NASA studies new booster (UPI)

(Edward Wright) wrote in message om...
(ed kyle) wrote in message news:

Apollo/Saturn V was no more unsustainable than a
Saturn I/EOR/Apollo effort would have been under the same
Vietnam/social unrest/budget-crunch conditions.

Speculation. You don't know that for a fact. ...

From Astronautix.com:

"1962 Jul 11 ... Selection of LOR as Apollo Mission Mode ...

Which is irrelevant to the subject at hand and does not make your
speculation anything but speculation.
We know the Saturn approach was unsustainable because it was tried. We
don't know whether the Saturn I approach would have been sustainable
because it wasn't tried.


We know, based on budget projections prepared by people who
knew the system a lot better than you (Saturn and Apollo
designers and managers), that Saturn EOR would have cost
more than Saturn LOR. A higher cost system would have
been less sustainable simply because NASA's budget was
compressed during each late-1960s budget cycle.

EOR had a better chance of succeeding when performed with fewer
launches
of bigger rockets.

I don't know where you get that idea. Gemini successfully performed
Earth Orbit Rendezvous without using very big rockets. Adding more
launches simply means performing the same steps over again.

Clearly those Gemini missions would have had a greater
chance of failure if the Agenas had been launched in
pieces that somehow docked themselves together in orbit

Obviously, since Agena wasn't capable of doing that. What does this
loonie strawman prove, other than your ability to come up with loonie
strawmen?

You introduced the "loonie strawman" by offering Gemini/Agena
as an example. Saturn I/EOR would have required 6-7 launches,
which makes the two-launch Gemini/Agena mission comparison
pointless - unless you consider that three of the 13 flights
(including the failed ATDA shroud) involved in Gemini/Agena
missions 7-12 failed.

Adding more launches increases the probability of mission
failure. If the launch vehicles are 95% reliable, two
launches gives a 90% mission success probability. Three
launches gives 86%. Four, 81%. Five, 77%. And so on.

No, it doesn't. Your numbers assume it's impossible to replace a
failed vehicle, which is obviously not correct. Having more launches
makes the effect of any one single launch failure smaller, making it
easier to have backups and replacements. This was explained before.
Why repeat arguments you know are wrong?

Adding backup vehicles adds more cost and schedule
complexity to the EOR scheme, making it even less viable.
And adding backups still does not decrease the probability
of mission failure compared to a single large launch
vehicle.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message om...

We know, based on budget projections prepared by people who
knew the system a lot better than you (Saturn and Apollo
designers and managers), that Saturn EOR would have cost
more than Saturn LOR.

Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of those budget
projections.

Clearly those Gemini missions would have had a greater
chance of failure if the Agenas had been launched in
pieces that somehow docked themselves together in orbit

Obviously, since Agena wasn't capable of doing that. What does this
loonie strawman prove, other than your ability to come up with
loonie
strawmen?

You introduced the "loonie strawman" by offering Gemini/Agena
as an example

Gemini/Agena was not a strawman. It was a real mission, and it proved
Earth Orbit Rendezvous worked.

Launching an Agena in pieces was not a real mission. It's nonsense you
made up because you didn't have any real arguments.

Saturn I/EOR would have required 6-7 launches,
which makes the two-launch Gemini/Agena mission comparison
pointless -

Nonsense. If Earth Orbit Rendezvous is possible once, it's possible 6
or 7 times. That is proven, because Shuttle and Soyuz have done Earth
Orbit Rendezvous with ISS much more than 7 times. Earth Orbit
Rendezvous is obviously not as difficult, risky, or dangerous as you
believe. It's certainly no more difficult than Lunar Orbit Rendezvous,
which you are obsessed with.

unless you consider that three of the 13 flights
(including the failed ATDA shroud) involved in Gemini/Agena
missions 7-12 failed.

Again, the loss of a small launch vehicle is easy to recover from. The
launch of a big launch vehicle isn't. This has been explained to you
before. Many times before.

Adding backup vehicles adds more cost and schedule
complexity to the EOR scheme, making it even less viable.

No, it adds robustness and reliability.

Building giant vehicles doesn't reduce the need for backups. You can't
just tell the guys at your moonbase that they're going to starve to
death because you put your entire annual budget into one launch
vehicle and it blew up on the pad. It merely increases the cost of the
backup vehicles and the amount of money you must budget for them.

And adding backups still does not decrease the probability
of mission failure compared to a single large launch
vehicle.

It does if you understand the concept of backups and redundancy.

With a single large launch vehicle and no backup, a single launch
failure means a mission failure.

With multiple small vehicles and backups, you can have multiple launch
vehicle failures and still accomplish the scheduled missions. Fighter
squadrons have "launch failures" but still manage to accomplish their
missions because they have spare planes. Airlines have "launch
failures" but still manage to meet their flight schedules because
they, too, have spare planes.

The idea that you'll maximize reliability by putting everything on one
big vehicle with no spares is absolute nonsense.

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

The options considered were developing a
new heavy airlifter and using the DC-3, which most experts considered
too small to do the job. Most of the experts turned out to be wrong.

Yes, but you said that the Falcon -- which, if I am not mistaken, is a
SMALL booster -- is a heavy lif option by using a lot of on orbit
assembly. A LOT. The comparison is using a biplane to build an air
base.

No, the comparison is to the DC-3. That was the light lift option at
the time, not biplanes.

You agree the biplane is too small for hauling supplies to an
air base.

I agree to nothing of the sort. There was no biplane with the range
and capability required. That's Mike Gallagher nonsense.

Why isn't Falcon too small for LEO EOR?

Because it's big enough to do the job.

..... The US government
has spent approximately one trillion dollars on spaceflight. I still
don't see any manned (or womanned) spaceflight industry. Do you?

I see a multi-billion dollar communications satellite industry that
gre from technology developed by the government, so yes, some of the
$1 trillion has lead to one private industry.

No sequitar. Communication satellites are not manned (or womanned)
spaceflight. Nor is an industry that generates a few billion dollars
per year a good return for a trillion-dollar investment.

CAN a private manned industry benefit from Moon/Mars expenditures? I think so.

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

There is none. Apollo didn't create any private spaceflight industry.
Why do you think that merely repeating Project Apollo will have a
different result?

As opposed you all the times you've gone to the Moon and Mars on
government vehicles? How many times have you been to the Moon and
Mars, Mike? How many times has *anyone* been? We've seen the results
of doing it your way. Time to try something else.

And when will Elon Musk or anyone develop a Moon vehicle entirely with
private funding? Can you give me the launch date? No, you can't.

Has NASA developed a new Moon vehicle entirely with government
funding? Can you give me the launch date for that? No, you can't.

You have a double standard. You assume that if private enterprise
isn't already doing something, it means private enterprise can't do it
-- but if government isn't already doing the same thing, it means
government can and must do it.

When will Burt Rutan be ready to launch to Mars?

As soon as the US government puts up a $10 billion prize for landing
people on the Moon.

Give me a figure, five years, ten years, that you can bank on, when
the private sector will produce the "affordable" hardware you talk
about, and I'll shut up. I want a date,

Try Match.com. :-)

so that a mission to Mars can
be planned on. If you can't, if it's anybody's guess, then I do not
want to wait.

That's your problem, Mike. Demanding instant gratification is
immature, and expecting NASA to provide you with it is unreasonable.

NASA doesn't have a firm date for sending humans to Mars, and they
certainly can't do it right now, no matter what you think.

...... What government technologies are currently capable of
getting people
to LEO? None in the US -- the Space Shuttle is broken right now, and
no one seriously thinks the Shuttle will play any role in getting
people to the Moon or Mars.

And what does the private sector have to get us to LEO? Nothing.
When will we have something that does so "affordably"? You can't tell
me.

Sure I can, if you'll listen. You can buy a Soyuz flight from Space
Adventures right now. Elon Musk is working on a low-cost launcher and
a low-cost capsule right now. What makes you think they're less likely
to succeed than anything NASA's working on?

.... Contracting to buy rides on a commercial vehicle is hardly the
same as
waiting around and hoping someone will build something. Why must you
mistate and trivialize everything?

Are there commercial manned spacecraft capable of going to the Moon
and Mars? No. When will they be available? You can't say. If you
can, I'll shut up, but you can't.

Are there any government manned spacecraft capable of going to the
Moon and Mars? When will they be available? You can't say?

You have the fixed notion that anything the government spends money on
is "guaranteed," while anything offered by the private sector is very
risky. There's no reason to believe either one.

Oh, bog. How many times are you going to make me say it? You are
wrong. Maybe you only heard about Elon Musk last week, but you did
hear about Elon Musk last week, so you know you are wrong. Why do
you
have to keep repeating something you know is wrong?

So he has man-rated rockets we can use for Moon/mars missions?
Please, tell me; I don't want to be wrong again.

Not yet, but Boeing and Lockheed haven't man-rated theirs yet, either.
Elon Musk is a member of the Mars Society. The name of his company is
Space Exploration Technologies. He wants to go to Mars. Why do you
think he's doing this?

Why is a government vehicle that will cost a couple billion dollars
to
develop "readily available" while a private vehicle that could be
developed in less time for less money is "not available"?

Because you can not tell me when Elon Musk or anybody will produce
what we need. I want a firm date.

Do you want me to make up a date? I can have just as much confidence
in it as any number you make up for NASA. Your insistance on dates for
things no one can know -- whether they're done by the government,
private industry, or Santa Claus -- is most annoying.

July 15, 2014. There, are you happy? :-)

I do not want to wait who knows how long for them to produce and buy contracts. If there is a way to
ensure a set date when these vehicles will be available, no problem.
But I will not wait and unknown amount of time for something we HOPE
will happen.

Good lord. I hope you never eat out. I pity your poor waiter or
waitress!

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

We haven't sent any MANNED spacecraft to Mars yet. You think we
can
lauch it all on a Titant 3 or a Delta 2, fine,

No, I don't. I never said the mission had to be done with a single
launch, nor did I mention Delta 2 or Titant (sic) 3. Will you
*please*
stop making things up and attributing them to me?

I am not makiing anything up. We had the following exchange: I
wrote:

"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."

"Atlas V" is not the same as Delta 2 or Titan 3. They aren't even
spelled the same.

Nonsense. How do you think every piece of US hardware on Mars got
there."


The answer to your questions(assuming, for the sake of argument, it
wasn't purely rhetorical) is Vikings were sent on Titan 3s; the
rovers we've sent since 1997 were Delta 2s.

The point, in case you missed it, is that Atlas V's are obviously
capable of launching "serious Mars hardware."

..... This is becoming very tiresome, Mike. Do you really think
government programs are "guaranteed"?

No, of course not. Programs are changed and cancelled all the time.
So a government effort to build a shuttle-dervied booster can be
scrapped, no question.

However, private ventures can also suffer dire fates. Companies can
lose backing, go bankrupt, and their vehicles don't get built either.
So it is all risky.

With the obvious exception that there are many companies and only one
US government. Depending on a government agency to do something
entails a possible single-point failure. Depending on multiple
competing companies does not.

Right now, depsite the work by Messrs Rutan, Musk, et al, we are not
in a position to contract for the spacecraft Moon/Mars would require
for the simple reason they have not built anything we can use.

Mike, do you think it's impossible to sign a contract for something in
advance of its being built?

It happens all the time. Disney signed a deal with Pixar for five
movies that had not been produced. Southwest Airlines signed a
contract with Boeing to buy 737s that hadn't been built yet. Paul
Allen signed a contract with Burt Rutan for Spaceship One.

Now, if there was some way to help speed up Cats development, that
would be another thing.

There is a way. Government can create incentives for the development
of low-cost vehicles. It can offer prizes, tax breaks, guarantee
purchases, etc.

But I do not want to WAIT.

Oh, for Pete's sake. If you don't want to wait, Mike, *DON'T WAIT*.
You have my permission to go to Mars. Go -- go, right now! This
minute! Go to Mars!

What? Why are you still here? :-)

You give me a way for Musk and Rutan to be
"guarunteed" to produce needed boosters when NASA wants them and still
be affordable, objection removed. Otherwise, Shuttle-C wins.

Stop being assinine. Shuttle-C has no more "guarantees" than anything
else.

Who is this mythical "we"? .....

All of us, via the plans NASA had under consideration in the late
'60s. von Braun (whom you've lauded several times in this thread for
wanting to do EOR with Saturn 1s) had plans for a landing in the early
'80s. The crew would have stayed '60 days, then made a flyby of Venus
for a gravityy assist on the way home.

You're mistaken. NASA never had plans to send "all of us" on any such
flight. Von Braun envisioned a crew of more than 6-12. That's not even
close to "all of us."

..... I certainly didn't have the means to fly to
Mars 20 years ago -- and I doubt you did, either.

Because said plans were scrapped in the early '70s.

No, it's because I was never selected for the astronaut corps. I had
zero chance of flying before the program was cancelled and zero chance
afterward. Were you selected for the astronaut program, Mike?

Do you think the government has not intervened in space since you
were
eight? .....

Yes, but we still have not returned to the Moon and gone on to Mars,

"We" have not "returned" to the Moon? Mike, are you under the belief
that you and I have been to the Moon?

because as noted, those plans were scrapped. Congress and the White
House had no interest in doing it. At least now we have ONE president
who is behind it, and that is why I plan to vote for him in November.

Congress and the White House never had any plans to send you or me to
the Moon or Mars -- nor do they have any at present. I don't know
where you get these strange ideas.

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

I don't understand why you insist on making decisions based on
faulty
analogies instead of economics.

You have eschewed the idea of a heavy lifter, saying it would be
cheaper to assemble on site. You said Falcon is a reasonable option,
even though it is a small booster. The analogh, then, is what is
cheaper for the oil industry, to build it all at once in a shipyard,
or have divers assemble it one SMALL peice at a time? The former,
apparently, because that is the way they've done it.

It's a bad analogy. The fact that it's cheaper to build one thing (oil
rigs) in shipyards does not mean it's cheaper to build *everything* in
shipyards. Office buildings are not built in shipyards, then towed to
their final location, even though your analogy suggests they should.

Why? Because the economics of office buildings are different from
those of oil rigs. As are the economics of space vehicles.

If it works for the oil industry to assmeble it all at once, why not
for a Mars mission, assemble on the ground and launch with one or two
flights. The dollar amounts differ; the principle is the same.

Because space stations aren't oil rigs and the cost of a heavy launch
vehicle is much higher than the cost of towing an oil rig. Much, much,
much, much higher.

That's nonsense. I can go explore Australia, but if I want to begin
the trip today, I'll have to pay $6,000 for a round-trip ticket.
Exploring Australia is not worth $6,000 to me, so if I decide to go,
I'll "procrastinate" by purchasing an advance purchase ticket for
$1400 .....

The price isn't going down because there's been a change in the
technology to get you there, the price goes down because airlines want
to put as much bums on seats as possible.

That's right, Mike, and that's why the cost of going into space will
go down. Not because of new technology, but because of economics --
which you ignore.

...... Putting off a trip until the price goes down is a perfectly
reasonble option ....

Up to a point. It's one thing for a private citizen like you or me to
plan a big trip months in advance, and thereby get a realtively cheap
airline ticket. 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. The whole damn country is
not obligated to spend unlimited sums of money just because you have
ants in your pants.

Tell me, Ed, can you tell me when we will have CATS? Can you give me
a date, five years from now, ten?

A lot sooner than that, most likely.

Can you suggest what the government can do, perhspas
through legislation, perhaps through a puvlic-private partnership, to
not only help industry along but INSURE that the vheicle will be
available by a set date? Well?

Yes, and I already have. The government can start enforcing the Launch
Services Purchase Act. It can offer prizes for low-cost space travel.
It can sign binding contracts for the purchase of low-cost launch
services. It can offer tax breaks to launch companies and investors.
It can simplify regulations.

If you CAN'T, then I do not want to rely on that. I do not want the
United States (which includes me, born and bread) to wait 50, 100, or
200 years when we can go now because we're waiting for the private
sector to prodcue an "affordable" launcher. If we can go now, we
SHOULD go now.

We cannot go now, Mike. We cannot even go into space right now, let
alone to the Moon or Mars. Nor is NASA doing anything to change that.
I know, they're showing some viewgraphs of future trips to the Moon
and Mars, but that does not mean that you are invited to go with them.

(Edward Wright) wrote in message om...

Gemini/Agena was not a strawman. It was a real mission, and it proved
Earth Orbit Rendezvous worked.

We are not discussing whether EOR works or not. We are
discussing whether it is better to use many launches or
only one launch to complete a lunar mission. Gemini/Agena
used only two launches per mission, so it provides little
useful information for this discussion because an EOR
lunar mission using EELV-type boosters would need at least
six launches.

ISS provides a better comparison. ISS has been assembled
using EOR methods that involved quite a few launches by STS,
Proton, and Soyuz. But a single launch failure by one of
these launch systems has stopped ISS construction for at
least two years, has increased its costs and reduced its
productivity, and has even endangered its ultimate end-state.
If ISS were a lunar mission, that lunar mission would had
to have been abandoned.

Again, the loss of a small launch vehicle is easy to recover from. The
launch of a big launch vehicle isn't. This has been explained to you
before. Many times before.

The problem is that your explanation is wrong.

Consider two conceptual missions - EELV/EOR and HLV/Direct.
I will generously assume for EELV/EOR's sake that the per-ton
to LEO launch costs are equal for each mission types. (In truth,
they should be lower for the larger launch vehicle). I will
also assume that the per-launch reliability is 0.98 for both
mission types.

EELV/EOR requires six launches per mission. These include
one Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), one Lunar Lander (LL), and
four propellant/upper stage payloads. Per-launch cost = 0.167.
Total mission launch reliability (no backups) = 0.89

HLV/Direct requires one launch. Per-launch cost = 1.0.
Total mission launch reliability (no backups) = 0.98

How many launch vehicles would be needed to raise the
EELV/EOR mission launch reliability to 0.98? This number
would be determined in part by time limitations. Cryogenic
propellants, which would have to be used to do a six-launch
mission, boil-off in orbit, so all six launches would have
to be completed within a few weeks at the most. One backup
propellant launcher would be needed, as would one backup
launcher for both CEV and LL. These redundant launchers
would be required to raise the mission launch reliability
to at least 0.98, raising mission cost to 1.5.

The redundancy cost could be spread over a number of missions
to reduce cost, but doing so highlights another problem.
Consider twenty missions. EELV/EOR would have needed 120
successful launches during that time. If the expected 2.4
failures had occurred, it would have taken 125-126 launch
vehicles (including three backups) to perform these missions
for a total cost of 20.875-21.04.

HLV/Direct would have needed an expected 20-21 launches to
perform the 20 missions for a cost of 20.0-21.0. So the
odds favor HLV/Direct having a lower cost over many missions
for a given mission reliability.

Or, if HLV/Direct must be provided with equivalent backup
capacity, it would then be more reliable than EELV/EOR-
redundant (0.9996 versus 0.995) for a comparable cost.

