|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
"Kim Keller" wrote in message om...
If NASA doesn't build a new pad somewhere, Cape Canaveral/KSC will be left with only four or so active launch pads in a few years, less than half of today's number. Just how many do we need? -Kim- That is a really good question. The answer is "it depends". It depends more than anything on how many launch vehicle types there are, because none of the launch vehicles are flying anywhere near their maximum launch rates. The Cape and KSC combined have flown less than 20 launches per year during recent years. In theory, two "universal" pads could have supported that total, but nine pads were used during that time. - Ed Kyle |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
"Kim Keller" wrote in message om...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message om... Any idea how much time? Probably a month, given no expansion of today's facilities. -Kim- I think some process reengineering might be cheaper than new facilities. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
"Kim Keller" wrote...
NASA, of course, will have an unused assembly building with a pair of launch pads after 2010. Yeah. That's why I think there'll be a push to develop Shuttle-C or something similar. Talking with my brother this afternoon, the question came up as to where the main costs were in the STS. Answer - the standing army. If you end up with an expendable unmanned heavy lifter and not a rebuildable manned orbiter, can you reduce the army at all? If we're talking about a shuttle-derived vehicle, we're still talking about the solids and the external tank. That's about $100 mil/launch. If the core resembles a Delta-4, that's maybe another $100 mil if we're lucky. Could we do $200 mil/launch for 6 launches per year, with maybe 75 metric tons to LEO for each launch? - Cris Fitch San Diego, CA http://www.orbit6.com/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message .. . Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done instead? I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility. -Kim- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
"Tom Abbott" wrote in message ... I have to disagree with you here. NASA will not need new launch facilities if it uses the Shuttle-C heavy-lift vehicle for Moon and Mars programs. Shuttle-C can use the existing space shuttle launch facilities and work force. Question is, can we *afford* the present workforce? -Kim- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
Hi!
"Kim Keller" writes: Question is, can we *afford* the present workforce? You are perhaps the most qualified person on this group to answer that question. What is the rough number of employees for different parts of the shuttle system? Needed for a fairly simple shuttle-c: External tank handling equipment and staff. SRB handling and staff. Stacking equipment and staff. Vab, crawler, launchpad and misc building maintainance and support staff. New staff for a fairly simple shuttle-c: RS-68 engine specialists. Boat tail specilists, inertial system and avionics. ( TLI stage specialists are needed in any choice of launchers. ) Made redundant: Shuttle orbiter specialists, OMS, RCS, thermal protection, enviromental systems, shuttle arm, ET-orbiter separation system, landing gear, etc, etc. Emergency airfield staff, orbiter landing staff, orbiter handling equipment, orbiter transport 747:s. How much of the total manpower is used for the orbiter? 75% or is it more? Best regards, -- Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min politiska sida. Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:25:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message . .. Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done instead? I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility. Then we'll give your criticism, and "feelings" all the respect they're due. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's X-43A flight results in treasure trove of data | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 7th 04 06:42 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Space Station Crew & Students Are 'Partners In Flight' | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | December 16th 03 09:09 PM |