Ares V: Launch Industry Game-Changer
space...@yahoo.com
stationary orbit is to launch it on a large, self-contained rocket
like Ariane, Proton, Zenit, H-2, CZ-3, Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9,
etc. NASA's Ares V could change all that. If Ares V placed a fuel
depot in LEO around the equator, and automated, refuelable space tugs
were used to move payloads between LEO and GEO, then, it would be
possible to use small, inexpensive rockets like Taurus II, Falcon I,
KSLV-1, Shavit, Cyclone, M-V, Vega, etc., to launch comsats bound for
GEO.
This scenario would be a great way for the U.S. to regain dominance of
the launch industry. If successful, the U.S. could undercut the
launch prices of other countries and offer unique LEO to GEO services
to countries that only have small launchers. Any competitor would
have to build a rocket of similar capabilities to Ares V, and this
would likely take 10-20 years.
Ares V has more commercial potential than, perhaps, any rocket NASA
has ever built.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Ares V has more commercial potential than, perhaps, any rocket NASA
:has ever built.
:
That rather depends on what it costs to get a kg to LE with it. If
it's not cheaper than Proton, then why wouldn't you build your
'chicken/egg' fuel depot using those?
I call it 'chicken/egg' because nobody is going to design a program
relying on it being there until it is and nobody sane is going to
spend the money to put it there until there's a market for the fuel.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
behl...@gmail.com
> Ares V has more commercial potential than, perhaps, any rocket NASA
> has ever built.
Incorrect on many levels
A depot doesn't need Ares V to launch it or resupply it.
Anyways, Ares V can't be used for commercial applications.
Pat Flannery
behl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anyways, Ares V can't be used for commercial applications.
>
If they can find someone who actually wants to use it, they can probably
sell it to them.
Ares I has been okayed for commercial use:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/ATK04098.xml&show=us
Pat
space...@yahoo.com
domestic and foreign policy objectives. On the domestic side, it
could put American businesses back at the forefront of the
international launch industry. On the foreign side, offering LEO to
GEO services to countries with small launchers could woo them away
from reliance on Russia or China.
Fred J. McCall
:Using Ares V to put a fuel depot in equatorial LEO furthers both
Chicken, this is egg....
Jeff Findley
<space...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:edeeab44-2544-4399...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Ares V has more commercial potential than, perhaps, any rocket NASA
> has ever built.
Ares V, if it is built, will never be a commercial launch vehicle. NASA was
banned from selling commercial launches after the Challenger disaster.
Considering NASA's track record, that ban will never be lifted.
Furthermore, the EELV's both have growth potential, and they aren't a paper
rocket like Ares V. If the market (and/or the US government) demands it,
the EELV provider's will respond with higher lift capability.
Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:goSdnYUKiLv6x3DU...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Read that article more closely. *ATK* wants Ares I to be used for
commercial launches. ATK doesn't make the Ares I upper stage and doesn't
have commercial launch facilities for Ares I. Also, NASA is banned from
selling commercial launches and Ares I is NASA's baby. I don't see an easy
way around this.
My guess is that this is yet another sign of desperation on ATK's part to
keep the Ares I program going despite the fact that the entire Ares I
program is starting to smell like a rotting pile of excrement.
It's also starting to look like Ares V will never be developed. No bucks,
no Buck Rogers.
Jeff Findley
<space...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff2ae628-f1f9-445a...@q19g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
You don't need something as big as Ares V to orbit a fuel depot. How big of
a depot do we need? Why can't EELV's orbit a big enough fuel depot by
splitting it up into smaller pieces? There have been proposals to build
such a depot from Centaur derived hardware. Obviously Centaur doesn't need
Ares V.
space...@yahoo.com
> a depot do we need? Why can't EELV's orbit a big enough fuel depot by
> splitting it up into smaller pieces? There have been proposals to build
> such a depot from Centaur derived hardware. Obviously Centaur doesn't need
> Ares V.
With a fuel depot, bigger is better. It should be large enough to
service 10 commercial LEO-GEO missions per year, plus the occasional
lunar or planetary mission for U.S. or foreign governments.
Jeff Findley
<space...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5750982b-f94b-4488...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
I don't buy your argument at all.
The depot is not going to service those 10 commercial missions all on the
same day. It's going to spread that out over a year's worth of time. Build
a depot big enough to handle 2.5x the fuel/oxidizer needed for one LEO-GEO
mission and you've got the ability to fuel two missions, with a huge
reserve, before you need to refuel the depot. Reasonable sizing of the
depot makes things a lot easier. Your goal would be to keep the depot
*relatively* full of fuel/oxidizer so you'd always have the ability to
service a LEO/GEO mission.
Take terrestrial gas stations as an example. The ones I see locally refill
their in ground tanks from a tanker truck on about a weekly basis. They
absolutely do *not* size their in ground tanks to handle a full year's worth
of fuel.
Fred J. McCall
:> You don't need something as big as Ares V to orbit a fuel depot. How big of
:
'Big' doesn't necessarily get you 'cheap', which is what you need in a
launcher for something like what you're talking about.
You still need a MARKET, too...
Brian Thorn
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>> Ares V has more commercial potential than, perhaps, any rocket NASA
>> has ever built.
>
>Ares V, if it is built, will never be a commercial launch vehicle. NASA was
>banned from selling commercial launches after the Challenger disaster.
>Considering NASA's track record, that ban will never be lifted.
I agree, but technically they could get around that by NASA handing
over operation to USA or somesuch quasi-commercial entity. There
actually were post-Challenger commercial Shuttle proposals, with a
private company flying Shuttle for commercial missions two or three
times a year over and above NASA's requirements, but Shuttle was never
going to be cost competitive even then, and NASA didn't want to give
up its own private playthings (and they still don't, which is why
we're getting Ares I even though two other US rockets in its class are
already flying.) So I agree, it will never happen, though you're a
little more absolute about it than is actually warranted, I think.
Brian
Jeff Findley
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:c57tu4t9saie8227p...@4ax.com...
Those "commercial shuttle" proposals never went anywhere, for good reason.
The shuttle was far too expensive to ever become a viable commercial
vehicle.
No one would ever want to fly Ares commercially. It will never be as cheap
as advertised, just as shuttle never was. The only reason commercial
flights on shuttle were economically viable pre-Challenger disaster was the
huge subsidies that the US goverernment was handing out. The costs NASA
charged for payloads on the shuttle was nowhere near the full cost.
space...@yahoo.com
rocket like Ares V, should be less than launching several smaller
rockets to get the same amount of payload into orbit. The enormous
development cost of Ares V doesn't figure into the equation because
that will be borne by U.S. taxpayers.
Every launcher in the world, with the exception of those built by
SpaceX, was developed with some government's funding. Ironically, the
greatest beneficiary of an Ares V fuel depot would probably be
SpaceX. Their Falcon I rocket would likely be the cheapest way to
launch a commercial comsat.
Fred J. McCall
:
:The materiel and labor costs of launching a single, large, unmanned
:rocket like Ares V, should be less than launching several smaller
:rockets to get the same amount of payload into orbit.
That is not a given. Take a look at comparative rocket costs
sometime.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:41c8e2c7-f41b-4006...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> The materiel and labor costs of launching a single, large, unmanned
> rocket like Ares V, should be less than launching several smaller
> rockets to get the same amount of payload into orbit.
Why?
behl...@gmail.com
> The materiel and labor costs of launching a single, large, unmanned
> rocket like Ares V, should be less than launching several smaller
> rockets to get the same amount of payload into orbit.
"should be" doesn't mean it is and it won't be. Ares V will cost on
the order of a billion per launch
> Every launcher in the world, with the exception of those built by
> SpaceX, was developed with some government's funding. Ironically, the
> greatest beneficiary of an Ares V fuel depot would probably be
> SpaceX. Their Falcon I rocket would likely be the cheapest way to
> launch a commercial comsat.
Falcon 1 is too small for commercial comsats to LEO. Comsats weigh on
the order of 2 to 5 tonnes on station in GSO. Falcon 1 upperstage
(fully loaded) is too small to put the same spacecraft into GTO
Jeff Findley
<space...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41c8e2c7-f41b-4006...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> The materiel and labor costs of launching a single, large, unmanned
> rocket like Ares V, should be less than launching several smaller
> rockets to get the same amount of payload into orbit. The enormous
> development cost of Ares V doesn't figure into the equation because
> that will be borne by U.S. taxpayers.
Not necessarily. My guess is that Ares V won't launch more than twice a
year, if it ever flies. Your overhead costs on such a vehicle are enormous
(construction, transportation, integration, and etc). When you're only
flying twice a year, there are many opportunities for your people to sit
idle while they wait for the next vehicle to build, transport, assemble, and
etc.
On the other hand, if you're launching 20 of the same vehicle every year,
your opportunities to take advantage of economies of scale start to
materialize. The more launches you have, the busier your people are, so
they generally aren't sitting idle.
> Every launcher in the world, with the exception of those built by
> SpaceX, was developed with some government's funding. Ironically, the
> greatest beneficiary of an Ares V fuel depot would probably be
> SpaceX. Their Falcon I rocket would likely be the cheapest way to
> launch a commercial comsat.
And yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of using the same Falcon
launch vehicles to launch propellant for the depot? Why? More launches
would mean lower per flight costs for the customers launching satellites.
Jeff Findley
<behl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:65047348-371d-43ea...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Hopefully Falcon 9 will take care of that problem.
space...@yahoo.com
depots. However, if it does get built, it will have unique
capabilities that could be exploited for both public and private
benefit. If a sufficiently large fuel depot was put in equatorial
LEO, the U.S. could say to other countries and private industry "If
you can get to LEO, we can get you to GEO, L1, Lunar orbit, Lunar
surface, Near Earth Objects, or the planets". America will be the
leading spacefaring nation for decades. The uglier alternative is a
future where U.S. space capabilities are not exceptional, and other
nations take the lead.
behl...@gmail.com
> If a sufficiently large fuel depot was put in equatorial
> LEO,
That is the problem, nobody can get to it in that orbit except ESA.
The problem is that there isn't one orbit that is accessible for
everyone.
The Ares V depot is non viable and a bad idea. There is no need for
Ares V to launch the depot.
Depots would be better served by EELV, including the buildup
Fred J. McCall
:
:Ares V will be built, or not, for reasons other than orbiting fuel
What makes you think that Ares V is the way to do this? You keep
singing the same song, but offer absolutely no reason for anyone to
believe the lyrics.
There's no reason to believe that Ares V's cost to orbit is going to
be lower than other launchers. Even if a huge fuel depot makes sense
(and others have posted reasons why it doesn't), you want to use the
launcher with the lowest cost per kilogram to orbit.
There is no reason to believe that that launcher is going to be Ares
V.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
space...@yahoo.com
there is no reason to change the current way of putting up comsats.
Over the last 25 years, the underlying economics of the situation have
caused countries to converge on similar sized launch solutions
(Ariane, Proton, H-2, Zenit, Atlas 5, Delta 4, etc.).
An orbiting fuel depot has the potential to change the underlying
economics. Satellites would be orbited separately from propellents
and this would likely cause a divergence in launcher size (i.e.
smaller for satellites, bigger for propellents). Satellite launchers
have to be closely matched to the size of their payloads since the
main concern is total launch price, rather than $/kg to orbit.
However, on the bulk propellent launcher side, $/kg to orbit is
everything. Since Ares V is the closest thing to Sea Dragon, it
potentially has the best economics.
It's useful to identify the factors involved in the creation of the
status quo. It's also useful to speculate on how to change it.
Dr J R Stockton
00pro.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:14:54, behl...@gmail.com
posted:
Using a fuel depot in LEO, one would not want to launch direct into GTO.
With the ability to use a LEO depot, it would be possible to launch the
comsat proper, the system which puts it into GSO ftom GTO, and the
system which puts them into GTO separately, meeting at the depot.
The only interface really needed between those systems is a thrust
structure, a mechanical plug. Messages between them could easily be by
radio, non-fibre optic, or transformer-coupled; no need for electrical
connections.
Whether it can be made economical is another matter; but with a product
like the Falcon 1 they should be seeking applications that use them in
bulk. I don't suppose they could launch from the local airfield; but
they should be able to design a train to pick up an integrated F1 from
Hawthorne, be loaded with rocket fuel at an edge-of-town yard, head off
the a country siding, and there erect fill & and fire F1 from the train.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jeff Findley
<space...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49be7404-8fd2-4d66...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Ares V will be built, or not, for reasons other than orbiting fuel
> depots. However, if it does get built, it will have unique
> capabilities that could be exploited for both public and private
> benefit.
I call b.s. on this. Where is the precedent for commercial use of such huge
launch vehicles? Saturn V was certainly never used this way. Energia was
never used this way. If you're saying "build it and they will come", I say
that's wishful thinking. Ares V, if built, will be so hideously expensive
that no commercial operator in their right mind would ever even try to book
a launch on it.
> If a sufficiently large fuel depot was put in equatorial
> LEO, the U.S. could say to other countries and private industry "If
> you can get to LEO, we can get you to GEO, L1, Lunar orbit, Lunar
> surface, Near Earth Objects, or the planets".
While true, you don't need Ares V for this. You necessarily have to develop
microgravity refueling technologies for a depot. Once this is technology is
in hand, there is absolutely zero reason to require that all your fuel or
all your oxidizer be in one tank. With a properly designed depot, you could
add tanks as necessary (you dock them just as you would a vehicle receiving
fuel) in order to increase its capacity. Nothing bigger than Atlas V or
Delta IV would be necessary.
> America will be the
> leading spacefaring nation for decades. The uglier alternative is a
> future where U.S. space capabilities are not exceptional, and other
> nations take the lead.
The conclusion is bogus because the assumptions going into your arguments
are bogus.
Saying the same thing over and over again simply does not make it true.
Jeff Findley
<space...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:039f8086-d40a-4582...@l5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> Since Ares V is the closest thing to Sea Dragon, it
> potentially has the best economics.
You're comparing apples to orangutans.
Sea Dragon would have been a two stage to orbit, pressure fed, steel launch
vehicle built in shipyards. In other words, as simple and cheap as
possible.
Ares V isn't anything like Sea Dragon, it's simply business as usual.
Because it's business as usual, it will likely have a low flight rate (like
shuttle) and high cost (like shuttle).
> It's useful to identify the factors involved in the creation of the
> status quo. It's also useful to speculate on how to change it.
While true, your assumption that "size is everything" is dead wrong.
Complexity is actually a more useful measure to indicate cost. Sea Dragon
would have sacrificed everything in the name of simplicity and low cost. As
a consequence, it would have been far bigger (size wise) than any launch
vehicle ever flown and its "performance", by traditional launch vehicle
standards, would have been very lackluster (i.e. pound of payload per launch
vehicle dry mass).
Dr J R Stockton
00yqc.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:20:20, behl...@gmail.com
posted:
>On Apr 22, 9:44 pm, spacecr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > If a sufficiently large fuel depot was put in equatorial
>> LEO,
>
>That is the problem, nobody can get to it in that orbit except ESA.
Sea Launch can get to it. Anyone launching from Kwajalein can get to
it.
There's plenty of the north coast of South America not much used;
Brazil's got a selection of islands at the mouth of the Amazon on the
Equator. Let the USN lease one of them, and convert an old CVN as a
ferry.
behl...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In sci.space.policy message <d55abc6b-91d2-4189-ab5b-40ae08c60cfc@c12g20
> 00yqc.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:20:20, behlin...@gmail.com
> posted:
>
> >On Apr 22, 9:44 pm, spacecr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > If a sufficiently large fuel depot was put in equatorial
> >> LEO,
>
> >That is the problem, nobody can get to it in that orbit except ESA.
>
> Sea Launch can get to it. Anyone launching from Kwajalein can get to
> it.
>
don't count
space...@yahoo.com
). It would help determine technical feasibility if not political
feasibility.
Pat Flannery
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> That is the problem, nobody can get to it in that orbit except ESA.
>>
>
> Sea Launch can get to it. Anyone launching from Kwajalein can get to
> it.
>
What the Hell is this loopy fixation involving a "orbital fuel depot" about?
To refuel from it you are going to need to carry rendezvous, docking,
and refueling gear aboard a unmanned rocket stage... and the weight,
cost, and complexity of that is going to more than mitigate any
advantages obtained from it by refueling in LEO over just launching the
rocket with enough fuel to reach GEO in the first place.
Pat
space...@yahoo.com
> and refueling gear aboard a unmanned rocket stage...
The "smarts" (rendezvous, docking, refueling gear) should go on the
tug operating from the fuel depot. The launcher with the satellite
only has to get in the ballpark of the fuel depot, and the tug would
do the rest.
kT
I've got laser cannons and photon torpedoes, and I can hyperjump to an
entirely different star and solar system instantaneously. Beat that.
The problem with orbiter is that it doesn't help you with engineering,
just design. Most of that stuff you can work out in your head after just
a few different flights. Stage and a half physics is well understood.
'Economy of scale' only works if you start small and evolve into it.
Pat Flannery
behl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sealaunch can't launch US Gov't payloads and Pegasus and Falcon I
> don't count
>
Considering we are friends with Ukraine, why exactly couldn't Sealaunch
send up US payloads?
You have to admit that Ukraine with the mobile Sealaunch platform was
around the only country in the whole world to come up with a _really_
revolutionary commercial space launch idea in the past 20 years.
"If Mohammad can't go to the mountain, then the mountain must come to
Mohammad."
...and if the Equator can't come to the Ukraine, then the Ukraine must
go to the Equator. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
You figure out the amount of orbital infrastructure and R&D cost needed
to be lavished on this concept to make it work, and it doesn't make any
economic sense at all unless you get a staggeringly large number of
payloads headed for GEO every year.
You are trying to make a world of the $50.00 refuelable piezoelectric
high-tech lighter in a era where you can get a pack of ten disposable
lighters for under $5.00 out at Walmart.
Pat
space...@yahoo.com
> high-tech lighter in a era where you can get a pack of ten disposable
> lighters for under $5.00 out at Walmart.
Think of the fuel depot/space tug as a reusable upper stage. Now you
can orbit GEO comsats, space probes, etc. using only a 2 stage
launcher. If you can figure out how to reuse those stages (Kistler
K-1 comes to mind) then you've got a completely reusable space
transportation system. Beat that Walmart.
behl...@gmail.com
> behlin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Sealaunch can't launch US Gov't payloads and Pegasus and Falcon I
> > don't count
>
> Considering we are friends with Ukraine, why exactly couldn't Sealaunch
> send up US payloads?
US law, the vehicle has to be 51% US built.
> You have to admit that Ukraine with the mobile Sealaunch platform was
> around the only country in the whole world to come up with a _really_
> revolutionary commercial space launch idea in the past 20 years.
Ukraine didn't come up with it, Boeing did
behl...@gmail.com
>
> Think of the fuel depot/space tug as a reusable upper stage. Now you
> can orbit GEO comsats, space probes, etc. using only a 2 stage
> launcher.
Atlas V, Delta IV and they are two stage launchers and they can orbit
GEO comsats, space probes, etc.
The number of stages is not just determined by the orbit. Soyuz uses
3 stages for LEO missions.
Anyways, depots have their place, they can be a good idea. The bad
idea is using Ares V, it can be done cheaper with existing vehicles
Derek Lyons
>> You are trying to make a world of the $50.00 refuelable piezoelectric
>> high-tech lighter in a era where you can get a pack of ten disposable
>> lighters for under $5.00 out at Walmart.
>
>Think of the fuel depot/space tug as a reusable upper stage. Now you
>can orbit GEO comsats, space probes, etc. using only a 2 stage
>launcher.
You're only using a two stage launcher because you're launching the
third stage on a different two stage launcher. The moral equivalent
of me driving my car to a truck rental place, renting a truck to move
the contents of my house, and then using my car to drive from the
truck rental place to my new home - and then claiming I accomplished
the move using only my car.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
space...@yahoo.com
a kilogram in orbit. It doesn't matter if that kilogram represents
rocket, fuel, or payload. With an orbiting fuel depot, the rocket
kilograms get to be reused, the fuel kilograms are put there by the
cheapest possible method, and the payload kilograms are moved by as
little launcher as possible.
If you're moving to a new house, you use a truck and a car because
each vehicle is optimized to move a certain type of cargo (furniture
and people, respectively). Why not take the same approach for putting
up GEO comsats?
Derek Lyons
>In the current way of calculating launch costs, a kilogram in orbit is
>a kilogram in orbit. It doesn't matter if that kilogram represents
>rocket, fuel, or payload. With an orbiting fuel depot, the rocket
>kilograms get to be reused,
That the 'rocket kilogram' gets to be reused is an assumption, not a
fact.
>the fuel kilograms are put there by the cheapest possible method, and
>the payload kilograms are moved by as little launcher as possible.
Again, you confuse assumptions with facts. Even if they were facts it
doesn't change the underlying nature of the beast - that you are using
two rockets to accomplish the job of one, and then trying to handwave
away/hide the cost of the first.
>If you're moving to a new house, you use a truck and a car because
>each vehicle is optimized to move a certain type of cargo (furniture
>and people, respectively). Why not take the same approach for putting
>up GEO comsats?
Because there isn't any such thing as a 'truck optimized rocket' and a
'car optimized rocket' here. Rockets are optimized by payload weight,
not by function.
space...@yahoo.com
> two rockets to accomplish the job of one, and then trying to handwave
> away/hide the cost of the first.
If a big rocket, like Ares 5, is used to launch the fuel depot, then
it isn't 2 rockets to accomplish the job of 1, it's more like 10
rockets to accomplish the job of 9. Nine cheap rockets and 1
expensive rocket get thrown away to put up 9 satellites. A reusable
rocket like Kistler K-1 would be even better, since the 9 cheap
rockets live to see another launch.
Fred J. McCall
:
:If existing launchers have a lower $/kg to orbit than Ares V, then
:there is no reason to change the current way of putting up comsats.
You keep saying things that are logical non sequiturs. Why do you
believe the preceding is true?
:
:An orbiting fuel depot has the potential to change the underlying
:economics. Satellites would be orbited separately from propellents
:and this would likely cause a divergence in launcher size (i.e.
:smaller for satellites, bigger for propellents). Satellite launchers
:have to be closely matched to the size of their payloads since the
:main concern is total launch price, rather than $/kg to orbit.
:
Uh, total launch price tends to be pretty closely related to $/kg to
orbit on any particular launch.
:
:However, on the bulk propellent launcher side, $/kg to orbit is
:everything. Since Ares V is the closest thing to Sea Dragon, it
:potentially has the best economics.
:
There is no reason to believe the preceding to be true. Go look at
figures for current launchers for $/kg to orbit. The bigger ones are
*NOT* the cheapest.
:
:It's useful to identify the factors involved in the creation of the
:status quo. It's also useful to speculate on how to change it.
:
But it's only useful if you actually start from facts and make actual
logical deductions and inferences. So far, you do neither. You
merely make unsupported claims.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
space...@yahoo.com
> believe the preceding is true?
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:
1) If A is true, then B is true.
2) B is stated to be true.
3) Therefore, A must be true.
The following statements form a non sequitur:
1)
> :If existing launchers have a lower $/kg to orbit than Ares V, then
> :there is no reason to change the current way of putting up comsats.
2) There is no reason to change the current way of putting up
comsats.
3) Therefore, existing launchers have a lower $/kg to orbit than Ares
V.
Statements 2 & 3 are noticeably absent from my earlier post.
There's a difference between using words like could, should, would,
possibly, likely, maybe, etc., to qualify assertions, and just being
plain illogical.
Pat Flannery
space...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Think of the fuel depot/space tug as a reusable upper stage. Now you
> can orbit GEO comsats, space probes, etc. using only a 2 stage
> launcher. If you can figure out how to reuse those stages (Kistler
> K-1 comes to mind) then you've got a completely reusable space
> transportation system. Beat that Walmart.
>
You keep missing a fundamental point here; to get this to work, you have
to dock the satellite to the tug in LEO, then send the satellite up to
GEO, then return the tug to LEO and refuel it to get it ready for the
next flight up to GEO... plus, you are now doing dedicated launches just
to take fuel up to the fuel depot in LEO.
By the time you do all that it's going to end up being very complex,
expensive, and heavy.
And the total yearly launches to GEO are so few in number that they
don't justify this sort of expenditure.
Pat
Pat Flannery
behl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Considering we are friends with Ukraine, why exactly couldn't Sealaunch
>> send up US payloads?
>>
>
> US law, the vehicle has to be 51% US built.
>
>
>> You have to admit that Ukraine with the mobile Sealaunch platform was
>> around the only country in the whole world to come up with a _really_
>> revolutionary commercial space launch idea in the past 20 years.
>>
>
> Ukraine didn't come up with it, Boeing did.
>
So we now have a Boeing-built launch system that we can't use, because
its not 51% American?
Ain't the free market wonderful? :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> You're only using a two stage launcher because you're launching the
> third stage on a different two stage launcher. The moral equivalent
> of me driving my car to a truck rental place, renting a truck to move
> the contents of my house, and then using my car to drive from the
> truck rental place to my new home - and then claiming I accomplished
> the move using only my car.
>
I think that hits it right on the nose. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> That the 'rocket kilogram' gets to be reused is an assumption, not a
> fact.
>
Then there's the weight of all the rendezvous and docking gear that gets
added to the equation.
Pat
Dr J R Stockton
0yqa.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:44:05, behl...@gmail.com
posted:
You wrote "nobody"; I took it that by that you meant "nobody".
AIUI, Sea Launch itself is allowed to launch for anyone that is on
speaking terms with its owners. If the US Government is hampered by the
US Legislature, then it needs to reason with the Legislature so that the
US-generated problem goes away.
No doubt the owners of Pegasus and Falcon will ignore your views on
whether they count. BTW, in referring to Kwajalein I was not thinking
of Pegasus - that can launch from anywhere within L-1011 range of a
friendly airfield. Rather, I was thinking that others could set up in
Kwajalein; SpaceX has not used up all possible ground.
However, Brazil's the place to go.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:044d6656-9038-46c1...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> doesn't change the underlying nature of the beast - that you are using
>> two rockets to accomplish the job of one, and then trying to handwave
>> away/hide the cost of the first.
>
> If a big rocket, like Ares 5, is used to launch the fuel depot, then
> it isn't 2 rockets to accomplish the job of 1, it's more like 10
> rockets to accomplish the job of 9. Nine cheap rockets and 1
> expensive rocket get thrown away to put up 9 satellites.
And if that 1 expensive rocket is the price of 9 cheap rockets?
I think you underestimate how expensive Ares V most likely will be per
flight.
> A reusable
> rocket like Kistler K-1 would be even better, since the 9 cheap
> rockets live to see another launch.
Which means it makes even more sense to use them to fuel your depot to.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Derek Lyons
>> doesn't change the underlying nature of the beast - that you are using
>> two rockets to accomplish the job of one, and then trying to handwave
>> away/hide the cost of the first.
>
>If a big rocket, like Ares 5, is used to launch the fuel depot, then
>it isn't 2 rockets to accomplish the job of 1, it's more like 10
>rockets to accomplish the job of 9. Nine cheap rockets and 1
>expensive rocket get thrown away to put up 9 satellites.
What makes you think the 9 rockets will be cheap? Making things more
complex (I.E. adding the requirement/equipment for rezendous and
berthing/docking and refuelling gear) rarely makes them cheaper.
Fred J. McCall
:
:In the current way of calculating launch costs, a kilogram in orbit is
:a kilogram in orbit. It doesn't matter if that kilogram represents
:rocket, fuel, or payload.
Really? This is news to me.
:
:With an orbiting fuel depot, the rocket
:kilograms get to be reused, the fuel kilograms are put there by the
:cheapest possible method, and the payload kilograms are moved by as
:little launcher as possible.
:
Not if you're insistent on using Ares V, they aren't put there by the
cheapest possible method.
Why do you need the fuel depot? Launch the fuel on one rocket, the
payload on another, and hook 'em up in orbit. Don't need the depot,
which takes you out of your way anyhow.
:
:If you're moving to a new house, you use a truck and a car because
:each vehicle is optimized to move a certain type of cargo (furniture
:and people, respectively). Why not take the same approach for putting
:up GEO comsats?
:
We do.
I've seen arguments for 'fuel depots' in orbit before and they just
don't seem to make real sense.
behl...@gmail.com
Never said Boeing built it, just it was their idea. Boeing only
builds the payload compartment
Richard D. Latham
... "it doesn't make any economic sense" ...
Of course not.
Some people apparently have ambitions of going somewhere other than
Earth Orbit, someday.
For that sort of mission, it might be required, or very desirable.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Fred J. McCall
:> You keep saying things that are logical non sequiturs. Why do you
:
An even bigger fallacy is "because I say so".
Please cite the cost per kilogram to orbit for Ares V.
Please cite the additional cost of fuel required to get to your fuel
depot from various orbital planes.
Please cite the cost and additional weight and complexity required to
make satellites refuelable on orbit.
Failing the preceding three items, please shut up.