Orion (CEV / SM) - status

gaetanomarano · 2007-06-03 01:09:40

Why they charge NASA $42 million?

if you refer to an orbital-Soyuz seat this is not the right price I've read
in the past (both) NASA and tourists seats was $20M while now the prices seem be $15M per seat for NASA and $25M per seat for tourists
.

cIclops · 2007-06-03 02:57:17

Why they charge NASA $42 million? Well, why not.. NASA still gets a bargin price compared to anything else (what else?), the Russians get a little profit.. Capitalisum at it's finest..

Yes so NASA appear to be paying $42m per return seat and as they are buying 15 seats that is equivalent to the crew capacity of five Soyuz vehicles, that works out at $126m per vehicle. For the Russian government $126m in real dollars is about $250m in internal ruble value. The Russians have been eager for a long time to get real western currency for this very reason.

From the confusion of numbers in those sources it seems that nobody outside of of RKA/TsSKB-Progress know the true marginal cost of a Soyuz. As with all government production facilities there is no open market, costs are internally set.

A product or service is worth what a customer will pay for it, the price does not necessarily reflect the true cost. As NASA is the sole customer for Orion (whew finally back OT) they not only want to know the marginal cost but also require it as part of the contract. Orion/Ares I will be partly reusable unlike Soyuz. Orion's heat shield will be replaced after each flight but most of the spacecraft will be refurbished and reused for several flights. Similarly Ares I will have a reusable SRB. This is how NASA will bring the marginal cost down to around $225m per flight (in true US dollars).

neviden · 2007-06-03 08:30:11

Why they charge NASA $42 million?
if you refer to an orbital-Soyuz seat this is not the right price I've read
in the past (both) NASA and tourists seats was $20M while now the prices seem be $15M per seat for NASA and $25M per seat for tourists
.

Of course its $20 million per seat. I was just humoring all those in the “Ares I/Orion rox!” crowd in their persuasions about the whole costs and capabilities thing. If any of them checked out that number, they would have noticed, that is the price to bring TWO people to orbit. Or, to be more precise, $43.8 million to bring Jeff Williams to and from ISS and for a ride home for a Bill McArthur.
http://www.space.com/news/060105_nasa_russia_soyuz.html

The production costs for the whole 3 man craft and a rocket to carry it into LEO is approximately $28.6 million or there about. That is how much it costs the Russian government. If they get one tourist flying, they can send two of their cosmonauts to space almost for free. It's a good deal for them. Oh yeah, that’s $9 million and some change per seat. By selling the seats for $20 million they get a little extra money for those flights (nothing to write home about, though).

Yes so NASA appear to be paying $42m per return seat and as they are buying 15 seats that is equivalent to the crew capacity of five Soyuz vehicles, that works out at $126m per vehicle.

Ok, first of all.. It really costs $20 million per seat (the Russian government gets it cheaper, but since they were the one who spent the money to design it in the first place, its only fair) to send a person to space. That would make a price for 3 persons - $60 million. Oh, and we are not talking about "marginal costs". That's how much the NASA pays for the whole flight.. That covers everything..

For the Russian government $126m in real dollars is about $250m in internal ruble value.

It's actually approximately $28.6 million in whatever the ruble exchange rate is.. PPP is usefull only if you compare to something outside of Russia..

The Russians have been eager for a long time to get real western currency for this very reason.

Sure.. the poor Russians.. they are broke.. It's not like they have $386.3 billion in foreign currency reserves, budget surplus in the first quarter of 2007 of $18.2 billion, and the money from all those oil exports is still flooding in (and will be for a long time). Yes, you are right. Those $20 million per seat deals will bring soo much money to their space program. Without it the whole Russian space program would come crashing down, since they don't have any money..

From the confusion of numbers in those sources it seems that nobody outside of of RKA/TsSKB-Progress know the true marginal cost of a Soyuz. As with all government production facilities there is no open market, costs are internally set.

I see no confusion. You can buy the commercial Soyuz rocket for $40 million, and they make a profit on that. Everything needed is already designed and the development costs have been paid for long time ago. The true marginal cost of a Soyuz is what it is. They have it that way by building 10-20 of them. And this is small rate of the production and launch. They used to build a lot of them, since they are simple and cheap. They have small ground crews and simple procedures. Where do you thing the number for 1700+ flights came from.

With that kind of production rate your rockets can be cheap. And that’s not because of the “cheap ruble”. Check out the prices for Delta II compared to the production rate..

A product or service is worth what a customer will pay for it,

Of course. That’s why they have sold all the seats for the next few years and are increasing the number of Progress/Soyuz TMA built.

the price does not necessarily reflect the true cost.

Of course it doesn’t. Just compare the “cost” of a shuttle to the “true cost” of a shuttle flight. You know.. the marginal costs and all that bussines..

As NASA is the sole customer for Orion (whew finally back OT) they not only want to know the marginal cost but also require it as part of the contract.

Ok, let us stop talking about the Soyuz and concentrate on the Orion..

To launch the Orion, you have to first spend money to design the new rocket (Ares I) and a new capsule (Orion). Then you have to buy new equipment to actually build both of them and launch them. And when everything is tested and works ok, then you can actually spend money to build it. If you build a lot of rockets, then the price per rocket pays for everything (salaries). If you build only few rockets, then you can’t pay for those workers and factories that you need to build everything. That means you must subsidize your factories so they don’t go out of business.

Let me put it another way.. The incremental per launch costs of a Shuttle is $60 million per launch.. But the whole Shuttle infrastructure costs $3 - $5 billion dollars to mentain. If the Shuttle would fly once a week it would be cheap system. If it flys few times per year (or doesn’t fly at all) it’s expensive as it can be. You must have high launch rate if you wan’t to have small per flight price. It's simple economics...

Orion/Ares I will be partly reusable unlike Soyuz. Orion's heat shield will be replaced after each flight but most of the spacecraft will be refurbished and reused for several flights. Similarly Ares I will have a reusable SRB.

Space Shuttle is partly reusable. It’s also the most expensive rocket that you can find. What does that tell you about the whole “reusable = cheaper” logic?

This is how NASA will bring the marginal cost down to around $225m per flight (in true US dollars).

Well.. good for them. It must be "hard" to build a 25 MT rocket to bring 4 people capsule to LEO for that kind of marginal costs..

But, you still didn’t explain to me, why the Orion has to be 25 MT, why it needs a special (low flight rate) rocket that will not be used for anything else and how much are “other than the marginal” costs for it…

cIclops · 2007-06-03 11:02:34

Of course its $20 million per seat. I was just humoring all those in the “Ares I/Orion rox!” crowd in their persuasions about the whole costs and capabilities thing. If any of them checked out that number, they would have noticed, that is the price to bring TWO people to orbit. Or, to be more precise, $43.8 million to bring Jeff Williams to and from ISS and for a ride home for a Bill McArthur.
http://www.space.com/news/060105_nasa_russia_soyuz.html
The production costs for the whole 3 man craft and a rocket to carry it into LEO is approximately $28.6 million or there about. That is how much it costs the Russian government.

Just a joke or the usual excuse when unable to prove a point? The link to Jeff Willians and Bill McArthur's ride was an old deal. Most of the deals between NASA and RKA are bound up with other barter agreements with NASA providing ISS services and transportation services in return.

The new deal between NASA and RKA is described here. It's not difficult to see from those numbers that each return seat is being sold for about $40million, not that that says much other than the price is highly variable.

As to the claim that the production cost of Soyuz is $28.6m, that number appears to be based on an offer made by RKA to the US and not on any official statement from RKA about actual costs. Put up or shut up.

ps this thread goes back a while and you'll find others in NewMars that are highly critical of Orion. No one here is claiming Orion "rox" but just as RKA are developing a replacement for Soyuz, NASA are replacing the Shuttle and so far their approach seems sound.

neviden · 2007-06-03 14:02:11

The new deal between NASA and RKA is described here. It's not difficult to see from those numbers that each return seat is being sold for about $40million, not that that says much other than the price is highly variable.

From your link:

"NASA has signed a $719 million.. 15 crew members.. delivery and the removal of 5.6 metric tons of cargo.. purchasing the capability for the Russian Docking Cargo Module (DCM) to carry 1.4 metric tons of NASA cargo to the space station.. will be able to fly outfitting hardware for the Russian Multipurpose Laboratory Module on the DCM.. In addition, NASA is purchasing a flight opportunity to and from the space station that will meet an obligation to the International Partners..."

Sorry, but I do have a difficult time to see how those numbers add up to the $40 million per seat. Unless the cargo part of the deal is "buy seats from us, get the Progresses for cargo and everything else free off charge".. and remember.. this is not how much the rocket costs, it's how much the services cost.. with profits for the Russians that will provide those services..

$719 million is a barging for NASA, not to mention that they have no other choice (other than buying from the Chinese or abandoning the ISS). The Russians could charge them a lot more money and the NASA would still gladly pay. "You know dear NASA, we have to incease the production rate, and this costs a lot of money.. "

As to the claim that the production cost of Soyuz is $28.6m, that number appears to be based on an offer made by RKA to the US and not on any official statement from RKA about actual costs. Put up or shut up.

I put up the number from the RKA. As far as production cost for the rockets go, this is as accurate as you can get in the rocket business. Try finding out how much the Ariane 5 or any other rocket really cost to any better degree if you can. Saying that this numbers are based on an offer from the RKA doesn’t discredit this number. Unless you think that the RKA likes the US that much, that it would build them those ships at a loss..

Now please put your source for the claimed $126 million for three crew Soyuz launch. Not the three seats on a Soyuz. One launch of a rocket and a capsule that brings three people to LEO. We are comparing the rocket/capsule combinations, aren’t we?

ps this thread goes back a while and you'll find others in NewMars that are highly critical of Orion. No one here is claiming Orion "rox" but just as RKA are developing a replacement for Soyuz,

Their approach has gone no further than the building of mockups and begging for money. You on the other hand are using every trick possible (PPP was soo funny) to show that the Soyuz/Soyuz TMA costs the same amount of money as does the Ares I/Orion, which is ________..

On July 18, 2006, the state tender of the Russian Space Agency for the Soyuz successor spacecraft, that was unofficially tied with suggested ESA financial support, was cancelled when Anatoly Perminov announced that none of the three proposals would be chosen by the Russian Federal Space Agency.

No money will be spent on that Kliper. Kliper is dead. Energia claims that it will develop it with its own money, but since they don't have this kind of money this is just empty talk. They will maybe get some money to “develop it further”, but this is more of a subsidy for the whole company to keep the expertise alive if there would be a need for such a capsule in the future.

Kliper is as much a replacement for a Soyuz, as was the Venture Star was for the Shuttle. A “development” that will never fly. It can’t even enter from the TEI speeds.. How can it be a replacement if it can’t do the job that the previous craft could do and is the prime requirement (that would be the return the crew alive back to Earth part).

Meanwhile, the Soyuz TMA...

NASA are replacing the Shuttle and so far their approach seems sound.

It may look sound to you, but to me it’s not.. It is artificially made too big to prevent a lift on an already existing and cheaper rockets. There is no reason that it has to be that big other than to “require” Ares I. That is not “sound approach”. That is wasteful and expensive.. two low launch rate rockets? I could understand (barely) the whole Ares V thing, but the Ares I? NASA will just get two expensive rockets with not enough money to spend on anything else..

Why does Orion have to be 25 MT?

cIclops · 2007-06-08 07:04:19

Briefing charts from Exploration update - 7 Jun 2007

Exploration briefing - (video 68 mins) - 7 Jun 2007

Overview of Exploration program by Scott Horowitz and Jeff Hanley.

Interesting comments:

o Working towards an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of a first human flight of the Ares I/Orion in September 2013.

o 65% confidence level of achieving IOC by March 2015 under current funding profile

o Orion will be able to support crew for 18 days in space and will use airbags

cIclops · 2007-06-19 06:15:25

Alternate Launch Abort System (ALAS) Configurations (PDF)

This proposed design changes the aerodynamic shape of the protective fairing that extends over the Command Module. Preliminary analysis indicates that payload can be increased by 545 kg by reducing loads through the CM structure and therefore its mass.

gaetanomarano · 2007-06-19 12:58:39

Preliminary analysis indicates that payload can be increased by 545 kg by reducing loads through the CM structure and therefore its mass.

but ONLY the "underside-LAS" allows to save up to 3.5 mT with the standard-Orion and up to 4.5 mT with the TBS-Orion

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-06-19 23:40:14

Alternate Launch Abort System (ALAS) Configurations

I've not found the image posted in the PDF document linked
there are other NASA documents anout the ALAS?

.

cIclops · 2007-06-20 01:42:14

That image is one of the Exploration update charts and was mentioned during Scott Horowitz's presentation, the link to the charts and video are in my message of 8 Jun.

publiusr · 2007-06-23 12:57:15

Alternate Launch Abort System (ALAS) Configurations (PDF)
This proposed design changes the aerodynamic shape of the protective fairing that extends over the Command Module. Preliminary analysis indicates that payload can be increased by 545 kg by reducing loads through the CM structure and therefore its mass.

I like the second version (on the right)

cIclops · 2007-07-10 15:22:09

ATK Awarded Contract for Orion Launch Abort Motors - 10 Jul 2007

MINNEAPOLIS, July 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) has received a $62.5 million contract from Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB) for the main abort motor of the NASA Orion crew exploration vehicle Launch Abort System (LAS). NASA's Orion will succeed the Space Shuttle in transporting humans to and from the International Space Station, as well as carrying crews to the Moon and eventually Mars.
Under the terms of the contract, ATK will design, develop, produce, test and deliver the launch abort motor (LAM), the largest of three propulsion units integrated into the LAS. The contract includes four full-scale static test units and eight deliverable motors to Orbital for pathfinders, test flights and program support. Orbital is subcontracted to Lockheed Martin who is the prime contractor for Orion.
"The LAS is a critical system that allows the astronaut crew to safely separate from the launch vehicle in the event of an emergency during launch pad operations and ascent," said Mike Kahn, ATK vice president of Space Launch Systems. "We have the necessary skills and experience to support Orbital in the development of this vital capability."
The LAM is not a conventional solid rocket motor; it is a reverse flow motor with four nozzles mounted on the forward end. Once ignited, the LAM produces over a half-million pounds of thrust, pulling the crew module away from the launch vehicle within milliseconds of notification. ATK has conducted three sub-scale static tests of the reverse flow motor. Two additional sub-scale tests for Orbital are planned this summer.

cIclops · 2007-07-31 09:48:04

Orion to see first umbilical EVA since 1974 - 31 Jul 2007

SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
By Rob Coppinger
NASA has chosen umbilical extra vehicular activity (EVA) as the space walk method for its Constellation programme's Orion crew exploration vehicle.
During the Space Shuttle programme, tethered EVA space suits have had onboard all the air and power required for working in the Orbiter's payload bay or assembling the International Space Station.
Umbilical EVAs mean the space suit will draw its air and power from the astronaut's spacecraft, in future the Orion Command Module. The last NASA umbilical spacewalk was during the agency's final Skylab mission, Skylab-4, in 1974.
NASA's Constellation space suit system concept envisages a basic suit that can have elements added to it to build up its capabilities to include lunar surface sorties.
NASA is currently considering whether each suit will be integrated into the Orion's crew seats.
"[The] configuration one [spacesuit] will protect the crew in [launch, entry and abort] mission phases and will provide 0g umbilical-based EVA capability," says NASA.
While the configuration one suit is for launch, entry and abort, configuration two is for lunar surface work.

cIclops · 2007-08-04 12:45:57

Update Briefing of the Role of Ames Research Center in NASA Constellation Program (video 34:46 mins) - 2 Aug 2007

Discussion of Orion status by Jeff Hanley, Constellation program manager, Orion project manager Skip Hatfield and James Reuther, Lead Orion heat shield.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-06 07:18:38

.

Orion's airbag landing system DELETED >>> ...maybe... they've read this Feb. 27, 2007 Orion's TPS article ? >>>

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/022orionTPS.html

will they adopt also the "underside-LAS" ? >>>

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

and... when did they'll go back to the 4-segments SRB ? >>>

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-07 10:00:56

.

DONT WORRY !!! Orion could STILL perform a landing on LAND !!!

read my SIXTH suggestion to SAVE the Orion's mass at the end of this article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

.

cIclops · 2007-08-07 10:11:00

This rumor about Orion is not true. Both top managers at ESMD, Horrowitz and Cooke, have denied that a decision has been made to use water landing. So please stop repeating this false story and the multiple promotions of your personal web site. Thank you.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-07 13:21:19

..."have denied that a decision has been made"...

that (clearly) means they admit to have discussed this option... then, the rumor is true

.

cIclops · 2007-08-07 16:39:27

Water and land options were always considered necessary, and either could be the primary mode. For example, during an ascent abort the CM might be forced to splashdown. Land however was and still is the preferred option.

ESAS Chapter 13 states: "it is recommended that the design of the CEV CM should incorporate both a water- and land-landing capability." Furthermore ESAS also says "... the study attempted to create a CONUS land-landing design from the outset, with the intention that a primary water lander would be a design off-ramp if the risk or development cost became too high."

The option has always been discussed, this does not change the fact that no decision has been made.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-07 16:59:34

"no decision has been made"

everybody knows that a capsule launched from KSC may abort and land on sea, but to-day's "no decision has been made" claim don't refer to the early ESAS choices, but to the rumored decision to DELETE the land landing ...in other words, they said something like: "we are discussing these days about deleting the Orion's land landing but we have not decided yet" ...so, the land landing COULD be DELETED (as the rumors said)
.

cIclops · 2007-08-08 01:05:32

Once again, no. The false story said that the airbag landing system was deleted from the design. This is not true.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-08 06:20:09

...false story...

maybe that rumor is not true, but sounds credible... we must wait to see... however, I hope the jettisonable TPS and the airbags will be deleted since they are useless, heavy and (in some rare, but possible contingencies) could become dangerous (as explained in my Orion's TPS article)

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-11 14:55:00

.

the (suggested) Orion "side landing" on LAND allows (also) the option to install four (VERY SAFE) "shock absorbing" astronauts' seats!

article's UPDATE and "shock absorbing" seats ANIMATION here:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-08-13 19:31:13

.

my SEVENTH idea, a "MAGIC TANK" that could solve ALL Orion's problems:

just look at the end of this (updated) article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

.

SpaceNut · 2007-08-21 15:15:07

Lockheed Martin Builds Closer Ties With NASA Using Dassault Systèmes’ DELMIA To Refine Orion Physical Mockup

The digital mockup is speeding development of the high-fidelity physical mockup at JSC. The Littleton mockup is also cutting development costs by doing modifications digitally rather than through carpentry. The virtual mockup is to provide a technical basis for crew arrangement, crew spacing and seat design, and is to ensure crewmembers can see and reach controls. Simulations use up to 11 manikins and include analyses for exercise space, access to crew stowage, and getting in and out of Orion.
Lockheed Martin sees the digital and physical Orion mockups as a key interconnection with NASA. The simulation data is used at JSC to refine the physical Orion mockup, which is built full-scale. The JSC mockup also helps the crew trainees and NASA evaluate the design of the control systems. These simulations will help avoid the wasted time and excess cost of repeated rebuilds and modifications of the physical mockup.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2007-06-03 01:09:40

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#227 2007-06-03 02:57:17

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#228 2007-06-03 08:30:11

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#229 2007-06-03 11:02:34

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#230 2007-06-03 14:02:11

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#231 2007-06-08 07:04:19

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#232 2007-06-19 06:15:25

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#233 2007-06-19 12:58:39

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#234 2007-06-19 23:40:14

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#235 2007-06-20 01:42:14

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#236 2007-06-23 12:57:15

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#237 2007-07-10 15:22:09

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#238 2007-07-31 09:48:04

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#239 2007-08-04 12:45:57

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#240 2007-08-06 07:18:38

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#241 2007-08-07 10:00:56

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#242 2007-08-07 10:11:00

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#243 2007-08-07 13:21:19

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#244 2007-08-07 16:39:27

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#245 2007-08-07 16:59:34

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#246 2007-08-08 01:05:32

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#247 2007-08-08 06:20:09

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#248 2007-08-11 14:55:00

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#249 2007-08-13 19:31:13

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#250 2007-08-21 15:15:07

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Board footer