Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-29 10:05:09

Oh, so its wrong for a "real company" to lump their R&D costs into the mission costs, but it IS wrong for NASA to do so?

surely a space agency is not like a commercial company, but that can't change the math applied to...

a space agency (or a military force) don't need to make profits, but "COSTS" always are "COSTS"

the US government can give a trillion to NASA for free, but, if NASA will use it for 100 mars mission, the price-per-mars-mission can't be different from "one $trillion / 100"

NASA claimed a total costs (all inclusive and without inflation) of $125Bn in 20 years to accomplish a few unmanned tests, a dozen ISS missons and a dozen of moon mission... so, the price-per-moon-mission (calsulated with the current math... ) is (around) $9Bn (no more, no less)

also, the jet-fighter is not a good example, since the USAF costs must/can be shared on hundreds different (old and new) vehicles

.

cIclops · 2007-04-29 10:25:00

It's very simple, the accountants separate the cost of developing a new system from the recurring cost of producing more copies of it. Development cost is fixed; production costs vary depending on the number of units / missions needed. Both numbers are known. Griffin says NASA will spend $104 billion on RTTM, that pays for the development of the system, that cost is sunk, the money is spent even if the project is canceled and nothing flies. What the bean counters want to know is how much more will each mission cost. Capisca?

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-29 10:50:43

...separate the cost of developing a new system from the recurring cost of producing more copies of it...

you can separate and slice what you want, but, in the next 20 years, the price-per-moon-mission is those I've posted

of course, if you evaluate the price on the next 100 years, each Orion may cost like an Honda Civic...

but no one public or private company evaluate prices on a so long time, 20 years ALREADY are TOO MUCH for a REALISTIC evaluation of prices, and, that long term evaluation, is made (by NASA, GAO and me) JUST because a space agency is a "very spcial kind of company"

commercial companies make costs evaluation on 10, 5 (sometimes two) years (simply) because "things change" EVERY DAY

.

cIclops · 2007-04-29 11:46:00

When Intel build a new chip fab that costs $2 billion, do they charge $1 billion each for the first two chips - no of course not, they set a unit price based on the market and hope they sell enough to cover the development cost.

Governments are not in business, they are not seeking to make a profit. They develop systems that business would not, because they need them for other purposes such as defense, science or technology. Normal cost calculations do not apply to government systems.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-29 14:44:24

...do they charge $1 billion each for the first two chips - no of course...

no, infact I've not charged the R&D costs on the first two chips/capsules...

when Intel develops a new chip, they sell it (e.g.) at $1000 each the first year (to damp theR&D costs) then sell it at $300 each the second year (to damp the factory costs) then, when they have damped all costs, sell it at $100 (the pure manufacturing costs + profits) but they don't sell it at $100 from the first day since "someday" they will cover all costs

(so far) the ESAS plan is a 20 year project (from 2005 to 2025) and the US government promised to NASA the funds to accomplish a dozen moon mission

then, since (both) R&D and hardware funds are REAL MONEY, in the next 20 years EACH moon mission will cost (funds / missions) $9+ billion

someday, in 2020, 2022, 2024, the US government will evaluate the results of the ESAS plan and may decide to... a) stop it, OR... b) give similar funds for similar missions, OR... c) give more funds for more missions per year and/or (maybe) for mars missions

just imagine that in 2025 the Congress will give to NASA $100Bn (+ inflation) for the next 20 years of moon missions...

well, if NASA will use that funds ONLY for sortie moon missions, each mission will cost less than now, since all R&D costs was already damped in the first 20 years, so, at (e.g.) $2Bn per mission, 50 new moon missions will be possible between 2026 and 2045

then, in 2045, NASA may decide to concentrate all efforts on Mars missions and sell the Orion/Ares/LSAM blueprints to Mattel, Wal-Mart, Sony, etc. so, everybody wants, will buy the "DIY personal moon mission kit" at $99,999.95 ...

...they are not seeking to make a profit...

I don't evaluate "profits" when talking of moon mission, but "COSTS" (the REAL MONEY spent to accomplish the ESAS missions)

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-29 20:05:00

In one ear and out the other

the US government can give a trillion to NASA for free, but, if NASA will use it for 100 mars mission, the price-per-mars-mission can't be different from "one $trillion / 100"

This is exactly what we've been trying to tell you is just not so. NASA is buying two separate things, the capability and the actual execution of the missions. When the missions are done, does the launch pad collapse? Does the rocket factory fall down? Do the blue prints go up in smoke? No! These are things we still have even after the last mission of this 20-year budget window, but yet you lump their cost in with the price of each mission. This is different then finding the cost of apartments in a tower, because the apartment is the only thing being built, while NASA is buying two separate things.

The development, infrastructure, and everything else needed to mount a mission is an entirely separate part of the Lunar program from the cost of each rocket and ship, which is why its not okay for you to just add their costs up and divide. The $100Bn figure is not spent only on rockets, it is also to buy the ability to build and launch them, that we will have the benefit of separately from the missions, which is why you can't just do elementary school math to determine their price. Furthermore, who is to say that we will be stopping Lunar missions in 2025? Why would we? Ares and Orion will almost definitely be used for Mars too in some capacity, so does this not increase the number of flights? If so, this ruins your idiotically simplistic price calculation, but more importantly it ruins the method for your calculations, because you don't know the number of flights over the life of the program. It is simply invalid.

also, the jet-fighter is not a good example, since the USAF costs must/can be shared on hundreds different (old and new) vehicles

Yes it is, because its a hypothetical situation. You do know what "hypothetical" means right? You can't weasel out of it that easily with your non-answer.

you can separate and slice what you want, but, in the next 20 years, the price-per-moon-mission is those I've posted...
but no one public or private company evaluate prices on a so long time

But it isn't! Its the price to build & launch rockets to the Moon, but ALSO to buy the ability to do so. Two separate things that you conflate illogically.

Because of the small number of flights (relatively speaking versus hundreds or thousands), I contest that no meaningful length of time is valid, and so your whole approach to calculating the cost is wrong and useless.

when Intel develops a new chip, they sell it (e.g.) at $1000 each the first year (to damp theR&D costs) then sell it at $300 each the second year (to damp the factory costs) then, when they have damped all costs, sell it at $100...

This stinks of a deep ignorance about economics; the price of the chip does not vary because of the cost of the chip, but rather the market for the chip. Your example is all wrong, you don't know what you are talking about! You are completely clueless about how prices are set. NASA and other big government projects (eg building Navy ships) are different because they are the only ones buying the rockets.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-30 05:52:05

Does the launch pad collapse? Does the rocket factory fall down? Do the blue prints go up in smoke?

I understand that you have two hard, hard, hard, hard, hard jobs to do here...

1. demonstrate that the ESAS plan (and all its parts) is PERFECT

2. and (much harder!) demonstrate (also) that the ESAS plan (and all its parts) is CHEAP

to accomplish the latter mission, you try to diluite the (very high) R&D costs on the longest time possible... 40, 50, 100 years!

but, if I add that costs NOW (since they are paid NOW) and you cut/dilutite them over 50-100 years, the discussion become endless (and useless)

the REALITY is that the PRESENT generation of american politics and taxpayers will pay 125 billion$$$ of their PRESENT money to have just a dozen moon mission at a REAL price of NINE billion$$$ per mission!

of course, the launch pad don't collapse, the rocket factory don't fall down and the blue prints don't go up in smoke, but it (simply) means that the NEXT generation of american taxpayers will pay 100 billion$$$ of their FUTURE money to have DOZENS moon mission at the (cheaper) price of two-three billion$$$ per mission!

NO ONE amortize the R&D costs over many decades! ...twenty years already are TOO MUCH to amortize the R&D costs and know the real "price" of a mission and that is (mainly) done because NASA will not launch nothing in the first ten years...!

20 years ago the computer companies have sold PCs with 1/100th the power of to-day's $300 desktops for $5000, $8000 and more!

that since they have amortized the costs of a product in the first few YEARS and NOT over MANY DECADES !

the R&D costs are REAL money paid by REAL taxpayers and NOW ...cut them to allow the ESAS hardware seem "cheap" is PURE PROPAGANDA

last, assuming the (absurd) concept that all R&D costs ar NOT costs... ( ) the price of EACH orbital/ISS Orion/Ares-I launch (hardware + annual fixed/shared costs) ALWAYS remains in the $800M range!!! ...that is $200M more than a Shuttle launch, despite the orbital-Orion will carry just three astronauts... while, EACH Shuttle launch carries TWICE+ the astronauts and 24 mT of cargo...!

