CEV to be made commercially available

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:51:34 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:

Of course there are.

Don't throw the hardware away, and fly a lot.

Reusability involves weight and cost penalties.

Flying a lot creates a chicken-and-egg problem.

But I do see on the Astronautix site the sad story of one attempt that
could well have been successful.

If you can't fly a lot, just build your rocket out of a lot of identical
units!

Despite clearly not being optimal in terms of overhead mass, OTRAG
apparently already demonstrated how one can significantly reduce the
costs of launching rockets into space.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article ,
John Savard wrote:
...What's lacking are companies that would be willing to do
it as expensively as the use of a CEV would require.

...are you claiming that there are ways, absent the development of
far-future technologies such as a space elevator (or non-Newtonian
propulsion!), to send personnel to the moon at prices that would be
rational for even a *few* private companies to take advantage of?

There's no fundamental reason why not. The only absolutely inescapable
cost of doing so is fuel... and fuel is cheap. The fundamental cost of
putting mass into orbit with LOX/kerosene is under $1.50/kg. Of course,
most of that mass is vehicle; it'll be up around maybe $8/kg for payload.
There will be some other operating costs, not large by comparison because
rockets are so fuel-intensive. Call it $10/kg to LEO.

Handily, the delta-V for TLI, landing, and return is about the same as for
reaching LEO. So similar mass ratios apply, and we get a cost of around
$1000/kg for payload to the lunar surface and return. That could be
reduced significantly with refueling on the lunar surface, and perhaps
further with lunar LOX exported to LEO, but I'll disregard those options.
Figuring person plus spacesuit plus baggage plus odds and ends at 200kg, a
return ticket is $200,000. Which is a lot for an individual and nothing
much for a company.

The trick is getting the overhead costs down to a small fraction of fuel
costs. We are nowhere near achieving that; currently the overhead costs
are utterly dominant and fuel costs are insignificant. It would take
fully-reusable highly-developed hardware, greatly streamlined operations,
and a high flight rate. There's not the slightest chance that NASA could
do that. But there is nothing impossible about it.

Of course, looking at prices in my local department store... if it
weren't for the effects of the balance of payments deficit, perhaps the
U.S. could just buy Shenzou rockets from China!

Not that helpful, not on this scale. Cheap hardware, but it's still
expendable... and it uses quite costly fuels, much more expensive than
LOX/kerosene.

(By the way, Shenzhou is the spacecraft -- the rockets are Long March.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

The fundamental cost of
putting mass into orbit with LOX/kerosene is under $1.50/kg.

Wait a minute; leaving the LOX out of the equation, I can accelerate 1
kg of mass to 18,000 mph and 100 miles altitude with the energy in
around 2/3rds of a gallon of Kerosene? It's running around $2.75 at the
moment.
Price of LOX in 2001 was about $.67 per gallon.

Pat

John Savard wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:55:27 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:

There are many companies with rational reasons to have personnel flown
to the moon. What's lacking are companies that would be willing to do
it as expensively as the use of a CEV would require.

That's quite correct. It is absolutely true, every word of it.

However: just as Shenzou VI would not be out of the Earth's gravity if
it had a slightly higher orbit...

are you claiming that there are ways, absent the development of
far-future technologies such as a space elevator (or non-Newtonian
propulsion!), to send personnel to the moon at prices that would be
rational for even a *few* private companies to take advantage of?

That's right - cost is everything. And what drives the cost of putting
payloads into space? The cost of momentum obviously. We don't need
far future technologies to lower momentum costs. We need only a simple
program of development that assembles a capable team of scientists and
engineers, motivates them to lower costs, and provides consistent and
sufficient resources to carry out avenues of inquiry to actually lower
costs.

I recall a team from Ford went on a tour at the old Rockwell facilities
that built the SSME. The Ford team went in expecting to be impressed
by all the fancy space age technology NASA developed at great expense.
Instead they were appalled at the lack of sophistication, and even the
lack of good quality control systems. Ford was way ahead a shaping
metals and fabricating complex apparatus from them. Ahead in terms of
sophistication, tracking, quality, and cost. WHY? Because NASA
contractors operate on a COST-PLUS basis. Ford operates on a PROFIT
basis. A NASA contractor therefore is rewarded by creating additional
costs, as long as those costs are justified to the government. Ford
Motor Car is rewarded by eliminating costs, as long as those costs do
not material affect the quality or merchantibility of the motor cars
being built.

So, all we must really do is free private sector contractors from the
cost-plus contracting mindset and reward them for reducing costs.

We haven't done this, which is why we didn't follow Max Faget's advice
and reuse the F1 and J2 engine sets in building a fully reusable
shuttle with an ablative sheild.


http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/p208.jpg

Instead we invented a new SSME and SRB combination with new thermal
tiles - since that justified higher costs and hence higher profits. We
also went from stacked stages to parallel stages which created
headaches we are still living with today (failed O-rings causing
complete destruction of the shuttle at lift-off, foam impacting thermal
tiles again causing complete destruction of the shuttle at re-entry)

Even so, we could reuse today's Shuttle technology, or even Apollo era
moonship technology - updated with modern sensing and control
technologies - to great benefit.

The External Tank could be modified as a flyback booster, lofted by
modified SSME (aka STME)

http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309047269/html/49.html

- to create a completely reusable system based on existing airframes
put together in novel ways.

These large boosters could also be ganged together to create fully
reusable HLLVs that loft up to 500 tons into LEO - more than 4x that of
the old Apollo era Saturn launchers.

