|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Shuttle to be retired in 2007?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1048
So that a launchpad can be converted over for The Stick and SDV cargo carrier? Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1048 So that a launchpad can be converted over for The Stick and SDV cargo carrier? Pat the inline (SDV) has a greater potential to lift more in the future, just by adding more SRBs, liquid strap ons. or engines, ect. ( hopefully less than th 10+ billion for the Boeing hlv/eelv ) so it the way to go, but while the world waits for shuttle flights and the added costs associated with tooling up for the inline. the launchers for a shuttle-c, would not have to be rebuilt, and could be launched from either coast. or keep one launch system usable while the other is rebuilt. but with the support cost of the shuttle, the whole cost of development and construction are probably not deductible from the cost of having fewer shuttle launches. the government sanctions against Boeing most undoubtably affect the the decision for shuttle-c as short term solution. Boeing closed the the plant where they built shuttles in palmdale years ago. but lately there haven't been the regular shuttle flights. while the construction of the shuttle-c could slow the construction of the station. the modules that are being launched have already been built. the anticipated market for eelv's dried up, so there is less work in rocketry. while it would be silly to spend the billions in development for a couple of launches of the shuttle-c's, then turn around and spend several billion more to develop the inline system. it would great if they could use the shuttle-c prototype that was built 20 years ago, But if the costs of development estimated at 2 bn for shuttle-c, with a cost of almost a bn each. ( congressional estimate in the 90's) you could build 4 shuttle-c's for a total cost of 6 bn, and if the s-C's could carry twice the payload of the shuttle, then there would be 8 less shuttle flights, the estimated cost of shuttle launches around a half bn$ each, then the added cost to the space program would be 2 billion. not small change it is interesting that the shuttle-c has gone from 44t in earliest design, to 77t with the 3 SSME version. the recoverable engine pod is probably not compatible with the inline systems equivalent of the third stage of a Saturn 5, for the boost of the cev and lunar lander to the moon. but the 77t payload of the recent shuttle-c incarnation plus the engine pod is very close to the inlines upper stage mass, if the ssme's could be reused. why carry up an extra engine ? you'd have the benefit of spare ssme's plus the oms. there would be a small portion of extra mass, because of the tank switching. the result is higher thrust for an upper stage equivalent or at lower thrust levels cooler running engines. the added benefit of building a system that could be later used on the inline system, as an upper stage. Ed EELV - Boeing , http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_b.htm EELVs Are A Bad Deal , http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
NASA Instituting Crowd Control on Shuttle | Bill | Space Shuttle | 6 | March 26th 05 12:15 AM |
Space Shuttle milestone NASA installs Main Engines on Discovery | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 1 | December 12th 04 09:07 PM |
Space Shuttle milestone NASA installs Main Engines on Discovery | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 10th 04 09:04 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 12 | April 4th 04 02:46 PM |