New Mars

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.

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.

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...

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

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...

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]

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

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]







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.

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.

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


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...

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.

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



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.



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..

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



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

Europe seeks lift for stranded space lab



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...

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.



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.

I thought the CaLV tank was going to be significantly different anyway. Placing the payload on top is bound to change the internals significantly. Even though much of the same construction and handling equipment can likely be used.

In other news, the Russians, Japanese, and Europeans seem to see a bright future for the ISS.

ISS To Evolve Into International Space Port - Official

I for one would really like to see what they they can do with it. But I think its clear that the Shuttle can't do it all, and that needs to be made clear to them. We should work together to build something that can.

The "May" shuttle launch will be key. If the foam still flies, they might as well land at Reagan International and save themselves a flight.

NASA plans to park space shuttle Atlantis in 2008



Why is the end goal count still changing?

Also if the Atlantis is not good enough to fly in 2008, then how can is salvaged parts be any better....

With Discovery only a few flights out of its main overhaul, Endeavour soon to come out of its latest slumper. Then why is not doing the one for Atlantis practicle, when a higher burden of flights per ship is something that seems to be at issue.

Remember my scheme to launch multiple modules with SDV and rendezvous an orbiter, launched from the other pad, for last mile navigation and assembly? I looked at the manifest again based on current news.

Russia said if America doesn't launch the 4th large solar array, they'll launch the Science Power Platform themselves. Well, good; I think they should. That would provide power for all Russia science modules.

However I feel the station should not be scaled back at all. In fact, I still feel Node 3 and the US Habitation module should be launched. That would provide a complete space station, not a hobbled half-done thing.

As I said before, replace 6 missions with the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module with 10 launches of the European ATV. That lifts internal equipment to the station. American launch vehicles would only be used for modules and external equipment.

I had previously said this would result in 7 more launches of the Space Shuttle orbiter:
• return to flight
• service Hubble
• 3 combination missions: orbiter & SDV
• Node 3
• US Habitation module

The change is removing the Science Power Platform (SPP). If the Russians launch it themselves, it frees room on an SDV to lift Node 3 and US Hab. If SDV was to be Shuttle-C the payload diameter would be restricted to a single module, so two stacked modules with strusses strapped to their sides and packed full of equipment. Those trusses could serve double duty: holding modules together during launch and structural trusses for the station. However, if they build Magnum instead of Shuttle-C then the payload fairing can be wider. Assume the core stage is the same diameter as the current Shuttle ET; payload can be wider yet like the payload fairing of Delta 2. That would permit 4 modules side-by-side like 4 beer cans sitting in a 2-by-2 square. The fairing doesn't have to be cylindrical, it could be form fitting around the 4 cylinders. Letting air pass in the recess between cylinders reduces the aerodynamic profile, hence the aerodynamic stress.

Using Magnum instead of Shuttle-C, and telling Russia to launch SPP themselves reduces the Shuttle launch manifest to only 5 more launches. The combination flights will require a lot of assembly. Endeavour with its Extended Duration Orbiter palette can stay on orbit the longest so it should be used. Discovery could be used for Return to Flight and Hubble. That would mean there are no further flights for Atlantis. Atlantis can be retired now.

As much of a waste of payload volume it might be, I think double barreling it would just over complicate things. First off, the CaLV is a non starter with the shuttle still flying. You won't have a shuttle to help. I think the best way to do it is to build a cartridge with as many of the modules and their shuttle like cradle that will fit, and to drive the whole thing right up to the port and dock. Any other connections can be done via space walk from the station. Then the cradle releases the module, backs off, and releases the cradle. Rinse and repeat untill your out of modules.

The big question is what peices can be deployed like that. The 4 truss segments are the only ones that I think still need the shuttle. The rest are cylindrical and should be perfect for the above method.

If you return the "cradle" to Earth and reuse, you have the full shuttle orbiter. That's 104.3 metric tonnes upon landing. It can lift 16.050 tonnes to ISS. One hell of a waste. If you don't reuse the "cradle" it's a waste of money. Most importantly, an on-orbit tug requires development money. The current space technology environment requires a hell of a lot of money to develop anything.

Years ago I suggested a 3 tonne on-orbit tug, unmanned and reusable. It would be permanently stationed at ISS. When a cargo is lifted by Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V or now "The Stick", it would be inserted into the same orbit but not actually rendezvous. The tug would separate from ISS, rendezvous with the cargo palette, use an end effecter the same as CanadArm to grab it, then pull to ISS. If the cargo is a module, the tug could push the docking hatch against its partner on ISS. If the cargo is a group of trusses, solar arrays and radiators, CanadArm2 on the station could grab it. Ideal would always include something that could be connected to the station; then parts could be pulled off one-by-one to install at their final location. It would be less expensive to send fuel via cargo ship than replace this tug for every mission. Since ISS is an international station, and all nations participating are supposed to be partners, you could send fuel via either Progress or ATV. But no work has been started to develop such a tug, and if development were done by major aerospace contractors it would cost a lot.

Don't, please don't, don't, don't, don't repeat the same mistakes that were made at the end of the Apollo program. They destroyed all launch capability for Saturn V to focus on the Shuttle. This was done for two reasons:
1) they had very little money, needed to pour everything into one program
2) they followed the military doctrine of "burn the ships". Several times during invasion, generals found troops poorly motivated to proceed with the attack. The general ordered the ships burned to ensure there was no turning back. Once troops saw the ships burn, they had to charge ahead or die. They were motivated to win the battle because that was the only way to live. NASA deliberately destroyed Saturn V launch facilities to force congress and engineers to ensure the Shuttle was completed.

Now you suggest there won't be a Shuttle Derived Vehicle at the same time as the Shuttle orbiter. This means "burn the ships" once again. If we still had the Saturn V we could easily return to the Moon and on to Mars. Yes, I would like to decommission the Shuttle program as soon as possible because it costs so much. But ignoring a method to quickly complete ISS just with the excuse the orbiter and SDV won't be operational at the same time is stupid. Yes, stupid. There's no reason to make one exclusive to the other. You can convert one pad and one MLP, leave the other. Michoud was sized to manufacture 50 ETs per year, it can certainly build a couple shuttle ETs and SDV core modules in one year. How many Shuttle ETs are sitting in storage right now?