Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1048
So that a launchpad can be converted over for The Stick and SDV cargo
carrier?

Pat


the inline (SDV) has a greater potential to lift more in the future,
just by adding more SRBs, liquid strap ons. or engines, ect. (
hopefully less than th 10+ billion for the Boeing hlv/eelv ) so it the
way to go, but while the world waits for shuttle flights and the added
costs associated with tooling up for the inline.

the launchers for a shuttle-c, would not have to be rebuilt, and could
be launched from either coast. or keep one launch system usable while
the other is rebuilt. but with the support cost of the shuttle, the
whole cost of development and construction are probably not deductible
from the cost of having fewer shuttle launches.

the government sanctions against Boeing most undoubtably affect the the
decision for shuttle-c as short term solution. Boeing closed the the
plant where they built shuttles in palmdale years ago. but lately there
haven't been the regular shuttle flights. while the construction of the
shuttle-c could slow the construction of the station. the modules that
are being launched have already been built. the anticipated market for
eelv's dried up, so there is less work in rocketry.

while it would be silly to spend the billions in development for a
couple of launches of the shuttle-c's, then turn around and spend
several billion more to develop the inline system. it would great if
they could use the shuttle-c prototype that was built 20 years ago, But
if the costs of development estimated at 2 bn for shuttle-c, with a
cost of almost a bn each. ( congressional estimate in the 90's) you
could build 4 shuttle-c's for a total cost of 6 bn, and if the s-C's
could carry twice the payload of the shuttle, then there would be 8
less shuttle flights, the estimated cost of shuttle launches around a
half bn$ each, then the added cost to the space program would be 2
billion. not small change

it is interesting that the shuttle-c has gone from 44t in earliest
design, to 77t with the 3 SSME version. the recoverable engine pod is
probably not compatible with the inline systems equivalent of the third
stage of a Saturn 5, for the boost of the cev and lunar lander to the
moon. but the 77t payload of the recent shuttle-c incarnation plus the
engine pod is very close to the inlines upper stage mass, if the ssme's
could be reused. why carry up an extra engine ? you'd have the benefit
of spare ssme's plus the oms. there would be a small portion of extra
mass, because of the tank switching. the result is higher thrust for an
upper stage equivalent or at lower thrust levels cooler running
engines. the added benefit of building a system that could be later
used on the inline system, as an upper stage.

Ed


EELV - Boeing , http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_b.htm

EELVs Are A Bad Deal , http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html