Article

2015-06-12 Fifth Column

Congress guts commercial crew in favor of the Senate Launch System

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2015-06-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top
File under: Pirates

#1 Government everything means

Nothing in the end.

Posted by newc 2015-06-12 02:15|| 2015-06-12 02:15|| Front Page Top

#2 "Bygutting this program and turning our backs on U.S. industry, NASA will be forced to continue to rely on Russia to get its astronauts to space." -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden

Don't you see Charles? That is the plan. By funding the Russian effort, we control it and solidify our relationships with their oligarchs.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-06-12 03:06|| 2015-06-12 03:06|| Front Page Top

#3 I've made myself unpopular around here with this statement:
"NASA is a 'jobs program' for engineering companies."

Posted by ed in texas 2015-06-12 07:36|| 2015-06-12 07:36|| Front Page Top

#4 Hmmm, Senate Launch System, Sounds good, any preparations to bring them back?

Didn't think so.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2015-06-12 10:58|| 2015-06-12 10:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Can we launch the Senate?

Posted by Glenmore 2015-06-12 11:15|| 2015-06-12 11:15|| Front Page Top

#6 ed in texas: This page at the end of a NASA document should interest you.

NASA recently conducted a predicted cost estimate of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM). NAFCOM is the primary cost estimating tool NASA uses to predict the costs for launch vehicles, crewed vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, and other flight hardware elements prior to the development of these systems.

NAFCOM is a parametric cost estimating tool with a historical database of over 130 NASA and Air Force space flight hardware projects. It has been developed and refined over the past 13 years with 10 releases providing increased accuracy, data content, and functionality. NAFCOM uses a number of technical inputs in the estimating process. These include mass of components, manufacturing methods, engineering management, test approach, integration complexity, and pre-development studies.

Another variable is the relationship between the Government and the contractor during development. At one end, NAFCOM can model an approach that incorporates a heavy involvement on the part of the Government, which is a more traditional approach for unique development efforts with advanced technology. At the other end, more commercial-like practices can be assumed for the cost estimate where the contractor has more responsibility during the development effort.

For the Falcon 9 analysis, NASA used NAFCOM to predict the development cost for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using two methodologies:

1) Cost to develop Falcon 9 using traditional NASA approach, and
2) Cost using a more commercial development approach.

Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a traditional approach. Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach. Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion.

SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.

It is difficult to determine exactly why the actual cost was so dramatically lower than the NAFCOM predictions. It could be any number of factors associated with the non-traditional public-private partnership under which the Falcon 9 was developed (e.g., fewer NASA processes, reduced oversight, and less overhead), or other factors not directly tied to the development approach. NASA is continuing to refine this analysis to better understand the differences.

Regardless of the specific factors, this analysis does indicate the potential for reducing space hardware development costs, given the appropriate conditions. It is these conditions that NASA hopes to replicate, to the extent appropriate and feasible, in the development of commercial crew transportation systems.

Posted by 3dc 2015-06-12 12:56|| 2015-06-12 12:56|| Front Page Top

#7 3dc - simple: its money spent on actually developing something that works, vs money spent dividing the effort and spending to spread over as many congressional districts as possible, and kissing the ass of powerful legislators.

The actual rocket system costs are what Falcon shows - the rest is political waste and corruption, no different from the inefficiencies we used to see in the Soviet Union's system, with their built-in corruption.

We have become, in many ways, the Soviet Union.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-06-12 15:57|| 2015-06-12 15:57|| Front Page Top

#8 NASA beat the soviets ONLY because the rest of the economy wasn't communist.
Emulating the communist space program was a total waste.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2015-06-12 18:01|| 2015-06-12 18:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Oldspook: there's also the whole mandated solid rocket booster requirement... it adds a whole layer of costs to the rest of the rocket, because of the vibration problems, potential thrust assymetries, etc...

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-06-12 18:11|| 2015-06-12 18:11|| Front Page Top

#10 I think you guys are being a little unfair to NASA. In the 50s and 60's they invented a process that turns money into space craft. They were under extreme pressure to not have technical failures. They figured out one way to do it.

Was it the cheapest way? the best way? Probably not, but experimenting on ways to make the process they did invent cheaper invites technical failures. So, they have mostly stuck with their way of doing business.

It would take a complete redesign of the organization to make substantial changes, which of course is what SpaceX did.

So, it wasn't wasteful to pay for NASA's way of business, in the past, when it was the only way we knew to do it. Now, however, we do know better ways and NASA should get out of the business of making spaceships, just like the Army has gotten out of the business of making rifles.

Sadly, the Senate has set us on the opposite course.

Posted by rammer 2015-06-12 18:14|| 2015-06-12 18:14|| Front Page Top

22:25 Zenobia Floger6220
22:08 Secret Master
22:00 Frank G
21:52 JosephMendiola
21:46 JosephMendiola
21:38 JosephMendiola
21:34 JosephMendiola
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:21 JosephMendiola
20:03 JohnQC
19:36 Angie Schultz
19:34 AlanC
19:24 JosephMendiola
18:34 swksvolFF
18:33 charger
18:32 M. Murcek
18:14 rammer
18:11 Thing From Snowy Mountain
18:06 Canuckistan sniper
18:01 Bright Pebbles
17:53 Ebbang Uluque6305
17:48 Ebbang Uluque6305
17:42 texhooey
17:16 no mo uro