#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 08 May 2005 16:17:11 -0500, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:42 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote: Scott Lowther wrote: Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished: http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg Yeepers, you work really fast! ...Amazing what you can do with a dull old pocket knife and a bar of Irish Spring :-) OM It's Mexico's first spaceship, the adobe CEV. Let's hope it works out better than their abobe submarine. ;-) Rusty |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Scott Lowther" wrote in message ... Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Pat Flannery wrote: [Shuttle-C variants] Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep. Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would". Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits off a high-cost one. Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*. So $60 million for a pair of RSRMs, another $60 million for an ET, say $20 million (WAG) for a boattail and engines (all disposable) and then you still need a standing army for the VAB (to stack all this), the crawler-transporter, crews for pad refurbishment, etc. pretty soon you're talking real money. Shuttle is currently about $400M per launch. Shuttle-C or similar would not be more. EELV Heavy is about $300M per launch, last I heard. But Shuttle-C would launch, what, 5 times as much? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rusty wrote: It's Mexico's first spaceship, the adobe CEV. Let's hope it works out better than their abobe submarine. Comrade! Socialist Science marches forwards into the abyss!: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1281166.html Pat |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote: Rusty wrote: It's Mexico's first spaceship, the adobe CEV. Let's hope it works out better than their abobe submarine. Comrade! Socialist Science marches forwards into the abyss!: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1281166.html Pat That's it! The answer to cheap access to space! The concrete heatshield! 8-\ Rusty |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com... That's it! The answer to cheap access to space! The concrete heatshield! "With these craft being potentially so cheap to make, there is the danger of countries such as Iran and Libya using them to threaten American carrier groups or to barricade certain ocean routes." equals "With these craft being potentially so cheap to make, there is the danger of countries such as Australia using them to threaten European prestige by no longer needing its submarine makers." A dangerous weapon indeed. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gerace wrote: "With these craft being potentially so cheap to make, there is the danger of countries such as Australia using them to threaten European prestige by no longer needing its submarine makers." Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held on the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held on the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-) So what we have is a heavier-than-the-medium fluidcraft, right? We've been doing that for 100 years with air, don't see why water should be any harder |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote in message ... "Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held on the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-) So what we have is a heavier-than-the-medium fluidcraft, right? We've been doing that for 100 years with air, don't see why water should be any harder I'm not sure this is exactly a science where you want to start at the bottom and work your way up. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Did you catch the part about no ballast tanks, and the sub being held
on the surface by those four vertical thrusters? So in other words, if the power fails.... yes, this is a Russian design. :-) There's an easy solution: just blow your floatation devices! Technology pioneered by that Airport'77 flick...I can't see why it wouldn't work! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits off a high-cost one. It ought to be a good way to use any leftover tanks and SRBs, rather than using them as museum pieces. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|