NASA studies new booster (UPI)

(Jake McGuire) wrote in message . com...

Looking in the payload planners guide reveals that the Delta IV Heavy
requires about fifteen shifts in the HIF and twenty shifts on the pad.
That breaks down to a little over four weeks at five days a week, one
shift per day in the HIF and two shifts per day on the pad. Using
existing facilities at seven days a week and two shifts a day, you
could easily do three Delta-IV Heavy launches a month, and that's
without new test stands.

This does not take into account launch delays caused by
technical problems and, more commonly, bad weather. Only
one of the two dozen or so Cape Canaveral launches that
have taken place during the last six months happened on
its originally planned date, for example. A tight multi-
shift schedule as described would have no ability to
recover from such delays, which would inevitably propagate.

And, of course, adding a second HIF shift and putting all
employees on weekend overtime double-shift duty will drive
up labor costs, increasing the baseline launch cost.

let along six launches with three backup vehicles assembled
for redundant standby duty. Nine vehicles in all would require at
least tripling the existing launch infrastructure, requiring major
megabucks to be spent on new facilities.

Or, with a bit of thought toward launch scheduling, one could support
a six-flight lunar mission using existing EELV facilities. Details in
my other post, but to summarize:

1) T+0: Launch Service Module
2) T+10: Launch Lunar Lander
3) T+20: Launch LOX flight one
4) T+30: Launch LOX flight two
5) T+40: Launch LH2 flight
6) T+50: Launch replacement for failed flight 3-5
7) T+60: Launch CEV
8) T+70: Launch replacement CEV


This won't work because a HIF bay must be dedicated to
each launch cycle - there needs to be a place for a
defective vehicle to go if it must be returned from the
launch pad. The most recent Ariane 5 launch campaign
offers an example.

- Ed Kyle

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...

The average large rocket has a lower cost-per-pound than the
average small rocket.

Yes!

That does not mean that every large rocket has a
lower cost-per-pound than every small rocket.


It means that, all other things being equal, larger rockets
can always be designed to achieve the lowest cost.

I have no doubt that you can create an architecture in which small
launchers and orbital rendezvous won't work. That doesn't prove small
launchers and orbital rendezvous can't work. It simply proves they
won't work if the architecture is designed by someone intent on
proving it doesn't work.


I'm trying to figure out how EOR could work. No matter how
I look at it, I see that EOR is a more complex mission than
single-launch. EOR requires the successful completion of a
larger number of complex functions with finite failure rates
that add up to such an extent that redundant launch vehicles
are required, driving up the cost and complexity even more.

My problem with EOR is that it doesn't pass the simplicity
test. Albert Einstein said, "Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but not simpler." EOR is not "as simple
as possible".

- Ed Kyle

On 15 Mar 2004 19:25:42 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Your logic is circular. Of course, investors aren't lining up to put
their money in orbital vehicles that don't have customers. If NASA
were willing to be a customer for such vehicles, investors would
change their minds.


Possibly, given that the US government is one of the largest customers
for lauch services (I heard some years ago, they were the biggest;
forget whether that is still the case). If this can be incorparated
into a Moon/Mars efforts so that vehicles are provided when we need
them, again, no problem.


You keep saying that as if the current approach is working. It's not,
Michael. After 40 years, there are still no people on Mars ....

I am well aware of that, Ed, and the reason it is "not working" is
because for forty years, we have not had political leaders in the
White House and Congress willing to pay for it, and they are the ones
footing the bill. Bush is only the second president in the last 30
years to propose such efforts, the first being his father. But with a
Senate vote supporting funding for Moon/Mars apparently along party
lines and no Democratic candidate warming to the idea, it will be a
miracle if any of it survives a Bush loss in November.

Of course, the White House and Congress would also have to approve the
expenditure to for NASA to purchase commercial manned vehicles; IIRC,
the cost has to be very small for NASA (or anyone) to do soemthing
like that without Congressional oversight. Even then, there probably
would have to be something in the budget earmarked for it. So from
that respect, back to square one, getting people at the top to go
along with it.