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-01 13:39:27

Oh yes, because we don't agree with the mighty, sage, and wise gaetanomarono we must be rabid NASA lap dogs, we couldn't possibly be right, oh no no.

but, if I add that costs NOW

This is precisely what I am saying you cannot do, it is illogical, biased against NASA, and wrong. It falsely increases the apparent price per mission, because again the missions are not the only thing being purchased by NASA's $100Bn.

means that the NEXT generation of American taxpayers will pay 100 billion$$$ of their FUTURE money to have DOZENS moon mission at the (cheaper) price of two-three billion$$$ per mission

No, it will be less then that, because most of the $104-125Bn you cite is paid for the ability to launch Moon missions, the hardware and aggregate operations are somewhere under $1Bn each, but I digress... You say that the future missions will be cheaper because we won't have to pay for the "ability" costs again (launch pad, development), and you also say that this cost should be averaged over missions flying the next 20-odd years.

But if we are flying missions after that, why not average this cost over them too? For that matter, what happens if we don't fly as many missions, would the ability costs be averaged over them? How do you know how many missions will actually fly? You don't know. And because you don't know, your numbers are meaningless. Because they are meaningless, and because they are so much larger than the marginal cost cited by M. Griffin, that can be no conclusion other than you are trying deceive readers with half-truths. And if its not true, and since you intend to deceive, then its a lie.

NO ONE amortize the R&D costs over many decades

Why not? Won't the launch facilities and factories last that long? Or conversely, why 20 years? Why isn't ten years too many? Five? One? You see, averaging non-marginal costs over number of missions flown is dumb, which is just what you are trying to do. You are being arbitrary, so you can make up numbers to make NASA look bad.

assuming the (absurd) concept that all R&D costs ar NOT costs

No, they are not costs, you are lying.

You admit that the R&D, infrastructure, and overhead are separate things (since they are not expended with the rockets), but you lump he cost of these things in with the cost of the missions? Thats wrong. These are not mission costs.

the price of EACH orbital/ISS Orion/Ares-I launch (hardware + annual fixed/shared costs) ALWAYS remains in the $800M range!!! ...that is $200M more than a Shuttle launch, despite the orbital-Orion will carry just three astronauts

Shuttle's development costs many billions of dollars and the program overhead costs around $3 billion dollars annually. At $200M each, that would mean Shuttle flies 15 times a year just to cover the overhead. Does Shuttle fly fifteen times a year? No! The $200M is the marginal mission cost, what it costs to actually fly the mission above what it costs to have the ability to fly the mission. If you divide up the overhead and amortized development costs over the half-dozen missions a year, each mission costs ~$1Bn each. Oh, and Orion has six seats, not three. You have trouble understanding economics, but I think even you can read and count.

You make VSE amortize its development and overhead costs over an arbitrary small number of missions, but in the very same post you let Shuttle off the hook for exactly the same thing!

You lying hypocrite!

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-01 17:53:45

...you cannot do...

why they wants that money if it that costs don't exist?

the ability to launch Moon missions...

and "build" that "ability" costs REAL MONEY that ALL research take into the account of the final "price" (why we can't do it with ESAS?)

cost should be averaged over missions flying the next 20-odd years...

no, the reality is WORSE since the hardware development will be so slow that (great part) will be paid BEFORE see something fly

...why not average this cost over them too...

because it's not the reality of facts... that "extra flights" don't exist not even on paper! ...they're only in your hope and the "hope" is never used in budget's accounts ...if that missions will have too much accidents, if the political priorities changes, if the future politics will have a different opinion about ESAS, if NASA don't find NOTHING of useful on the moon, if the public and scientific interest (and the TV audience...) falls quickly, etc. etc. etc. the ESAS plan could be closed BEFORE the end of the first 12 missions!
it's like build a giant hotel in a (beautiful but desert) isle sharing the costs over 50 years and offer very low price since they "hope" to have more tourists in future... a good hotel's manager never do a so stupid thing...

...You don't know...

no, WE KNOW ...we know that in the next 20 years NASA will receive $125Bn (+inflation) to accomplish 12 moon mission in 2020-2025 ...you can share the R&D costs on more flights and years ONLY if you are able to predict the future!

