the reason for the high cost of getting back to the moon;

[oker59]

number one, the price appears higher because of inflationary affects, but,<br /><br />i keep thinking that a major reason is because we have to rebuild the infrastructure that has now been lost; this doesn't just mean hardware, but experienceware.<br /><br />Of course, another reason for the initial cost is that we're going to build a souped up Apollo rocket!<br /><br />We've got to drum into the politicians and non-space explorers/colonizers that 'no space, no economy for the future.' We cannot stay here on the earth and expect to get by, by playing economics games; as the old addage in auto-racing goes - cubic inches over turbo tricks any day! We need to tap resources out there and not play advanced economics tricks down here!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The reason is labor costs.</font>/i><br /><br />In general, labor costs rise faster than inflation, so if you have a labor-intensive business it is difficult to keep costs down. This is one of the primary areas that SpaceX is targetting -- building a rocket program without requiring an army of people to support it.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Of course, another reason for the initial cost is that we're going to build a souped up Apollo rocket!</font>/i><br /><br />The new program will:<ul><li>Carry more mass to the Lunar surface<br /><li>Be able to land in more locations<br /><li>Have a more flexible design (e.g., robotic cargo lander)<br /><li>Includes a rudimentary outpost for 180-day missions<br /><li>Carry more crew<br /><li>Have a higher safety margin</li></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br />I recall recently that on the Apollo 11 mission that key managers thought they only had a 50-50 chance of accomplishing the mission. While no one died on Apollo flights, they were still extremely dangerous.</i>

 

[christine16]

bureaucracies

 

[corydog]

Indeed, I think labor cost is possibly NASA's biggest problem. If you have ever worked for NASA or one of it's contractors, you know what I am talking about. The standing army is a holdover from when they actually needed it (going from virtually no knowledge/hardware to moon landings in ten years). Now no one will just let them slash so many jobs at once though they all demand greater bang for their buck.<br /><br />Polliticians do a pretty precarious dance: they represent contractors that want contracts and lots of jobs, but they also have to wring their wrists for the camera that space travel doesn't pay welfare. Therefore the polliticians both instruct NASA to maintain that army of workers, and deny NASA the money to pay them all while accomplish it's mandated goals. <br /><br />Congress doesn't want scientific advances from NASA; they just want them to keep their constituents employed and voting for them.<br /><br />I hate ending a post so cynically, but it seems hard to deny. NASA is going to have to make big changes if we are to get back to the Moon next decade and I really hope they do. Everyone is willing to help but we just gotta figure out how.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA is going to have to make big changes if we are to get back to the Moon next decade and I really hope they do.</font>/i><br /><br />One interesting factor is that NASA is going to have a huge percentage of its workforce retire in the next 5 years or so. This will give NASA a chance to hire a workforce more aligned with its current vision. Its a start...</i>

 

[halman]

CoryDog,<br /><br />Hi! I haven't seen you around before, so I am going to take it upon myself to welcome you the SDC Uplink, where crazy people go to relax.<br /><br />Something that most people seem willing to ignore when talking about the 'standing army' at NASA is this: If they didn't work for NASA, who would they work for? Wouldn't most of them be out of jobs, or working in a field which has nothing to do with science and technology?<br /><br />Some politicians are smart enough to realize that if there is no high tech work, there will be no high tech workers. This is not a desirable situation, if your military is ultra high tech, and the rest of the world seems to be going high tech rather quickly. Keeping our high tech workforce doing something constructive without spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't really have right now is the big challenge.<br /><br />Another poster mentioned that a large portion of the NASA workforce will be retiring in about 5 years. It will be interesting how many of those positions will be filled with native born American citizens. If I were a young college student, I would not be very inclined to go thousands of dollars in debt learning a profession that is not hiring and hasn't been for years.<br /><br />We need to consider the high costs of NOT going back to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Haven't seen actual cost estimates yet but NASA was mandated to conduct the VSE using existing budgets. The plan was to cut science and aerospace research budgets to fund the VSE. Unlike Apollo which benefitted from mid 1960s funding increases that today would be double NASAs current budget.<br /><br />Do you have some cost data? <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>

