Pentagon Signs Off on NASA Launcher Plans

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How can you make accurate calculations on something that doesnt even exist yet? It hasnt even gone through detailed design yet. Yes, you know the performance of the current SRB, but you know nothing of the properties of the one modified version that will be used for CEV. <br /><br />Note: I'm not replying specifically to Shuttle Guy... just making a general comment. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I am not the Shuttle_Guy but I'll reply to your 'general' comment (although I am not a general neither)<br /><br />How 'accurate' your calculation is, of course, pending on your assumptions. At this stage, the payload weight calculation is a 'ball-park' number. But it's a better ball park number than a WAG. From experience, you know approx. the weight growth from conceptual level to preliminary, then to detailed design, then when you actually building the vehicle, etc., etc.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

If you guys that are "making calcuations" are actually working on the program, I'd say they were "ball park". Otherwise, I'd say it's a WAG or less.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"How can it possibly cost $10billion total to make a capsule that fits on top of a pre-existing launcher? Are they gold plating all the machine tools? The quoted price seems more like business-as-usual (ala X33) than building a working spacecraft. Crap. I don't want to be negative, but that kind of estimated cost makes me nervous."<br /><br />5 billion dollars to develop the CEV, though a lot, doesn't seem to me to be too out of line. The cancelled Orbital Space Plane (OSP) mini-shuttle project had projected costs right in line with those currently made for the CEV. When you consider that the CEV will do the job of the OSP plus deep space exploration it doesn't seem that bad of a deal.<br /><br /> <br />"Any reasonable explanations? Is it pork? Does that price include the lunar lander? (it seems to only be CEV +SRB for LEO...) Why would it possibly cost $5billion to barely modify the SRB? Also, the CEV at $5G is a steep pricetag unless it includes both flight models and many flight articles. What is going on? Are they setting VSE up to fail?" <br /><br />You are right about the cost for a CEV launcher. I don't think it should cost that much. With these numbers it's hard to see how the SRB derived launcher is the 'cheaper' alternative to the EELV. But there is an explanation. It's all about the NASA desire for a Heavy Lift Vehicle.<br /><br />During the launcher trade studies common components were heavily emphasized in the effort to reduce costs. That is the CEV launcher and the HLV would share many components. Not only will the HLV use the SRB, the HLV will also have a third stage just like the second stage of the CEV launcher. So the reason the CEV launcher is so costly is because it is subsidizing the development cost of the HLV.<br /><br />The cost I've seen for development of the HLV is 5 billion dollars. But if the subsidy the HLV is receiving from the CEV launcher is included the development cost is probably more like 8 billion dollars. If the true cost of HL

 

[wvbraun]

"The cancelled Orbital Space Plane (OSP) mini-shuttle project had projected costs right in line with those currently made for the CEV. When you consider that the CEV will do the job of the OSP plus deep space exploration it doesn't seem that bad of a deal."<br /><br />Actually, the OSP was projected to cost between $10 and 17 billion...So $5 billion for the CEV is *very* cheap.

 

[wvbraun]

"<br />Any reasonable explanations? Is it pork? Does that price include the lunar lander? (it seems to only be CEV +SRB for LEO...) Why would it possibly cost $5billion to barely modify the SRB? Also, the CEV at $5G is a steep pricetag unless it includes both flight models and many flight articles. What is going on? Are they setting VSE up to fail?"<br /><br />The resaonable explanation is that you apparently haven't been paying attention to cost estimates and actual development costs in the past. The cost estimate for the OSP was around $15 billion and this would have been a less capable spacecraft.<br />IIRC it cost about $30 billion (in today's money) to develop the shuttle.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Actually, the OSP was projected to cost between $10 and 17 billion...So $5 billion for the CEV is *very* cheap. "<br /><br />Well the cost of the OSP depends on when the estimate was made and who was making the estimate. I believe the original NASA cost estimate of the OSP project development was in the neighborhood of 5 billion. See this link...<br /><br />http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/space03/may08/charter.htm<br /><br />...here is the relevant text.<br /><br /> "What will OSP Cost?"<br /><br />"NASA proposes to spend more than $4 billion on the OSP (including the technology demonstrations) between FY 2003 and FY 2008, but does not plan to field the crew rescue capability until 2010 and the crew transportation capability until 2012.  NASA has not provided an estimate for the cost to achieve each of these milestones or an estimate for the total cost of the program. Clearly, this is critical information for making any policy decision.  NASA managers unofficially estimate the total cost to be in the range of $9 to $13 billion, however this figure could grow dramatically and will be driven primarily by the complexity of the selected concept and the amount of research and development NASA chooses to take on with the development of the OSP.  Without a solid cost estimate the committee must decide whether it has enough confidence in the plan to justify the $550 million requested for FY 2004."<br /><br />I belive the 13 to 17 billion dollar cost you are claiming is for total program cost of the OSP, not development cost.<br />

 

[wvbraun]

From nasawatch (October 2003): <i> Dennis Smith was making the rounds on Capitol Hill last week. He is telling staff that the cost of getting to a CRV (crew return) capability for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion. The cost to get the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability atop an EELV is still not known - at least Smith has not been able to provide those numbers to Congress.</i><br /><br />$12 billion for a simple rescue vehicle versus $5 billion for a true exploration vehicle, capable of missions beyond low earth orbit...<br /><br />I can't find a link for the $17 billion figure but as you can see from the quoted text above NASA probably thought it would cost at least that much...<br /><br />BTW: Is Smith still around? That guy always had an air of incompetence around him IMHO...

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...the cost to get..."<br /><br />It isn't very clear what that quotation means. It sounds like it's talking about total costs not just development costs. The quote does not conflict with the information from the link I have already posted.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Actually, the OSP was projected to cost between $10 and 17 billion...So $5 billion for the CEV is *very* cheap.</font>/i><br /><br />Another comparison: <i>NASA will have spent approximately $12 billion on the shuttle program between early 2003 and early 2006 and will have only flown a single shuttle mission in that time.</i><br /><br />During this time, there were no new vehicles developed. No new vehicles built. No new operational capabilities created. No new efficiencies created to reduce the cost of future flights.</i>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'd much rather see NASA spend it's limited funding on flying medium lift boosters and developing nuclear rocket propulsion than waste it developing HLV.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>How do you propose they get the nuclear stages up into orbit?

 

[gunsandrockets]

"How do you propose they get the nuclear stages up into orbit?"<br /><br />With a medium lift vehicle. <br /><br />A nuclear rocket does not have to be the size of the old NERVA with 75,000 lbs of thrust. P&W has a small nuclear design called the Triton with only 15,000 lbs of thrust.<br /><br />Even if a nuclear stage was rather heavy (as a nuclear electric rocket might be) it could be dry launched with a medium lift launch vehicle into LEO, and then one or more other rockets would bring up the propellent (Xenon in the case of the NER). And to avoid confusion, what I mean by medium lift is something in the 20 to 25 tonne payload to LEO class, such as the Proton or Delta IV Heavy.<br /><br />The only real reason for a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle is to launch the enormously heavy loads of propellent needed by any orbital transfer stage penalized by reliance on conventional chemical rocketry. Without the penalty imposed by the low ISP of chemical rockets the need for HLV evaporates.

 

[severian]

"Your calculations are not correct. the single stick SRB with a lox/LH2 upper stage has a payload capability of <br />23 tons."<br /><br />Well, no, they were correct for using the same upper stage as the EELV's use: A RL-10/Centaur class upper stage. I think the proposal that ATK suggested was using a J-2 based upper stage - That's half of the thrust rating of an SSME. <br /><br />The main reason I didn't initially consider it was because that such a rocket would be unusually top-heavy. The diameter of the J-2 is significantly larger than the diamater of the SRB (6.6m as opposed to 3.7m). I also wonder whether the SRB is capable of holding the vertical loading that such a launch would give. True, it could be strengthened, but I would imagine it would require a significant amount of redesigning.

 

[najab]

><i>I also wonder whether the SRB is capable of holding the vertical loading that such a launch would give.</i><p>I suspect that Thiokol would have checked this before they proposed the design.</p>