#21
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, we know production costs for SLS and Orion, and they’re wild
Someone finally said the quiet part out loud. 3/1/2022 https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-unsustainable/ Martin broke down the costs per flight, which will apply to at least the first four launches of the Artemis program: $2.2 billion to build a single SLS rocket, $568 million for ground systems, $1 billion for an Orion spacecraft, and $300 million to the European Space Agency for Orion's Service Module. NASA, Martin said, had checked and confirmed these figures. What is striking about these costs is that they do not include the tens of billions of dollars that NASA has already spent developing the Orion spacecraft since 2005 and the Space Launch System rocket since 2011. If one were to amortize development costs over 10 flights of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, the $4.1 billion figure cited by Martin would easily double. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Ouch, ouch, and ouch!!
Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr. NAR# 29523 TRA# 962 SAM# 73 Owner/Producer Point 39 Productions Rocket-Brained Since 1970 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I’m thinking that the SLS will be a one and done - maybe two launches at the most - so if they really do get the first one ready we’re planning on making a dash to FL.
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
And that's with used shuttle engines and SRB segments! Wait until they have to start using new ones!
(We won't have to wait. It will be canceled by then.) .
__________________
I love sanding. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
This is all hard to swallow in the face of *successful* flights (and I DO hope they succeed). But how bad does it look if Artemis 1, for whatever reason(s) is a failure? Yikes!
Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr. NAR# 29523 TRA# 962 SAM# 73 Owner/Producer Point 39 Productions Rocket-Brained Since 1970 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I predict three. Let's see who wins! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I hope you’re right - three gets us, per NASA’s current schedule, at least to a manned lunar landing though I won’t be surprised to see Artemis III hauling the first Gateway module instead while SpaceX does the manned lunar landing mission. Still an obscene amount of money spent for what we’re getting - LBJ’s decision (which Nixon happily carried out) to cut Apollo sure looks like one of the most boneheaded and shortsighted decisions ever made by the POTUS! |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
ABSOLUTELY!! Just read an article yesterday that the Inspector General of NASA, testifying before a Congressional committee, started per his research as IG of NASA that EVERY SL S launch is going to cost over $4 BILLION dollars, JUST for the rocket and ground hardware! Even shared for inflation, that is OVER TWICE the cost per launch of Saturn V!! It's insane! The Saturn V used NO preexisting hardware, everything in it was all new and had to basically be invented or engineered for the purpose from scratch, from the engines to structures, materials, processes, electronics, guidance, navigation, stability, you name it. The whole point of SLS was supposedly by using PREEXISTING shuttle engines, boosters, and ET tooling they'd save years of development and billions of bucks. All the engines are reused shuttle engines, reused shuttle boosters, only the core structure and avionics/ control is new, and the capsule which has only flown once 8 years ago on EFT-1 on Delta IV Heavy. Even the service module for Orion is adapted from the European ATV resupply vehicle that used to fly to ISS, provided under agreement to NASA by the Europeans. SLS was formally "approved" in the wake of Obama's very correct cancellation of Ares I and the rest of the Constellation Program in 2010, because after 6 years and over $9 BILLION dollars in development, the Ares I was still underperforming and incapable of performing the mission it was being designed for, and was dragging down Ares V with it because the extra stuff Ares I couldn't carry was being shoved onto Ares V, causing its design to hot the performance ceiling. SLS was "Ares V lite" so basically back burner with had been done on it since 2004-5, and then full tilt from 2011 on, and here we are 11 years later and it STILL hasn't flown! It's utterly pathetic! All this PREEXISTING stuff, plus 60+ years of experience, data, all the new computer design and simulation capability now, the experience and existing data, and it's taking longer and costing over twice as much as guys who had to invent everything from scratch using slide rules and 1960's technology... Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round! |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yeah because the service module and interim upper stage doesn't have enough propulsive power to put it in low lunar orbit and get it back out again, so they're flying some bizarre looping "orbit" of the moon which is basically a highly elliptical orbit with a, IIRC, 70-ish mile perilune, and like a 10,000 mile apolune (going from memory). So it'll swing down low over the Moon for about an hour, then spend a day or two coasting up to apolune, and then falling back... But the high apolune is necessary to minimize propulsive requirements to enter and leave this weird orbit... Basically just a slight burn is needed to break out at apolune for TEI... Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round! |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
WHY do we "need" a heavy lift vehicle anyway? DESIGN heavy stuff to be launched in sections into orbit on smaller launch vehicles and then assemble in Earth orbit. Auto-docking could be used for assembly or even telepresence robotics due to low signal trip delay in Earth orbit. What a HUGE boondoggle and total waste of money... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|