High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

On 4 Feb 2004 19:54:35 -0800, (ed kyle)
wrote:

"Kim Keller" wrote in message .com...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Interesting. Note that a fully fueled Delta IV 5-meter
diameter second stage weighs nearly 31 metric tons (less
than 4 tons empty), several tons in excess of what
Delta IV-Heavy is reported to be capable of boosting to
low earth orbit. The logical approach would be to upgrade
Delta IV-Heavy enough to be able to put 31 tons into LEO
so that these stages could be orbited fully fueled. This
two-stage plus CEV stack, which appears capable of
translunar insertion, would then require three Delta IV-
Heavy launches.

Trouble is, Delta IV isn't exactly suited to salvo launch operations. For
that matter, neither is Atlas V. Both would require additional facilities to
make such a mission achievable. From the look of budget numbers, there won't
be enough money to take that approach.


If the money isn't there, then the U.S. is not going to the
Moon. Any lunar mission is going to require new launch
facilities, whether it be via EELV or not.



I have to disagree with you here. NASA will not need new
launch facilities if it uses the Shuttle-C heavy-lift
vehicle for Moon and Mars programs. Shuttle-C can use the
existing space shuttle launch facilities and work force.

[snip]


TA

On 5 Feb 2004 15:11:57 -0800, (Alex
Terrell) wrote:

"Kim Keller" wrote in message .com...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Interesting. Note that a fully fueled Delta IV 5-meter
diameter second stage weighs nearly 31 metric tons (less
than 4 tons empty), several tons in excess of what
Delta IV-Heavy is reported to be capable of boosting to
low earth orbit. The logical approach would be to upgrade
Delta IV-Heavy enough to be able to put 31 tons into LEO
so that these stages could be orbited fully fueled. This
two-stage plus CEV stack, which appears capable of
translunar insertion, would then require three Delta IV-
Heavy launches.

Trouble is, Delta IV isn't exactly suited to salvo launch operations. For
that matter, neither is Atlas V. Both would require additional facilities to
make such a mission achievable. From the look of budget numbers, there won't
be enough money to take that approach.

Using just existing facilities would lead to some components having to wait
in orbit for quite some time before the mission package is assembled. Now,
that may not be a huge challenge but it does complicate things, particularly
if cryogenic fuels are used.

-Kim-

Any idea how much time?

I was thinking that the current "Heavies" can lift about 25 tons to
LEO. Two of these could put about 10 tons on the moon. One would put
up an upper stage (20-25 tons) which would dock with the Lander (10
tons) plus cargo(10 tons).



I guess that makes the space shuttle a heavy-lift vehicle
since it can put 30 tons in LEO. Right?


TA

On 27 Jan 2004 22:22:51 -0800, (Cris
Fitch) wrote:

"Dholmes" wrote...
Going from just over a 5 meter diameter rocket to an almost six meter
diameter rocket even if only for the central rocket would allow for a lot
more launch capability in a Delta Heavy.
Dual MB-60 second stage could also increase mass to orbit.

If we do get sucked into the path of building heavier launchers,
then perhaps the question is, how to do so in the most cost-effective
manner.


Every official commission that has ever studied the
problem of Moon and Mars missions has said a heavy-lift
cargo launcher was *essential*. And the bigger, the better.
So my guess is we will take that path.

The most cost-effective manner to build a heavy-lift
vehicle is to convert the space shuttle launch system into
an unmanned cargo launcher.

[snip]


TA

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though
there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done
instead?

I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a
bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility.

-Kim-

"Tom Abbott" wrote in message
...
I have to disagree with you here. NASA will not need new
launch facilities if it uses the Shuttle-C heavy-lift
vehicle for Moon and Mars programs. Shuttle-C can use the
existing space shuttle launch facilities and work force.

Question is, can we *afford* the present workforce?

-Kim-

Hi!

"Kim Keller" writes:
Question is, can we *afford* the present workforce?

You are perhaps the most qualified person on this group to answer that
question.

What is the rough number of employees for different parts
of the shuttle system?

Needed for a fairly simple shuttle-c:
External tank handling equipment and staff.
SRB handling and staff.
Stacking equipment and staff.
Vab, crawler, launchpad and misc building maintainance
and support staff.

New staff for a fairly simple shuttle-c:
RS-68 engine specialists.
Boat tail specilists, inertial system and avionics.
( TLI stage specialists are needed in any choice of
launchers. )

Made redundant:
Shuttle orbiter specialists, OMS, RCS, thermal protection,
enviromental systems, shuttle arm, ET-orbiter separation
system, landing gear, etc, etc.
Emergency airfield staff, orbiter landing staff, orbiter handling
equipment, orbiter transport 747:s.