.....the fact is that *none* of us have the ability to go to Mars
right now.


Well, let me try and clear this up:

When I talked about being able to go to Mars, I meant we don't need a
lot of new technology; if anything, just rebuild some old ones, like
the NERVA nuclear thermal rocket engines tested in the '60s to cut the
travel time down a bit. Some form of ion engines has also been
proposed. So nothing new, there. There is also the need for
researching the effects of living for long periods in weightlessness,
and long periods in low gravity; research on the space station and on
a Moon base would handle that. They could be also used to research
closed-loop life support systems and hydroponic gardens. A little
more towards the cutting edge, but not too far. The duration of the
mission is determined by orbital mechanics, and that was worked out a
while ago.

Alll of the above, of course, refers mostly to work done by NASA. I
realized I have to mention that if I do not want to be raked over the
coals for not using a pronoun (see nwext section).

What has been lacking, as noted above, has been the go-ahead to put
all the bits together. To use an analogy that you first brought up,
it would be as if you had done all the research on what a trip to
Antarctica required and coukld get the cold weather gear you needed,
but didn't have the disposabal income (the "go-ahead") to buy your
package.

..... as wrong as you
were when you said "all of us" have the ability to "go to Mars right
now" -- but I never said that.


I think I've got it:

When I referred to "we" being able to go to Mars, I did not mean that
"every individual American has the ability to go to Mars," I meant
"The United States government (or an agency thereof) is has been aware
of the technological and logistical reuqirments of a trip to Mars for
sometime, and from that perspective, it is well within the possibility
to send a crew to Mars." That "we." Like you say "We will go all the
way to the Super Bowl!" when you are talking about a football team you
will never be a member of.


Why don't you admit you were wrong, instead of making bogus
comparisons to things I never said?


And how about you, mate? I have tried over and over again to make my
case, to clarify it, and you keep misreading it, misreresenting it,
and twisting it, and then calling me to task over things *I* never
said. Takes one to know one, I guess.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 15 Mar 2004 16:50:09 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

..... Falcon V can deliver much more than 700 kg, and it's not too small if
it's the cheapest way to do it.


It can do about 4,000 kg to LEO, but that would mean 10 flights just
to get the Apollo spacecraft into orbit, and we would want to do more
than Apollo. And no matter how cheap Falcon V is, the cost of
multiple laucnhes, plus the EVAs, adds up


There's the right size for the jove; below that size, and it is improbable to do.

I'm not interested in what's the right size for mythical gods .....


AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I meant "JOB." I don't
know how "jove" got in there, but it is a typo.


..... It is another to make a whole damn country wait an
unknown number of years for spaceflight to be "affordable" before
we
go to Mars.

You are not the whole damn country, Mike ....

Neither are you, Ed.

I never claimed to be. You're the one who claimed to be speaking for
"the whole damn country" when you said you couldn't wait to go to
Mars.


I never claimed to speaking for "the whole damn country."

One look at an opinion poll will show "the whole damn country" does
not agree with you.


How much of that is from the fact that they don't want to see a Mars
flight at all and how much of that is from a rigged poll question
("Would you support letting your granny die in the street to send a
redneck to Mars for half an hour?" something like that) is an open
question.

It's obligated to wait
because the majority of voters and their elected representatives have
said so .....

And we have an elected president who initiated the progam.

..... That's what I've been trying to tell you, Mike. Reducing the cost of
space transportation not only builds toward Moon and Mars landings,
it's the *only* way there will ever be a significant number of Moon
and Mars landings.


But this begs the question of how long it takes to get to that point.
Yes, it is selfish of me, but I want to see SOMEONE from this country
land on Mars in my lifetime; waiting, say, 100 years for reduced costs
doesn't cut it for me.

I will be perfectly happy if a dozen people can go.

I won't. A dozen people isn't a space program, it's a rounding error.
The difference between your program and Bob Park's is an insignificant
number of people and many hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not
interested in robots. I want to see humans in space, and not just
token numbers.

I want to see humans in space, too. But I don't see you how you get a
significant number of humans going someplace without first having a
small group of trail blazers. Lewis and Clark's expidition did not
involve a lot of people (and, IIRC, Jefferson was mocked for making
the Louisiana purchase), yet many US cities are now found there. You
can attempt to have the settlement of space skip a step if you wish,
but I don't think it will work out that way.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 15 Mar 2004 16:05:54 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

..... Show me the "private manned industry" that resulted from the
Apollo Moon expeditions.

I will when you show me the privately funded manned spacecraft capable
of going to Mars. You can't, because there is none.

I never CLAIMED there were any privately funded manned spacecraft
capable of going to Mars.

You DID claim that government space spending would result in "private
manned industry."

Now who's saying "if it hasn't happened, it won't happen"?


We've had plenty of government space spending. Approximately one
trillion dollars so far. Where is the "private manned industry"?


It does not exist yet, no.

If there isn't any, what makes you think spending more government
money in the same way will create it?


By looking at whether government expenditures have helped other
industries, and they have. As I pointed out in a previous post, the
airline idustry is where it is because during World War 2,
governments paid for the development of sophisitcated radar systems,
built airfields, paid for planes slightly larger than had been
available before, and trained oodles of pilots. All these allowed the
airline industry to enjoy 50 years worth of development in about ten,
and that is why either one of us can by a ticket anywhere in the
world.

Also, although cars are privately produced, governments do build and
maintane highway systems. Every day, millions of people and billions
and dollars of goods travel on the Interstate system the US goverment
built and maintanes.

So, other than ranting that it hasn't happened yet, why is it
impossible that government expsnditures on Moon/Mars can't bring about
the private vehilces you want? You've already suggested investors
might go for such vehicles of the US government agrees to be a
customer. Why not more?


You have no idea when or if the private sector
will do it. I've tried to give you some idea, but you refuse to accept
it .....

The give me a figure -- five years, ten or whatever.

...... You have shown no evidence that the private sector would "hold up" a
Moon/Mars effort ....

You've admitted there are no privately developed vehicles capable of
going to Mars at this time. How long would an entity, either in the
public or private secotr, have to wait for the private sector to
develop such a vehicle on its own, before it can be used? That wait
is the "hold up."




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 15 Mar 2004 15:38:08 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

Falcon V can put 4,200 kg in orbit. This a little over the 3,736 kg
of the Gemini spacaecraft, and that was called two men in the front
seat of a Volkswagen.

You keep saying that as if it's significant. What's your point .....

That's how the Gemini astronauts describe it -- two guys in the front
seat of a Volkswagen.

..... Gemini
wasn't luxurious enough?


Tell you what, Ed: put on a pair of super strong depends underwear,
and then sit in a chair for two weeks, not moving, as the Gemini
astronauts on the duration flights did, and either have someone bring
you food or have freeze-dried fooed at hand. And you tell me.


The lander was another 15,000 kg.

But this one is only 3,500 kg --
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmllight.htm

-- and this one is 3,284 kg --
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmlghter.htm

-- while this one is only 1,460 kg --
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmlhtest.htm


The designs you referenced are all unpressurized. They may be good
for getting and astronaut on the Moon and then taking off again, but
would not work for the latter missions, which called for staying
several days and doing traverses in a the Rover. Bush has called for
establishing a lunar base. I do not think that is going to be settled
one astronaut at a time arriving in an unpressurized rover.


And your point is --? You want to go "beyond Apollo" yet you insist we
must do everything the same way we did in Apollo?


No, I do not want to do everything the way we did in Apollo. I
mentioned the Apollo spacecraft and its weight to spell out, with some
simple math, how many launches your Falcon/EOR scheme would have
required to do waht we did with Apollo. By "beyond Apollo," I mean
that President Bush's proposal calls for a permanent Moon base
occupied by (I guess) between six and twelve people. You will have
to get the base assembled on the Moon, then have the vehicles to get
the crews between the Moon and Earth.

This is "beyond Apollo."

Is that clear enjough, or do I have to use flash cards?


Because von Braun's concern was time, not cost of sustainability .....

So six or seven EOR launches for one lunar mission would not have
worked from the schedule perspective?

Ok.

Why does it work from a "cost sustainability" perspective?
Presumeably, time is money. All things being equal, at a given
cost/pound to LEO (pick whatever figure you want, high or low), if it
is quicker to assemble a lunar vehicle with two launches, surely it is
preferable to do that than do it with six? Time is money, after all.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

..... Gemini wasn't luxurious enough?

Tell you what, Ed: put on a pair of super strong depends underwear,
and then sit in a chair for two weeks, not moving, as the Gemini
astronauts on the duration flights did, and either have someone bring
you food or have freeze-dried fooed at hand. And you tell me.

In exchange for a trip to the Moon? Sure, I'll gladly sit in the seat
for two weeks. Pioneering doesn't have to be comfortable, just
affordable.

The designs you referenced are all unpressurized. They may be good
for getting and astronaut on the Moon and then taking off again, but
would not work for the latter missions, which called for staying
several days and doing traverses in a the Rover.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Bush has called for establishing a lunar base. I do not think that is going to be settled
one astronaut at a time arriving in an unpressurized rover.

Why not, if that turns out to be the cheapest way?

And your point is --? You want to go "beyond Apollo" yet you insist
we
must do everything the same way we did in Apollo?

No, I do not want to do everything the way we did in Apollo. I
mentioned the Apollo spacecraft and its weight to spell out, with some
simple math, how many launches your Falcon/EOR scheme would have
required to do waht we did with Apollo.

Except it doesn't spell out what's required to do what Apollo did.
Only what's required to do what Apollo did using equipment that's
substantially similar to Apollo.

By "beyond Apollo," I mean that President Bush's proposal calls for a permanent Moon base
occupied by (I guess) between six and twelve people. You will have
to get the base assembled on the Moon, then have the vehicles to get
the crews between the Moon and Earth.

This is "beyond Apollo."

Not by much. There were some Advanced Apollo designs that included
6-12 person lunar bases. They were cancelled because the benefits of
such a small base did not seem to justify the cost of supporting the
large Saturn infrastructure.

Because von Braun's concern was time, not cost of sustainability
......

So six or seven EOR launches for one lunar mission would not have
worked from the schedule perspective?

No, von Braun's plan to build a space station would not have worked
from a schedule perspective. The goal was to beat the Russians to the
Moon, at any cost.

Why does it work from a "cost sustainability" perspective?
Presumeably, time is money.

No, time is time. Money is money. Rushing to do something under an
artificial political deadline does not generally save money.

All things being equal, at a given cost/pound to LEO (pick whatever figure you want, high or low), if it
is quicker to assemble a lunar vehicle with two launches, surely it is
preferable to do that than do it with six?

In the real world, all things are never equal. Even if they're equal
initially, doing something six times will move you further down the
learning curve than doing something twice.

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

You DID claim that government space spending would result in
"private
manned industry."

Now who's saying "if it hasn't happened, it won't happen"?

"The validity of a science is its ability to predict."

The US government has spent approximately a trillion dollars on space,
and it hasn't produced the effect you predict.

If there isn't any, what makes you think spending more government
money in the same way will create it?

By looking at whether government expenditures have helped other
industries, and they have.

The fact that government expenditures have helped some industries does
not prove that they help all industries. Nor does it prove that the
specific *type* of government expenditure you're advocating will help
the specific industry you're claiming.

Spending more money to develop expensive launch systems will never
create an industry based on *cheap* launch systems.

So, other than ranting that it hasn't happened yet, why is it
impossible that government expsnditures on Moon/Mars can't bring about
the private vehilces you want?

Because the vehicles I want are cheaper than existing launch systems,
and because you can't make something cheaper by making it more
expensive. Developing a new "Shuttle-C" will do nothing but consume
money.

...... You have shown no evidence that the private sector would
"hold up" a
Moon/Mars effort ....

You've admitted there are no privately developed vehicles capable of
going to Mars at this time. How long would an entity, either in the
public or private secotr, have to wait for the private sector to
develop such a vehicle on its own, before it can be used? That wait
is the "hold up."

You don't think the government would have to wait for "Shuttle-C" to
be developed??? Do you think it could be done overnight???

ed kyle wrote:

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...

The average large rocket has a lower cost-per-pound than the
average small rocket.

Yes!

That does not mean that every large rocket has a
lower cost-per-pound than every small rocket.


It means that, all other things being equal, larger rockets
can always be designed to achieve the lowest cost.

The *lowest* cost may require other things *not* to be equal.

I have no doubt that you can create an architecture in which small
launchers and orbital rendezvous won't work. That doesn't prove small
launchers and orbital rendezvous can't work. It simply proves they
won't work if the architecture is designed by someone intent on
proving it doesn't work.


I'm trying to figure out how EOR could work. No matter how
I look at it, I see that EOR is a more complex mission than
single-launch. EOR requires the successful completion of a
larger number of complex functions with finite failure rates
that add up to such an extent that redundant launch vehicles
are required, driving up the cost and complexity even more.

My problem with EOR is that it doesn't pass the simplicity
test. Albert Einstein said, "Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but not simpler." EOR is not "as simple
as possible".

Operating cost is not simply proportional to complexity. EOR is more
complex than a single launch, but it can be a lot cheaper if the
launcher is reusable. Single launch would require a Saturn-V class
launch vehicle, which would, inevitably, be expendable, but with EOR we
could afford to make the launcher fully reusable. The smaller launcher
would have other markets than just lunar or Mars flights, further
reducing the total cost-per-flight. The cost of LEO operations is a
function of the cost of transportation, so there is no way that the EOR
mode using RLV's, even including the occasional abort, could even
approach the cost of an expendable HLLV, IMHO.

The SDV vs. EELV debate begs the question: Does it make sense to even
try to go back to the Moon with expendable launchers? I submit that it
doesn't. Apollo died because it cost too much to keep it going with
expendable launchers, and all of the proposals for going back since then
have been rejected out of hand for the same reason: They assumed the
use of expendable launchers. If the only choices are SDV or EELV, then
the answer, IMHO, is going to be: C) None of the above.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...

That does not mean that every large rocket has a
lower cost-per-pound than every small rocket.

It means that, all other things being equal, larger rockets
can always be designed to achieve the lowest cost.

No, it doesn't.

I'm trying to figure out how EOR could work. No matter how
I look at it, I see that EOR is a more complex mission than
single-launch.

The Internet is more complex than a pocket calculator. The US air
transportation system is more complex than a single giant blimp.

Complexity is not something to be avoided at any cost.

EOR requires the successful completion of a larger number of complex
functions with finite failure rates that add up to such an extent
that redundant launch vehicles are required, driving up the cost and complexity even more.

Redundant systems are required for any non-trivial transportation
system. Airlines, trucking companies, bus services, taxi companies,
even racing teams have spare vehicles. Why should space transportation
be any different?

My problem with EOR is that it doesn't pass the simplicity
test. Albert Einstein said, "Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but not simpler." EOR is not "as simple
as possible".

If you measure the "simplicity" of a space transportation system by
the number of vehicles and number of flights, the simplest possible
system has no vehicles and no flights. I don't see that kind of
simplicity as being desirable. I would rather make the vehicles simple
and cheap but have lots of flights.