Maximum Rate Shuttle Launches

Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?

-Curious
-Charles Talleyrand

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:31:42 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?

I don't know hot to answer that question. You'd need a redesign to
the point that it couldn't even be called "the shuttle."

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:31:42 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?

I don't know hot to answer that question. You'd need a redesign to
the point that it couldn't even be called "the shuttle."

Why would you need a redesign?

The question was "what rate can the Shuttle sustain", not "how can the
Shuttle reach a given rate".

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote:
Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?

-Curious
-Charles Talleyrand


Any "sustainable" launch rate has to take into account the fact that
shuttles get detroyed about once every 50 to 60 flights (based on the
launch history, with its admitted limited statistical signifiance). The
few billion extra dollars, as a one off, gets you nowhere unless the
launch rate is so low that the interest earned by putting money on
deposit is enough to pay for replacement shuttles.

Sylvia.

Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?

Well, let's toss out the money part .... that is looking at the problem
backwards.

Consider when a shuttle lands, it gets checked out, tweaked, new tank
fitted, SRBs stacked. So considering no anomalies this is going to take
a month. And with however many we have now, and allowing for some
schedule slippage, a launch per month is do-able. (Then you get the
invoice.)

Considering the operating scrutiny, budget limits, and so on, doing three
or four a year is a significant lauch rate.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jun 10, 11:33 pm, "Revision" wrote:
Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?

Well, let's toss out the money part .... that is looking at the problem
backwards.

Consider when a shuttle lands, it gets checked out, tweaked, new tank
fitted, SRBs stacked. So considering no anomalies this is going to take
a month. And with however many we have now, and allowing for some
schedule slippage, a launch per month is do-able. (Then you get the
invoice.)


That seems fine. But are there enough of the specialized machines to
build 24 SRBs per year? Can the launch pad support 1 launch per
month? Could the tank manufacturer build 12 tanks a year if you have
them a year's notice? What's the turn-around time on an orbiter,
assuming a willingness to pay lots of overtime, hire and train extra
staff, but expecting to suffer a normal amount of normal problems?

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

:On Jun 10, 11:33 pm, "Revision" wrote:
: Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
: what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?
:
: Well, let's toss out the money part .... that is looking at the problem
: backwards.
:
: Consider when a shuttle lands, it gets checked out, tweaked, new tank
: fitted, SRBs stacked. So considering no anomalies this is going to take
: a month. And with however many we have now, and allowing for some
: schedule slippage, a launch per month is do-able. (Then you get the
: invoice.)
:
:
:That seems fine. But are there enough of the specialized machines to
:build 24 SRBs per year? Can the launch pad support 1 launch per
:month? Could the tank manufacturer build 12 tanks a year if you have
:them a year's notice? What's the turn-around time on an orbiter,
:assuming a willingness to pay lots of overtime, hire and train extra
:staff, but expecting to suffer a normal amount of normal problems?
:

The original vision called for 40 launches a year (with 5 orbiters, I
believe), with an assumption of simple ground operation.

In actuality, they'd be hard pressed to manage 8 flights a year (with
4 orbiters).

The only way to do better than 8-9 flights a year is use a different
vehicle.


--
"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

On 11 Jun, 07:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Charles Talleyrand wrote:

:On Jun 10, 11:33 pm, "Revision" wrote:
: Given a few extra billion dollars, and a year or two for preparation,
: what sort of sustainable launch rate could the shuttle attain?
:
: Well, let's toss out the money part .... that is looking at the problem
: backwards.
:
: Consider when a shuttle lands, it gets checked out, tweaked, new tank
: fitted, SRBs stacked. So considering no anomalies this is going to take
: a month. And with however many we have now, and allowing for some
: schedule slippage, a launch per month is do-able. (Then you get the
: invoice.)
:
:
:That seems fine. But are there enough of the specialized machines to
:build 24 SRBs per year? Can the launch pad support 1 launch per
:month? Could the tank manufacturer build 12 tanks a year if you have
:them a year's notice? What's the turn-around time on an orbiter,
:assuming a willingness to pay lots of overtime, hire and train extra
:staff, but expecting to suffer a normal amount of normal problems?
:

The original vision called for 40 launches a year (with 5 orbiters, I
believe), with an assumption of simple ground operation.

In actuality, they'd be hard pressed to manage 8 flights a year (with
4 orbiters).

The only way to do better than 8-9 flights a year is use a different
vehicle.

All this was deducible during the DESIGN stage. Yet those who were "in
the know" promised us cheap access to space. They knew all along that
this was poppycock. Can you wonder that we do not believe everything
that is trotted out now?


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 11 Jun, 07:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: The original vision called for 40 launches a year (with 5 orbiters, I
: believe), with an assumption of simple ground operation.
:
: In actuality, they'd be hard pressed to manage 8 flights a year (with
: 4 orbiters).
:
: The only way to do better than 8-9 flights a year is use a different
: vehicle.
:
:
:All this was deducible during the DESIGN stage. Yet those who were "in
:the know" promised us cheap access to space. They knew all along that
:this was poppycock. Can you wonder that we do not believe everything
:that is trotted out now?
:

All those people are long retired and probably dead by now, Ian...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Jun 11, 7:10 am, Ian Parker wrote:
.....snip,,,,,,

All this was deducible during the DESIGN stage. Yet those who were "in
the know" promised us cheap access to space. They knew all along that
this was poppycock. Can you wonder that we do not believe everything
that is trotted out now?

- Ian Parker

Ah yes. And so was the impossibility of fulfilling
cost goals--to anyone who was both competent and
honest.

This would be considered criminal behavior for a
public corporation. But taxpayer supported bureaurcracies
appear to be allowed to live by different rules and standards.

Len