Another call for U.S. Heavy-lift vehicles
tab...@intellex.com
And I don't mean those puny 20 or 30 ton launchers either! :)
From Space News, Sept 16-22, 1996, p. 19 (by Anne Eisele):
"Future Mars and lunar exploration will require restoration of the U.S.
heavy-lift launch capability of the 1970s, redevelopment of a nuclear
thermal rocket and stabilization of NASA's space science budget, space
experts told the House Science Committee's space and aeronautics
subcommittee Sept 12."
It's too bad Dan Goldin and Bill Clinton weren't smart enough to figure
that out. If they had been we could have been building a heavy-lift vehicle
right now because they would have done the smart thing and picked the Option
C space station design, which includes development of a heavy-lift vehicle
as part of its $20 billion dollar cost. You say, wait a minute! The Option
A (Alpha) space station costs $30 billion and it doesn't even develop a
heavy-lift capability for that money! I say: yes you are correct. Go figure.
The space development path Clinton and Goldin have set the United States
on is just the opposite of the path we should be taking. We should build
shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicles and use them to launch fully-assembled
and tested space stations, Moonbases and Marsbases directly to these
locations using just one launch each. Dan and Bill think it is better to
launch a bunch of little space station pieces on dozens of launches and then
have spacesuited astronauts spend years putting all the pieces together in
orbit. Yeah, that's not too dangerous or expensive! Every space decision
this pair had made has been wrong.
Another quote from the same article:
"Propulsion development aside, a manned mission to Mars almost certainly
will require international cooperation... said Rep. Robert Walker (R.Pa),
chairman of the Science Committee."
This may be one of the major problems with our current space program:
Robert Walker and this attitude that we can't go it alone, which is pure
bunk. Clinton has turned the space program into a foreign policy circus and
our Republican leaders think it's just fine. In fact they encourage him.
Our space program is being run by a bunch of incompetents of both parties.
I haven't heard one peep of protest from any Republican over Clinton's plan
to internationalize the space station rescue vehicle. Here is another
CRITICAL piece of space hardware infrastructure that Clinton and our
Republican leaders are going to farm out to people outside U.S. control.
How does this square with the Republican's Space Platform which states:
"Space exploration and exploitation are a matter of national security. Our
armed forces already rely on space assets to support their operations on
Earth, and space technology will rapidly become more critical to successful
military operations. Space is the ocean of tomorrow and we cannot allow its
domination by another power. We must ensure that America can work and
prosper there, securely and without outside influence. A new Republican
team will secure the high frontier for peace on Earth and for unlimited
human opportunity."
The new Republican team will need to do much better than the old
Republican team because the old one has dropped the ball: They have made no
effort to ensure America can operate in space securely and without outside
influence, on the contrary, they have done just the opposite and tied the
success of the space station and our space program to Russians and other
unreliable partners, all in the name of international cooperation. What is
so pathetic about this is if they had cared to put some thought to it they
could have had international cooperation on the space station WITHOUT
putting other countries in the critical path of U.S. space hardware development.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm
tab...@intellex.com
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Filip De Vos
tab...@intellex.com wrote:
: Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
: And I don't mean those puny 20 or 30 ton launchers either! :)
: From Space News, Sept 16-22, 1996, p. 19 (by Anne Eisele):
: "Future Mars and lunar exploration will require restoration of the U.S.
^^^^^^
Don't hold your breath.
: heavy-lift launch capability of the 1970s, redevelopment of a nuclear
: thermal rocket and stabilization of NASA's space science budget, space
This call for nukes looks to me as a plea for yet another big-bucks
programme.
: experts told the House Science Committee's space and aeronautics
: subcommittee Sept 12."
: It's too bad Dan Goldin and Bill Clinton weren't smart enough to figure
: that out. If they had been we could have been building a heavy-lift vehicle
: right now because they would have done the smart thing and picked the Option
: C space station design, which includes development of a heavy-lift vehicle
: as part of its $20 billion dollar cost. You say, wait a minute! The Option
: A (Alpha) space station costs $30 billion and it doesn't even develop a
: heavy-lift capability for that money! I say: yes you are correct. Go figure.
Yes, it appears that NASA and it's masters are in favour of doing the
minimum with the maximum budget.
: The space development path Clinton and Goldin have set the United States
: on is just the opposite of the path we should be taking. We should build
: shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicles and use them to launch fully-assembled
Tom, I know you are a big fan of Shuttle-C, but I cannot believe your
assertion that it would be *cheap*. In my view, anything to do with
Shuttle, or Shuttle derived is *expensive*, very much so. All
developments to do with Shuttle, like the new pumps, the two ET
redesigns, the fortunately cancelled ASRB's or, heaven forbid, the also
cancelled Liquid Fly-Back Boosters are expensive.
I cannot believe that a Shuttle-C would be cheaper. Consider: a new
re-entry/recovery vehicle, containing 3 SSME's, OMS, RCS and guidance
has to be developed, integrated into an expendable cargo container. The
loads on the stack during ascent have to be recalculated and validated
completely. It is basically a new vehicle. Assuming that dropping them in
the ocean does not harm them, the costs associated with SSME's, OMS and
RCS remain the same as with the Shuttle. Add the usual costs with
building the stack (SRB's ET etc), and it is hard to get a lot of savings.
Concerning the pumps, I think engineers, budget officers and contractors
should have had the decency to call this the development of an entirely new
engine, using a couple of extant components like the nozzle, instead of
calling it a simple upgrade. More than $bn1,1 (according to col.
London) is a major development. Meanwhile, I recently shuddered when
reading on this ng that increased power levels, over 109%, are considered
to lift the ISS components. So we are back to square one, engines
operating at the limits of the state-of-the-art, meeding complete
strip-down after one flight.
As for the ET, it seems that the fact that it is expended brings the
belief that it is not very costly. In fact, it is the structural backbone
of the whole vehicle, and the new Al-Li tank will cost more than many
medium sized launchers ($70 m).
Coming back to the subject of Shuttle-C, this is not to mean that it would
not be usable, or interesting. If all the money, put into the new
pumps, the ET redesigns, and so on, had been put into Shuttle-C
development instead, then we would now _have an in-service HLV. But the
mysterious (to us ordinary mortals) workings of the American budget
process and NASA's decision making/planning process did not lead to this
path.
: and tested space stations, Moonbases and Marsbases directly to these
: locations using just one launch each. Dan and Bill think it is better to
: launch a bunch of little space station pieces on dozens of launches and then
: have spacesuited astronauts spend years putting all the pieces together in
Another flawed reasoning is that everything has to be put on *one*
Christmas tree, with all the bells and wistles. The idea that there could
be *two*, or even more manned platforms, with different but complimentary
tasks is anathema!
: orbit. Yeah, that's not too dangerous or expensive! Every space decision
: this pair had made has been wrong.
: Another quote from the same article:
: "Propulsion development aside, a manned mission to Mars almost certainly
: will require international cooperation... said Rep. Robert Walker (R.Pa),
: chairman of the Science Committee."
: This may be one of the major problems with our current space program:
: Robert Walker and this attitude that we can't go it alone, which is pure
: bunk. Clinton has turned the space program into a foreign policy circus and
I agree. America has the power and resources to go it alone. But not he
will.
: our Republican leaders think it's just fine. In fact they encourage him.
: Our space program is being run by a bunch of incompetents of both parties.
: I haven't heard one peep of protest from any Republican over Clinton's plan
: to internationalize the space station rescue vehicle. Here is another
.. apparently because it is good business.
: CRITICAL piece of space hardware infrastructure that Clinton and our
.. while I don't agree entirely with this assertion. Once you decide the
cooperation path, uyou cannot keep all the juiciest parts, and leave the
scraps (and the bills) for the 'partners'. This attitude has brought
serious friction allready, when ESA officials had to learn in
budget proposals, newspapers or Congressional records that the build-up
sequence of the ISS (or Alpha) was slowed down, causing a power
short-fall to a European experiments module. (Not that they did really
mind the delays. Budgets were thight this side of the Atlantic as well)
: Republican leaders are going to farm out to people outside U.S. control.
: How does this square with the Republican's Space Platform which states:
: "Space exploration and exploitation are a matter of national security. Our
: armed forces already rely on space assets to support their operations on
: Earth, and space technology will rapidly become more critical to successful
: military operations. Space is the ocean of tomorrow and we cannot allow its
: domination by another power. We must ensure that America can work and
: prosper there, securely and without outside influence. A new Republican
: team will secure the high frontier for peace on Earth and for unlimited
: human opportunity."
: The new Republican team will need to do much better than the old
: Republican team because the old one has dropped the ball: They have made no
: effort to ensure America can operate in space securely and without outside
: influence, on the contrary, they have done just the opposite and tied the
: success of the space station and our space program to Russians and other
: unreliable partners, all in the name of international cooperation. What is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like Canadians, Europeans and Japanese? Considering the record, Americans
themselves are barely more reliable than the Russians.
: so pathetic about this is if they had cared to put some thought to it they
: could have had international cooperation on the space station WITHOUT
: putting other countries in the critical path of U.S. space hardware development.
This may be the main problem: a lack of focus, and a little (dare I say
*five-year* ? :-) planning.
--
Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE*
FilipP...@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus-
tab...@intellex.com
>: And I don't mean those puny 20 or 30 ton launchers either! :)
>: From Space News, Sept 16-22, 1996, p. 19 (by Anne Eisele):
>: "Future Mars and lunar exploration will require restoration of the U.S.
> ^^^^^^
>Don't hold your breath.
>: heavy-lift launch capability of the 1970s, redevelopment of a nuclear
>: thermal rocket and stabilization of NASA's space science budget, space
>This call for nukes looks to me as a plea for yet another big-bucks
>programme.
Don't fall out of your chair now!, but I did find ONE thing in Clinton's
policy I liked: he is continuing the space nuclear power program. An
extremely good move. Someone must have snuck this one by him! :)
>: experts told the House Science Committee's space and aeronautics
>: subcommittee Sept 12."
>: It's too bad Dan Goldin and Bill Clinton weren't smart enough to figure
>: that out. If they had been we could have been building a heavy-lift vehicle
>: right now because they would have done the smart thing and picked the Option
>: C space station design, which includes development of a heavy-lift vehicle
>: as part of its $20 billion dollar cost. You say, wait a minute! The Option
>: A (Alpha) space station costs $30 billion and it doesn't even develop a
>: heavy-lift capability for that money! I say: yes you are correct. Go
figure.
>Yes, it appears that NASA and it's masters are in favour of doing the
>minimum with the maximum budget.
>: The space development path Clinton and Goldin have set the United States
>: on is just the opposite of the path we should be taking. We should build
>: shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicles and use them to launch fully-assembled
>Tom, I know you are a big fan of Shuttle-C, but I cannot believe your
>assertion that it would be *cheap*. In my view, anything to do with
>Shuttle, or Shuttle derived is *expensive*, very much so.
But Shuttle-C is not the space shuttle. One example: a space shuttle
requires 50,000 man-hours to inspect and service the shuttle's heat tiles.
Shuttle-C will require nowhere near this amount of time on its TPS.
> All
>developments to do with Shuttle, like the new pumps, the two ET
>redesigns, the fortunately cancelled ASRB's or, heaven forbid, the also
>cancelled Liquid Fly-Back Boosters are expensive.
Yes, but the development costs for these shuttle improvements have already
been paid for and Shuttle-C can incorporate all these refinements into its
design with little effort.
>I cannot believe that a Shuttle-C would be cheaper.
Assuming Shuttle-C would require no more preparation than a regular space
shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches. This
$50 million cost should also apply to adding an additional Shuttle-C launch
to NASA's yearly schedule. Now if it costs $50 million to launch Shuttle-C
and Shuttle-C can put 100 tons of cargo in low-Earth orbit, then the launch
costs come out to about $250.00 per pound to low-Earth orbit. That's
cheaper than any existing launch vehicle by a good margin and is competitive
with even the claims of the SSTO builders.
> Consider: a new
>re-entry/recovery vehicle, containing 3 SSME's, OMS, RCS and guidance
>has to be developed, integrated into an expendable cargo container.
The Boeing EELV program is currently testing a reusable propulsion module
containing one space shuttle main engine (SSME) and they have already
dropped it in the ocean and then fired the engine. All they need to do is
add two more SSME's! :)
> The
>loads on the stack during ascent have to be recalculated and validated
>completely. It is basically a new vehicle.
If the propulsion module is mounted underneath the side-mounted cargo
container the ascent loads will be applied in the same places the shuttle
applies them. No new vehicle required.
> Assuming that dropping them in
>the ocean does not harm them, the costs associated with SSME's, OMS and
>RCS remain the same as with the Shuttle. Add the usual costs with
>building the stack (SRB's ET etc), and it is hard to get a lot of savings.
Much of the costs associated with turning a space shuttle around are
connected to servicing the "human" portions of the space shuttle. As I said
above, it requires 50,000 man-hours just for the shuttle's heat tiles.
Shuttle-C's propulsion "boattail" will have much less surface area and will
not reenter at the speeds the shuttle normally reenters at so TPS
requirements are not nearly so stringent. But, even if the costs are the
same to turn around a shuttle or a Shuttle-C, I still have to come back to
DOD's $50 million estimate for an added shuttle flight, and that's cheap any
way you look at it. A separate study was done (I don't have the particulars
at hand) of adding an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule and
it came up with a figure of $100 million. Cheap at $50 or $100 million!
>Concerning the pumps, I think engineers, budget officers and contractors
>should have had the decency to call this the development of an entirely new
>engine, using a couple of extant components like the nozzle, instead of
>calling it a simple upgrade. More than $bn1,1 (according to col.
>London) is a major development.
I would have to agree with you on this. But, I think the money was well
spent. The reduction in complexity and the other improvements make the new
space shuttle main engines very much better and more reliable than the
unimproved engines.
> Meanwhile, I recently shuddered when
>reading on this ng that increased power levels, over 109%, are considered
>to lift the ISS components.
All the more reason to build Shuttle-C and let IT do the heavy lifting,
instead of the space shuttle. Shuttle-C wouldn't need to run the SSME's at
maximum throttle to do its job. In fact, Shuttle-C could run the SSME's at
much lower power levels with no problem at all.
> So we are back to square one, engines
>operating at the limits of the state-of-the-art, meeding complete
>strip-down after one flight.
Only if you're using the shuttle as a cargo carrier. This is not a
problem if we have Shuttle-C.
>As for the ET, it seems that the fact that it is expended brings the
>belief that it is not very costly. In fact, it is the structural backbone
>of the whole vehicle, and the new Al-Li tank will cost more than many
>medium sized launchers ($70 m).
We could get by with the cheaper $46 million dollar original all-aluminum
ET if we used Shuttle-C for our cargo hauling. The space shuttle is the one
that needs the aluminum/lithium ET to allow it to lift heavy space station
pieces. Shuttle-C doesn't need any help. :)
>Coming back to the subject of Shuttle-C, this is not to mean that it would
>not be usable, or interesting. If all the money, put into the new
>pumps, the ET redesigns, and so on, had been put into Shuttle-C
>development instead, then we would now _have an in-service HLV.
Well, in effect, most of this money HAS been put into Shuttle-C since all
these hardware developments can be used just as easily on Shuttle-C as they
can be on the shuttle.
> But the
>mysterious (to us ordinary mortals) workings of the American budget
>process and NASA's decision making/planning process did not lead to this
>path.
I prefer to characterize it as: insane. :)
>: and tested space stations, Moonbases and Marsbases directly to these
>: locations using just one launch each. Dan and Bill think it is better to
>: launch a bunch of little space station pieces on dozens of launches and then
>: have spacesuited astronauts spend years putting all the pieces together in
>Another flawed reasoning is that everything has to be put on *one*
>Christmas tree, with all the bells and wistles. The idea that there could
>be *two*, or even more manned platforms, with different but complimentary
>tasks is anathema!
I agree with that. We should have lots of space stations. Someday we will.
>: orbit. Yeah, that's not too dangerous or expensive! Every space decision
>: this pair had made has been wrong.
>: Another quote from the same article:
>: "Propulsion development aside, a manned mission to Mars almost certainly
>: will require international cooperation... said Rep. Robert Walker (R.Pa),
>: chairman of the Science Committee."
>: This may be one of the major problems with our current space program:
>: Robert Walker and this attitude that we can't go it alone, which is pure
>: bunk. Clinton has turned the space program into a foreign policy circus and
>I agree. America has the power and resources to go it alone. But not he
>will.
Make that "America's space program leaders don't have the will" and I'll
agree with you.
>: our Republican leaders think it's just fine. In fact they encourage him.
>: Our space program is being run by a bunch of incompetents of both parties.
>: I haven't heard one peep of protest from any Republican over Clinton's plan
>: to internationalize the space station rescue vehicle. Here is another
> .. apparently because it is good business.
It's good business for France. What about all those American scientist
and engineers that would love to be working on a crew rescue vehicle and the
method to get it to and from orbit. Clinton seems to not be aware that all
those other countries are competing with us economically, because he is
giving them all the advantages even paying to build up their space industry.
>: CRITICAL piece of space hardware infrastructure that Clinton and our
>.. while I don't agree entirely with this assertion. Once you decide the
>cooperation path, uyou cannot keep all the juiciest parts, and leave the
>scraps (and the bills) for the 'partners'.
As far as the Russian FGB propulsion module and the Service Module are
concerned, I don't think the Russian's lobbied to be allowed to build them,
I think Goldin saw a chance to save a little money and he decided to pay the
Russians to build the propulsion system that would keep the space station in
orbit rather than having it built in America. I think the Russians would
have been happy as long as the United States paid them $400 million. What
they had to do for that money I don't think really mattered to them.
Normally it's good to save money but not if the space program is put in
potential jeopardy because of it, and that's just the position Dan put us in
with his propulsion module "savings." In that case it's better to spend a
little extra in the beginning to assure the ability to operate independently.
I have two problems with the FGB/Service Module deal: In the first place,
I think it is a mistake for the United States not to develop an independent
ability to operate in low-Earth orbit. In the second place, as long as this
deal is done, I would think it incumbent on NASA to be able to resupply and
service these propulsion modules independent of Russia, but Goldin has not
done this. As it stands now, the international space station is totally
dependent on Russia to keep it in orbit. If for any reason Russia opts out
of the international space station, the United States will not have the
hardware to keep our $30 billion investment in orbit and it will crash to
Earth just like Skylab. Goldin says he has a backup plan but what's he
going to do wait until Russia opts out before implementing it? At the rate
he accomplishes projects, he better start now.
> This attitude has brought
>serious friction allready, when ESA officials had to learn in
>budget proposals, newspapers or Congressional records that the build-up
>sequence of the ISS (or Alpha) was slowed down, causing a power
>short-fall to a European experiments module.
That's the kind of problems you have to deal with when you allow others
control over your actions.
> (Not that they did really
>mind the delays. Budgets were thight this side of the Atlantic as well)
>: Republican leaders are going to farm out to people outside U.S. control.
>: How does this square with the Republican's Space Platform which states:
>: "Space exploration and exploitation are a matter of national security. Our
>: armed forces already rely on space assets to support their operations on
>: Earth, and space technology will rapidly become more critical to successful
>: military operations. Space is the ocean of tomorrow and we cannot allow its
>: domination by another power. We must ensure that America can work and
>: prosper there, securely and without outside influence. A new Republican
>: team will secure the high frontier for peace on Earth and for unlimited
>: human opportunity."
>: The new Republican team will need to do much better than the old
>: Republican team because the old one has dropped the ball: They have made no
>: effort to ensure America can operate in space securely and without outside
>: influence, on the contrary, they have done just the opposite and tied the
>: success of the space station and our space program to Russians and other
>: unreliable partners, all in the name of international cooperation. What is
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Like Canadians, Europeans and Japanese? Considering the record, Americans
>themselves are barely more reliable than the Russians.
By unreliable I mean these countries will act in their own interests
before they will act in U.S. interest. I would single out two countries by
name: Russia and France. Both are our economic competitors and both have a
history of going their own way--which is not bad in itself, but has to be
considered when you are contemplating putting them in charge of a project so
important to United States' future. There are numerous ways to cooperate
on space matters that don't include tieing the United States down with
decisions made by politicians from other countries, but Clinton and Goldin
don't seem to be able to grasp this concept and have put our space program
in jeopardy because of it.
Clinton and Goldin's foreign policy is the equivalent of Dan Goldin wanting
to make another friend so in order to entice the person to be his friend and
for Dan to show he is sincere, Dan arranges to let his new friend take over
the handling of Dan's bank account. Why would Dan do this? Why, to show
his new friend how much he trusts him. Of course, just because Dan trusts
him doesn't mean his new friend is trustworthy, or is capable of handling
Dan's checkbook or his financial affairs if he was trustworthy. But Dan's
going to take the chance anyway in the name of friendship and cooperation.
This is how Dan Goldin and Clinton look at international cooperation. They
think they have to give up something in order to be worthy. And boy are
they giving it away!!
And you are correct: NASA is the worst offender of all when it comes to
international cooperation. But the Europeans shouldn't complain, they've
had long experience of this and should have known better! :)
>: so pathetic about this is if they had cared to put some thought to it they
>: could have had international cooperation on the space station WITHOUT
>: putting other countries in the critical path of U.S. space hardware
development.
>This may be the main problem: a lack of focus, and a little (dare I say
>*five-year* ? :-) planning.
>--
>Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE*
>FilipP...@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus-
Tom Abbott
Frank Crary
In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
<tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>Tom, I know you are a big fan of Shuttle-C, but I cannot believe your
>>assertion that it would be *cheap*. In my view, anything to do with
>>Shuttle, or Shuttle derived is *expensive*, very much so.
> But Shuttle-C is not the space shuttle. One example: a space shuttle
>requires 50,000 man-hours to inspect and service the shuttle's heat tiles.
>Shuttle-C will require nowhere near this amount of time on its TPS.
A more direct example is to simply look at the payload mass. If
a Shuttle-C used SSMEs at the end of their operational life
(which would limit launch rates), then the launch costs would
not be any greater than the current launch costs of the Shuttle.
Probably lower, for the reasons you mentioned. A Shuttle-C
would launch, what?, about 75 tonnes of payload compared to
the Shuttle's less than 20 tonnes. So right away, you get
a factor of 3.75 reduction in per kilo launch costs. That
puts it down on the level of other, smaller, launch vehicles,
which isn't exactly cheap. But, relatively speaking, it
isn't expensive either. You're down to balancing the development
costs of the Shuttle-C against the overhead for, say, assembling
a space station from 15 to 20 tonne modules. That's a dead
easy choice, which favors the Shuttle-C.
>> The
>>loads on the stack during ascent have to be recalculated and validated
>>completely. It is basically a new vehicle.
> If the propulsion module is mounted underneath the side-mounted cargo
>container the ascent loads will be applied in the same places the shuttle
>applies them. No new vehicle required.
Mass distribution and drag are going to be different, and even a
slight change would require recalculation and testing. That's not
really a new vehicle worth of work, but it isn't a trivial redesign
either.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Edward Wright
In article <52kkpq$9...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
says...
>A more direct example is to simply look at the payload mass. If
>a Shuttle-C used SSMEs at the end of their operational life
>(which would limit launch rates), then the launch costs would
>not be any greater than the current launch costs of the Shuttle.
>Probably lower, for the reasons you mentioned. A Shuttle-C
>would launch, what?, about 75 tonnes of payload compared to
>the Shuttle's less than 20 tonnes.
What do you mean by "the end of their operational life?" If you mean
there's only enough life left on the engine for one more flight, what you
say is valid, but if the margins are that tight, the reliability of the
launcher is in question, and when you're relying on a heavy-lift vehicle
like this, a single flight failure means a complete mission failure.
>So right away, you get a factor of 3.75 reduction in per kilo launch
>costs. That puts it down on the level of other, smaller, launch
>vehicles, which isn't exactly cheap. But, relatively speaking, it
>isn't expensive either. You're down to balancing the development
>costs of the Shuttle-C against the overhead for, say, assembling
>a space station from 15 to 20 tonne modules. That's a dead
>easy choice, which favors the Shuttle-C.
Sure, if you exclude any other type of vehicle that could be developed for
the same price, and if you're prepared to have your entire space-station
program fail because of a single launch failure.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Jeff Greason
In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
<tab...@intellex.com> writes:
|>
|> Assuming Shuttle-C would require no more preparation than a regular space
|> shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
|> has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
|> shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches.
1) This number is clearly *not* including all the costs (this may be
just the *labor* cost of adding a flight to the manifest). As you
point out below, the ET alone costs more than this (never mind the
SRB's, the SSME, etc.)
2) And we were able to develop this launcher for negligible cost? Even though
it *has* to be a NASA program? Even though it *has* to share the
Shuttle infrastructure and hardware? Even though LockMart gets the
contract? This is incredible.
See the other elements on this thread for a more encompassing discussion
on the costs. I can certainly believe HLV could be cheaper per kilo than
the shuttle to launch (though it could also be more expensive) -- but
a Shuttle-derived HLV is *very* unlikely to break below $1000/lb.
|> >As for the ET, it seems that the fact that it is expended brings the
|> >belief that it is not very costly. In fact, it is the structural backbone
|> >of the whole vehicle, and the new Al-Li tank will cost more than many
|> >medium sized launchers ($70 m).
|>
|> We could get by with the cheaper $46 million dollar original all-aluminum
|> ET if we used Shuttle-C for our cargo hauling. The space shuttle is the one
|> that needs the aluminum/lithium ET to allow it to lift heavy space station
|> pieces. Shuttle-C doesn't need any help. :)
Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.
============================================================================
Jeff Greason "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
<gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> and do the other things, not because they
<gre...@ix.netcom.com> are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK
Michael Walsh
Jeff Greason wrote:
>
> In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
> <tab...@intellex.com> writes:
> |>
> |> shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
> |> has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
> |> shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches.
>
> just the *labor* cost of adding a flight to the manifest). As you
> point out below, the ET alone costs more than this (never mind the
> SRB's, the SSME, etc.)
>
---
---
I don't really want to get fully into this argument, but I do wonder
what the cost of an additional Shuttle flight really is? I saw a
$40 million reported as given by NASA in one of the space station
cost reports by the GAO from a document on their web page. The GAO
didn't argue with, NASA's number, they just said they still felt that
taking the Shuttle yearly cost and dividing by the number of launches
was a better figure for assigning costs.
If it is true that the external tank alone is more than $40 million
then I have to wonder how NASA is assigning costs to that. Are they
in the position that they are paying a certain amount of money per
year to the tank producer, and that getting additional tanks has a
much lower cost per tank?
When you have a strange system of costing it may go further down
the line.
Mike Walsh
Magnus Redin
edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) writes:
>In article <52kkpq$9...@lace.colorado.edu>, fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
>says...
>> You're down to balancing the development costs of the Shuttle-C
>> against the overhead for, say, assembling a space station from 15
>> to 20 tonne modules. That's a dead easy choice, which favors the
>> Shuttle-C.
> Sure, if you exclude any other type of vehicle that could be
> developed for the same price, and if you're prepared to have your
> entire space-station program fail because of a single launch
> failure.
Would not the space station program fail if a single shuttle failed?
Btw, I would much prefer lots of small rigid and inflatable pieces
lifted by any small or medium sized ssto or black horse.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Richard A. Schumacher
>I don't really want to get fully into this argument, but I do wonder
>what the cost of an additional Shuttle flight really is? I saw a
>$40 million reported as given by NASA in one of the space station
>cost reports by the GAO from a document on their web page. The GAO
>didn't argue with, NASA's number, they just said they still felt that
>taking the Shuttle yearly cost and dividing by the number of launches
>was a better figure for assigning costs.
You dropped a zero, at least. Four hundred twenty million dollars
is the incremental cost of one Shuttle launch by NASA accounting
(which does not include any development costs or capital costs).
Marcus Lindroos INF
Tom,
Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
modules...? The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it. Japan or ESA don't
have HLLVs either.
---
--
MARCU$
---------------------------------------
Can't you see, it all makes perfect sense
...expressed in dollars and cents?
--Roger Waters
Marcus Lindroos
Skyttegatan 20 A
98137 Kiruna,Sweden
Email:mlin...@aton.abo.fi
Fax:358-15-616667
WWW:http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo
--------------------------------------
Michael Walsh
---
---
I did not drop a zero. You seem to be confusing incremental cost
with average cost of a Shuttle launch.
Quoting from GAO report:
Space Station: Update on the Impact of the Expanded Russian Role
(Letter Report, 07/29/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-248)
Quote:
Our calculation of the funding associated with shuttle flights is
basdd on NASA's estimated average cost of $373 million a shuttle
flight in fiscal year 1999. NASA calculates the average cost per
flight by dividing annual recurring funding required to support
shuttle operations by the planned number of flights for a given
year. Space station officials disagreed that the additional flights
should be valued at an average cost of $373 million each. NASA values
shuttle flights at about $40 million a flight--the marginal cost for
fuel and other expendable items. In prior reports, we have stated
that the average cost per shuttle flight should be allocated to the
space station program during the period when the shuttle system
will be used predominately for the station's launch, assembly,
and use.
(End of Quote)
In a later GAO report they noted that NASA had cut the number of Shuttle
flights they believed they could support to 7 per year. This resulted
in the average cost of Shuttle flights going up to somewhat under
$500 million per year.
Your statement that NASA accounting does not account for development
or capital costs is correct. However, the major cost of a Shuttle
flight is composed of the fixed cost of keeping a large system in
place. Cutting the number of flights doesn't reduce costs very
much, but it drastically increases the cost per flight.
Go check out the GAO reports, they are on-line. I don't seem to
have the web address handy, I think I got it from Jim Kingdon but
I no longer have the post.
Mike Walsh
Jim Kingdon
> NASA values shuttle flights at about $40 million a flight--the
> marginal cost for fuel and other expendable items.
And if anyone believes that the marginal cost of a shuttle flight is
really just fuel and other items included in this number (for one of
the most obvious if not necessarily the largest examples, it doesn't
include the external tank, I don't think), then I have a bridge you
might want to buy really cheap...
The GAO is correct to view that number skeptically (although they
don't seem to try to make their own analysis of marginal cost).
Richard A. Schumacher
>> You dropped a zero, at least. Four hundred twenty million dollars
>> is the incremental cost of one Shuttle launch by NASA accounting
>> (which does not include any development costs or capital costs).---
>---
>with average cost of a Shuttle launch.
You're right! Thanks for the correction. The $420 million figure
is still a better one for discussion, since it indicates the costs
incurred by lauching more than 20 or so Shuttles per year (new
infrastructure, etc.). That is, one can't just add launches
indefinitely and expect to pay only $40 million for each.
Tom Abbott
mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
>Tom,
>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>modules...?
When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
modifications. Refraining from changing the shuttle from a proven,
reliable transporter of people to and from orbit, into an unknown risk
through dubious modifications, such as the lithium/aluminum External
Tank, is reason enough, all by itself, to build a shuttle-C heavy-lift
vehicle.
> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
make it cost effective. Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
need a heavy-lift vehicle. If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
> Japan or ESA don't
>have HLLVs either.
>---
They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
Edward Wright
In article <5324eq$d...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
says...
>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>modules...?
>
> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
No, Tom. You will ask that. Other people will ask, why didn't NASA just
build the space station modules a bit smaller instead?
Your new untested, untried Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle is every
bit as as likely to blow up as a lithium/aluminum External Tank. Probably
more so, since you want to use high-time SSMEs that are not reliable
enough to be man-rated anymore.
> A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
>would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
>modifications.
Comparing one bad idea with another is a poor justification for either
one.
>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>
> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>make it cost effective.
According to Robert Zubrin, a private group could do a Mars Direct-style
mission for ~$3 billion right now, using the Russian Proton. His cost
estimate for a NASA-style Mars Direct mission, using a Shuttle-derived
heavy-lift vehicle, is $30 billion. The heavy-lift vehicle does not add
value to the mission; it only adds cost. As far as I can tell, the only
reason why Zubrin has it in his proposal is that he's trying to sell the
project to NASA, and NASA would not be interested in a Mars mission that
didn't require them to develop a heavy-lift vehicle.
Given an SSTO, a manned Mars mission would cost less than $1 billion (most
of which goes toward the purchase price for two SSTOs, which could be
reused for future Mars missions).
> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
>very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
>with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
>the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
The program you propose is not ambitious, just expensive. As Tom Rogers
says, it's time to start thinking big about space, instead of thinking
expensive.
Karen M Cramer
Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
: >Tom,
: >Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
: >payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
: >modules...?
: When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
: untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
: didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
: A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
: would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
: modifications. Refraining from changing the shuttle from a proven,
: reliable transporter of people to and from orbit, into an unknown risk
: through dubious modifications, such as the lithium/aluminum External
: Tank, is reason enough, all by itself, to build a shuttle-C heavy-lift
: vehicle.
I agreed with you upto this point. Since when has the shuttle been
a PROVEN, RELIABLE tresporter of people to and from orbit?
It may be a known risk which is being made more dangerous, but
the shuttle certainly isn't reliable and with less than 100
flights is not really proven either.
: > The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
: >precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
: I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
: solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
: make it cost effective. Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
: need a heavy-lift vehicle. If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
: Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
: the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
: blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
: > Japan or ESA don't
: >have HLLVs either.
: >---
: They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
: they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
: very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
: with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
: the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
The U.S.'s space program is an ambious program. Blindly ambious
they have not acknowledged that their plans require more than
congress will give them. NASA management has pulled cost estimates
out of thin air for both the shuttle and the station to sell them
to congress so no one should be suprized when they fail to deliver.
NASA should have the maturity to acknowledge that they aren't going
to get a larger slice of the budget and to get past the EXPLORATION
phase and start considering staying somewhere for a while.
: Tom Abbott
Karen
: External Tank space station Web page:
Michael Walsh
---
---
Now we are talking about the same set of numbers. The point of my
original post and also some comments by George Herbert was that the
$40 million incremental cost is a highly suspect number. In fact, it
is impossible if the figures I have seen given for the external tank
are good. This led to my remark that I wondered if the external tank
was costed the same way as the rest of the Shuttle. This would mean
that the cost of another tank might not be too high, but the average
cost of a tank would be high because of a high fixed cost for keeping
a production and engineering team in place.
For a number such as an increase to 20 launches per year it seems
apparent there would be a necessity to increase the infrastructure
background cost. The $40 million cost can only apply to using the
current launch facilities at a higher rate and not adding anything
new to the facilities. It is highly probable that an increased
launch rate would lower the average cost per shuttle flight, but
the total program cost would increase. It seems to me highly
probable that the cost would exceed $40 million considerably.
The high fixed costs of the Shuttle indicate to me that not that a
Shuttle replacement which would allow complete cancellation of the
Shuttle program is a long term requirement. It also seems to me
that the entire current contracting structure must be changed because
if there is a new vehicle with the same subsidized structure, then
even if the new vehicle is highly efficient it will still be very
costly. Note that the concept of "Anchor Tenacy" could be used as a
tool to change the structure. The risk to a company of maintaining a
maintenance and repair structure for a flight vehicle (As well as
recovery of development costs) can be reduced if there are a certain
number of guaranteed payloads. Incidentally, the term "Anchor Tenancy"
comes from the commercial real-estate business where frequently buildings
are built or not built depending upon the number of tenants guaranteed
on completion of the building. Of course, the future tenants have to
be guaranteed a good lease rate before they make their commitments.
Mike Walsh
Phil Fraering
On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Tom Abbott wrote:
> A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
> would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
> modifications. Refraining from changing the shuttle from a proven,
> reliable transporter of people to and from orbit, into an unknown risk
> through dubious modifications, such as the lithium/aluminum External
> Tank, is reason enough, all by itself, to build a shuttle-C heavy-lift
> vehicle.
Tom, I don't know what drugs you're on that you think the Shuttle
has _ever_ been a safe system.
> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
> solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
> make it cost effective. Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
> need a heavy-lift vehicle.
Don't be so sure; lack of money != lack of ambition.
Also, what happens if the heavy lifter isn't cost-effective? Are
we then screwed for the next thirty years anyway, like with shuttle?
> If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
> Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
> the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
> blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
Tom, a single HLV has little redundancy compared to multiple RLV's.
You're the one betting the future existance of the human race on
the reliability of an HLV's _single_ launch.
With RLV's, you can spread your risk _around_. You're not stuck
with a huge single-point failure in your space program.
Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet
p...@acadian.net service provider nor my employer.
318/261-9649
sci.space.policy: Fifteen minutes into the future!
Jim Benson
mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
>Tom,
>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>modules...? The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it. Japan or ESA don't
>have HLLVs either.
To my mind, it is not just a question of "needing" a heavy lift
capability, and not the "U.S." that needs it. If there were a
commercially economical heavy lift capability, then by definition,
there would be a "need" or demand for such a capability. In other
words, there is not much need for heavy lifting at $4,000 or more per
pound, but what kind of commercial potential would there be for the
development of space resources if the cost of heavy lifting were, say,
$500 per pound or less? As cost decreases, demand will increase.
Economics 101 :)
Jim Benson
tab...@intellex.com
Michael Walsh <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Jeff Greason wrote:
>>
>> In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
>> <tab...@intellex.com> writes:
>> |>
>> |> Assuming Shuttle-C would require no more preparation than a regular
space
>> |> shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
>> |> has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
>> |> shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches.
>>
>> 1) This number is clearly *not* including all the costs (this may be
>> just the *labor* cost of adding a flight to the manifest). As you
>> point out below, the ET alone costs more than this (never mind the
>> SRB's, the SSME, etc.)
>>
According to Space News a couple of weeks ago, the DOD cost estimate of
$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
included the cost of the External Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the fuel.
>>---
>---
>---
>I don't really want to get fully into this argument, but I do wonder
>what the cost of an additional Shuttle flight really is? I saw a
>$40 million reported as given by NASA in one of the space station
>cost reports by the GAO from a document on their web page. The GAO
>didn't argue with, NASA's number, they just said they still felt that
>taking the Shuttle yearly cost and dividing by the number of launches
>was a better figure for assigning costs.
In addition to the $40 million figure you quote and the $50 million figure
quoted by DOD, there was also a study done in 1994 which estimated a cost of
$100 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the manifest.
>If it is true that the external tank alone is more than $40 million
>then I have to wonder how NASA is assigning costs to that.
Well, the ET used to be $35 million each not so long ago and I'm not sure
what all is included in the NASA budget figure. I've also seen the ET's
baseline cost quoted as $27 million, in a 1995 "Change to NASA's 1995
budget" document.
> Are they
>in the position that they are paying a certain amount of money per
>year to the tank producer, and that getting additional tanks has a
>much lower cost per tank?
I think this may be where the discrepancy lies. We're getting the $46
million figure dividing the yearly ET budget by the number of shuttle
flights when the ET budget encompasses more than just the hardware.
>When you have a strange system of costing it may go further down
>the line.
NASA's accounting system is a nightmare.
Tom Abbott
Simon Rowland
>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>modules...?
>
>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
Making a low-weight ET makes sense whether you're launching microgravtiy
experiments or launching ISS lab modules. And the risk is minimal. They did
do a test of it, and it pased with flying colours.
And what's your problem with Dan Goldin? He did get ISSA funded, didn't
he? He's not doing a bad job. Is it just because he sees no reason to fund
your pet project that you're slandering him?
>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>
> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>make it cost effective.
Tom, you'll be dead before NASA launches any people outside of LEO. How
old are you? 30? If NASA somehow get a launch for Mars in 2030, (when the
baby boomers start dying off) you'll be passed the average life expectancy
in the US. And what gaurantee is there that the US will be interested in a
$100 billion dollar mars program four decades from now? They'll probably
see as little reason to do it as they do now.
>Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>need a heavy-lift vehicle.
Tom, please! The russians have plans for manned mars missions, and even
interstellar ones! What do you think the Salyut stations were? (hint: Mars
mission precursors). The *USA* is the one with *zero* long-term goals.
>If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
>Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
>the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
>blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
We don't need HLV for a killer asteroid, really. If we did see a killer
asteroid, we're dead regardless unless we have a real spaceguard program.
And please don't go on about how the world will end because we're
"fooling with the shuttle's proven design." We're increasing the shuttle's
payload capacity. So you gripe?
>> Japan or ESA don't have HLLVs either.
>
> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>they build heavy-lift?
Um, is it not the case the the Japanese have plans for all sorts of lunar
missions, even manned ones, looking for resources such as He-3 for
large-scale exploitation?
>You say: but the United States doesn't have a
>very ambitious space program either. You may be right.
He certainly would be. The US space program hasn't done *anything* in
space for over a generation. Nor is it going to in another generation.
>Certainly with Clinton in charge.
Oh, please. The Republicans will slash and destroy NASA in their tax
cuts. Can you imagine the Republicans giving the US's Socialized space
program *more* money in their attempt to cut 15% of federal expenditures?
The Republicans will cut NASA's funding even more. Get it?
>I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
>the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
Why do you spout like this?
,,, Save the whales. Collect the whole set.
(o-o) Simon
--oo-(_)-oo--- --------------
Simon Rowland si...@eagle.ca ~Toronto, Canada /=> http://www.asi.org/
We're going back to the Moon! - Commercial Moonbase - the Artemis Project
I do not speak for the Artemis Project, or anyone else for that matter.
tab...@intellex.com
Michael Walsh <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>>
>> >> You dropped a zero, at least. Four hundred twenty million dollars
>> >> is the incremental cost of one Shuttle launch by NASA accounting
>> >> (which does not include any development costs or capital costs).---
>> >---
>> >I did not drop a zero. You seem to be confusing incremental cost
>> >with average cost of a Shuttle launch.
>>
>> You're right! Thanks for the correction. The $420 million figure
>> is still a better one for discussion, since it indicates the costs
>> incurred by lauching more than 20 or so Shuttles per year (new
>> infrastructure, etc.). That is, one can't just add launches
>> indefinitely and expect to pay only $40 million for each.---
Who's talking about launching 20 shuttles per year? Ten would be closer
to the number we would need for a good space program and we don't need new
infrastructure for 10, or at least not much.
>---
>---
>Now we are talking about the same set of numbers. The point of my
>original post and also some comments by George Herbert was that the
>$40 million incremental cost is a highly suspect number. In fact, it
>is impossible if the figures I have seen given for the external tank
>are good. This led to my remark that I wondered if the external tank
>was costed the same way as the rest of the Shuttle. This would mean
>that the cost of another tank might not be too high, but the average
>cost of a tank would be high because of a high fixed cost for keeping
>a production and engineering team in place.
>For a number such as an increase to 20 launches per year it seems
>apparent there would be a necessity to increase the infrastructure
>background cost.
It would if you were launching 20 shuttles but why insert this
unneccessary requirement? Why do we need to launch 20 shuttles per year?
> The $40 million cost can only apply to using the
>current launch facilities at a higher rate and not adding anything
>new to the facilities.
I think that's the idea, and it would apply to the Shuttle-C heavy-lift
vehicle, too.
> It is highly probable that an increased
>launch rate would lower the average cost per shuttle flight, but
>the total program cost would increase.
Yes, it would increase by about $50 million per extra shuttle flight
according to DOD estimates. That's cheap! Dirt cheap for a heavy-lift vehicle!
> It seems to me highly
>probable that the cost would exceed $40 million considerably.
I know of three separate studies which use a figure of $100 million or
less as the cost to add an extra shuttle flight to the shuttle manifest.
>The high fixed costs of the Shuttle indicate to me that not that a
>Shuttle replacement which would allow complete cancellation of the
>Shuttle program is a long term requirement. It also seems to me
>that the entire current contracting structure must be changed because
>if there is a new vehicle with the same subsidized structure, then
>even if the new vehicle is highly efficient it will still be very
>costly.
The high shuttle costs are mainly to do with maintaining the shuttle not
its launch infrastructure. Such things as spending 50,000 man-hours
inspecting and repairing shuttle heat tiles. The shuttle replacement
supposedly won't have heat tiles and will eliminate much of this 50,000
man-hours of work and save money.
tab...@intellex.com
gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) wrote:
>In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
><tab...@intellex.com> writes:
>|>
>|> Assuming Shuttle-C would require no more preparation than a regular space
>|> shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
>|> has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
>|> shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches.
>1) This number is clearly *not* including all the costs (this may be
> just the *labor* cost of adding a flight to the manifest). As you
> point out below, the ET alone costs more than this (never mind the
> SRB's, the SSME, etc.)
Space News reported the $50 million included the cost of the External
Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the fuel.
>2) And we were able to develop this launcher for negligible cost? Even though
> it *has* to be a NASA program? Even though it *has* to share the
> Shuttle infrastructure and hardware? Even though LockMart gets the
> contract? This is incredible.
Well, $2 billion isn't negligible but it is cost-effective. I think
shuttle-C's sharing of the shuttle infrastructure is a plus not a minus.
>See the other elements on this thread for a more encompassing discussion
>on the costs. I can certainly believe HLV could be cheaper per kilo than
>the shuttle to launch (though it could also be more expensive) -- but
>a Shuttle-derived HLV is *very* unlikely to break below $1000/lb.
Well, if it costs $50 million to launch 100 tons to orbit that works out
to $250.00 per pound, if it costs $100 million then it's $500.00 per pound.
Even if adding a shuttle-C to the space shuttle's launch manifest cost $200
million, it would still make your $1000.00 per pound figure. Three separate
reports say this cost is $100 million or less. Shuttle-C looks quite likely
to break below your 1000.00 figure, to me.
>|> >As for the ET, it seems that the fact that it is expended brings the
>|> >belief that it is not very costly. In fact, it is the structural backbone
>|> >of the whole vehicle, and the new Al-Li tank will cost more than many
>|> >medium sized launchers ($70 m).
>|>
>|> We could get by with the cheaper $46 million dollar original all-aluminum
>|> ET if we used Shuttle-C for our cargo hauling. The space shuttle is the one
>|> that needs the aluminum/lithium ET to allow it to lift heavy space station
>|> pieces. Shuttle-C doesn't need any help. :)
Tom Abbott
tab...@intellex.com
Michael Walsh <mp_w...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Jeff Greason wrote:
>>
>> In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
>> <tab...@intellex.com> writes:
>> |>
>> |> Assuming Shuttle-C would require no more preparation than a regular
space
>> |> shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
>> |> has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
>> |> shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches.
>>
>> 1) This number is clearly *not* including all the costs (this may be
>> just the *labor* cost of adding a flight to the manifest). As you
>> point out below, the ET alone costs more than this (never mind the
>> SRB's, the SSME, etc.)
>>
According to Space News a couple of weeks ago, the DOD cost estimate of
$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
included the cost of the External Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the fuel.
>>---
Tom Abbott
tab...@intellex.com
gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) wrote:
>In article <199609280212...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
><tab...@intellex.com> writes:
>|>
>|> Assuming Shuttle-C would require no more preparation than a regular space
>|> shuttle (and my guess is it would require less), the Department of Defense
>|> has estimated it would cost about $50 million dollars to add an extra
>|> shuttle flight to NASA's yearly shuttle schedule of seven launches.
>1) This number is clearly *not* including all the costs (this may be
> just the *labor* cost of adding a flight to the manifest). As you
> point out below, the ET alone costs more than this (never mind the
> SRB's, the SSME, etc.)
Space News reported the $50 million included the cost of the External
Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the fuel.
>2) And we were able to develop this launcher for negligible cost? Even though
> it *has* to be a NASA program? Even though it *has* to share the
> Shuttle infrastructure and hardware? Even though LockMart gets the
> contract? This is incredible.
Well, $2 billion isn't negligible but it is cost-effective. I think
shuttle-C's sharing of the shuttle infrastructure is a plus not a minus.
>See the other elements on this thread for a more encompassing discussion
>on the costs. I can certainly believe HLV could be cheaper per kilo than
>the shuttle to launch (though it could also be more expensive) -- but
>a Shuttle-derived HLV is *very* unlikely to break below $1000/lb.
Well, if it costs $50 million to launch 100 tons to orbit that works out
to $250.00 per pound, if it costs $100 million then it's $500.00 per pound.
Even if adding a shuttle-C to the space shuttle's launch manifest cost $200
million, it would still make your $1000.00 per pound figure. Three separate
reports say this cost is $100 million or less. Shuttle-C looks quite likely
to break below your 1000.00 figure, to me.
>|> >As for the ET, it seems that the fact that it is expended brings the
>|> >belief that it is not very costly. In fact, it is the structural backbone
>|> >of the whole vehicle, and the new Al-Li tank will cost more than many
>|> >medium sized launchers ($70 m).
>|>
>|> We could get by with the cheaper $46 million dollar original all-aluminum
>|> ET if we used Shuttle-C for our cargo hauling. The space shuttle is the one
>|> that needs the aluminum/lithium ET to allow it to lift heavy space station
>|> pieces. Shuttle-C doesn't need any help. :)
Tom Abbott
Tom Carman
si...@eagle.ca (Simon Rowland) wrote:
>> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
> Making a low-weight ET makes sense whether you're launching microgravtiy
>experiments or launching ISS lab modules. And the risk is minimal. They did
>do a test of it, and it pased with flying colours.
> And please don't go on about how the world will end because we're
>"fooling with the shuttle's proven design." We're increasing the shuttle's
>payload capacity. So you gripe?
The gripe is about *HOW* the payload capacity is being increased. The
short version of the argument is:
The AlLi ET costs a lot for a pretty minor improvement. The risk
may or may not be as minimal as you claim: the new tanks cost twice as
much, the alloy is a bitch to weld, and the AlLi LOX tank on DC-X
split like a rotten tomato when DC-X fell over. A Shuttle-C program
(using plain old aluminum tanks) wouldn't cost a lot more, and would
carry double or triple or more the shuttle's payload.
Tom Abbott
Phil Fraering <p...@stiletto.acadian.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Tom Abbott wrote:
>> A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
>> would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
>> modifications. Refraining from changing the shuttle from a proven,
>> reliable transporter of people to and from orbit, into an unknown risk
>> through dubious modifications, such as the lithium/aluminum External
>> Tank, is reason enough, all by itself, to build a shuttle-C heavy-lift
>> vehicle.
>Tom, I don't know what drugs you're on that you think the Shuttle
>has _ever_ been a safe system.
Phil, no rocket is entirely safe but that's not what I said, I said
the shuttle is proven and reliable at getting people to and from orbit
safely, which it is. It's worked every time but once and that one
time wasn't the shuttle's fault.
>> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>> solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>> make it cost effective. Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>> need a heavy-lift vehicle.
>Don't be so sure; lack of money != lack of ambition.
>Also, what happens if the heavy lifter isn't cost-effective? Are
>we then screwed for the next thirty years anyway, like with shuttle?
We would spend $2 billion or less to build shuttle-C. I don't think
that's going to bankrupt us, even if it never flew. We've spent
almost that much modifying the current shuttle stack and we have been
able to afford that haven't we-- even in this time of drastic budget
cuts at NASA?
>> If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
>> Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
>> the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
>> blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
>Tom, a single HLV has little redundancy compared to multiple RLV's.
There are no RLV's.
>You're the one betting the future existance of the human race on
>the reliability of an HLV's _single_ launch.
If we're going to bust an asteriod we'll need more than one
heavy-lift launch. As long as Shuttle-C is as reliable as the space
shuttle has proven to be, I don't see reliability as a problem.
>With RLV's, you can spread your risk _around_. You're not stuck
>with a huge single-point failure in your space program.
We don't have any of these vehicles. I prefer to make my plans
based on what is available. I'm sure glad Wernher von Braun didn't
have that attitude, we would never have had Skylab or Apollo.
Tom Abbott
edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) wrote:
>In article <5324eq$d...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
>says...
>>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>>modules...?
>>
>> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
>No, Tom. You will ask that. Other people will ask, why didn't NASA just
>build the space station modules a bit smaller instead?
Well, maybe you're right, Edward. :)
>Your new untested, untried Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle is every
>bit as as likely to blow up as a lithium/aluminum External Tank.
The standard shuttle has been perfect except for the one time they
launched it outside its design parameters. I would ride it.
> Probably
>more so, since you want to use high-time SSMEs that are not reliable
>enough to be man-rated anymore.
I don't know where you get this notion. I prefer brand new SSME for
shuttle-C, and I prefer to reuse them rather than throw them away
after every flight.
>> A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
>>would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
>>modifications.
>Comparing one bad idea with another is a poor justification for either
>one.
That's a good way of avoiding a substantive rebuttal.
>>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>>
>> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>>make it cost effective.
>According to Robert Zubrin, a private group could do a Mars Direct-style
>mission for ~$3 billion right now, using the Russian Proton.
A Mars Direct "style" mission you say. It won't be Mars Direct if a
Proton is used (or should I say numerous Protons). Mars Direct's
first launch is a 40 ton module. You won't be launching that
"directly" to Mars using a Proton. In fact, it will never get off the
ground since Proton can only put 22 tons in low-Earth orbit.
> His cost
>estimate for a NASA-style Mars Direct mission, using a Shuttle-derived
>heavy-lift vehicle, is $30 billion.
I think Robert has it down to around $5 billion if done the most
efficient way: non-NASA.
> The heavy-lift vehicle does not add
>value to the mission; it only adds cost.
You are the one adding costs to bolster your "argument."
> As far as I can tell, the only
>reason why Zubrin has it in his proposal is that he's trying to sell the
>project to NASA, and NASA would not be interested in a Mars mission that
>didn't require them to develop a heavy-lift vehicle.
Zubrin uses a heavy-lift vehicle because it is the cheapest, least
complicated method with the most chance of success.
>Given an SSTO, a manned Mars mission would cost less than $1 billion (most
>of which goes toward the purchase price for two SSTOs, which could be
>reused for future Mars missions).
We don't have an SSTO, yet. Given a warp drive we could tour the
galaxy.
>> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>>they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
>>very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
>>with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
>>the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
>The program you propose is not ambitious, just expensive.
It's only expensive when you compare it with the numbers you quote
for SSTO, which, IMO, have no basis in reality, at this time.
> As Tom Rogers
>says, it's time to start thinking big about space, instead of thinking
>expensive.
IMO, I am thinking inexpensively when I propose the use of
heavy-lift vehicles for our space program.
Tom Abbott
kmc_...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Karen M Cramer) wrote:
>Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
>: mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
>: >Tom,
>: >Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>: >payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>: >modules...?
>: When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>: untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>: didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
>: A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
>: would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
>: modifications. Refraining from changing the shuttle from a proven,
>: reliable transporter of people to and from orbit, into an unknown risk
>: through dubious modifications, such as the lithium/aluminum External
>: Tank, is reason enough, all by itself, to build a shuttle-C heavy-lift
>: vehicle.
>I agreed with you upto this point. Since when has the shuttle been
>a PROVEN, RELIABLE tresporter of people to and from orbit?
>It may be a known risk which is being made more dangerous, but
>the shuttle certainly isn't reliable and with less than 100
>flights is not really proven either.
I see you got a new email address, Karen. I almost didn't recognize
you!! :) The shuttle has performed its job of moving people to and
from orbit safely every time it has been launched within its design
parameters. That proves it's reliable to me.
>: > The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>: >precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>: I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>: solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>: make it cost effective. Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>: need a heavy-lift vehicle. If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
>: Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
>: the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
>: blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
>: > Japan or ESA don't
>: >have HLLVs either.
>: >---
>: They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>: they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
>: very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
>: with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
>: the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
Tom Abbott
Karen M Cramer
Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: kmc_...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Karen M Cramer) wrote:
: >Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: >: mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
: >: A heavy-lift vehicle wouldn't put astronauts lives in danger and
: >: would cost about as much as Goldin is spending on shuttle
: >: modifications. Refraining from changing the shuttle from a proven,
: >: reliable transporter of people to and from orbit, into an unknown risk
: >: through dubious modifications, such as the lithium/aluminum External
: >: Tank, is reason enough, all by itself, to build a shuttle-C heavy-lift
: >: vehicle.
: >I agreed with you upto this point. Since when has the shuttle been
: >a PROVEN, RELIABLE tresporter of people to and from orbit?
: >It may be a known risk which is being made more dangerous, but
: >the shuttle certainly isn't reliable and with less than 100
: >flights is not really proven either.
: I see you got a new email address, Karen. I almost didn't recognize
: you!! :)
Am I that easy to spot?
Seems like no one around here thought I was someone different
for a moment. Simon even adressed a response to my old account name
evidently without noticing the change.
The shuttle has performed its job of moving people to and
: from orbit safely every time it has been launched within its design
: parameters. That proves it's reliable to me.
Well, if that is your only critieria. I guess to you it is proven
and relable. To me it is still a real turkey and NASA's biggest
mistake, ever.
They should never have sacrificed the Saturn 5 to get the extremely
expensive and useless piece of garbage.
: Tom Abbott
Karen
: External Tank space station Web page:
Edward Wright
In article <3255b...@cochise.ibahn.com>, J...@Dreamweaver.Com says...
>In other words, there is not much need for heavy lifting at $4,000 or
>more per pound, but what kind of commercial potential would there be
>for the development of space resources if the cost of heavy lifting
>were, say, $500 per pound or less? As cost decreases, demand will
>increase. Economics 101 :)
But it costs just as much for a heavy-lift vehicle to launch a
20,000-pound payload as a 160,000-pound payload. Therefore, the cost to
launch a 20,000-pound satellite isn't $500 per pound, but $4,000, and it
has no advantage over competing smaller launchers. Economics 111. :-)
Edward Wright
In article <199610051347...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
tab...@intellex.com says...
> According to Space News a couple of weeks ago, the DOD cost estimate of
>$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
>included the cost of the External Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the
>fuel.
Does DoD still get a special price break on Shuttle missions because they
put up part of the money to fund the STS? Since this is a DoD cost
estimate, it may represent the cost to DoD for those things (i.e., the
price NASA charges them) rather than the cost to NASA, which may be
higher.
Edward Wright
In article <538fj9$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
says...
> Phil, no rocket is entirely safe but that's not what I said, I said
>the shuttle is proven and reliable at getting people to and from orbit
>safely, which it is. It's worked every time but once and that one
>time wasn't the shuttle's fault.
The Bell rocket belt and its successors have flown hundreds of times
without a single accident related to flight hardware. Rockets do not have
to go boom every now and then just to prove they're rockets. If it's not
the Shuttle's fault that it can't launch in moderately nice whether, whose
fault is it? The Evil Russians? (And I do mean moderately nice weather,
not moderately bad, weather -- that little chill wouldn't even delay a
commercial airliner.)
>>Also, what happens if the heavy lifter isn't cost-effective? Are
>>we then screwed for the next thirty years anyway, like with shuttle?
>
> We would spend $2 billion or less to build shuttle-C.
And we were told we'd spend $8 billion or less to build Shuttle 1. Fool us
once, shame you. Fool us twice, shame on us.
>I don't think that's going to bankrupt us, even if it never flew.
>We've spent almost that much modifying the current shuttle stack and
>we have been able to afford that haven't we-- even in this time of
>drastic budget cuts at NASA?
So your argument now is, it's okay to waste money, because we've wasted
just as much money in the past?
>>With RLV's, you can spread your risk _around_. You're not stuck
>>with a huge single-point failure in your space program.
>
> We don't have any of these vehicles. I prefer to make my plans
>based on what is available. I'm sure glad Wernher von Braun didn't
>have that attitude, we would never have had Skylab or Apollo.
I think you admitted more than you may haved wanted in that statement.
If von Braun had developed cost-effective reusable space vehicles in the
1960's, instead of the Saturn V, we would not have had Skylab or Apollo.
Instead, we would have large space stations like the big wheel in 2001 or
the ones von Braun proposed during the 1950's and full-scale expeditions
to the Moon.
Instead of learning the lessons of history, you believe we should put off
the development of real spaceships for another 30 years, as we did in the
1960's, and concentrate on Saturn-class superboosters instead.
Edward Wright
In article <538fhr$l...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com
says...
>>According to Robert Zubrin, a private group could do a Mars Direct-style
>>mission for ~$3 billion right now, using the Russian Proton.
>
> A Mars Direct "style" mission you say. It won't be Mars Direct if a
>Proton is used (or should I say numerous Protons). Mars Direct's
>first launch is a 40 ton module. You won't be launching that
>"directly" to Mars using a Proton. In fact, it will never get off the
>ground since Proton can only put 22 tons in low-Earth orbit.
Two 20-ton modules docked together makes one 40-ton module. For reasons I
don't understand, some people here have the idea that docking is a
dangerious, unproven technology, but I'm sure Zubrin knows better.
>>His cost estimate for a NASA-style Mars Direct mission, using a
>>Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle, is $30 billion.
>
> I think Robert has it down to around $5 billion if done the most
>efficient way: non-NASA.
His actual estimate is $5-6 billion, using only US technology, or $3
billion, using Russian launchers. A plan that costs $5-6 billion is not
more efficient than a plan that costs $3 billion to achieve the same
results.
Furthermore, Zubrin's cost estimate for a non-NASA mission has very little
to do with your desire to give NASA an enormous windfall to develop a new
Satrun-class superbooster. A mission funded by NASA is not a non-NASA
mission, by definition.
>> As far as I can tell, the only
>>reason why Zubrin has it in his proposal is that he's trying to sell the
>>project to NASA, and NASA would not be interested in a Mars mission that
>>didn't require them to develop a heavy-lift vehicle.
> Zubrin uses a heavy-lift vehicle because it is the cheapest, least
>complicated method with the most chance of success.
Sigh. I know you take that as an article of religious faith, but $30
billion is not cheaper than $5-6 billion. It isn't even cheaper than $3
billion.
>>Given an SSTO, a manned Mars mission would cost less than $1 billion
>>(most of which goes toward the purchase price for two SSTOs, which
>>could be reused for future Mars missions).
>We don't have an SSTO, yet. Given a warp drive we could tour the
>galaxy.
No, you would insist that we must first develop a heavy-lift warp drive
that could bring the entire galaxy to us, in one big chunk.
However, despite your slurs toward SSTO, it does not require any
fundamental breakthroughs in physics. It does not require any technology
that is not well in hand. It is every bit as do-able as your heavy-lift
vehicle. Because of its reusability, however, it could be developed
incrementally, unlike your heavy-lift vehicle. That means it would be
easier to develop. It could also be tested thoroughly, which means it
could be saveable, safe, and reliable. Really reliable, not just in some
fatuous sense like "the Shuttle is reliable because it only kills its
entire crew once in every 100 flights or so, and I think that's good
enough."
Greg d. Moore
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <3255b...@cochise.ibahn.com>, J...@Dreamweaver.Com says...
>
> >In other words, there is not much need for heavy lifting at $4,000 or
> >more per pound, but what kind of commercial potential would there be
> >for the development of space resources if the cost of heavy lifting
> >were, say, $500 per pound or less? As cost decreases, demand will
> >increase. Economics 101 :)
>
> But it costs just as much for a heavy-lift vehicle to launch a
> 20,000-pound payload as a 160,000-pound payload. Therefore, the cost to
> launch a 20,000-pound satellite isn't $500 per pound, but $4,000, and it
> has no advantage over competing smaller launchers. Economics 111. :-)
>
So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites. You launch 160,000 lb
satellites. Heck, with 160,000 lb of water up there (20,000 gallons
approximately) you've got a lot of H2 and O2 available for easy cracking on
orbit to fuel your Mars missions or other missions.
Anyone who proposes launching only 20,000 lbs on a 160,000 lb
launcher should be shot. Marxism 111 :-)
> --
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
--
---
str...@acm.rpi.edu |http://acm.rpi.edu/~strider
Green Mountain Software |
I do not speak for anyone in any way.
Greg d. Moore
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <199610051347...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
> tab...@intellex.com says...
>
> >$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
> >included the cost of the External Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the
> >fuel.
>
> Does DoD still get a special price break on Shuttle missions because they
> put up part of the money to fund the STS? Since this is a DoD cost
> estimate, it may represent the cost to DoD for those things (i.e., the
> price NASA charges them) rather than the cost to NASA, which may be
> higher.
here (Wales comes to mind, but I don't think it was him) did a
breakdown and quoted other sources as stating the incremental
cost of adding a flight was about $47 million, that's pretty
close to the DOD estimate of $50 million. Even if you want to
say that's too low, $100 million would be reasonable.
Remember, the biggest two problems with the shuttle
(both inter-related and what ANY SSTO has to avoid to be
cost-effective) is fixed costs and turn-around time. If you
could fly more missions on the shuttle, the cost per mission and
hence cost per pound would drop. Turning around the shuttle
faster is the biggest issue.
One area I firmly disagree with many SSTO advocates is
that the fixed-costs of any SSTO is going to be negligable.
What makes a SSTO most cost-effective I believe is a reasonable
turn-around time.
Jim Kingdon
> the incremental cost of adding a flight was about $47 million, that's
> pretty close to the DOD estimate of $50 million. Even if you want to
> say that's too low, $100 million would be reasonable.
I don't believe any of those numbers (at least I don't believe them
beyond about 10 flights/year). Do they include more OPF facilities?
A VAB expansion? Enough tracking to handle everything (even for the
Florida ELVs, this one isn't fully costed!)?
I'm not believing any of this until I have seen some harder
information (I have a few vague cites, but the better the data which
people are willing to post, the better). The history of the shuttle
program pre-Challenger demonstrates that there are a lot of people
willing to cite completely fictitious marginal cost figures (or in
other words, many of those supposedly-fixed costs are not really
fixed).
Edward Wright
In article <325908...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
says...
>> But it costs just as much for a heavy-lift vehicle to launch a
>> 20,000-pound payload as a 160,000-pound payload. Therefore, the cost to
>> launch a 20,000-pound satellite isn't $500 per pound, but $4,000, and
>> it has no advantage over competing smaller launchers. Economics 111.
:-)
>So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites. You launch 160,000 lb
>satellites.
There are no 160,000-pound satellites.
>Heck, with 160,000 lb of water up there (20,000 gallons approximately)
>you've got a lot of H2 and O2 available for easy cracking on
>orbit to fuel your Mars missions or other missions.
But RCA will get very upset if you deliver their communications satellite
to Mars instead of GEO, and they have no use for 160,000 pounds of water
where their satellite is going.
tab...@intellex.com
si...@eagle.ca (Simon Rowland) wrote:
>>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>>modules...?
>>
>> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
> Making a low-weight ET makes sense whether you're launching microgravtiy
>experiments or launching ISS lab modules.
Yes it does, as long as it doesn't blow up in the process. Being able to
lift more tonnage to low-Earth orbit doesn't do you much good if the vehicle
destructs before it gets halfway there.
> And the risk is minimal.
The risks are unknown. Why take a chance if there is no need to?
Building Shuttle-C would cost about the same and would accomplish the goal
that modifying the shuttle seeks, plus a whole lot more.
> They did
>do a test of it, and it pased with flying colours.
They didn't do a test on a full-scale version of the new External Tank.
> And what's your problem with Dan Goldin?
His policies are a disaster for the United States space program. I have
nothing against him personally.
> He did get ISSA funded, didn't
>he?
What good does it do to get funding for an impossible project. I want a
space station in orbit, not a space station "program" that can't manage to
put anything in orbit but the shuttle.
> He's not doing a bad job.
He's doing a terrible job of space development, which is the area I'm
concerned with.
> Is it just because he sees no reason to fund
>your pet project that you're slandering him?
To be slander it has to be untrue.
>>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>>
>> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>>make it cost effective.
> Tom, you'll be dead before NASA launches any people outside of LEO.
I wouldn't bet the farm on it, Simon.
> How
>old are you? 30?
47.
> If NASA somehow get a launch for Mars in 2030, (when the
>baby boomers start dying off) you'll be passed the average life expectancy
>in the US.
That's why I want them to launch a Moon and Mars mission in the next ten
years. :)
> And what gaurantee is there that the US will be interested in a
>$100 billion dollar mars program four decades from now?
I expect that by 2030 private citizens will be flying around the solar
system in their own personal spacecraft. For the next 20 years NASA should
concentrate on establishing the space development infrastructure required to
enable private citizens to gad about the solar system. That infrastructure
would include: heavy-lift vehicles; inexpensive people launcher (CATS);
low-Earth orbit space station; crew return/rescue vehicle; orbital transfer
vehicles; a Moonbase; and a Marsbase. The next 20 years are what I am
concerned with, Simon.
> They'll probably
>see as little reason to do it as they do now.
They probably will if it costs $100 billion but there's no law that says
it has to cost that much.
>>Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>>need a heavy-lift vehicle.
> Tom, please! The russians have plans for manned mars missions, and even
>interstellar ones!
They have thought experiments. I know of no active planning for manned
Mars missions in Russia.
> What do you think the Salyut stations were?
Space stations.
> (hint: Mars
>mission precursors).
Any activity done in space would be a Mars mission precursor.
> The *USA* is the one with *zero* long-term goals.
I won't argue with that.
>>If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
>>Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
>>the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
>>blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
> We don't need HLV for a killer asteroid, really.
If we don't use heavy-lift we'll need about 50 Titan IV's or Russian
Proton launch vehicles to match the lifting power required. Do you think it
is practical or even possible to launch 50 Titan IV's in a short time frame?
Ten shuttle-C launches or six Saturn V launches are much more practical and
doable than substituting 50 other launch vehicles.
> If we did see a killer
>asteroid, we're dead regardless unless we have a real spaceguard program.
My point exactly. It's high time we took measures to defend ourselves.
The first measure should be finding all the near-Earth objects and
determining their orbits to see whether any of them pose a danger to Earth.
And we should not spend decades on this search as the Clinton administration
favors, we should set a goal of finding all these objects within the next
five years.
> And please don't go on about how the world will end because we're
>"fooling with the shuttle's proven design."
You don't consider that as something to be concerned about?
> We're increasing the shuttle's
>payload capacity. So you gripe?
The shuttle will have zero payload capacity if it blows up.
>>> Japan or ESA don't have HLLVs either.
>>
>> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>>they build heavy-lift?
> Um, is it not the case the the Japanese have plans for all sorts of lunar
>missions, even manned ones, looking for resources such as He-3 for
>large-scale exploitation?
I have to wonder how serious they are. They won't do any manned moon
exploration with their H2 launch vehicle.
>>You say: but the United States doesn't have a
>>very ambitious space program either. You may be right.
> He certainly would be. The US space program hasn't done *anything* in
>space for over a generation.
The US space program has accomplished some things but should have
accomplished ten times as much.
> Nor is it going to in another generation.
Can you predict the winner of the second race at Santa Anita? I need a
little extra cash.
>>Certainly with Clinton in charge.
> Oh, please. The Republicans will slash and destroy NASA in their tax
>cuts.
What do you mean "will?" They're doing it now!
> Can you imagine the Republicans giving the US's Socialized space
>program *more* money in their attempt to cut 15% of federal expenditures?
No I can't, but NASA doesn't need more money (if they stop the cuts now)
to have a good space program.
> The Republicans will cut NASA's funding even more. Get it?
No they won't. They've already cut NASA's funding 30 percent and have put
NASA in jeopardy because of it. I don't think even they will try to cut it
more. Congress should cut every other government agency's budget by 30
percent like they've done NASA's, before they start thinking about cutting
anymore money out of NASA's budget.
>>I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
>>the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
> Why do you spout like this?
Because I care about the US space program's success.
Tom Abbott
Phil Fraering
On 7 Oct 1996, Edward Wright wrote:
> If von Braun had developed cost-effective reusable space vehicles in the
> 1960's, instead of the Saturn V, we would not have had Skylab or Apollo.
> Instead, we would have large space stations like the big wheel in 2001 or
> the ones von Braun proposed during the 1950's and full-scale expeditions
> to the Moon.
That's a good point...
It's also a good point that Von Braun designed the Saturn V from scratch
rather than building a Redstone-C, once they did decide to build a HLV.
> Instead of learning the lessons of history, you believe we should put off
> the development of real spaceships for another 30 years, as we did in the
> 1960's, and concentrate on Saturn-class superboosters instead.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
>
>
>
Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet
Greg d. Moore
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <325908...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
> says...
>
> >> But it costs just as much for a heavy-lift vehicle to launch a
> >> 20,000-pound payload as a 160,000-pound payload. Therefore, the cost to
> >> launch a 20,000-pound satellite isn't $500 per pound, but $4,000, and
> >> it has no advantage over competing smaller launchers. Economics 111.
> :-)
>
> >So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites. You launch 160,000 lb
> >satellites.
>
> There are no 160,000-pound satellites.
>
> >Heck, with 160,000 lb of water up there (20,000 gallons approximately)
> >you've got a lot of H2 and O2 available for easy cracking on
> >orbit to fuel your Mars missions or other missions.
>
> But RCA will get very upset if you deliver their communications satellite
> to Mars instead of GEO, and they have no use for 160,000 pounds of water
> where their satellite is going.
>
Ed, I can't help it if you're going to fly RCA's
satellite to Mars nor can you see the use of cheap water in
space. Several other notables (and I'm not including myself in
this number) have previously suggested this scheme.
And I'm sure if you promised to refuel RCA's satellite
for cheaper than they could launch a new one using a
cyrogenically fueled OTV, they'd think the water was quite
useful.
> --
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
--
mancus
In <539mbr$p...@news.microsoft.com>, edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) writes:
>Instead of learning the lessons of history, you believe we should put off
>the development of real spaceships for another 30 years, as we did in the
>1960's, and concentrate on Saturn-class superboosters instead.
I can't speak for Tom, but this requires an answer. Think about
the following situation:
You are a farmer. Due to poor planning, you see that in a few
years your poor harvests will give you enough food to either eat
_or_ to plant as seed corn, but not both. So you will have the
choice of eating all your seed and starving the following year,
or of planting it and dying of starvation before you can harvest it.
What do you do?
If you're smart, you'll take steps to head off this situation.
You'll try to increase your yields so that you will be able to eat
_and_ plant for the future.
If we're interested in building space stations and/or returning
to the Moon and going to Mars, the most cost-effective way to do
it is to build a heavy-lift vehicle. If we're serious about lowering
the cost of launching to orbit and building up a real commercial
space infrastructure, we should be funding RLV research. THEY ARE
NOT INCOMPATIBLE. Ed's attitude smacks of the Shuttle in the
'70's: You Must Launch Everything On My Vehicle. I see RLV as
useful more for smaller payloads, and BDB for larger ones, allowing
more integration on the ground.
The US is not so poor that it can't afford to fund both.
Especially if ISS is cancelled, but I've already beaten THAT horse
into the ground.
--Cathy Mancus <ca...@zorac.cary.nc.us>
Tom Abbott
edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) wrote:
>In article <199610051347...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
>tab...@intellex.com says...
>> According to Space News a couple of weeks ago, the DOD cost estimate of
>>$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
>>included the cost of the External Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the
>>fuel.
>Does DoD still get a special price break on Shuttle missions because they
>put up part of the money to fund the STS? Since this is a DoD cost
>estimate, it may represent the cost to DoD for those things (i.e., the
>price NASA charges them) rather than the cost to NASA, which may be
>higher.
That I don't know, Edward. I did see a cost figure of $27 million
for an External Tank, so if we use that figure for the ET then it
seems reasonable that $23 million more would pay for the refurbishment
of a couple of solid rocket boosters and the fuel for the ET.
NASA makes it just as difficult as possible to figure out what they
actually pay for things. Deliberately, IMO. :)
Jeff Greason
In article <5324eq$d...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom
Abbott) writes:
|> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
|> they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
|> very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
|> with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
|> the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
Tom, if you think who you vote for in November has some chance of
affecting this situation, better take another look. The difference, if
any, between the candidates on space policy is simply on how fast NASA
should shrink.
Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.
============================================================================
Jeff Greason "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
<gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> and do the other things, not because they
<gre...@ix.netcom.com> are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK
Karen M Cramer
Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) wrote:
: >In article <199610051347...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
: >tab...@intellex.com says...
: >> According to Space News a couple of weeks ago, the DOD cost estimate of
: >>$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
: >>included the cost of the External Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the
: >>fuel.
: >Does DoD still get a special price break on Shuttle missions because they
: >put up part of the money to fund the STS? Since this is a DoD cost
: >estimate, it may represent the cost to DoD for those things (i.e., the
: >price NASA charges them) rather than the cost to NASA, which may be
: >higher.
: That I don't know, Edward. I did see a cost figure of $27 million
: for an External Tank, so if we use that figure for the ET then it
: seems reasonable that $23 million more would pay for the refurbishment
: of a couple of solid rocket boosters and the fuel for the ET.
: NASA makes it just as difficult as possible to figure out what they
: actually pay for things. Deliberately, IMO. :)
That is because they make cost projections on no evidence or lie about
the costs when they do have evidence then have to hide the true costs as
much as posible.
: Tom Abbott
Karen
: External Tank space station Web page:
Jeff Greason
In article <199610051651...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
<tab...@intellex.com> writes:
|> gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) wrote:
|> Space News reported the $50 million included the cost of the External
|> Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the fuel.
Yes, this is the well-known "lower bound" cost. The cost of including
a new Shuttle flight, assuming that we magically gain the necessary
infrastructure and people to do that at no cost.
Unfortunately, we can't launch additional shuttle flights without
adding infrastructure cost .. if we could, we should be flying Shuttle
twice/month and get the cost down that way.
|> >2) And we were able to develop this launcher for negligible cost? Even though
|> > it *has* to be a NASA program? Even though it *has* to share the
|> > Shuttle infrastructure and hardware? Even though LockMart gets the
|> > contract? This is incredible.
|>
|> Well, $2 billion isn't negligible but it is cost-effective. I think
|> shuttle-C's sharing of the shuttle infrastructure is a plus not a minus.
$2 billion, amortized over 5 years, at one flight/year, adds $400 million
per flight. Therefore, even if I accepted this $50 million/flight hardware
cost (which I most definitely do *not*), that would be over $2000/lb.
I'm having a really hard time seeing this as big savings!!!
Edward Wright
In article <325A40...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
says...
>Ed, I can't help it if you're going to fly RCA's
>satellite to Mars nor can you see the use of cheap water in
>space. Several other notables (and I'm not including myself in
>this number) have previously suggested this scheme.
There is not one single generic place called "space." Satellites have to
be launched to very specific orbital locations. Launching satellites,
or water, into "space" at random is about as useful putting a package on a
random airplane and sending it to some unknown spot on Earth.
Now, your superbooster may be able to leap tall orbits in a single bound,
but it's still limited to being in one place at a time. So you have a
choice. You can either deliver the satellite into a specific
slot in geosynchronous orbit -- where the customer will be happy and your
water will be useless -- or you can deliver both to a space station, where
the water will be useful but your paying customer will be very unhappy.
You cannot do both with a single launch.
>And I'm sure if you promised to refuel RCA's satellite
>for cheaper than they could launch a new one using a
>cyrogenically fueled OTV, they'd think the water was quite
>useful.
I actually, I think RCA would probably sue if you refueled their satellite
with water. Even if you used propellent instead of water, the satellite's
tanks would explode if you tried to stuff that much propellent into them.
Using a superbooster for a job like that makes as much sense as using a
semi truck a can of gas to a motorist stranded at the side of the road.
Jacob McGuire
Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 8-Oct-96 Re: Another call for
U.S. H.. by Edward Wright@microsoft.
> but it's still limited to being in one place at a time. So you have a
> choice. You can either deliver the satellite into a specific
> slot in geosynchronous orbit -- where the customer will be happy and your
> water will be useless -- or you can deliver both to a space station, where
> the water will be useful but your paying customer will be very unhappy.
> You cannot do both with a single launch.
But you obviously can. Assuming that you'll stop in a parking orbit a
la Saturn IV (but not quite...), you can then launch into such an
inclination that said parking orbit is somewhere useful, then fire your
upper stage from there, leaving the 100,000 lbs of other stuff at your
space station or whatever.
Edward Wright
In article <53dgb9$1d...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, mancus@ says...
> I can't speak for Tom, but this requires an answer. Think about
>the following situation:
>
> You are a farmer. Due to poor planning, you see that in a few
>years your poor harvests will give you enough food to either eat
>_or_ to plant as seed corn, but not both. So you will have the
>choice of eating all your seed and starving the following year,
>or of planting it and dying of starvation before you can harvest it.
>What do you do?
> If you're smart, you'll take steps to head off this situation.
>You'll try to increase your yields so that you will be able to eat
>_and_ plant for the future.
However, that is not the situation today.
We have a number of small farmers (commercial launch vendors) who produce
meager harvests using inefficient, antiquated methods. They manage to stay
in business because they produce gourmet crops for which a few customers
will pay enormous sums of money. We also have the giant government-run
farm down the road, which receives billions in tax dollars every year but
hasn't returned a harvest since the 1960's.
The few gourmets who can afford buy Belgian Endives at $5000 a pound will
continue to do so, no matter what. Developing a larger farm to produce
$5000 pound radishes benefits nobody.
> If we're interested in building space stations and/or returning
>to the Moon and going to Mars, the most cost-effective way to do
>it is to build a heavy-lift vehicle.
You misspelled "most costly."
>If we're serious about lowering
>the cost of launching to orbit and building up a real commercial
>space infrastructure, we should be funding RLV research. THEY ARE
>NOT INCOMPATIBLE. Ed's attitude smacks of the Shuttle in the
>'70's: You Must Launch Everything On My Vehicle.
Except, of course, that once we increased NASA's budget to the point where
they could begin building this new superbooster, they would begin
protecting it, also, the same way they protected the Space Shuttle.
Offering flights at a loss. Threatening to cancel backup reservations.
Holding secret meetings with potential investors in rival launch
companies. Telling insurance companies that rival launchers are a bad
risk. Pressurizing other government agencies to deny regulatory permits.
You say, let a thousand flowers bloom, but like Mao, you would trample
them under foot. "My launch vehicle" is actually a wide range of
commercial and military launch vehicles offering competing and
complementary services. Your single monolithic government launcher is
incompatible with that vision.
>I see RLV as useful more for smaller payloads, and BDB for larger ones,
>allowing more integration on the ground.
Then why not build it with your own money? If it's really cost-effective,
you should be able to make money with it.
> The US is not so poor that it can't afford to fund both.
Uh, yes it is. The Space Shuttle was supposed to cost $8 billion and cost
>$35 billion. The Space Station was supposed to cost $8 billion and cost
>$100 billion. A new heavy-lift vehicle would cost NASA at least as much
as the Space Shuttle and possibly as much as the Space Station. Ditto a
reuseable launch vehicle. After all, they will require "new technology in
every major system," just like every other large NASA project.
George Herbert
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) wrote:
>>tab...@intellex.com says...
>>> According to Space News a couple of weeks ago, the DOD cost estimate of
>>>$50 million to add an additional shuttle flight to the shuttle schedule
>>>fuel.
>
>>put up part of the money to fund the STS? Since this is a DoD cost
>>estimate, it may represent the cost to DoD for those things (i.e., the
>>price NASA charges them) rather than the cost to NASA, which may be
>>higher.
>
> That I don't know, Edward. I did see a cost figure of $27 million
>for an External Tank, so if we use that figure for the ET then it
>seems reasonable that $23 million more would pay for the refurbishment
>of a couple of solid rocket boosters and the fuel for the ET.
>
> NASA makes it just as difficult as possible to figure out what they
>actually pay for things. Deliberately, IMO. :)
From http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/m_shutt.htm#OPERATIONS
(some items re-abbreviated by myself -gwh)
Item FY95 FY96 FY97
Orbiter & Integration
Orbiter 358.7 378.5 375.4
Syst integ. 169.5 142.5 141.2
Propulsion
External Tank 305.0 327.5 348.7
SSME 168.3 185.0 172.3
RSRM 370.7 395.7 402.9
SRB 163.0 153.3 174.8
Mission & Launch Ops
Lnch & Land. 621.4 544.0 609.9
Mission & Crew 287.7 358.9 289.7
Total 2,444.3 2,485.4 2,514.9
That would put the cost of 8 external tanks at 348.7/8 or $43.6 million
apiece. That would also put the booster costs (odd that they have it
in two seperate categories...) at $36.1 million apiece or $72.2m for
a flight set for refurb / maint costs.
I saw an early 90s AvLeak article stating that the price then was $62m
per SSET and that manufacturing was being optimized by Martin Marietta
(then) to reduce it further. It appears they managed to shave almost
$20m off that price, which is pretty good for them and NASA and the
taxpayer 8-).
-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gher...@ccrl.com
Jim Benson
edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) wrote:
>In article <3255b...@cochise.ibahn.com>, J...@Dreamweaver.Com says...
>>In other words, there is not much need for heavy lifting at $4,000 or
>>more per pound, but what kind of commercial potential would there be
>>for the development of space resources if the cost of heavy lifting
>>were, say, $500 per pound or less? As cost decreases, demand will
>>increase. Economics 101 :)
>But it costs just as much for a heavy-lift vehicle to launch a
>20,000-pound payload as a 160,000-pound payload. Therefore, the cost to
>launch a 20,000-pound satellite isn't $500 per pound, but $4,000, and it
>has no advantage over competing smaller launchers. Economics 111. :-)
Ahem...well I am assuming that light-lift vehicles will lift light
loads and heavy-lift vehicles will lift heavy loads. Systems gain
strength and resilience through diversity - a range of vehicles would
be best. I foresee many more economic and business opportunities with
an inexpensive HLV than having only LLVs as my only choice.
Jim Benson
Edward Wright
In article <4mKeHsq00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu
says...
>> You can either deliver the satellite into a specific slot in
>> geosynchronous orbit -- where the customer will be happy and your
>> water will be useless -- or you can deliver both to a space station,
>> where the water will be useful but your paying customer will be very
>> unhappy. You cannot do both with a single launch.
>But you obviously can. Assuming that you'll stop in a parking orbit a
>la Saturn IV (but not quite...), you can then launch into such an
>inclination that said parking orbit is somewhere useful, then fire your
>upper stage from there, leaving the 100,000 lbs of other stuff at your
>space station or whatever.
1) There was no Saturn IV. We went straight from Saturn IB to Saturn V.
2) Changing orbital inclination requires a lot of delta-vee. If you are in
a 45-degree orbit, you can think of your orbital velocity as having two
equal components: a North-South component and an East-West component. To
go to an equatorial orbit, you have to cancel the entire North-South
component and increase the magnitude of the East-West component. That
requires nearly as much delta-vee as it took to reach orbit in the first
place. An upper stage that can go from a high-inclination orbit to an
equatorial orbit will be nearly as large as an SSTO capable of placing the
same payload into orbit from the Earth's surface. Then you still have to
raise the altitude of the orbit to reach geosynch and circularize the
orbit when you get there. It is much cheaper to use two seperate launches.
Jacob McGuire
Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 8-Oct-96 Re: Another call for
U.S. H.. by Edward Wright@microsoft.
True. That would be me confusing S-IVB and Saturn V.
>2) Changing orbital inclination requires a lot of delta-vee. If you are in
>a 45-degree orbit, you can think of your orbital velocity as having two
>equal components: a North-South component and an East-West component. To
>go to an equatorial orbit, you have to cancel the entire North-South
>component and increase the magnitude of the East-West component. That
>requires nearly as much delta-vee as it took to reach orbit in the first
>place. An upper stage that can go from a high-inclination orbit to an
>equatorial orbit will be nearly as large as an SSTO capable of placing the
>same payload into orbit from the Earth's surface. Then you still have to
>raise the altitude of the orbit to reach geosynch and circularize the
>orbit when you get there. It is much cheaper to use two seperate launches.
Well, not really.
Disregarding aerodynamic drag and gravity losses, you need 8000 m/s to
get to LEO (Hohmann transfer, perigee at sea level). If for some reason
you went totally bonkers and decided to launch into a retrograde
equatorial LEO, you'd still only need 7000 m/s to GEO, and there are no
aero losses and gravity losses can be pretty much ignored if the thrust
of your upper stage is reasonably high. Even going from 51 degrees to
GEO you only need 4850 m/s.
mancus
In <53e913$c...@news.microsoft.com>, edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward Wright) writes:
>In article <53dgb9$1d...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, mancus@ says...
>they could begin building this new superbooster, they would begin
>protecting it, also, the same way they protected the Space Shuttle.
>Offering flights at a loss. Threatening to cancel backup reservations.
>Holding secret meetings with potential investors in rival launch
>companies. Telling insurance companies that rival launchers are a bad
>risk. Pressurizing other government agencies to deny regulatory permits.
I think you need to get your head out of the early 80's. They
don't offer flights at a loss any more; they don't offer commercial
flights at all.
In any case, these are not "rival" launchers. See below.
>"My launch vehicle" is actually a wide range of
>commercial and military launch vehicles offering competing and
>complementary services. Your single monolithic government launcher is
>incompatible with that vision.
No, it's not, it's just one more data point on the "wide range".
>>I see RLV as useful more for smaller payloads, and BDB for larger ones,
>>allowing more integration on the ground.
>Then why not build it with your own money? If it's really cost-effective,
>you should be able to make money with it.
George Herbert is already moving in that direction. I would
like to see it built with private money. Realistically, though,
payloads in this range will make the gov't the only likely _customer_.
>> The US is not so poor that it can't afford to fund both.
>Uh, yes it is. The Space Shuttle was supposed to cost $8 billion and cost
>>$35 billion. The Space Station was supposed to cost $8 billion and cost
>>$100 billion. A new heavy-lift vehicle would cost NASA at least as much
>as the Space Shuttle and possibly as much as the Space Station. Ditto a
>reuseable launch vehicle. After all, they will require "new technology in
>every major system," just like every other large NASA project.
Get your head out of the past. Look at Discovery, Pluto Express,
et al. I refuse to accept your assertion that the future is doomed to
be an endless repeat of the past. I refuse to believe that every project
will always cost more than the one before; in effect, you assert that
people are incapable of learning from their mistakes.
I've bashed NASA pretty hard in the past, but never their engineers.
I worked with a lot of good people in my time at NASA. Give them
a new organizational structure that clears away the deadwood of rules,
and you could see some real results. The problem is stupid management,
from Congress on down.
--Cathy Mancus <ca...@zorac.cary.nc.us>
Greg d. Moore
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <325A40...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
> says...
>
> >Ed, I can't help it if you're going to fly RCA's
> >satellite to Mars nor can you see the use of cheap water in
> >space. Several other notables (and I'm not including myself in
> >this number) have previously suggested this scheme.
>
> There is not one single generic place called "space." Satellites have to
> be launched to very specific orbital locations. Launching satellites,
> or water, into "space" at random is about as useful putting a package on a
> random airplane and sending it to some unknown spot on Earth.
fly usually, as long as you meet the criteria. Putting 160,000 lbs of water
into space for under $1000/lb may be a good X-prize competition. But that's
besides the point here.
> Now, your superbooster may be able to leap tall orbits in a single bound,
> but it's still limited to being in one place at a time. So you have a
> choice. You can either deliver the satellite into a specific
> slot in geosynchronous orbit -- where the customer will be happy and your
> water will be useless -- or you can deliver both to a space station, where
> the water will be useful but your paying customer will be very unhappy.
> You cannot do both with a single launch.
> Ed, do me a favor. Point out where I suggested we fly RCA's
satellite and the water on the same flight? You're the one who introduced
RCA's mythical satellite. If they want to launch just one they should use a
smaller booster.
Trying to do both in one launch would be foolish and I never proposed
it. You brought it up.
> >And I'm sure if you promised to refuel RCA's satellite
> >for cheaper than they could launch a new one using a
> >cyrogenically fueled OTV, they'd think the water was quite
> >useful.
>
> I actually, I think RCA would probably sue if you refueled their satellite
> with water. Even if you used propellent instead of water, the satellite's
> tanks would explode if you tried to stuff that much propellent into them.
> Using a superbooster for a job like that makes as much sense as using a
> semi truck a can of gas to a motorist stranded at the side of the road.
> Oh, I see. So when I fill my gas tank at the gas station it comes
out of a fuel tank the same size that was in turn filled from fuel tank the
same size, etc. Sorry. I just filled my gas tank the other day from an 8000
gallon fuel tank and guess what, it didn't explode. Of course I didn't try
to put 8000 gallons of fuel in. And I never suggested you put 160,000
lbs of H2 and 02 into RCA's satellite. Stop raising ridiculous strawmen.
Let me make it simple:
With 160,000 lbs of water on orbit, you can easily use solar power to
crack it into H2 and 02. These make handy propellents. These propellents
can be used to fuel your OTV and to fuel satellites. Is this a hard idea to
grasp?
> --
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
--
Greg d. Moore
Jeff Greason wrote:
>
> In article <199610051651...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>,
> <tab...@intellex.com> writes:
> |> gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) wrote:
>
> |> Tank, the solid rocket boosters and the fuel.
>
> a new Shuttle flight, assuming that we magically gain the necessary
> infrastructure and people to do that at no cost.
>
This is not entirely impossible. We've flown 10 flights
in a 12 month period. So it's possible, of course in that case
we lost Challanger. We've flown 8 flights several times in a 12
month period. Several people from NASA (whose names escape me)
have suggested with some relatively minor changes 12 flights a
year would be possible. From 7 to 12 represents a significant
leap in the number of flights available.
> Unfortunately, we can't launch additional shuttle flights without
> adding infrastructure cost .. if we could, we should be flying Shuttle
> twice/month and get the cost down that way.
> And this is where the shuttle fails. We just can't
launch it often enough to make it cheap enough. Refering to my
other post, if we could bring the cost per flight down to $200
million (from about $355 million) through adding more flights,
our cost per lb (assuming 40,000lb to LEO (see Wales Larrison
for this argument) would be: $5000 vs. the current $8875.
If we can cut costs further we'd be in great shape. However, I
don't think we could do more than 12 a year at all. (And 12
would be pushing it.)
> |> >2) And we were able to develop this launcher for negligible cost? Even though
> |> > it *has* to be a NASA program? Even though it *has* to share the
> |> > Shuttle infrastructure and hardware? Even though LockMart gets the
> |> > contract? This is incredible.
> |>
> |> Well, $2 billion isn't negligible but it is cost-effective. I think
> |> shuttle-C's sharing of the shuttle infrastructure is a plus not a minus.
>
> $2 billion, amortized over 5 years, at one flight/year, adds $400 million
> per flight. Therefore, even if I accepted this $50 million/flight hardware
> cost (which I most definitely do *not*), that would be over $2000/lb.
> I'm having a really hard time seeing this as big savings!!!
> Compared to $8875 that's pretty cheap. Of course the
trick would be to fly this 2 times a year or more.
> Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
> and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.
> ================================================================
============
> Jeff Greason "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
> <gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> and do the other things, not because they
> <gre...@ix.netcom.com> are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK
--
Karen M Cramer
.acadian.net>
Distribution:
Phil Fraering (p...@stiletto.acadian.net) wrote:
: On 7 Oct 1996, Edward Wright wrote:
: > If von Braun had developed cost-effective reusable space vehicles in the
: > 1960's, instead of the Saturn V, we would not have had Skylab or Apollo.
: > Instead, we would have large space stations like the big wheel in 2001 or
: > the ones von Braun proposed during the 1950's and full-scale expeditions
: > to the Moon.
: That's a good point...
: It's also a good point that Von Braun designed the Saturn V from scratch
: rather than building a Redstone-C, once they did decide to build a HLV.
: > Instead of learning the lessons of history, you believe we should put off
: > the development of real spaceships for another 30 years, as we did in the
: > 1960's, and concentrate on Saturn-class superboosters instead.
: I couldn't have said it better myself.
One major difference between the Saturn 5 and the shuttle is that
it would have only cost $100 million to keep Saturn 5 production
open where as to keep flying the shuttle costs several billion.
Also since people around here keep saying how easy it would be
to develop a SSTO/RLV if they had a little money then why not dump
the shuttle and develop the nice low cost SSTO/RLV with existing
technology within the next few years?
: > The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
: > and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
: >
: >
: >
: Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet
: p...@acadian.net service provider nor my employer.
: 318/261-9649
: sci.space.policy: Fifteen minutes into the future!
Karen
Greg d. Moore
George Herbert wrote:
>
> Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > That I don't know, Edward. I did see a cost figure of $27 million
> >for an External Tank, so if we use that figure for the ET then it
> >seems reasonable that $23 million more would pay for the refurbishment
> >of a couple of solid rocket boosters and the fuel for the ET.
> >
> > NASA makes it just as difficult as possible to figure out what they
> >actually pay for things. Deliberately, IMO. :)
>
Oh no, actual numbers. Whatcan the world be coming to. :-)
> From http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/m_shutt.htm#OPERATIONS
> (some items re-abbreviated by myself -gwh)
>
> Item FY95 FY96 FY97
> Orbiter & Integration
> Orbiter 358.7 378.5 375.4
> Syst integ. 169.5 142.5 141.2
> Propulsion
> External Tank 305.0 327.5 348.7
> SSME 168.3 185.0 172.3
> RSRM 370.7 395.7 402.9
> SRB 163.0 153.3 174.8
> Mission & Launch Ops
> Lnch & Land. 621.4 544.0 609.9
> Mission & Crew 287.7 358.9 289.7
>
> Total 2,444.3 2,485.4 2,514.9
>
>
> That would put the cost of 8 external tanks at 348.7/8 or $43.6 million
> apiece. That would also put the booster costs (odd that they have it
> in two seperate categories...) at $36.1 million apiece or $72.2m for
> a flight set for refurb / maint costs.
>
> I saw an early 90s AvLeak article stating that the price then was $62m
> per SSET and that manufacturing was being optimized by Martin Marietta
> (then) to reduce it further. It appears they managed to shave almost
> $20m off that price, which is pretty good for them and NASA and the
> taxpayer 8-).
>
So, based on actual NASA budgetery numbers, we can claim cost for 7
flights is $355 million.
We know we need a new ET and refurbished RSRM and SRB sets. One
question George, are you sure the SRB's are double in price or per set.
(ie did you divide by 7 or 14? Makes a big difference.)
Assuming you divide by 7, for 1997 we get a cost of about
$156 million in hardware.
$335-$156 million gives $179 million per flight difference. The
question then becomes how much of this is fixed cost (i.e. heating/cooling
the VAB, etc.) and how much gets allocated per flight.
At the very least it gives us an upper and lower bound on costs.
> -george william herbert
> Retro Aerospace
> gher...@ccrl.com
--
Gil Andrade
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <325A40...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
> says...
> be launched to very specific orbital locations. Launching satellites,
> or water, into "space" at random is about as useful putting a package on a
> random airplane and sending it to some unknown spot on Earth.
>
> but it's still limited to being in one place at a time. So you have a
> choice. You can either deliver the satellite into a specific
> slot in geosynchronous orbit -- where the customer will be happy and your
> water will be useless -- or you can deliver both to a space station, where
> the water will be useful but your paying customer will be very unhappy.
> You cannot do both with a single launch.
If an cheap-to-run Expendable HLV existed, people would no more use
it for single satellite launches then they do with ATLAS or ARIENE.
You combine multiple satellites per launch...
Also the most effective (but not the simplest) Earth Orbit transport system
would be to have cargo/satellites delivered to LEO by the SSTO or HLV etc.
Then use an in-orbit OMV to move/refuel the satellites.
Left over HLV or SSTO launch capacity could be used to launch extra
propelant that would be then stored in various orbits. Ex: LEO-equator,
LEO-Station, LEO-polar, GEO-transfer. that then could be used to re-fuel
the OMV, the space-stations, satellites, etc.
In addition to this, if the Expendable booster's second-stage (the ones
that make it to orbit) were developed with multiple use in mind. To use
as boosters plus once in orbit and emptied/purged as space-habitats or
fuel-storage-stations. A growing transport and human habitat infrastructure
would be left in Earth orbit with every Launch.
Gil
Edward Wright
In article <325BB7...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
says...
>Ed, do me a favor. Point out where I suggested we fly RCA's
>satellite and the water on the same flight?
Here you go.
>So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites. You launch 160,000 lb
>satellites. Heck, with 160,000 lb of water up there (20,000 gallons
>approximately) you've got a lot of H2 and O2 available for easy cracking
>on orbit to fuel your Mars missions or other missions.
>Anyone who proposes launching only 20,000 lbs on a 160,000 lb
>launcher should be shot. Marxism 111 :-)
>And I'm sure if you promised to refuel RCA's satellite for cheaper
>than they could launch a new one using a cyrogenically fueled OTV,
>they'd think the water was quite useful.
>You're the one who introduced RCA's mythical satellite. If they want
>to launch just one they should use a smaller booster.
Okay, so now your superbooster is limited to launching water.
Unfortunately, water is useless unless someone can rendezvous and dock
with it, and the whole justification for superboosters here is based on
the (rather odd) premise that docking is difficult and unproven.
On the other hand, if docking is possible (as proven by Project Gemini),
you don't need a heavy-lift vehicle to carry water. Ten 5-gallon pails
work just as well as one 50-gallon pail. An SSTO could launch any amount
of water you need, for much less cost.
> Let me make it simple:
> With 160,000 lbs of water on orbit, you can easily use solar power to
>crack it into H2 and 02. These make handy propellents. These
>propellents can be used to fuel your OTV and to fuel satellites.
>Is this a hard idea to grasp?
Not at all, except that 1) most satellites use storable propellents, not
H2 and O2, 2) commercial satellites become obsolete almost as fast as
personal computers, so there is probably little demand to refuel them, and
3) it doesn't make much sense to spend billions of dollars to develop a
specialized vehicle that would launch water less efficiently than an SSTO.
--
Greg d. Moore
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <325BB7...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>, str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu
> says...
>
> >Ed, do me a favor. Point out where I suggested we fly RCA's
> >satellite and the water on the same flight?
>
> Here you go.
>
> >So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites. You launch 160,000 lb
> >satellites. Heck, with 160,000 lb of water up there (20,000 gallons
> >approximately) you've got a lot of H2 and O2 available for easy cracking
> >on orbit to fuel your Mars missions or other missions.
>
> >Anyone who proposes launching only 20,000 lbs on a 160,000 lb
> >launcher should be shot. Marxism 111 :-)
>
> >And I'm sure if you promised to refuel RCA's satellite for cheaper
> >than they could launch a new one using a cyrogenically fueled OTV,
> >they'd think the water was quite useful.
>
> >You're the one who introduced RCA's mythical satellite. If they want
> >to launch just one they should use a smaller booster.
>
Umm. Perhaps you can point out where I say we should fly them both on
the same flight. I'm still missing it and I suspect others are too. Perhaps
the sentence, "So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites." and the sentence,
"Anyone who proposes launching only 20,000 lbs on a 160,000 lb launcher should
be shot. Marxism 111 :-)" are a bit unclear.
> Okay, so now your superbooster is limited to launching water.
> Unfortunately, water is useless unless someone can rendezvous and dock
> with it, and the whole justification for superboosters here is based on
> the (rather odd) premise that docking is difficult and unproven.
>
The only justification for a HLLV is to avoid docking? Perhaps to
others, not to me. The justification for an HLLV in this case is TO PUT A LOT
INTO SPACE AS CHEAPLY as possible.
> On the other hand, if docking is possible (as proven by Project Gemini),
> you don't need a heavy-lift vehicle to carry water. Ten 5-gallon pails
> work just as well as one 50-gallon pail. An SSTO could launch any amount
> of water you need, for much less cost.
> Since there are no SSTO's or HLLV flying, I don't think one can
unequivecally make such a claim.
> > Let me make it simple:
> > With 160,000 lbs of water on orbit, you can easily use solar power to
> >crack it into H2 and 02. These make handy propellents. These
> >propellents can be used to fuel your OTV and to fuel satellites.
> >Is this a hard idea to grasp?
>
> Not at all, except that 1) most satellites use storable propellents, not
> H2 and O2, 2) commercial satellites become obsolete almost as fast as
> personal computers, so there is probably little demand to refuel them, and
> 3) it doesn't make much sense to spend billions of dollars to develop a
> specialized vehicle that would launch water less efficiently than an SSTO.
> 1) They do that because there is no ability to refuel them.
2) Satellites do not become obsolete. (unless we are changing
transponder frequencies on a yearly basis, which we aren't.) They either A)
run out of fuel or B) transponder space. Refueling them eliminates A).
Servicing them via an OTV may alleviate B.
3) Again, until one of them is built, I don't think this claim is as
clear cut as you claim.
> --
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
--
Edward Wright
In article <325BE4...@fmr.com>, Gil.A...@fmr.com says...
>If an cheap-to-run Expendable HLV existed, people would no more use
>it for single satellite launches then they do with ATLAS or ARIENE.
>You combine multiple satellites per launch...
It's the other way around. Combining multiple satellites on a single
launch is a pain in the arse. My launch is delayed because your satellite
has a mechanical failure, then your launch is delayed because my batteries
ran down while I was waiting for your glitch to be fixed, and both of us
are forced to settle for less-than-ideal orbits to accomodate both
payloads on a single launch. The only reason why people put up with this
is because launch costs are so high that they must be shared between
users.
>In addition to this, if the Expendable booster's second-stage (the ones
>that make it to orbit) were developed with multiple use in mind. To use
>as boosters plus once in orbit and emptied/purged as space-habitats or
>fuel-storage-stations. A growing transport and human habitat
>infrastructure would be left in Earth orbit with every Launch.
Of course, if you have an SSTO, you can do the same thing, but you
can design a habitat that functions only as a habitat, rather than one
that must function as both a habitat and a high-performance rocket stage.
It isn't hard to see which habitat module would be cheaper.
Edward Wright
In article <325C38...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>,
str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu says...
>Umm. Perhaps you can point out where I say we should fly them both on
>the same flight. I'm still missing it and I suspect others are too.
If you don't launch them on the same flight, you're right back where you
started. There are no 160,000-pound satellites to launch on your
superbooster. If you launch a 10,000-pound satellite, you still have to
charge them for the full launch. You cannot split the launch with a
payload that goes on another flight.
>Perhaps the sentence, "So, you don't launch 20,000 lb satellites." and
>the sentence, "Anyone who proposes launching only 20,000 lbs on a
160,000
>lb launcher should be shot. Marxism 111 :-)" are a bit unclear.
Okay, so you aren't going to be launching 20,000-pound satellites on
your superbooster. You aren't going to be launching 160,000-pound
satellites, either, because there aren't any. What are you going to be
launching? Nothing but water?
>The only justification for a HLLV is to avoid docking? Perhaps to
>others, not to me. The justification for an HLLV in this case is TO
>PUT A LOT INTO SPACE AS CHEAPLY as possible.
Which it doesn't do. Small, cheap vehicles, flying often, can put a lot
more into space, a lot more cheaply than giant, high-cost vehicles
flying infrequently.
>>1) most satellites use storable propellents, not H2 and O2
> 1) They do that because there is no ability to refuel them.
No, they do that because cryogens boil off very rapidly, unless you're
going to refuel them every few days. The amount of propellents used by
one satellite is not exactly large enough to justify a 160,000-pound
payload, either.
>>2) commercial satellites become obsolete almost as fast as personal
>>computers, so there is probably little demand to refuel them,
>2) Satellites do not become obsolete. (unless we are changing
>transponder frequencies on a yearly basis, which we aren't.)
You're in the software industry, and you aren't aware of how rapidly
electronics are evolving?
>>3) it doesn't make much sense to spend billions of dollars to develop
>>a specialized vehicle that would launch water less efficiently than
>>an SSTO.
>3) Again, until one of them is built, I don't think this claim is as
>clear cut as you claim.
Sorry. I forgot you're already turning out your heavy-lift vehicles by
the dozens.
Michael Walsh
Edward Wright wrote:
>
> In article <325C38...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu>,
> str...@linux1.acm.rpi.edu says...
>
>
> >others, not to me. The justification for an HLLV in this case is TO
> >PUT A LOT INTO SPACE AS CHEAPLY as possible.
>
> Which it doesn't do. Small, cheap vehicles, flying often, can put a lot
> more into space, a lot more cheaply than giant, high-cost vehicles
> flying infrequently.
---
---
Engineering trade-offs. Comparative design results.
Ability to prove statements by reference to real cost data.
There are some design trade-offs on very paper vehicles which
compare RLV's and smaller reusable vehicles ( In the case that
I am familiar with a 2 stage recoverable vehicle vs. a larger
than Saturn V class HLV. The HLV costed out better when there
was a repetitive requirement to launch very large amounts into
orbit. This study was very limited and there was no attempt
to define any mission or mission requirements which needed the
HLV.
The RLV was designed to put 22,000 lbs. into orbit and its basic
mission was to re-supply a space station. The HLV was obviously
not appropriate for this task. The RLV was also to be used
as a satellite launcher and for various space missions. This
study was from 1962-65 and one of a series of studies conducted
by NASA before they moved on to the Shuttle program.
No one had any real cost data then. The current "real cost" data
is Shuttle data and Saturn data. This data is mostly in-applicable
or dated. It is almost useless.
I don't believe either one of you or any of the other people
arguing this issue have enough information to prove anything.
Oh, not having enough information doesn't keep me from expressing
an opinion either.
I believe an HLV would have lower costs if a sufficient number
of very large payloads were required. I do not know if the number
of payloads required for something like a Mar's mission would be
sufficient to cover development as well as operational costs.
I believe we need an RLV with a payload similar to the one I
described for manned operations and space station re-supply. I
regard this as a higher priority than an HLV.
Mike Walsh
Tom Abbott
si...@eagle.ca (Simon Rowland) wrote:
>>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>>modules...?
>>
>> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
> Making a low-weight ET makes sense whether you're launching microgravtiy
>experiments or launching ISS lab modules.
Yes it does, as long as it doesn't blow up in the process. Being
able to lift more tonnage to low-Earth orbit doesn't do you much good
if the vehicle destructs before it gets halfway there.
> And the risk is minimal.
The risks are unknown. Why take a chance if there is no need to?
Building Shuttle-C would cost about the same and would accomplish the
goal that modifying the shuttle seeks, plus a whole lot more.
> They did
>do a test of it, and it pased with flying colours.
They didn't do a test on a full-scale version of the new External
Tank.
> And what's your problem with Dan Goldin?
His policies are a disaster for the United States space program. I
have nothing against him personally.
> He did get ISSA funded, didn't
>he?
What good does it do to get funding for an impossible project. I
want a space station in orbit, not a space station "program" that
can't manage to put anything in orbit but the shuttle.
> He's not doing a bad job.
He's doing a terrible job of space development, which is the area
I'm concerned with.
> Is it just because he sees no reason to fund
>your pet project that you're slandering him?
To be slander it has to be untrue.
>>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>>
>> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>>make it cost effective.
> Tom, you'll be dead before NASA launches any people outside of LEO.
I wouldn't bet the farm on it, Simon.
> How
>old are you? 30?
47.
> If NASA somehow get a launch for Mars in 2030, (when the
>baby boomers start dying off) you'll be passed the average life expectancy
>in the US.
That's why I want them to launch a Moon and Mars mission in the next
ten years. :)
> And what gaurantee is there that the US will be interested in a
>$100 billion dollar mars program four decades from now?
I expect that by 2030 private citizens will be flying around the
solar system in their own personal spacecraft. For the next 20 years
NASA should concentrate on establishing the space development
infrastructure required to enable private citizens to gad about the
solar system. That infrastructure would include: heavy-lift vehicles;
inexpensive people launcher (CATS); low-Earth orbit space station;
crew return/rescue vehicle; orbital transfer vehicles; a Moonbase; and
a Marsbase. The next 20 years are what I am concerned with, Simon.
> They'll probably
>see as little reason to do it as they do now.
They probably will if it costs $100 billion but there's no law that
says it has to cost that much.
>>Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>>need a heavy-lift vehicle.
> Tom, please! The russians have plans for manned mars missions, and even
>interstellar ones!
They have thought experiments. I know of no active planning for
manned Mars missions in Russia.
> What do you think the Salyut stations were?
Space stations.
> (hint: Mars
>mission precursors).
Any activity done in space would be a Mars mission precursor.
> The *USA* is the one with *zero* long-term goals.
I won't argue with that.
>>If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
>>Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
>>the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
>>blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
> We don't need HLV for a killer asteroid, really.
If we don't use heavy-lift we'll need about 50 Titan IV's or
Russian Proton launch vehicles to match the lifting power required.
Do you think it is practical or even possible to launch 50 Titan IV's
in a short time frame? Ten shuttle-C launches or six Saturn V
launches are much more practical and doable than substituting 50 other
launch vehicles.
> If we did see a killer
>asteroid, we're dead regardless unless we have a real spaceguard program.
My point exactly. It's high time we took measures to defend
ourselves. The first measure should be finding all the near-Earth
objects and determining their orbits to see whether any of them pose a
danger to Earth. And we should not spend decades on this search as
the Clinton administration favors, we should set a goal of finding all
these objects within the next five years.
> And please don't go on about how the world will end because we're
>"fooling with the shuttle's proven design."
You don't consider that as something to be concerned about?
> We're increasing the shuttle's
>payload capacity. So you gripe?
The shuttle will have zero payload capacity if it blows up.
>>> Japan or ESA don't have HLLVs either.
>>
>> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>>they build heavy-lift?
> Um, is it not the case the the Japanese have plans for all sorts of lunar
>missions, even manned ones, looking for resources such as He-3 for
>large-scale exploitation?
I have to wonder how serious they are. They won't do any manned
moon exploration with their H2 launch vehicle.
>>You say: but the United States doesn't have a
>>very ambitious space program either. You may be right.
> He certainly would be. The US space program hasn't done *anything* in
>space for over a generation.
The US space program has accomplished some things but should have
accomplished ten times as much.
> Nor is it going to in another generation.
Can you predict the winner of the second race at Santa Anita? I
need a little extra cash.
>>Certainly with Clinton in charge.
> Oh, please. The Republicans will slash and destroy NASA in their tax
>cuts.
What do you mean "will?" They're doing it now!
> Can you imagine the Republicans giving the US's Socialized space
>program *more* money in their attempt to cut 15% of federal expenditures?
No I can't, but NASA doesn't need more money (if they stop the cuts
now) to have a good space program.
> The Republicans will cut NASA's funding even more. Get it?
No they won't. They've already cut NASA's funding 30 percent and
have put NASA in jeopardy because of it. I don't think even they will
try to cut it more. Congress should cut every other government
agency's budget by 30 percent like they've done NASA's, before they
start thinking about cutting anymore money out of NASA's budget.
>>I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
>>the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
> Why do you spout like this?
Because I care about the US space program's success.
Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
>--
>---
>str...@acm.rpi.edu |http://acm.rpi.edu/~strider
>Green Mountain Software |
>I do not speak for anyone in any way.
Here's some more numbers on External Tanks:
CHANGES FROM FY 1995 BUDGET ESTIMATE TO FY 1995 CURRENT ESTIMATE
(Dollars in Millions)
Funding for Propulsion Upgrades is reduced $84.6 million. This
reflects a reduction of $53.1 million as part of the general reduction
directed by Congress and an additional reduction of $31.5 million due
to program changes. The Congressional reduction is accommodated
through application of the remaining $14.5 million of the $30 million
anticipated savings from reduced ASRM
requirements and an additional reduction of $38.6 million in the Super
Lightweight Tank (SLWT). The total change in SLWT funding reflects
the the contractor's current estimate of funding requirements for the
initial FY 1997 launch program, as well as the deletion of the
additional baseline External Tank (-$27.0 million) which had been
carried as schedule insurance.
Shaun Bill
Which is more expensive?
Build a HLV?
Launch several smaller rockets and put pieces together in space?
What was payload capacity of a Saturn V?
What is payload capacity of a Titan?
What is payload capacity of the Space Shuttle?
At what point is it more feasible to do a HLV?
Kethas epetai-Khemara
<snip>
: : > The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
: : I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
: : solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
: : make it cost effective. Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
: : need a heavy-lift vehicle. If the U.S doesn't intend to explore the
: : Moon or Mars then we don't need a heavy-lift vehicle either, except in
: : the case where we discover a killer asteriod bearing down on us, or
: : blow up a shuttle by fooling with its proven design.
<snip>
: : They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
: : they build heavy-lift? You say: but the United States doesn't have a
: : very ambitious space program either. You may be right. Certainly
: : with Clinton in charge. I'm hoping that will change, I'm not sure
: : the space program can stand another four years of Clinton.
Would an Orion make a good heavy lift vehicle?(Idea stolen from one of
L. Niven's
books, don't know how viable it is, as I am feeling too lazy to do the
calculations at the moment)
Methinks it would. You could put an *entire* space station on it, and lift
the whole thing into orbit.
BTW: Does anyone think the breakthrough at Imperial college,
concerning commercial fusion reactors, will lead to development of a
viable fusion drive? Or is there already a (suppressed) patent?
--
*****************************************
* *
* From: Wayne Haley *
* a.k.a."Kethas epetai-Khemara" *
* < wm...@alpha2.bton.ac.uk > *
*---------------------------------------*
* "Malt does more than Milton can, *
* to justify Gods ways to man." *
* *
* -G. Benford. *
*****************************************
Tom Abbott
Shaun Bill <slb...@mtco.com> wrote:
>Which is more expensive?
>Build a HLV?
>Launch several smaller rockets and put pieces together in space?
Well, that's a good question and it depends a lot on your goals and
the circumstances. If you put a space station together like the
Russians did their Mir space station you can do it fairly cheaply and
without heavy-lift vehicles. If you put a space station together the
way the Clinton and Goldin have decided to do the Alpha international
space station, then it is extremely expensive and a heavy-lift vehicle
is almost essential, although Goldin is trying to compensate by
extensively modifying the space shuttle to increase it's payload
capacity.
If we are planning on doing anything other than making a few trips
to a low-Earth orbit space station every once and a while, we will
need heavy-lift vehicles to make it cost effective (cheap reuseable
vehicles (RLV) would also be effective at reducing space development
costs, but we're talking near-term here:the next 20 years.
>What was payload capacity of a Saturn V?
130+ tons to low-Earth orbit.
>What is payload capacity of a Titan?
About 22 tons to low-Earth orbit.
>What is payload capacity of the Space Shuttle?
About 28 tons to low-Earth orbit.
>At what point is it more feasible to do a HLV?
Now! :)
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm
Shaun Bill <slb...@mtco.com> wrote:
>Which is more expensive?
>Build a HLV?
>Launch several smaller rockets and put pieces together in space?
Well, that's a good question and it depends a lot on your goals and
the circumstances. If you put a space station together like the
Russians did their Mir space station you can do it fairly cheaply and
without heavy-lift vehicles. If you put a space station together the
way the Clinton and Goldin have decided to do the Alpha international
space station, then it is extremely expensive and a heavy-lift vehicle
is almost essential to even hope to get it built.
If we are planning on doing anything other than making a few trips
to a low-Earth orbit space station every once and a while, we will
need heavy-lift vehicles to make it cost effective (cheap reuseable
vehicles (RLV) would also be effective at reducing space development
costs, but we're talking near-term here:the next 20 years.
>What was payload capacity of a Saturn V?
130+ tons to low-Earth orbit.
>What is payload capacity of a Titan?
About 22 tons to low-Earth orbit.
>What is payload capacity of the Space Shuttle?
About 28 tons to low-Earth orbit.
>At what point is it more feasible to do a HLV?
Now! :)
Simon Rowland
>>>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>>>modules...?
>>>
>>> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>>>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>>>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
>
>> Making a low-weight ET makes sense whether you're launching microgravtiy
>>experiments or launching ISS lab modules.
>
> Yes it does, as long as it doesn't blow up in the process. Being
>able to lift more tonnage to low-Earth orbit doesn't do you much good
>if the vehicle destructs before it gets halfway there.
>
>> And the risk is minimal.
>
> The risks are unknown.
They did a test of it. For a reason. The risks are known to be small,
because the test passed.
>> They did
>>do a test of it, and it pased with flying colours.
>
> They didn't do a test on a full-scale version of the new External
>Tank.
They did a test of something that was close enough to be useful in
determining risk for the full-size ET.
>> And what's your problem with Dan Goldin?
>
> His policies are a disaster for the United States space program. I
>have nothing against him personally.
Why don't you ever give envidence for these silly assertions? It seems to
be a trait of our species that people argue conclusions, not arguments,
while the arguments are the only important things. How many times have you
said the above? And you're still yet to substantiate it aside from this
silly self-sufficiency romanticism and an even sillier mistrust of Russia.
And then, of course, your sickening egoism related to international
support.
>> He did get ISSA funded, didn't he?
>
> What good does it do to get funding for an impossible project. I
>want a space station in orbit, not a space station "program" that
>can't manage to put anything in orbit but the shuttle.
Erm, at JSC there are several ISS hab modules on the critical path to
launch right now, FYI. All the Artemis Society guys down in Houston are
tied up getting those modules launched, and aren't doing as much moonbase
technical work :)
>> He's not doing a bad job.
>
> He's doing a terrible job of space development, which is the area
>I'm concerned with.
Unsupported assertion. This is an inexpert opinion, a taste, a
preference. It shall be taken for what it's worth.s
>> Is it just because he sees no reason to fund
>>your pet project that you're slandering him?
>
> To be slander it has to be untrue.
It is untrue until you give some evidence that indicates it is true.
>>>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>>>
>>> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>>>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>>>make it cost effective.
>
>> Tom, you'll be dead before NASA launches any people outside of LEO.
>
> I wouldn't bet the farm on it, Simon.
You're older then I thought (by about 4 times...). You'll definately be
long dead. At least you'll live for Artemis, and you'll be able to spend
your last days in retirement on the Moon. Well, provided you've got some
hefty retirement savings, anyway...
>> How old are you? 30?
>
> 47.
>
>> If NASA somehow get a launch for Mars in 2030, (when the
>>baby boomers start dying off) you'll be passed the average life expectancy
>>in the US.
>
> That's why I want them to launch a Moon and Mars mission in the next
>ten years. :)
Good luck. Trying to get the governemnt does not work, and won't even
work. Try private enterprise instead. It's a shame NASA can't do it,
because space for you and me is really something that the governemtn ought
to be doing. Too bad it's not. :(
>> They'll probably
>>see as little reason to do it as they do now.
>
> They probably will if it costs $100 billion but there's no law that
>says it has to cost that much.
They will see no reason to do it no matter what it costs. What reason do
politicians have to put billions into a moonbase? What near-term, political
ends does it serve? What other incentive is there to do it for them, other
then "because it's there?" They don't care about long-term survival of the
species, as is evidence by the history of space flight funding. Tell me,
why do you think that the US government wil change its mind literally
tomorrow and start funding all sorts of ambitious space programs?
>>>Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>>>need a heavy-lift vehicle.
>
>> Tom, please! The russians have plans for manned mars missions, and even
>>interstellar ones!
>
> They have thought experiments. I know of no active planning for
>manned Mars missions in Russia.
Are you familliar with the Salyut program? That qualifies.
They are not thought experiments, they are plans for mars and
interstellar missions. Get it now? Reread it a few more times if not.
>> What do you think the Salyut stations were?
>
> Space stations.
Do you work for MS Tech support?
>> (hint: Mars
>>mission precursors).
>
> Any activity done in space would be a Mars mission precursor.
Maybe, but Salyut was SPECIFICALLY done as a precursor for a Mars mission.
>> And please don't go on about how the world will end because we're
>>"fooling with the shuttle's proven design."
>
> You don't consider that as something to be concerned about?
No, I'm not as frightened and threatened by change as you appear to be.
Maybe it's because you're nearing fifty and I'm not.
>> We're increasing the shuttle's payload capacity. So you gripe?
>
> The shuttle will have zero payload capacity if it blows up.
Wonderful. How that connects to what I said, I do not know, however. We
tested the design, and it works. Get it?
>>>> Japan or ESA don't have HLLVs either.
>>>
>>> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>>>they build heavy-lift?
>
>> Um, is it not the case the the Japanese have plans for all sorts of lunar
>>missions, even manned ones, looking for resources such as He-3 for
>>large-scale exploitation?
>
> I have to wonder how serious they are. They won't do any manned
>moon exploration with their H2 launch vehicle.
Oh, so all the plans are really untrue, and they're uncredable because
they don't have a cool H2 vehicle. Brilliant. Maybe you can fashion it into
some conspiricy theory which ties it into alien abductions and a corrupt
UN?
>> Nor is it going to in another generation.
>
> Can you predict the winner of the second race at Santa Anita? I
>need a little extra cash.
I can predict that if a horse is lame and hasn't won in over a generation
of trying, you can safelty bet the farm on it not winning any time soon.
>>>Certainly with Clinton in charge.
>
>> Oh, please. The Republicans will slash and destroy NASA in their tax
>>cuts.
>
> What do you mean "will?" They're doing it now!
It's not my fault that al you guys down south have to choose between are
two right-wing extremist fringe parties who "insult" each other by calling
each other "liberals."
>> Can you imagine the Republicans giving the US's Socialized space
>>program *more* money in their attempt to cut 15% of federal expenditures?
>
> No I can't, but NASA doesn't need more money (if they stop the cuts
>now) to have a good space program.
Oh, and how can they become halfway efficient? Why do't you submit your
proposal to Goldin; I'm sure he'd be happy to hear how you can make NASA as
efficient as private enterprise.
>> The Republicans will cut NASA's funding even more. Get it?
>
> No they won't. They've already cut NASA's funding 30 percent and
>have put NASA in jeopardy because of it. I don't think even they will
>try to cut it more. Congress should cut every other government
>agency's budget by 30 percent like they've done NASA's, before they
>start thinking about cutting anymore money out of NASA's budget.
Fat chance.
,,, Save the whales. Collect the whole set.
(o-o) Simon
--oo-(_)-oo--- --------------
Simon Rowland si...@eagle.ca ~Toronto, Canada /=> http://www.asi.org/
We're going back to the Moon! - Commercial Moonbase - the Artemis Project
I do not speak for the Artemis Project, or anyone else for that matter.
Tom Abbott
si...@eagle.ca (Simon Rowland) wrote:
>>>>>Why does the US 'need' a heavy-lift vehicle, if NASA has no
>>>>>payloads for it, possibly excluding the launch of Space Station
>>>>>modules...?
>>>>
>TA>>>> When Goldin blows up one of the shuttle's using the new untested,
>>>>untried lithium/aluminum External Tank, everybody will be asking: "Why
>>>>didn't we build a heavy-lift vehicle instead."
>>
>>> Making a low-weight ET makes sense whether you're launching microgravtiy
>>>experiments or launching ISS lab modules.
>>
>> Yes it does, as long as it doesn't blow up in the process. Being
>>able to lift more tonnage to low-Earth orbit doesn't do you much good
>>if the vehicle destructs before it gets halfway there.
>>
>>> And the risk is minimal.
>>
>> The risks are unknown.
> They did a test of it. For a reason. The risks are known to be small,
>because the test passed.
Simon, yes, they tested a full-size but "shortened" lithium/aluminum
External Tank test article. How can something be full-size and
shortened at the same time?
>>> They did
>>>do a test of it, and it pased with flying colours.
>>
>> They didn't do a test on a full-scale version of the new External
>>Tank.
> They did a test of something that was close enough to be useful in
>determining risk for the full-size ET.
That's the Clinton and Goldin line, too. What do you and they say
to engineers who say test results which apply to a small tank don't
necessarily apply to a much larger tank? Not to mention that NASA
knows very little about lithium/aluminum or how it scales up. Even
the Russians, who are the experts in this area, have no experience
with building lithium/aluminum tanks as large as a space shuttle's
External Tank. Welding lithium/aluminum has been described as more
art than science.
Check this abstract out:
"Contract Number: NAS8-30300
NASA Subject Category: ASTRONAUTICS (GENERAL)
Abstract:
Welding processes and assembly techniques used in the fabrication
of the external tank of the Space Shuttle are discussed.
Each external tank consists of one liquid oxygen tank and one
liquid hydrogen tank connected by an intertank skirt which is
mechanically assembled; the fabrication of the external tank pressure
vessel involves about 36,000 linear inches of weld required to join
138 pieces of 2219 aluminum."
Now Simon, apparently you and Clinton and Goldin think it's a good
idea to practice the "art" of welding lithium/alumiunum on 36,000
linear inches of weld on the space shuttle's External Tank and then
test it using live astronauts and a fully-loaded space shuttle. I say
this is extremely dangerous both to the astronauts and to the U.S.
space program!
If modifying the space shuttle's External Tank in this manner were
the only way to accomplish our space development goals then we would
have no choice but to take this direction. This, however, is NOT the
case. Building a Shuttle-C or some other heavy-lift vehicle would
accomplish the same goal as modifying the shuttle and wouldn't cost
any more than the shuttle modifications will cost, and an uncrewed
heavy-lift cargo vehicle will not put astronauts in danger as will the
extensively modified shuttle, proposed by the Clinton administration.
>>> And what's your problem with Dan Goldin?
>>
>> His policies are a disaster for the United States space program. I
>>have nothing against him personally.
> Why don't you ever give envidence for these silly assertions? It seems to
>be a trait of our species that people argue conclusions, not arguments,
>while the arguments are the only important things. How many times have you
>said the above?
Several times, and each time is at the end of some example of why I
think his policies are a disaster for the U.S. space program.
> And you're still yet to substantiate it aside from this
>silly self-sufficiency romanticism
Self-sufficiency is practical, not a romantic notion, at least in my
mind.
> and an even sillier mistrust of Russia.
I would be silly if I didn't mistrust Russia, IMO. Nothing
personal, you understand, it's just that I read and have lived
history, and although I hope for the best, I plan for the worst, as
should the United States.
>And then, of course, your sickening egoism related to international
>support.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>> He did get ISSA funded, didn't he?
>>
>> What good does it do to get funding for an impossible project. I
>>want a space station in orbit, not a space station "program" that
>>can't manage to put anything in orbit but the shuttle.
> Erm, at JSC there are several ISS hab modules on the critical path to
>launch right now, FYI.
What are they going to use to launch those modules? Answer: a
space shuttle attached to an untested lithium/aluminum External Tank.
Good luck.
> All the Artemis Society guys down in Houston are
>tied up getting those modules launched, and aren't doing as much moonbase
>technical work :)
>>> He's not doing a bad job.
>>
>> He's doing a terrible job of space development, which is the area
>>I'm concerned with.
> Unsupported assertion.
Ok, I'll support it, again. See below.
> This is an inexpert opinion, a taste, a
>preference. It shall be taken for what it's worth.s
This is your inexpert opinion of my opinion. :)
Here's a message my friend Robert Oler sent me on Compuserve's
SpaceFlight forum, the other day. If you want an expert Simon
(besides me:), here you go:
From: Robert Oler
To: Tom Abbott
Oct. 10, 1996
"Tom, this Buds for you.
My prospective brother in law has an even lower regard for the space
station/NASA than I do. He has this wonderful file on the space
station and can nail down to the penny what the darn thing has spent
over the years...
Any rate this quote came from his files...
Testifying before Congress on March 1990 James McCown, Martin
Marietta's vice president for Space STation operations gave this
statment. (Just sit back, Tom, and enjoy the coffee.)
"Regardless of what J.R (J.R. Thompson) and Truly (Dick Truly) say,
they know that the space shuttle system will never be able to deploy a
space station of significant size or mass in an economical fashion.
They both know but probably will not tell you that they have to build
a cargo version of the shuttle. Launching the space station
components on the Shuttle will simply ensure that it is never built.
If they can ever get the Space Station preliminary design in some sort
of firm plan they're going to have to make up their minds on how to
speed things up and rethink the transportation issue. We will never
built a space station consisting of anything more then just a few
modules unless it launches on some sort of heavy lift version of the
shuttle. Even getting that far will require the expenditure of
billions of dollars to fix the shuttle system which is essentially
underperforming in every significant measure."
Robert"
Now Simon, I think that, among other things, backs up my opinion of
the situation and Goldin's place in it rather nicely. Goldin is just
as aware of NASA's launch problems as those former NASA leaders and
yet he chooses to gamble with astronauts lives on a modified, untested
space shuttle, rather than do the right thing and build a heavy-lift
cargo version of the shuttle: Shuttle-C.
BTW, Simon, EVERY Presidential Commission that has studied NASA's
launch requirements over the years, has recommended that NASA build
heavy-lift vehicles to alliviate the launch crunch and lower the cost
of space development. We are in the predicament we are in now because
NASA's leadership has ignored any and all alternatives to the space
shuttle, now, even to the point where they are willing to gamble lives
on their stupid decisions.
>>> Is it just because he sees no reason to fund
>>>your pet project that you're slandering him?
>>
>> To be slander it has to be untrue.
> It is untrue until you give some evidence that indicates it is true.
See any of my posts on the subject. If you find discrepancies point
them out. I'll be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the space
program with you.
>>>>> The Russian mothballed their own Energia program for
>>>>>precisely this reason, i.e. they didn't need it.<<
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping the United States still intends to reach out into the
>>>>solar system (despite Clinton) and to do that, we need heavy-lift to
>>>>make it cost effective.
>>
>>> Tom, you'll be dead before NASA launches any people outside of LEO.
>>
>> I wouldn't bet the farm on it, Simon.
> You're older then I thought (by about 4 times...).
And wiser, too. Four times 30 equals 120. I'm not quite that old.
> You'll definately be
>long dead.
I still wouldn't bet the farm on it if I were you, Simon.
> At least you'll live for Artemis, and you'll be able to spend
>your last days in retirement on the Moon. Well, provided you've got some
>hefty retirement savings, anyway...
I wish Artemis luck.
>>> How old are you? 30?
>>
>> 47.
>>
>>> If NASA somehow get a launch for Mars in 2030, (when the
>>>baby boomers start dying off) you'll be passed the average life expectancy
>>>in the US.
>>
>> That's why I want them to launch a Moon and Mars mission in the next
>>ten years. :)
> Good luck. Trying to get the governemnt does not work, and won't even
>work. Try private enterprise instead. It's a shame NASA can't do it,
>because space for you and me is really something that the governemtn ought
>to be doing. Too bad it's not. :(
I haven't given up on getting the government to do the right thing.
>>> They'll probably
>>>see as little reason to do it as they do now.
>>
>> They probably will if it costs $100 billion but there's no law that
>>says it has to cost that much.
> They will see no reason to do it no matter what it costs. What reason do
>politicians have to put billions into a moonbase? What near-term, political
>ends does it serve? What other incentive is there to do it for them, other
>then "because it's there?" They don't care about long-term survival of the
>species, as is evidence by the history of space flight funding. Tell me,
>why do you think that the US government wil change its mind literally
>tomorrow and start funding all sorts of ambitious space programs?
Because they're already funding a space program to the tune of $5
billion per year. I think Congress recognizes the value of space
exploration and development but they leave the details to people like
Goldin who get everything fouled up and end up spending much more
money than is required.
>>>>Russia had no such ambitions, so they didn't
>>>>need a heavy-lift vehicle.
>>
>>> Tom, please! The russians have plans for manned mars missions, and even
>>>interstellar ones!
>>
>> They have thought experiments. I know of no active planning for
>>manned Mars missions in Russia.
> Are you familliar with the Salyut program? That qualifies.
> They are not thought experiments, they are plans for mars and
>interstellar missions. Get it now? Reread it a few more times if not.
The British Interplanetary Society has more plans than Russia, do
you expect them to be outbound anytime soon?
>>> What do you think the Salyut stations were?
>>
>> Space stations.
> Do you work for MS Tech support?
>>> (hint: Mars
>>>mission precursors).
>>
>> Any activity done in space would be a Mars mission precursor.
> Maybe, but Salyut was SPECIFICALLY done as a precursor for a Mars mission.
In whose mind?
>>> And please don't go on about how the world will end because we're
>>>"fooling with the shuttle's proven design."
>>
>> You don't consider that as something to be concerned about?
> No, I'm not as frightened and threatened by change as you appear to be.
Change doesn't bother me, remember, I am a babyboomer, afterall.
What bothers me is dubious, potentially catastrophic change which
doesn't have to take place in the first place.
>Maybe it's because you're nearing fifty and I'm not.
Kind of a lame statement, isn't it Simon. What you should be
bringing up and refuting is what this 47-year-old says. I think the
problem is you don't have any other argument. But that's ok, I don't
see that you have one.
>>> We're increasing the shuttle's payload capacity. So you gripe?
>>
>> The shuttle will have zero payload capacity if it blows up.
> Wonderful. How that connects to what I said, I do not know, however. We
>tested the design, and it works. Get it?
It won't be tested until it launches off the pad if you and Goldin
have your way.
>>>>> Japan or ESA don't have HLLVs either.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have a very ambitious space program either, so why should
>>>>they build heavy-lift?
>>
>>> Um, is it not the case the the Japanese have plans for all sorts of lunar
>>>missions, even manned ones, looking for resources such as He-3 for
>>>large-scale exploitation?
>>
>> I have to wonder how serious they are. They won't do any manned
>>moon exploration with their H2 launch vehicle.
> Oh, so all the plans are really untrue, and they're uncredable because
>they don't have a cool H2 vehicle.
I think they're planning on piggybacking on U.S. launch technology.
> Brilliant. Maybe you can fashion it into
>some conspiricy theory which ties it into alien abductions and a corrupt
>UN?
I probably could were that my intention. This method of arguing
leaves something to be desired, Simon.
>>> Nor is it going to in another generation.
>>
>> Can you predict the winner of the second race at Santa Anita? I
>>need a little extra cash.
> I can predict that if a horse is lame and hasn't won in over a generation
>of trying, you can safelty bet the farm on it not winning any time soon.
>>>>Certainly with Clinton in charge.
>>
>>> Oh, please. The Republicans will slash and destroy NASA in their tax
>>>cuts.
>>
>> What do you mean "will?" They're doing it now!
> It's not my fault that al you guys down south have to choose between are
>two right-wing extremist fringe parties who "insult" each other by calling
>each other "liberals."
>>> Can you imagine the Republicans giving the US's Socialized space
>>>program *more* money in their attempt to cut 15% of federal expenditures?
>>
>> No I can't, but NASA doesn't need more money (if they stop the cuts
>>now) to have a good space program.
> Oh, and how can they become halfway efficient?
How much time do you have? :) I'm willing.
> Why do't you submit your
>proposal to Goldin; I'm sure he'd be happy to hear how you can make NASA as
>efficient as private enterprise.
I have, on several occassions. I laid it all out for him in 1993,
before he made the choice between Option A (Alpha) and Option C. It's
like that old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't
make it drink."
>>> The Republicans will cut NASA's funding even more. Get it?
>>
>> No they won't. They've already cut NASA's funding 30 percent and
>>have put NASA in jeopardy because of it. I don't think even they will
>>try to cut it more. Congress should cut every other government
>>agency's budget by 30 percent like they've done NASA's, before they
>>start thinking about cutting anymore money out of NASA's budget.
> Fat chance.
We'll see.
Phil Fraering
On 15 Oct 1996, Kethas epetai-Khemara wrote:
> BTW: Does anyone think the breakthrough at Imperial college,
> concerning commercial fusion reactors, will lead to development of a
> viable fusion drive? Or is there already a (suppressed) patent?
What breakthrough?
Please elaborate.
JHOLL4
In <541h10$g...@usenet78.supernews.com>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
>>What was payload capacity of a Saturn V?
> 130+ tons to low-Earth orbit.
More like 150+ tons. If I remember correctly, it was 152 tons
to LEO and 53 tons to escape velocity (e.g., the Moon).
I hope sci.space.history passes.
--Cathy Mancus <ca...@zorac.cary.nc.us>