RTF May?

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The Shuttle is a lot more than just a satelite launcher, which is what all of those smaller rockets were/are. "</font><br /><br />Yes. Well a Swiss Army knife is a lot more than just a knife. But that doesn't mean that its scissors can do the job as well as a nice pair of Fiskars, or that its saw can do the job as well as a good handsaw, or that the tweezers are good for anything... anything at all. By contrast -- it's a heckuva lot larger, heavier and more expensive than a pocketknife of comparable quality.<br /><br />The shuttle orbiters are indeed the most capable spacecraft ever built. However, that capability consists of the ability to do a couple of things well, and a couple of dozen other things half-*ssed. The <b>price</b> for all of that capability is a huge and heavy spacecraft that is simply too expensive to operate for the benefits returned.

 

[najab]

><i> The price for all of that capability is a huge and heavy spacecraft that is simply too expensive to operate for the benefits returned.</i><p>I'd tend to differ. The problem with the Shuttle isn't its design....okay, the <b>main</b> problem isn't its design, it was in the way the program was structured. Simply, the fleet is too small. There should have been seven operational orbiters built - 6 based at KSC and one based at VAFB. Six orbiters is the largest number that could have been accomodated in the current facilities (3 OPF bays, 3 high VAB bays), and is a large enough fleet to give an adequately high flight rate. At 3 flights per-year per-vehicle we would have had a launch every three weeks, more than enough to satisfy <b>global</b> launch requirements. I believe that even with the current Shuttle design, it's not unreasonable to expect 3 launches a year.<p>One modification that would have <b>significantly</b> increased the flight rate would have been a modular payload bay. The payload bay module (PBM) would have simple, standardised interfaces to the Orbiter, and could be removed and re-installed in a short period of time. The interfaces to the payload would be made to the PBM which could be re-configured and/or customized to suit each payload. This would have dramatically increased the availability of the Orbiters, as currently a significant amount of work (and time) is spent configuring and deconfiguring the payload bay for each mission. The beauty of this system lies in the fact that an arbitrary number of PBMs could be made and they would even allow payload integration to occur at the manufacturer's facilities, with the PBMs being shipped to KSC for installation as little as a few days before rollout (or even at the pad). It would also have simplified the job of flight manifesting as payloads could easily have been switched between Orbiters.<p>Together, these two changes could have made the Shuttle economical - remember, it's the large fixed cost that</p></p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<br /><font color="yellow">"Together, these two changes could have made the Shuttle economical - remember, it's the large fixed cost that makes it so expensive, spread the cost over more flights and/or reduce it and Shuttle becomes attractive. "</font><br /><br />OK -- Let's work with this and crunch some numbers. The official Shuttle budget is ~$3.2 billion per year. There have been numerous arguments that another ~$3 billion in shuttleesque expenses is hidden under other portions of the ~$7 billion Human Spaceflight umbrella (primarily under ISS), but we'll work with the 3.2 for the moment. That budget is specifically for four shuttle launches, and specifically notes that "Shuttle users requiring additional flights will be budgeting for those flights within their budgets." It notes that five flights are ISS flights, and therefore a hefty share of the $1.7 billion ISS budget is actually earmarked for shuttle flights. We'll still work with the assumption that $3.2 billion is the true cost of the shuttle fleet at 4 flights/year.<br /><br />Endeavor has a payload capacity of 25,000kg / 55,000 pounds.<br />At four launches a year, that's a potential lift capacity of 220,000 pounds.<br />Given a $3.2 billion annual price tag, that's ~$14,500/lb<br /><br />However -- you're not talking about 4 flights per year, but one every three weeks or about 17/year.<br /><br />At 17 launches a year, that's a potential lift capacity of 935,000 pounds.<br />Given a $3.2 billion annual price tag, that's ~$3,400/lb<br /><br />That would indeed be pretty good. Of course it's using a hugely erroneous assumption that the additional three orbiters don't cost NASA another penny annually and that launches 5 through 17 come free of charge. I recall SG indicating on a thread sometime in the past a figure for the incremental cost of an additional launch. Don't recall the number offhand, but I <b>believe</b>

 

[drwayne]

I still wonder whether you are going to get there najaB.<br /><br />Each launch is carrying into space what is, in essense, a short duration space station. (And the associated men/women). Even given that you have some advantages in bringing part of the ship back, its hard to see how you can be cost competitive with purpose built / disposable launchers.<br /><br />And, for manned only launches, the flip side is true, you are taking up the overhead of the cargo capability.<br /><br />But, hey, I have been wrong before...oops, hope my wife didn't hear that...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I recall SG indicating on a thread sometime in the past a figure for the incremental cost of an additional launch. Don't recall the number offhand, but I believe it was in the realm of $100 million. Nobody knows what the maintenance costs of another three orbiters would be -- additional manpower, etc. However -- I think that $1 billion is a pretty conservative guess, and it's a nice round figure besides.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Sounds reasonable, both figures.

 

[najab]

No, it couldn't compete soley as a launch vehicle, nor should it. But there <b>are</b> tasks which would benefit from having humans around. Just think of the benefits of having spacewalking astronauts around to do checkouts on satellites and/or probes while they are in LEO. Or the possiblities that man-tended space platforms would provide for research and industry.

 

[najab]

><i>...the flight rate has very little to do with the Shuttle program costs...</i><p>To expand on shuttle_guy's statement, a significant portion (by memory I think it's almost 1/3) of the Shuttle budget is spent at JSC. This money is spent largely on training and maintaining the competency of the 100+ strong astronaut corps. The uniqueness of each shuttle mission means that developing the mission software, hardware, procedures and flight rules can take as long as a couple of years - which adds up to a lot of money.<p>Another significant chunk of the Shuttle budget goes to (or at least went to) developing and testing upgrades - MSFC gets the next largest share of the Shuttle budget. Most of that money goes to purchasing hardware, but a significant amount (something like half a billion a year) goes to development and testing.<p>KSC gets most of the remaining budget, but a lot of that goes into facilities and ground hardware - all told only about $300 million or so (again going by memory) actually gets spent on maintaining the Orbiters. Even if we assume that increasing the fleet and doubling the flight rate will double this cost (which it wouldn't), going from 6 to 12 flights per year only increases the shuttle budget by half a billion or so. Throw in the actual <i>launch</i> costs, and you can get from 6 flights to 12 flights for a little over $1 billion.</p></p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"you can fly Shuttle once a year or 12 times a year for essentially the same cost. "</font><br /><br />Obviously you mean other than the additional costs for fuel, refurbishing the SRBs, and ETs. A significant share of the price of the shuttle program is in the standing workforce, however. I believe this is what you're indicating would stay constant with additional flights/orbiters.<br /><br />However, I continue to see -- in NASA documentation -- a figure of 40,000 man-hours of work maintaining the TPS between flights. If you increase the number of flights, you're going to increase the number of man-hours of maintenance on the orbiters for this and other subsystems. If you (hypothetically) triple the number of flights, then the maintenance man-hours triple. Am I to understand that the current workforce has their thumb stuck up in well-shaded regions 2/3 of the time such that there's plenty of spare time to fit this extra servicing time in? If the current workforce is adequate for 4 flights a year -- wouldn't that mean that 12-flights would pretty much require three times the number of people? I'll grant that flight operations personnel and other launch-specific positions can handle more flights without workforce increases (BTW -- what exactly have these people been doing the past two years?), however -- a significant increase in the number of flights, even without additional orbiters <b>will</b> increase costs. I don't know exactly how many hundreds of millions of dollars you consider to fall under 'essentially the same cost' -- but there'd be a good number of them.

 

[blairf]

Don't forget the shuttle has a catastrophic failure rate of 1 in 60 flights; if anything increasing flight rates may increase that risk. At 17 flights a year we would expect total loss once every 3 years or so.<br /><br />Could NASA accept those risks? <br />Have you factored in the cost of replacing orbiters?

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

As I've said, NASA shouldn't be the sole operator of the Shuttle, the way I see it, it should actually only be a minor player, much like it is in Aviation. How many airlines are run by NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>However, I continue to see -- in NASA documentation -- a figure of 40,000 man-hours of work maintaining the TPS between flights.</i><p>That sounds something on the high side. I remember s_g once said that it takes something like 10 man-hours to remove a tile, about 30 to shape a new one, and another 10-20 to re-install it. On a typical flight they might have to replace 20-30 tiles, so the essential tile maintenance is about 2000 man-hours/flight.<p>I suspect that the 40,000 figure comes from the on-going tile replacement program. Assuming this isn't something I dreamed up last night, I remember that they try to replace a couple hundred tiles between each flight, just in case. If this is the case then the tile <i>repair</i> requirement would go up with increased flight rate, but the tile <i>replacement</i> wouldn't.<p>><i>Am I to understand that the current workforce has their thumb stuck up in well-shaded regions 2/3 of the time such that there's plenty of spare time to fit this extra servicing time in?</i><p>Again, assuming that the fog I'm in this morning hasn't got me inventing facts, the some of the time spent on time replacement would switched over to tile repair and the total man-hour requirements wouldn't go up that much.</p></p></p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"That sounds something on the high side."</font><br /><br />I continue to see this figure in internal NASA documentation. I doublechecked that before my post. It was from a recent doc (2000) -- NASA/TM-2000-210289. I have a great deal of difficulty believing they cannot accurately document the man-hour requirements.<br /><br />Also -- you're missing a few tile maintenance tasks. Every single tile/blanket/etc. has to be physically inspected for wear/cracks/etc. Besides replacing tiles, there are also a number on each flight that are repaired in place. Also the tiles must be re-waterproofed after each flight. From what I've read, the waterproofing is particularly a pain because the fumes are toxic and the building must be cleared until they have cleared.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If this is the case then the tile repair requirement would go up with increased flight rate, but the tile replacement wouldn't."</font><br /><br />Whattheheck makes you think that? Even if a brand-new orbiter magically appeared right this minute with the latest and greatest tile & blanket combination currently known to NASA... next year Ames will develop a better tile/blanket and they'll want to start replacing those old cruddy ones.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The figure is much less in this decade. The figures are out of date. "</font><br /><br />NASA's technical writers need a swift kick to the head then.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I will ignore this comment due to your un-professional attitude."</font><br /><br />My apologies -- I was trying (and apparently failing) to be amusing, rather than irritating.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">NASA does zero hands on work at KSC. United Space Alliance is the operator.</font><br /><br />O.K.<br />How many airlines are run by Boeing/Lockmart? Does USA try to open new markets for the Shuttle, for example, passengers? Why not sell empt seats? I think it's because NASA won't let them, and NASA is calling all of the shots with the Shuttle Program at this point, right? Does USA have the authority to lease me a Shuttle for 3 missions? I can lease a 747 from any one of 50+ airlines, but I can't lease a Shuttle.<br /><br />*EDIT*<br />It would be really cool to lease a Shuttle, I know I could sell every seat in the passenger module that would fit neatly in the payload bay, what an awesome weekend cruise! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I wonder how many people you could put on board if it was a short trip to a (relatively) low orbit?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I'm guessing at least at least 50, maybe 75. Once in orbit, stow the seats and zip up fabric dividers for 20-30 seperate berths, each with a little window. <br /><br />I think the Space Shuttle could have used a little help from a P.T. Barnum type.<br /><br /><i>Step right up and buy a ticket, only 50 grand, you can spend it now or let your kids fight about it when you're gone, for a cool 10 million, you can ride in the cockpit, right behind the Captain, step right this way.......</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Remember, its not just the people, its the life support,<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<i>NASA designed the shuttle to carry large payloads into space; it can carry 51,800 pounds into a 28º inclination orbit and 37,800 into a 57º inclination orbit. The orbiter's payload bay measures 60 feet long, 17 feet wide, and 13 feet deep.</i><br /><br />I bet the life support requirements wouldn't take up much of the space, compared to the size of the module. It seems to me that in a 12 foot diameter, 59 foot long tube would have lots of room. Plus there would be a lot of room left over in the payload bay, like 2 feet on either side. You could hold a lot of LOX, enough for weeks, I bet. You'd need some serious CO2 scrubbers, though, but I can't believe it's a show stopper.<br /><br />12 feet in diameter is pretty big <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I think going back to dinky little capsules is an embarrassing mistake.<<br /><br />HEAR HEAR.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>A night shuttle launch would be quite a sight to see<<br /><br />Check out the launch video to STS-61 (Endeavour) off the top of my head. It's a night launch which also has a view from a helicopter about 20 (or more) miles away - showing the VAB etc. and Endeavour not long after completing her roll about a mile up as this huge Sun-like ball. <br /><br />I'd kill to see that. Hell, I'd kill to get over and just be in an OPF with a Shuttle.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Shuttle RTF-<br /><font color="yellow">I'd kill to see that.</font><br /><br />Be careful what you wish for, I saw my first launch, STS-6 from here, and it kept drawing me back, year after year, after year. Finally, I had to move here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Stop trying to encourage me yet further <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">The ET and the SRBs run about 40 million each (refurbish a SRB and a new ET). The PROPELLANT <br />loaded into the ET, Orbiter and the SRB HPUs is not significant cost wise. </font><br /><br /><i>Step right up and buy a ticket, only 50 grand, you can spend it now or let your kids fight about it when you're gone, for a cool 10 million, you can ride in the cockpit, right behind the Captain, step right this way....... </i><br /><br />O.K. 50 grand a ticket won't even buy the External Tank. <br /><br />I am remined of the scene in Austin Powers........"One million Dollars!", (dramatic music)<br /><br />"Uh sir? One million dollars isn't a whole lot of money these days....One SRB costs 40 million to refurbish"<br /><br />"I see, O.K. We'll sell the tickets for.........5 million dollars!" (more dramatic music)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I guesstimated about 10 Million, but you have to find 25-50 people at once.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I'd bet that there are 10 times that number that would sign up tomorrow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>