|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-30 18:01, Fred J. McCall wrote: Over 20% of all boosters flown this year were 're-used boosters'. That's a pretty high flight rate for the first year of the capability being production. 3 first flights, which likely got a lot more tender loving care than would normally happen in production when your refurb procedures are established and becomes routine. Once it's commercial production it *IS* 'routine' by definition. They've proven it can be done. They haven't proven they can launch 15 times per year with reflown stages. Of course they have. When I argued that had not yet proven with high reflight rate, one of the cheerleaders reponded that they had done 15 flights this year and that was proof of high rates. But only 3 of those are reflight. You didn't argue that. You've been corrected on this numerous times by several people. Now you're not only mentally challenged, you're an outright liar. and will also probably refly only once. Block 5 hardware is the final design and will refly 10 times with only inspections and up to 100 times with refurbishment. Perfect example of cheerleading. Has any Block 5 flown yet ? has any been reflown? How many times has a block 5 been reflown? Gee, I'm sorry you consider THE FACTS to be cheerleading. Run along back to your delusions, Mayfly. So you make assertions the same way people predicted the Shuttle would turn around quickly and make dozens and dozens of flights per years. And you're a lying sack of **** with substandard communication skills and large mental challenges. You are using goals and turning them into accomplished deeds when none of those have actually happened yet. Just because peoople have high confidence in SpaceX achieving a large part of their goals doesn't mean they have already achieved them. And that is my argument. They've already demonstrated that they can refly BLOCK 3 hardware with sufficiently short turn around times and low enough costs so that they could conduct the bulk of a year's launches on used hardware. Your 'argument' is conflating multiple things and that's why your argument is moronic. -- "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear." -- Mark Twain |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-31 06:24, Jeff Findley wrote: I see, so you're picking on the "only three" reflight number and ignoring the success of the 12 flights of "new" first stages? My issue is with claims by cheerleaders that SpaceX had already proven it was capable of high reflight rate, not high flight rate. So your issue is with your poor communication skills rather than with anything anyone has actually said. You guys have since admitted that the current batch will only get one reflight (if any) ... 'Admitted'? Hell, Mayfly, everyone but you knew this already. ... and not till block 5 will multiple reflights be possible. Lie. No one has said any such thing. Please explain to us benighted heathens just what a rocket expert like you thinks prevents Block 3 hardware from being reflown more than once. Be specific. *I* think it's 'prevented' by the calendar, because there's no need to refly any of them more than once between now and when the cheaper and easier to refly Block 5 hardware is available. You obviously think something happens to the booster that takes it from 'reliable when refurbished' to "cannot be refurbished sufficiently to be reflown". Just what do you think that 'something' is? But have yet to agree that multiple reflights or quick turnaround has yet to be demonstrated. I love the way you keep changing the words (and thus your claim). By the way, only three of those 15 flights this year have "expended" the first stage, so they've gotten quite good at recovering stages. Yes they have. But what is not YET known is the state of those 12 recovered stages and how much work is needed to put them on a launch pad (or what percentage are not worth refurbishing). You don't seem to understand. I'm curious what kind of damage you think a booster that successfully landed with no visible damage could take that would make it "not worth refurbishing", which would mean that it is cheaper to build a new one than fix the old one. Enlighten me. 3 have been reflown and a few more slated to refly, 5 out of 15 means 33% recovery rate. If they go up to 7, then roughly 50% recovery rate. So it'll never be enough to shut you up. It's possible that all 12 can and will be recovered, but none of the current launch plans show this. So this remains speculation by cheerleaders. No, this remains obvious (to everyone but you). Just think a bit. How mangled does a new car have to get in order to be 'totaled'? I don't think there's a way to damage a new car with no visible damage that would 'total' it. Now apply that same thinking to a new rocket. At any rate, there is now a huge backlog of boosters to refurbish and refly. 2018 and 2019 should have a much higher portion of "previously flown" stages than 2017. If they accumulate landed new stages at faster rate than they can refurbish them, then at one point, they have to start to throw some away. So again, this is an unknown. Again, you don't seem to comprehend. You appear to think that they can only do one at a time and must complete that one before they start the next one. We know they've managed to refurbish at least SEVEN so far this year. And that's a minimum number. We don't know how many more they have done but not scheduled for use yet. And two of those seven required some structural modification into the bargain (the two Falcon Heavy side boosters). There is a difference between what SpaceX plans to do and what it has done. And there is an even bigger difference between what they plan to do and what they would need to do to 'prove' it to you. And while there will always be a difference between its ambiutions and what it has delivered (and nothing wrong with that), what is wrong is to consider its ambitions to be "deone deal" when it hasn't been done yet, And the words change yet again, and in the same article. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic?