Note that I have not considered the added complexity of
EOR dockings, which would reduce mission reliability.
I have also not considered the significantly higher launch
facility costs that EELV/EOR-redundant would require.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message om...

ISS provides a better comparison. ISS has been assembled
using EOR methods that involved quite a few launches by STS,
Proton, and Soyuz. But a single launch failure by one of
these launch systems has stopped ISS construction for at
least two years, has increased its costs and reduced its
productivity, and has even endangered its ultimate end-state.

Yes, that's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.

If ISS were a lunar mission, that lunar mission would had
to have been abandoned.

It would if the lunar mission were dependent on one huge booster, like
the Shuttle. However, I am not advocating that.

Again, the loss of a small launch vehicle is easy to recover from. The
launch of a big launch vehicle isn't. This has been explained to you
before. Many times before.

The problem is that your explanation is wrong.

Consider two conceptual missions - EELV/EOR and HLV/Direct.
I will generously assume for EELV/EOR's sake that the per-ton
to LEO launch costs are equal for each mission type

In truth, the fact that you keep chanting that mantra does not make it
correct. In the real world, making something scarce does not make it
cheaper.

(In truth, they should be lower for the larger launch vehicle). I will
also assume that the per-launch reliability is 0.98 for both
mission types.

Which flies in the fact of experience. When you do something often,
you get good at it and reliability improves.

EELV/EOR requires six launches per mission. These include
one Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), one Lunar Lander (LL), and
four propellant/upper stage payloads. Per-launch cost = 0.167.
Total mission launch reliability (no backups) = 0.89

HLV/Direct requires one launch. Per-launch cost = 1.0.
Total mission launch reliability (no backups) = 0.98

How many launch vehicles would be needed to raise the
EELV/EOR mission launch reliability to 0.98? This number
would be determined in part by time limitations. Cryogenic
propellants, which would have to be used to do a six-launch
mission, boil-off in orbit,

No faster than they will on the Moon. Boil off is not the insoluble
problem you think.

so all six launches would have to be completed within a few weeks at the most. One backup
propellant launcher would be needed, as would one backup
launcher for both CEV and LL.

No, the same backup launcher could be used for propellant, CEV, or LL,
as needed. Designing each payload to require a different launcher
would be dumb.

These redundant launchers
would be required to raise the mission launch reliability
to at least 0.98, raising mission cost to 1.5.

If you do the math correctly, you need only a single backup launcher
to obtain that level of reliability.

I have also not considered the significantly higher launch
facility costs that EELV/EOR-redundant would require.

Nor have you proven that there will be significantly higher launch
facility costs, or even insignificantly higher launch facility costs.
You just keep waving your hands and pulling numbers out of thin air.

"Edward Wright" wrote in message
om...
(ed kyle) wrote in message
om...

ISS provides a better comparison. ISS has been assembled
using EOR methods that involved quite a few launches by STS,
Proton, and Soyuz. But a single launch failure by one of
these launch systems has stopped ISS construction for at
least two years, has increased its costs and reduced its
productivity, and has even endangered its ultimate end-state.

Yes, that's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.

If ISS were a lunar mission, that lunar mission would had
to have been abandoned.

It would if the lunar mission were dependent on one huge booster, like
the Shuttle. However, I am not advocating that.

Again, the loss of a small launch vehicle is easy to recover from. The
launch of a big launch vehicle isn't. This has been explained to you
before. Many times before.

The problem is that your explanation is wrong.

Consider two conceptual missions - EELV/EOR and HLV/Direct.
I will generously assume for EELV/EOR's sake that the per-ton
to LEO launch costs are equal for each mission type

In truth, the fact that you keep chanting that mantra does not make it
correct. In the real world, making something scarce does not make it
cheaper.

(In truth, they should be lower for the larger launch vehicle). I will
also assume that the per-launch reliability is 0.98 for both
mission types.

