So much for the idea of an SRB being less expensive for CLV

[gunsandrockets]

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/04/clv_cost_escala.html<br /><br />So modifying the SRB for use as the CEV Crew Launch Vehicle will cost 3 billion dollars, three times as much as originally claimed. What a bargain! Why that modification cost is about the same as the combined development cost of the Atlas V AND the Delta IV.

 

[mattblack]

Are you really surprised? Name me a major manned space launcher or program that was ever on time and budget?<br /><br />Mercury?: No. <br />Gemini?: Nearly.<br />Apollo?: No.<br />Skylab?: Nearly.<br />Shuttle?: NO!<br />ISS?: Heck No!<br /><br />I'd bet most of the cost "overruns" came from ATK or Nasa itself lowballing the development cost estimates to get it all going, politically. And I'd strongly bet that dropping the 4-segment motor, SSME-upper stage in favour of the 5-segment, PTB-fuelled, J-2X upper stage is also a reason.<br /><br />Which just goes to prove that cost estimates for manned, let alone UNmanned space seldom match reality. Let's face it: manned space initiatives are always underfunded and, quite probably; inefficiently managed.<br /><br />My verdict? Let's not all collapse and go weak at the knees. We stand to lose a good launcher concept before it even has a chance to get started. And if this gets killed, there are very, VERY few alternatives left.<br /><br />A multi-purpose CEV for orbital, Lunar and other missions needs to be 25+tons plus to achieve it's missions. Many engineers and scientists from competing aerospace companies, some at each others throats, mutually know this is true. If you want a 12 or 15 ton CEV, it'll do dead basic missions like sending 4-man crews to LEO destinations and NOTHING more. If that's all you want for a CEV: might as well get T-Space to build their CXV now and save that $3 billion overrun.<br /><br />For the next decade plus; do we want to spend tens of billions sending humans to another world, or back to...<br /><br /><br /><br />Low Earth Orbit?<br /><br />Let's go to the Moon. Then the NEA's. Then Mars... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

And besides: Nasawatch really seems to have the knives out for the VSE and Mike Griffin in particular. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

(off-topic)<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Let's go to the Moon. Then the NEA's. Then Mars...</font><br /><br />I would like to see near-earth asteroids being visited at least concurrently with if not before the Moon. It should be possible with the same architecture as for lunar landings, and less propellant would be required, allowing more scientific payload.

 

[mattblack]

>>I would like to see near-earth asteroids being visited at least concurrently<<<br /><br />Works for me! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

You are correct there about nasawatch! This estimate is in all probability way over, just as NASA's itself is probably way under. As usual the truth will lie in between, as it always does! <br /><br />I love it when people take estimates on this type of thing as some kind of God's Truth! Every time this very, VERY difficult effort is made, even placing satellites into space, let alone the far more delicate human being, we are in essence going where no man has gone before!<br /><br />Heck, just doing what has been done some thousands of times before, placing a large communications or spy satellite into LEO with the capability to go on to a station keeping GEO orbit costs at least $500 million and sometimes over $1 billion dollars a pop! <br /><br />Usually the most expensive part of any launch system is the propulsion unit that provides the brute force thrust to get the payload into LEO. If NASA's estimates (and they ARE estimates) of the total over all cost of the VSE system to get us back to the moon and eventually on the Mars as well as being the next vehicle for the up keeping and supply of the ISS are true at some $100+ billion, then the major propulsion unit for this effort costing some $3 billion would indeed be CHEAP!<br /><br />It is just like people getting all worked up over $5 billion dollar overruns for the shuttle and ISS projects. As both of those projects cost over $100 billion each, over the 30+ years of each project, a cost overrun of less than 5% is not just good it is VERY good! Once again we were not turning out mass produced bottle caps here, we were attempting to do what had never been done before! <br /><br />With the over all losses of spacecraft, even the scientific and robot side of NASA has had that much of an overrun itself!<br /><br />If you think that pure private interests are going to be able to just undercut this by large amounts, think again! With the loss of the first Falcon I, and the amount of expenditure of funds it is going to c

 

[mikejz]

I wish that time was not such an issue: If not If I were Griffen I entertain using the EELV to help put ATK back in there place.

 

[frodo1008]

That is true. However, I would hope that Griffin has at the very least some degree of persuation. As even with a single source ATK should be made to realize that if they drive up costs too far, that congress itself may baulk, placing the entire program in fiscal jepardy.<br /><br />There is the old saying about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Are you really surprised? Name me a major manned space launcher or program that was ever on time and budget?</font>/i><br /><br />The issue, IMHO, is that the various powers that be promoted the SRB for the CLV as being inexpensive because there would be only minor modifications to an already man-rated rocket.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">I'd bet most of the cost "overruns" came from ATK or Nasa itself lowballing the development cost estimates to get it all going, politically.</font>/i><br /><br />That is quite possibly true, which is why I (and many others) hate this type of contract. The contracts should be fixed price.<br /><br />Although, what I personally don't like about ATK is that Ron Dittemore is senior VP. I remember after Columbia broke up, Dittemore giving these lame statements that the accident was impossible to prevent.<br /><br />Now he has a major role in America's next human launch vehicle? That chaps my hide.</i></i>

 

[crix]

Who are the solid propellant competitors? This is &%$#@ing bulls&$%&$!!! <br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

So much for the argument that using 1960's capsule designs and antiquated shuttle hardware would save time and money! It's time to abandon this porkbarrel project and focus on a new generation of RLV's. If we're going to have to spend billions either way, might as well advance our level of technology and get something worthwhile out of our investment!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>And besides: Nasawatch really seems to have the knives out for the VSE and Mike Griffin in particular.</i><br /><br />Lately, maybe, but for a while Mr. Kowing seemed like its biggest cheerleader.

