High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

SpaceSavant wrote:
Their certainly generating some humour around here. Given the topic
and the opening statements from the US delegation about how informed
the population is in general, his emails in particular have frequently
generated grimaces from them.

Chris Manteuffel's rather extensive, fact checked and reference
filled repetition of my more general statements remains unrebutted.
You have not even bothered to respond to it in any way.

That you are not bothering to try indicates again that you are
merely a troll, and therefore can be safely ignored.


-george william herbert

Following up to ssp only, since we're far afield
of sci.space.tech...

(Rand Simberg) writes:

You may very well be right. Bush did what makes himself look good, not what
insures the project will survive future administrations.

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?

He should have started another employment project like Shuttle-C.

It would have lasted several changes of administration.

It just wouldn't really get us any closer to the moon in
a sustainable fashion.

pgf

On 24 Jan 2004 17:21:51 -0800, (Cris Fitch)
wrote:

Not long ago it looked like the Medium lift market was
over-subscribed with Proton, Ariane-5, Sea Launch, Atlas-5
and Delta-IV. Now with the retirement of Shuttle and a
new plan for manned exploration coming into being, we've
got to ask ourselves:

1) Launch lots of medium payloads
or
2) Go Heavy

I've got to argue in favor of #1, hoping that the economics
of all these medium lift launchers will reduce the overall
cost of these plans. Standardize the payloads (a la the building
of MIR) and assemble what you need for each mission. Pay
companies for the results (e.g. fuel delivered to the right
orbit).

To this and a lot of the follow-up messages, I want to remind all of
you on a very important thing:
There is possiblity that a launcher explodes. As more launches and as
more engine ignitions as higher the chance that the rocket falls in
the ocean. Lauching into space is NO low-risk bus drive, it is a
high-risk ride on a bomb that is able to explode at any time before
engine cut-off.

If one feels it necessary to go for heavy lift, can't we at
least think in terms of "Delta-IV Super Heavy", such that
our flight hardware makes use of the engineering and production
already in use (and that will stay around if the politics of
heavy lift fails)?

Something like that: use already available engines or engines that are
nearly finished and combine it with US-Shuttle and or russian Energija
components. Build test stands for all rocket stages and develop a new
flight controll system. That should reduce the development cost below
the half of a new heavy lifter.

Very good would be, if it would be modular to launch from 100 to 200
Tons into LEO (low earth orbit).

Finally, there is the issue of what expertise we lose when we
shut down a heavy lift capability (Saturn V, Energia, Shuttle).
Certainly we don't mind losing the cost of the standing army,
but are we going to lose the facilities for large fuel tanks
or recoverable strap-ons?

That you loose the expertise is definitly true. For the Saturn V it is
nearly gone, for the Energija some knowledge is already away.

The new vehicle should be realised in a way, that you do not need
16.000 people to operate it, because people are the main cost driver.
Some hundred to build and launch shall be enough. For this reason:
through away everything, inclusive the strap-ons ... you need at least
one ship to pick it up from the water and bring it back to land where
a work force is waiting to clean them, exchange parts and fill them up
again. It is another lie that reusability is cheaper ... give this up,
if you want to be cheap.

Raimund