time" category, since it might significantly affect mission
architecture.

[Frank Crary]

In article <5v22gl$6...@news.or.intel.com>,

Jeff Greason <gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote:
>|> >I don't think anyone wants to sit around doing nothing.
>|> >However, a few things we definitely need before a go commit:
>|> > * MGS grade imagery of much of the surface
>|> > * better chemical and mineralogical data
>|> > * sample return
>|> >We need these to plan in detail where to go and with what,
>|> >and design parameters for the surface hardware.

>|> I disagree. Note, for example, that no data of this sort was available
>|> concerning the Moon, when the Apollo program started, and the chemical
>|> data and sample returns came, for the most part, from the Apollo missions
>|> themselves. All the things you list would be nice, but I don't think
>|> they are necessary for a manned Mars mission.

>Note also the statistics for average human population on Luna over time.
>If we had known about the moon in 1962 a bit more about the mineraological
>properties, I think there's a pretty good chance that, *if* we'd still

>gone, we'd have been able to stay...

>But I really think we need chemical (not just elemental) analysis of
>the surface; because (as policy difference between us), I think that
>if there's to be a government megaprogram, it ought to be aimed not
>just at visiting, but at *staying*. If it's just flags, footprints,
>and rocks, then I don't think it should be done at today's prices.

Again, I disagree. The use of in situ resources is critical to
staying on Mars, as opposed to visiting. However, the most available
in situ resource on Mars is the planet's atmosphere. Even water can
be extracted with only minimal difficulty. I think this is sufficient
to support a permanently manned station, and the use of surface rocks/regolith
is only necessary for an expanding colony. (Note that this is not the
case with the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere worth mentioning.)
Our understanding of the martian atmosphere is _much_ better than our
understanding of the surface chemistry.

>P.S. CELSS can certainly use more work, and I think some serious work on
>a magnetic radiation shield for the transit would also fit in the "long
>lead time" category, since it might significantly affect mission
>architecture.

I doubt it: Radiation during transit is, at most, a minor issue. Magnetic
shielding without superconductors is not viable, and even with superconductors,
it would require a large amount of mass to deal with a minor issue.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder

[Jeff Greason]

In article <5v7h0u$h...@peabody.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU

(Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <5v22gl$6...@news.or.intel.com>,
|> Jeff Greason <gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote:
|> >But I really think we need chemical (not just elemental) analysis of
|> >the surface; because (as policy difference between us), I think that
|> >if there's to be a government megaprogram, it ought to be aimed not
|> >just at visiting, but at *staying*. If it's just flags, footprints,
|> >and rocks, then I don't think it should be done at today's prices.
|>
|> Again, I disagree. The use of in situ resources is critical to
|> staying on Mars, as opposed to visiting. However, the most available
|> in situ resource on Mars is the planet's atmosphere. Even water can
|> be extracted with only minimal difficulty. I think this is sufficient
|> to support a permanently manned station, and the use of surface
|> rocks/regolith
|> is only necessary for an expanding colony. (Note that this is not the
|> case with the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere worth mentioning.)
|> Our understanding of the martian atmosphere is _much_ better than our
|> understanding of the surface chemistry.

Well, Frank, are there active peroxides on the surface or not? Is
there permafrost under the surface or not? In the first case, that would
seem to have a lot to do with the seriousness of dust contamination
control. In the second case, if present, it probably changes your
water supply strategy (since atmospheric water is suitable for makeup
losses, but abundant water is enough for industrial uses), and it
certainly changes your base construction strategy (since you have to
deal with the local permafrost collapse from heat leaks).

And is the soil suitable as a plant growth medium or not? Do we have
to leach out the salts (as some have proposed) or not? Is phosphorous
in a bioavailable form or not?

Unless these issues are better understood than I think, there would
seem to be, off the top of my head, a few issues which you'd want, if
possible, some data on before finalizing your base design.

I'm not saying you have to know these things before you go; just that
they'd be helpful enough that running the unmanned sample mission before
the manned mission probably makes sense.

|>
|> >P.S. CELSS can certainly use more work, and I think some serious work on
|> >a magnetic radiation shield for the transit would also fit in the "long
|> >lead time" category, since it might significantly affect mission
|> >architecture.
|>
|> I doubt it: Radiation during transit is, at most, a minor issue. Magnetic
|> shielding without superconductors is not viable, and even with
|> superconductors, it would require a large amount of mass to deal with a
|> minor issue.

Without superconductors, I agree. With superconductors, I'm not sure.
The work required to find out is quite modest. Again, I'm definitely not
claiming you *need* this for the first mission: but if you had it, you
might want to use it from the first.

