The Delta V Heavy

On Nov 21, 9:46 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:30:54 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

robert casey wrote:

You'd have to figure out how to refuel it, and how you deliver that fuel.

And how to seat the propellants if you wanted to fire it up on-orbit.

The refueling problem is the bigger problem.

But one that must be solved if we're serious about being a spacefaring
nation and society.

Yes.

IMO, refueling on orbit is a problem that we
should have attacked decades ago. Again,
IMO, this problem will become quite manageable
once we have frequent, reliable, safe, low-cost
access to LEO.

Len

"kT" wrote in message
...

As I indicated, I have no idea

I accept your word.

I

need to

propose

Sorry, I'm already married.

Len wrote:
:
:IMO, refueling on orbit is a problem that we
:should have attacked decades ago. Again,
:IMO, this problem will become quite manageable
nce we have frequent, reliable, safe, low-cost
:access to LEO.
:

There is, of course, a quite serious chicken and egg problem here.
Nobody is going to design for any sort of 'standardized' refueling or
fuel modules until such are economically available on orbit and it
doesn't make economic sense to fund creating the resource on orbit
until there are users.

This is where I keep disagreeing with Len and where he keeps
misunderstanding me. Something has to bootstrap that process and I
don't currently see anything that will. Len tends to skip that step
in his thinking and start from the assumption that the fuel module
infrastructure and users are already there.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...

As I indicated, I have no idea

I accept your word.

I

need to

propose

Sorry, I'm already married.

Is this supposed to be some sort of conservatard humor?

Bash wrote:
Then it's not a matter of *you* have an SSME, *we* have them, and I haven't
given you permission to use my share.
Elifritz has one three hundred millionth share of an SSME. I wonder
how far the moron thinks that will get him to orbit.

There is an alternative. If enough US citizens volunteered their SSME
share, that may get Elfritz up just a few hundred feet. As for the
landing... ;-)

Americans are too stupid to realize what they have or don't have.

NASA has demonstrably forfeited their credibility in the launch vehicle
architecture and design domain, and all I've offered is the rational
alternative, which is to continue flying the SSMEs, at least through
2016, when something second generational will come on line.

I reiterate, only an idiot would be in favor of retiring the SSMEs.

On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, kT wrote:


I reiterate, only an idiot would be in favor of retiring the SSMEs.

Only a fool would use engines that are past their lifetime and more
expensive than whole launch vehicles ($200M per year)

wrote:

On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, kT wrote:

I reiterate, only an idiot would be in favor of retiring the SSMEs.

Only a fool would use engines that are past their lifetime and more
expensive than whole launch vehicles ($200M per year)

I heard it was roughly a billion dollar maintenance contract for
approximately 50 equivalent flights. That doesn't seem to agree with
your figure. That's my number, $20 million a flight seems reasonable.

Besides, I'm just flying them off, recovery and reuse comes later.

On Dec 1, 4:01 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Len wrote:

:
:IMO, refueling on orbit is a problem that we
:should have attacked decades ago. Again,
:IMO, this problem will become quite manageable
nce we have frequent, reliable, safe, low-cost
:access to LEO.
:

There is, of course, a quite serious chicken and egg problem here.
Nobody is going to design for any sort of 'standardized' refueling or
fuel modules until such are economically available on orbit and it
doesn't make economic sense to fund creating the resource on orbit
until there are users.

This is where I keep disagreeing with Len and where he keeps
misunderstanding me. Something has to bootstrap that process and I
don't currently see anything that will. Len tends to skip that step
in his thinking and start from the assumption that the fuel module
infrastructure and users are already there.

I agree completely with you, Fred, with respect
to the chicken-and-egg problem. I have recognized
this problem for a very long time. Where I seem
to disagree has to do with the options for solving
the chicken-and-egg problem. Two general
possibilities come to mind. First, NASA, or
some other government agency guarantees the
market for high-frequency, low-cost flights. This
hasn't happened, and may never happen--although
it would, if I had anything to do with policy. I tried
to make it happen in the mid- to late-1980s, when
I was a reappointed charter member of DoT's
COMSTAC--and the only member of COMSTAC
at that time with any real interest in space
transports, aka RLVs (of course they're reusable,
we don't talk about reusable airliners).

The second possibility is that private investment is
willing to fund development of both the vehicle
and one or more applications. Until recently, I
thought this to be extremely unlikely. However,
our potential prospect for funding has bought off
enthusiastically on our plan for "vertical integration."

I am not skipping the problem. I am hoping that
the problem is solved.

Len
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Dec 1, 5:36 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, kT wrote:

I reiterate, only an idiot would be in favor of retiring the SSMEs.

Only a fool would use engines that are past their lifetime and more
expensive than whole launch vehicles ($200M per year)

I heard it was roughly a billion dollar maintenance contract for
approximately 50 equivalent flights. That doesn't seem to agree with
your figure. That's my number, $20 million a flight seems reasonable.

Besides, I'm just flying them off, recovery and reuse comes later.

Contract is based on 5 years and not flight rate

wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:36 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 1, 4:41 pm, kT wrote:
I reiterate, only an idiot would be in favor of retiring the SSMEs.
Only a fool would use engines that are past their lifetime and more
expensive than whole launch vehicles ($200M per year)
I heard it was roughly a billion dollar maintenance contract for
approximately 50 equivalent flights. That doesn't seem to agree with
your figure. That's my number, $20 million a flight seems reasonable.

Besides, I'm just flying them off, recovery and reuse comes later.

Contract is based on 5 years and not flight rate

Which works out to about 50 equivalent flights.

Look, Jim, I appreciate your concern, but rather than just talking out
your ass, why don't you just read my COTS proposal. It won't bite you.

I estimate :

No more than $60 million apiece *brand new*. There is a four year lead
time for the brazed tube nozzles (good old American engineering) but I
hear Volvo is very anxious to get into the channel wall nozzle business.
I estimate $20 million per engine to rebuild, based upon an existing
contract that covers up to 50 equivalent engine flights. I estimate $40
million per core stage, $20 million per vehicle integration and $20
million per launch, and a minimum of $20 million per mission, which I
don't include in launch costs, thus, I estimate that any future LEO
mission will average roughly $100 million per flight to put together,
assuming I use no SpaceX or ATK boosters to send it on its merry way.

If you have any problems with my numbers, or my flight scenarios, then I
suggest you read the proposal and publish a peer review, otherwise, as
we all know it's just another one of your inane and anal pronouncements.