PROGRESS costs are $22MM - No way to do LEO cheaper?

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">"...crew rotation missions per year to the ISS using a 3 man CEV, 3 cargo missions per year to the ISS using a cargo CEV, completion of the ISS assembly, Space Shuttle operations until retirement..."<br /></font><br /><br />also without last Shuttle's flights costs, the price-per-moon-mission don't change so much (may be around $6 billion each... but... add 10+ years inflation, cost grow, etc... it will be over ten billion each...)<br /><br />costs include spaceflights-related activities... but, if the ****ONLY**** "activity" will be "moon" they must be shared only with moon missions' costs<br /><br />about ISS' flights of CEV... I've posted my opinion many times in many threads... but, in brief...<br /><br />the ISS' crew number is very poor and is shared with Europe and Russia<br /><br />Russia (and also China if will join the ISS' project) will use their VERY CHEAP vehicles for their astronauts (they can't spend $250+ billion per "seat"!)<br /><br />ESA may "wish" to use the CEV but it will be TOO expensive for its 2 billion euro budget... so it will continue to use the Soyuz (or CEV... but only if NASA will give them some "seats" as a gift...)<br /><br />use the CEV as cargo will be PURE science fiction or PURE MADNESS since a 2.4 tons payload pressurized-Progress costs ONLY $22 million, while, a 3.5 tons pressurized-cargoCEV will cost the SAME price of a crewed CEV launch: <font color="yellow">$1+ billion each... 50 TIMES the price of ONE Progress LAUNCH!!!</font><br /><br />also, with a six-seats CEV, only ONE launch per year will be sufficient for all american ISS' astronauts<br /><br />TOTAL orbital CEV flights: one dozen of ISS' crewed CEV launch in 2015-2025... or LESS than HALF-DOZEN if USA will withdraw from ISS in 2016...<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

A SSME is ~$40M<br />A SRB is ~$40M<br /><br />A CLV is an SRB + SSME + Tankage<br /><br />Where are you getting $1B from, apart from your fertile imagination?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />you can read this:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=408106&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=1&vc=1<br /><br />but consider that, this VERY OPTIMISTIC "$1 billion per CEV/CLV launch price" evaluation, may be true ONLY if the shared R&D costs will be like NASA claim and "hope" ($5B+$5B only)...<br /><br />if CEV/CLV R&D cost will reach the (MUCH REAL) amount of $20+ billion... each CEV/SM/CLV flight will cost $2 billion!<br /><br />

 

[najab]

He asked for a source <b>other</b> than from your imagination.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />all figures written in the linked post are NOT "my imagination"... prices of half-CLV-payload sat rockets, orbital-only spacecrafts (like the $3 billion Shuttle), CEV/SM/CLV R&D costs (NASA claim), etc... are WELL KNOWN... I can't give "perfect" costs' evaluation... <font color="yellow">since not even NASA knows them...</font>

 

[najab]

The post you are referencing is nothing but your opinions and imagination. You basically claim that doubling the payload doubles the cost - which is complete and total nonsense.<br /><br />Eg: Pegasus payload is ~350kg for a cost of $11M, so using your methods an Ariane 5ECA (payload 16,000kg to LEO) should cost over $500M - yet it actually costs less than $190M.<br /><br />The simple reason is that costs don't scale - the slightly more complex explaination is that oranges aren't apples.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I agree... but, also if I don't "double" the CLV cost/payload it will NEVER cost like a Pegasus!<br /><br />the main cost of a each launch is its shared R&D cost... and this is a NASA official (but very optimistic) figure: $5 billion for CEV/SM (see Shuttle's costs...) and $5 billion for CLV (despite sat-only rockets development costs are twice that figure...)<br /><br />the number of CEV flights in 2015-2025 may be around 25 only (or LESS if USA will withdraw from ISS)<br /><br />then, the (VERY OPTIMISTIC) shared R&D cost per launch will be around $400 million (but I think it will be TWICE that figure)<br /><br />a 12 ton payload sat-only rockets costs $200+ milion per launch... so... can you accept a 50% extra costs for CLV extra-weight, extra-propellant, man-rate, tests, etc.?<br /><br />then... $300 million per CLV launch<br /><br />and the cost of CEV/SM?<br /><br />I don't think its cost may be like an old Soyuz or a simple executive jet... the comparison MUST be made with other space-obiects... the $400 million (each) very simple and very little marsrovers... the ISS' modules (despite they have not engines, fuel, interplanetary navigation system, etc.), or... the $3 billion Shuttle... probably you will say me that Shuttle is BIGGER than CEV... but great part of Shuttle is empty (the cargo-bay) or very simple (wings, etc.) because the MAIN cost is the crew's cabin (pressurization, navigation system, electronics, etc.) ...so... a CEV/SM (the hi-tech part of the $3 billion Shuttle but without its lo-tech-lo-cost parts, wings, cargo-bay, etc.) may (REALLY) cost over $500 million BY ITSELF!<br /><br />I don't see HOW a CEV/SM/CLV may cost less than $1 billion per launch... but probably you can (or dream)<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the only use of a six-seats CEV will be in "2040 up" mars missions!<br /><br />before 2040 all "normal" lunar/orbital CEV missions will be OVERPRICED due to its 33% of UNUSED extra-space and extra-weight (a DEAD-WEIGHT launched in space at a VERY HIGH PRICE per lb.!)<br /><br />and, also in 2040's mars missions, CEV will be only a VERY LITTLE part of the GIANT earth-mars "train" (probably less than 3% of its total volume/weight) that need a giant ferry module (CEV will be used ONLY for last day crew earth reentry)<br /><br />but, crew earth reentry, can be done with TWO 4-seats litte-CEV... with the extra-advantage to send up to EIGHT astronauts to mars!<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Can you allow people to discuss the cost of launching unmanned spacecraft without bringing up your grudge against the CEV? It's really not relevant. <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>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />1. I've no "grudge" against CEV... in fact, I've suggested to build a 4x CEV to launch TWICE of them for the same price!<br /><br />2. I've replied to "unmanned" spaceflights posts... but (unfortunately) the unmanned cargo-CEV launch cost will be the same of a manned CEV launch... this is due to its RIGID DESIGN that need the same "hardware" and costs with one astronauts or six, with half-ton or 3-tons payload<br />

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>$1 billion is ONLY for the CEV/SM/CLV orbital or lunar launch! <br /><br />Moon missions need also one LSAM and one SDHLV... both very expensive and completely expendable. <br /><br />The cost of ONE moon missions (including shared R&D) in 2020-2025 will be OVER $8 billion (a price based on to-day's optimistic evaluation and VSE funds)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I would like to know your source for the $ 1 billion per CLV launch, gaetanomarano. I seem to recall reading somewhere that a CLV launch would cost ~$225 million and a HLV (with LSAM + Earth Departure Stage) would be about ~$725 million (all in today's money). I can't remember where I read this but I'll do some digging around the net and try and find the source. Of course the cost will probably be blown out like any other space program (shuttle anyone?) but still I don't see a $1 billion price tag for the CLV alone.<br /><br />

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>about time... moon exploration will be only ONE WEEK per missions while one Shuttle mission may be up to 16 days long...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes the crew will be on the lunar surface for a week but the trip there and back takes 2 X 3 days = 6 days which together with LEO time makes about 2 weeks in space, about the same as the longest shuttle mission. Plus the week long surface missions will only be for the first handful of missions, with much longer missions planned of many weeks or months, which makes the moon missions much better value for money in terms of science and surface research (for mars missions) compared to shuttle missions in LEO.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />your source />>>>><br /><br /><br />I've posted many detailed evaluation (here and in specific threads) based on well known figures (you can search on internet many articles with NASA claim about R&D costs, SRB and SSME prices, etc.) and on comparison with other space "objects"... I can do better evaluations like this (since not even NASA can do it now!) but I can only wait to know the real figures<br /><br />before the first CEV/CLV launch day... I insist to think that a big and advanced new manned vehicle CAN'T cost LESS than ONE Spirit or Opportunity (very very very little, very very very simple and unmanned) marsrovers ($400 million each!!!!)<br /><br />but you can believe it... if you want!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />true for moon/shuttle time... it's very close<br /><br />not true for moon exploration time... not with planned LSAM... it need an heavier LSAM (with extra life support) or a second cargo LSAM (with twice the cost)<br />

 

[holmec]

CXV is in the works. <br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/document_library/media/AIAA-2006-1040.pdf <br /><br /> />How the hack can this be accomplished if private companies have to compete against this price set by the Russians. <<br /><br />Techknowlogy! Lighter material, reusable equipment, and a more streamline operation.<br /><br />Also you can compete with prices by marketing safety factor. So if you make a system safer than progress (ie preserving cargo) you may counter a more expensive price. To say nothing for the fact that transporting the cargo to Russia is more expensive than transporting it to somewhere in the US. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>Will you kindly keep your lies confined to the nonsense threads you start? Most of us have no interest in hearing you babble. <<br /><br />Pull no punches, Dobbins. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The problem with your price thinking here is relatively simple, but of course I don't think you will reply in a positive manner. However, I will state the truth for the benifit of the others on this and possibly other threads.<br /><br />If you were to take the developement costs of even ELV commercial satellite systems and add that to the total production and maintenance costs, then divide by the number of launches, the cost per launch at least doubles for almost any current such system, and is truly very great for the first few launches! As the developement costs for a manned system are many times that for an unmanned system, this affect is much worse!<br /><br />This would mean that almost ANY such manned system is going to cost at least $500 million per launch until you have launched a whole lot of such craft (at least 10 per year for some years). You can see this in the shuttle, this is one of the things that still makes each shuttle flight so very expensive!<br /><br />Now, as the shuttle itself is getting quite old , and congress and the American people have expressed a wish to retire this system. Then some kind of a new system must be developed, or there will be NO American manned flights at all, and both the good people of this country, (I am an American) including the American space enthusiasts on these boards, and their elected representatives would find this unacceptable! So a new system must be developed at this time (5-7 years). <br /><br />Indeed in a way you are correct, the developement costs are going to be expensive! But, that is going to happen ANYWAY!! Developing ANY kind of a new system for launching human beings into space is going to be an expensive proposition. So counting the developement costs is going to mean that ANY such system is going to cost at least $500 million per launch! As a matter of fact, if you take the entire devlopement costs (let us say for argument's sake, some $10 billion for the single stick SRB CSV) the first flight

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I agree with you that America need its own manned space program, but there are many ways to do it<br /><br />also I agree with you that spacecrafts and space flights are (and will be) very expensive, each lb. sent in space is very very expensive!<br /><br />for that reason I've suggested to build a 4x CEV for 4x missions... to avoid the launch (in 99% of CEV flights) of a 33% of very expensive DEAD-WEIGHT<br /><br />there are no reasons that NASA (or ESA or Russia) will use ONLY the most expensive way to design a spacecraft or a space flight<br /><br />about launch costs... it's true that with MANY launches (sharing R&D costs) the price-per-launch may fall... but the CEV/CLV and SDHLV launches in next 20 years can't be 100 or more<br /><br />probably CEV/CLV launches will be around 15-25 and SDHLV launches less than 15, so, the price-per-launch will be very high<br /><br />about NASA and Congress... US Congress is (now...) happy to give funds to NASA for new space projects... but will be 100 times happy if NASA will make the better use of that money... like building little vehicles to have MORE missions with the same funds<br />

 

[jamie_young]

"the only use of a six-seats CEV will be in "2040 up" mars missions!"<br /><br />I'm confused by the CEV and Mars. Won't it be a bit different, because they have to live in the vehicle for half a year there and half a year back?

 

[najab]

The CEV would be used to get from the Earth's surface to the Mars spacecraft and back to the Earth at the end of the mission. Some proposals would also have them use the CEV as their Mars lander, but I suspect that planetary protection wouldn't allow that.<br /><br />During cruise, they would enter the CEV only occasionally to make sure it was working properly and spend the bulk of their time in the Hab.

 

[jamie_young]

Oh, I'm forgetting about the service module aren't I?

 

[frodo1008]

Glad to see you being agreeable here, it IS a nice change!<br /><br />It is not possible to build small craft to be able to take the necessary number of human beings into orbit to do any useful work. The minimum crew for such flights would be at the very least three and usually more. Such a vehicle needs to be at least as large as the CLV (which I am not sure is still in the picture) or the CEV single stick SRB in its current planned configuration. <br /><br />There is NO "Dead Weight" in the single stick SRB launch system. You need a booster which is supplied by the reliable SRB. You also need a second stage to get you all the way into orbit. This is supplied by the new upper stage, quite possibly powered by the single SSME. Finally, you have the capsule at the top of the configuration. This must have enough room to sustain a minimum of three, and up to at least six (I have even heard of a somewhat more cramped configuration for up to ten) people. It must also have at least some cargo carrying capacity, and be capable of having its own rocket manuevering system for orbital manuevers. I see no dead weight anywhere on this configuration. And you can bet that in the final design, saving such weight to be used for useful cargo will be a large consideration of the final design!!<br /><br />If this vehicle is ready by 2007, as the current plan allows for, then again if the vehicle is used for all of the US manned program. Which would include at least the following: Launching to the ISS, in both manned and unmanned cargo versions. Launching to the moon in a manned configuration for initial short stays, then for longer and longer stays. These moon flights would include the flights of the SHLV. Then there is the very real possibility of the developement of even more space stations (such as Bigelow's inflatables) in LEO, possibly such in GEO, and L1 positions. Then there is the going on to Mars for manned missions. Such missions I personally believe should require

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />CEV, VSE and ESAS are not "my" design... NASA say that orbital missions will be of 3/4 astronauts (and I don't think that an half-made LEGO-like ISS may ever need more!)... NASA say that LSAM and moon missions will be with 4 astronauts... NASA say that six-seats CEV will be used for Mars (2040?)<br /><br />if 99% of CEV missions will be with 4 astronauts the remain 33% of CEV dimensions IS a DEAD-WEIGHT and it need a giant CLV while, a missions' "tailored" CEV may need only a ready available mid-rocket<br /><br />if you, all uplink's users, NASA, US President and US Congress want a BIG CEV they will have a BIG CEV... but I can't say that this is a good and rational choice because in MY posts I write MY opinions... and MY opinion is that capsule choice is a mistake and big capsule is a big mistake... of course, you can have a different opinion<br /><br />about 100+ CEV/CLV flights... you can have them... but ask your Congress for $200+ billion of extra-extra-funds for NASA...<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />on ESAS plan drawings Block1A CEV for ISS crew will be for THREE astronauts only<br /><br />but the main problem is not the ESAS drawing... the main problem is that ISS is (and will remain) very little, it is (and will be) poor used (some suggest to close it now...), 2/3 of ISS' crew come from Europe and Russia (that, with their modest budget, never can afford the very high priced CEV-seats and will use the Soyuz) and (also) I've read that USA may withdraw from ISS in 2016 (a few years after the first CEV flight), so, if NASA will build a six-seats CEV (for american astronauts and a few years only) it will NEVER be used with six astronauts!<br /><br />but, if one or two missions will ABSOLUTELY need six (AMERICAN) astronauts, these (VERY RARE) missions can be easily accomplished with TWO 4-seats CEVs<br /><br /><br /><br />"...the Lunar missions with 4 crewmen will be able to find a very good use for the extra room..."<br /><br />you can't say absurd things like this (and pretend that we accept them) only because you work for NASA... you perfectly know (as all uplink's users know) that on earth-moon travel the LSAM (launched with the big SDHLV) will have ALL the space for ALL the necessary "lunar-hardware", so, it DON'T NEED to be launched with a BIG CEV/CLV, that, like with ISS missions, must launch ONLY the crew!<br /><br />a 4x CEV will need more space (a few hundreds lbs. for moon samples) ONLY in moon-earth travel (then, very much time AFTER the CEV/CLV launch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and, for that job, a "bell" shaped 4x CEV may have up to 70% MORE space than Apollo... sufficient for a 3-day return travel of 4 astronauts and moon samples!<br /><br />try again, shuttle_guy<br />

 

[nacnud]

GM (please say if that is a bad shortening of your name)<br /><br />S_G works for USA not NASA<br />ISS is very big compared to previouse space stations.<br />I doubt the US will give up the ISS in 2016 even if the current buget demands it.<br /><br /><br />The CEV is a 'measure twice cut once vehicle'. Althought it might not look it.<br /><br />PS you migh be right with the bell (biconic) shape <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />