A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CEV PDQ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 9th 05, 05:35 AM
Rusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 08 May 2005 16:17:11 -0500, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:42 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg


Yeepers, you work really fast!


...Amazing what you can do with a dull old pocket knife and a bar of
Irish Spring :-)

OM



It's Mexico's first spaceship, the adobe CEV. Let's hope it works out
better than their abobe submarine.

;-)


Rusty
  #12  
Old May 9th 05, 05:49 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:



In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:




[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.




Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring


bits


off a high-cost one.



Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter
and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less
than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just
ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*.



So $60 million for a pair of RSRMs, another $60 million for an ET, say $20
million (WAG) for a boattail and engines (all disposable) and then you still
need a standing army for the VAB (to stack all this), the
crawler-transporter, crews for pad refurbishment, etc. pretty soon you're
talking real money.





Shuttle is currently about $400M per launch. Shuttle-C or similar would
not be more. EELV Heavy is about $300M per launch, last I heard. But
Shuttle-C would launch, what, 5 times as much?
  #13  
Old May 9th 05, 06:04 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rusty wrote:


It's Mexico's first spaceship, the adobe CEV. Let's hope it works out
better than their abobe submarine.



Comrade! Socialist Science marches forwards into the abyss!:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1281166.html

Pat
  #14  
Old May 9th 05, 07:08 AM
Rusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Pat Flannery wrote:
Rusty wrote:


It's Mexico's first spaceship, the adobe CEV. Let's hope it works

out
better than their abobe submarine.



Comrade! Socialist Science marches forwards into the abyss!:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1281166.html

Pat


That's it! The answer to cheap access to space! The concrete
heatshield!

8-\

Rusty

  #15  
Old May 9th 05, 08:24 AM
Neil Gerace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com...

That's it! The answer to cheap access to space! The concrete
heatshield!


"With these craft being potentially so cheap to make, there is the danger
of countries such as Iran and Libya using them to threaten American carrier
groups or to barricade certain ocean routes."

equals

"With these craft being potentially so cheap to make, there is the danger
of countries such as Australia using them to threaten European prestige by
no longer needing its submarine makers."

A dangerous weapon indeed.


  #16  
Old May 9th 05, 09:14 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Neil Gerace wrote:

"With these craft being potentially so cheap to make, there is the danger
of countries such as Australia using them to threaten European prestige by
no longer needing its submarine makers."



Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held on
the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the
power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-)
  #17  
Old May 9th 05, 10:23 AM
Neil Gerace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held on
the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the
power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-)


So what we have is a heavier-than-the-medium fluidcraft, right? We've been
doing that for 100 years with air, don't see why water should be any harder



  #18  
Old May 9th 05, 01:00 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held on
the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the
power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-)


So what we have is a heavier-than-the-medium fluidcraft, right? We've been
doing that for 100 years with air, don't see why water should be any

harder



I'm not sure this is exactly a science where you want to start at the bottom
and work your way up.





  #19  
Old May 9th 05, 01:06 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held
on
the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if

the
power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-)


There's an easy solution: just blow your floatation devices!
Technology
pioneered by that Airport'77 flick...I can't see why it wouldn't work!

  #20  
Old May 9th 05, 04:41 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one.


It ought to be a good way to use any leftover tanks and SRBs, rather than
using them as museum pieces.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.