Heard too much and need to vent.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:15:30 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

The reason that nobody has built a Shuttle-C to date

Not that this is quite the design I imagine, when my idea is more of a
simple and less complex design.

From your previous comments, I'm not sure I believe you have an idea of
how
complex or simple Shuttle-C was meant to be.

Well it is such an old idea, where after all this is just a cargo
version of the shuttle.

Which is what the Shuttle-C was.



Remember, the launch vehicle is only part of the problem. You still have
the entire infrastructure of LC-39 that has to be paid for.

Certainly, but following the complex Shuttle, I am sure that support
can be reduced for a simpler system.

You still need the the infrastructure. What exactly would you "simplify" at
LC-39?


And if you don't recover the SSMEs, that's a chunk of change right there.

Not that I was thinking of SSMEs, when even NASA knows that these are
due replacement. Or was the last time I checked.

Check again. NASA is upgrading the SSMEs, but not replacing them.

In the late 1980s there was a considerable debate on using flown engines and
the economics of re-use or not. At $38 million an engine (reference
Jenkin's) that adds up fast if you're tossing them away.


Some new rocket engines right below the main fuel tank was my idea,
where with some good engineering the engines can be separated in orbit
and returned to Earth if desired.

So now you have to completely redesign the ET since it's not designed to
take thrust there, you have to redesign the MLP, requalify the water
supression system, etc.

And then you need to design a recovery mechanism for the engines.


If you do want to return them, not you've re-added complexity.

That is the whole problem with the Shuttle, when 80% of the launch
mass is taken up with the launching hardware of the Shuttle.

Congress could well do so with a Moon Base if NASA could show easy
slot together mass produced sections and a heavy launcher to get the
stuff out there.

There are no voters on the Moon. It's really that simple.

Have they ever tried getting out on the streets and asking people?


Ayup. Every two years. It's called elections. Seems as if not many people
vote on space, but vote on streets getting paved, parks getting built and
whatever money their Reps can bring to their district.

I don't think that space exploration should really be a voting matter,
when people will always put things before exploration, where they soon
forget that their own country was found and invaded due to this word.

NASA exists primarily as a jobs program.

That sounds like a good reason to have no more NASA.

Ayup, and a lot of folks here would argue just that.

Just break the space probe section into a separate company to keep
that useful area running, then get rid of all the Shuttle and the ISS
(and of course NASA), when obviously they will never be doing anything
really useful with them.

The primary area that the ISS does do, science, has been heavily
criticized by scientists as a waste of money. Oh that was good...

So the ISS is not good at what it does, the ISS was built for this
purpose, where the Shuttle was built to build the ISS. In other words
a waste of money from start to finish.


That is one way of looking at it.

Now imagine if the ISS had been made as a Moon Base instead, when if
it did nothing at all, then at least they could say "Hey, we are
exploring the Moon here", where more likely they actually would be.

But you can't have microgravity on the Moon.


(At least on the space side. I'd argue the A
has more present value on a dollar for dollar basis.)

The "A"?


Yes, the A.

Once you have the launch capacity, then it only takes imagination to
fill it. You go ask some project manager what they would put in such a
launch and they would bound to have great ideas.

No, it takes MONEY to fill it. No one's coming up with the bucks.

Well as I said at minimum it would service the ISS for a very long
time, where you could use extra capacity for fuel.

And well one day in a few years time NASA may put the Moon Base idea
before congress, where then we will see if you have a paying customer.

Who? Congress has already said they won't pay.


Congress usually like space exploration,

Only when it brings jobs to their district.

where they forced NASA to do
the Pluto mission, where they would also like NASA to account for what
they have done to promote space exploration.

So congress is usually pro-space exploration, where NASA gets congress
quite annoyed at what it does.

Hardly. Look at the money Congress spends. They are indifferent to space
exploration and some are actively hostile.


Heck, one way to make the shuttle cheaper is to launch it MORE often, not
less. Look up the difference between fixed and marginal costs.

Certainly, where I can only see that getting rid of the Shuttle and
using a much less complex rocket, would help reduce some of those
fixed costs.


(look at the current NASA budget and the "savings" of launching no more
shuttle flights this year as one reference.)

So as they have a backlog of ISS components to launch, then why not
increase the launch rate and save money? ;-]


Because Congress is looking at one year ahead, not 5. When they cut the
recent ET procument contract the total cost of the contract went down
because they were procuring fewer tanks, but the average price per tank went
up.

Cardman.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:07:13 -0500, (Alan
Anderson) wrote:

Cardman wrote:

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]

Tires.

Well not that it exactly needs tires in space...

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:07:13 -0500, (Alan
Anderson) wrote:

Cardman wrote:

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]

Tires.

Well not that it exactly needs tires in space...


It does if you ever want to safely land it.


Cardman.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:08:16 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:24:46 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
And if NASA knows basic physics, then why did it not put the ISS into
a much more useful orbit?

Because the purpose of ISS is political, and that was the only orbit
that it could be put in and still use Russian systems.

Interestingly enough Russia is moving those systems now that ESA are
building them a new launch pad. I have no idea how that affects the
ISS flights though.

the nature of the shuttle systems,

So it cannot be maintained in orbit then?

Not without major modifications.

And the cost of these modifications would be an interesting number I
am sure, but it may be cheaper than other options.

But the notion of using a 200,000 lb vehicle for a tug is insane.

Maybe so, but if it can save the billions on making a real space tug,
then it would be worth it, even if technically insane.

Still, the Shuttle is looking less likely I guess, which means making
something else to fill this role.

So how is the OSP planned for dealing with moving cargo? Not very much
I would presume, but NASA does seem a bit unclear on what it plans to
do with the OSP.

Cardman.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

(At least on the space side. I'd argue the A
has more present value on a dollar for dollar basis.)

The "A"?


Yes, the A.

Specifically, the first A.

You know, the "Aeronautics" part of "National Aeronautics and Space
Administration"?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:38:51 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So it cannot be maintained in orbit then?

Not without major modifications.

And the cost of these modifications would be an interesting number I
am sure, but it may be cheaper than other options.

It may be to people who are so ignorant of space systems that they are
rectorcranially ignorant of cost-benefit ratios, but it's not to
people who've actually studied the problem.

But the notion of using a 200,000 lb vehicle for a tug is insane.

Maybe so, but if it can save the billions on making a real space tug,

It can't.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:04:34 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I guess that the design did not plan for this possibility.

Duh.

Anyway, it is finally good to see some real answers, where unless
these problems can be solved, then indeed a real space tug would be
needed.

Do you really, really delude yourself that no one ever considered any
of these possibilities until the brilliant "cardman" came along?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:21:01 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What heavy launch do you plan if not the Shuttle?

There is no need for heavy launch. The need is for affordable space
transport.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:21:56 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
Well it is such an old idea, where after all this is just a cargo
version of the shuttle.

Which is what the Shuttle-C was.

Also while we are on this Shuttle-C idea, then why did not NASA
develop the Shuttle-C to launch the ISS?

After all it would only take the cost of three or four Shuttle
launches to make Shuttle-C happen, where in one or two (according to
recent reports) launches at the cost of about $900 million the ISS
would be complete.

You would just need one Shuttle in orbit at the time to put all the
sections together, where the station could complete itself half of the
way through.

As then you would have the Shuttle-C as an extra option in the future,
but instead they are building the ISS out of dozens of much more
expensive Shuttle launches.

Afraid to put all their eggs in one basket (not that this would carry
much extra risk), or just wanting to do all those Shuttle launches?

I can only see that NASA made a bad and very expensive choice.

Certainly, but following the complex Shuttle, I am sure that support
can be reduced for a simpler system.

You still need the the infrastructure. What exactly would you "simplify" at
LC-39?

Most of the Shuttle post-launch handling section.

However, I was thinking recently that if people really did not want
the 100 ton lift capacity, then why not use these new engines to say
make a 30 ton lift rocket?

As then you could technically get rid of most of the huge large rocket
ground support systems. Then of course NASA likes keeping services and
people hanging on.

Also what is NASA planning to do with these new rocket engines that
they are making? When at a million pounds of thrust they are going to
be powerful.

And if you don't recover the SSMEs, that's a chunk of change right there.

Not that I was thinking of SSMEs, when even NASA knows that these are
due replacement. Or was the last time I checked.

Check again. NASA is upgrading the SSMEs, but not replacing them.

Must be a serious upgrade then, when this was only due to be done if
these other new craft did not come about.

In the late 1980s there was a considerable debate on using flown engines and
the economics of re-use or not. At $38 million an engine (reference
Jenkin's) that adds up fast if you're tossing them away.

Certainly, where NASA reused them.

Still, as I said, NASA had plans to do something major with these
engines in recent years. This I recall was mentioned on NASA's Shuttle
web site under the future upgrades option.

I believe that a new flight control system was also mention there,
which seemed to be not working out too well last I heard

Some new rocket engines right below the main fuel tank was my idea,
where with some good engineering the engines can be separated in orbit
and returned to Earth if desired.

So now you have to completely redesign the ET since it's not designed to
take thrust there, you have to redesign the MLP, requalify the water
supression system, etc.

Yes I am aware of that, which would in the end make for a more sound
side loaded rocket.

Still, I am thinking of something on the smaller size now, even if a
100 ton lift capacity is very nice.

And then you need to design a recovery mechanism for the engines.

Yes I thought about that. Have the engines detachable from the fuel
tank, maybe collect a few together, then simply load them into a
simple design re-entry craft that lands by parachute.

Have they ever tried getting out on the streets and asking people?

Ayup. Every two years. It's called elections. Seems as if not many people
vote on space, but vote on streets getting paved, parks getting built and
whatever money their Reps can bring to their district.

Vote on greed then?

Oh well as I said I don't think that Space should be a public voting
matter, when the colonization of the solar system seems something that
should be done for our whole species.

Now imagine if the ISS had been made as a Moon Base instead, when if
it did nothing at all, then at least they could say "Hey, we are
exploring the Moon here", where more likely they actually would be.

But you can't have microgravity on the Moon.

Micro-gravity is a waste of time.

NASA knows that people do not survive well in micro-gravity, where the
obvious answer is not to do it. Live on the Moon and Mars, where even
on space stations you can indeed create artificial gravity.

Now I cannot say what exact diameter and RPMs are best used, but
having their Astronauts subject to 0.5g while sleeping should help out
a great deal.

After all if they do it in fun-fairs in Earth, then I am sure that
NASA can do something in space and stop playing micro-gravify body
experiments on their own Astronauts.

And well one day in a few years time NASA may put the Moon Base idea
before congress, where then we will see if you have a paying customer.

Who? Congress has already said they won't pay.

I don't recall any viable plan being mentioned, where it is not yet
time for NASA to do a Moon project. ISS first, Moon second.

Also had they gone the Shuttle-C route, then NASA can build their Moon
Base a bit at a time with no real extra budget to do this.

Four Shuttle-C launches a year would move a lot of Moon Base.

Congress usually like space exploration,

Only when it brings jobs to their district.

Congress will hear a great deal from their voters when the ISS is
complete and NASA thinks Moon Base.

So congress is usually pro-space exploration, where NASA gets congress
quite annoyed at what it does.

Hardly. Look at the money Congress spends. They are indifferent to space
exploration and some are actively hostile.

And yet funding on Space is small compared to the defense budget.

(look at the current NASA budget and the "savings" of launching no more
shuttle flights this year as one reference.)

So as they have a backlog of ISS components to launch, then why not
increase the launch rate and save money? ;-]

Because Congress is looking at one year ahead, not 5.

Well the faster they get the components up there the faster they can
retire the shuttle. That should make some sense to congress if they
could scrap the entire Shuttle ground support systems as well.

Hey no more overheads...

Then of course NASA will really have to do something serious about a
new manned launch craft followed my a new heavy launch cargo rocket.

When they cut the
recent ET procument contract the total cost of the contract went down
because they were procuring fewer tanks, but the average price per tank went
up.

Naturally.

By the way how many Shuttle launches can NASA do these days if running
at maximum speed?

Cardman.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:32:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

It does if you ever want to safely land it.

Would you want to land it if it had been up in space for a few years?

And they have other Shuttle if one broke.

Cardman.