BTW: the only magnetic shielding architecture I think may make sense is
if it also serves as a magsail and provides some of the propulsion load:
as simple parasitic mass, I don't think it makes near-term sense.

[Frank Crary]

In article <5v92u6$8...@news.or.intel.com>,
Jeff Greason <gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote:
>|> ...The use of in situ resources is critical to

>|> staying on Mars, as opposed to visiting. However, the most available
>|> in situ resource on Mars is the planet's atmosphere. Even water can
>|> be extracted with only minimal difficulty. I think this is sufficient
>|> to support a permanently manned station, and the use of surface
>|> rocks/regolith
>|> is only necessary for an expanding colony. (Note that this is not the
>|> case with the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere worth mentioning.)
>|> Our understanding of the martian atmosphere is _much_ better than our
>|> understanding of the surface chemistry.

>Well, Frank, are there active peroxides on the surface or not? Is
>there permafrost under the surface or not?

Those are important issues, but I don't think they are critical.
A permanently manned station wouldn't mean sending one mission and
having the crew stay there for the rest of their lives (probably.)
So the first landing doesn't have to set up an optimized base. Take
a Mars Direct type program (and assume political support for subsequent
missions was there, a debatable issue.) For the first mission, you
design the habitat for worst-case dust control measures, and assume
that atmospheric water is the only available source. That mission
would discover whether or not there are active oxides in the dust
and whether permafrost would be available. (Although the answer
about permafrosts is probably not, unless the landing site was
at high latitudes: Permafrost isn't stable closer to the equator than
about 60 deg.) Subsequent missions could easily be modified to
use this information. Just remove the dust control measures if
it isn't necessary, and use the extra mass for additional payload.
For most purposes, the source of the water doesn't matter (e.g. the
life support system would just use it as input, and wouldn't have
to be altered if the water came from permafrost rather than the atmosphere.)
So you just pull the atmospheric collectors and replace them with
permafrost mining gear. These changes would be far easier for a
Mars mission that, say, the changes between the early Apollo and
Apollo-J landers, since there would be more time between missions.

>And is the soil suitable as a plant growth medium or not? Do we have
>to leach out the salts (as some have proposed) or not? Is phosphorous
>in a bioavailable form or not?

Again, the first mission could determine that, and later missions could
use the information. For the first mission, growing food is not critical,
nor even all that beneficial. For a 1000-day mission (minimum energy
trajectory and long surface stay), food would add up to about 4 tonnes
for a Mars-direct type mission (less if you dehydrated it, and closed
the water loop). That's a significant but by no means huge fraction of
the mission's payload.

>I'm not saying you have to know these things before you go; just that
>they'd be helpful enough that running the unmanned sample mission before
>the manned mission probably makes sense.

No disagreement there. My argument, above, was that it isn't necessary,
even for a permanent base. More to the point, the original issue
wasn't whether or not unmanned probes should be sent. I think everyone
agrees that they should be. However, the debate was over _when_ they
should be sent. George argued that we would want the results from these
missions before we even started the manned mission program. I.e. that
this knowledge is required before we even commit to a manned Mars mission.
I disagree and think that the information from unmanned missions could
easily be incorporated later, after doing significant work on various
elements of the manned mission.

>|> >P.S. CELSS can certainly use more work, and I think some serious work on
>|> >a magnetic radiation shield for the transit would also fit in the "long
>|> >lead time" category, since it might significantly affect mission
>|> >architecture.

>|> I doubt it: Radiation during transit is, at most, a minor issue. Magnetic
>|> shielding without superconductors is not viable, and even with
>|> superconductors, it would require a large amount of mass to deal with a
>|> minor issue.

>Without superconductors, I agree. With superconductors, I'm not sure.
>The work required to find out is quite modest.

I actually did that, once upon a time, but it's been a while and I can't
find my notes or remember the exact details. The main problem isn't
the mass of the superconductors themselves. The required magnetic fields
are large, and produce a very substantial tension on the wires. You end
up needing a large mass (over 10 tonnes if memory serves) of support
structure. That assumes that you are using a compact system, i.e.
that the current loop is of order the size of the vehicle.

>BTW: the only magnetic shielding architecture I think may make sense is
>if it also serves as a magsail and provides some of the propulsion load:
>as simple parasitic mass, I don't think it makes near-term sense.

I tend to agree. In the case of a magnetic sail, the size of the
current loop would be _much_ larger, and the problem of tension and
support structures would go away.

Frank Crary
CU Boulder