|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
STS-133 LH2 and ET Problems
This is always a problem with expendable hardware. Every manufactured
thing has a 'bathtub' shaped failure curve. There are three processes, (1) Early failures - fall off exponentially from time of manufacture (2) Random failures - constant (3) Life time failures - rise exponentially from time of manufacture Added together they make a 'bathtub curve' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve A highly reusable vehicle, with no throw away parts would have a far higher reliability than an expendable. Especially after its test flown a few times before entering service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_test Part of the $8 billion to $12 billion development program I've proposed to make a highly reusable launcher using an ET-derived airframe is to carry out a flight test program to achieve far lower hazard function for the flight hardware than is possible with the Shuttle which as has been stated here, cannot generate the sort of data needed to achieve the reliability levels we associated with aircraft - because aircraft are highly reusable. At present each shuttle is designed for 100 flights and has a failure rate of about 2% largely because of the expendable components. So, the odds of the shuttle getting to the end of its useful life unscathed is about 14%. There is every reason to believe with a well planned flight test program flight elements will likely achieve survival figures similar to that of rotary wing aircraft. These are 1,800 flight cycles and 2.7e-5 loss of vehicle accidents per flight. This means that there is a 95.2% chance of getting to the end of its useful life without a loss of vehicle accident. With 175 hour turn-around, this is a 35 year life span for each of the elements. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...esentation.pdf So, with 35 elements flying 250x per year there is a 96.7% chance that all will get through the year without loss of any element. The odds are there will be 1 of the 35 elements lost per year at this flight rate. At $250 million each this adds $1 million per launch. The cost allocated to each launch (including insurance) is $1 billion. The cost of the payload is $3.5 billion. The value of each payload is $80.5 billion on orbit. Over a 10 year period and 2,500 payloads there is a 71.3% chance all the elements will survive unscathed. Likely that as many as 10 of the 35 elements will be lost over this period. Loss of element need not mean loss of payload - which is a separate calculation. For those who are unfamiliar with the system I've proposed here is a review of it; http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Problems of SR/GR | Phineas T Puddleduck | Astronomy Misc | 26 | December 30th 06 09:15 PM |
Problems with Problems With The Orion Spacecraft #9: Stress | bombardmentforce | History | 63 | November 1st 05 01:14 AM |
Problems with Problems With The Orion Spacecraft #6 - Air Force Funding | bombardmentforce | History | 40 | October 30th 05 01:20 AM |
Problems with Problems with the Orion Spacecraft #1. | bombardmentforce | History | 5 | September 29th 05 03:01 PM |
Problems with Problems With The Orion Spacecraft #3 | bombardmentforce | History | 0 | September 28th 05 09:26 PM |