CEV to be made commercially available

What's lacking are companies that would be willing to do it as expensively as the use of a CEV would require.

Then increase the flight rate. No such thing as a manned spacecraft
that'll be "cheap" if only flown a few times a year.

On 17 Oct 2005 11:26:57 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

What's lacking are companies that would be willing to do it as expensively as the use of a CEV would require.

Then increase the flight rate. No such thing as a manned spacecraft
that'll be "cheap" if only flown a few times a year.

And there's no way that CEV will be cheap even if flown a thousand
times a year, if it flies on top of an expendable.

And there's no way that CEV will be cheap even if flown a thousand
times a year, if it flies on top of an expendable.

Agreed. That's why you should fly it on the Stick rather than the
EELVs. EELVs are fully expendable. Stick is fully reusable.

wrote in message
ups.com...
And there's no way that CEV will be cheap even if flown a thousand
times a year, if it flies on top of an expendable.

Agreed. That's why you should fly it on the Stick rather than the
EELVs. EELVs are fully expendable. Stick is fully reusable.

The stick is only planned to be partially resuable. Unfortunately, the part
that is planned to be reusable (the SRB) doesn't save you much money over
building it as an expendable.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Stick is fully reusable.

The stick is only planned to be partially resuable.

Planned, yes. However, the simple fact is that the first solid stage is
reusable, while the second stage goes to orbit, leaving large
propellant tanks and the SSME available. The tanks would make a fine
basis for a space station or an upper stage (or a propellant storage
facility, hab modules for the lunar surface, raw materials for SPS, you
name it); the SSME can be cut off and returned. It's only a lack of
even moderate imagination that makes the 2nd stage expendable.

In article .com,
wrote:
The stick is only planned to be partially resuable.

Planned, yes. However, the simple fact is that the first solid stage is
reusable...

Only in the loosest sense of the word, given the amount of refurbishing
work that has to be done after every flight. The only reason anybody
takes that seriously as "reusability" is the juxtaposition with the
enormous efforts that go into refurbishing the orbiter.

while the second stage goes to orbit, leaving large
propellant tanks and the SSME available. The tanks would make a fine
basis for a space station or an upper stage (or...

That's not reusability; that's salvage. Reusability means it can do
the same job repeatedly.

...the SSME can be cut off and returned.

I don't believe that CEV, by current notions, is big enough to return it.
This is a theoretical future possibility, not something that can
reasonably be cited as a virtue of the current system.

It's only a lack of
even moderate imagination that makes the 2nd stage expendable.

No, it's the lack of a reentry system that could return it for reuse. I
agree that the hardware itself isn't inherently limited to a single use --
as best one can tell, given how little detail exists -- but as currently
conceived, that stage is 100% expendable.

There were proposals to make Saturn stages reusable too. That doesn't
mean the Saturns weren't expendables, because those proposals were never
acted on.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

That's not reusability; that's salvage. Reusability means it can do the same job repeatedly.

Or that it can be reused for something else.

Ahem:

re·use ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-yz)
tr.v. re·used, re·us·ing, re·us·es
To use again, especially after salvaging or special treatment or
processing.

reuse
v : use again after processing; "We must recycle the cardboard boxes"
[syn: recycle, reprocess]


OK. Where's my damned T-shirt?


It's only a lack of even moderate imagination that makes the 2nd stage expendable.

No, it's the lack of a reentry system that could return it for reuse.

Such a system is fairly easily developed. The Russians have done it a
few times, though they keep losing the friggen' things.

Henry Spencer wrote:
[...]
...the SSME can be cut off and returned.

I don't believe that CEV, by current notions, is big enough to return it.
This is a theoretical future possibility, not something that can
reasonably be cited as a virtue of the current system.

It's only a lack of
even moderate imagination that makes the 2nd stage expendable.

No, it's the lack of a reentry system that could return it for reuse. I
agree that the hardware itself isn't inherently limited to a single use --
as best one can tell, given how little detail exists -- but as currently
conceived, that stage is 100% expendable.

Demonstartor 2R tells us that cheap recovery systems for the SSME (and
CMGs when shuttle stands down) are still "just around the corner".

/dps

P.S. D-2R is "fluffy" without the tubesocks cooling system, Pete.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Stick is fully reusable.

The stick is only planned to be partially resuable.

Planned, yes. However, the simple fact is that the first solid stage is
reusable, while the second stage goes to orbit, leaving large
propellant tanks and the SSME available. The tanks would make a fine
basis for a space station or an upper stage (or a propellant storage
facility, hab modules for the lunar surface, raw materials for SPS, you
name it); the SSME can be cut off and returned.

Returned how? The CEV isn't big enough to return an SSME.

Also, look how many ET's have been dumped into the ocean, despite the fact
that when they are released, they very nearly have orbital velocity. Once
the ET is dropped, the OMS system only has to perform a modest burn
(compared to the burn of the SSME's) to get the shuttle into orbit. None of
these ET's has been used for anything useful.

It's only a lack of
even moderate imagination that makes the 2nd stage expendable.

NASA clearly lacks that imagination, as their lunar mission architecture
requires only a single docking in LEO before departing for the moon. They
lack the desire to do any orbital assembly (beyond a single docking). The
second stages of the stick will do nothing more than create a light show as
they reenter earth's atmosphere and burn up. Your wishful thinking will not
change this, just as the same wishful thinking never resulted in a single ET
being taken to LEO.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

the SSME can be cut off and returned.

Returned how? The CEV isn't big enough to return an SSME.

And whoever said use the CEV for that role? Again, *think.* Try to come
up with an approach. Think about it from the standpoint of the
entepreneur. There are, say, a dozen SSME's on orbit, each worth
$30-$90 *million* dollars, fully refurbed. How would *you* go about
getting 'em? I've already pointed out a relatively straightforward and
cheap means of returning them. Refine that idea, or do better.

look how many ET's have been dumped into the ocean

ET's aren't Stick upper stages, anymore than the CEV is the Shuttle.

their lunar mission architecture requires only a single docking in LEO before departing for the moon.

Good for them!

They lack the desire to do any orbital assembly (beyond a single docking).

They also lack the desire for hypersonic in-flight refueling. The
*******s!

Your wishful thinking will not change this, just as the same wishful thinking never resulted in a single ET being taken to LEO.

And just as wishful thinking has not built a private orbital manned
spacecraft, much less put someone on the moon. But here's the
difference: the Stick Stage 2 will end up in some sort of orbit.
Instead of whining like a little bitch, talk (calmly) to your
Congresscritters and get them to order NASA to either use the stages on
orbit, or have them transfer ownership to the highest bidder. Write
letters to the editor with simialr suggestions, call NASA PAO, arrange
a meeting with Mike Griffin, whatever. Or some other suggestion more
useful than "WAAAAH! WAAAAAAHHHH! They're not doing things the way *I*
want them to!!!!!"