With this sort of launch capacity it would be possible to create a
lunar base that's 4x the size and 1/10th the cost of the proposed
Apollo based lunar base

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aporbase.htm

With a fully reusable system - this could be quite cost-effective,
provided the government put in the capital needed to develop test and
build the initial fleet. Once operational, profits from fleet
operations could maintain and expand the fleet.

* * *

Failing such infrastructure development it would be possible to send
people to orbit around the moon using a variant of the venerable Soyuz
spacecraft.

http://www.thespacereview.com/gallery/7

This wouldn't involve a landing, but could involve orbiting the moon
and returning to Earth.

An updated version of the Lunikod spacecraft could be landed on the
moon, and those on orbit could drive it via wireless remote control
using telepresence though.

But the Soyuz based system could be modified with multiple launches to
support a lunar landing - along the lines of that proposed for the
Gemini program of the early 1960s.

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/bygemoon.htm

Basically, you would launch a slimmed down lunar lander to lunar orbit,
to await the arrival of a Soyuz based manned system launched later.
Then, the two would rendezvous in lunar orbit, and a crew member or
members would transit from the Soyuz to the lander - and they would
land on the moon and return to lunar orbit a short time later. They
would then transit back to the Soyuz and head back to Earth.

QUICK RESPONSE PROGRAM USING BEST-AVAILABLE HARDWA

COST OF COMMERCIAL RIDE TO ORBIT: $20 million
COST OF COMMERCIAL RIDE TO LUNAR-ORBIT: $120 million
COST OF COMMERCIAL RIDE TO LUNAR-SURFACE: $1,500 million

NOVA CLASS REUSABLE LAUNCHER WITH RESUABLE HARDWARE ON MOON:

COST OF LOW-COST REUSABLE MOONSHIP: $6,500 million
COST PER FLIGHT: $300 million
TONS ON LUNAR SURFACE: 100 tons (1 way)
30 tons (round trip)

COST PER TON: Cargo one way: $3 million/ton
Round trip: $10 million/ton

50 passengers, 5 crew - $6 million per person (cost)
$10 million per person (retail)

Fleet of 3 - one flight per month
600 people per year

12 flights per year - $6,000 million/year revenue
$2,000 million/year EBITDA

Add another - cargo carrier - for 1 way flights - and send 400 tons per
year to the moon one way. With inflatable habitats and other
innovations, one could put together a lunar resort in short order
within these budgets.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0306201



Of course, looking at prices in my local department store... if it
weren't for the effects of the balance of payments deficit, perhaps the
U.S. could just buy Shenzou rockets from China!

Or, given NAFTA... Hecho en Mexico, anyone?

On the other hand, I think that it is possible to launch *small* rockets
quite inexpensively. On the Astronautix site, for example, the low cost
of the German V-2 is cited.

What with all the advances in microelectronics and medical science,
perhaps in a few decades people will be able to "upload" themselves into
a matchbox-sized mass of electronics. We could call it the Henry
Wadsworth Akeley method of space travel.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 20 Oct 2005 10:50:04 -0700, "William Mook"
wrote, in part:

We haven't done this, which is why we didn't follow Max Faget's advice
and reuse the F1 and J2 engine sets in building a fully reusable
shuttle with an ablative sheild.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/p208.jpg

Instead we invented a new SSME and SRB combination with new thermal
tiles - since that justified higher costs and hence higher profits. We
also went from stacked stages to parallel stages which created
headaches we are still living with today (failed O-rings causing
complete destruction of the shuttle at lift-off, foam impacting thermal
tiles again causing complete destruction of the shuttle at re-entry)

This is a very good example.

I should have been more specific, I guess. I am not at all intending to
deny that there are a lot of ways to make spaceflight a little cheaper.
Or even a lot cheaper - compared to what it costs now.

What I don't believe is possible, though, at any time in the near
future, is making spaceflight *cheap*. Not until rockets can be replaced
by something else.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

lid (John Savard) wrote:

On the Astronautix site, for example, the low cost
of the German V-2 is cited.

As it is in John Walker's egregious "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High
Costs Away," based on Ordway & Sharpe's _The Rocket Team._

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

Walker does acknowledge that V-2s were produced by slave labor at the
Mittelwerk, where more people died than were killed by all the V-2s
ever launched. (I'll bet LockMart's costs would go down, too, if they
could hang under-performing staff from a traveling crane.)

Underneath that, though, he seems to assume that his cost figures
reflect formal accounting and chargebacks between the SS (which ran
production), Peenemunde R&D, and the Wehrmacht "customers." There was
no such accounting, and so the figures are close to meaningless.

I'm confident that mass production *would* dramatically lower the unit
cost of any given rocket, but the V-2 is a poor starting point for
such assertions.

Monte Davis wrote:

As it is in John Walker's egregious "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High
Costs Away," based on Ordway & Sharpe's _The Rocket Team._

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html



Those are some very interesting cost figures; especially the one about a
Energia costing around 1/3rd of the price of a Titan IV.
Let's just buy the rights to make those.

Pat

Or, to put it more simply, the supply curve that the CEV system would
have, would be so far up the graph that it never meets the demand
curve.

-kert

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
news
Breaking news...

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/cgi-b...ic.php?t=31504


Ever see this spectacular kit of the space station?
I've been tempted to order one.

http://www.imrcmodels.com/iss/issphoto01.htm





--
"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

In article , jonathan
wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
news
Breaking news...

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/cgi-b...ic.php?t=31504


Ever see this spectacular kit of the space station?
I've been tempted to order one.

http://www.imrcmodels.com/iss/issphoto01.htm

I picked one up when the first station segments were sent up. It's a
bitch to put together, with unlabled parts and somewhat unclear
directions. Or my model skills had just failed me

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS