|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 16:49:29 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote: 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: It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle. A *need* that remains to be proven. If the Moon/Mars initiative goes forward, a new heavy lifter could come in handy. Yes, I know, we could get away without one, but the mission requirements might still call for it. ----== 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 =--- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On 5 Mar 2004 13:59:47 -0800, (Edward Wright)
wrote: ...... NASA doesn't need a new booster. It could use existing rockets ..... Something like the Atlas V could work for LEO missions and zipping up to the station, sure. You start talking serious Mars hardware, that's another matter. ....... There's even a fourth option. Instead of developing its own capsules and launch system, NASA could offer to buy rides from the lowest provider. Well, the only other "provider" is the Russians, and it looks like NASA will be booking Soyuz flights until the Constellation is ready. Of course, if Kerry becomes president, I would not be surprised if he axed the whole US manned program and kept booking Soyuz flights. Which "handles" the question of a new US booster by scuttling the idea for all time, but I don't think that's the point. ----== 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 =--- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 10:43:18 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: It is if you need a 75+ ton to LEO heavy lift vehicle. A *need* that remains to be proven. If the Moon/Mars initiative goes forward, a new heavy lifter could come in handy. "could come in handy" != "need" Yes, I know, we could get away without one, but the mission requirements might still call for it. Might. Many assume "do." A convincing case has not been made. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
In article ,
ed kyle wrote: 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. Wernher von Braun didn't agree; he was ready and willing to plan manned lunar and Mars exploration with the Saturn I, which had less payload to LEO than Atlas V. ...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. Certainly, and we've got a lot of that lying around, much of it suitable for use in a new big launcher. For example, it would make sense to set the tank diameter equal to that of the shuttle ET, so existing production facilities and tooling could be used to build the tanks -- building big lightweight tanks is not easy, and developing suitable techniques was a big-ticket item for Apollo. But that does not require you to copy other aspects of the shuttle. ...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? I think so. But I don't think it would cost that much in the first place, not today. And I don't think developing from scratch is necessary even if you do need that kind of lift, as I already explained. And finally, I still don't see a compelling case for that lift requirement. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
In article ,
ed kyle wrote: Saturn V development cost approximately $55 billion in 2000 dollars, according to "Stages to Saturn". Much of which went to developing technologies that we don't have to redevelop. Space shuttle spending totalled $29.6 billion by the time Columbia first flew... As I've noted before, it's funny how getting rid of the orbiter is supposed to save enormous amounts of money for the Shuttle-C option, but not having an orbiter in the first place isn't supposed to save any money at all for the non-Shuttle-C option. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..
...... NASA doesn't need a new booster. It could use existing rockets ..... Something like the Atlas V could work for LEO missions and zipping up to the station, sure. You start talking serious Mars hardware, that's another matter. Nonsense. How do you think every piece of US hardware on Mars got there. ....... There's even a fourth option. Instead of developing its own capsules and launch system, NASA could offer to buy rides from the lowest provider. Well, the only other "provider" is the Russians, That isn't true, no matter how many times people repeat it. "Elon Musk" may be an unusual name, but I don't think it's Russian. Neither is "George Herbert." And there are others, if NASA is willing to consider things that don't look like its preconceived notion of a "capsule." We aren't talking about launches that are scheduled for today, so it doesn't matter if a commercial service is available today -- only if the service can be available when it's needed. Congress understands that. The law defines a commercial service as a service offered by a commercial provider *or* a service that *could* be offered in response to an RFP. Elon Musk, at least, is closer to launching than any of NASA's Constellation concepts. The people who say NASA should not use any commercial service that isn't available today are the same people who want NASA to use all kinds of government hardware that doesn't exist today. Interesting double standard. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
NASA studies new booster (UPI)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 4th 03 10:14 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |