A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old October 31st 17, 05:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-30 18:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Over 20% of all boosters flown this year were 're-used boosters'.
That's a pretty high flight rate for the first year of the capability
being production.


3 first flights, which likely got a lot more tender loving care than
would normally happen in production when your refurb procedures are
established and becomes routine.


Once it's commercial production it *IS* 'routine' by definition.


They've proven it can be done. They haven't proven they can launch 15
times per year with reflown stages.


Of course they have.


When I argued that had not yet proven with high reflight rate, one of
the cheerleaders reponded that they had done 15 flights this year and
that was proof of high rates. But only 3 of those are reflight.


You didn't argue that. You've been corrected on this numerous times
by several people. Now you're not only mentally challenged, you're an
outright liar.



and will also probably refly only once. Block 5 hardware is the final
design and will refly 10 times with only inspections and up to 100
times with refurbishment.


Perfect example of cheerleading. Has any Block 5 flown yet ? has any
been reflown? How many times has a block 5 been reflown?


Gee, I'm sorry you consider THE FACTS to be cheerleading. Run along
back to your delusions, Mayfly.


So you make assertions the same way people predicted the Shuttle would
turn around quickly and make dozens and dozens of flights per years.


And you're a lying sack of **** with substandard communication skills
and large mental challenges.


You are using goals and turning them into accomplished deeds when none
of those have actually happened yet.

Just because peoople have high confidence in SpaceX achieving a large
part of their goals doesn't mean they have already achieved them. And
that is my argument.


They've already demonstrated that they can refly BLOCK 3 hardware with
sufficiently short turn around times and low enough costs so that they
could conduct the bulk of a year's launches on used hardware. Your
'argument' is conflating multiple things and that's why your argument
is moronic.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
  #52  
Old October 31st 17, 11:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-30 14:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Those are two different things. NO ONE has claimed the former because
Falcon 9 isn't intended to go there. As for the latter, over 20% used
boosters in the first year of offering them commercially IS a 'high
rate' for anyone who is sane.


I argued that they had not YET achieved higgh reflown rate. The response
was that they had done 15 this year and this constituted high rate of
launches.


No, that's not what happened, Mayfly. If I didn't know how defective
your communication skills and long term memory are, I would assume you
were deliberately lying. What happened was that you complained that
SpaceX has not demonstrated an (unqualified) launch rate yet. People
told you what the LAUNCH RATE was so far this year. If you had meant
launch rate of 'used' boosters you should have said that. You didn't.


The mentality in this group is that the reflying is a mission
accomplished when it is still at a prototype/evaluation stage.


No. I've been using the word 'production', assuming you knew what it
meant. Perhaps I need to explain and go over the timeline once again
for you. PAY ATTENTION, YOU ****ING YAMMERHEAD!

In 2014-2015, SpaceX did DEVELOPMENTAL TESTING of reflying boosters,
including both 'water landings' and some 'solid surface' landings. In
2016 SpaceX did OPERATIONAL TESTING of reflying boosters. At the
beginning of 2017 SpaceX declared reflying boosters to be COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION and has not had a failure so far this year. Now, what
'production' means in this context is that they are done testing and
are engaging in routine commercial sale. So reflying *IS* "a mission
accomplished" and it most decidedly is ***NOT***
"prototype/evaluation". "Prototype/evaluation" ended in 2015.


Agreed. And if JF needs some cites...

News from yesterday:

Falcon 9 tasked with Koreasat 5A mission as NASA approves flown boosters
October 30, 2017 by William Graham
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017...easat-5a-nasa-
approves-flown-boosters/

Quote from above:

According to L2 coverage of extensive reviews, NASA has
internally cleared SpaceX to begin using flight-proven
Falcon 9 vehicles to launch Dragon.

While NASA?s official stance remains one of no decision
being made, information has pointed to CRS-13 being the
first mission, re-using the first stage of the rocket
that carried CRS-11 to orbit earlier this year.

If this proves true (e.g. if "upper management" doesn't overrule the
engineers), then NASA will officially approve of flying on reused Falcon
9 first stages. When this does become "official", it will be big news.

And this:

SPACEX SET TO RESUME LAUNCHES FROM SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 40
LLOYD CAMPBELL, OCTOBER 29TH, 2017
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/or...e-exploration-
technologies/spacex-set-resume-launches-space-launch-complex-40/

Quote from the above article:

The CRS-13 mission will utilize a previously flown Dragon
resupply spacecraft that carried some 4,387 pounds (2,015 kg)
on the CRS-6 mission in 2015. The Falcon 9 booster that will
propel the mission off the pad is slated to return to CCAFS,
landing at SpaceX's Landing Zone 1 (formerly Cape
Canaveral's SLC-13).

So, the next CRS mission to ISS, paid for by NASA, is shaping up to be a
previously flown Dragon on top of a previously flown Falcon 9 first
stage. Since this is scheduled to fly in December, we should get to see
this (historic, IMHO) flight this year.

That will be quite the endorsement of reuse, IMHO.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #53  
Old October 31st 17, 11:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

In article . com,
says...

On 2017-10-30 18:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Over 20% of all boosters flown this year were 're-used boosters'.
That's a pretty high flight rate for the first year of the capability
being production.


3 first flights, which likely got a lot more tender loving care than
would normally happen in production when your refurb procedures are
established and becomes routine.

They've proven it can be done. They haven't proven they can launch 15
times per year with reflown stages.

When I argued that had not yet proven with high reflight rate, one of
the cheerleaders reponded that they had done 15 flights this year and
that was proof of high rates. But only 3 of those are reflight.


I see, so you're picking on the "only three" reflight number and
ignoring the success of the 12 flights of "new" first stages?

By the way, only three of those 15 flights this year have "expended" the
first stage, so they've gotten quite good at recovering stages. Two of
those are retired/likely retired since they've already been reflown.
Everything prior to Block 4 will only be reflown once. I believe this
will be true for Block 4 as well in order to "make room" for reflying
the Block 5 stages when they start flying.

At any rate, there is now a huge backlog of boosters to refurbish and
refly. 2018 and 2019 should have a much higher portion of "previously
flown" stages than 2017.

and will also probably refly only once. Block 5 hardware is the final
design and will refly 10 times with only inspections and up to 100
times with refurbishment.


Perfect example of cheerleading. Has any Block 5 flown yet ? has any
been reflown? How many times has a block 5 been reflown?


Nope, they've just stared flying Block 4 this year (four flights so far,
all four boosters recovered):

B1039[25] v1.2/B4 14 August 2017 F9-039 Dragon CRS-12
Success Success In storage
B1040 v1.2/B4 7 September 2017 F9-041 Boeing X-37B OTV-5
Success Success In storage
B1041[26] v1.2/B4 9 October 2017 F9-042 Iridium NEXT 21?30
Success Success Recovered
B1042[26] v1.2/B4 30 October 2017 F9-044 Koreasat 5A
Success Success Recovered

So you make assertions the same way people predicted the Shuttle would
turn around quickly and make dozens and dozens of flights per years.


The shuttle never flew 15 times in one year (even counting new and
reflown). Even for the shuttle orbiters, there was a "first flight".
Same for the SRB casings. That particular piece of hardware didn't
wasn't "reused" until the second time it flew.

You are using goals and turning them into accomplished deeds when none
of those have actually happened yet.


The goal is to put payloads into orbit. SpaceX is currently doing that
with a mix of new and reflown Falcon 9 first stages. In 2017 Falcon 9
has launched more payloads than any other launch vehicle has in 2017. I
guess that's not "accomplished" enough for you?

Just because peoople have high confidence in SpaceX achieving a large
part of their goals doesn't mean they have already achieved them. And
that is my argument.


Bull****. In 2017 they have been kicking ass and taking names in the
launch industry. The facts prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Could they have another "bad day"? Yes, but the numbers for 2017 are
already quite telling, and the year isn't done yet.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #54  
Old November 1st 17, 04:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-31 06:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

I see, so you're picking on the "only three" reflight number and
ignoring the success of the 12 flights of "new" first stages?


My issue is with claims by cheerleaders that SpaceX had already proven
it was capable of high reflight rate, not high flight rate.


So your issue is with your poor communication skills rather than with
anything anyone has actually said.


You guys have since admitted that the current batch will only get one
reflight (if any) ...


'Admitted'? Hell, Mayfly, everyone but you knew this already.


... and not till block 5 will multiple reflights be
possible.


Lie. No one has said any such thing. Please explain to us benighted
heathens just what a rocket expert like you thinks prevents Block 3
hardware from being reflown more than once. Be specific. *I* think
it's 'prevented' by the calendar, because there's no need to refly any
of them more than once between now and when the cheaper and easier to
refly Block 5 hardware is available. You obviously think something
happens to the booster that takes it from 'reliable when refurbished'
to "cannot be refurbished sufficiently to be reflown". Just what do
you think that 'something' is?


But have yet to agree that multiple reflights or quick
turnaround has yet to be demonstrated.


I love the way you keep changing the words (and thus your claim).



By the way, only three of those 15 flights this year have "expended" the
first stage, so they've gotten quite good at recovering stages.


Yes they have. But what is not YET known is the state of those 12
recovered stages and how much work is needed to put them on a launch pad
(or what percentage are not worth refurbishing).


You don't seem to understand. I'm curious what kind of damage you
think a booster that successfully landed with no visible damage could
take that would make it "not worth refurbishing", which would mean
that it is cheaper to build a new one than fix the old one. Enlighten
me.


3 have been reflown and a few more slated to refly, 5 out of 15 means
33% recovery rate. If they go up to 7, then roughly 50% recovery rate.


So it'll never be enough to shut you up.


It's possible that all 12 can and will be recovered, but none of the
current launch plans show this. So this remains speculation by cheerleaders.


No, this remains obvious (to everyone but you). Just think a bit. How
mangled does a new car have to get in order to be 'totaled'? I don't
think there's a way to damage a new car with no visible damage that
would 'total' it. Now apply that same thinking to a new rocket.



At any rate, there is now a huge backlog of boosters to refurbish and
refly. 2018 and 2019 should have a much higher portion of "previously
flown" stages than 2017.


If they accumulate landed new stages at faster rate than they can
refurbish them, then at one point, they have to start to throw some
away. So again, this is an unknown.


Again, you don't seem to comprehend. You appear to think that they
can only do one at a time and must complete that one before they start
the next one. We know they've managed to refurbish at least SEVEN so
far this year. And that's a minimum number. We don't know how many
more they have done but not scheduled for use yet. And two of those
seven required some structural modification into the bargain (the two
Falcon Heavy side boosters).


There is a difference between what SpaceX plans to do and what it has done.


And there is an even bigger difference between what they plan to do
and what they would need to do to 'prove' it to you.


And while there will always be a difference between its ambiutions and
what it has delivered (and nothing wrong with that), what is wrong is to
consider its ambitions to be "deone deal" when it hasn't been done yet,


And the words change yet again, and in the same article.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #55  
Old November 1st 17, 11:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

In article om,
says...

On 2017-10-31 06:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

I see, so you're picking on the "only three" reflight number and
ignoring the success of the 12 flights of "new" first stages?


My issue is with claims by cheerleaders that SpaceX had already proven
it was capable of high reflight rate, not high flight rate.

You guys have since admitted that the current batch will only get one
reflight (if any) and not till block 5 will multiple reflights be
possible. But have yet to agree that multiple reflights or quick
turnaround has yet to be demonstrated.


Block 3 was used to learn what needed to be improved for reuse to become
easier, but there is nothing fundamental about them that prevents them
from being flown more than once. Same for Block 4.

It's just that they're building Block 5 now, since it's needed for
commercial crew flights (all the bits NASA wanted for redundancy, abort,
and etc.), so switching all production to Block 5 makes sense.

Since Block 5 also has changes specifically designed to make reuse
easier (like a new base heat shield that doesn't need replaced after
every flight), it makes sense to start relying them a.s.a.p. This is
the reason Block 3 and Block 4 will only see one reflight for each
booster.

By the way, only three of those 15 flights this year have "expended" the
first stage, so they've gotten quite good at recovering stages.


Yes they have. But what is not YET known is the state of those 12
recovered stages and how much work is needed to put them on a launch pad
(or what percentage are not worth refurbishing).


Sure we do, there have been pictures of each and every one either on the
landing pad or on the barge coming into port. You know it's 2017 and
you can find pictures on the Internet, right? There are Reddit forums
for SpaceX that are quite active and they create sub-Reddit forums for
each landed booster. By looking at the pictures you can see that the
booster itself has always been intact.

3 have been reflown and a few more slated to refly, 5 out of 15 means
33% recovery rate. If they go up to 7, then roughly 50% recovery rate.

It's possible that all 12 can and will be recovered, but none of the
current launch plans show this. So this remains speculation by cheerleaders.


SpaceX always tries to recover the first stage, even if they know
they're not going to reuse it. The only exception is for launches where
the payload margins are so thin that there will be no fuel for a
recovery attempt. In that case it's damn obvious they're not going to
attempt recovery because the booster will be sitting on the launch pad
without landing legs or grid fins.

At any rate, there is now a huge backlog of boosters to refurbish and
refly. 2018 and 2019 should have a much higher portion of "previously
flown" stages than 2017.


If they accumulate landed new stages at faster rate than they can
refurbish them, then at one point, they have to start to throw some
away. So again, this is an unknown.


Bull****. This is known. That's why they have said publicly that Block
3 and Block 4 boosters will only be reused at most once.

There is a difference between what SpaceX plans to do and what it has done.


This is a truism and applies to all launch companies. It is therefore
meaningless.

And while there will always be a difference between its ambiutions and
what it has delivered (and nothing wrong with that), what is wrong is to
consider its ambitions to be "deone deal" when it hasn't been done yet,


No one has made that assertion here. I certainly have not to my
knowledge. I've just posted cites which state the facts of what they
have done and what they are planning to do.

The following are the facts:

1. SpaceX has had three successful reflights of a Falcon 9 first stage
with zero failures on reflight.
2. SpaceX has successfully recovered a quite impressive number of first
stages, even for "high energy" launches where fuel reserves are low and
in fairly rough seas (like this week's recovery).
3. SpaceX has several more boosters scheduled for reflight including a
NASA commercial cargo flight scheduled for this December.
4. Block 5 is coming soon, because it's needed for commercial crew.

Conclusion? SpaceX is making significant progress on reuse in that
they've collected a lot of data from a lot of recovered stages which has
allowed them to tweak the design to optimize reuse. That's the Block 5.
No it's not flown yet, but a decent engineer would conclude that there
is a very good chance, based on the facts above, that it will in fact be
easier to reuse.

There is a difference between idle speculation and reasoning based on
available facts.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #56  
Old November 19th 17, 02:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic?

YES

http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf

Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with propellant costs. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40 per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is just the short list.


  #57  
Old November 19th 17, 06:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

One detail in the Lockheed Martin study described previously, regarding flyback LRBs replacing sea recovered SRBs - was that the $52 million External Tank was thrown away each flight!

A few years back at a National Space Society talk I gave, I outlined a method to create a reusable booster element from these tanks using inflatable wing technology! This could be used to recover the External tank for about 4% its purchase price!

https://vimeo.com/37102557

The orbiter, with flyback LRB boosters, and a flyback External Tank would have reduced the cost of each launch from $500 million to $20 million or so - and investment in reducing the standing army of government employees PER LAUNCH by automating the launch procedures - would cut even that figure.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173021.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstu...s-nasa-58.html

With an average payroll of $68,000 per year and 18,000 direct employees, and 90,000 contractors a total payroll of $7.34 billion. Direct launch operations are far less than this. However, this is about 1/3 the total budget of NASA.

https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle...er-launch.html

Launch operations were about $2 billion per year - and with four flights per year $500 million per flight. With automation and the improvements described, the government could have increased launch rate to 360x per year - and reduced costs to less than $2 million per flight.

What do you do with 360 launches per year?

Then, what's the cost of the payload?

A cost reduction campaign in that area would be done in parallel with the cost reduction in the launch system.

Then with reduced launch and payloads, what do you do then?

(1) Global wireless hotspot - broadband for everyone -
(2) Global wireless power - end energy shortages
(3) Off world mining of the rarest materials -
(4) Off world mining of rare materials
(5) Off world manufacturing -
(6) Off world farming -
(7) Ballistic transport
(8) Off world colonies

These are all highly disruptive politically socially and even to religion.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5gch8t



On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 2:28:59 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic?

YES

http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf

Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with propellant costs.. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40 per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is just the short list.

  #58  
Old November 19th 17, 01:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

William Mook wrote:


The orbiter, with flyback LRB boosters, and a flyback External Tank would have reduced the cost of each launch from $500 million to $20 million or so - and investment in reducing the standing army of government employees PER LAUNCH by automating the launch procedures - would cut even that figure.


Poppycock!

snip MookSpew


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #59  
Old November 19th 17, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

In article ,
says...

Were liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle ever realistic?

YES

http://www.ok1mjo.com/all/ostatni/sp...98377 048.pdf

Recovery costs would be dramatically reduced, along with
propellant costs. LOX is $0.10 per kg and Kerosene is $0.40
per kg, whilst Polybutadiene and Ammonium Perchlorate costs
well over $2 per kg. Recovery from the sea, versus landing
at an airport, makes the SRBs way more costly than LRBs, the
SRB has far lower performance than the LRB with the LRB
being nearly twice as efficient, the cost of refuelling and
handling the SRB is 10s times more costly than LRB, the
ability to throttle the LRB makes things far safer for the
LRB than the SRB, structure weight is far lower for the LRB
than the SRB, increasing payload to orbit, haha - this is
just the short list.


You are completely ignoring development costs. NASA never received
development funding for liquid fly-back boosters. And with NASA's cost
models (especially back then), it would have cost many billions of
dollars to develop. The politicians were never willing to fund that
kind of development, especially with the huge political support that
ATK has always enjoyed.

Supporting SRBs also meant indirect support for the supply chain
necessary to develop and produce next generation ICBMs. Politically, it
was hard to disentangle the shuttle program from the support of that
supply chain. This was not something expressed loudly in the press, but
I am arguing the pressure was there, behind closed doors.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are rotating stations realistic ? John Doe Space Station 2 May 19th 10 10:15 AM
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA" gaetanomarano Policy 19 November 27th 07 06:59 AM
shuttle, tank and boosters on its crawler Rich Space Shuttle 37 September 11th 06 09:09 AM
Shuttle Liquid Fly-Back Booster to save money, improve safety(flashback) Bob Wilson Space Shuttle 0 July 16th 06 02:12 AM
Space Shuttle Boosters and Launch Pad Revell Model Kit on eBay TB Space Shuttle 2 February 1st 05 08:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.