 

[john_316]

Your correct in that they need to reeducate themsleves on this. However I also think its a slow start approach and as we progress we can dump more money into the program as it matures. I think once the shuttle retires that will allow an extra billion per year in the infrastructure and possible launches.<br /><br />I honestly believe however that they will have to have the CLV come in on budget or under budget. Because if it cost 500 million to launch 3-4 guys in a Tin Can then we all get screwed again by big business and NASA.<br /><br />Now if anyone has a idea of figures on what a LEO mission to ISS will cost for a crew of 4 on the Orion then I would appreciate some numbers. I just hope that the cost will be that of half of a shuttle launch. If its isnt then just buid 2-3 new orbiters and keep the STS program.<br /><br />But we need to keep trucking along as the business addage would aapply...<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[bpfeifer]

"NASA was mandated to conduct the VSE using existing budgets."<br /><br />This is almost correct. The VSE budget is supposed to balloon as it approaches actual moon landings. Development and testing of the CEV is not supposed to require significant additional funds allocated to NASA, but the heavy lift developement and lunar lander and base development will require more. This comment is based on research I did for undergrad papers I wrote shortly after the President's Commission for Implimentation of the VSE released their report. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[corydog]

Than you, halman, I'm enjoying myself so far.<br /><br />I agree with you that the government needs to benefit the people and NASA does so by providing jobs in a technical field and it’s very appreciated by those of us who are actually members of that standing army. But I am trying to ignore my position and speak as an American who is concerned that this architecture won’t get us back to the Moon.<br /><br />I know some of you wanted some numbers, and here's a link right to nasa.gov where Griffin speaks of a 3-5 billion dollar shortfall through the end of the decade. <br />http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/HQ_06056_Budget_Statement.html<br /><br />I can’t find any word on the costs of just flying a CEV to the ISS, but I don’t imagine that will be a problem. It’s the Moon missions that concern me.<br /><br />In the end, NASA answers to Congress, not scientists and engineers. Griffin himself even said this back during the whole flap about science advisors resigning: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21810<br /><br />And you cannot deny our congressmen are steered by big business interests. I think then it’s safe to say that the architecture to return to the moon is not based solely on good science and engineering judgment, but certainly at least partially influenced by big aerospace.<br /><br />NASA sold the congress and the people that they would return to the Moon using an old engineering mantra that is something like “perfect tomorrow is the enemy of good enough today”. Basically, they said we’ll use exactly what we have now instead of building next-gen systems so we can get their quick and cheap. <br /><br />But almost nothing shuttle-derived anymore. To make the SRB’s usable, they need to increase the grain length 25 percent, rebuild the casing to take all loads along it’s longitudina

 

[halman]

CoryDog,<br /><br />I share your concerns regarding the current and proposed infrastructure NASA wants to use to get us back to the Moon. I fear that, given limited budget increases, and mission demands only a few years out, the slipstick guys were forced to try to make existing hardware do the job. I have been in the military, and I understand that sometimes we get orders that are either impossible or very difficult to carry out, but when it involves the safety of other people, we should not compromise.<br /><br />When the President made his proposal about returning to the Moon without calling for increasing substantially the NASA budget in the immediate future, I got a sinking feeling in my stomach. The idea that this whole thing is a sham, contrived to curry favor with the voters, and to allow posturing to our partners here on Starship Earth, insinuated itself into my mind. I was reminded of the numerous design studies that NASA contracted for during the 1990's, design studies which showed great promise, but which were cut just before money would have to be set aside to start building hardware. It kept the engineers employed without imposing any further demands of the budget in years ahead.<br /><br />Is that all that we are doing right now, just keeping the engineers employed, without the serious intention of ever building any of this hardware? This country has got to decide whether it wants to be a central player in the future of off planet development, or if that is just too expensive for the richest country in the world. Because we are not going to succeed in continuing our efforts off planet at current budget levels. Either we spend more money, or we save our money and give up on developing the high frontier. We can spend just a little money for years and years and not accomplish a damn thing, as most of the shuttle program demonstrates. Instead of spending the money to build a space station or two while the shuttle was in its prime, we dillydallied, payi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mithridates]

