Re: NASA moon trip video

Andre Lieven wrote:

Andrew Swallow (am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:

Andre Lieven wrote:


Andrew Swallow (am.swallow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes: 

[snip]


It is time that the directors of these companies were asked how much it would cost to convert a spaceship reusable 10 times into something that a commercial spaceline could use. 

<laughs> This question has been asked many times, and each time the
answer is oodles more cash than anyone has available.

Time to ask again. 


Why ? Have the laws of physics changed ?


Wrong science try economics.  There are very big changes in the R&D money.


NASA has just given the aerospace firms large contracts to design new spaceships like the heavy lifter, departure stage and Crew Exploration Vehicle. With a little thought civilian versions of these can be produced as spinoffs. 


Um... NASA spacecraft *are* " civilian versions ". What *purpose*
are you suggesting that these extra ( Thus, paid for by *whom* ? )
versions fulfil ?


So the astronauts working for the government and still using their military rank as part of their name is presumably accidental. ;)


If the company directors order dual purpose designs *now* this can be done fairly cheaply, wait 10 years and the design cost will go through the roof.


Real engineers on sci.space.history could correct your erroneous
assumptions.

That one is silly even for you.
Starting non government ones from scratch in 20 years time is going to cost twice as much.
Note a lot of the extra money would go into the pockets of the people on sci.space.history if they are still working on the space programme.


There is nothing unusual about American firms piggybacking export/civilian versions of aircraft on government contracts, just listen to the French complain about subsidies to Boeing. Although NASA should ensure that the companies are paying for the second set of specifications with the companies own money rather than as "cost overruns".


Which company has the available bucks, and what near term *paying enough* market will be thus served ?


Attaching the civilian version to the NASA programme will cover most of the costs, with a little creative accounting.

As for the market, NASA has decided to spend most of its money on space exploration. Scientists wanting to perform research near the Earth will probably have to get another organisation to launch their satellites - a civilian one perhaps?

Extracts from an interview Michael Griffin, Nasa administrator gave to the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627246.stm

[quote]
"There are many different kinds of science that we do. We have not cut back the space science programmes such as New Horizons. *We have, though, cut back on the human-related science to concentrate on building the space station.*" Once built, the ISS will be available for research, he says.

Stepping stone

Publicly, Dr Griffin defends the International Space Station and the shuttle programme. But my sense was that he regards them as follies from a bygone age.

[snip]
"The decision to restrict ourselves to low-Earth orbit is not one, in retrospect, I think we would have made. And I think that's the point of President Bush's vision for space exploration.

"It's time to move out of low-Earth orbit and move on to do other things."

Suddenly Dr Griffin's eyes light up. This seems to be where his enthusiasm really lies.
[/quote]

Over the next 30 years there are other satellites that need launching - replacement global positioning, weather satellites, photographic satellites using light/inferred/ultra violet, sea covering radar and many others. Some may even need repairing. NASA's management is not interested in doing it.

" Show me the money !! " Jerry McGuire.

Andre



Andrew Swallow

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NASA moon trip video
    ... >> Andrew Swallow writes: ... >>>10 years and the design cost will go through the roof. ... Although NASA ... > Over the next 30 years there are other satellites that need launching - ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: SBIRS HEO, TRUMPET FO slippage
    ... Secretary Peter Teets said on Tuesday. ... called the Space-Based Infrared System (SBRIS) ... program initially expected to cost $4 billion. ... which builds the main infrared sensors for the satellites, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Russian Manned Spaceflight Goal
    ... I worked with the Russians in 1993 when NASA was looking into buying a Soyuz ... permanent manned presence in space at minimum cost. ... But to them the Mir itself was a big science ... The problem is the cost goes WAY up. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • SBIRS, FIA opticsat programs
    ... Missile Warning System Costs Again Rise Over 25 Percent ... shortly that the cost of its new missile warning ... satellites, one spare spacecraft, sensors hosted ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Python from Wise Guys Viewpoint
    ... I'm going to assume that you included payload cost. ... satellites" made it be about $500 million. ... to launch with just bricks as a payload. ... ] the second Ariane-5 launch successfully took place on October 30, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)