Science cuts on ISS

[radarredux]

From NASA Watch:<br /><br />ISS Science Cuts Update<br />http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/11/iss_science_cut_1.html#more<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA is proposing to "realign" research and technology in the physical and life sciences in order to accelerate the development of crew vehicles and to complete the ISS. What this means is that most all that work will be eliminated so that not only won't the objectives of the Exploration Initiative be fulfilled but also, all of NASA's human spaceflight capabilities will be lost. Furthermore, all the research and engineering workforces with experience in reduced-gravity phenomena that have been nurtured over 30 years are being decimated.<br />...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />PS. I know a few people on this forum don't like NASA Watch owner, but I thought it was worth posting here since the letter is from one of the scientists.

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...research and engineering workforces with experience in reduced-gravity phenomena that have been nurtured over 30 years are being decimated..."<br /><br /><br /><br />probably the final result of VSE will be "moon" (and moon-rocks...) in 2020, but now appear like the old Soviet Union politics when all social plans for peoples was reduced or cutted to spend money for the giant nuclear weapons' arsenal (and trol... communism opposers was declared as mental diseased and sent to Siberian...)<br /><br />now NASA cuts (and will still cut!) great part of usefull science missions and experiments, orbital plans, interplanetary probes, research, etc. (with thousands excellent engineers and scientists fired!) to have the money to build its "SS20" (friendly called "stick") that will have the same STRATOSPHERIC cost of Soviet's SS20 plan and will NEVER be used for cargo/crew orbital flights due to its very high $400+ million per launch cost (CEV/CLV will be only used a few times for lunar missions... if VSE funds will be sufficient)<br /><br />I think that this is a "NASuicide"

 

[nacnud]

Or perhaps this is NASA saying 'the presedent told us to do this, congress if you want us to do science as well give us more money'. <br /><br />Then the balls out of their court.

 

[frodo1008]

Where do you get your cost estimates? In my own thinking a CEV only flight to the ISS will cost less than $200 million, as all that is needed is the single stick SRB type of craft. Even the Soyus costs at the very minimum $60 million to get up to the ISS. This is if you take only the seat cost to the tourists of some $20 million times the three seats, but I believe there are also other costs involved. And this is the cost to the far less inexpensive Russians (with the different monitary systems involved, the average Russian aerospace worker gets only a fraction of the pay of an equivalent American worker) and even then is still quite probably closer to $100 million to the ISS. <br /><br />Now that does compare very favorably with the $500 million dollar cost of the shuttle, but the shuttle also is capable of carrying up the actual heavy modules of the construction of the ISS itself, so it evens out somewhat in the end! <br /><br />So it does seem reasonable to me that the greater capacity and size of even the single stick SRM type of CEV will come out to at least some $200 million per trip to the ISS, but this will include some six people in the long run, and start off at 4 people, so it isn't very expensive in comparison.<br /><br />Now, if you are talking about a moon mission, your estimate is far too little! Even if we could ressurect the fantastic Saturn V to go back to the moon, each trip would cost in the region of some 1 billion dollars! After all, you are not just going around the earth at some 200 miles altitude, you are going to go to a body some 240,000 miles away! There to have some four people stay up to two weeks. This is in itself a large increase over even the magnificent Apollo. <br /><br />As a matter of fact the major cost of a moon mission isn't the CEV at all! It is the development of a SHLV and a greatly increased capacity moon lander! But, if you are going to get out of just LEO and truly go out to explore it is going to cost far more mon

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Or perhaps this is NASA saying 'the presedent told us to do this, congress if you want us to do science as well give us more money'.</font>/i><br /><br />Personally, I like Griffin's position: all focus is getting the station built and developing the means to access it reliably and relatively inexpensively. That is the horse, where the science is the cart -- don't put the cart before the horse.</i>

 

[dobbins]

How is the USA going to do any science on the ISS after 2010 if it doesn't have a way to get there? How are the ESA and Japan going to do any science if their ISS modules are sitting in a hanger at KSC? How much science can you do if 3 of the 4 main solar arrays are sitting down on Earth?<br /><br />This whole letter is amazingly short sighted. In the long run you will get a lot more science out of the ISS if you finish the darn thing as far as possible in the remaining lifetime of the STS program and insure there is some means of access other than the Soyuz after 2010.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"How is the USA going to do any science on the ISS after 2010 if it doesn't have a way to get there? How are the ESA and Japan going to do any science if their ISS modules are sitting in a hanger at KSC? How much science can you do if 3 of the 4 main solar arrays are sitting down on Earth?"<br /><br />'Bout as much as you can do with a tiny little LEM and four man-weeks on the moon, really. But that's not the point! The point is that we got there before that bunch of evil communists. Again.<br /><br />On the upside, we get to plant more of those shiny little silica reflectors, so we can prove to the next generation of loopy conspiracy theorists that we were actually there. Again.

 

[nacnud]

Over the cost/size of variouse US lanchers I found this graphic by kraisee over at nasaspaceflight.com, you might dispute some of the costs but it does show well how launchers compare.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"you might dispute some of the costs but it does show well how launchers compare."<br /><br />Not really much to dispute. History has shown NASA's published cost estimates for new vehicles in the design stage to be always about an order of magnitude out. You can probably expect the same with the new two.

 

[gaetanomarano]

how one CEV/CLV launch may cost $200 million if <font color="yellow">ONLY</font>the second stage's SSME engine costs $40 million?<br /><br />consider that one SSME costs "only" $40 million because was built 20+ years ago and NASA has a dozen of them (including the nine "used" SSME of Shuttles) <br /><br />just imagine how much will cost one SSME in 2015... <font color="yellow">and SSME is only 10% of CEV/CLV launch cost!!!!!!</font><br /><br />I will describe in detail my evaluation of CEV/CLV costs but my previous evaluation of $400 million per launch appear TOO optimistic!<br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

Post deleted by Nyarlathotep

 

[gaetanomarano]

I've read of NASA plan to use existing SSME to save, but if the engine will be redesigned and built in next years its cost may exceed twice to-day's costs! ...and SSME is only 10% of costs...<br /><br />"restartable"... why? the CLV's second stage engine don't need to be "restarted"

 

[nacnud]

Perhaps he ment air-startable.

 

[frodo1008]

The SSME is a reusable engine, I admit to not being sure, but I would certainly expect some kind of reusable engine for the single stick SRB for the second stage to also be used, and re used (even if not, see the next two paragraphs). As the vehicle only needs one such engine, and let us just say that it can only be used for some 5 launches (the current engines are reusable for up to some 20 flights, but I will be very conservative here and call it 5 flights) so the actual cost would be 8 million per flight for the SSME itself!<br /><br />By the way, if you take the entire cost of the SSME program from its beginning and divide it by the total number of engines used you would indeed come up with a cost of at least $40 million per engine. Of course, what any accountant will tell you is that once the development costs themselves are amortized over the production costs any additional engines will come down dramatically in cost. The first developmental engines actually cost more in the line of $100 million per each, and unfortunately in seeking the weight and performance goals, some of those engines were destroyed, but that IS part of the developmental cost of developing any new rocket engine. Or didn't you see all of those very nasty explosions in the movie "The Right Stuff", THAT is also part of the developmental learning curve, for total rocket launch systems! <br /><br />The last actual cost that I knew of at Rocketdyne for a new current design SSME was under $20 million. This is still a very expensive engine, even at that cost. But if you take your own estimate of the cost of the single SSME (even if it isn't reusable) as some 10% of the total cost of the single stick launch vehicle then my own estimate of some $200 million per launch is dead on!! <br /><br />The other main propulsion unit for the single stick VSE is the SRB. I admit that I don't really know the total costs of such a solid rocket, but hopefully there might just be someone on these boards who does

 

[gaetanomarano]

the second stage (with SSME) will BURNS in atmosphere

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...out to $1.4 billion per moon trip..."<br /><br />probably in your most fantastic dreams!!!<br /><br />95% of VSE funds (or 100%, if CEV will be too expensive to fly in orbit) will be used for 3 test missions and 12 moon mission in 2020-2025<br /><br />the cost of a "launch" is NOT only the "hardware" cost (that already are very high) but also research, support, buildings, repair, etc.<br /><br />the VSE extra budget is of $104 billion + "adjustments"... but... add next 20 years of inflation, cost grow and annual NASA budgets (since NASA cuts great part of space project to build the new vehicles) and the FINAL cost of 12 moon missions will be over $150+ billion, then, over $12.5 billion (all inclusive) for EACH moon week(end)s!!!

 

[frodo1008]

You are doing the same thing that almost eveyone that wishes to try and kill a project does. That is you are taking all the funding for the project, the original development, the production run, and the maintenance for the entire projected length of the project and adding them together into one giant lump sum. <br /><br />Just as an illustration of this type of thinking, if I were to buy an average car for some $20,000, then include the price of all the financing it would come up to at least $30,000, then the maintenance and gasoline (a very expensive item at present) would run at least $6,000 per year of ownership. Let us assume that I keep the car for some 10 years, then my total cost for this $20,000 car is now $90,000! So, obviously I shouldn't even consider buying such an expensive vehicle!<br /><br />If we carry this anology out for the total cost of home ownership, it gets much worse! <br /><br />So what would your suggestion be? For NASA to stay in LEO for the time it takes to truly develope CATS, which the nearest estimates put at some 10 years and most feel is going to take some 20 years (at a total budget of at least the same as the VSE project), then indeed we might save some money on going back to the moon, but as you so well pointed out much of the infrastructure for going out to the moon is still going to be just as needed as with the VSE program! So obviously going back to the moon at all is going to be far to expensive to even attempt!<br /><br />As for Mars, that is going to cost literally $trillions of dollars, so humanity should just stop going into space at all! Then we could further shut down such useless sites as this one, and simply fold our hands and wait for the inevitable demise of humanity!<br /><br />In the same time period that NASA would spend this money the American military will be spending some $10 trillion dollars! The total expenditure of the US federal government will be at least $50 trillion dollars. Try to put these things int

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just as an illustration of this type of thinking, if I were to buy an average car for some $20,000, then include the price of all the financing it would come up to at least $30,000, then the maintenance and gasoline (a very expensive item at present) would run at least $6,000 per year of ownership. Let us assume that I keep the car for some 10 years, then my total cost for this $20,000 car is now $90,000! So, obviously I shouldn't even consider buying such an expensive vehicle!<br /><br />If we carry this anology out for the total cost of home ownership, it gets much worse! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, to make the analogy really work, you should also include the development costs of the vehicle. Car manufacturers spend millions to develop new cars, so your average car becomes hideously expensive if you include that cost. <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]

Good Grief, here is another one! The ISS is NOT anywhere near finished, and you pontificate on what is going to be done on it. Do you also speak for the other partners in this project?<br /><br />Do you have even the slightest incling of what such a completed facility with some six people on board at a time could do? I think not! I don't totally know either, but at least I have the good sense not to be telling others what good or bad their efforts are going to accomplish. Another one who would tear down, without coming up with an alternative. If there is to be any suspension of certain scientific efforts on the part of NASA at this time on the ISS it is simply because the facility is nowhere near finished, and indeed the funding could be better spent elsewherw, but that is no reason for cancelling the finishing of the project itself! In actuallity most of the hardware to complete our portion of the ISS has already been built and paid for, it just has to be placed in orbit and assembled onto the ISS.<br />Then there is going to be a whole lot more science done on the ISS that hasn't anything to even do with the environmental affects of space on human beings.<br /><br />Also, the congress would NOT just give the money saved to NASA for other projects such as the VSE (which others here almost violently oppose anyway), the money would quite probably go into such great projects as the War in Iraq, and NASA's future budget would then just be cut by that amount for the future! What a wonderful gain that would be!<br /><br />Someone mentioned that these continuing negative arguments would start to get to me and influence my health in a negative manner. I am admittedly starting to find this to be possibly true. So I will now let all the negative energy here stew for awhile without my help!!<br /><br />Have A Nice Day!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

you're correct about cars, but cars are build in millions units, NOT only a few... if you buy an Ferrari "Enzo" the price may be over 2,000,000 $ because only 52 units was made!<br /><br />for that reason your computer costs $300 while and electromedical or scientific instruments (made with same parts but in a few units) may cost $300,000<br /><br />I agree with you about moon... if a country WANTS to do a "specific" target... no matter if its cost is STRATOSPHERIC!!!<br /><br />but I've focused my discussion about "civil" and "scientific" use of VSE machines... for ISS... for experiments... to brink back to earth ISS' trash... as Shuttle replacement... for "science in space"... etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />to allow all these beautiful and usefull purposes, a vehicle must be COMPETITIVE while CEV/CLV will be over, over, overpriced!!! (about 3 to 7 times overpriced... to be exact!)<br /><br />but, if you want, we can start try evaluate CEV/CLV real costs...

 

[dobbins]

The Saturn V information is misleading. NASA was planning on improvements to the design when Congress ended funding for the second generation of Saturn V rockets in 1968. The Upgraded Saturn V would have used the F-1A and J-2S engines which were simpler, lighter, and had higher thrust, considerably higher in the case of the F-1A (9.1 MN instead of 6.7MN). The Fins were also going to be eliminated reducing dead mass and lowering production costs. Much of the costs of the first generation Saturn Vs include the R&D costs which would have been far lower on the follow on second generation Saturn Vs. The second generation Saturn Vs would have been far cheaper than the estimate shown here and had a considerably larger payload.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Well maybe, but the chart shows the S-V as flown, anyway I didn't make the chart. I think the cost part is the hardest to get right but the chart also shows size and payload, also useful comparisons.<br /><br />I didn't know about the planned upgrades to the S-V, that makes it's cancellation even more of a tragedy.<br />

 

[drwayne]

"The Fins were also going to be eliminated reducing dead mass and lowering production costs."<br /><br /><br />Yep,<br /><br />The fins were close to useless - the only real role they played was providing seconds or fractions thereof of control in certain failure modes.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>