Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could
EVER make something as well as we can. That and a ton of money
covertly poured into all sorts of military programs(you don't
think toilet seats really cost them $1000, do you?)

Depends on how you do the accounting.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:51:37 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On 14 Nov 2003 07:36:23 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle,

Evidently NASA sees a need for it. Since they presumably have a better
idea than we of what Bush is considering

I wouldn't presume that.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

ed kyle wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message nk.net...

ed kyle wrote:


Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could
EVER make something as well as we can. ...


Huh? Are you telling me the rocket builders who toil in

My point is that as usual, we go it alone instead of making a true
multi-national space vehicle.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:40:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, Joseph
Oberlander made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

My point is that as usual, we go it alone instead of making a true
multi-national space vehicle.

What's so wonderful about being multi-national?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

My point is that as usual, we go it alone instead of making a true
multi-national space vehicle.

Well, I sure as **** hope so. Nothing is more expensive than
international "partnerships," especially with weasel nations like France
and Russia...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Alan Erskine wrote:

"Ruediger Klaehn" wrote in message
...
Alan Erskine wrote:

If you want a new government-sponsored moon shot, why not just use Atlas
V heavy? You will need hundreds of Atlas V Cores, but that is *good*
since
it
lets you work out the bugs and get some economies of scale. You could
have an assembly line like the russians have for protons.

I don't like the Atlas V (personally) and prefer the Delta IV - used as a

Why? Because it uses russian engines? The Atlas V is much more rugged since
it uses dense propellants. And it can be launched much more quickly, so you
need less launch pads for a high flight rate.

Take a look at the Delta IV launch pad vs. the Atlas V launch pad. The Delta
IV launch tower is a complex and expensive old school launch tower. The
Atlas V launch tower is just a long metal structure to lift the launcher
upright. You could probably build ten Atlas V launch towers for the price
of one Delta IV tower...

Of course the Zenit that is used for Sea Launch would be even better, but
that would presumably be against american national pride...

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:40:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, Joseph
Oberlander made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


My point is that as usual, we go it alone instead of making a true
multi-national space vehicle.


What's so wonderful about being multi-national?

More talent, less domestic cost. Honestly, we can't afford the
whole thing ourselves, so why not do wwhat Europe did with their
new fighter?

Scott Lowther wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


My point is that as usual, we go it alone instead of making a true
multi-national space vehicle.


Well, I sure as **** hope so. Nothing is more expensive than
international "partnerships," especially with weasel nations like France
and Russia...

So work with Japan and Germany and non-weasely nations.

If we can offload 75% of the cost, why not do it?

On 2003-11-15, Alan Erskine wrote:
"Ruediger Klaehn" wrote in message
...
Alan Erskine wrote:

If you want a new government-sponsored moon shot, why not just use Atlas V
heavy? You will need hundreds of Atlas V Cores, but that is *good* since
it
lets you work out the bugs and get some economies of scale. You could have
an assembly line like the russians have for protons.

I don't like the Atlas V (personally) and prefer the Delta IV - used as a
basis for a heavier vehicle is has great potential - same engines and
systems with propellant tanks on the core that are double the current
volume - two engines instead of one on the core and four to six standard
CBC's. Payload about fifty tonnes.

I tend to agree here. IIRC, the Atlas-V Heavy (design) can't use the
entire potential payload capacity, due to some structual limit on the
rest of the stack. I did have a link to this info, but can't find it
right now

The Delta-IV does seem to be more "future proof" than the Atlas, but that
may just be because I've seen more details of the Delta, than the Atlas.

The Shuttle C on the other hand gets over 80 and I've heard over one
hundred - double the potential for a "Delta V".

Depends on _which_ Shuttle C I guess I tend to use the 80 figure
myself.


Iain.

On 2003-11-15, Brian Thorn wrote:

Your theory falls apart when you consider that both EELVs are being
entrusted with our most classified national security payloads, and
that one EELV or the other will be the launch vehicle for the Orbital
Space Plane, America's next manned spacecraft.

I believe the OSP, whatever the final design has to be capable of
being launched on both Delta-IV and Atlas-V, rather than one or
the other.

(That is not to say of course, that NASA won't pick one launch
vehicle over the other...)