Though I'm (very tentatively) hopeful for the upcoming missions to the Moon because other nations are planning on the same thing, I believe that most money right now should be invested almost entirely in robotic exploration and astronomy. The reason for that is that it feels like we're just about on the cusp of discovering something really fascinating in another solar system as we continue to refine our methods in discovering planets, and I'm hopeful that public interest will really increase once we've discovered a few terrestrial planets within the habitable zone of some stars within a few dozen light years.<br /><br />Also, this is a bit off-topic but I also believe that some robots to be sent to places like the Moon, Mars and other inner solar system objects should be made to look human. It may seem silly at first but there's something about a robot that looks human that makes people sit up and pay attention where a rover doesn't. That's where the popularity of Astro Boy (Tetsuwan Atomu) first came from. Imagine for example one of the rovers on Mars right now on the edge of a crater about to take a few measurements. That's exciting enough for me and probably most of the people on the board. But imagine the same rover in the same spot, except that this time it's shaped like a person and is sitting down on the ledge in the sun, wiping away the fine grains below with its hand to get a better look before it picks up the rock to get a better look at it. A human-shaped robot would not only attract attention in that way but also on shows like the Tonight Show where I'm sure they would be spoofing the robot all the time, saying that it's bored of picking up rocks, etc. and since all news is good news that would definitely be a help. It would need a name too of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The cost of going to the moon is high, but the new system will cost about half what the apollo flights costed, while providing much higher performance as well. <br /><br />I certainly hope that 'moore's law' for spaceflight isn't 50% every 40 years, but it looks like that might be the case - at least for NASA.<br /><br />The cost really depends on how often they fly, STS costs 4.3 billion wether it flies 6 times, once, or not at all. Certainly the Aries Vehicles will have a similar price structure because NASA is building a factory rather than buying a product. The big question is wether NASA will be able to come up with (expensive) payloads to keep the factory at capacity, perhaps through international hardware contributions.

 

[ariesr]

<i>Wouldn't most of them be out of jobs, or working in a field which has nothing to do with science and technology? <br /></i><br /><br />There's always other space agencies such as ESA, Italian, China, Japan.....<br /><br />America aint the only one doing space exploration and that will be increasingly evident as the decades roll on. It's going to get crowded up there. Fling in private companies to the mix. <br /><br />In fact, havent any european countries approached NASA about collaboration on the Moon project? It's not like they dont have particular expertise to offer.

 

[trailrider]

"Something that most people seem willing to ignore when talking about the 'standing army' at NASA is this: If they didn't work for NASA, who would they work for? Wouldn't most of them be out of jobs, or working in a field which has nothing to do with science and technology?"<br /><br />The same thing is true of the people working for the contractors and subcontractors. Aerospace people, whether they work for NASA or contractors have, since the end of World War II gone through a cycle of hiring and firing that would (and has) drive(n) people out of the workforce into other jobs and industries! I personally went through about five cycles in a twenty year period, not counting my military service (non-career). The main reason why so many of us continued to go through this was that space and aviation wasn't just a career...it was a calling (though I doubt you'd get many to admit it!).<br /><br />The problem for NASA and industry is that when they have been forced to a Reduction In Force (RIF), "surplus", "layoff", "downsizing", etc., is that they immediately lose the experience that you can't learn in college. No less than the U.S. Air Force itself, laid part of the blame for several Titan launch vehicle failures to the fact that the engineering personnel left after one layoff resulted in no one with the experience to determine there was a software problem, because no one allegedly knew there was a program that could have detected the problem ahead of time!<br /><br />Yes, NASA and the aerospace industry will lose a lot of the experience base in the next five years. In point of fact, they have been complaining for the last DECADE, in print, in Aviation Week magazine's annual assesment of the industry, that they can't interest young student in the STEM disciplines the industry needs. (Of course, nobody want any of the "senior citizens"...we cost too much money in terms of health insurance, pension contributions, etc. Not that they ask if we'd do without them. I WILL BLO

 

[qso1]

john_316:<br />I honestly believe however that they will have to have the CLV come in on budget or under budget. Because if it cost 500 million to launch 3-4 guys in a Tin Can then we all get screwed again by big business and NASA.<br /><br />Me:<br />If it costs that much to launch astronauts...big biz and NASA will only screw themselves. The public won't support human space exploration if we can't get past this cost barrier. <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>

 

[no_way]

The reason is labor costs. >> This, and the fact that NASA wants ( well, actually Congresscritters want and NASA is forced to ) preserve each and every single job in STS system and of major contractors. The sole mission of overgrown bureaucracy is to preserve itself.

 

[john_316]

<b><font color="yellow">Me:<br />If it costs that much to launch astronauts...big biz and NASA will only screw themselves. The public won't support human space exploration if we can't get past this cost barrier. </font>/b><br /><br /><br />qs01, You are absolutely right here.....<br /><br /><br /><br />Now here is the questions: Has anyone even given the slightest guess to actually how much it will cost to launch the CLV/Stick?<br /><br />I am under the impression even with the CM, SM, upper stage design and recertification of the J-2 that the vehicle it's self should be in fact lower in cost compared to the Delta-4H or the Atlas-5 that will gain market share in the heavy satellite business for the USAF.<br /><br />I know its still early on in even speculating how much this will cost but if the price tag even hits 250 million per launch then I fail to see any gains what so-ever in the endeavor. Then we just can wait to Bronson and those guys get us there.<br /><br />I guess the Doc Horowitz spoke of a 200 million launch price tag. IMHO that still is too high. I found this little link but I haven't done any "real" or "respectable" research into the price tag. <br /><br />link /> http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/001093.html<br /><br /><br />If refurbishment is out in the SRB then I would "ASSUME" that the price tag should no higher than 150-175 million per launch. Again I am just going on comparisons of Titan-4, Delta-4H and Atlas-5.<br /><br />Launch Costs:<br />Titan-4 $400 million launch<br />Delta-4H $254 million (USAF variables)<br />Delta-4H ) ($500 million to develop)<br />Atlas-5 $138, $192, and $254 million (USAF variables)<br />Atlas-5 ($1.6 billion to develop)<br />Ares-1 ?<br />Ares-1 (? Development to develop)<br /><br /><br />Ok I am being a tickler on the launch cost. Why that is, is because we don't need another big ticket rocket price tag when we already have 2 on the table not inclu</b>

 

[barrykirk]

Well, than this sounds like another argument in favor of<br />direct.<br /><br />How much of the problems of getting vibration modes<br />just right are due to the fact that we are also trying to<br />simulultanously engineer out every last ounce of<br />weight?<br /><br />The reason the weight is so critical for the stick is that<br />it is so close to the edge of having the lift capacity.<br /><br />With direct, there is ample extra mass. So, shaving<br />ounces isn't as necessary. I'm sure that dampening<br />vibration by adding dampening mass in just the right<br />places is a relatively trivial process compared to what<br />the designers are going through right now.<br /><br />They just don't have a choice with the stick because<br />they can't add any dampening mass.

 

[barrykirk]

I'll give an analogy which may have no actual bearing <br />on the rocket design problem.<br /><br />If I have a balance problem with my wheel on my car<br />I go down to my mechanic and have him add little lead<br />weights until the wheel is balanced. I wouldn't ask him<br />to redesign the wheel to rebalance it without adding<br />any weight.

 

[j05h]

> You, ( and just about everybody else who has never been inside an aerospace development effort,) totally underestimate the work involved to make ANY change to a flight system.<br /> /> This is a field where ONE fastner in an unauthorized location can cause, and has caused, rugged jet fighters to come apart in the air. <br /><br />I agree about the cost of modifying flight systems. However, the problem has nothing to do with design issues, IMHO. The problem has to do with replicating capabilities and ignoring a preexisting market. The Stick is looking to cost nearly as much as Shuttle to fly (very carefully balanced, indeed, to match STS). This flies in the face of the current market for human spaceflight, which puts one human in orbit for 10 days at about $20million and one human in orbit for 6 months at under $50 million. Even doubling those costs is cheaper than the Stick's guestimates. Economics rule. NASA is spending $30 Billion on something they can go out and buy right now - except that they have determined the One True Way to keep ATK in business. Even Lockheed is waking up to commercial human spaceflight with the Bigelow-Atlas thing. It is not inspiring to watch NASA keep making the same mistakes, decade after decade, and gutting their science efforts to make it (maybe) happen.<br /><br />We could be exploring the Moon now, using Soyuz, EELV and Russian station components. Put an FGB, two Block DMs and associated modules at L1 and stage to the moon, if needed. I'm still for MARS FIRST, so I'm biased. I also think that a commercial mission to the Moon could beat NASA back there - imagine the storm if Sir Richard claimed Shackleton Crater.<br /><br />The high cost of getting to the Moon is doing business as usual. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The original 4seg/ssme version of the stick was quoted in ESAS as costing $855m/year+$112m/flight. If it flies 2x/year (as scheduled for lunar missions) that's about $540m/flight. If it flies 6x/year (for ISS resupply say) then it's more like $255m/flight. Switching from SSME to J2-x should save about $30m, but the 5 seg eats most of that. ESAS said this version cost 96% of the original, which would imply something like $245M@6 and $517@2. <br /><br />CM and SM were both quoted at about $150m, so the full stack would cost $800m if only 2 fly yearly, or $555m if 6 fly. <br /><br />However, looking at NASA's spending history with the shuttle, they pay for 6 flights/year wether it flies or not because they keep all the resources on hand to make that flightrate. We have no reason not to expect the same to be true with the Aries vehicles, in which case Aries 1 would cost $740m@2 and $245m@6.<br /><br />Oh, and remember a bit ago when NASA officially said they 'didn't know' what a lunar base would cost? They lied:<br />

 

[john_316]

<i><font color="yellow">You, ( and just about everybody else who has never been inside an aerospace development effort,) totally underestimate the work involved to make ANY change to a flight system. </font>/i><br /><br /><br />newsartist you are correct that I haven't been in an aerospace development effort but I have been a military development program. Well actually three of them.<br /><br />I have seen the Mk48 Torpedo program go from the Mk48 Mod 3 and 4 to the Mk48ADCAP and its current configuration MODS.<br /><br />I do know how that money stream works:<br /><br />The Mk48 was developed at Penn State University with the help of business such as Gould and Westinghouse the original manufactures of the weapon. It then went through Hughes Aircraft and Northrup Grumman. <br /><br />I worked with the Guidance and Control System of that weapon and know the processes it went through in upgrades to its baseline.<br /><br />I have seen how much money was spent on the system and how much was spent on the infrastructure of the system. I am also aware of the cost associated with the upgrades from Mk48 ADCAP to MODS (Mod 5 and 6)<br /><br />Even though that system isn't a 20-30 billion dollar system in design and improvement I do know how that system was upgraded and where much of the money went. <br /><br />Perhaps its easy to say that many contractors are or where salary employees during the improvement and that NUWC Keyport, Washington kept tabs on how much was being spend and funded and appropriate reacted to the costs associated with the weapon system.<br /><br />The timing and financing when very rapid in the 90's and so was the production of said weapon. I know how much a G&C cost along with how much the Navy spent on tie-wraps and bolts for the weapon. As I said I have a good inclination of the price associated with said system.<br /><br />I also a participant in the Mk46/Mk50 VLA and Tomahawk program in the 80s and 90's.<br /><br />I think something might be learned here</i>

 

[mah_fl]

Don't forget the human cost, 3 men died on Apollo 1.