A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Public letter:



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 18th 12, 01:06 AM
SarK0Y SarK0Y is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2012
Posts: 12
Default

Dave,
I think VG is getting very, very close. I haven't been following their
progress but perhaps by end of this year or next this statement may no longer
be true?

suborbital flights have been real 4 decades, there don't live the least sense to invent wheels. vg Just has wasted Time & Nothing more. their scheme is about to be ridiculously unreliable + costly: feathers have big chance to fail!

Musk claims to have booked considerable amount of business for Falcon 9
already with or w/o NASA COTS. Time will tell, not much time mind you.

musk has no any idea WTF & WTH Space Industry is XD

You need to provide evidence of this. I don't see any. Musk's plan is to make
Dragon re-usable at the outset. And the next gen of Dragon is to land on land
to speed refurbishment.


put your eyes onto Tsiolkovsky equation, it'd be helpful.
  #22  
Old January 18th 12, 02:09 AM
SarK0Y SarK0Y is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2012
Posts: 12
Talking

“If you look at the cost of a Falcon 9 rocket – which is a big, one million pounds of thrust rocket, yet the lowest cost rocket in the world, it’s still 50-60 million dollars. But if you look at the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth, it’s only about 200,000 dollars. So obviously if we can reuse the rocket, say one thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket per launch only about 50,000 dollars.
--------------------
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...ogy-this-year/


XDDDDDDDDD Just baby talks of him: no the least idea exists there of service works, infrastructure -- Never mind only say Cheese XDDDDD
  #23  
Old January 18th 12, 09:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Mike DiCenso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Public letter:

On Jan 16, 1:24*pm, Glen Overby wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:

What would be done if NASA had excepted Rockwell's offer would have
been to take the older orbiters out of service for several for a very
extensive rebuild at Palmdale after the Block II orbiters came into
service. Sadly there probably would not have been any money for such
an effort.


Why rebuild all of them? *They only ever had four flying orbiters at a time so
they could have flow three Block II orbiters and one older one, using the
remaining Block I orbiters as spares for it.


Which was a huge mistake in hindsight. The STS program always ran into
problems as result of a low fleet number, especially when in came to
rotating orbiters for maintaince and upgrades in the OMDP. With 7
operational orbiters, you get more flexibility in launch rates,
especially if something happens to one of the orbiters. If Vandenburg
had been made operational for Shuttle, it would have allowed 2
vehicles to be based out of there instead of one and four at KSC, with
one orbiter rotating between them at a time or down for maintaince and
upgrades with little impact to flight rates and schedule. But at the
very least, a major rebuild of the three newer vehicles of the "Block
I" type (Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour), would be in order.
-Mike
  #24  
Old January 18th 12, 02:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Public letter:

On Jan 18, 3:53*am, Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Jan 16, 1:24*pm, Glen Overby wrote:

Mike DiCenso wrote:


What would be done if NASA had excepted Rockwell's offer would have
been to take the older orbiters out of service for several for a very
extensive rebuild at Palmdale after the Block II orbiters came into
service. Sadly there probably would not have been any money for such
an effort.


Why rebuild all of them? *They only ever had four flying orbiters at a time so
they could have flow three Block II orbiters and one older one, using the
remaining Block I orbiters as spares for it.


Which was a huge mistake in hindsight. The STS program always ran into
problems as result of a low fleet number, especially when in came to
rotating orbiters for maintaince and upgrades in the OMDP. With 7
operational orbiters, you get more flexibility in launch rates,
especially if something happens to one of the orbiters. If Vandenburg
had been made operational for Shuttle, it would have allowed 2
vehicles to be based out of there instead of one and four at KSC, with
one orbiter rotating between them at a time or down for maintaince and
upgrades with little impact to flight rates and schedule. But at the
very least, a major rebuild of the three newer vehicles of the "Block
I" type (Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour), would be in order.
-Mike


was the issue lack of orbiters or lack of payloads?
  #25  
Old January 18th 12, 04:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Public letter:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
David Spain wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
The problem with this approach on reusable vehicles is that you wind
up with a fleet of 'one offs', each of which has its own special
reprocessing requirements and logistics tail. That's a very expensive
way to operate.

But you do still have the re-usability that you lose with expendables.
But I agree with your point that the operational cost is a question of ground
infrastructure. My point was that this is the goal of the cost reduction, if I
can retire the costly to operate vehicles quickly maybe I can get the ground
infrastructure cost down as well. And I'd only be servicing a smaller number
of vehicles (say two, with a CRV on standby with an expendable) rather than an
entire fleet of four or five, however with a new vehicle coming on line every
5 years or so. I think having only say two operational orbiters at any given
time + CRV as a backup (given the sustainable flight rates NASA was able to
achieve) would have been just fine. But your point is well taken. With the one
size fits all Shuttle approach that was taken, and the lower flight rates
post-Challenger, this still might have been too costly to do.


But to retire reusable relatively quickly and have it make economic
sense, at least one of two things must be true:

1) The capital cost of reusability must be low. This one is typically
not true, although it is more likely to be true if 2), below, is true.

2) The vehicles only have limited reusability (reusable for a small
number of flights and then are expended).

If you're 'retiring' vehicles that still have lots of flight life left
in them, your 'incremental' improvements on the next block would need
to lead to huge decreases in flight expense for the replacement to
make sense (as you're losing the sunk cost in the old hardware when it
could continue to generate revenue).


Of course you're right. It wouldn't make sense to 'retire' vehicles unless the
first few were actually just trial prototypes. That didn't happen with
Shuttle, well with the one exception of Enterprise which did get 'retired'. As
Mike DiCenso points out if you're recycling orbiters, a larger number is
somewhat preferable to a smaller number. But we weren't really recycling as
much as building one-offs.

The military/commercial options didn't pan out and the four that NASA ended up
with was more than sufficient for their needs.

The Challenger accident was truly unfortunate, because it closed the door on
the possibility that an operation like USA could have been spun off to do the
commercial payloads, perhaps even renting NASA facilities but under the USA
moniker, to help keep NASA's expenses down. That would have done zero to make
a USA-like operation profitable however. But it would have at least put
someone on the right path to find out. Shuttle did not teach us much here.

[snip]

It's uncertain how much the price has to drop before a significant
market expansion would take place.


Agreed.

It's hard to know what costs are acceptable and what could drive a market
expansion if you don't know your realized and projected revenue streams.

For COTS, right now the only serious market is comsat ops*. That may not be a
big enough market to allow COTS to operate profitably. Then we're back to SLS
type approaches and you can forget about 'price drops'.

Dave

* - Lurkers, please spare me the SPS pitch. Come back and post here after
you've got a case history whereby a company using public/private venture
capital has a working prototype in orbit and has customers lined up for the
next big one. Otherwise I'm not interested in your L5 religion, keep lurking.
  #26  
Old January 18th 12, 04:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Public letter:

SarK0Y wrote:
*Dave*,
I think VG is getting very, very close. I haven't been following their
progress but perhaps by end of this year or next this statement may no
longer
be true?
suborbital flights have been real 4 decades, there don't live the least
sense to invent wheels.


Not with paying customers they haven't.

vg Just has wasted Time & Nothing more. their
scheme is about to be ridiculously unreliable + costly: feathers have
big chance to fail!


YOU'RE WRONG! (or are you dropping those feathers in a vacuum?) :-D

Musk claims to have booked considerable amount of business for Falcon 9

already with or w/o NASA COTS. Time will tell, not much time mind you.
musk has no any idea WTF & WTH Space Industry is XD


WTF? ;-)

You need to provide evidence of this. I don't see any. Musk's plan is to
make
Dragon re-usable at the outset. And the next gen of Dragon is to land on
land
to speed refurbishment.

put your eyes onto Tsiolkovsky equation, it'd be helpful.


It predicts that sub-orbital flight with conventional fuels is theoretically
impossible?

Dave
  #27  
Old January 18th 12, 07:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Public letter:

David Spain wrote:
SarK0Y wrote:
vg Just has wasted Time & Nothing more. their
scheme is about to be ridiculously unreliable + costly: feathers have
big chance to fail!


YOU'RE WRONG! (or are you dropping those feathers in a vacuum?) :-D


OK on a more serious note.

There are a lot of components on an aircraft that failure on approach can lead
to disaster as well. I lump the 'feathering' approach on SpaceShip I - II in
that category.

With only a few powered flights of SS-I and no powered ones on SS-II yet:

http://www.spaceshiptwo.net/press.html

but 7 solos according to the above, we can't really pass judgment on its
operational reliability. It's not in operation yet. We can say it has been
successfully recovered 7 times in 7 non-powered flight tests including at
least one 'feathered' test drop.

Again if this scheme was so awful why didn't the Canadian Arrow win the
X-Prize? If it was too costly, why did Canadian Arrow bow out of the space
tourism business?

Even something as simple as a parachute can get tangled. There are always
risks. The VG waiver of liability you'll have to sign to take the flight will
spell it all out for you I'm sure.

Dave
  #28  
Old January 18th 12, 09:53 PM
SarK0Y SarK0Y is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2012
Posts: 12
Default

Dave, decades by decades conventional scheme has confirmed its safety & cheapness 4 orbital flights. what the least reason can exist on this planet 4 ye, to've had any hesitation of that way 4 suborbital flights???!!! + capsule can be really reusable because heat & pressure load are far not so severe like reentry from orbit + capsule can be equipped with booster to decelerate reentry.
in short, bad strategies have been only cause to make suborbital tourism so deeply sad & useless.
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pseudo-military and cameras in the streets in the UK, imperialistcrowd, big important public and the public militia, radical extremism of today(news story on UK cameras in the streets) gb[_3_] Astronomy Misc 0 May 12th 08 04:24 PM
May the public militia leave? Ceausescu's government and secretgovernment is gone. Public militia is a problem of the 21st Century and bigbrother cameras in the UK. Think what education means, think that some grew uponly with repression in culture, w gb[_3_] Astronomy Misc 0 May 12th 08 04:42 AM
Ed Lu letter from space #last letter Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 October 29th 03 07:28 PM
Ed Lu letter from space #13 Jacques van Oene Space Station 2 October 28th 03 11:35 PM
Ed Lu Letter from space #11 Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 September 10th 03 02:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 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.