I dozed off and missed the splash down.
Thank goodness there's re-plays......
Thank goodness there's re-plays......
So who is watching Orion live now!!!
- Thread starter V2rocketeer
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
Good observations, and I tend to agree...
It's worth noting that the government (NASA) has been working on Orion for TEN YEARS now... (since the VSE was first announced in 2004 following the Columbia disaster). That's a VERY long time, and a LOT of money, and basically they've said the capsule isn't even finished-- not by a longshot... they still have to do most of the life support and crew control console design work, seats, interior fittings, etc... Basically this was just a "boilerplate" vehicle... the actual heat shield and propulsion system, thermal control, etc. Even so, they're talking like they plan to redesign the heat shield AGAIN... ALL that development time and money, and we're talking about the basic structures of the capsule and avionics... A HUGE chunk of the work remains to be done! Plus, there won't be another flight for THREE YEARS, and another FOUR after that until the next one! To top it all off, they don't even have a Service Module... todays mission was flown with basically a weighted "tuna can" mass simulator in place of the Service Module. NASA doesn't even have the MONEY to develop an SM... they've farmed that out now to the Europeans, who are adapting their HTV ISS resupply vehicle systems into a Service Module. It's a "tentative" arrangement, in that ESA is building the SM for the EM-1 flight... if it suits NASA, they'll probably get the contract to build the SM's for the rest of the missions... (whatever missions end up flying... basically, NOTHING is planned past the first manned "test flight", EM-2, sometime around 2024...) Basically, the COMPLETED, capable of being manned Orion won't fly until 2021... EIGHTEEN YEARS after the decision to build the CEV, which became Orion, was made...
This glacial pace certainly doesn't inspire any confidence... and it begs the question-- is it worth the expense?? In addition there is a LONG, LONG time between now and ANY manned missions, and *I* think it's going to be INCREASINGLY difficult to sustain interest and support for such an expensive, yet glacial program with so little to show for it for the average taxpayer, Congressman, Administration, etc... We're just one big war, economic collapse, whatever, from the whole thing being canceled and forgotten... plus, as you said, on a more mundane level, just the everyday POLITICS over what gets built by whom in whose Congressional district... Any and all of which could end the entire thing...
Personally, I DO think that NASA should have just contracted out the entire thing-- let various companies ("old space" and "new space" alike) come up with proposals to meet the requirements NASA sets, and then contract them to design and build the launchers and vehicles... When NASA says it will cost them around $36 BILLION DOLLARS to turn already existing shuttle components into a shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle, and Elon Musk says he can build an ALL NEW, FROM SCRATCH all liquid HLV with new engines, new stages, etc. for $3.5 billion, something is VERY WRONG...
It's time to try something new. Of course, Congress is completely against it... they've been foot-dragging over Commercial Crew since day one, since it doesn't funnel money to the "right contractors" in the "right Congressional districts"... They've steadfastly REFUSED to fund Commercial Crew at anything like the requested amounts, while relying ENTIRELY on the Russians for transport of our astronauts to the ISS which we've spent over $100 BILLION dollars on already... THAT is a broken system for you...
There aren't any "pat answers"... I think that the 'average guy or gal' in NASA is doing the best they can, trying to be a success... but they're mired in an ancient and Byzantine BUREAUCRATIC system both within NASA and over it, and simply stuck trying to make lemonade out of the lemons they have, and put the best spin on it possible. If the situation were to really be fixed, I think it would take an almost ENTIRE paradigm shift, a commitment to changing the entire way that the entire enterprise actually works, and reorganize from the ground up. Problem is, there are SO many vested interests, SO many "powers that be", who DON'T want to see the applecart upset, because they'd lose their position, power, and money, that it'll never happen...
Later! OL JR
When SpaceX sells more than 50% of its launches to customers other than NASA, the paradigm will shift in a hurry. Or, if and when SpaceX lowers its cost per kilogram to anywhere near what they have predicted, suddenly it will be more cost effective for the Europeans and the Russians to buy space on SpaceX rockets than to build their own. At that point, (if it ever happens) even the idiots in Congress would have to notice.
I have to agree the pace of NASA development is too slow. Why is the next flight in 2018?
What are they doing between now and then?
What are they doing between now and then?
Watch SpaceX launches on TV.
luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
Building the second Orion, and continuing work on SLS... VERY, VERY slowly...
Granted, a big part of it is that they're developing champagne on a beer budget... Congress doesn't want to fund NASA at the levels it SHOULD be funded at for the job they've charged it with... Basically, Congress has ordered them to pick up ten pounds of crap, but they'll only provide a five pound bag... So basically, NASA has no choice but to stretch it out over time, using the five pound bag twice as long...
What this inevitably does, is it makes the development costs breathtakingly high... any time development is stretched out, the overhead and sustainment costs, employee costs, etc. get stretched out and multiplied, which drives up the development costs completely through the stratosphere... It's much the same with the low flight rates... There is a "sweet spot" in any development or operational project where you're balancing the size and capability of your infrastructure and personnel as efficiently as possible with the number of units, missions, operations, etc. that you're producing, to the most efficient cost-wise point possible. When the shuttle was on stand-down after the Challenger and Columbia disasters, the sustainment costs for just MAINTAINING THE CAPABILITY to launch shuttles in the future, were nearly as expensive as the shuttle program when it was flying several times per year... IOW, actual operations didn't add much cost over the costs of the overhead to maintain just the capability to do it some point in the future, while NOT FLYING AT ALL...
This is going to be the REAL KILLER for SLS/Orion... They could probably fly twice a year for the same money as they're going to be flying ONCE EVERY 2-3 years! If they flew twice a year, that would be six flights in three years, versus one flight in three years... If the infrastructure and program costs to maintain the capability is say $300 million a year, that would amortize out to $150 million per flight to maintain the capability/infrastructure costs per flight at a flight rate of 2 per year... BUT, with the low flight rate, that works out to nearly a BILLION dollars per flight in infrastructure/capability costs per flight, simply because multiple years accrue to a single flight... less amortization of costs, underuse of the capabilities...
It'd be about like keeping a multi-million dollar Corvette factory mothballed and the workers on paid furlough (standby) so that you could fire it up for a week or two a year, crank out 200 cars, and then sell them... how much would you have to charge PER CAR to pay those sorts of overhead costs?? On the other hand, you operate your factory say 48 weeks a year, using the same number of people and the exact same equipment, and crank out 50,000 cars... NOW how much do you have to charge per car to amortize your overhead expenses and maintain the capability?? A heck of a lot less, because you're using your infrastructure and people to the best efficiency... Lower per-unit costs and maximize units produced at the same time...
Another BIG problem is that NASA is still saddled, and will REMAIN saddled, with ISS for the foreseeable future... LOTS of people both within and outside NASA have already said, that NASA simply CANNOT afford to do exploration missions AND ISS at the same time. It's DEFINITELY one or the other, NOT BOTH. SO, as long as ISS is still up there and the US is spending about $300 million a year in operations costs for ISS, then there won't be any exploration program, at least nothing beyond a few "one-off stunts" or rather pointless missions done "on the cheap" (like "lassoing" an asteroid and dragging it back to cislunar space for Orion to "explore"...)
The lower flight rate, with one mission every 2-3 years, is going to really cut interest and support for the space program... couple that with high costs, and support REALLY evaporates, and if you throw in a 'shock' to the system, some new bubble bursting or whatever, and you've got a perfect storm aligned against the entire effort.
later! OL JR
I got to watch from the Disney cruise boat...
MaxQ
Tripoli 2747
Were you that boat in the launch zone ?
LOL
Were you that boat in the launch zone ?
LOL...
There was a woman vacationing with us who works at KSC. Her friends at KSC were texting her jokingly asking the same thing.
-C
V2rocketeer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 0
LOL...
There was a woman vacationing with us who works at KSC. Her friends at KSC were texting her jokingly asking the same thing.
-C
notice he didn't say "NO" :wink:
Oh.
It was not our boat.
It was not our boat.
