CEV to be made commercially available

Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA could do a lot towards researching lower cost engines.

Ahhh.... no. NASA's collective head would explode.

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle
business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy
lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

Non sequitur. The Pres has said "get to the moon." That's the "need."
They cannot buy a launch to the moon, as there's no such product
available. So, they have to pay to have such a product developed.


If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to operate
due to economies of scale.

Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.

If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing. EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.

" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:
Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

Non sequitur. The Pres has said "get to the moon." That's the "need."
They cannot buy a launch to the moon, as there's no such product
available. So, they have to pay to have such a product developed.

You're a smart guy Scott. NASA can buy launches to LEO and do earth orbit
assembly (likely mostly docking to avoid EVA's, since NASA still doesn't
consider them routine).


If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but
EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to
operate
due to economies of scale.

Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.

Possibly, but there would have been broader applications for the technology
developed. For example, launching comsats into LEO separately from their
geosynch kick stage, eventually using a reusable LEO to GEO space tug to do
the work. This, in conjunction with better development of EVA equipment and
procedures, could have lead to cheaper, servicable GEO comsats, rather than
the expensive, one use only comsats we have today.

If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing.

Exactly. That's one reason why Saturn V was killed. Another reason it was
killed was because it was a NASA specific launch vehiclt that was too big to
be of use by anyone else.

EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.

This is where we disagree. I happen to think that the technologies (LEO
EVA, automated rendezvous and docking, orbital storage of cryogenic
propellants, and etc.) and smaller launch vehicles intended for EOR would
have had broader applications than just going to the moon. Because of this,
canceling the lunar program (after a landing or two), need not have resulted
in the cancellation of the launch vehicle(s) too. The fact is that Saturn V
was just too damn big and expensive for *anything* reasonably affordable and
sustainable program. And no, I don't consider the shuttle program
reasonable and sustainable in terms of costs, otherwise, the Shuttle II
proposals would have gotten funding, but instead, NASA is looking at smaller
capsules again.

I believe the same to be true of the proposed SDHLV. It's just too big and
expensive to be used for anything but going to the moon and Mars, making it
more vulnerable to cancellation than existing (smaller) US launch vehicles.

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

Jeff Findley wrote:


Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.



Possibly, but there would have been broader applications for the technology
developed. For example, launching comsats into LEO separately from their
geosynch kick stage, eventually using a reusable LEO to GEO space tug to do
the work. This, in conjunction with better development of EVA equipment and
procedures, could have lead to cheaper, servicable GEO comsats, rather than
the expensive, one use only comsats we have today.



Problem: the EOR system was to use a series of unmanned and unreusable
tankers to top up the lunar vehicle in Earth orbit. EVAs were not to be
a big part of the mix, and the tanekrs were not "tugs" as such. Some
fairly detailed design work had been completed on these systems.



If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing.



Exactly. That's one reason why Saturn V was killed.


Take the low-cost launch vehicle of your choice, from Falcon to T-Space
to whatever. Build one or two, then cancel it. Per-unit cost is
astonishingly high as a result.



EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.



This is where we disagree. I happen to think that the technologies (LEO
EVA, automated rendezvous and docking, orbital storage of cryogenic
propellants, and etc.) and smaller launch vehicles intended for EOR would
have had broader applications than just going to the moon. Because of this,
canceling the lunar program (after a landing or two), need not have resulted
in the cancellation of the launch vehicle(s) too. The fact is that Saturn V
was just too damn big and expensive for *anything* reasonably affordable and
sustainable program.


But EOR was to use the Saturn I (derivative thereof, actually). Saturn I
got canned with V.





--
"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