launcher economics

I have read that the greatest cost component for NASA in a launch is
overhead and this is very understandable. They have large fixed
assetts with large costs associated with them. Consider what it must
cost just to maintain the VAB or one of those launch pads. They have
a large labor force that cannot be charged directly to launching so
they are overhead. Even if NASA was given the launch vehicle for free
it wouldnt even reduce their launch costs by half. This means that
NASA will NEVER be able to launch for low cost.
The best way to reduce launch cost is to reduce overhead and we
have a simple relationship:

Complex rockets give high overhead
Simple rockets give low overhead

The shuttle being very complicated will always be a high overhead
system regardless of who flies it. The same thing is true of most
other launch systems although to a lesser degree. For low cost
launches, we need low overhead and therefor a simple launcher.
For low overhead (OHD) and low direct charges, we try to reduce
costs associated with the actual launch such as fees for the spaceport
by launching from the ocean as does Sealaunch. For even lower direct
charges we get rid of the actual launch platform and launch from the
open ocean like Seadragon. We get rid of the costly support vessel.
We tow the fully loaded (fuel and oxidizer) launcher to the launch
site (along the equator for best performance) using a commercial ocean
going tug. Launch is controlled by a small computer and power
supplies onbaord the tug. Tracking is done via GPS on the launcher
and tracking data and telemetry is transmitted via the satellite
iridium phone network so we dont need tracking and telemetry stations.
Having the launcher already loaded with fuel and oxidizer means it
must be a hybrid rocket with non-cryogenic fuel such a H2O2. Previous
hybrid engines had poor thrust due to low burn rate (regression rate)
but the new wax hybrids are better. I can imagine a way to
significantly increase the regression rate of such an engine (patent
being filed) for better thrust. Engines are made very simply and
meant to be clustered to fill different markets.
My greatest question concerns whether they should pressure fed
oxidizer or pumped oxidizer. Another question is whether to use an
oxidizer tank on each engine or to use a single tank feeding all
engines. A single tank might make it possible to use one large turbo
pump feeding all engines at low cost.
I understand that economics favor a two or three stage to orbit
over a single stage to orbit and I agree. Although ppl like the idea
of re-useability and think it should be more economical than
expendables, I disagree and think that expendable is more economical
for such a simple launcher. Our first stage is just a big dumb
booster consisting of tubes filled with fuel and oxidizer feed system.
Recovery and re-use is probably more costly than its worth. Ditto
for the second stage. it might be worthwhile to recover the thrid
stage cuz thats where the smarts and manouvering system are located
but even that can be simple enough to be thrown away considering the
complexity of re-entry, recovery and re-use.
Its 2003 and puttin stuff in orbit aint rocket science no more so
there's no good reason why it has to cost so much.

(Parallax) writes:
The best way to reduce launch cost is to reduce overhead and we
have a simple relationship:

Complex rockets give high overhead
Simple rockets give low overhead

Airliners are extremely complex with high overhead, yet airline
tickets are relatively cheap. What's the relationship here? You're
able to fly an airliner enough times in a year so as to spread those
fixed costs out over hundreds or thousands of flights. With the
shuttle, you can always count the number of flights per year on your
fingers and toes.

There is no one, simple, relationship to reduce launch costs. You've
got to look at all economic aspects of the system.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

The other part is that fly often is the way to amortize overhead of
staff or plant site.
Example: When I take a 777 to England, it leaves Miami about 4pm to arrive
England 7am, local time. Two hours to clean, restock the pantry and refuel and
it's coming right back to the states at 9am. The darn things only on the ground
four or five hours a day!
300 seats X $1000 round trip = 300,000 bucks a day. If it flys 300 days a
year, that's an annual income of 90 million.
That said, why's AA in bankruptcy? Frequency is only a part of operational
efficiency. The biggest part is always the bureaucracy a transportation system
has to support. [that's why nasa has to be kicked out of the space access
business]
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~