Development, not exploration, should be mission for HSF

[voyager4d]

Well, Constellation was just to have something to do and put people in space the cheapest and most reliable way we know how until we develop something better. So cancel Constellation and it looks like you saved a lot of money. Oh, but they are STILL going to send people up in space, but with private rockets. Private rockets are also developed with a great deal of money which will be recouped with profit when they charge NASA for the rides. NASA will not have saved anything at all, except that the money will go into some rich peoples pockets.

lol. Are you for real? You think Ares 1 would be cheap?
All the numbers I have seen indicates that Ares 1 would cost over 1 billion $ pr launch, that is not what I would call cheap.
Some of the things that made Ares 1 expensive were:
1) Development: it was a new rocket and 1. time to use solid propellant rocket (without liquate) for human spaceflight. They still needed 4-7 years to complete it.
2) Low flyrate: It would only be used for human spaceflight, so only 2-5 launches pr year.
3) Big heavy solid rocket: Big solid rocket are expensive to transport because they are big (doh) and carry there propellant with them all the way from production (=heavy). There propellant is also bad for the environment (toxic).

And you think using Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 would be more expensive. Wahoo.
As far as I can see they will cost between 100 and 400 million $ pr launch.
They are cheaper because, the rockets have already been developed and they have/will have far higher fly rate than Ares 1 would ever have.

 

[voyager4d]

Bobby Braun (Nasa Chief Technologist) said between the lines what was wrong with Constellation:
a) It stopped or slowed down all tech. research
b) It was only focused on goal (the moon).
c) It killed of our research platform in space (ISS).

The main problem with this is that it would lead to a not sustainable space program, because research on important steps to bring cost down wasn’t done. Think about it, NASA not doing tech research the next 10 years or more.

Second problem, killing ISS in 2015 would mean no human spaceflight from 2015 to 2020 (or later), when the moon lading would start (because there would be nowhere to go). That would all lead to a dramatically lower number of launches, and that would again lead to increased launch prices.

Third problem US would have to use russian space taxi's for the rest of ISS's lifetime.

 

[vulture4]

>>The main problem with this is that it would lead to a not sustainable space program, because research on important steps to bring cost down wasn’t done. Think about it, NASA not doing tech research the next 10 years or more.

I agree Constellation does nothing to reduce the cost of human spaceflight to a sustainable level. Despite Obama's "cancellation", Constellation is set and determined to bull its way back into position as the program of record, starting with demolition of the Shuttle pad at LC-39B this month. The President is no longer in control of the space program.

Apollo was canceled in 1974 for a very simple reason. The cost of human spaceflight with expendable vehicles and capsules was, and still is, much too high for anything but a political stunt. But much of NASA management remembers Apollo only as a nostalgic fantasy of an era when they had a simplistic mission and a blank check.

 

[Booban]

And you think using Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 would be more expensive. Wahoo.
As far as I can see they will cost between 100 and 400 million $ pr launch.
They are cheaper because, the rockets have already been developed and they have/will have far higher fly rate than Ares 1 would ever have.

What kind of cost estimate is that? Gee, if I guess between 1 dollar and 1 billion I can't be wrong either.

 

[Valcan]

And you think using Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 would be more expensive. Wahoo.
As far as I can see they will cost between 100 and 400 million $ pr launch.
They are cheaper because, the rockets have already been developed and they have/will have far higher fly rate than Ares 1 would ever have.

What kind of cost estimate is that? Gee, if I guess between 1 dollar and 1 billion I can't be wrong either.

Pretty good accually.

LEO (s/c<80% capacity to the customer orbit) $45.8M
LEO (s/c>80% capacity to the customer orbit) $51.5M
GTO (s/c<3,000 kg)** $45.8M
GTO (s/c up to 4,680 kg) $51.5M

Yea id say pretty good. Thats for cargo for a falcon 9. A manned version would cost more. But maybe even less of his estimate.

Add to that a system like falcon is supposed to require less people per launch and have a greater launch ratio means its just smarter than ares 1. Ares V i liked but we need a heavy lifter of some kind. Maybe say a 200tons to 400 tons range. Sending up the cargo seperately was a no crap desicion we should have made a long time ago.

 

[Booban]

The projected launch cost of $540 million per flight, comparable to some calculations of the cost of a shuttle mission [other estimates sugggest the Shuttle is closer to one billion per flight].

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/clv.htm

Can't be sure what the end cost would be, but no one else can be either. As mentioned in the quote it also depends how everything is counted. Didn't they manage to save money developing the dragon capsule because its actually a variant fo the NASA developed Orion capsule? Everybody knows NASA is a jobs program as much as anything else. It would be unfair to blame NASA for having a large support base as that is the intention.

NASA will always be bloated. Its a government agency, its not supposed to be efficient, although I don't doubt they are doing important jobs. And all that inefficiency has to be accounted for somewhere, like shuttle costs. Private companies launching do not have to include these costs, but they will still be there for the tax payer. They will even likely to be able to use choice parts of NASA support infrastructure without having to account for all the other bits around it. Just wait until something goes wrong and people will ask maybe these new rockets are too cheap.

 

[DarkenedOne]

The projected launch cost of $540 million per flight, comparable to some calculations of the cost of a shuttle mission [other estimates sugggest the Shuttle is closer to one billion per flight].

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/clv.htm

Can't be sure what the end cost would be, but no one else can be either. As mentioned in the quote it also depends how everything is counted. Didn't they manage to save money developing the dragon capsule because its actually a variant fo the NASA developed Orion capsule? Everybody knows NASA is a jobs program as much as anything else. It would be unfair to blame NASA for having a large support base as that is the intention.

NASA will always be bloated. Its a government agency, its not supposed to be efficient, although I don't doubt they are doing important jobs. And all that inefficiency has to be accounted for somewhere, like shuttle costs. Private companies launching do not have to include these costs, but they will still be there for the tax payer. They will even likely to be able to use choice parts of NASA support infrastructure without having to account for all the other bits around it. Just wait until something goes wrong and people will ask maybe these new rockets are too cheap.

There is no such thing as too cheap. You want things to be as cheap as they can while still maintaining the reliability and performance necessary.

There is a such thing as too expensive on the other hand. That is pretty much where Constellation falls.

 

[Booban]

There is no such thing as too cheap.

Erm, thought I'd say something but that would be pointless.

 

[vulture4]

>>The projected launch cost of $540 million per flight, comparable to some calculations of the cost of a shuttle mission [other estimates suggest the Shuttle is closer to one billion per flight].

The Constellation still requires a great deal of R&D so that must be considered in the per-flight if the program is continued. The Shuttle is already operational and much of the cost was in the past during initial development, the periods of modification following the two losses, and the construction of the orbiters. But those investments were made and we finally have a system that is working amazingly well. The cost of continuing the program is the additional money that must be spent to fly an additional mission, which ranges from about $500M down, ultimately to the direct incremental cost, $165M, as the number of missions per year increase.

>>Didn't they manage to save money developing the dragon capsule because its actually a variant fo the NASA developed Orion capsule?

There is virtually nothing in common between the Orion and Dragon. The Orion was designed for the lunar mission and is able to carry only four crew and a few hundred pounds of cargo. Unfortunately the obvious lack of taxpayer support means that a return to the moon with this technology is not affordable. This has left the Orion with no mission other than ISS logistics, a task for which it is not designed and is poorly suited. The Dragon was designed for the ISS mission; it dispenses with the large service module and has several tons of unpressurized cargo volume instead. It can also carry seven crew since the structure and life support requirements are less demanding. Finally, the lighter weight of the Dragon in the water substantially reduces recovery ship requirements and cost.

That said, now that the decision has been made not to trash the ISS as soon as it is finished, we should remember that we already have a vehicle designed specifically for ISS logistics mission, the Shuttle, and that nothing even on the drawing board equals its capability to deliver cargo, personnel, and the equipment to assemble it.