How much of the total manpower is used for the orbiter?
75% or is it more?

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:25:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though
there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done
instead?

I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a
bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility.

Then we'll give your criticism, and "feelings" all the respect they're
due.

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
What is the rough number of employees for different parts
of the shuttle system?

I can only speak to the situation at KSC, where roughly 7000 people work on
Shuttle in some way, shape or form.

Needed for a fairly simple shuttle-c:
External tank handling equipment and staff.
SRB handling and staff.
Stacking equipment and staff.
Vab, crawler, launchpad and misc building maintainance
and support staff.

Hmmm, maybe 300? Depends on how many shifts of operations you want to run;
I'm thinking two shifts. I'm also adding some engineers into that, but not
typical administrative overhead.

New staff for a fairly simple shuttle-c:
RS-68 engine specialists.
Boat tail specilists, inertial system and avionics.
( TLI stage specialists are needed in any choice of
launchers. )

100-150, including engineers.

Made redundant:
Shuttle orbiter specialists, OMS, RCS, thermal protection,
enviromental systems, shuttle arm, ET-orbiter separation
system, landing gear, etc, etc.
Emergency airfield staff, orbiter landing staff, orbiter handling
equipment, orbiter transport 747:s.

How much of the total manpower is used for the orbiter?
75% or is it more?

Much less. Maybe 17% - perhaps 1000?

There would be a need for logistics people, schedulers, trainers, and other
misc. footsoldiers.
Bear in mind these numbers are for the launch site only.

-Kim-

"Kim Keller" wrote in message m...
"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
What is the rough number of employees for different parts
of the shuttle system?

I can only speak to the situation at KSC, where roughly 7000 people work on
Shuttle in some way, shape or form.


Here is another way to look at it. NASA's shuttle budget
is roughly $3.2 billion per year (6 flights). Roughly
$1.31 billion of that cost is attributed to the cost of
processing and upgrading the orbiters and their SSMEs.
Purchase, refurbishment, processing, and upgrade of ET
and SRB elements accounts for about $1.1 billion. Mission
and launch operations costs account for the remainder.

Taking away the orbiter costs leaves $1.92 billion. The
orbiter will have to be replaced with something roughly
the size of an EELV Medium, which costs on the order of
$0.1 billion each to build and launch. Additional cost
reductions in the "Mission and Launch Operations" category
(perhaps $0.3-0.4 billion) would also be likely, since the
new vehicle would not require human spaceflight support.

This hints at a potential non-orbiter, non-SSME shuttle-
derived vehicle (SDV) annual program cost on the order of
$2.2 billion for a program that could handle as many as
6 launches per year. Such a program would produce lower
costs than an EELV-based effort only if a 75 ton to LEO
class SDV were flown at least five times per year every
year. Note that this does not include the SDV development
costs, which would add $3-4 billion to the initial program
costs.

- Ed Kyle.

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
"Kim Keller" wrote in message m...
"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
What is the rough number of employees for different parts
of the shuttle system?

I can only speak to the situation at KSC, where roughly 7000 people work on
Shuttle in some way, shape or form.


Here is another way to look at it. NASA's shuttle budget
is roughly $3.2 billion per year (6 flights). Roughly
$1.31 billion of that cost is attributed to the cost of
processing and upgrading the orbiters and their SSMEs.
Purchase, refurbishment, processing, and upgrade of ET
and SRB elements accounts for about $1.1 billion. Mission
and launch operations costs account for the remainder.

Taking away the orbiter costs leaves $1.92 billion. The
orbiter will have to be replaced with something roughly
the size of an EELV Medium, which costs on the order of
$0.1 billion each to build and launch. Additional cost
reductions in the "Mission and Launch Operations" category
(perhaps $0.3-0.4 billion) would also be likely, since the
new vehicle would not require human spaceflight support.

This hints at a potential non-orbiter, non-SSME shuttle-
derived vehicle (SDV) annual program cost on the order of
$2.2 billion for a program that could handle as many as
6 launches per year. Such a program would produce lower
costs than an EELV-based effort only if a 75 ton to LEO
class SDV were flown at least five times per year every
year. Note that this does not include the SDV development
costs, which would add $3-4 billion to the initial program
costs.

- Ed Kyle.

I think there'd be scope to shave a little more off the ET / SRB bill,
but that brings the cost to about $1.8bn, or $300 million for 75 tons,
exlcuding development costs.

Giving the whole operation to a private sector could reduce this, but
I guess we're still talking $250 million per launch, plus development
amortisation. Each launch is the equivelant of 3 Delta IV heavy
launches.

What is the marginal cost for 18 Delta IV launches per year, given a
competitive bid situation?

Even with an active moon program, is there this level of demand?