Heavy Lift launcher is allready here

Hi all

All those discussions on the new launcher
Nasa should keep the STS system up and running after they retire the orbiter
develop Shuttle C now, and you can use it withing 3/4 years

That would save a lot of money, is unmanned and has tremendous lift capacity
they only need to make a new aft compartment and avionics systems

That should cost not that much
as there are still some old block 1 SSME around to be used a final time
(if non reuseable) or make them reuaseable by landing them somewhere safe
(with the nice balloon system they used on mars (just is suggestion)

"serge" wrote in message
...
Hi all

All those discussions on the new launcher
Nasa should keep the STS system up and running after they retire the
orbiter
develop Shuttle C now, and you can use it withing 3/4 years

That would save a lot of money, is unmanned and has tremendous lift
capacity
they only need to make a new aft compartment and avionics systems

That should cost not that much
as there are still some old block 1 SSME around to be used a final time
(if non reuseable) or make them reuaseable by landing them somewhere safe
(with the nice balloon system they used on mars (just is suggestion)

Boeing will probably charge $30billion or so to develop such a vehicle.
Let's just use the Falcon V and use multiple launches to assemble the thing
in orbit.

On 2004-01-17, Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

Boeing will probably charge $30billion or so to develop such a vehicle.
Let's just use the Falcon V and use multiple launches to assemble the thing
in orbit.

Falcon V ? It (will have) a payload capacity roughly similar to the
Delta-II. Swap Falcon V for the Delta-IV and Atlas-V EELV's, and I'd
agree.


Iain

"serge" wrote in message ...
Hi all

All those discussions on the new launcher
Nasa should keep the STS system up and running after they retire the orbiter
develop Shuttle C now, and you can use it withing 3/4 years

That would save a lot of money, is unmanned and has tremendous lift capacity
they only need to make a new aft compartment and avionics systems


One wonders if something like this might not be part of
someone's plan. The timeline fits. The four-year gap
between Shuttle retirement and CEV human flight would give
enough time to modify Kennedy Space Center's LC 39 launch
facilities.

Shuttle-C development would cost an estimated $3-4 billion,
which would appear to fit in the projected budget.

- Ed Kyle

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"serge" wrote in message
...
Hi all

All those discussions on the new launcher
Nasa should keep the STS system up and running after they retire the
orbiter
develop Shuttle C now, and you can use it withing 3/4 years

That would save a lot of money, is unmanned and has tremendous lift
capacity
they only need to make a new aft compartment and avionics systems


One wonders if something like this might not be part of
someone's plan. The timeline fits. The four-year gap
between Shuttle retirement and CEV human flight would give
enough time to modify Kennedy Space Center's LC 39 launch
facilities.

Shuttle-C development would cost an estimated $3-4 billion,
which would appear to fit in the projected budget.

- Ed Kyle

Why on earth use SSME's in the old Shuttle-C scenarios when you have RS-68's
available.

"Iain Young" wrote in message
...
On 2004-01-17, Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

Boeing will probably charge $30billion or so to develop such a vehicle.
Let's just use the Falcon V and use multiple launches to assemble the
thing
in orbit.

Falcon V ? It (will have) a payload capacity roughly similar to the
Delta-II. Swap Falcon V for the Delta-IV and Atlas-V EELV's, and I'd
agree.

The latter cost more than $100million to launch. That's not an option.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in
:


"Iain Young" wrote in message
...
On 2004-01-17, Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

Boeing will probably charge $30billion or so to develop such a
vehicle. Let's just use the Falcon V and use multiple launches to
assemble the
thing
in orbit.

Falcon V ? It (will have) a payload capacity roughly similar to the
Delta-II. Swap Falcon V for the Delta-IV and Atlas-V EELV's, and I'd
agree.

The latter cost more than $100million to launch. That's not an option.




What's it going to cost to design a payload in multiple pieces that
have to be assembled onorbit as opposed to a unit launch? More
chances for launch failure plus compromises needed to make a given
unit into smaller pieces, certainly at higher cost.

OTOH, what would it cost to build a Falcon X and launch on that?
I suspect diminishing returns on the concept, but maybe it's doable.

--Damon

"Jon G" wrote in message ...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"serge" wrote in message
...
Hi all

All those discussions on the new launcher
Nasa should keep the STS system up and running after they retire the
orbiter
develop Shuttle C now, and you can use it withing 3/4 years

That would save a lot of money, is unmanned and has tremendous lift
capacity
they only need to make a new aft compartment and avionics systems


One wonders if something like this might not be part of
someone's plan. The timeline fits. The four-year gap
between Shuttle retirement and CEV human flight would give
enough time to modify Kennedy Space Center's LC 39 launch
facilities.

Shuttle-C development would cost an estimated $3-4 billion,
which would appear to fit in the projected budget.

- Ed Kyle

Why on earth use SSME's in the old Shuttle-C scenarios when you have RS-68's
available.

The real value of a shuttle-derived vehicle would be use
of the powerful SRBs, and maybe the ET. Matching RS-68
to those elements sounds like a terrific idea to me.
You could make a vehicle capable of putting four or five
Delta-IV-Heavy equivalent payloads into LEO in a single
launch. Four or five Delta-IV-Heavy launches would likely
cost $0.75 to 1.0 billion just for launch costs. A
shuttle-derived heavy lifter might cost half that amount
or less for the launch. There would be mission cost
savings too due to less LEO assembly time/effort.

- Ed Kyle

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message .. .
"Iain Young" wrote in message
...
On 2004-01-17, Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

Boeing will probably charge $30billion or so to develop such a vehicle.
Let's just use the Falcon V and use multiple launches to assemble the
thing
in orbit.

Falcon V ? It (will have) a payload capacity roughly similar to the
Delta-II. Swap Falcon V for the Delta-IV and Atlas-V EELV's, and I'd
agree.

The latter cost more than $100million to launch. That's not an option.

It takes almost seven Falcon V launches to put up as much
LEO mass as a single Delta IV-H. Most plausible manned
lunar mission scenarios will require 4 or 5 Delta IV-H
launches. There is no way that a mission requiring
28-35 Falcon V launches would cost less than a mission
using 4-5 Delta IV-H launches. I'm talking total mission
costs here, not launch costs which are a fraction of total
mission costs. The point is moot anyway, because if
LunarBush becomes real, NASA will need a more powerful
launch vehicle than the current Delta IV-H design.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) writes:

It takes almost seven Falcon V launches to put up as much
LEO mass as a single Delta IV-H. Most plausible manned
lunar mission scenarios will require 4 or 5 Delta IV-H
launches. There is no way that a mission requiring
28-35 Falcon V launches would cost less than a mission
using 4-5 Delta IV-H launches.

If the Falcon V costs less than $ 6,829/kg put on orbit,
it's cheaper than the Delta IV-H. Independent of the
number of launches.

Remember, a "LAUNCH" is _NOT_ a unit of currency in any
of the countries of Planet Earth.

--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com