YES http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with propellant costs. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40 per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is just the short list. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
One detail in the Lockheed Martin study described previously, regarding flyback LRBs replacing sea recovered SRBs - was that the $52 million External Tank was thrown away each flight!
A few years back at a National Space Society talk I gave, I outlined a method to create a reusable booster element from these tanks using inflatable wing technology! This could be used to recover the External tank for about 4% its purchase price! https://vimeo.com/37102557 The orbiter, with flyback LRB boosters, and a flyback External Tank would have reduced the cost of each launch from $500 million to $20 million or so - and investment in reducing the standing army of government employees PER LAUNCH by automating the launch procedures - would cut even that figure. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173021.htm https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstu...s-nasa-58.html With an average payroll of $68,000 per year and 18,000 direct employees, and 90,000 contractors a total payroll of $7.34 billion. Direct launch operations are far less than this. However, this is about 1/3 the total budget of NASA. https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle...er-launch.html Launch operations were about $2 billion per year - and with four flights per year $500 million per flight. With automation and the improvements described, the government could have increased launch rate to 360x per year - and reduced costs to less than $2 million per flight. What do you do with 360 launches per year? Then, what's the cost of the payload? A cost reduction campaign in that area would be done in parallel with the cost reduction in the launch system. Then with reduced launch and payloads, what do you do then? (1) Global wireless hotspot - broadband for everyone - (2) Global wireless power - end energy shortages (3) Off world mining of the rarest materials - (4) Off world mining of rare materials (5) Off world manufacturing - (6) Off world farming - (7) Ballistic transport (8) Off world colonies These are all highly disruptive politically socially and even to religion. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5gch8t On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 2:28:59 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote: Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic? YES http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with propellant costs.. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40 per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is just the short list. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
William Mook wrote:
The orbiter, with flyback LRB boosters, and a flyback External Tank would have reduced the cost of each launch from $500 million to $20 million or so - and investment in reducing the standing army of government employees PER LAUNCH by automating the launch procedures - would cut even that figure. Poppycock! snip MookSpew -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
In article ,
says... Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic? YES http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with propellant costs. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40 per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is just the short list. You are completely ignoring development costs. NASA never received development funding for liquid fly-back boosters. And with NASA's cost models (especially back then), it would have cost many billions of dollars to develop. The politicians were never willing to fund that kind of development, especially with the huge political support that ATK has always enjoyed. Supporting SRBs also meant indirect support for the supply chain necessary to develop and produce next generation ICBMs. Politically, it was hard to disentangle the shuttle program from the support of that supply chain. This was not something expressed loudly in the press, but I am arguing the pressure was there, behind closed doors. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are rotating stations realistic ? | John Doe | Space Station | 2 | May 19th 10 10:15 AM |
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA" | gaetanomarano | Policy | 19 | November 27th 07 05:59 AM |
shuttle, tank and boosters on its crawler | Rich | Space Shuttle | 37 | September 11th 06 09:09 AM |
Shuttle Liquid Fly-Back Booster to save money, improve safety(flashback) | Bob Wilson | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 16th 06 02:12 AM |
Space Shuttle Boosters and Launch Pad Revell Model Kit on eBay | TB | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 1st 05 07:00 AM |