Commercial Space and Why Are We Doing It?

[Valerij]

NASA Hoping for Private Sector Successors to ISS
Posted: 24-Feb-2014 Updated: 24-Feb-2014 11:32 PM
Marcia S. Smith
 
NASA may have gotten the White House's blessing to keep the International Space Station (ISS) operating until at least 2024, but it won't last forever. Speaking to a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) subcommittee today, Bill Gerstenmaier expressed hope that private sector space stations will materialize for the longer term future.

Gerstenmaier, head of NASA's Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate, spoke to the Research Subcommittee of the NAC HEO Committee this morning. The bulk of his remarks dealt with how best to make use of ISS for research during its lifetime, but he also pointed to the need for the commercial sector to build "mini space stations" as places for future research.

While praising the White House decision to keep ISS operating through 2024 because it gives researchers certainty that they will have time to conduct experiments, he also said "I don't think there'll be another government-sponsored space station." He believes the ISS will be fine through 2028, but he pointed to the desirability of companies flying single-purpose space stations thereafter and the government could buy services or research time from them instead.

In the meantime, ISS facilities are being well utilized today according to Sam Scimemi, Director of ISS at NASA Headquarters, who also briefed the subcommittee. Almost 84 percent of the science racks in the U.S. Orbital Segment (USOS) are occupied with experiments right now, he said, along with 76 percent of EXPRESS racks. He noted that utilization of available research sites on the exterior of the ISS is only 50 percent and his office is working on filling the rest of the sites.

The availability of transportation systems to take experiments up to the ISS (upmass) and back to Earth (downmass) is OK for now, he added, but demand is expected to exceed capacity beginning in 2015.

One research limitation is the availability of crew time, he continued, and NASA is talking to Russia about making Russian crew members available to conduct some of the research. Scimemi said they were negotiating a barter arrangement for 5 hours per week of Russian crew time. The ISS is split into the USOS segment (which includes hardware from the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada) and the Russian segment (Russian modules and systems). A typical ISS 6-person crew is composed of three Russians and three from the United States and its western partners. NASA is looking forward to increasing the crew size to seven (three Russians, four from the western partners) once commercial crew capabilities are available.

NASA is also looking at other upgrades to the ISS now that it has permission to extend operations through 2024. They include upgrades to video and data systems, new freezers, high throughput facilities for materials science and cell science, and additional Earth-pointing and Sun/space pointing platforms, Scimemi told the subcommittee.
 

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-hoping-for-private-sector-successors-to-iss
 
Очень плотно наполненное информацией сообщение.
 
24 февраля состоялось заседание Консультативного совета НАСА (NASA Advisory Council, NAC)

Выступая на нем Билл Герстенмайер (Bill Gerstenmaier), глава "пилотируемых операций" НАСА", "выразил надежду", что в долгосрочной перспективе на смену МКС придут частные космические станции. По его мнению МКС будет функционировать до 2028 года, но он считает необходимым создание небольших специализированных космических станций, услуги или ресурсы которых правительство может покупать.
 
По словам Сэма Симеми (Sam Scimemi), главы отдела МКС в НАСА, почти 84% исследовательских стоек на МКС занято сейчас исследованиями, также как 76% EXPRESS стоек (сорри, мне самому интересно, в чем различие), но только 50% посадочных мест на наружной поверхности занято.
 
Транспортные возможности для американского сегмента МКС в отношении доставки ПН на орбиту и с орбиты на Землю сейчас вполне достаточны, но после 2015 года спрос на такие возможности будет недостаточен (вот это становится интересным)....

Scimemi так же сказал, что астронавтов на борту МКС сейчас недостаточно, поэтому НАСА ведет переговоры об участии, на бартерных условиях, в работе наших космонавтов в течении пяти часов в неделю. НАСА рассчитывает на увеличение экипажа МКС до семи человек как только появится такая возможность
 
НАСА также планирует модернизацию оборудования МКС в связи с продлением ее эксплуатации до 2024 года.

Что сказать? Круто!

[Valerij]

Demand for CubeSat Deployments Nearing Space Station Limit
By Caleb Henry | February 26, 2014
 

 NanoRacks Satellite Deployer inside the ISS. Photo: NanoRacks

[Via Satellite 02-26-2014] The use of the International Space Station (ISS) as a platform for launching CubeSats has grown so much that the station crew may have to adjust their approach to keep pace. The most recent load of 33 satellites fr om Planet Labs, NanoSatisfi, SkyCube and others currently under way is now more than half way through deployment, and future launches to the ISS are already filling up. The demand for these launches has exceeded the expectation of NASA, JAXA and the commercial companies involved.

"This is our first deployment of CubeSats from the station using our own hardware," said Jeffrey Manber, CEO of NanoRacks. "We launched one CubeSat in 2013, and we projected to our investors that we should do three to five satellites this year," he said, laughing slightly at how far off they were. "We expect if all goes well to do 100 this year."
 

Спойлер

To date, NanoRacks has launched 150 payloads. The company used eight deployers to launch 16 CubeSats from the current load, 28 of which come from Planet Labs. The second round of deployments is currently underway. These spacecraft were delivered as secondary payloads onboard Orbital Sciences' commercial resupply services (CRS) Orb 1 mission. Astronauts on the ISS have been busy deploying the satellites, and NanoRacks has two to three more payloads planed for this year alone.

"You come up against the limits of the station," said Manber. "That's something we are talking to NASA about right now."

The demand for these launches comes from a variety of sources in percentages that are not expected. While schools are known for having CubeSat programs, they do not make up the majority of CubeSat users.

"Until this service from NanoRacks came along, everyone assumed it was academic," said Manber. "The shock of Planet Labs was that they are commercial. That is getting all sorts of publicity. We are seeing very strong interest from commercial companies ... second is U.S. government research satellites, and third is academia. And that is exactly opposite of what most people thought two years ago."

Phil Brzytwa, business development manager at Spaceflight Inc, a company that helps match satellites to launch vehicles, has noticed the same trend.

"The demand for CubeSat launches is steadily increasing, not just from universities and government programs, but from commercial entities as well," he said. "This growth extends outside of the U.S. and Europe to countries that are developing space programs."

Small satellites are a compelling route to space for countries that have new space programs. As more nations get involved — often with smaller budgets — CubeSats are becoming a cost-effective option to reach national priorities in space. According to Manber, the company is close to signing its first South American customer. Other customers include Romania, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Denmark.

"Two markets are coming of age here," said Manber. "Small satellites are truly coming of age, and so too the use of an orbital platform for service."
 

Small Sats Deployed from the ISS. Photo: NanoRacks

To continue to grow, NanoRacks is working with NASA and JAXA to evaluate new options. By demonstrating that the company's hardware works, they are opening up doors for greater space station utilization.

"They really are cognizant that this is a commercial business, and we've started talking with the space station program people about 'how do we grow? Can we get to 200 satellites? Can we get to 300? Can we get propulsion, and can we get to higher orbits?'" said Manber. "These are questions we are all asking now."

Anticipating that small satellites mark the beginning of an important industry, Manber expects other options for deployment to develop. Spaceflight Inc. is working with NanoRacks to provide more desired launch opportunities.

"For the commercial sector we see 400 kilometers and 52 degrees as a great location for customers seeking technology demonstration, but the altitude and inclination does not always meet mission needs, so Spaceflight can also help NanoRacks customers that want a higher altitude or inclination through our network of launch service providers," said Brzytwa.

Alternative methods, including ground-based dedicated small-sat launchers, would come as no surprise as this market develops. According to Brzytwa, Spaceflight Inc. expects existing launch service providers to pay more attention to small satellites as a way to increase profitability and to maximize the use of their vehicles. While NanoRacks may find some of these developments helpful, others would certainly be competition. For now, the company's primary focus remains on opening up space through the efficient use of the ISS.

"I think the future will hold strong competition and multiple opportunities," said Manber. "How much further can this market grow on station? Well, we've got some tricks up our sleeve we are working on at NanoRacks and we'll see what happens."

[свернуть]

http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2014/02/26/demand-for-cubesat-deployments-nearing-space-station-lim%20it/
 
По поводу запуска спутников с МКС, используя NanoRacks.

Здесь, в частности, о взрывном росте количества наносатов, в том числе коммерческих.

[Valerij]

SpaceX and ULA go toe-to-toe over EELV contracts
March 5, 2014 by Chris Bergin
   

   
In what was one of the most fascinating hearings in years, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and United Launch Alliance (ULA) boss Michael Gass faced off against each other over the lucrative Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-class contracts. Both gentlemen didn't pull their punches, with Mr. Gass cited ULA's superior reliability, while Mr. Musk denounced ULA's costs, even claiming they should cancel their Atlas V rocket.
   

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-and-ula-eelv-contracts/
   
Это отчет о слушаниях, на которых ULA и SpaceX столкнулись по поводу поставки ракет Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) класса по заказам министерства обороны. Ракеты обеих фирм были охарактеризованы как надежные и безопасные, но ракеты от SpaceX дополнительно охарактеризована как "доступная".
   
Элон Маск сказал, что используя ракеты его фирмы можно сохранить 11,6 миллиардов долларов налогоплательщиков. По его словам SpaceX сталновится крупнейшей в мире фирмой по производству ракетных двигателей, и должна произвести к концу этого года 400 двигателей и 40 ракетных ступеней в сборе. Причем все комплектующие его ракет сделаны в Штатах, что важно. SpaceX сейчас проходит процедуру сертификации, и Маск надеется ее закончить в этом году.

[Valerij]

Six takeaways fr om the "Selling Space" debate
Jeff Foust | March 20, 2014, at 1:14 pm
   
On Wednesday evening, the American Museum of Natural History in New York hosted it annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, this year on the topic of "Selling Space", or the commercialization of spaceflight. Host Neil DeGrasse Tyson brought together both officials fr om a couple commercial space companies (Bigelow Aerospace and Space Adventures) as well as other experts, spending nearly two hours discussing various aspects of commercial spaceflight. Much of the discussion tread familiar ground, but there were a few interesting items brought up during the discussion:

A Space Adventures Soyuz seat goes for $52 million currently. It's been widely known for some time that the approximate cost of flying to the International Space Station on a Soyuz spacecraft with Space Adventures is about $50 million—assuming that a seat is available, which today is rare since all the Soyuz seats are being used for ISS crew transfers. At Wednesday's event, though, Space Adventures president Tom Shelley said on more than one occasion that the price is $52 million. That's about $20 million less than NASA pays for Soyuz seats, the panelists noted, although the NASA contract includes additional services.

Спойлер

Space Adventures believes there's price elasticity in the orbital space tourism market. When Shelley said that $52 million price, there was an audible reaction from the audience at the museum, one of shock. Tyson later asked Shelley if he believed the demand curve for orbital space tourism was elastic: would demand go up if prices went down? "If you dropped the price in half, would you have twice as many people signing up?" Tyson asked. "More than twice as many people, we believe," Shelley responded. He added that the demand Space Adventures has already demonstrated for space tourism has helped support investment in other commercial space transportation systems that could later carry people into orbit.

Space Adventures is still pursuing a circumlunar commercial mission. The company has been quiet in recent years about plans to fly two people on a Soyuz spacecraft that would loop around the Moon, a mission with a current estimated ticket price of $150 million each. In early 2011, for example, Space Adventures said they had sold one seat and were "finalizing" a deal for the second seat. Calling that circumlunar mission "my personal favorite," Shelley said they planned to carry out the mission by 2017 or 2018. "We have a couple clients under contract and we hope to take that forward," he said.

People still get hung up on the definition of "space." How high up to you have to go to be considered to have reached outer space? During the debate, Tyson was critical of Felix Baumgartner's jump from "the edge of space," and the panelists agreed that his jump was nowhere near any such edge. They differed, though, on some of the proposed suborbital flights to altitudes of 100 kilometers or so. Tyson said that some people have the "operating definition" of space wh ere you can see stars in the daytime, which he said is about 100 kilometers. (In fact, 100 kilometers, also known as the Kármán line, is often used as the "boundary" of space and is based on aerodynamics, not the visibility of stars.)

Tyson got so wound up about this he managed to confuse suborbital and orbital spaceflight. "When you say 'low Earth orbit,' you're going up to 100 kilometers and going back," Tyson said at one point, as members of the panel tried to correct him.

People disagree on whether commercial human spaceflight is inspirational. Do people get excited about private citizens going to space in the same way as they do for government astronauts? Space historian John Logsdon doesn't think so. "I don't think commercial space is going to serve as inspiration. That's wh ere the government comes in," he said. "Rich people taking joyrides is not inspirational."

Space Adventures' Shelley strongly disagreed. "We get calls and emails from people on a daily basis saying, 'I am so inspired by what it is you're doing, opening up space. I never thought it was going to be possible for me to be able go to space'" as a government astronaut.

Risk remains a major concern. Spaceflight is in inherently risky, and there was some debate if private spaceflight was riskier than government missions, or if private space travellers would be more willing to accept risks. "One of the big differences in this shift from public-sponsored human travel to private-sponsored human travel is the acceptance of higher risk in the private sector," said Logsdon, noting that some who attempt to climb Mount Everest die in the attempt, but accept that risk given the rewards of scaling the world's highest mountain—even if thousands of people have done it before.

Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace stressed that less expensive private spaceflight, though, was not inherently riskier than government sponsored missions. "Lower cost does not inherently mean less safe," he said. "There's this pernicious misperception that commercial space is going somehow to be less safe or more dangerous or we care more about money than NASA. Nothing could be further from the truth... If we have a bad day, we lose everything."

Wanda Austin, president and CEO of The Aerospace Corporation, did argue that spending a little more on "mission assurance" activities (which she said did not have to cost "oodles" of money) was worthwhile. However, at the end of her brief appearance (she appeared via videoconference for the first half-hour of the event because of a prior commitment in California), she did answer positively when Tyson asked her if commercial spaceflight was "ready for prime time." "We are taking the right steps," she said. "We've already walked through the door, Neil. This is not something that maybe will happen, this is something that is already happening."
   
3 comments to Six takeaways from the "Selling Space" debate
   

Dick Eagleson
 March 21, 2014 at 8:19 am

So John Logsdon, a life-long government employee, thinks only the doings of other government employees in space are inspirational, not the doings of regular civilians. Quoth he, "Rich people taking joyrides is not inspirational." I seem to recall one flamboyant guy who was pretty much the epitome of "rich people taking joyrides" back in the 1930′s – Howard Hughes – who was a national hero. The American people of that era had the funny idea that a guy worth 10 percent more than God who, nonetheless, put his personal hide on the line as his own test pilot when he could obviously afford to hire the work done by underlings was – what was that word? – oh yeah... inspirational! And don't even get me started on that rich bitch wife of a major newspaper baron, Amelia Earhart!

Gary Warburton
 March 21, 2014 at 1:58 pm

What no mention of spaceX and what it is doing and what it plans to do. No mention of grasshopper`s flights and there continuation in New Mexico and the landing legs on their next flight to ISS and their planned testing of an ocean landing. I remember John Logsdon saying that SpaceX would soon raise its prices. That he didn`t see how their prices were sustainable. As far as safety goes has he forgotten the two shuttle disasters. Does he know that the next commercial vehicles will all have full escape systems unlike the shuttles. It seems to me if your going to talk about commercial space you should talk about whats happening.

Gary Warburton
 March 22, 2014 at 1:13 am  

I watched the whole thing finally and have to admit that they did mention rather sparingly toward the end that SpaceX was responsible for some the new innovations in space travel including efforts to do reuseability. Mike Gold was the one who mentioned most about SpaceX`s developments although John Logsdon mentioned something about SpaceX rather briefly. Neil seemed completely unaware of what they`ve been doing. I wonder if he will begin following their efforts from now on or whether he will continue to be oblivious to what they`ve been doing.

[свернуть]

[/QUOTE]http://www.newspacejournal.com/2014/03/20/six-takeaways-from-the-selling-space-debate/
   
В американском музее естественной истории прошли традиционные мемориальные ежегодные Азимовские слушания. Нынешние слушания посвящены коммерциализации космических полетов.

Space Adventures назвала нынешнюю цену на один полет туриста на МКС - 52 миллиона долларов, примерно на двадцать миллионов меньше, чем платит НАСА.
Подтверждена так же актуальность предложения совершить облет Луны за 150 миллионов долларов, названы возможные сроки - 2017 или 2018 год. "У нас есть пару клиентов по контракту, и мы надеемся сделать это"....
   
Кроме того, по мнению президента Space Adventures Тома Шелли, существует большая эластичность спроса на космические полеты в зависимости от цены.
   
В статье упомянуты неизвестное мне ранее лицо и организация - Ванда Остин, президент и генеральный директор The Aerospace Corporation. "Мы уже прошли через дверь, Нил.  Это не то, что, возможно, произойдет, это то, что уже (сейчас) происходит ".
   
Комментаторы говорят о предвзятости устроителей слушаний, например, на слушаниях практическ не упоминалось SpaceX.

[Valerij]

NASA Solicits New Collaborative Partnerships with Commercial Space Industry
Posted by Doug Messier on March 25, 2014, at 3:20 pm in News.
 
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — Building on the success of NASA's commercial spaceflight initiatives, agency officials announced Monday plans to solicit proposals from U.S. private enterprises for unfunded partnerships to collaboratively develop new commercial space capabilities.
 
 "The growing U.S. commercial spaceflight industry is opening low-Earth orbit in ways that will improve lives on Earth, drive economic growth and power 21st century innovations," said William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations. "As NASA again pioneers a path into deep space, we look forward to sharing our 50 years of spaceflight experience and fostering partnerships in ways that benefit our nation's ambitious spaceflight goals."
 
 The Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC) initiative will advance entrepreneurial efforts through access to NASA's spaceflight resources. Using Space Act Agreements (SAAs), NASA and its partners would agree to a series of mutually beneficial activities. New partnerships must identify benefits under one or more elements of NASA's 2014 Strategic Plan, which include expanding human presence into the solar system and surface of Mars to advance exploration, science, innovation, benefits to humanity and international collaboration.
 
 The partnerships would have no exchange of funds and each party will bear the cost of its participation. NASA's contributions through resulting SAAs could include technical expertise, assessments, lessons learned, technologies and data.+
 

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/03/25/nasa-solicits-collaborative-partnerships-commercial-space-industry/
 
Полностью статья по ссылке.
   
НАСА запросило от частных фирм новые предложения о сотрудничестве. Предложения не должны касаться финансирования программ, стороны должны сами, за свой счет, финансировать свое участие в этих проектах.

[Valerij]

Гллавный администратор НАСА Чарльз Болден (Charles Bolden) о запросах НАСА, поддержаных Президентом, и о бюджетной политике Конгресса, требующей создания SLS и Ориона.

   

Bringing Space Launches Back to America
Posted on March 25, 2014 by Administrator Charles Bolden.
   
Later today, NASA astronaut Steve Swanson will liftoff towards the International Space Station, not from the Space Coast of Florida or some other American spaceport, but from Kazakhstan on a Russian spacecraft.    And unfortunately, the plan put forward by the Obama Administration to address this situation has been stymied by some in Congress.    

Since the retirement of the Space Shuttle – a decision made in 2004 – the United States has been dependent on the Russians to get our astronauts to the International Space Station.   Recognizing that this was unacceptable, President Obama has requested in NASA's budget more than $800 million each of the past 5 years to incentivize the American aerospace industry to build the spacecraft needed to launch our astronauts from American soil.     Had this plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year.    With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we're now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017.

Спойлер

Budgets are about choices.  The choice moving forward is between fully funding the President's request to bring space launches back to American soil or continuing to send millions to the Russians.  It's that simple. The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same.

Over the past few years, two U.S. companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, have demonstrated a new way of partnering NASA with the U.S. aerospace industry, providing more bang for the taxpayer buck in space.  There have already been five private spacecraft visits to the ISS with the Dragon and Cygnus capsules – and another one is slated to launch in just a few days.  At the end of last year, SpaceX launched a commercial satellite—a global industry worth nearly $190 billion per year—from Florida for the first time in four years.  One study estimated that if NASA had procured this launcher and capsule using a more traditional contracting method, it could have been about three times the cost of this new public-private partnership approach.

NASA has already returned ISS cargo resupply missions to America using these two companies, bringing space launches and jobs back to our shores – and we are using the same model send our astronauts to the space station.  Three American companies – Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX – are developing spacecraft and competing to replace the Space Shuttle and launch American astronauts within the next three years. We are betting on American innovation and competition to help lead us into a new era of space exploration.  As President Obama has said, this is "a capture the flag moment for [U.S.] commercial space flight."

 Earlier this month, the President proposed a $17.5 billion fiscal year 2015 budget for NASA.  This includes $848 million for NASA's Commercial Crew Program and supports the Administration's commitment that NASA be a catalyst for the growth of a vibrant American commercial space industry.  It also keeps us on target to ending our reliance on the Russians for transporting our astronauts to and from space, and frees NASA to carry out even more ambitious missions beyond low-Earth orbit, including a mission to redirect and visit an asteroid and a human mission to Mars in the 2030s.  The International Space Station—which the Obama Administration just extended to at least 2024—remains our springboard to going beyond the Moon and exploring deep space for the first time.

The American commercial space flight industry is boosting our economy and creating thousands of good paying jobs.  More than a dozen states in the U.S. are trying to build spaceports, hoping to help foster the next job-creating, innovation-based industry in their areas.

With such strong economic potential, it is no wonder that this approach has garnered bipartisan support. House Majority Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) recently noted, "Support for U.S. commercial space will lead to American astronauts flying on American-made rockets from American soil."  He added, "That is exceptionalism that both parties can get behind."

It is important to note that NASA continues to cooperate successfully with Russia on International Space Station (ISS) activities.  But even as the "space race" has evolved over the past 50 years from competition to collaboration with Russia, NASA is rightfully focused now more than ever on returning our astronauts to space aboard American rockets – launched from U.S. soil – as soon as possible.

[свернуть]

   

http://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2014/03/25/bringing-space-launches-back-to-america/

[Валерий Жилинский]

Это копия поста в ответ известному троллю. Копирую его сюда, потому, что в засранной троллями теме про SpaceX Falcon 9 он потеряется. Ссылка на основной пост:
http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum13/topic2123/message1573162/#message1573162
 

LRV_75 пишет:
Валерий, вы смешной.

Сказал клоун на арене.

LRV_75 пишет:
Ну давайте пробежимся по ней более тщательно.
 https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

Там две оценки
- первоначальная оценка Initial Estimate
- обновленная оценка Updated Estimate

Давайте, "пробежимся", мальчик Роман, LRV_75.

Откуда, по вашему, взялась "первоначальная оценка Initial Estimate"?
Она как раз и была рассчитана на основании нормативов НАСА. Тех самых, по которым рассчитывается стоимость и финансируется  Senate Launch System. Так что никакой субъективности.

LRV_75 пишет:
В оценке нигде не написано в явном виде что мол - посмотрите разница в 10 раз.
Это же презентация, почему это не написали в явном виде? Постеснялись в явном виде указать этот бред?    
Постеснялись в явном виде потому что очевидно что оценка очень субъективная?

Бред - то у вас, мальчик Роман, LRV_75. Это сказано в другом документе. Прямо так и написано - использование принципов фиксированных цен с приобретением услуг на коммерческой основе позволяет в среднем снизить расходы на DDTE - design, development, test and evaluation в среднем в восемь раз.

А по отчету от третьего августа 2011 года в программе COTS SpaceX смог сделать примерно десять раз.

LRV_75 пишет:
Сейчас мы увидим почему эта оценка Очень субъективна и не является каким либо серьезным документом, кроме как презентации с чьим то имхо.

По первоначальной оценки SpaceX все сделает за $1,659 млрд

НАСА все сделает за $3,977 млрд . Страница 5

Т.е. разница в 2,5 раза

То есть по предварительным оценкам SpaceX потребуется в 2,5 раза меньше, чем НАСА? Но это были предварительные оценки. Тем не менее, при таких суммах снижение расходов в 2,5 раза уже не плохо.

LRV_75 пишет:
Откуда взялась такая оценка по нормативам НАСА?
Предполагается, что НАСА будет все это DDT&E - design, development, test and evaluation.
Т.е. первое притягивание за уши оценки , что предполагается, что НАСА будет с нуля все проектировать, разрабатывать, тестировать и оценивать для ракеты среднего класса с 9 тонн на НОО. Нормально?
Т.е. абсолютно все будет спроектировано, разработано с нуля. Коэффициент заимствования предполагается НОЛЬ!
И получаем сумму DDT&E - $3,584 млрд (3,5 миллиарда будет стоить разработка обыкновенной ракет среднего класса с 9 тонн на НОО).

Я не знаю, каков коэффициент заимствования у Senate Launch System, но знаю, что твердотопливные двигатели, основные маршевые двигатели, конструкция баков первой ступени и основа наземной инфраструктуры в SLS заимствованы от Шаттлов. Помогло ли это снизить стоимость DDTE - design, development, test and evaluation для Senate Launch System?

LRV_75 пишет:
Нет никаких расшифровок что входит в расчет такой огромной суммы, нет ссылок на аналоги из истории и т.д.

А зачем они, если быстро стало понятно, что методика экономических расчетов, применяемая в НАСА, несовместима с той, что используется в SpaceX. Это прямым текстом написано в отчёте, и согласование данных на основе первичной информации у экономистов заняло около года.

LRV_75 пишет:
Если ракета новая и НАСА ее создает с нуля, то по идее в стоимость создания ракеты должна входить и стоимость создания СТАРТА. Нет? Но в презентации про это ни слова, а значит предполагать можно все что угодно.

Вообще-то это записано в другом документе. По программе COTS участникам старт предоставляет НАСА, при этом должна была быть сохранена возможность запуска со стартового комплекса и других носителей. А вот для программы CRS участники арендуют стартовые комплексы и оборудуют их в соответствии со своими требованиями. Но тебе это не интересно...

LRV_75 пишет:
Идем дальше.
Спроектировали, разработали, протестировали. Далее надо изготовить ее и запустить.
И далее второе притягивание за уши оценки .
Запуск такой ракеты НАСА стоит ВНИМАНИЕ - $393 млн. (!!!)
Для сравнения - Запуск примерно аналогичного Атлас-5 с выводом на НОО 8,2 тонн стоит $110 млн .
 В три с половиной раза дешевле запустить ракету мохрового, зажравшегося монополиста ЛОКХИД МАРТИН , чем вымышленную ракету из презентации.

Тебя удивляет, что создание инфраструктуры для изготовления ракеты (аналога того самого завода в Хоторне) и само изготовление первого экземпляра ракеты оценено НАСА так дорого? Элон Маск тоже удивился - и создал завод за значительно меньшую сумму.
   
Мне кажется, что это говорит о том, что Маск очень эффективный бизнесмен. А тебе?

LRV_75 пишет:
ДАЛЕЕ:
На сайте НАСА написано - читайте http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10
Стоимость запуска ШАТТЛА (!!!!)- $450 млн
Очень похожие цифры.
Может быть в презентации провели сравнительный анализ с ШАТТЛОМ?
Очень может быть, т.к. как раз искали ракету для замены Шаттлов.
Но в презентации про это ни слова. С чем сравнивали?

 Откуда, откуда они взяли в своей оценке стоимость запуска ракеты 9 тонн на НОО за 400 миллионов долларов равной стоимости запуска ШАТТЛА?

Ну, если ты сравниваешь серийный пуск Шаттла и первый запуск новой ракеты с изготовлением необходимой оснастки для её последующего производства, то кто же виноват, кроме тебя?
 

LRV_75 пишет:
По второй оценке получили цифры $443.4 (Столько SpaceX потратил на Фалькон-9) и $1,382.7
Разница в 3 раза

По какой, к чёртовой матери, оценке мы получили $443.4 миллиона? Это реально затраченная на разработку, изготовление и три испытательных запуска. Первый, суборбитальный, первоначально входил в программу, потом, в 2011 году, программа была расширена, и добавлены два сертификационных запуска, один из них со стыковкой к МКС.

А что такое $1,382.7 миллиона долларов? Это сумма, которая, по мнению экономистов НАСА, должна была потребоваться SpaceX для разработки ракеты и создания инфраструктуры для её производства. И теперь SpaceX виноват в том, что ему, даже по мнению экономистов НАСА, нужно в три раза меньше денег, чем НАСА?

LRV_75 пишет:
Что поменялось?
Читаем:
 Assumptions inserted after Space‐X visit:
Составители презентации нанесли визит в компанию SpaceX и пообщались в курилке с сотрудниками компании SpaceX )))
И дальше третье притягивание за уши оценки и самое смешное.
 More heritage from Falcon 1 - т.е. в оценке SpaceX учли, что у них заимствуется опыт создания двигателя Мерлин. При этом в расчете стоимости по нормативам НАСА все будут проектировать с нуля без использования какого либо задела. Офигенно?

Ага, конечно, используя опыт создания Фалькона-1 в SpaceX смогли снизить стоимость разработки в три раза. Только вот технологии Шаттла не помогли снизить в три раза стоимость разработки Senate Launch System.

LRV_75 пишет:
Кстати, а где стоимость создания СТАРТА? Ах да, старт арендовали у НАСА и стоимость создания старта ноль?

Повторяю, на этом этапе, для программы COTS, старт предоставляло НАСА. Хотя SpaceX построил ангар для сборки ракеты и довольно примитивный временный эректор. Старт был арендован и перестроен за счёт SpaceX позже, для программы CRS. Мальчик Роман, LRV_75, ты не знаешь, что COTS (разработка Фалькона-9) и CRS (доставка грузов на МКС) - разные программы? Сочувствую.

LRV_75 пишет:
 Excludes Program Support costs - исключили расходы на поддержку программы. При этом в расчете стоимости по нормативам НАСА это почему то аж $263 млн (без объяснения причин)
 Contingency - исключили затраты на непредвиденные обстоятельства. При этом в расчете стоимости по нормативам НАСА это почему то аж $741млн (без объяснения причин)
И ОЧЕНЬ прикольное:
 Excludes Contractor fee - исключили стоимость работ поставщиков )))) Т.е. только прямые расходы SpaceX, несмотря на то, что известно, что SpaceX массово использует всевозможных поставщиков.
   
... (здесь было про старт, смотрите выше).
   
Т.е. из затрат SpaceX исключили все что возможно, а в оценку по нормативам НАСА запихнули все что возможно! И даже не рассказали что они впихнули и на каком основании и без сравнения на каком либо примере из истории проектов НАСА

Это же надо быть таким тупым, чтобы не понять этого за пять лет?
   
НАСА работает с традиционными поставщиками на принципах "затраты плюс прибыль", поэтому в классических контрактах НАСА эти расходы показываются в смете. Поэтому именно так они и учтены в расчётах экономистов НАСА. SpaceX работает по договорам с фиксированной ценой, поэтому эти расходы - внутреннее дело SpaceX. Смогли сэкономить - увеличили прибыль, не уложились в сумму - получили убытки.
Думаю цифры были предоставлены, но не было согласия SpaceX на их публикацию.
   
В общем, ещё раз повторяю, ты дуб, Мальчик Роман, LRV_75.