http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2010/09/sen_shelby_announces_defense_f.html

“The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle serves as the Air Force’s space lift modernization program,” said Shelby. “EELV improves our nation’s access to space by making space launch vehicles more affordable and reliable.

“The funding approved by the subcommittee will support critical defense-related programs that strengthen our national security. These programs are vital to the stability of our nation’s military infrastructure and readiness, and the Subcommittee’s approval demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the safety of our citizens and the strength of our military.”

I’ll let those words speak for themselves.

Wrong. It supports a minimal flight rate and certain services, but it is not enough to keep the doors open.

“The Bush Tax Cuts overwhelmingly favored those at the bottom of the tax bracket. Some people at the bottom got a 13% cut in their tax rate. The “rich” got a 4.6% cut.”

we are probably close to agreeing (grin)…

(or maybe not) Percentage points will prove anything while being misleading.

If the kids get a 10 percent raise in their allowance that means that they now get 1 dollar more…but if Rush and his XX million a year get a 5 percent raise…that is a lot of allowances for the kids.

I believe by design but no matter what the Bush years saw was the “rich” got control of a larger percentage of the income in The Republic while seeing their taxes go down a lot…

now the argument was Reagan’s old one “a rising tide lifts all boats” and if that were true we would not be on the verge of financial insolvency as a country…or as a middle class.

I dont have a problem with tax cuts, but the folks who argue the loudest for them also argue for wars in the mid east that we dont pay for (after all we have always gone into deficit for wars) or space programs that spend lots of money for chest thumping American exceptionalism (and thats just small spending so who cares)…etc etc.

Empires cost money. The Romans found that they loved one, what they didnt like was paying for it…and soon they had none.

Robert G. Oler

“That’s the plants and launch facilities, regardless of whether ULA flies or not in a given year.”

Where do you get this number? I’m curious, especially since ULA is flying on average of 12 flights per year, so it’s not like they are sitting around. I also think their overhead costs are amortized within their prices (some debate on this though).

“Ares I, or Constellation until first mission?”

You are aware that only Ares I and Orion were being worked on? Orion had it’s own cost problems, mainly because of Ares I, but just Ares I, to get to operational status, was going to cost $20B+.

In order to get to Constellation’s first Moon mission, you still need to add the costs to finish Orion (more than $5.5B), plus Ares V, the EDS and Altair. That’s minimum of $100B, and 15+ years.

“If the US taxpayer, or more precisely his representative, believed that ULA could man-rate Delta IV heavy for a flat $1.3 billion.”

One way to find out is to do an RFP, and then if the costs are reasonable, award a firm-fixed contract. ULA would only get paid for the work agreed to, and as long as the specs don’t change, that’s the amount that ULA will get. ULA has done studies on this already, so this is pretty low-risk contract-wise. It’s when you’re building something completely new, and the specs are undefined, that contracts can spiral out of control.

“If we’re to believe Boeing and LockMart can’t get before a Congressional Committee to make a purportedly solid case for an EELV alternative, then we might as well pack it in and pray for a miracle upshot in commercial satellite demand.”

We’re not talking Boeing and Lockheed Martin here – they both have self-interests in Constellation and potential SDLV’s. ULA, their 50-50 partnership, is probably forbidden from direct competition with it’s parents, so it could not lobby Congress if it wanted. That means it would have to be invited to testify, and Giffords and Shelby sure didn’t want anyone contradicting their desire to keep Constellation going.

I don’t know where you get the $1B/year “sustainment” figure for ULA, or what that is, but I think it’s more valid to look at how much it would cost from this point forward if we wanted a crew launcher.

That’s the plants and launch facilities, regardless of whether ULA flies or not in a given year.

For Ares I, the total cost was estimated to be $40B, so there is still at least $20B left to spent.

Ares I, or Constellation until first mission?

Per testimony in front of the Augustine Commission (the slide deck is online), ULA stated that it would cost $1.3B to man-rate Delta IV Heavy, which has 20% margins for Orion, and no blackout zones during flight. ULA would charge $300M/flight.

I think if you showed this to the average U.S. Taxpayer, and asked them which one NASA should pick, there would be no question that man-rating Delta IV Heavy, and killing Ares I, was the right choice.

If the US taxpayer, or more precisely his representative, believed that ULA could man-rate Delta IV heavy for a flat $1.3 billion. We can’t even get a Congressman to believe NASA and TAC’s numbers on Constellation’s costs.

If Congress really wanted to save money and increase NASA’s ability to explore, then you would think someone would have brought ULA in front of a congressional committee and asked them about their offer. But unfortunately, Congress is more focused on what’s right politically, and not fiscally, for NASA.

If we’re to believe Boeing and LockMart can’t get before a Congressional Committee to make a purportedly solid case for an EELV alternative, then we might as well pack it in and pray for a miracle upshot in commercial satellite demand.

Maybe you’d like to suggest a different way of looking at the costs?

Actually, no. I’d just like the costs to be properly associated with the component under discussion.

The way the program was structured, Ares I had to be built before Ares V, so of course all the costs up until now have been Ares I related.

“Related”…which, of course, includes Orion, but not EDS and Ares V. How much has been spent solely on Ares I development so far. Not the revolving costs of associated infrastructure, sustainment and all that crap.

The total cost for Constellation, including Ares I and V, Orion, EDS and lander, is hundred of billions.

“1. $50(58, or whatever number you like) billion on what exactly? This is like the $40 billion claim with Ares 1–it’s attributing the entire cost of Project Constellation to one component of the architecture.”

Maybe you’d like to suggest a different way of looking at the costs?

The way the program was structured, Ares I had to be built before Ares V, so of course all the costs up until now have been Ares I related. But once you get done with Ares I ($20-30B), you still need to spend $20-50B for Ares V. Removing the Ares I costs (i.e. canceling the program) would mean that Ares V has to carry the entire cost. No matter what, the Ares I/V program is very expensive.

“You know, for all the harping we dish out on Griffin for refusing to release comparative data on man-rating EELV over Ares, our basis for ULA’s development numbers comes from a single line in oral testimony…that’s $5 billion for two families of rockets that aren’t man-rated with sustainment costs north of $1 billion a year each.”

I don’t know where you get the $1B/year “sustainment” figure for ULA, or what that is, but I think it’s more valid to look at how much it would cost from this point forward if we wanted a crew launcher.

For Ares I, the total cost was estimated to be $40B, so there is still at least $20B left to spent. After it’s made operational, it would continue to cost $1B/year for operations (covers one flight), plus $138M/ea for flights #2 and on. All that so NASA has a launcher man-rated launcher for Orion.

Or

Per testimony in front of the Augustine Commission (the slide deck is online), ULA stated that it would cost $1.3B to man-rate Delta IV Heavy, which has 20% margins for Orion, and no blackout zones during flight. ULA would charge $300M/flight.

I think if you showed this to the average U.S. Taxpayer, and asked them which one NASA should pick, there would be no question that man-rating Delta IV Heavy, and killing Ares I, was the right choice.

If NASA doesn’t need to send Orion, but only a commercial crew capsule, they could man-fate Atlas V for $400M, and it would cost $130M/flight.

The cost differences between Ares I and Delta IV Heavy are so great, that even if ULA upped their prices for man-rating, the savings would still be dramatic.

If Congress really wanted to save money and increase NASA’s ability to explore, then you would think someone would have brought ULA in front of a congressional committee and asked them about their offer. But unfortunately, Congress is more focused on what’s right politically, and not fiscally, for NASA.