1st Manned Moon Landing - 45 Years Ago
Discussion
MartG said:
In the meantime the Russians have continued to use the same basic R-7 launcher and Soyuz spacecraft they first developed back in the '60s.
So essentially NASA have pissed away $billions repeatedly developing new launchers ( several of which were cancelled before they got anywhere ) as well as launching the very expensive Shuttle, while the Russians kept plugging away spending their budget on actual launches.
Yep. Well a derivative of the R-7a anyway called also Soyuz. >1700 have flown! So essentially NASA have pissed away $billions repeatedly developing new launchers ( several of which were cancelled before they got anywhere ) as well as launching the very expensive Shuttle, while the Russians kept plugging away spending their budget on actual launches.
- Soyuz 11A511 (1966-1975)
- Soyuz-L 11A511L (1970-1971)
- Soyuz-M 11A511M (1971-1976)
- Soyuz-U 11A511U (1973-today)
- Soyuz-U2 11A511U2 or 11A511K (1982-1995)
- Soyuz-FG 11A511U-FG (2001-today)
- Soyuz-2 14A14 (2006-today)
Fastdruid said:
MartG said:
In the meantime the Russians have continued to use the same basic R-7 launcher and Soyuz spacecraft they first developed back in the '60s.
So essentially NASA have pissed away $billions repeatedly developing new launchers ( several of which were cancelled before they got anywhere ) as well as launching the very expensive Shuttle, while the Russians kept plugging away spending their budget on actual launches.
Yep. Well a derivative of the R-7a anyway called also Soyuz. >1700 have flown! So essentially NASA have pissed away $billions repeatedly developing new launchers ( several of which were cancelled before they got anywhere ) as well as launching the very expensive Shuttle, while the Russians kept plugging away spending their budget on actual launches.
- Soyuz 11A511 (1966-1975)
- Soyuz-L 11A511L (1970-1971)
- Soyuz-M 11A511M (1971-1976)
- Soyuz-U 11A511U (1973-today)
- Soyuz-U2 11A511U2 or 11A511K (1982-1995)
- Soyuz-FG 11A511U-FG (2001-today)
- Soyuz-2 14A14 (2006-today)
The rockedyne F1 is still the largest ever rocket engine, they even improved it but it's never been used since...
Skylab was the last of them used...
Efbe said:
eric you seem quite knowledgable about such things.
how is Russia able to carry on funding space missions but the US not?
surely ecomically Russia has not been in the best of places the past 40 years, and America has been.
and with the current Ukraine & Russia situation when the americans say, O Mr Putin can we please send some more stuff into space please? to which Russia replies "Only when you drop those trade sanctions!" how is Russia able to carry on funding space missions but the US not?
surely ecomically Russia has not been in the best of places the past 40 years, and America has been.
I don't think this has been posted recently, but another good documentary on the Apollo programme is 'Shadow of the Moon' by Ron Howard, it's mainly the Apollo astronauts (11 of the 12 who went to the moon, Armstrong declined) just talking about it, mixed in with footage from the time.
It's available free on Channel 4's 4OD thing -
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/in-the-shadow-o...
(you need to register)
If you get the DVD there's another 30 minutes of the same thing.
It's available free on Channel 4's 4OD thing -
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/in-the-shadow-o...
(you need to register)
If you get the DVD there's another 30 minutes of the same thing.
Scuffers said:
The rockedyne F1 is still the largest ever rocket engine, they even improved it but it's never been used since...
Yup, they had the F-1A ready for flight with 1.8 million lbs of thrust ( original ones that flew had 1.5 ) which would have given the Saturn V an INCREASE in takeoff thrust equivalent to the TOTAL takeoff thrust of the Saturn 1B ! They also had the J-2S engine developed with 10% more thrust than the J-2 version used during the Apollo programme. Both of these angines also had improved specific impulse compared to the flow versions.
jmorgan said:
So Orion as it was envisaged in the late 40's early 50's is the way to go......
Atmospheric test ban treaty scotched that one, but in principle yes, nuclear pulse looks like a good technology, apart from the noise and the fallout.ETA.
Nuclear Lightbulb looks fun too.
Edited by Einion Yrth on Wednesday 23 July 07:07
Scuffers said:
That's not entirely true though...
BA made good money from it, the problem was that air France couldn't (because they are useless) and airbus basically said it was going concoct BA a shedload for design authority and manufacturers support.
This combined with lack of airspace permits kind of killed it.
BA DID make money from it - but only because of the very generous terms on which the aircraft were procured. In reality, they couldn't have made money operating Concorde if they had been asked to pay the proper commercial cost of each aircraft they purchased.BA made good money from it, the problem was that air France couldn't (because they are useless) and airbus basically said it was going concoct BA a shedload for design authority and manufacturers support.
This combined with lack of airspace permits kind of killed it.
By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
Eric Mc said:
BA DID make money from it - but only because of the very generous terms on which the aircraft were procured. In reality, they couldn't have made money operating Concorde if they had been asked to pay the proper commercial cost of each aircraft they purchased.
By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
How would the procurement cost affect the money they made operating it? If the ticket sales exceed the operating cost it's worth operating it irrespective of how much it cost to buy in the first place.By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
Dr Jekyll said:
Eric Mc said:
BA DID make money from it - but only because of the very generous terms on which the aircraft were procured. In reality, they couldn't have made money operating Concorde if they had been asked to pay the proper commercial cost of each aircraft they purchased.
By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
How would the procurement cost affect the money they made operating it? If the ticket sales exceed the operating cost it's worth operating it irrespective of how much it cost to buy in the first place.By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
In a truly commercial and open market situation (the way airlines buy their fleets today), BA would have paid the true capital cost of each of the aircraft. This capital cost would have been spread over the useful commercial life of the aircraft - probably twenty years - and would have been shown as a cost in BA's profit and loss account. Of course, to ensure they showed a profit on the operation of Concorde, the fares charged to the passengers would have to be high enough to cover this annual depreciation cost.
However, because BAe and BA were both state owned at the time the aircraft were delivered, BA were not asked to pay the proper unit cost for each individual aircraft (nowhere near it, in fact) so they did not have to account for the full depreciation costs in THEIR profit and loss account at any time.
Of course, the entity that DID carry the can for the cost of Concorde (and its depreciation) was the UK and French taxpayer. Every taxpayer in the UK and France paid for Concorde, whether they ever used it or not.
Now, I'm not being judgmental on this. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, or right or wrong. But people should be aware of the way in which BA were able to claim they were making profits on something they hadn't really had to buy at its true capital cost.
Indeed, BA made little comment on Concorde's "profitability" until privatisation began to loom on the horizon - when it suddenly started to matter.
Dr Jekyll said:
Eric Mc said:
BA DID make money from it - but only because of the very generous terms on which the aircraft were procured. In reality, they couldn't have made money operating Concorde if they had been asked to pay the proper commercial cost of each aircraft they purchased.
By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
How would the procurement cost affect the money they made operating it? If the ticket sales exceed the operating cost it's worth operating it irrespective of how much it cost to buy in the first place.By 2003, the economics were beginning to look less favourable and, with Air France's decision to cease their operation, that meant Airbus Industrie couldn't support the aircraft economically either. That was the end.
Eric Mc said:
Depreciation and amortisation costs.
In a truly commercial and open market situation (the way airlines buy their fleets today), BA would have paid the true capital cost of each of the aircraft. This capital cost would have been spread over the useful commercial life of the aircraft - probably twenty years - and would have been shown as a cost in BA's profit and loss account. Of course, to ensure they showed a profit on the operation of Concorde, the fares charged to the passengers would have to be high enough to cover this annual depreciation cost.
However, because BAe and BA were both state owned at the time the aircraft were delivered, BA were not asked to pay the proper unit cost for each individual aircraft (nowhere near it, in fact) so they did not have to account for the full depreciation costs in THEIR profit and loss account at any time.
But the purchase price was sunk cost, irrelevant to a continue/discontinue decision. Operating Concorde would indeed mean a depreciation figure for the year in the P/L account, but this wouldn't affect cash flow.In a truly commercial and open market situation (the way airlines buy their fleets today), BA would have paid the true capital cost of each of the aircraft. This capital cost would have been spread over the useful commercial life of the aircraft - probably twenty years - and would have been shown as a cost in BA's profit and loss account. Of course, to ensure they showed a profit on the operation of Concorde, the fares charged to the passengers would have to be high enough to cover this annual depreciation cost.
However, because BAe and BA were both state owned at the time the aircraft were delivered, BA were not asked to pay the proper unit cost for each individual aircraft (nowhere near it, in fact) so they did not have to account for the full depreciation costs in THEIR profit and loss account at any time.
Cash Flow and Profit are different concepts. I was talking about Profit.
And I was emphasising that BA were able to claim (correctly) that they were making profits on their Concorde operations - but only because they were given massive taxpayer assistance by not having to foot the full cost of the aircraft.
The concept of BA profitability was a moot point until 1984 anyway. It was only then that they really had to start accounting for their activities in a manner that matched what commercial entities have always had to do. It was in 1984 that the road to privatisation began - fully implemented by 1987.
And I was emphasising that BA were able to claim (correctly) that they were making profits on their Concorde operations - but only because they were given massive taxpayer assistance by not having to foot the full cost of the aircraft.
The concept of BA profitability was a moot point until 1984 anyway. It was only then that they really had to start accounting for their activities in a manner that matched what commercial entities have always had to do. It was in 1984 that the road to privatisation began - fully implemented by 1987.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff