Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

SpaceNut · 2006-01-06 15:25:19

Next crew for the station has been selected.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-06 17:30:54

The big reason why Bruan would cost so much less is that Russian engineers demand way, way less money and the RSA has no shareholders to keep happy. Obviously. Comparisons with the American Shuttle program are apples to oranges.

That's how it should be! There should be no shareholders to keep happy! Cold, hard cash is the only way you're going to get a system up, porkbarrel projects and extroidinarily expensive pieces to the machine will not an efficient system make.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-06 19:23:35

No no Josh, you aren't talking any sense...

Russian engineers? $15-20K a year, maybe less
American engineers? ~$75-100K a year, aproximatly

Thats at least five times the cost right there just for the people who lay hands on the project, and doesn't include the markup for the materials and equipment involved... The difference in what Russian workers demand and American workers demand is so huge, don't you go ignoring it and blaming "shareholders" yaddah yaddah.

Those pieces of hardware are extraordinarily expensive because they are fundimentally difficult to engineer too, there is no magic wand of cheapness for things that are hard to do. I think that you take for granted just how hard it is to build large or manned space vehicles. Even for the Russians, if you multiply the cost of their vehicles by five launch-for-launch, are not really any cheaper than ours of comparable capability.

Second, there never has been a "NASA" persay, a large fraction of the people that work for "NASA" are employees of contractors and not the government. This was true back in the Gemini/Apollo/etc days as it is today, with most of the vehicles being built and flown by people who don't get their paychecks from NASA. This is the way its always been, so why was it okay under Apollo but not okay now?

Government buracracy is the only viable alternative to the private contractors, and history has shown that the latter can do the same job for less money if they are pressed to do so. They certainly can't do it any worse, even cutting their shareholders in for profits, since they at least have the profit motive to drive them to tighten their belt. The problem is not the contractors demanding too much money, that is the nature of all companies to charge the maximum that their customers will profitably pay, but rather NASA giving into their demands and relying on Congress to bail them out. I don't, however, mean to imply that lying about the cost of a project is understandable nor okay.

Also don't forget, that probobly just as big a reason as the difference in labor costs as Russia is the fact that NASA has not been driven by any motive except to maximize the employment of engineers for the past thirty years. "One big happy family" and all, a "brotherhood of rocket men," which was led by men willing to lie and cheat to maximize the budget and scope of NASA post-Apollo, which birthed the Shuttle debacle. Not Lockheed/Boeing/et al, but NASA executives lied to maximize their budget. Now hopefully the jig is up, and NASA will have to accomplish the VSE, or die trying.

Edit, more thoughts: Really, I am trying to head off any of this "Shuttle SHOULD only cost $63M a flight as originally specified" and stuff. Look, spaceflight programs run by American engineers reguardless who they work for are going to be expensive.

Are rockets today more expensive then they should be? Oh probably, but not by an order of magnetude or whatever that some of the feverd corner-cutter/anti-corporates think, and not all the markup is Boeing/Lockheed/et al's fault: NASA management is far from pure as snow too.

BWhite · 2006-01-06 22:47:02

5x for wages makes sense.

Proton at $250 million ($50M x5) is about the same a Delta IVH, right? No magic here. Its the same story as paying computer folks in Bangladore $18K to do what a coder in Silicon Valley would charge $64K to do.

What we (America) do about this long term is too large of a question for me to ponder tonight.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-07 08:53:19

Yes, or each Soyuz clocking in around $125M for three seats. If the CEV/CLV costs ~$200M a pop and can carry four, then that equates roughly too.

Or Zenit-III versus Atlas-V

Or R-7 (Soyuz) versus Delta-IV Medium

...about the only curve breaker we might see is Elon's Falcon rockets, which are priced far below that of the competitors not because they are inherintly cheaper, but rather because they have to be to break into the market held by EELV. Also, once they gain a signifigant fraction of market share, they will have to retrain their low price to compete against the "professionals." Delta-II is going out of style in favor of Delta-IV.

BWhite · 2006-01-07 09:30:24

GCNRevenger, do you "buy" the t/Space claim of being able to lift 4 astronauts for $20 million?

What about $50 million?

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-07 12:21:09

At the moment... no. I think the scale of such a project is presently beyond T/Space's reach. Even radical modification to a 747 jet would rival the amount of trouble as SpaceShipOne.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-07 23:12:15

GNCR, do you think that $60 million for one Shuttle tank is a good deal, an okay deal, or highway robbery?

I think it is outright robbery, and I think that it is at least 3 times more costly than it could be (perhaps even 6 times costlier than it could be). Welders are not these high wage earners, they get only a little higher than minimum wage. 6 months for 20 welders at $20 an hour (google search round up for the most experienced and best welders, I bet you could get away with the $15 an hour workers, entry level welders are like $11 an hour, probably not worth it) is less than half a million in pure wages.

And I'm being really freaking conservative here, I think you could build a tank in 3 months with half as many people! The point is wages are not all that significant. I think that prices are blown out of proportion because this is a speciality sector, and the only people in the market are NASA, so they have to pay high because the demand is non-existant. NASA should do everything internal so they can set their own prices.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-08 07:37:51

$60M for one tank? Thats high, but not totally unreasonable.

"I bet you could get away with the $15 an hour workers"

First off, I wouldn't let low-wage barely certified country bumpkin "welders" on the premisies: again, building spaceships parts is not like welding together dumpsters or gasoline tankers considering the far lower structural margins, the hypercold metal-warping fluids inside, the "fragileness" of the whole thing (its pretty thin walled), and the fairly exotic materials that "regular" welders have never even heard of (lithium aluminum alloy), run-of-mill industrial welders aren't good enough. If they screw up, billions of dollars are lost and seven people will die, experts are obviously called for and well justified, and they don't come cheap.

You wouldn't let guys who weld together bulldozers or train cars weld a submarine hull, would you? A few millimeters of bad weld would spell death for the whole crew... so why would you let them build rockets? Or how about nuclear reactors? Do these kinds of workers weld stealth bombers together? I think not... Infact, I wouldn't even let SpaceX engineers work on the Shuttle tank.

This is a great example about how you haven't really internalized just how much different rocket building is from normal everyday stuff. Considering that EELVs are not radically overpriced given market conditions, and a considerable chunk of their cost goes to building tankage, and the STS tanks are far bigger then $60M is not three times too high. Higher then it should be? Oh probably, but not by multiples, and they must be man rated.

Could it be done simpler? Maybe, but changing how the tank is built is a big deal, but nowhere near as big a deal as being sure that the new tank won't simply fail and kill the Shuttle crew. It is a specialty sector, and rightly so: prices are high because you need special people to build special things in this specialty sector, and these do not come cheap. Nobody in the world sells rockets for substantially less (yet) then we do if you consider the radical disperity in wages between America and Russia, China, India etc (except Shuttle).

"NASA should do everything internal so they can set their own prices."

This is a fallacy, NASA can't "set its own prices" and reign in costs any more then Lockheed or Boeing could, qualified engineers would still demand to be paid their specialist wages reguardless who they work for, and being a government job is subject to a whole host of "hidden" expenses. Lockheed a few weeks back refused to accomodate striking workers for the Atlas-V booster, can you see NASA doing that? And, with direct NASA oversight, the political impetuous to maximize funding is much stronger, they are no longer a cost to be controlled, but pork. At least, moreso then they are now... Long story short, NASA can't do it any cheaper then Lockheed/Boeing/et al could.

History has shown, time and time again, that contractors can do the job cheaper and better... but only if they are kept on a leesh. This is NASA's failing, they have failed to keep their contractors in line and honest and permitted a few to become too big and too influential. NASA has failed to keep the contractors accountable. When things go wrong, where do they go? Congress, instead of Lockheed boardrooms.

Edit: About the only instance I can think of when NASA has tried to stand up against one of its contractors was Lockheed and the X-33 debacle.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-08 16:35:25

It's possible these things are machine welded.

But I guess I'm too optimistic, stupid, whatever, when I think that even the $11 welders could potentially pull it off. The welds would obviously be checked and rechecked by not only more experienced welders, but once the final product exists it will have a lot of pressure tests done. The problem with $11 workers is you don't want a lot of mistakes, because mistakes cost money and you're going to be going back and rewelding, throwing out pieces, and so on, it's not a good thing to do. In any case, I included the highest paid aluminum workers in my calculation, so I don't see what the problem is. This isn't about wages, this is about profit, how much is Lockheed profiting?

How could NASA keep its contractors on a leash? The greatest thing about government funding is if you don't spend all your annual funds, you're risking not getting funds or as much funds the next time around. NASA says "screw you" to Lockheed, and goes with some other mom-and-pop company that hasn't proven itself to NASA, NASA gets screwed two ways. First the company may not be able to fullfill NASAs needs, and second NASA risks losing funding for the next year. On top of all that whatever they needed the company for is at risk of being grounded or stopped. Lockheed and the other big companies knows NASA needs them, absolutely needs them, so they probably wouldn't even let NASA go to the boardroom. Because that means less profit, right from the get-go.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-08 21:55:43

Parts of them are machine welded, but not the whole thing.

I doubt that "highest paid aluminum welders" go for $15 an hour, the workers that build hulls for submarines are quite well paid if memory serves, to the tune of $50-60K+, and given how delicate their craft is, they don't do -anything- except nice and slow I bet.

And thats for the welding guys... then there are the engineers that actually assemble/shape the componets for welding, the (accursed) foam guys, the plumbing guys, the wiring guys, the structural guys, workers to get the tanks from Michoud to the Cape', and all their logistical/managerial/legal support. Thats just for building the things, and not for the aerodynamics testing or upgrades or the non-building work associated with tank improvements/changes. It does tend to add up.

NASA needs to raise the bar a bit for Lockheed/Boeing/et al now that it has a slightly bigger stick: keep costs under control, or NASA will be "put out of business" (quote: M Griffin)... I bet Mike could make some headway against the psuedo-monopoly with that argument. Anyway, I'm not talking so much about where NASA is now, but where NASA ought to be: they should have nurtured a variety of contractors to foster competition, but instead took the short-sighted path and went for the big ones at their expense. They should have made a much bigger fuss over antitrust checks on major mergers too.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-09 07:50:58

I was just calculating the cost of one tank, and I used a hit on google for aluminum welders, which said they get about $20 an hour for professionals, $15 was entry level. Even using your figure the wages for the welders comes out to half a million (assuming twenty welders, one tank every six months). Less than a hundredth of the final cost! For one tank! It cannot be the welders that add any significant cost to these things. There's also the fact that NASA was getting 4 tanks or more a year at the height of the Shuttle program. That reduces the cost that I calculated by 2 (I was assuming 2 a year), assuming your annual wage costs. You don't measure the cost of a tank by how much they get paid annually, you measure it by how many the can make anually vs how much they get paid.

I don't have the energy to actually calculate each and every person directly, necessarily, involved in the construction of this thing, but surely it's well within $5 million dollars wage-wise. It has to be. Wages alone cannot be doing this.

Robert pointed out that it's possible the manufacturers are in a contract with NASA for so many tanks, to the point that they get paid some cap limit for however many tanks NASA needs regardless of whether NASA actually uses them. NASA just quoted the $60 million figure, it could be simply that NASA is paying them for a product they are not using, in order to keep to the letter of the contract. Knowing how business deals are known to work (if only having to pay a child care professional even though my niece didn't show up for the day), I think this is a plausible scenario.

But I'll conceed the point that these things are complex beasts, and admit that the $11 figure is crazy. It's simply that I cannot comprehend $60 million being a realistic, fair, or even rational figure. Not for something as simple as a tank, and you'll probably argue that point, but I think we both know the tank is no where near as complex as the rest of the machine. It needs really good welders, and they need to go back to the machine-spray-on foam.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-09 09:45:31

Robert pointed out that it's possible the manufacturers are in a contract with NASA for so many tanks, to the point that they get paid some cap limit for however many tanks NASA needs regardless of whether NASA actually uses them. NASA just quoted the $60 million figure, it could be simply that NASA is paying them for a product they are not using, in order to keep to the letter of the contract. Knowing how business deals are known to work (if only having to pay a child care professional even though my niece didn't show up for the day), I think this is a plausible scenario.

So where is this stock pile of ET's since Nasa has struggled to have even a few tanks in the process as of the Katrina, Rita one two punch? If such a stock pile is in existance then these tanks much like the SRB's do have a shelf life before do not use date. At one point I do believe that excess tanks were a possiblity back about four years ago but why should people be allowed to earn a wage if nothing is produced? Also if such a stock pile did exist and Nasa knew that it would not be able to use them all, would it not be in Nasa best interest to recoupe any loss due to excess...

Rxke · 2006-01-09 11:31:03

It cannot be the welders that add any significant cost to these things.

I'd guess it's the testing of the welds that's expensive.

I know I guy who does this, professionally. X and Gamma-ray inspections of welds in reactors, (extremely expensive); measuring hulls of ships (they 'thin' over time, due to corrosion etc (cheaper, but more testing, so endprice was $$$; checking tank used for chemicals etc...

In the reactors, it was not the welder that made a weld expensive, it was the qualification testing, which was orders of magnitude more expensive than the 20$/hour for the small-scale weldingjob itself...

I guess it gets relatively less expensive for big welding-jobs (probably a crew doing this w/o having to lug the hardware aroud everytime, but still...

Oh, BTW, In America he'd be a terrorist, he has radioisotopes at home, enough for a dirty bomb or two

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-09 13:02:56

Robert pointed out that it's possible the manufacturers are in a contract with NASA for so many tanks, to the point that they get paid some cap limit for however many tanks NASA needs regardless of whether NASA actually uses them. NASA just quoted the $60 million figure, it could be simply that NASA is paying them for a product they are not using, in order to keep to the letter of the contract. Knowing how business deals are known to work (if only having to pay a child care professional even though my niece didn't show up for the day), I think this is a plausible scenario.
So where is this stock pile of ET's since Nasa has struggled to have even a few tanks in the process as of the Katrina, Rita one two punch? If such a stock pile is in existance then these tanks much like the SRB's do have a shelf life before do not use date. At one point I do believe that excess tanks were a possiblity back about four years ago but why should people be allowed to earn a wage if nothing is produced? Also if such a stock pile did exist and Nasa knew that it would not be able to use them all, would it not be in Nasa best interest to recoupe any loss due to excess...

That's the thing, they only really have to provide what is in demand, if they know that the Shuttle is going to be grounded for awhile, why even start making one until they know it's closer to time to completion? (Or maybe get it completed ahead of schedule.) But that's the biggest point here, one or two tanks get made, the company potentially gets paid for 4-6 tanks! If that's what is happening, then god help us all.

The $60 million figure remains a mystery to me, no one has really convinced me it is not absolute robbery.

Rxke, that's an interesting point, though. But part of me feels a pressure test would be adequate. I am the originator of the suicide thread, after all...

SpaceNut · 2006-01-10 11:33:26

Back to the next missions and transportation that will be used in the future. The plan currently would be to strip the ET in the Pal ramp area and do a trial launch again in may or possibly june time frame. While this is all grand the current needs will be met by the use of the Soyuz. [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10727401/]Space station travel arrangements set
Next crew confirmed; $44 million deal reached for Russian rides[/url]

NASA formally announced the next crew bound for the international space station on Thursday, a two-astronaut team set to launch in mid-March aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft.
Veteran cosmonaut Pavel Vinogradov, with Russia’s Federal Space Agency, will command the space station’s Expedition 13 mission with U.S. astronaut Jeffrey Williams serving as both flight engineer and NASA science officer.
The $44 million covers Williams' trip to and from the station, as well as McArthur's ride back to Earth. The cost amounts to about $21.8 million per passenger — a price that the Russians have agreed to honor through 2011, NASA said.

Rxke · 2006-01-10 14:21:01

Rxke, that's an interesting point, though. But part of me feels a pressure test would be adequate. I am the originator of the suicide thread, after all...

Thanks, I could need the hearthy belly laugh (wipes tears out of eyes)

SpaceNut · 2006-01-11 12:14:54

We have all been educating each other as to how Nasa works but what about how to be an Astronaut, shuttle pilot or moon miner. How does one get started.

[url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-11-Wed-2006/news/5302123.html]THE RIGHT STUDENTS

School shuttle simulation offers a glimpse of an astronaut's experience [/url]

six sixth-graders and two seventh-graders, members of the school's Lunar Shuttle Club, will be "in space," inside the plywood and cardboard shuttle replica they built on the stage of the gym.
"We've been working for three months to develop a simulation where the kids can behave like astronauts for three days on a simulated actual mission, without leaving the ground,

While aboard the shuttle, they'll complete various space programs on computers, work out, sleep, eat, do their homework for other classes and examine moon rocks.
The primary goal for the shuttle crew is to learn everything about those rocks,

But the long days in their spacecraft, which begin at 5 a.m. and last until 10 p.m., are also about life lessons Goerisch has tried to instill each of the three previous times he's conducted this shuttle project in past years.
Among those lessons are that it takes a team of people to accomplish anything great, that the more you put into something, the more you get out, and that people can accomplish anything if they work hard enough,

While this seems alot for this age group it is probably even more of a challenge for those that have not kept up with education, physical conditioning and so much more.

Commodore · 2006-01-11 14:47:57

Shuttle Threatened by Budget shortfalls

It looks to me that they are trying real hard to kill the shuttle. Expect to see a new plan to finish the station with a combination of the new CaLV/CLV by 2012 in the near future.

Rxke · 2006-01-11 16:13:17

lots of scenario's to find a solution, but amazingly:

The fourth possibility, the one probably favored by Congress, is to fully fund both the shuttle and the new spacecraft, thus eliminating the entire four-year gap and ensuring a seamless transition to a new era in human space travel.

I hope they don't do 'less flights per year' that's just keeping a standing army, and will save little money for a seriously crippled operationscheme...

Commodore · 2006-01-11 17:55:11

I really don't see the point of funding both. So what if theres a gap. You can't do anything with the CEV by itself anyway. And its still cheaper to use a Soyuz.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-13 06:46:36

Ya sort of a catch 22 in that you need a HLV before you can get any real saving.

Talking of savings some plans for the Lunar missions are now trying to back away from the use of Methane for the Ascent stage of the LSAM. Have not found a real number yet but how little is this really going to save when it will be at least 10 years plus before we will even be going to the moon.

Other attempts are a foot as well to try to nickle an dime more savings out of the ISS and shuttle programs as well.
NASA gambles all for a shot at the moon

For the past three years, NASA¡¯s launch pads at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, have mostly sat idle, with technicians working to battle corrosion rather than prepare space shuttles for blast-off. And later this year, when one of the launch pads is shut down for routine maintenance, it may never return to service.
To save $30 million, NASA managers are recommending that the agency scale back to just one launch pad for the remaining shuttle flights

We have already hit on possibly one of the problems and that is how Nasa writes its contracts that pays for ET construction. But to stop using a launch pad to only save this small amount... :?:

Well know that to finish the ISS or not, is a problem not only for the partners but also for the continuing use the shuttle in terms of it operating safely. But no one has really spelled out what a recertification for longer use would mean.

But as time goes by, we are not doing some things that we should be doing if we were going to fly longer than 2010."
Such no-going-back measures would include scuttling the shuttles' midlife recertification programme, designed to ensure the ships are safe to fulfil their intended design lives of 100 missions apiece. Of the remaining orbiters, Discovery has flown 30 missions, Atlantis 26 and Endeavour 19. Under the new plan, NASA will only fly the shuttle 18 times to complete the ISS and once to service the Hubble Space Telescope

We have also been around the block for not doing Hubble but this is what it is costing Nasa as it continues to move forward..

NASA's continuing efforts to mount a shuttle mission to repair and refit the Hubble – which currently is down to two working gyroscopes – are running about $10 million per month, or $120 million a year. He said the agency is looking at attempting the mission by the end of 2007, so the total cost – not including the cost of any new hardware – would be something under $200 million.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-13 12:33:50

Other measures to save resources aboard the ISS are to make use of the shuttle O2 supply.
Boeing and NASA Design Oxygen-Saving Equipment for ISS

Boeing proposed the original project about three years ago to conserve logistics aboard the ISS.
Recharge Oxygen Orifice Bypass Assembly (ROOBA). allows for Extravehicular Activity (EVA) crewmembers, spacewalkers, to use Space Shuttle oxygen resources during EVA preparation activities without having to rely solely on Station oxygen. ROOBA will also prolong the life of key system components like the ISS compressor.

Gee about the same time that the first Russia waste recycler starting giving all its trouble....

SpaceNut · 2006-01-17 13:18:25

Europe seeks lift for stranded space lab

Europe is looking to thumb a ride for its 1 billion euro ($1.21 billion) space laboratory which has been gathering dust on Earth since the U.S. space shuttle was all but grounded after a 2003 crash.
The U.S. shuttle is the only vehicle that can carry large equipment to the International Space Station and its grounding has left the European Space Agency wondering how else it might send the Columbus research center into orbit.

Gee about the price of a shuttle ride... Automate the shuttle and send it up.

Its only a few billion more to build another shuttle from scratch and or build any version of the SDV that can get built soon...

SpaceNut · 2006-01-26 12:40:08

This answers a few questions on the ET's remaining for the final possibly 19 missions.

Internal Lockheed Martin Memo From Marshall Byrd To Michoud Employees Regarding Shuttle External Tank Contract Changes to reduce our existing contract deliveries from 35 External Tanks to a total of 18.

About 100 suppliers will be affected, with the majority in the greater Los Angeles area, although others reside in Alabama, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon and Vermont. This action was long expected and now defines our future requirements in support of the Space Shuttle program.

This is a sizable impact to these supliers but it means that the CEV contractor and HLV will be making there own tanks in the far off future rather than taking the short cut to expediting its developement sooner rather than later.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-01-06 15:25:19

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#152 2006-01-06 17:30:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#153 2006-01-06 19:23:35

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#154 2006-01-06 22:47:02

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#155 2006-01-07 08:53:19

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#156 2006-01-07 09:30:24

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#157 2006-01-07 12:21:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#158 2006-01-07 23:12:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#159 2006-01-08 07:37:51

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#160 2006-01-08 16:35:25

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#161 2006-01-08 21:55:43

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#162 2006-01-09 07:50:58

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#163 2006-01-09 09:45:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#164 2006-01-09 11:31:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#165 2006-01-09 13:02:56

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#166 2006-01-10 11:33:26

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#167 2006-01-10 14:21:01

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#168 2006-01-11 12:14:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#169 2006-01-11 14:47:57

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#170 2006-01-11 16:13:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#171 2006-01-11 17:55:11

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#172 2006-01-13 06:46:36

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#173 2006-01-13 12:33:50

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#174 2006-01-17 13:18:25

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#175 2006-01-26 12:40:08

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer