What else could you do with the Stick?

Assuming that Stick is the wave of the future, what robotic scientific
missions could get a ride on it if NASA were inclined to use it that
way?

Given the mass of CEV, I suspect some fairly interesting solar system
missions could be substituted.

Th only humane thing to do with it is cancel it.

Well, that's not exactly true.

If you do actually go ahead and build it, please cram it up Michael
Griffin's ass.

Allen Thomson wrote:
Assuming that Stick is the wave of the future, what robotic scientific
missions could get a ride on it if NASA were inclined to use it that
way?

Given the mass of CEV, I suspect some fairly interesting solar system
missions could be substituted.

Stick would need a third stage to perform earth escape missions.
Although a two-stage Stick with a presumed 180 tonne second
stage could outlift a Delta 4 Heavy to LEO, it would only be able
to boost a Delta 4 Medium's worth of payload to GTO - and none
at all to escape velocity. With a Centaur third stage, however,
Stick would outhaul anything in the world's space lift fleet. It
would loft about 1.5 Ariane 5ECA's worth of mass (15 tonnes) to
GTO, for example. It would be able to boost about 11.5 tonnes
to escape velocity. It would be able to handle the Pluto New
Horizons launch, planned to go aboard an Atlas 551, with ease.

A three stage Stick could loft just about any Battlestar Galactica
class deep space exploration spacecraft that NASA could conjure
up. A two stage Stick could orbit Hubble-class telescopes, etc.
But the question is, will NASA have any funding for such
payloads?

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

A three stage Stick could loft just about any Battlestar Galactica
class deep space exploration spacecraft that NASA could conjure
up. A two stage Stick could orbit Hubble-class telescopes, etc.
But the question is, will NASA have any funding for such
payloads?



If they can offload Space Station State Department, then, yes.


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

On 4 Nov 2005 17:32:12 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

A three stage Stick could loft just about any Battlestar Galactica
class deep space exploration spacecraft that NASA could conjure
up. A two stage Stick could orbit Hubble-class telescopes, etc.
But the question is, will NASA have any funding for such
payloads?

Wow... with throw weight like that, it seems to me we might be better
off dumping one of the EELVs and making Stick/Centaur available as the
alternate launcher for the Pentagon. NASA is only using it two to four
times a year, anyway.


Brian

On 4 Nov 2005 16:34:41 -0800, wrote:

Th only humane thing to do with it is cancel it.

Let's see...

Atlas 5: Engines built in Russia, a country happily selling weapons
technology to Iran, a country which proudly proclaims it wants to wipe
America (and Israel) off the "face of the map". Its future is shaky,
to say the least.

Delta IV: More politically viable, but doomed to commercial failure by
its high cost and now being kept alive solely by the government. It
would be gone by now, except for Atlas 5's annoying dependence on the
Russians.

Stick: Partly reusable, more powerful than either EELV's largest
variant, much more expensive than Atlas 5, but not a lot more
expensive than Delta IV-Heavy.

If you were to cancel one of these, it isn't immediately obvious to me
that it should be the Stick.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On 4 Nov 2005 16:34:41 -0800, wrote:



Th only humane thing to do with it is cancel it.



Let's see...

Atlas 5: Engines built in Russia, a country happily selling weapons
technology to Iran, a country which proudly proclaims it wants to wipe
America (and Israel) off the "face of the map". Its future is shaky,
to say the least.

Delta IV: More politically viable, but doomed to commercial failure by
its high cost and now being kept alive solely by the government. It
would be gone by now, except for Atlas 5's annoying dependence on the
Russians.

Stick: Partly reusable, more powerful than either EELV's largest
variant, much more expensive than Atlas 5, but not a lot more
expensive than Delta IV-Heavy.

If you were to cancel one of these, it isn't immediately obvious to me
that it should be the Stick.



Plus, a commercial passenger transport variant is under consideration
for *one* of these. Guess which one.

--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Brian Thorn wrote:

On 4 Nov 2005 16:34:41 -0800, wrote:

Th only humane thing to do with it is cancel it.

Let's see...

Atlas 5: Engines built in Russia, a country happily selling weapons
technology to Iran, a country which proudly proclaims it wants to wipe
America (and Israel) off the "face of the map". Its future is shaky,
to say the least.

But in the present, it exists, does it not?

Wow, Russia : our international space partners, no less!

Delta IV: More politically viable, but doomed to commercial failure by
its high cost and now being kept alive solely by the government. It
would be gone by now, except for Atlas 5's annoying dependence on the
Russians.

Wow, a brand new cryogenic rocket, with a brand new launch pad, and a
factory sitting idle capable of producing 18 to 24 Delta IV Mediums a
year! That is just pathetic!

Stick: Partly reusable, more powerful than either EELV's largest
variant, much more expensive than Atlas 5, but not a lot more
expensive than Delta IV-Heavy.

Schtick : Does not exist, will take 10 billion dollars to develop,
heavy lift variant proposes to throw away SSMEs, the upper stage of
which will use 25 year old engines. That is so coo! What I really think
is great about it, is the fact that the SRBs have to be shipped all the
way to UTAH and back to be reused. That will surely reduce launch costs
in the future!

If you were to cancel one of these, it isn't immediately obvious to me
that it should be the Stick.

Well, just offhand, I propose cancelling the one that doesn't exist,
that doesn't promise to reduce launch costs, and perhaps we should use
the ones that do exist, do not require additional development costs,
and are currently sitting idle. Now which ones would those be?

In the future, I also propose that we concentrate on 1) life support 2)
reducing launch costs. You know, the cart and the horse thing.

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/rocket.htm

On 4 Nov 2005 19:07:45 -0800, wrote:

Atlas 5: Engines built in Russia, a country happily selling weapons
technology to Iran, a country which proudly proclaims it wants to wipe
America (and Israel) off the "face of the map". Its future is shaky,
to say the least.

But in the present, it exists, does it not?

Irrelevant. Five years from now, the odds are 50/50 at best.

Wow, Russia : our international space partners, no less!

....who still won't tell us what the hell happened on Soyuz TMA-6...
who announced that our astronaut on ISS doesn't have a ride home
unless America pays up... who haven't bent metal for any of their
promised Space Station modules since Piers... and of yes, proclaim
they fully support Iran's nuclear program. Don't ya just love 'em?

Delta IV: More politically viable, but doomed to commercial failure by
its high cost and now being kept alive solely by the government. It
would be gone by now, except for Atlas 5's annoying dependence on the
Russians.

Wow, a brand new cryogenic rocket, with a brand new launch pad, and a
factory sitting idle capable of producing 18 to 24 Delta IV Mediums a
year

....and Boeing manage to get funded only because they stole LockMart
pricing data to "win" the government contract, and can't sell a one of
'em today except to said government, which is only buying it because
they don't dare be dependent on the Russians for space access.

Hoo boy! Now THAT's a testimonial!

Stick: Partly reusable, more powerful than either EELV's largest
variant, much more expensive than Atlas 5, but not a lot more
expensive than Delta IV-Heavy.

Schtick : Does not exist, will take 10 billion dollars to develop,
heavy lift variant proposes to throw away SSMEs,

There's only one Stick variant, and yes it uses SSME. If you have that
basic premise wrong, why again should I accept your assertions about
it?

the upper stage of
which will use 25 year old engines.

Hardly. The engines have been redesigned in the past ten years with
new turbopumps that weren't even from the original manufacturer (even
before the new manufacturer bought out the old one). What's the
problem? You prefer the heavier, much lower thrust-to-weight RS-68, or
do you not care where the engines come from as long as their cheap?

Just asking if you care that some of your tax dollars are working
their way to Iran to help them wipe us "off the face of the map"...

That is so coo! What I really think
is great about it, is the fact that the SRBs have to be shipped all the
way to UTAH and back to be reused.

Oh yeah, freight trains... someday we'll make them cost effective.
That day was sometime in 1852, I think...

I suppose you prefer the boat Delta IV arrives in? Or the C-5 that
hauls in Atlas 5s? Boats. Planes. Trains. Guess which one carries the
most freight in the US.

That will surely reduce launch costs in the future!

Yeah, like EELV has done so much in that effort. Two! Two EELVs for
the price of... er, the two LVs they replaced.

If you were to cancel one of these, it isn't immediately obvious to me
that it should be the Stick.

Well, just offhand, I propose cancelling the one that doesn't exist,

Ah yes, the thinking that left us stuck with Titan IV for 15 years...

that doesn't promise to reduce launch costs,

Damn. You've cancelled all of them. Lets hope Falcon works. Oh wait,
Falcon 5/9 don't exist yet, either, so we can't mention them...

and perhaps we should use
the ones that do exist, do not require additional development costs,
and are currently sitting idle. Now which ones would those be?

They're sitting idle for a reason. If the government is going to keep
at least one of them afloat (and they will) how about picking the one
that gets us the most bang for the buck and doesn't leave us begging
the Russians to please sell us some more of those fancy engines?

In the future, I also propose that we concentrate on 1) life support 2)
reducing launch costs. You know, the cart and the horse thing.

CEV doesn't need radical new life support technology for its basic
mission (Space Station and Lunar Expeditions). Moonbase will, but
that's 2020 or later, we can start on that after Shuttle retires in
2010 and still have a decade to make it happen. Mars will too, but
that's even farther down the road.

Reducing launch costs isn't the be-all and end-all of spaceflight.
Payload costs typically dominate total mission costs even now.

Brian