Nasawatch rumor on CEV costs.

[geminivi]

http://nasawatch.com/ has a cryptic remark that CEV costs have climbed between 10 to 15 billion according to NASA estimates.<br />Anyone know if this is fact or fiction?

 

[j05h]

Space Exploration Initiative, Part 2 <br /><br />VS<br /><br />Apollo on Steroids<br /><br /><br />And it looks like SEI2 is winning!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[crix]

What are you referring to?<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

> What are you referring to? <br /><br />I'm referring to the incredible bloat suffered under the original President Bush's SEI. NASA was asked to produce the now-infamous "90 Day Study" to detail a Mars mission. By the time the report was submitted, it was approaching $500Billion. They threw everything including the kitchen sink into the proposal instead of devising a cost-effective flight to Mars. I'm extremely concerned with the cost-growth of CEV. They are talking about $10-15 Billion for a new capsule design and launcher? That isn't going to fly with commercial competitors emerging in the same time frame. <br /><br />The "Vs." is that Dr. Griffin has categorized the ESAS architecture as "Apollo on Steroids". The struggle is between competent design (Apollo) and feature/budget bloat (SEI). Perhaps not my best attempt at humor, but I worry that CEV may be cancelled. There is a certain disconnect between what we pay now for flights to orbit ($12-20M on Soyuz) and what the CEV/CLV partners want to charge. <br /><br />Mclumber above has the right idea. Buy capabilities not infrastructure.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I'm wondering if NASA can just scrap the ARES I / CEV and simply contract out human launches to private corporations.</font>/i><br /><br />In an earlier document co-authored by Griffin, he envisioned a capsule CEV that could be lifted into LEO by serveral boosters. I bet he still has this in mind, and I would not be surprised if Griffin uses this during negotiations with ATK.<br /><br />I would love to see NASA come out with a definitive statement as to who owns the intellectual property of the CEV. In particular, I would love for NASA to effectively "open source" the blue prints of the CEV so any company could build one.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">I would think that NASA would still have to fund and operate a heavy lifter though.</font>/i><br /><br />I generally agree with this, but this introduces another problem -- both Ares I and Ares V use a five segment SRB. If the extension of the SRBs to five segments (along with grain changes, etc.) are the major cause of the cost increases of Ares I, then not paying for it for the Ares I will just push the costs to the Ares V.<br /><br />The one sentence article on NASA Watch was a little light on details.</i></i>

 

[josh_simonson]

What is the 'CEV program' exactly? Just the capsule? The capsule and SM? The CLV/CEV/SM? Or the entire lunar project? <br /><br />There's definitely been some shuffling around, doing the 5 seg earlier on the CLV instead of the HLV, and redeveloping the J-2X for CLV instead of HLV. But there's also been some major cost saving steps taken in reducing the CEV diameter, switching from methane to hypergolics and dumping the SSME in favor of J-2X and RS-68. Without knowing context it is impossible to know if 10-15B in growth is in actual extra expense or if it is 'frontloading' the program to save duplication of development later and to reduce recurring costs.<br /><br />Fortunately we're still at the point where the design is liquid, so excessive cost growth elements can still be replaced with alternatives.

 

[nacnud]

The CEV is the capsule and the SM, I think.

 

[scottb50]

The problem is no matter how sincere Griffith is it's all busy work. Hopefully he sees the CEV, the Moon, Mars are all just political gambits, just like todays news of the ban on internet gambling, the flag burning hysteria, gay marriage bans, ect., just a game to keep certain groups happy, and sending in their money, if there was any chance at all it would pass you would never hear about it.<br /><br />It's just kind of sad to hear all these NASA folks hyping another Dynosoar or Venture Star when it is obvious it will end up in the footnote section.<br /><br />It is time NASA concentrated on what it should be doing, exploration, not explotation. NASA has done it's job, they have proven we can live and work in Space, that's where their mandate stops. <br /><br />I see NASA in the same role as the Post Office; if there is a need for Space travel they should facilitate it, not provide it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"t/space claims they can launch for around $20 million, and SpaceX probably has claimed fairly low Falcon 9 costs as well."<br />'Claimed' being the operative word here. As Griffin has to <i>absolutely and definitely</i> ensure that the US has a manned spaceflight capability, the CLV/CEV wouldn't be scrapped until private bodies have <i>demonstrated</i> the capability (and the CEV probably not even then, as it has mission profiles other than LEO).

