One detail in the Lockheed Martin study described previously, regarding flyback LRBs replacing sea recovered SRBs - was that the $52 million External Tank was thrown away each flight!
A few years back at a National Space Society talk I gave, I outlined a method to create a reusable booster element from these tanks using inflatable wing technology! This could be used to recover the External tank for about 4% its purchase price!
https://vimeo.com/37102557
The orbiter, with flyback LRB boosters, and a flyback External Tank would have reduced the cost of each launch from $500 million to $20 million or so - and investment in reducing the standing army of government employees PER LAUNCH by automating the launch procedures - would cut even that figure.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173021.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstu...s-nasa-58.html
With an average payroll of $68,000 per year and 18,000 direct employees, and 90,000 contractors a total payroll of $7.34 billion. Direct launch operations are far less than this. However, this is about 1/3 the total budget of NASA.
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle...er-launch.html
Launch operations were about $2 billion per year - and with four flights per year $500 million per flight. With automation and the improvements described, the government could have increased launch rate to 360x per year - and reduced costs to less than $2 million per flight.
What do you do with 360 launches per year?
Then, what's the cost of the payload?
A cost reduction campaign in that area would be done in parallel with the cost reduction in the launch system.
Then with reduced launch and payloads, what do you do then?
(1) Global wireless hotspot - broadband for everyone -
(2) Global wireless power - end energy shortages
(3) Off world mining of the rarest materials -
(4) Off world mining of rare materials
(5) Off world manufacturing -
(6) Off world farming -
(7) Ballistic transport
(8) Off world colonies
These are all highly disruptive politically socially and even to religion.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5gch8t
On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 2:28:59 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic?
YES
http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf
Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with propellant costs.. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40 per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is just the short list.