Re: Apollo 2.0 Concept Unworkable?


<mmaker@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145058901.630505.57320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Doe wrote:
Use Google. Many here have said that building a new orbiter with the
same shape would be about 2 billion dollars. So double it for cost
overruns, and add 2 billion for improvements NASA already had planned
for shuttles but wasn't allowed to implement and you're still well below
the cost of the CEV.

So, uh, if NASA can build Shuttle 2.0 for $6,000,000, why are they
spending twice that or more to build CSM 2.0?

You really think that building a new shuttle will be easier than
building a new spam can?


In many ways yes.

If you focused on JUST a Mark II version of the orbiter you don't have to
requalify the tank, engines or SRBs.

With the current version of the CEV, you have to requalify the SRBs, flight
qualify the J2S (or whatever they settle on) and build a new capsule.

And when you're done you have to go back and build a new system for cargo.

I'm of the opinion they're thrownigout the baby with the bathwater.
Columbia scared a number of people and also gave a good excuse to exit the
shuttle program. Unfortunately the exit was to something that's looking to
be a bigger mistake.


Mark



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apollo 2.0 Concept Unworkable?
    ... So double it for cost ... and add 2 billion for improvements NASA already had planned ... Because shuttle has no political support, and has some safety issues that are proving harder to solve than expected. ... I believe Lockheed is resuming production of P-3 Orion wings. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Apollo 2.0 Concept Unworkable?
    ... So double it for cost ... overruns, and add 2 billion for improvements NASA already had planned ... So, uh, if NASA can build Shuttle 2.0 for $6,000,000, why are they ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Apollo 2.0 Concept Unworkable?
    ... So double it for cost ... and add 2 billion for improvements NASA already had planned ... Just about the only thing CSM 2.0 shares in common with CSM 1.0 is the ... Shuttle 1.0 cost about $28 billion to develop, ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... I eventually discovered a set of the ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the first crack in the proposal which I found. ... The argument I heard was that the new LV costs needed to match Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... The principal difference is the substitution of RS-68 engines for SSMEs on the core stage (as NASA eventually did with the Ares V). ... ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the ... Shuttle thereby providing sufficient work for the existing workforce. ...
    (sci.space.policy)