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would love to see NASA come out with a definitive statement as to who owns the intellectual property of the CEV. In particular, I would love for NASA to effectively "open source" the blue prints of the CEV so any company could build one. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There are very strict rules in government contracting which provide your answer. The intellectual property belongs to the contractor, but if it was developed using any amount of government funding, the government has unlimited rights to it. If they wish, they can switch contractors. It is seldom done in practise, however, because not only would it discourage companies from taking government contracts in the first place, but it is seldom practical to simply give the blueprints to another company and expect them to do the same job for the same or a better price without a serious schedule shift, particularly for something made in relatively small numbers, like CEV capsules. But the government reserves the right to do that, which is very important in the event of some imminent catastrophe.<br /><br />As you might expect, this means that government contractors are very careful about what information they provide to the government. "Open source" contracting is slowly catching on in the industry, though. One of the biggest contractors, General Dynamics, is experimenting with it on their Littoral Combat Ship proposal. I doubt it will be made available to the general public (this is a warship, after all, and there are security concerns) but it will be possible for other contractors not currently involved to get involved later on. It'll also enhance the modularity of the system. It'll be interesting to see how that works out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[crix]

I was about to start a thread called, "Cowings crappy cost comparison" regarding the following quote:<br /><br />"individual lunar missions using one CEV, CLV, CaLV, LSAM, LSAS, etc. are now estimated to cost $5 Billion each. By comparison, Space Shuttle missions cost $0.5 billion each."<br /><br />5 billion for a 4 man, two week stay on lunar surface vs a .5 billion jaunt to LEO on the shuttle. Apples and oranges.

 

[j05h]

The problem I have isn't the $5 Billion per flight, it's that they plan on throwing most of the vehicle away instead of a little forethought and recycling. At least use the EDS as a fuel depot in LLO!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[crix]

That's too complex. More developmental costs, costs to refuel the depot, costs and risks to dock with depot, etc.

 

[j05h]

> That's too complex. More developmental costs, costs to refuel the depot, costs and risks to dock with depot, etc.<br /><br />Then NASA is going to be left behind. They are talking several 10s of billions to develop a simple capsule now, and no kind of smart re-use. That is unbelievably short-sighted. I'm starting to think CEV won't fly, never mind the lunar hardware. Dr. Griffin talks about making way for private interests to follow, but they appear to be setting the stage for no moon flights due to cost. Very disheartening. <br /><br />Personally, a priority in hardware is a storm shelter in lunar orbit. Preferably built from already used hardware (EDS) and able to contain extra fuel for reusable surface-access vehicles. It would provide a pitstop and safe location for lunar explorers. <br /><br />This is the external-tank all over again: a little bit of fore-thought would have already built cities in space!!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[crix]

They may be left behind in the innovation department by private industry, I agree. And they may be left behind on a results per dollar competition compared to other countries space program... BUT, luckily NASA, like our military will get the job done. I have high hopes for the Ares program. <br /><br />I am equally excited about nascent, privately funded orbital businesses. They'll show some true innovation.

 

[CalliArcale]

I don't think it's a bad thing if NASA gets left behind by private industry, at least in the sense of being outcompeted in the market. It's not meant to dominate the industry. It's meant to trailblaze, in my opinion. And I rather think they're succeeding at it. The Bigelow launch today, if successful (and so far, the signs are very good), is the first really serious step towards manned *commercial* space stations. Sure, there were attempts before, like MirCorp's attempt to buy Mir. But the market wasn't ready for it. More and more, we are seeing that the market is getting interested in manned spaceflight.<br /><br />Maybe NASA really is picking the right time to abandon LEO and head for the Moon, and not just a convenient one. Or maybe the decision was never theirs; maybe Congress got interested in the Moon again because that's where the dreams of the public are starting to go again, which is why the market is getting interested as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The amount of money that we are currently spending on wars in the Middle East just about matches these PROJECED NASA costs! Wars that it is becomming more and more obvious (at least to me, every time I pick up a newspaper) are not good for much more than getting some of our finest people killed (or almost as bad, turning them into unthingking killers). The costs of this stupidity is currently running at abour $5 billion per week itself. For this NASA could then launch a moon flight EVERY WEEK!<br /><br />We could then very soon have permamnent bases on the moon, and even be launching space age materials into space to be processed into large space structures (such as space ships capable of going ANYWHERE in the solar system that we wished) at very inexpensive costs in comparison to bringing up such materials from the Earth itself.<br /><br />But it is far more probable that we will just go on continuing to fight wasteful and useless wars. We did the same thing in the late 1960's thrugh the beginning 1970's in Viet Nahm. And killed the greatest single chance at a really meaningful space program then also (and for those that think ill of the space shuttle, THAT was the origin of its flaws).<br /><br />Even worse the kind of conventional war, and then occupation that we are doing in the Middle East is NOT destroying terrorists, it is creating and even training them!<br /><br />Will we NEVER learn!<br /><br />So sorry, complaining about NASA's POTENTIAL costs just does NOT impress me! Until we learn where our REAL interests and priorities should lie, and listen to what one of our greatest military men and Rapublican presidents said (Eisenhower) about the evils of the military/industial complex, I think that such complaining about the costs of the greatest civilian effort in mankind's long history is just so much hot air!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">And they may be left behind on a results per dollar competition compared to other countries space program... BUT, luckily NASA, like our military will get the job done.</font><br /><br />So far the job is to spend money. <br /><br />NASA still has yet to identify any worthwhile science to be done on the moon. They have also not begun to balance it against any science which we could be doing with less money using rovers, or spent in GEO, LEO and on terra firma.

 

[mattblack]

>>worthwhile science to be done on the moon<<<br /><br />Are you kidding?? Ask Paul J. Spudis or Dennis Wingo -- they'd be able to articulate far better than you or I could. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

One easy mandate to fix current lunar plans: every piece of hardware that has a propulsive system must be dry launched (i.e. unfuelled ) to LEO. Everything else follows from that.

 

[crix]

The goal is far from science-on-the-moon or science-on-mars... it's about putting people up there, to rise above our limitations, to make the rest of solar system our home. The pursuit of resources, the creation of technology, a sense of exploration, and also the pursuit of pure science. <br /><br />I'm not happy about cost overruns. I was steaming when ATK Thiokol upped their costs 500% which is especially outrageous when the original number was in billions. What can you do? Everyone wants to ride the gravy train and so everyone is gonna sock it to the government. It's okay though, we have a ton of dough.

 

[subzero788]

"NASA still has yet to identify any worthwhile science to be done on the moon."<br /><br />Read this:<br />NASA Solicits Scientists’ Input on Lunar Experiments <br /><i>"...NASA has asked the National Academy of Sciences to develop a prioritized list of science goals for the lunar orbiters and landers that the agency intends to send to the Moon starting in 2008, as well as the initial human sorties slated to begin 10 years later. Draft recommendations are due to NASA later this summer with a final report expected to be published in early 2007."</i><br /><br />I'm not concerned about NASA not having any good science to do on the moon, I'm worried about them not being able to afford to do good science on the moon.

 

[crix]

Update from Nasawatch:<br /><br />"seems that there is a lot of hallway chatter at MSFC - and elsewhere - about the advisability of switching from RS-68 engines to RD-180s for the CaLV - the prime issue being performance and the smaller booster diameter you could get (back to 27 feet) by going with RD-180s. There is also hallway chatter about the notion of dumping the CLV alltogether and considering an EELV such as the Atlas V. Seems that the current CLV has some difficulties (as designed) in getting the current CEV (as designed) into space."<br /><br />OMG, this is very amusing. I like it. If we could use an existing EELV to launch crew I think that would be great. We could keep our two big contractors happy and thus further validate the purpose of EELV program. And we could also screw ATK out of their ripoff deal. If we could use get back to 27' I'm fine with that too. The politics of Russian boosters? Whatev. The media doesn't care enough about the space program to make an issue out of it... only the space enthusiasts will hear of it. I'm glad the design is still being twiqued.

 

[j05h]

I've advocated EELV/platform-neutrality for a long time. I'd again like to apologize for ever supporting ATK, but supporting VSE in it's earliest stage took precedence. The Delta IV factory can make 40 CBC cores a year, but recently only makes a handful. There is existing launch capability to handle the capsule. I think that a properly "smart" capsule could fly a D-IV today. The right sensors and software onboard the capsule would be able to detect and analyze conditions to determine aborts. Having a pilot-in-loop with an eject button could handle it,too. Bring back the Right Stuff, so to speak.<br /><br />Atlas is equally capable, with the right capsule. How about we start over: Atlas and Gemini again!<br /><br />This is an argument that is truly "simple, safe, soon": build a capsule to the minimum of American medium-lift vehicles. Atlas V 401 is 12.5 tonnes to LEO, Delta IV is 8.6 tonnes, I'd add Falcon IX at 9.3/8.7 tonnes (fairing difference). So, make the basic CEV spec for LEO missions at 8.5 ton. There, two existing LVs and one being built now, all NASA needs to do is find someone who can build a capsule and service module. The Atlas version could include a small hab/cargo module with the extra lift, or a leave-behind mini-module. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[crix]

I agree that supporting VSE took precedent in the beginning. And now we have some more options to consider.<br /><br />Here's a link to an image of the various Boeing and Lockmart EELV configurations:<br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=237506&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&vc=1<br /><br />CEV is only supposed to be 25mt right? AtlasV Heavy could do the trick.