Heard too much and need to vent.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:37:26 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:38:51 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So it cannot be maintained in orbit then?

Not without major modifications.

And the cost of these modifications would be an interesting number I
am sure, but it may be cheaper than other options.

It may be to people who are so ignorant of space systems that they are
rectorcranially ignorant of cost-benefit ratios, but it's not to
people who've actually studied the problem.

Well it would surprise me if NASA has ever considered fully servicing
one in space before. After all there has never really been the need to
do so.

But the notion of using a 200,000 lb vehicle for a tug is insane.

Maybe so, but if it can save the billions on making a real space tug,

It can't.

Then the Shuttle's days are indeed numbered.

Cardman.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:39:49 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Anyway, it is finally good to see some real answers, where unless
these problems can be solved, then indeed a real space tug would be
needed.

Do you really, really delude yourself that no one ever considered any
of these possibilities until the brilliant "cardman" came along?

That is all well and nice, but at this time NASA has no viable plan at
all for any manned launch craft following the Shuttle. And yes even
NASA was plugging these past pet projects as Shuttle replacements.

So these days the once great NASA cannot even build themselves a new
launch craft.

And hey I am just trying to help...

Cardman.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:41:04 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:21:01 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What heavy launch do you plan if not the Shuttle?

There is no need for heavy launch.

Then there is no need for NASA either.

That cannot be correct if NASA is working on engines so powerful that
even the Moon could be an option. As why spend all that money on new
engines if they will have no use?

So your information does not match NASA's plans.

The need is for affordable space transport.

Then why not invest in these sub-orbital companies to come about, then
to ensure that they go orbital? As they could well do so for much less
than NASA would.

Well I don't know if the OSP would count as an affordable space craft,
but sending it to the ISS and back for what little scientific gain the
ISS provides seems like a waste.

Cardman.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:34:03 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What heavy launch do you plan if not the Shuttle?

There is no need for heavy launch.

Then there is no need for NASA either.

True. What's your point?

That cannot be correct if NASA is working on engines so powerful that
even the Moon could be an option. As why spend all that money on new
engines if they will have no use?

What in the world are you talking about?

The need is for affordable space transport.

Then why not invest in these sub-orbital companies to come about, then
to ensure that they go orbital? As they could well do so for much less
than NASA would.

Because NASA had no interest in reducing the cost of space access.

--
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:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:09:15 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:34:03 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What heavy launch do you plan if not the Shuttle?

There is no need for heavy launch.

Then there is no need for NASA either.

True. What's your point?

That there is no need for a Space Organization if most expensive said
Space Organization is not allowed to effectively explore and exploit
this Space.

Sure the probes do well, but that is better split off into a new
company anyway. Some national science in space organization, where
scientists have greater control and their own budget.

Well, since NASA is charged with opening space up to all, where they
certainly like to take on "To boldly go where no one has gone before",
then they had better be thinking Moon Base.

And sure I have heard realistic plans to make this happen, where what
they most of all need is a very heavy launcher not unlike Shuttle-C.

Also they could do with a good in space craft with longer term life
support and plenty of fuel, which they could use to visit local
asteroids and even land on the new Moon landing pad.

Base that on the Moon or at the Earth/Moon L1 point, then you have a
ship that can get around.

That cannot be correct if NASA is working on engines so powerful that
even the Moon could be an option. As why spend all that money on new
engines if they will have no use?

What in the world are you talking about?

Boing Rocketdyne RS-84 for example.

Then why not invest in these sub-orbital companies to come about, then
to ensure that they go orbital? As they could well do so for much less
than NASA would.

Because NASA had no interest in reducing the cost of space access.

I take it that you are not overly fond of NASA?

However, I can certainly see your point, when they are anti-tourist
(yes that would come back to haunt them) and have done just about
nothing to make space access costs cheaper.

Some people would even start to believe that the last time that they
were on the Moon some aliens said "Stay off our land or we will kill
you all!". ;-]

So in terms of future space access costs, then just how much is the
price tag for servicing and launching the OSP?

Cardman.

Cardman writes:
Hell you could even use the Shuttle as this space tug provided that
they did a few adjustments. The first is to keep it up there, which
should not be that hard. Then of course it needs cargo canister
handling capability, which it mostly already has.

I see you seem to lack some basic knowledge of the shuttle systems
and how hard it would be to change them so you could keep the shuttle
in orbit permanently. The shuttle was designed from day one for short
stays in orbit. Almost nothing was designed to stay there
permanently.

Please read up on the shuttle and its systems, then come back later
and tell us how keeping it in orbit at all times will affect these
systems. You can start he

http://history.nasa.gov/shuttlehistory.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/

After that, take a look at the past and proposed upgrades to the
shuttle. This will give you an idea how slowly the shuttle evolves.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/upgrades/index.html

Shuttle-C has
been studied at length by NASA. The problem is the high cost per
launch and the flight rate,

Rubbish.

The Shuttle is a highly technical machine that needs to be virtually
rebuilt after every launch.

So it would be easy to keep this "highly technical machine" in orbit
at all times? How so? I'd hate to think what such a long stay would
do to its systems (fuel cells, OMS/RCS systems, cooling loops, and
etc.).

which is even lower than the shuttle since
you can launch more in one flight with Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C is a
failure on cost, since it would cost billions to develop

Well I do not see that simply putting main engines below the fuel tank
and adjusting the design for cargo loading is that expensive. Sure it
would cost no small sum, but you would think that they would know how
to build a rocket.

You've no idea how big such a change really is, do you? For NASA to
do this, it's in the billions of dollars. Add some flight tests to
that and you'll add in a few billion more.

and would do little to eliminate the high cost of luanches.

Not at all.

Due to removing the high maintenance cost of the Shuttle, where the
new main engines with be vastly easier to maintain, then so can launch
times and costs be decreased.

This is b.s. The engines are already pulled from the orbiter and
maintenance is done on them elsewhere. There is no savings to be had
from attaching the SSME's at another location on a slightly different
launch vehicle. They'll still have to have the same maintenance done
on them once removed. You're clearly showing your ignorance of how
the shuttle program is run.

And I can promise you that this would be by a considerable sum.

The savings of moving SSME's from the shuttle to another location
would be zero, zip, zilch, nada. They'll be just as maintenance
intensive on any vehicle.

So in my view the best way to improve the launch system is just to
reuse and adjust what they have. It is the cheapest and best option
considering the likes of the OSP.

You fail to realize that your "reuse and adjust" is really a new
design. You want to ditch the shuttle, reuse SRB's and heavily modify
the ET. These changes are even more radical than Shuttle-C and it
failed as a program because the development costs would be so high
that you'd never make that money back in the "savings" of using
Shuttle-C versus the shuttle.

You're living in a fantasy world where you perceive everything as
easy. If you'd take the time to actually delve into the details,
this fantasy world will evaporate and you'll start to see the
complexity that's under the "easy" facade.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Cardman writes:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:53:36 -0500, (Alan
Anderson) wrote:

Unless you beg the question by starting with the assumption that mass of
cargo to orbit is the most important thing, that's an unsupportable
conclusion. The proper metric, in a reasonable world, is *cost* of mass
to orbit.

Unless of course you was launching things so heavy that there was no
other viable launcher. With 100 tons of cargo that is certainly an
option.

Where's the requirement for pieces this big? In orbit docking and
assembly allows the pieces to be much smaller than this. Again, the
important metric is to minimize cost per kg to orbit, not to maximize
kg to orbit per launch.

Anyway, it seems that everyone likes to overlook my obvious conclusion
that removing the Shuttle would greatly decrease launch costs. Four
times the cargo lifted and no longer having the high costs of
maintaining the Shuttle would soon produce big savings.

Sorry, it wouldn't help. You said yourself you'd have to replace the
shuttle with an in orbital transfer vehicle (OTV, it's been proposed
in the past) that would have to stay in orbit. This means shipping it
fuel and spare parts to keep it going. This surely isn't cheap to do.
I'd be surprised if it actually cost less than the shuttle.

You'll also need a way to get people up and down. Take a look at what
NASA proposes for a CRV/CTV/OSP in terms of cost and schedule. NASA
would be hard pressed to do crew transfer cheaply.

So, you want to replace the shuttle orbiter with a shuttle derived
HLV, an OSP, and an OTV and claim that NASA can run all *three* of
these new programs cheaper than the shuttle. This does not pass the
b.s. test. This plan is laughable in terms of its perceived overall
cost savings.

And I bet that NASA could even do this launcher conversion within
their existing Shuttle budget. Stick three modern tried and tested
engines on it, where if made detachable, then the fuel tanks can be
made not unlike that already done.

The engines can be recovered from orbit with the right planning and
then reused on a new fuel tank.

Again, this is yet another shuttle derived vehicle. They've been
studied to death. You're still stuck with much of the cost of the KSC
standing army to support the VAB, pads, SRBs, ETs, SSME's, and an
engine recovery module (also proposed in the past).

If your spacecraft can only launch forty percent of what another can, but
at twenty percent of the cost, the choice should be obvious.

Not if the item being launched weighed in at 50%, but certainly I am
thinking of launch costs a well.

And I certainly welcome anyone wishing to highlight flaws in my plan,
or else NASA can go and do it.

We've been shooting holes in your plans all along. You're just
ignoring us. What's worse, you're not proposing anything new and
unique. NASA has studied EVERYTHING you propose in the past from the
shuttle derived vehicle to the OTV and to CRV/CTV/OSP.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:33:24 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

That there is no need for a Space Organization if most expensive said
Space Organization is not allowed to effectively explore and exploit
this Space.

There is no need for a Space Organization at all.

--
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:

Cardman writes:
So we come to aerospike engines, which is something that only now are
starting to get off the ground.

Aerospikes have never been flown on a launch vehicle. They'll need
quite a bit of money to fully test fly these and then more money to
scale them up to SSME replacement size.

Furthermore, if you stick a huge aerospike under the ET, what's to
keep the exhaust from the aerospike from damaging the SRB's? Change
the geometry of the stack too much and you're talking about more cost
(you'll have to change the launch pads as well as the stack).

The problem is that the Saturn V with all its stages was considerably
complex, where again the Shuttle needs a huge amount of handling.

By launch vehicle standards, I don't think the two stage Saturn V
(which placed Skylab in orbit) was not overly complex. Two stages
with five engines and one fuel and one oxidizer tank each. What's
overly complex about that?

I can certainly see changing the Shuttle system into a cargo lifter
could well result in the closure of a couple of buildings and the loss
of quite a few workers.

But not enough buildings or enough workers. In fact, the additional
OTV and OSP you propose would likely result in more net buildings and
workers.

That by the way is a good thing...

I agree, but what you propose won't make it happen.

Where
are the facts to back up your assertion that the shuttle is
"considerably cheaper" than Saturn V?

Not the Shuttle, but the much technically simple and easier to handle
launcher that could be made from it.

So you say Saturn V is complex, yet your two SRB, one ET with
recoverable engine module vehicle isn't complex? You're tripping.
Dude, what are you smoking and where can I get some?

And I fully agree that the Saturn V could have been keep working, but
the point is that they got rid of it and used the Shuttle instead.

Due to false and misleading promises about the cost, flight rate,
safety, and payload capacity of the shuttle. None of these goals were
ever met. They say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Saturn V was flying. Shuttle was a bunch of empty promises.

Obviously NASA will be needing a new heavy launch system after this

There is no need for an HLV. The shuttle is currently oversized as it
is. Manned space programs can exist on smaller vehicles. What will
make the space program thrive is cheaper kg to leo. The size of the
package need not be in the 100 ton range as you seem to think.

Look at jet transports. They haul people and cargo all the time and
it's relatively cheap to fly anywhere in the world. They do this by
flying the same planes over and over and over. They spread out the
high cost of the vehicle over thousands upon thousands of flights.
The manufacturers spread the cost of developing a new transport over
many hundreds or thousands of airliners.

You're proposing a vehicle that will fly once or twice per year. How
in the world to you make such a vehicle cheap? You can't spread out
the development costs over many vehicles and you can't spread the cost
of the "standing army" out over many flights. Such a vehicle is far
worse economically than the shuttle.

To solve this, you create a smaller vehicle and fly it more often, say
100 times a year. You spread development costs over more vehicles and
over far more flights. You spread the standing army costs out over
100 flights per year instead of 1 or 2. These are the sort of vehicle
characteristics that will save you money.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:06:53 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Only the government one. It's not at all clear to me that this would
be a bad thing.

That depends on the market you *expect* for private manned space travel to
materialise.

That is currently a pretty big unknown.

If it doesn't, or something unexpected crops up then the capacity has been
thrown away for no particularly good reason.

Sure it's a good reason. It's a waste of money.

IMHO, of course.

--
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: