New Mars Forums

The intent of my other thread, Rocket Business model for shuttle delta IV atlasV, and others good or bad was to give a cost based analysis as to what should be the avenue of choice. What should be the cheaper heavy lift launcher developement and manufacturing cost to create infrastructure for the future. Based on the current rockets as models for what not to do.

Large protoype design cost and over runs

Cost over runs to solidly consistant manufacturing of expendable rocket designs

Cost over runs for refurbishment of re-usable craft designs

Operations launch cost

Workfare when staff is not really working but is idle

Questions for those that know more about the Lockheed and of Boeing rockets.
Does either launch there own rockets for profit?
What is there work staff base for carrying on these facets of infrastruture?

Our biggest problem with teraforming is not for lack of ideas or for the places to actually make changes to. But is more of a down to earth funding issue. One enormous expense and one not easily justified to thoughs that do not believe that man should be in space.
We need that frontiering spirit again in the hearts and mind of all before we can get enough backing to correct the funding issues. Or we need to find ways to lower the cost of doing space. This may mean changing the way of doing business when it comes to Nasa and it's contractors. The big guy's need to start trying to lower cost for there products and that would allow for more to be purchased.

The case for shuttle-derived heavy lift
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/208/1

Some would laugh at the attempt by the Privately Funded Falcon-1 Rocket Nears First Flight but I for see this as a step to get Nasa and the big guy's to start thinking of ways to lower cost access to space.

http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040816.html

Nasa News Release : The Marshall Center has been selected as the site of NASA's Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office.

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/rele … 4-214.html

What impact will this change of operations for Marshall Center have in the long run?

NASA Issues Additional Requests for Information
in Response to U.S. Space Exploration Policy Report,in response to the final report from the President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy.

Recommendation 5-1 asks NASA to aggressively use its contractual authority to reach broadly into the commercial and nonprofit communities. Recommendation 3-1 suggests that the agency recognize and implement a far larger presence of private industry in space operations.

http://www1.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/a … _rfis.html

I guess a little more detail would help poor old Nasa but do we really want Nasa leading us back into space if the can not under stand what is meant in the sections of the report.

Now I see where Nasa is really going with the change of venue for Marshall Center.

Marshall gets planet probe assignment
Center will manage, send missions for robotic explorations.

http://www.al.com/news....180.xml

So what is the base power system for such an elevator?

On the Moon such a modified system more like a rail gun or magnetic rail system cold be used to launch payloads to Earth or to mars.

As Bwhite noted under the Might Shuttle C Topic if I can paraphase his comment correctly, Even bad management can change a good model into a poor or bad one. Not to mention funding like wise can also be just as damaging.

I want to be the lint, lining those pockets.

From Private industry a good or bad business model is a make or break when it comes to making profit.

Earlier today I had posted the cost of the External tanks and of the shuttle operations launch use figures came from another forum member.

This sparked my interest in trying to justify why we are using the shuttle and for the same point why the CEV is ultimately needed to replace it.

Yes some cludged together combinations of off the shelf and or clean slate design are being thought of by not only us on this board but also by real rocket makers.

Existing rockets we know in the delta and atlas for the lift of payload capability and of there approximate cost.

But does these make for a good business model for the private industry.

If any one knows more specific cost of pieces we could see if changes could be made to make rocketry costs lower. This could be done for each rocket in use and can be applied to others including the SDV, clean slate approach to the CEV and to others still yet to be thought of.

So lets run the numbers for the Shuttle.

Each orbiter vehicle cost to build a specific amount and are either amonitized or averaged per flight use. We at various points have had a max of 6 though we have lost 2 and one was never meant to fly leaving the remainder (3) to be used until retired.

Anybody know the cost of each to compile the data with?

Each when initially used most likely had new or reconditioned SRB motors per flight for the totals used so far of course times 2. In addition there has been changes made to there design due to oring leakeage when cold but also thrust enhancements as well over time.

Does any one know these cost per unit?

Each shuttle use get one External tank cost 40 million. Thou the tank has gone though changes to make it lighter over time. I dont know the cost saves or additional cost for having done these things.

Fuel and Oxidizer cost is probably been pretty constant but may have gone up in price over time like everything else for the most part does.

By time we have all the figures the best model will either show expendables or Re-usable to be the better for private business model to use I hope.

This may not be the correct post location but here is some info on drilling.

Planetary Drill Automation Field Test at Arctic Crater

For the first time, a full-scale Mars-prototype deep drill has been tested under field conditions at a high-fidelity Mars-analog site. The first Drilling Automation for Mars Exploration (DAME) field season deployed a modified Honeybee Deep Drill.

http://www.marsonearth.org/reports/07.3 … pdate.html

There were 11 completed external tanks at Michoud when Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana. Those tanks, which cost $40 million apiece, must be retrofitted.

The Michoud plant's work force stands at about 2,000. Under existing contracts, Lockheed Martin will continue to produce external tanks through 2008.

Official: Redesigned shuttle tanks will be safest ever
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/081 … s001.shtml

So lets see if I have the thought on the number of tanks still yet to be made. Roughly 30 flights give or take to complete the ISS minus the 10 equals, 20 tanks at 40 million a piece to make. Or 800 million spead over the next 3 or 4 years in budgetary demands.

X-prize contestant still in the hunt for the 10 million.

Canadian Arrow Drop Test Scheduled for Saturday
http://www.canadianarrow.com/

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin....04.html