|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
According to :
"http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html" NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in the 100 metric tonne to LEO class. Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape Canaveral coastline? Why pay billions more to extend the STS program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs provided by EELV to do the same job? It would require more EELV launches, sure (the heavies can haul 25 tonnes), but haven't we proved to ourselves over and over that total launch costs per year for any launch vehicle system don't vary significantly with the number of launches? That a large fixed sum is required to keep the rocket factories and launch facilities open whether there are two launches or 20? Aren't the two EELVs together capable of supporting a launch rate in excess of 20 per year? Just how many Shuttle-derived cargo carrier launches would NASA expect to launch in a year by comparison? Shouldn't NASA be planning to *close down* its inefficient shuttle hardware production lines and overbuilt launch facilities rather than plotting to continue the present course? - Ed Kyle |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in the 100 metric tonne to LEO class. Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape Canaveral coastline? What other EELV boosters can launch 100 metric tons into orbit? Why pay billions more to extend the STS program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs provided by EELV to do the same job? How many times can an EELV be launched? Once. It would require more EELV launches, sure (the heavies can haul 25 tonnes), but haven't we proved to ourselves over and over that total launch costs per year for any launch vehicle system don't vary significantly with the number of launches? Ok suppose we decided to launch a lunar mission with the Shuttle-C and those 25 tone EELVs. With the Shuttle-C, one vehicle launches the Lunar lander and the other launches the lunar tug to take it into lunar orbit and back. Now how do you propose to launch a 100 tone lunar lander with 25 tone capacity launch vehicles. Do you launch 4 quarters of a lunar lander and 4 quarters of an orbital tug? Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
Alan Erskine wrote:
"ed kyle" wrote in message om... According to : "http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html" NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in the 100 metric tonne to LEO class. Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape Canaveral coastline? Depends on what they're going to do with it. If they're going back to the Moon or going on to Mars, they'll need all the HLV's they can get. Using proven technology is a less-expensive (cheap?) way of gaining that capability. If you want a new government-sponsored moon shot, why not just use Atlas V heavy? You will need hundreds of Atlas V Cores, but that is *good* since it lets you work out the bugs and get some economies of scale. You could have an assembly line like the russians have for protons. If you want to launch some really heavy parts, you could use a Atlas V super heavy using seven clustered Atlas V core stages. The Atlas V core stage is rugged enough for this to work without too many problems. But I think it would be more economical to launch your moon ferry or whatever in parts and assemble it in orbit. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
ed kyle wrote:
According to : "http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html" NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in the 100 metric tonne to LEO class. Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape Canaveral coastline? Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could EVER make something as well as we can. That and a ton of money covertly poured into all sorts of military programs(you don't think toilet seats really cost them $1000, do you?) Why pay billions more to extend the STS program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs provided by EELV to do the same job? Well, there IS a problem with the current Shuttles. The original design called for titanium construction. One of our Presidents at the time said all the titanium needed to go towards our war efforts in Vietnam(yes, teh designs are THAT old) in the early 70s and they were made out of aluminum. Hence the need for the extra solid fuel boosters and the fact that it gets into orbit half as far as it was originally supposed to. It also was supposed to be liquid fuel only, causing a LOT less stress on the design and payload. Oh - no O-rings to fail, either. Also, it's JUST possible the shuttle might have survived re-entry if it was titanium, as it has a MUCH higher melting poin, and those few seconds may have been enough to keep that wing intact until they made it to the lower atmosphere. In short, we badly need some sort of replacement AS WELL AS a new heavy lifter. IMO, they new shuttle should be a small space-plane for ferrying people and gear and something like the Sea Dragon should be used for heavy payloads. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:43:40 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape Canaveral coastline? Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could EVER make something as well as we can. Your theory falls apart when you consider that both EELVs are being entrusted with our most classified national security payloads, and that one EELV or the other will be the launch vehicle for the Orbital Space Plane, America's next manned spacecraft. Brian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message nk.net...
ed kyle wrote: Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape Canaveral coastline? Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could EVER make something as well as we can. ... Huh? Are you telling me the rocket builders who toil in Boeing's Decatur, Alabama factory and in Lockheed Martin's Denver facility are not U.S. citizens? True that Atlas V is boosted by Russian rocket engines and uses European payload fairings and that Delta IV uses Japanese second stage tanks, but these EELVs are as essentially U.S.-made as any other product these days - the era that sees the U.S. importing Chryslers and GM products while building Hondas, Nissans, and Toyotas within its borders. - Ed Kyle |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!
|
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 Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 2nd 04 10:55 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 6th 03 02:59 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |