>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm

> I’m not sure why you were comparing Orion to Shuttle – Orion
> was built to leave the Earth’s orbit, and Shuttle was not. ==

Not a bit design or cost impact. However Apollo, Orion, and Shuttle were all developed under the same contracting set up. So you’re comparing apples to apples as far as dev organization and contracting rules. Given these generally triple to quadruple dev costs vrs a pure commercial projects

>==
> You finally agreed that for just the Shuttle servicing, that it
> costs $600M/flight for the Shuttle (@ 2 flights/year), ==

No never said that. Though if the shuttle PROGRAM costs $600M a flight for 2 flights per year – Its very likely a commercial crew or whatever will cost similar per flight. Though Ares-I/Orion was looking to be more like $7B $8B.

Now as to what the Shuttles actual costs per flights if operated commercially would cost –damn hard to tell.

>==
> For cargo to the ISS, it only needs provisions and small spares, so
> the Shuttle is now overkill.==

It needs more then just small spares – and the cargo isn’t any extra cost since the crew flights can carry the cargo at the same time.

>== That is why I support shutting down the program as planned, and
> using that money for other NASA needs like robotic precursor missions,
> CCDev, CRuSR and yes, even commercial crew after Soyuz.

But when you look at the costs of CC and CC Dev, COTS, and Soyuz for the next several years, your costs are higher, and your capability less then with shuttle – and NASA and industry get trashed leaving it in a VERY weak position to move forward with later. Your not going to Mars, or a Asteroid, or moon in any significant way, if all you got are capsules on Boosters like Orion or CST.

“We were comparing Capsules vrs the orbiters. Yes, Shuttle does a lot more then Orion can do. Each orbiter flight replaces a Orion, a COTS, and say half their boosters.”

I’m not sure why you were comparing Orion to Shuttle – Orion was built to leave the Earth’s orbit, and Shuttle was not. Dragon and CST-100 are being built as taxis and small cargo carriers, and the Shuttle is a taxi and big cargo carrier.

You finally agreed that for just the Shuttle servicing, that it costs $600M/flight for the Shuttle (@ 2 flights/year), and since the Shuttle can not add to the ISS crew count (limited to 2 weeks in space), it is not really a true ISS transportation system.

SpaceX says they can fly crew to the ISS for $20M/seat, and I would imagine that Boeing could offer at least $30M/seat, so these are truly less expensive for crew than the Shuttle.

For cargo to the ISS, it only needs provisions and small spares, so the Shuttle is now overkill. That is why I support shutting down the program as planned, and using that money for other NASA needs like robotic precursor missions, CCDev, CRuSR and yes, even commercial crew after Soyuz.

The days of the Shuttle are over. Let’s throw a party and congratulate everyone for a great job, and move on to the next programs on NASA’s plate.

> If the Shuttle is so simple to maintain, why did NASA award
> a $97M/month contract to United Space Alliance to maintain
> them? That’s $7B over a six year period for Shuttle processing.
> That’s also half what the Shuttle Program Manager says it
> costs him to keep the Shuttle program going. ==

As to why the “shuttle program” cost more then twice as much then the contract to service shuttle – its because most of the shuttle program doesn’t involve servicnig adn operating the shuttles.

As to the $1.2B ish a year to service and launch the shuttles at the current 2 flights a year, that’s $600M a Flight. Ares/Orion was going to cost ten times that as a program cost – Just the cost of each Orion for each flight would rival that. Commercial crew was looking to be more then that.

> And you keep pointing to Orion, which is really weird,
> because Orion (as you’ve even pointed out) has a different
> function than the Shuttle.==

We were comparing Capsules vrs the orbiters. Yes, Shuttle does a lot more then Orion can do. Each orbiter flight replaces a Orion, a COTS, and say half their boosters.

While were at it why do you keep comparing it to Dragon in commercial operation? Dagon operated by NASA vrs shuttle would be fair, Commercial crew might be (given various commercial crew definition assumptions) would be fair; but not a commercially operated Dragon. Identical vehicles developed or operated by the gov, or in a gov program, cost a couple times what they do in commercial equivalents – OR MUCH WORSE.

“…and it dramatically contradicts your assumption that big orbiters “MUST” be much more systemically complex and hence more expensive, reusable – hence more complex.”

If the Shuttle is so simple to maintain, why did NASA award a $97M/month contract to United Space Alliance to maintain them? That’s $7B over a six year period for Shuttle processing. That’s also half what the Shuttle Program Manager says it costs him to keep the Shuttle program going. Does Billions of dollars being poured into the Shuttle mean nothing to you?

And you keep pointing to Orion, which is really weird, because Orion (as you’ve even pointed out) has a different function than the Shuttle. But yet you want to compare apples to oranges and declare peanuts as cheaper. Doubly weird.

Open your eyes and realize you’re holding onto the tail of an elephant, and not a simple rope.

>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 3:17 pm

>> “As to why the orbiter was cheaper to develop”

> You really like to compare apples and oranges, don’t you.

>=
> Thinking you know how much it costs to develop and build
> the Shuttle, and then thinking that the Apollo or Orion
> programs can be easily compared, is pretty funny.==

Pretty obvious actually. Similar configuration, bracketing the Orbiter. So variables like changes in engineering costs, impacts of all liquid vrs solid/liquid, slight size dif, etc wash out and you see about a 10% price dif between them — yet the bigger orbiter, adding in booster stage, cargo fairing, etc functions (and being designed to higher standards then Orion) is still significantly cheaper – is telling.

…and it dramatically contradicts your assumption that big orbiters “MUST” be much more systemically complex and hence more expensive, reusable – hence more complex. That assumptions rather illogical, but your holding on with a death grip.

“As to why the orbiter was cheaper to develop”

You really like to compare apples and oranges, don’t you.

In fact, you’re kind of like a blind man holding onto an elephants tail – you know for sure that an elephant smells like crap, but that it’s not very big.

Thinking you know how much it costs to develop and build the Shuttle, and then thinking that the Apollo or Orion programs can be easily compared, is pretty funny.

Just on the Orion program, you ignore that a substantial amount of Orion redesign has been caused by the Ares I weight and thrust issues, and are not the result of any complexity issues with the Orion CM/SM. You also seem to be oblivious to the costs they have incurred with weight reduction programs like the composite vs aluminum mockups that they built and tested. The Shuttle was not forced to incur such costs.

If they had been designing Orion for the Delta IV Heavy (like they should have), and had clean-sheet weight and function targets, I have no doubt that Orion would have cost far less than it has. And that would be a price that is far less to build and operate than Shuttle.

Apparently your brain is not wired to understand that, but that’s the way it is.

>>> Kelly, you may have been a Sr. Systems Engineer, but you are
>>> completely clueless wrt cost or complexity issues.

>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
>> And you couldn’t name a system that is in the shuttle that
>> isn’t in the capsules (ignoring the trivial wings and a longer hull!).”

> Trivial wings and hull? Try telling the astronauts that.==

Never heard a astronaut think wings were a expensive and hard to develop system?

>== And of course, they add significantly to the cost of
> operating the Shuttle, ==

Really? HOW?!! They require little maint cost between flights. Fully reusable, etc.

>== OK, with more than 2.5 million parts, and the Space
> Shuttle having been called the most complex machine
> yet created by humanity,===

Which is dumb PR since its pretty simple compared to other machines or systems – but a cool sound bite.

>== you still seem bent on saying it’s as simple to build and
> maintain as a capsule. ==

Actually not what I said:
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
>>“Bottomline, if the orbiters were so much more complex – their
>> development wouldn’t be so much cheaper then the Orions and Apollo CM’s/SM’s.”

> Here are just a few of the easy differences between them:
> – The elevons and rudder are hydraulically actuated – a capsule does not need that.
> – Landing gear – nuf said.

What is it with you and wings?!! Of all the big expensive systems on LV’s your freaked out with wings and elvons?!!! Does the Orbiters extra hatch adn windows freak you out.

To trivial. I’ll trade you landing gear for the parachutes, and separating modules driving redundant systems and supplies in the capsule and SM.

> – The Orbital Maneuvering Engines are hypergolic, and
> need special handling when the Shuttle lands. No OME’s
> on a capsule. ==

Yes actually all capsules have OMS, since they need to still boost to their orbit after they separate from the upper stage of their booster.

> Both have reaction control thrusters, so don’t get them confused.
> – Airlock – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have one, and Soyuz does
> not bring it’s airlock back to Earth.

Shuttle could leave its airlock off, or carry it. Again a pretty trivial can with valves. The capsules without airlocks, need to pressurize and depressurize the full capsule – which obviously adds a lot of costs to everything IN the capsule.

> – Galley, toilet, sleep stations and storage and experiment lockers –

Shuttle doesn’t have a real galley – yes it has a toilet, storage lockers adn they carry sleeping bags they tie to the walls

>= capsules are taxis, and everyone stay in their suits and seats.

False.

– Thermal Protection System. The Shuttle uses
> == Dragon will use a PICA heat shield that is replaced
> after each flight. How long does it take to inspect 24,300 tiles?

Not applicable to the topic – but about $6M in labor hours per flight.

> – The Shuttle has three levels to the crew cabin,
> while capsules have a single volume, with no decks.
So? What’s your point!!!!

> – 50-foot (15-meter) robot arm in the cargo bay, and the
> controls in the upper deck – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have robot arms.

trivial

> – The Shuttle has 11 full-color, flat-panel display screens
> – needless to say, since the Dragon is capable of automated
> operation, the number & size of crew displays will be far less
> than the Shuttle. And because there is no “flying” required to land, less controls.

Faulty assumption

– SSME. The Shuttle carries it’s main engines around with
>it, so you have to add those in – capsules do not bring
>their engines back with them.

Big plus for the shuttle.

>I could go on, but you were really making a silly argument…

Actually you are.

Are you really going to say the number of floors in the shuttle cabin increases the engineering cost to develop the orbiters? Increases in any real way the complexity of the systems?

Look at the big ticket items Power, life support, RCS, OMS, TPS, cooling system (radiators and sublimators), avionics suits, communication suite, navigation, docking.

Wings are big, but they arn’t expensive to design, build or maintain compared to complex systems.

As to why the orbiter was cheaper to develop, even though it includes function of the booster? Its not as tiny, so you don’t need to miniaturize things as much, or be as obsessive amount weight. The TPS doesn’t get as hot because of the bigger underside, so you can use simpler materials. The craft doesn’t get beat up as violently in reentry and landing. etc.

> The Space Shuttle Endeavor was finished being built in 1987,
> and it’s cost was $1.7B in then-dollars.==

I said development cost, not construction cost. In now year dollars the orbiter dev program was $17B vrs $19B for Apollos CM/SM and $20B+ for Orions CM/SM.

>== Now, let’s compare that to what SpaceX is spending to
> develop their Dragon capsule –
1- Dragon was developed commercially, Shuttle under gov contract, so you would expect a factor of 4 cost difference. Also they different function sets

2- Shuttle replaces both the CM/SM and the most of the Falcon booster.

“> Kelly, you may have been a Sr. Systems Engineer, but you are
> completely clueless wrt cost or complexity issues.

And you couldn’t name a system that is in the shuttle that isn’t in the capsules (ignoring the trivial wings and a longer hull!).”

Trivial wings and hull? Try telling the astronauts that. And of course, they add significantly to the cost of operating the Shuttle, so I can see why you would want to ignore them.

OK, with more than 2.5 million parts, and the Space Shuttle having been called the most complex machine yet created by humanity, you still seem bent on saying it’s as simple to build and maintain as a capsule. Here are just a few of the easy differences between them:

– The elevons and rudder are hydraulically actuated – a capsule does not need that.

– Landing gear – nuf said.

– The Orbital Maneuvering Engines are hypergolic, and need special handling when the Shuttle lands. No OME’s on a capsule. Both have reaction control thrusters, so don’t get them confused.

– Airlock – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have one, and Soyuz does not bring it’s airlock back to Earth.

– Galley, toilet, sleep stations and storage and experiment lockers – capsules are taxis, and everyone stay in their suits and seats.

– Thermal Protection System. The Shuttle uses seven different materials in varying locations based on the amount of required heat protection, or about 24,300 tiles total – Dragon will use a PICA heat shield that is replaced after each flight. How long does it take to inspect 24,300 tiles?

– The Shuttle has three levels to the crew cabin, while capsules have a single volume, with no decks.

– 50-foot (15-meter) robot arm in the cargo bay, and the controls in the upper deck – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have robot arms.

– The Shuttle has 11 full-color, flat-panel display screens – needless to say, since the Dragon is capable of automated operation, the number & size of crew displays will be far less than the Shuttle. And because there is no “flying” required to land, less controls.

– SSME. The Shuttle carries it’s main engines around with it, so you have to add those in – capsules do not bring their engines back with them.

I could go on, but you were really making a silly argument…

“Bottomline, if the orbiters were so much more complex – theirdevelopment wouldn’t be so much cheaper then theOrions adn Apollo CM’s/SM’s.”

The Space Shuttle Endeavor was finished being built in 1987, and it’s cost was $1.7B in then-dollars. In todays dollars, taking into account the real inflation rates from 1987 to 2009, that would be $3,168,255,429. That’s $3.2B to build the FIFTH vehicle, using spare parts and all the knowledge learned from the first four orbiters. That is just for the production cost, and does not include the original R&D.

Now, let’s compare that to what SpaceX is spending to develop their Dragon capsule – so far somewhere south of $500M. That includes two launchers, and the R&D. Another way to look at it is that SpaceX gets $133M for each COTS delivery, and that has to cover the capsule, launcher, operations and recovery.

I know math is not you’re strong suite, but even you should be able to see the cost difference here.