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

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...you migh be right with the bell (biconic) shape..."<br /><br /><br />I suggest a true-bell shaped capsule (like Shenzhou) not only a biconic<br /><br />but... if I'm right about bell-biconic... this shape may give the SAME internal space of a six-seats cone-CEV but with 4 mt. diameter and LESS weight... so, if NASA want a giant "internal space"... WHY they insist to build a "cone" that must be larger and will have a weight that need a big rocket to launch... they want a good capsule... or only to recycle an SRB's stock?<br />

 

[frodo1008]

A bell shaped capsule would actually be larger for the same major diameter as the Apollo shaped one, not smaller, or lighter. <br /><br />The space shuttle is more expensive per flight to the ISS than the CEV could ever be, whether or not there are 3,4 or six people on board. If that is the case (and it is) then the seats that the US has used on the shuttle to carry both Russian and other countries people up to the ISS should be even more expensive than the CEV would be, IF NASA was charging for such seats. But as NASA makes no direct charge for such seats as one of NASA's goals for the ISS as it is more important to take other countries people up to the ISS to do useful work there as part of the international effort behind the ISS! <br /><br />You and orrery21 really ought to get together and have fun bashing the ISS, as eveidently you both think it should be shot down!! Heck, it IS countries like Italy (as part of ESA) that will benifit from the operations of the ISS the most. Or do you really think that Italy is going to start to launch its own astronauts into space soon? This is the only way that many different countries are going to get any real experience in space for quite some time to come! <br /><br />Also, in regard to this I really don't think that niether NASA or the other ISS partners are going to either just let the ISS die, or even be manned by only three people! If all of the currently planned experiment modules are launched (and not only NASA but ESA and Japan at least are going to launch such modules), there will be almost more work on projects on the ISS than even six people can do. Also, I fully believe that the other partners such as ESA and Japan are going to want at least one of their own people on board to monitor the experimental modules created by those respective space agencies, and this alone will dictate at least six people on the ISS.<br /><br />Now, it may even become necessary at some time in the future for some form of payment to b

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the weight of a bell-shaped Shenzhou capsule is 3 tons... the weight of a bell-shaped 4x CEV may be around 6 tons (instead of 9+ tons of a 6x cone-CEV) with 70-80% volume of a 6x CEV<br /><br />Shuttle is NOT more expensive of CEV/CLV... the launch cost will be the same, but shuttles send in orbit 25 tons (saving $400 million using two rockets), twice the crew, assembly hardware, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />ISS... since it was made with old technology, it's little and expensive... I suggest to add only more solar panels for more energy and use the ISS only with Soyuz and Progress... when there will be sufficient funds, a better ISS can be built<br /><br />I don't think there is so much "work" on ISS for six astronauts, but, if it will be, these (VERY RARE) missions can be accomplished with TWO 4x CEVs<br /><br />the $200+ billion extra-budget is absolutely necessary if you want 100+ CEV/CLV flights in next 20 years

 

[mlorrey]

"A bell shaped capsule would actually be larger for the same major diameter as the Apollo shaped one, not smaller, or lighter."<br /><br />All else being equal, you'd be right, but that is not so. The straight conical sides of the CEV cannot bear an internally pressurized structure alone, they need reinforcement, or greater thickness, while a bell shaped pressure capsule can get away with thinner walls and less reinforcement structure. Given that the bell has more internal volume for a given diameter, it seems clear that it would be a smarter choice for a given launcher shroud diameter, particularly for a vehicle going on longer missions with more people.

 

[frodo1008]

OK, I am not the expert that the people of NASA are, and they heve already chosen the general shape of the CEV, so I will go along with them. It is indeed possible that they themselves will change the overall shape before the actual detailed design work by the chosen contractor actually starts. <br /><br />I went to gaetanomarano's site, and all he has there is a rehash of the ideas that he has put forward again, and again on his posts! <br /><br />What he will not realize is that he is not the only one who has ideas, we all do. However, the most important thing to most of us is the NASA at last has both a plan and an administrator who wishes to follow that plan! The main part of this plan is to finally go further out beyond LEO for exploration, and eventual exploitation, and even colonization of the solar system. This is actually FAR more important than ANY of the details!!<br /><br />Almost as importantly the plan does allow for the current funding, and this is making Congress happy!<br /><br />It IS that simple, I don't really understand why some people have such a hard time trying (if they actually are honest enough to even try at all) to understand these simple events and ideas!!!!

 

[darkenfast]

The difference in the Soyuz-type and Apollo-type are more than skin-deep. Apollo was a double hull capsule, with a lot of equipment mounted outside the pressure hull. Soyuz appears to have everything inside, including the parachutes. I believe the Apollo approach is better when scaling up to a larger design such as the CEV. Incorporating additional shielding, strength for weight, and safety are all advantages that I see. Do we have any engineers familiar with both types available to comment?

 

[mlorrey]

You are right, Frodo, it is far better to have a plan and the funding for the plan, than an idea with no plan and no funding. Even if the plan is not a perfect plan, the fact is you've sold someone on it and are determined to see it through to completion.<br /><br />NASA has never had problems coming up with plans, and only occasional problems with funding. Its major malfunction is seeing things through to completion. We have yet to see if Griffin will be any different in that area.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

This thread somehow turned into a CEV discussion...hmmmm. I actually had in mind to discuss the question of private cargo missions to the ISS compared to the cost of Progress missions.<br /><br />As someone above mentioned the 22MM that I read in an article might be too low - still, my question still stands, as of now the US will pay for seats on Soyuz manned spacecrafts (not sure about cost contributions for Progress), so if in for instance 5 years a private firm offers to bring 3 tons of supplies to the ISS for a price tag of say $60 million (a rather low figure) and a progress flight (3 tons of supplies from Kourou) would cost $30-40 million, is it really justified to pay money to private industry rather than use Russia's (and with regard to Soyuz-Progress in the end also Europe's) cargo launch capabilities to supply the ISS?<br /><br />And just to be clear, I am totally aware and approve of NASA's need to be capable of launching cargo into space even if launch costs are multiple times of a Progress launch, but this is not the issue here, I was asking about NASA paying private companies for services that are an addition to their own launch vehicle(s) (i.e. a CEV cargo version).

 

[shoogerbrugge]

I guess NASA thinks its worth it. Sadly enough. Its creating a closed market, meaning sub optimal results, thus paying more for getting less.<br /><br /><br />I also doubt about the time it would take the private industry to develop a Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft within a short amount of time. I mean developing a whole whopping new system, 6 years, maybe. And in 6 years the ISS will be operational for another 5 years, so you better hope that Bigelow has a spacestation up by that time, otherwise the waste would be even bigger.<br /><br />About the difficulty, Just ask SpaceX how difficult it is to get something in LEO, well you need something 10 times as powerfull as the Falcon 1. Then you would need a spacecraft and docking systems. If its going to be all American vehicle the privat industry has develop this docking system also (can't buy them from the Russian, because of the Not Invented Here syndrome)<br /><br />So NASA would dole out lots of cash to the private industry, probably 1 or 2 companies outthere that can do it the first place. The companies spend it on something already invented and working. I dont say it can't be done, but the question is, is it worth doing. <br /><br />Not the best way to spend money I guess, but hey its, NASA.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the discussion turned to CEV because it will be also the only (incredibly expensive) american-Progress in future<br /><br />I think that all discussions about "private" cargo or crew vehicles and "private" space station is useless... this is NOT a critic to your thread! ...simply I think that "private" will NEVER launch NOTHING in space and NEVER at "cheaper" prices, if ***1ST*** they don't solve the problem of cheaper and RELIABLE rockets<br /><br />when we will see dozens of "private" rockets and hundreds of "private" (and PERFECT) launches (at VERY COMPETITIVE PRICES!) the way for "privates" in space will be open (and all discussions about manned and cargo privates' vehicles will be REAL)<br /><br />I feel that this day is very away from now (or may remain a dream) expecially because american and european "privates" CAN'T compete with "non-privates" old and emerging countries' launch prices... Russia, China, India... and (in future) also Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, etc. ...if future international political relations with that countries will shift to "peace" and "friendship", as all peoples hope

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"I think that all discussions about "private" cargo or crew vehicles and "private" space station is useless... this is NOT a critic to your thread! ...simply I think that "private" will NEVER launch NOTHING in space and NEVER at "cheaper" prices, if ***1ST*** they don't solve the problem of cheaper and RELIABLE rockets "<br /><br />I agree that private orbital crew vehicles or even space stations are decades away.<br /><br />However with regard to private unmanned cargo vehicles, that is not the case as far as I see it. While reliability of rockets is certainly a factor to stay in business, for just cargo to be launched to space, you do not actually need 100 % reliability + the development costs of a small cargo transporter similar to Progress are not very high as far as I see it, as there is no need to develop anything groundbreaking new.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the main problem is not the "private" cargo... the problem is "rockets' costs"<br /><br />when rockets' costs will be really affordable, we will see much more privates' "objects" in space<br /><br />I think that a better thread's title may be as I've changed in this post<br />