 

[crix]

I think Kowing's done a good job simply reporting the news. I haven't felt any side-taking.... maybe that's because I'm so for the VSE that nothing phases me.<br /><br />I like his Astrobiology cuts graphic with a huge, quick, red, airbrushed "X" on it. heh. I'm not happy about astrobio cuts BTW, but the budget is limited. Like Griffin said, imagine the science payloads we can launch in the 100mt range.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Like Griffin said, imagine the science payloads we can launch in the 100mt range. </i><br /><br />Except that NASA won't have any money left for those science payloads after paying for the SDHLV!

 

[j05h]

>It's time to abandon this porkbarrel project and focus on a new generation of RLV's.<br /><br />I have to disagree: that is the SAME hole that we've been shovelling money into for 3 decades! For VSE-related excursions, NASA should have a standard price that they will pay for astronauts delivered to LEO. They should focus on the deep space craft and infrastructure and let the CURRENT market to LEO continue to grow. We already have half of the CEV's function in the form of Soyuz, and it's a lot cheaper for those planned 25+ flights to use it (or American equivalent) than to reinvent the wheel, yet again. <br /><br />$50 million/flight to LEO X 50 seats= $2.5 Billion + free pilots/Russians ride to moon for free.<br /><br />Or, set a higher price (say, $75 or $100 mil each seat) to encourage American equivalent. <br /><br />Can ATK even keep up with the projected launch rate? Or are they going to suck this puppy dry and wait til Congress cancels?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[crix]

Seriously, it makes me so dissappointed that ATK is looking like they are going to milk this thing... basically showing no faith in its completion and no desire to make this vision a reality. SOBs.

 

[tomnackid]

Hmmm, this is all "according to reliable sources"? I believe these people have been blasted on other space boards in the past for boasting of "inside information" that never amounts to anything. I would wait for confirmation from more credible news agencies before getting upset.

 

[mlorrey]

Hey now, ATK isn't making money on ICBMs anymore, they have to keep that ICBM industrial complex going. Besides, if NASA isn't gonna get rid of one surplus worker, why should ATK?<br /><br />Can't say I didn't warn ya...

 

[mlorrey]

Aerojet is the primary solid propellant competitor, and they could reopen the facility they built in Florida in the 60's to build 260 inch SRBs. If they resurrected their old Saturn V 260 inch SRB design, they could shorten the height of the CLV, making it easier to assemble in the VAB, and because their design is a monolithic design, the CLV would be even safer than with the ATK segmented design, maybe reduce the risk to around 1 in 10,000 or better.<br /><br />Now, considering the 260 inch SRB was for the Saturn program, and the 2nd stage is gonna use the Saturn's J-2 engine, I would suggest that this be renamed the Saturn-Derived Launch System. The CLV would be the Saturn III, and the SDHLV would become the Saturn VI...

 

[crix]

Fine by me. I even like the sound of Saturn VI. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I just want this thing to happen. I hope Griffin is pissed. He should be.<br /><br />If this is any sign of what we have to expect then the VSE will not happen. I hope Griffin can lead a "new NASA" that doesn't put up with companies screwing them by 300% with their estimates and actual costs.

 

[frodo1008]

When are you going to even start to understand things as they are, and NOT as you would wish them to be!!<br /><br />If NASA were to take all the money and time it would take to develope an entirely new RLV at this time it would take at least as much money as the current VSE design, and quite probably a great deal more! Even with this overrun (which is not even yet in existence by at least several years!). It would take another 10 years or more to develope such a vehicle, and the country would have NO access to space for human beings for at least 5 of those years (other than using Russian equipment that is)! Going back to the moon would be well after 2020, and going on to Mars God alone knows when!<br /><br />Not only a lot of the people on these boards but even more importantly the American tax payer is going to get very, very discouraged with NASA human space flight not being able to get out of LEO by that time! So it would be quite probable that NASA itself would become history at that time! Now, the may make some on these boards happy in itself, but most of us that truly support space activities in general, and manned space flight in particular would not be among such negativists!<br /><br />Is it even possible to get this through your mind? Or are we going to be continually treated to your negativity every time NASA has any kind of problems with this project? And those of us with experience in these matters know that there WILL be problems!<br /><br />Even if there are cost overruns, they will amount to far less than the development costs of an entirely new system! If you had kept up on space events you might just come to realize that underfunding of NASA over the last 35 years or so had taken a really terrible tole of NASA's ability to do these things. And then Mike Griffin's speach listed a whole lot of things that NASA is going to have to do in the next decade or so, even with that kind of limited funding. The truly amazing thing is that they have been abl

 

[steve82]

You can't have a true cost overrun unless you have a contracted-for price. This is not an overrun but a cost increase. Probably due to enhanced scope of the requirements which are still kind of a moving target. I wouldn't mind seeing some competition here, though.

 

[digitalman2]

If NASA would dare to present an alternative plan that does not use SRB's maybe it might actually turn out to be cheaper not only to build but launch and operations costs as well.<br />

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, especially considering how many ETs they have hanging around, as well as some 50-60 surplus SSMEs, they could build some serious liquid fuelled CLVs from those for very little cost.

 

[qso1]

I'd believe that only when I see it nowadays. NASA as part of the government and despite their relative efficiency compared to other government operations, is still a government agency. Private enterprise is our last best hope to get to LEO and operate there efficiently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>