Which flies in the fact of experience. When you do something often,
you get good at it and reliability improves.

EELV/EOR requires six launches per mission. These include
one Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), one Lunar Lander (LL), and
four propellant/upper stage payloads. Per-launch cost = 0.167.
Total mission launch reliability (no backups) = 0.89

HLV/Direct requires one launch. Per-launch cost = 1.0.
Total mission launch reliability (no backups) = 0.98

How many launch vehicles would be needed to raise the
EELV/EOR mission launch reliability to 0.98? This number
would be determined in part by time limitations. Cryogenic
propellants, which would have to be used to do a six-launch
mission, boil-off in orbit,

No faster than they will on the Moon. Boil off is not the insoluble
problem you think.

Ed, you are giving up a debate point here. A single back up to a six
launch mission at 98% per launch takes overall mission reliability to
99.73%. It is roughly the 11% chance of one of the first six launchers
failing multiplied by the 2% chance of the back up failing. Mission
reliability clearly goes to the multiple launch.

so all six launches would have to be completed within a few weeks at the
most. One backup
propellant launcher would be needed, as would one backup
launcher for both CEV and LL.

No, the same backup launcher could be used for propellant, CEV, or LL,
as needed. Designing each payload to require a different launcher
would be dumb.

Another point here Ed. You are advocating missions based on multiple
launcher types rather than the single type. When one of your launcher
providers screws up, you can shift to the more reliable. I don't believe
you have made that clear.

These redundant launchers
would be required to raise the mission launch reliability
to at least 0.98, raising mission cost to 1.5.

If you do the math correctly, you need only a single backup launcher
to obtain that level of reliability.

See above. By the numbers upthread, you would lose 2.4 smaller launchers
or .4 large launchers in a 20 mission scenerio. These numbers suggest the
maximum requirement is 123+1 small or 21+1 large launches. 124 x 0.166
=20.708 while 22x1=22 giving the cost advantage to the smaller vehicle,
once the lost vehicles and subsequent back ups are added. Subtracting
a single vehicle by assuming the lesser loss from each column still gives
a cost advantage to the smaller vehicle.

I have also not considered the significantly higher launch
facility costs that EELV/EOR-redundant would require.

Nor have you proven that there will be significantly higher launch
facility costs, or even insignificantly higher launch facility costs.
You just keep waving your hands and pulling numbers out of thin air.

Use his numbers against him if you want to win this one.

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...
(ed kyle) wrote in message om...

Consider two conceptual missions - EELV/EOR and HLV/Direct.
I will generously assume for EELV/EOR's sake that the per-ton
to LEO launch costs are equal for each mission type

In truth, the fact that you keep chanting that mantra does not make it
correct. In the real world, making something scarce does not make it
cheaper.


Launch vehicles are not scarce commodity items with a
fixed price and capacity. See:
"http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf"
which shows that, in the real world, larger launch
vehicles orbit payloads at less cost per kg than smaller
launch vehicles do.

... Cryogenic
propellants, which would have to be used to do a six-launch
mission, boil-off in orbit,

No faster than they will on the Moon. Boil off is not the insoluble
problem you think.


Limiting boil off requires insulation which adds mass which
requires more launch capacity. Most well-considered lunar
landing plans do not use cryogenic propellants for ascent
and, thus, do not require cryogenic propellant storage on
the lunar surface.

so all six launches would have to be completed within a few weeks at the most. One backup
propellant launcher would be needed, as would one backup
launcher for both CEV and LL.

No, the same backup launcher could be used for propellant, CEV, or LL,
as needed. Designing each payload to require a different launcher
would be dumb.

Study the EELV user guides and you'll find that it takes
about four weeks to prepare an EELV-Heavy launch vehicle.
Cryogenic propellant boil off precludes waiting four weeks
to assemble a back up booster and integrate it with its
payload, so multiple backups will be necessary.

