The VERY HUMILIATING close encounter that will NEVER happen:

[gaetanomarano]

<br />launch pads, etc. are earth infrastructures (and not the main part, as value) while offsprey5's post (and my answer) is about SPACE infrastructures (like Hubble, ISS, etc.) that, with the "100% expendable" ESAS architecture will be near ZERO (only TONS of SCRAP burned in atmosphere, launched in deep space and abandoned on the moon)<br /><br />after the Shuttle retiremen, we will never see any (cheap or expensive) REUSABLE space hardware for 30+ years<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />it's clear that no one (not even NASA) can give exact figures about future vehicles also because, NASA tradition about REAL costs, is to double or triple planned figures...<br /><br />the evalution of unexisting objects can be made only through comparison with similar existing objects (capsules, rockets, etc.) and some well known official figures like the VERY OPTIMISTIC $5B+$5B R&D planned costs for CEV and CLV...<br /><br />I've made simple and complex CEV/SM/CLV evaluation in many posts (that I can't repeat again here) and the $1 billion per launch is the MOST OPTIMISTIC figure I can give because it may be true only if CEV will be used for 30+ flights in next 20 years<br /><br />about SDHLV... it will be so expensive that no one can evaluate its cost now... expecially due to its very high R&D costs shared to only a few launches (less than 15 in next 20 years)<br /><br />but if you want to know SDHLV costs... think that only its expendable SSMEs will cost around $500 million per launch!<br />

 

[najab]

Stop making things up with <b>NOTHING</b> to base it on.<br /><br /> /><i> think that only its expendable SSMEs will cost around $500 million per launch! </i><p>SSME's cost around $40M each (and that's including the development costs which were incurred 30+ years ago!) in the reusable form - the expendable version for the HLV will likely cost quite a bit less. Even at $50M each ($10M <b>more</b> than what they cost now), it would take 10 to come up to the $500M you've claimed.</p>

 

[subzero788]

like I said in my post above gaetanomarano, don't just pull figures out of thin air. Where did you come up with the $ 500 million price tag for the SSME's?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no<br /><br />the $40M cost of SSME is for a few "NASA stock" (around half dozen, I've read)<br /><br />the "low" price is due to already damped SSME R&D costs<br /><br />I've read of a cost of $60M per earth-start SSME built NOW... but this is NOT the price of 2020 when SDHLV will be built and fly (I don't evaluate the 2020's SSME price because I can't predict the next 15 years inflation and cost growth...)<br /><br />the 2nd stage CLV will use a special "air-start" SSME that (manufacturer's claim) will need three years of extra research (and extra money...) and (I think) it will cost more than standard SSME<br /><br />then... only the 1st stage HLV's SSME will cost $300M... at to-day's prices...<br /><br />high prices are NOT a problem... US economy and US federal budget can easily pay high prices for space (look at Irak war prices)<br /><br />the equation is simple... the (100% expendable) VSE, ESAS, CEV, CLV, HLV and LSAM prices will be VERY VERY VERY HIGH... but USA and NASA (thanks to new funds) <font color="yellow">CAN</font>spend (and WILL spend) them<br /><br />there is no reason that you (uplink's users) will insist to say that VSE/ESAS cost will be "low" and "cheap"... because (clearly) it's NOT TRUE... but this is NOT IMPORTANT for you and NASA since they will have the money to pay these "very high prices"<br /><br />the Apollo project was very expensive but the US political decision was to spend that money to be the first to go on the moon<br />

 

[carp]

"high prices are NOT a problem... US economy and US federal budget can easily pay high prices for space (look at Irak war prices) <br /><br />the equation is simple... VSE, ESAS, CEV, CLV, HLV and LSAM price will VERY VERY VERY HIGH but USA and NASA (thanks to new funds) CAN spend (and WILL spend) them <br /><br />there is no reason that you (uplink's users) will insist to say that VSE/ESAS cost will be "low" and "cheap"... because (clearly) it's NOT TRUE... but it's NOT IMPORTANT for you and NASA since they will have the money to pay high prices" ____________________"No bucks,no Buck Rogers".<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I think that each CEV/CLV launch will cost $1 billion or more... but NASA will have the money to launch many $1 billion CEV/CLVs... why do you insist to persuade me that CEV/CLV will cost only $200 million? ...do you want to sell a CEV/CLV to me? (I've not so much money to spend...)<br />

 

[strandedonearth]