...the marginal cost...

you're right on that... the launch hardware is a VERY MARGINAL cost (the REAL price per laun is very much higher!) like the SRB+ET price of the Shuttle flights that (with 3 flights per year) is just 1/6 ($500M) of teh Shuttle annual budget ($3Bn)

why 20 years?

because "20 years" (not 10, not 25, not 50) is the planned (by politics, NASA, GAO, etc.) lenght of the ESAS plan 1.0 and no one can know nor predict (now) if there will be an ESAS 2.0 from 2025 nor if it will use the same (amortized) hardware
just two example to explain why you can't predict the future (nor share the R&D costs on more than 20 years):
1. in the early ESAS plan, NASA claimed to use the (very R&D expensive but already amortized) SSME, but now they have changed the design and will spend billion$$$ to develop the J-2x and adapt the RS-68 ...well, HOW you can be sure that in 2025, 2020 (or before) NASA don't make a further change with something better?
2. all (small) privates are walking their very first steps now, but (you know) private companies are very fast compared with public companies! ...then, HOW you can be sure that (e.g.) in 2018 some new companies will not build (and sell to NASA) giant rockets like the AresV at a fraction of the price? ...if that will happen, the Ares-I/Ares-V (very high) R&D costs will be shared on... ZERO FLIGHTS !!!! ...then, they will be a PURE LOSS OF MONEY !!!!

again, you want to share that (high) costs over the longest time possible to demonstrate that the ESAS hardware is "cheap" but you are WRONG since... 1) you can't predict the future, and... 2) the future will be VERY MUCH DIFFERENT than those planned to-day!

...they are not costs...

sure! ...they are not "costs"! ...they are "money"...

I re-post your claim here so, if you read it again and again (maybe) you will understand why your claims are absurd:

Shuttle's development costs many billions of dollars and the program overhead costs around $3 billion dollars annually. At $200M each, that would mean Shuttle flies 15 times a year just to cover the overhead. Does Shuttle fly fifteen times a year? No! The $200M is the marginal mission cost, what it costs to actually fly the mission above what it costs to have the ability to fly the mission. If you divide up the overhead and amortized development costs over the half-dozen missions a year, each mission costs ~$1Bn each. Oh, and Orion has six seats, not three. You have trouble understanding economics, but I think even you can read and count.

last, I've a question for you that (probably) may clear the entire ESAS costs-dispute (don't know to you, but, surely, to other readers):

if the ESAS moon missions will (really) costs just $775M each... do you think that NASA will sell MANY dozens of moon missions (launched from KSC) at THIS ("marginal") PRICE (not $9Bn) to France, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Spain, etc. ????

frankly, I doubt it will happen!

.

cIclops · 2007-05-02 03:03:09

if the ESAS moon missions will (really) costs just $775M each... do you think that NASA will sell MANY dozens of moon missions (launched from KSC) at THIS ("marginal") PRICE (not $9Bn) to France, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Spain, etc. ????
frankly, I doubt it will happen!

So do I, AFAIK NASA are not allowed to sell services to foreign countries. What may happen is bartering between NASA and other agencies if they cooperate, for example on the Lunar Outpost, just as they do with the ISS. In that case they agree a nominal cost for say electric power on ISS and trade it for the nominal cost of laboratory space or crew time. They certainly do not use costs that include development.

Yes this is all very hard to understand, but it's the traditional way government space business has been done and costed - each business has its own way of calculating costs. Did you expect your first employer to repay your entire education in your salary when you started work?

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-02 08:29:37

...NASA are not allowed to sell services to foreign countries...

I'm aware of that, it's only a furter example to show the REAL costs of a moon mission... the same may happen if NASA will sell a single "seat" of a moon mission... again, I'm sure that they will NEVER sell lunar missions' seats (or, maybe, the could give some seats for free, or at a nominal price, to some USA friend countries for political reasons) but, if they will sell them, I doubt very much that seats will costs (only) $775M / 4 = $193,750,000.oo each!

Did you expect your first employer to repay your entire education in your salary when you started work?

we are NOT talking of the first "day" or the first "week" or the first "year" but of the next "20 years" (that's also the ENTIRE duration of the current ESAS 1.0) and I share all costs on the full 20 years, not less time nor less hardware!

the problem is the (giant) difference between "plans", "dreams", "hope" and REALITY

the Gemini was proposed (also) for orbital moon missions (see the concepts on astronautix) but deleted after a few flights

the Apollo (capsules, rockets, technologies) was expected to accomplish dozens and dozens moon missions, lunar outposts (and colonies) and (also) to use its technology and (modified) hardware to fly/land SOON (maybe, in '80s) on MARS !!! but the ENTIRE Apollo program was DELETED after SIX moon missions!

the Skylab was dreamed as the first of dozens space stations, but was really use for three missions

the Shuttle was designed to be the cheapest vehicle possible (and able to fly common peoples with a brief training) thanks to its reusability, runway landing, etc. but (in reality) resulted (quickly) the MOST EXPENSIVE vehicle (to develop, fly and maintain) of the story of spaceflights (and forbidden to common peoples since the Challenger accident)

the early four Shuttle fleet was planned to fly every two weeks (26 flights per year) and 400 times in total (100 flight per Shuttle) but (in reality) they flown (about) 4-6 times per year (in the best years!) with a peak of eight flights one year and a total of 130 flights (including the last 12) in 29 years (from 1981 to 2010) or just 25% of the (500) total expected flights (including the 5th Shuttle)

the SSME was designed to be "cheap" and "highly reusable" but (in reality) it resulted EXPENSIVE and not so much reusable, since over 100 SSME was built to replace the damaged (and no more reusable) engines

the ISS was imagined as big and ready to host dozens astronauts (in the same time) engaged in hundreds amazing, advanced, sci-fi-like experiments and researches (to create new medicines, cure the cancer, develop new alloys, discover the nature's secrets, manufacture faster computer chips, contact ETs, etc. etc. etc.) but (in reality) the (already design resized) ISS (when it will be half-finished in 2010) will host the (standard) three-astronauts' crew (or six for a few days) all them engaged (as in the past) to do... NOTHING (excluding fitness and get bored)

two years ago the (expensive but amortized) Shuttle-derived hardware (SSME and 4-segments SRB) was planned to be used in the new ESAS rockets (to save very much R&D time and money) but (quickly) deleted in favour of new (most expensive and not planned) 5-segments SRBs and engines

the first orbital flight of the new capsule was announced for 2012 but (in the first year of the ESAS era) already shifted/delayed to 2015 and (in reality) probably moved to 2016-2018... while, the first ESAS moon landing (announced for 2018) should happen (IF will happen...) in 2020-2022 (or later...)

the NASA's costs evaluation of the ESAS plan 1.0 increased $21Bn in the FIRST year (from $104Bn to $125Bn) and the REAL costs (+inflation, cost growt, delays, further design changes, etc.) at the end of the ESAS 1.0 (in 2025) could be higher than evaluated by GAO ($230Bn) reaching $300Bn, $400Bn or more!

(both) Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER FLY once (after billion$$$ of R&D soent) since (thanks to the very long time tto develop them) other countries and/or privates will have enough time to develop and launch (within 2015-2020) MANY new models of BIGGER and (very much) CHEAPER rockets at (hardware/shared/fixed/assembly/maintenance/support/launch) price in the range of 30% or LESS than the price of the Ares family!!! ...and, I doubt that, the US Congress will decide (in 2015-2020) to still give to NASA three-four time the money than those required by privates for the SAME hardware!!!

last, if other countries and/or privates will become able to land astronauts on the moon at a FRACTION of the NASA/ESAS/VSE/Orion/Ares price, the entire ESAS plan risks to be DELETED soon or (maybe) BEFORE the first ESAS moon landing in 2022... !!!! (...and, maybe, NASA will be sold to SpaceX, Airbus or Lenovo... )

the problem is that EVERYTHING looks/seems simple, easy, fast and cheap... on paper... but the REALITY (always) is/will be very much DIFFERENT...

.

Cosmophobic space buff! · 2007-07-01 12:12:55

The shuttles wouldn't actually be used for flying as tangible spacecraft from LEO to MTO. They would merely be components of a much larger spaceship if you combine them. Yes, all three. They would form a multi-lateral command/service module system for storing supplies, life support, flight crew, additional components; ect. A propulsion module using Delta 2 rockets would form the primary drive from earth to Mars. Using about 12 altogether, they would be mounted behind the shuttle combination that is connected in a "Y" shape configuration of extension modules and braces. It would be fired in a sequence of 4 boosters at a time to gain enough velocity amplified by the next sequence to propel the vessel out of earth orbit. The shuttles would use their engines, a total of 192 in all for rotation and attitude adjustments in flight and for putting the vehicle in MTO. It would then deposit a Martian Lander Vehicle docked to the ship to land as many as 4 astronauts or cosmonauts if you prefer. Just a thought.

JoshNH4H · 2007-07-21 19:44:24

but first i would like to point out this pointless dickering. The SS is too expensive...No looke at these developement costs for anything else...no you cant do that... you all get it
_____________________________________________________________

For my idea: Its somewhat simple. 5 Shuttle solid boosters, in an X configuration. 1 makes it to orbit. you add a capsule in the middle of 6 to carry things up. You put the fittings in the then-empty 5th solid booster that made it to orbit. Pictures of the designs in the next post.

cIclops · 2007-07-22 07:20:52

but first i would like to point out this pointless dickering. The SS is too expensive...No looke at these developement costs for anything else...no you cant do that... you all get it

Yep, it's too expensive to operate, too unsafe (1 in 59 LOC) and too unreliable to use as a crew and cargo launcher.

Martian Republic · 2007-07-26 17:46:53

There are things that we can do with the shuttle that can't be done easily with rockets, like building the ISS and maintaining it. But, the sure cost factor to keeping the shuttle up and running, is the show show stopper and it really needs to go by by in the near future. For the cost of keeping it running for the next five year or so and doing two or three shuttle launches a year, we could probably build a scram jet shuttle and have it flying in five years for near the same price of flying this shuttle. Even if it were not cheaper then maintaining this generation of shuttle and doing those flights, it would be cheaper to do future flights and be more useful to us than the current shuttle.

I don't like going back to rocket, but we might do that for awhile until these new shuttle come on line. The current shuttle are just too expensive to keep flying and there wearing out and there dangerous to fly. Whether we like it or not, the current shuttle is basically just a museum piece and nothing more.

Larry,

bladeofdeath3 · 2007-07-27 02:33:25

The problem with the shuttle is the maintenance and reliability. As things get older, they stop working as they should or they work less effectively as they should. Replacement parts are more expensive and harder to attain as they are rarer since they are no longer in production. There were 5 shuttles in the shuttle fleet, but 2 of them have perished. Enterprise doesn't count because it wasn't built for space flight. The space shuttle is 30 years old. I rarely see cars from the '70s. The best thing the government can do is retire the shuttle and minimize casualties. The shuttle has already claimed 14 lives, 14 more that should have been lost. The shuttle is simply obsolete. There's nothing wrong with going back to the rocket, as it is currently the only method to escaping earth's gravity. Refitting the shuttles to escape earth's gravity would also be a disaster. The shuttle simply isn't built to go into deep space. If NASA were to do this, probably more lives would be lost and money would be wasted.

cIclops · 2007-07-27 02:51:33

Structurally the Shuttles are fine, as with aircraft and other expensive systems everything can be replaced. For example, Endeavour recently finished a three year maintenance involving 194 modifications and the replacement of over 1 million parts. Endeavour is in a better condition than she was when first built in 1991.

Another example, the last B-52 was built in 1962 and the USAF plan to keep them flying until 2040.

Yes maintenance gets more expensive as the vehicle gets older, the other Shuttles are also still quite young, Atlantis (1985) and Discovery (1984). With proper maintenance reliability is not a problem either.

The key problem with Shuttle is its design. It's too complex and too sensitive to weather, this affects both safety, cost and its ability to launch on time.

publiusr · 2007-11-09 11:53:28

In some parallel universe STS had the SSMEs/RS-68s under the ET--with EELV class Zenit strap-ons (only with two F-1s per strap-on).

And the Russians had the engines on their one flight orbiter...

SpaceNut · 2015-03-04 21:14:03

Some where in a resent posting there was talk about reactivation of a shuttle for use once again and the only thought that I have for doing so is to turn it into a passenger shuttle. Modify the cargo bay with a re-enforced chamber to house say 50 or more astronauts long enough to transport them to an orbiting station so that they could begin some real work....

The usual argument is for cargo costs but for people we are trying to stay under the cost of a Soyuz seat....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-04-29 10:05:09

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#27 2007-04-29 10:25:00

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#28 2007-04-29 10:50:43

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#29 2007-04-29 11:46:00

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#30 2007-04-29 14:44:24

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#31 2007-04-29 20:05:00

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#32 2007-04-30 05:52:05

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#33 2007-05-01 13:39:27

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#34 2007-05-01 17:53:45

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#35 2007-05-02 03:03:09

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#36 2007-05-02 08:29:37

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#37 2007-07-01 12:12:55

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#38 2007-07-21 19:44:24

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#39 2007-07-22 07:20:52

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#40 2007-07-26 17:46:53

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#41 2007-07-27 02:33:25

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#42 2007-07-27 02:51:33

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#43 2007-11-09 11:53:28

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

#44 2015-03-04 21:14:03

Re: Using the Space Shuttle in some way?

Board footer