NASA studies new booster (UPI)

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Michael Gallagher wrote:
And the article makes a good point about how a shuttle-derived booster
would use the same facilities and workforce as the shuttle: Make use
of the infrastructure and expertise already in place, as opposed to
starting over from scratch.

Except that said infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.


It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle.
NASA already has one (the only one in existence) that
could be converted for a few billion ($3 billion or so
for Shuttle-C). If it is abandoned instead, the only
heavy lift alternative would be to start from scratch.
It cost nearly $30 billion to develop STS, so it is
likely that an all-new heavy lifter would cost tens of
billions to develop from scratch.

- Ed Kyle

On 6 Mar 2004 00:56:37 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Except that said infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.


It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle.

A *need* that remains to be proven.

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

It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle.

You don't need a 75-ton launcher.

Your arguments are a perfect example of circular logic. You want a
bigger launcher because you think it's cheaper, and you think think
it's cheaper because it's bigger.

NASA already has one (the only one in existence) that
could be converted for a few billion ($3 billion or so
for Shuttle-C).

$3 billion that could be put to much better use on other things. The
US government has already spent close to a trillion dollars producing
the unaffordable system of space transportation we have today.
****sing away more billions on unaffordable systems makes no sense at
all.

If it is abandoned instead, the only
heavy lift alternative would be to start from scratch.
It cost nearly $30 billion to develop STS, so it is
likely that an all-new heavy lifter would cost tens of
billions to develop from scratch.

STS was the best example of how *not* to build a launcher. Shuttle-C
would be a close second. Using those vehicles as metrics for what
things should cost is like using the Spruce Goose as a metric for
airliners. One flawed design does not establish a pattern that all
future vehicles must inevitably follow.

Elon Musk is developing his Falcon-X for tens of millions of dollars,
not tens of billions. That's a heavy lift alternative. There's no
physical law that says heavy objects have to be carried in one piece.
If Falcon-X meets its price targets, there's nothing that couldn't be
assembled in orbit from Falcon payloads,

In Economics 101, you learn that making something rare makes it
expensive. So, why do rocket scientists think that making launches
rare will make them less expensive? I suspect it has something to do
with the fact that they not required to take Economics 101.

By the time we need a really large launcher (as opposed to merely
wanting one), it will cost much less than $30 billion to develop.
Technology does not stand still (although certain aspects of aerospace
technology pretty much have, for decades, because the US government
foolishly put all its money into a few big rockets.)

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
Except that said infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.

It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle.

As others have noted, the *need* for that is not at all clear. (There is
a difference between a wish and a need.)

...Shuttle-C). If it is abandoned instead, the only
heavy lift alternative would be to start from scratch.

Why is that the only alternative? While it's an option, it is by no means
the only one. For example, the EELV Heavy configurations stack three EELV
cores together, and there is no reason why you have to stop at three.

Atlas V Heavy can put circa 25t into LEO. Three of those side by side,
a 3x3 square of nine cores, should do 75t... and such parallel-staged
configurations are inefficient, so you could probably do the job with
fewer cores, e.g. the slightly more graceful seven-core layout with six
clustered around one. Such a configuration *would* need a significant
development effort, but it definitely doesn't start from scratch.

It cost nearly $30 billion to develop STS, so it is
likely that an all-new heavy lifter would cost tens of
billions to develop from scratch.

Let me get this straight. Shuttle-C will be really cheap to run, because
it doesn't include that expensive orbiter. But an all-new heavy launcher
will have near-shuttle development costs, even though it doesn't include
an orbiter. How's that again? Something there does not compute.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On 6 Mar 2004 12:42:36 -0800, (Edward Wright)
wrote:


Elon Musk is developing his Falcon-X for tens of millions of dollars,
not tens of billions. That's a heavy lift alternative. There's no
physical law that says heavy objects have to be carried in one piece.
If Falcon-X meets its price targets, there's nothing that couldn't be
assembled in orbit from Falcon payloads,

Except that you'd probably need spacewalks, and lots of them, to put
the parts together. Spacewalks aren't cheap or easy, and they're
dangerous. Congress had a fit and killed a Space Station design
because it needed so much EVA. What would change their minds now?

Brian

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 20:52:22 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On 6 Mar 2004 12:42:36 -0800, (Edward Wright)
wrote:


Elon Musk is developing his Falcon-X for tens of millions of dollars,
not tens of billions. That's a heavy lift alternative. There's no
physical law that says heavy objects have to be carried in one piece.
If Falcon-X meets its price targets, there's nothing that couldn't be
assembled in orbit from Falcon payloads,

Except that you'd probably need spacewalks, and lots of them, to put
the parts together. Spacewalks aren't cheap or easy, and they're
dangerous. Congress had a fit and killed a Space Station design
because it needed so much EVA. What would change their minds now?

The same people who will develop cheap launch vehicles will develop
effective space suits, and ignore Congress.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
Except that said infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.

It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle.

As others have noted, the *need* for that is not at all clear. (There is
a difference between a wish and a need.)


I think there is a need if human lunar exploration is
going to occur. I *know* there is a need if human Mars
exploration is ever going to happen. There will be an
interesting analysis and debate about the lunar part
of this question during the next few months.


It cost nearly $30 billion to develop STS, so it is
likely that an all-new heavy lifter would cost tens of
billions to develop from scratch.

Let me get this straight. Shuttle-C will be really cheap to run, because
it doesn't include that expensive orbiter. But an all-new heavy launcher
will have near-shuttle development costs, even though it doesn't include
an orbiter. How's that again? Something there does not compute.

An all-new big vehicle would cost massive bucks to
develop. An alternative is to save money by using
hardware that has already had its development cost
paid for. Do you think an all-new vehicle could be
designed to operate cheaply enough to make up a
development cost difference (over, say, the 50-100
launches that NASA historically might get out such
a vehicle ) that could total $10-20 billion?


- Ed Kyle

On 6 Mar 2004 21:47:40 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I think there is a need if human lunar exploration is
going to occur. I *know* there is a need if human Mars
exploration is ever going to happen.=

Despite that you "think" and you "know" that there is a need, it
remains a trade to yet be performed. No one is (thankfully) going to
commit billions to something unneeded just because Eddie Kyle "thinks"
and "knows" that it's needed.

It cost nearly $30 billion to develop STS, so it is
likely that an all-new heavy lifter would cost tens of
billions to develop from scratch.

Let me get this straight. Shuttle-C will be really cheap to run, because
it doesn't include that expensive orbiter. But an all-new heavy launcher
will have near-shuttle development costs, even though it doesn't include
an orbiter. How's that again? Something there does not compute.

An all-new big vehicle would cost massive bucks to
develop. An alternative is to save money by using
hardware that has already had its development cost
paid for. Do you think an all-new vehicle could be
designed to operate cheaply enough to make up a
development cost difference (over, say, the 50-100
launches that NASA historically might get out such
a vehicle ) that could total $10-20 billion?

Why do you pull numbers out of the...air?

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

If Falcon-X meets its price targets, there's nothing that couldn't be
assembled in orbit from Falcon payloads,


I wish Mr. Musk good luck in his endeavor, but that is a
*really* big "IF".

In Economics 101, you learn that making something rare makes it
expensive. So, why do rocket scientists think that making launches
rare will make them less expensive?

Because rocketry is a preverse science (and because the space
business in inelastic). Building more rockets does not make
for more launches. It just makes more rockets. The world is
awash in launch capacity right now, but launch rates are lower
than they've been since the early years of the space age.

- Ed Kyle

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..

If Falcon-X meets its price targets, there's nothing that couldn't
be
assembled in orbit from Falcon payloads,

Except that you'd probably need spacewalks, and lots of them, to put
the parts together. Spacewalks aren't cheap or easy, and they're
dangerous.

If we reduce launch costs, spacewalks will become less expensive.
There's no magic here. It's a simple equation.

As for danger and hardship, underwater construction and pro football
are hard and dangerous. That doesn't stop people from doing those
jobs. I would have no trouble finding people willing to do space
construction.

Congress had a fit and killed a Space Station design
because it needed so much EVA. What would change their minds now?

Because there's no point in talking about sending astronauts to the
Moon if Congress is afraid of letting astronauts do EVAs. You don't
think lunar EVAs will be safer, cheaper, or easier than working in
Earth orbit, do you?

Besides, I wasn't assuming this had to be run as a socialist venture.
Commercial divers don't work for Congress. Who says space workers have
to?