I wonderwhat a Musk built shuttle version 2 would cost to build and operate?

With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:
With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.


--
T

On May 26, 11:51*am, Hg wrote:
On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:

With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T

is that nasa prices? or musk prices?

The main issue with the Shuttle was that its role changed, it had few crew
safety features, and it cost a packet to maintain and launch. As purely an
experimental vehicle of course it has taught lots of folk a lot. sadly as is
often the case, some people died due to certain eyes not being on the ball.
Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On May 26, 11:51 am, Hg wrote:
On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:

With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.

--
T

is that nasa prices? or musk prices?

On 27/05/2012 2:23 AM, bob haller wrote:
On May 26, 11:51 am, wrote:
On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:

With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.

--
T

is that nasa prices? or musk prices?


I agree with Bob on this; if SpaceX are anything to go by, then it would
take NASA 10 years and cost 8 billion, but private industry? Try 4
years and 2 billion. Still gobs of money, but a system like Skylon
could really make it easy to get into LEO. Remember that the Saturn V
used 95% of its propellant to cover the first 185km of the distance to
the Moon; only 5% was needed to get the rest of the way, so with Skylon,
it would cover the first 95% of the 'distance' and a vehicle like a TLI
booster would be needed for the rest of the trip.

In article , says...

On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:
With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.

Considering SpaceX has only spent about $1 billion on Falcon 9 and
Dragon, I'd say Skylon is anything but "the smartest concept for a
shuttle like transport".

It's definitely a way for aerospace researchers to spend billions upon
billions of dollars. I'll agree that research is a good thing, but
there is no guarantee that the engine, or vehicle, will ever be
economically viable.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 29/05/2012 19:25, Jeff Findley wrote:
In , says...

On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:
With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.

Considering SpaceX has only spent about $1 billion on Falcon 9 and
Dragon, I'd say Skylon is anything but "the smartest concept for a
shuttle like transport".

It's definitely a way for aerospace researchers to spend billions upon
billions of dollars. I'll agree that research is a good thing, but
there is no guarantee that the engine, or vehicle, will ever be
economically viable.

Jeff

I stand by my comment that Skylon is a clever design - and it does
take the so-called 'spaceplane' method of the Shuttle several levels
further.

Sure,it's an expensive project compared to Falcon - but then it should
to be as it's something entirely new instead of basically tweaking
decades old rocket technology.

The SABRE engine in Skylon has passed several tests already and it's
looking good to pass more over the next few months, which should
encourage potential investors. So, although Skylon still has the
risk of being cancelled in the future it appears it's more than
just vapourware at the moment.


--
T

In article , says...

On 29/05/2012 19:25, Jeff Findley wrote:

Considering SpaceX has only spent about $1 billion on Falcon 9 and
Dragon, I'd say Skylon is anything but "the smartest concept for a
shuttle like transport".

It's definitely a way for aerospace researchers to spend billions upon
billions of dollars. I'll agree that research is a good thing, but
there is no guarantee that the engine, or vehicle, will ever be
economically viable.

I stand by my comment that Skylon is a clever design - and it does
take the so-called 'spaceplane' method of the Shuttle several levels
further.

So was NASP and a host of other air breathing orbital launch vehicles.
They've all been relegated to the dustbin of history.

Sure,it's an expensive project compared to Falcon - but then it should
to be as it's something entirely new instead of basically tweaking
decades old rocket technology.

The SABRE engine in Skylon has passed several tests already and it's
looking good to pass more over the next few months, which should
encourage potential investors.

There is no SABRE engine. What's been tested so far is one single, but
critical, piece of the engine. They've got a long way, and likely
billions of dollars, to go before they have a complete engine for
testing.

So, although Skylon still has the
risk of being cancelled in the future it appears it's more than
just vapourware at the moment.

I never said SABRE was vaporware. I said it's a very expensive research
project which may, or may not, produce results after spending several
billions of dollars.

Research is a good thing, but you can't rely on it to launch today's
payloads. The cheapest way to launch today is to take the best of
*existing* tech and use it to build a launch vehicle optimized for low
cost (instead of high performance, minimum dry mass, or other
traditional metrics which do little to minimize cost).

SABRE still seeems like a daft way to try to minimize costs. LOX is one
of the cheapest fluids on the planet because you can make it from air in
industrial quantities in factories on the ground. I see no reason to
abandon that extremely cheap source of oxidizer and replace it with an
extremely complex, expensive, air breathing engine which only gets you
part of the way to orbit. Air breathing mode only gets you so far with
SABRE, then it converts to a liquid fueled rocket engine using the very
same LOX they're trying to avoid early on in flight.

I'd personally invest in research and development of aerospike rocket
engines before I'd invest in SABRE. it's a shame that the X-33's linear
aerospike engine never flew. It was the most promising bit of tech in
the design, IMHO.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In sci.space.shuttle message -
september.org, Wed, 30 May 2012 08:46:47, Jeff Findley
posted:

LOX is one
of the cheapest fluids on the planet because you can make it from air in
industrial quantities in factories on the ground.

Exactly. LOX is one of the cheapest fluids ON the planet (though air is
a fluid, and free) - for delivery by road, rail, or sea.

I see no reason to
abandon that extremely cheap source of oxidizer and replace it with an
extremely complex, expensive, air breathing engine which only gets you
part of the way to orbit.

But LOX is not cheap if you are at high speed and umpty thousand metres
up; but, for a considerable range of umpty, air is still free up there.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

Jeff Findley writes:

In article , says...

On 26/05/2012 18:26, bob haller wrote:
With the 40 years of what was good about the shuttle what wasnt...

It would be interesting to at least here their ideas. Perhaps using
the same basics for a extreme heavy lifter?

The smartest concept I've seen recently for a Shuttle-like transport
would have to be Skylon - unfortunately it'll take at least 10 years
and 8 billion of funding to get a working vehicle.

Considering SpaceX has only spent about $1 billion on Falcon 9 and
Dragon, I'd say Skylon is anything but "the smartest concept for a
shuttle like transport".

What SpaceX *could* do (and I'm indeed wondering why they don't try) is
integrating the F-9 second stage, trunk and Dragon into a kind of mini
shuttle. If they want to recover the second stage this is very hard to
do with the stage reentering on its own. Center of gravity is wrong for
a head-on reentry, it has no control surfaces (and they would be hard to
add)... Integrate second stage and Dragon, add some delta wings and you
could easily get something that should be able to reenter and land in
one piece, with even the trunk and solar panels recovered.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery