#1
|
|||
|
|||
CEV PDQ
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 08 May 2005 05:37:04 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote: Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished: http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg Geez, Also Sprach Zarathustra was playing in my mind as the page was loading. After she's glazed and fired, she should reenter the atmosphere just fine Dale |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote: Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished: http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg Yeepers, you work really fast! There's talk now that there may be some Shuttle components used on the finished system (probably for an unmanned cargo carrier) and that they may want the CEV to be larger than currently planned: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7345 Using the Shuttle's ET and SRBs on a unmanned cargo carrier would at least vastly decrease the number of launches needed for a lunar landing mission over what could be done with Delta IV Heavies. One of the main things that worked against the Shuttle cargo versions was the need to try and recover the SSMEs due to their cost, but two of the Delta IV's RS 68s give around the same thrust, and they are designed to be expendable. 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. Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. You have to build it from scratch, adding only the bits that are absolutely necessary. Dave Urie of the Lockheed Skunk Works, asked in 1997 about the idea of launching VentureStar from LC-39, said: "It's cheaper to build new pads." -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... 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. You have to build it from scratch, adding only the bits that are absolutely necessary. Dave Urie of the Lockheed Skunk Works, asked in 1997 about the idea of launching VentureStar from LC-39, said: "It's cheaper to build new pads." Given the "success" of VentureStar I don't think that's really saying much. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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*. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 09 May 2005 04:49:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. That's not a meaningful number. Marginal cost is much less, and average cost is much more, at expected flight rates. Shuttle-C or similar would not be more. It would be if the launch rate is lower. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|