These redundant launchers
would be required to raise the mission launch reliability
to at least 0.98, raising mission cost to 1.5.

If you do the math correctly, you need only a single backup launcher
to obtain that level of reliability.

If a propellant launcher fails and you use the backup to
take it's place, you will, using your plan, revert to
non-redundant launches for the CEV and LL elements. This
will drive your mission reliability down to 0.95 at least.

You just keep waving your hands and pulling numbers out of thin air.

I'm providing data and references. You're doing the
hand waving.

- Ed Kyle

On 13 Mar 2004 17:55:59 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

We haven't sent any MANNED spacecraft to Mars yet. You think we
can
lauch it all on a Titant 3 or a Delta 2, fine,

No, I don't. I never said the mission had to be done with a single
launch, nor did I mention Delta 2 or Titant (sic) 3. Will you
*please*
stop making things up and attributing them to me?

I am not makiing anything up. We had the following exchange: I
wrote:

"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."

"Atlas V" is not the same as Delta 2 or Titan 3. They aren't even
spelled the same.


However, WRT the hardware that is ALREADY there -- and remember, you
asked, "How do you think every peice of US hardware ON Mars got
there?" referring, I imagine to everything that has been launched to
Mars, not what may be --- everything ON Mars RIGHT NOW was launched
on either a Delta 2 or a Titan 3.


The point, in case you missed it, is that Atlas V's are obviously
capable of launching "serious Mars hardware."


And the question I was answering pertained to what HAS BEEN launched
already.


Right now, depsite the work by Messrs Rutan, Musk, et al, we are not
in a position to contract for the spacecraft Moon/Mars would require
for the simple reason they have not built anything we can use.

Mike, do you think it's impossible to sign a contract for something in
advance of its being built?


No. However:

...... Southwest Airlines signed a
contract with Boeing to buy 737s that hadn't been built yet .....

The same happens at smaller scales: When I've ordered new cars, it was
for something that had not been built. I also signed a contract to
have a headstone made for my dad's grave long before any carving
began. However, whether one is talking about a Boeing 737 or a
Pontiac Vibe or a Saturn SC2 coupe, we are talking about vehicles in
production, and one can sign the contract with the expectation the
vehicle in question will be built and delivered on an agreed upon
schedule. WRT the headstone, I did not sign anything until after I
had talked with the Monument dealer, letting them know my
requirements, and approving the design. Southwest knows what it is
getting when it signs for 737s because they know its specifications
and it matches their needs. However, I doubt Southwest -- or anyone
-- would sign a contract for jet liners with a firm that had produced
small prop planes and had no plans to produce jets of any sort.

AFAIK, none of the private efforts attempting to capture the X-prize
is designed to achieve LEO; they are all suborbital. The last private
effort for a manned LEO vehicle was Roton, and it died in 1999 thanx
to technical challenges and an inabiltiy to attract investors. That
is not to say such a vehicle CAN"T attract investors and CAN'T be
buitl, but at the moment, there is not even a manned orbital vehicle
on the drawing board someone can sign a contract for. I don't think
anyone would sign such a contract. You might, but I wouldn't.

..... Government can create incentives for the development
of low-cost vehicles. It can offer prizes, tax breaks, guarantee
purchases, etc.


I have no problem with that PROVIDED it does not inolve holding up the
works.

NASA never had plans to send "all of us" on any such
flight. Von Braun envisioned a crew of more than 6-12. That's not even
close to "all of us."


"All of us" didn't fly on Burt Rutan's round the world flight in
Voyager, even though it was on the news every night. "All of us"
didn't attempt to take a balloon all the way around the world (talk
about an impractical exercise), in spite of the news coverage every
time someone tried. "All of us" do not take submersibles like Alvin
down into the deep ocean trenches.

There are many things done with private backing that "all of us" don't
really go on. If the definition is that either all go or no one
goes, NASA isn't the only one facing a showstopper.





----== 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 =---