You have your opinion, I have mine, and the other users here have theirs, and we've expressed them many times. The appropriate thing to do now is agree to differ, and let that poor dead horse rest in peace.<br /><br />As far as NASA's cost estimating goes, NASA has learned from its mistakes and AFAIK, Griffin is using realistic figures with appropriate contingency funds, instead of 'if everything goes according to wishful thinking' (required to sell projects to Congress) numbers with no contingencies. Given that they're working with known technologies, there should be few unforeseen difficulties in the development. I would be very surprised if there were significant overruns in the developments costs for the CEV or SDLV's .<br /><br />Oh, and the CEV doesn't need a manipulator arm for assembly projects. The arm can be attached to and operated from whatever is being built. Same with airlocks.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I agree with you about "different opinions" so I suggest that all users may give "his own" opinion about "costs" and avoid to turn any discussion to a "battle"<br /><br />about CEV/CLV costs... 70% of "my" final $1 billion CEV/CLV price come from well known costs (SRB, SSME, ready available half-CLV-payload rockets, etc.) and NASA claims (like the shared R&D costs)<br /><br />of course, it's impossible to know the real (2015) launch cost, but the discussion about it is not useless<br /><br />in my early posts here, I've proposed the CREWLESS Space Shuttle (not the unexisting Shuttle-C but a reuse of the existing Shuttle for 25 tons cargo launches) and, instead to discuss of my proposal, I've received lots of critics and some insults<br /><br />the main critic was that "Shuttle is too expensive while capsules are cheap"<br /><br />I've accepted as "true" the critics about costs and I've explained why, despite its costs, a new shuttle is better than a new capsule<br /><br />but, after reading some articles and further info about CEV, etc., I've found that "capsules" (and, expecially, the new CEV capsule!) will have MANY LIMITS but NOT a "low cost" per launch<br /><br />I've found that the real cost of a CEV launch "may be" like MORE than one Shuttle launch... but without the incredible advantages of a Shuttle (25 tons payload, assembly, twice the crew, 30+ times reusable, runway landing, giant cargo return, etc.)<br /><br />and now, after weeks of posts and evaluations, I understand the TRUE reason of critics and insults received in reply of my posts about Shuttle advantages, CEV costs, etc.<br /><br />THE MAIN ARGUMENT TO RETIRE THE SHUTTLE AN BUILD THE CEV IS THAT THE LATTER IS <font color="yellow">VERY CHEAP</font><br /><br />this is THE BASE of the entire new plan...<br /><br />no one want to talk about prices... many prefer to IGNORE the real prices for ideal reasons but (probably) some prefer that (perfectly known...) real prices MUST BE ignored<br /><br />I've a qu

 

[strandedonearth]

The CEV/CLV is the best choice right now because it is the quickest and cheapest replacement for the STS, because it uses existing technology. Bear in mind the designs are not finalized yet, as the costs and other factors are evaluated for each iteration. <br /><br />Whether it is too expensive or not, the USA can afford it, especially if they would stop starting wars. What the USA cannot afford is not having its own way of putting men in space. It can play with more esoteric designs again when it has a new system in place.<br /><br />The reason most people, including myself, disagree with your estimates is that you GUESS at how big the overruns will be, when there may not be any. You also spread your guestimated development costs over a fixed number of flights, when there will almost be certainly be more flights after the planned ones. Take development costs out of the equation and the costs drop dramatically.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />my question is a little different... "if next years PRACTICAL development work will demonstrate that CEV is really too expensive and a bad design with too much limits for space-work... do you want that NASA will change its design or its plan... or finish building (and USE for 30+ years!) a bad vehicle?" (how you can 100% exclude that you WILL BE wrong and CEV critics WILL BE right?)

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"'if next years PRACTICAL development work will demonstrate that CEV is really too expensive and a bad design with too much limits for space-work... do you want that NASA will change its design or its plan... or finish building a bad vehicle?' (how you can 100% exclude that you WILL BE wrong and CEV critics WILL BE right?)"</font><br /> <br />That's a pointless hypothetical question. How about...if next years development work demonstrates that the CEV is a good, low cost, effective design for its intended mission will you continue to repeat your "opinions" over and over again?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><font color="yellow">"...That's a pointless hypothetical question. How about...if next years development work demonstrates that the CEV is a good, low cost, effective design for its intended mission will you continue to repeat your "opinions" over and over again?..."</font><br /><br /><br />no... if CEV/SM/CLV will really costs like a Soyuz I will not repeat my opinion (and probably I will buy one... if I will have the money...)<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

There's a thread on Free Space where you can post what your dream Christmas present would be. That would be a nice entry for the list -- a Soyuz spacecraft! Wouldn't that be cool?<br /><br />I'd probably buy one too if I could afford it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...if CEV/SM/CLV will really costs like a Soyuz...I will buy one... if I will have the money"</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />...who knows. Someday we might see them on E-Bay.<br /><br />At any rate, comparing the cost of Soyuz and CEV is unfair. The Soyuz <b>might</b> be able to do a lunar flyby, maybe, but it's a 3-person craft designed primarily for relatively short duration LEO missions. The CEV will be able to carry up to 6 people and will have long duration mission capability. To expect it to cost the same as a Soyuz is unrealistic, unfair and pointless. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...will really costs like a Soyuz..."<br /><br /><br />not EXACTLY "like a Soyuz"... it mean "LOW COST" or "CHEAP" or "$200 million per flight only" or "NOT $1 billion per flight of my (optimistic) evaluation"...<br />

 

[pocket_rocket]

Where have I heard this before?<br /><br />Oh yeah, from you. Dozens of times in many threads. Toy capsule is too small. Very expensive capsule is too big. Soyuz cheaper. <br />NASA has many missions. It makes plans for vehicles with those missions in mind. The too small / too large capsule will be designed with moon / mars missions in mind. What do you think congress would say if Griffin presented a plan using Russian or Chinese hardware to get us to the moon? <br />Many engineers will be involved in the CEV designs and planning. These engineers will be the best in the industry. The dude that invented the burger flipper for McDonalds won't even be considered.<br />If you have something new to add, okay. But to repeat the same old crap so many times is outrageous. I no longer need to read your posts. I have them memorized due to the repitition.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />my suggestion is clear from thread's title... don't retire the Shuttle and start to design a new shuttle for future LEO flighs<br /><br />the true CEV (etc.) prices will be very very high (higher than shuttle flights... without 25 tons cargo, etc...) ..."new shuttle high costs" and "capsule low costs" are CLEARLY (and ONLY) some "excuses" and "fake info" to convince tech and non-tech peoples that "capsules is the only way (and the cheaper way) for space"... but this is not true<br />

 

[dobbins]

"my suggestion is clear from thread's title... don't retire the Shuttle and start to design a new shuttle for future LEO flighs"<br /><br />It has been explained to you several dozen times that the Shuttle is too expensive and another spaceplane won't fit NASA's needs.<br /><br />You don't listen to anyone other than yourself and you don't believe anything but the stale old lies you cooked up. If you have any goal other than being a pest you are wasting your time here. You aren't accomplishing anything other than irritating people. Maybe you would have better luck on some other forum, one where everybody is an idiot that knows nothing about space. Then some of them might fall for the nonsense you push.<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

So?? The shuttle was never designed to go to the moon...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the Shuttle must be redesigned and upgraded for LEO missions<br /><br />remember that LEO is the FIRST STEP to moon, mars and beyond<br /><br />since in space and on the moon there is no atmosphere... moon vehicles may have many different (and better) shapes than capsule... but, if you want, the moon-vehicle may be a capsule...<br />

 

[dobbins]

The Shuttle is too expensive. Too expensive in real hard numbers, not just some random figures somebody pulled out of their butt.<br /><br />Why do you have trouble comprehending something that simple?<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

I think someone from the pro shuttle lobby is paying this person...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I'm in Italy... you have many loobyies and lobbyists in America to support shuttles or everything else... and probably some are writing non-sense pro-capsules articles, posts and insults in forums, websites, magazines, etc.<br /><br />you don't need to offend me only because I don't have your opinion<br /> <br />also, you over-extimate very much the importance and the "influence" of a space-enthusiast's forum... the cruel reality is that WE can ONLY "talk of space and science" but WE can't change NOTHING... not pro-capsules nor pro-shuttles nor pro-what you want...<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />TO UPLINK'S MODERATORS<br /><br />why do you have locked the thread I've open about possible moon missions' fails?<br /><br />you CAN lock what you want... but I think it's an unacceptable censure!<br /><br />you perfectly know that the probabilities' law can't give ANY precise figures about "successes and fails"<br /><br />I can say that 90% of flights may fail and you can say that only 10% may fail... but, BOTH me and you, may be right!<br /><br />about spaceflights, ONLY the past experience counts!<br /><br />and the past experience say to us that MANY manned and unmanned flights have had little and big delays, aborts and full fails!<br /><br />the 70% figure of thread's title may appear too much (or too pessimistic) but I think it may be TRUE or (also) OPTIMISTIC... because, each moon missions, will involve TWO launches, so, the possible "mix" of delays, aborts and fails of one or both launches will GREATLY INCREASE the probability of a complete mission's fail!<br /><br />my thread is VERY serious and my arguments may be TRUE... so (please) unlock the thread, thank you<br />