|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
Was the Saturn V an "inherently expensive" launch vehicle or were it's
$/lb to orbit more a function of lack of scale - ie frequency of launch? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Cost gives a figure of $2.4 to $3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars but does not state how much of that was the fixed costs and how much was marginal. rick jones -- I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of "when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
"Rick Jones" wrote in message ... Was the Saturn V an "inherently expensive" launch vehicle or were it's $/lb to orbit more a function of lack of scale - ie frequency of launch? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Cost gives a figure of $2.4 to $3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars but does not state how much of that was the fixed costs and how much was marginal. I'm sure some of it was caused by the low flight rate (fixed costs dominate), but I'm also sure that quite a bit was caused by the fact that in the 1960's, the Saturn V was full of bleeding edge technology built by expensive fabrication techniques to reduce weight. If there had been funding to continue the program (no chance of that given the politics of the time), cost reduction programs could have lowered some of the costs. Eventually things like the IU would have gotten much smaller and much cheaper to build due to advances in electronics. One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs by focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a given launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace engineers do). The logical conclusion to such a philosophical change is a launch vehicle more like Sea Dragon than Saturn V. Such a vehicle makes traditional aerospace engineers laugh as they can't imagine a vehicle made of steel in a shipyard being successful, despite its utter simplicity in design and construction. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:40:24 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: Eventually things like the IU would have gotten much smaller and much cheaper to build due to advances in electronics. Very eventually. Delta's is still ancient by today's standards. Brian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
Jeff Findley wrote:
One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs by focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a given launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace engineers do). The logical conclusion to such a philosophical change is a launch vehicle more like Sea Dragon than Saturn V. Such a vehicle makes traditional aerospace engineers laugh as they can't imagine a vehicle made of steel in a shipyard being successful, despite its utter simplicity in design and construction. Indeed, not a very glamourous vehicle and unlikely to excite the passions of an aerospace engineer - that one massive engine in Sea Dragon - would the issues encounted in F-1 have only been magnified in it? (I'm thinking of the combustion instability issue even as I ponder the paper rocket variant of rickover's paper reactors... :-) Weren't there "issues" with igniting the engine of an SLBM while it was still in the water? Or was that more a question of lighting the candle while it was still in the tube? rick jones -- a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only" these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
On 2/02/2010 10:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs by focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a given launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace engineers do). If that's really what launch vehicle designers are doing, then they need to be given some lessons in basic finance. Can the various launch vehicle manufacturers really have overlooked the fact that it's the cost of launch vehicles that matters (cost being appropriately calculated), not the mass? Sylvia. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
Brian Thorn wrote:
Eventually things like the IU would have gotten much smaller and much cheaper to build due to advances in electronics. Very eventually. Delta's is still ancient by today's standards. (cut to scene at Baikonur as a Soyuz gets ready to launch) "Spin up the gyros." (engineer begins pulling on a hundred foot long piece of string that comes out of the gyro housing's side) "Align guidance platform" (engineer starts hammering on lead support frame for gyros with rubber mallet while looking at compass) "Prepare the sequence timer clock." (engineer winds it and sets the alarm for orbital entry time) "Stand by for ignition." (engineer, fleeing pad, uses cigarette to light a huge fuze.) Pat Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
Rick Jones wrote:
Weren't there "issues" with igniting the engine of an SLBM while it was still in the water? Or was that more a question of lighting the candle while it was still in the tube? The engine didn't ignite till the missile was clear of the water. They did have problems keeping the rocket booster on the Subroc submarine-to-submarine missile firing while it was heading for the surface though. Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
On Feb 1, 6:18�pm, Rick Jones wrote:
Was the Saturn V an "inherently expensive" launch vehicle or were it's $/lb to orbit more a function of lack of scale - ie frequency of launch? �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Costgives a figure of $2.4 to $3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars but does not state how much of that was the fixed costs and how much was marginal. rick jones Fixed costs must of been much lower than shuttle. The public was told its flight rate was too low, and there werent many needs for such a large booster. Von Braun wanted to make it partially reusable but nasa wanted new pork to pass out to its friends$$$$ We would of been far better off to have kept the saturn family of launchers, there was even a proposal for a saturn to send a shuttle like vehicle into orbit. Really there is no single RIGHT vehicle. You driving across town all by yourself? take a compact You moving your household? You need a moving van......... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... On 2/02/2010 10:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs by focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a given launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace engineers do). If that's really what launch vehicle designers are doing, then they need to be given some lessons in basic finance. Can the various launch vehicle manufacturers really have overlooked the fact that it's the cost of launch vehicles that matters (cost being appropriately calculated), not the mass? Remember that launch vehicles were, at least initially, designed by the very same people who designed missiles. As Henry Spencer liked to say, they were locked into the "performance uber alles" mindset from their missile design days. In missile design, you really are constrained by the size of a missile which will fit under the wing of a fighter, on a mobile launcher, or in a missile silo. Therefore, maximizing payload for a given launch vehicle size makes a lot of sense. Also, the costs of the ground support for a missile will always be much more than the cost of the missile itself, so using the most exotic materials, construction techniques, and fuels for the actual missile doesn't push up the overall program's cost by much. There are exceptions. Falcon 1 (and hopefully Falcon 9) have shaved some costs by what traditional aerospace engineers would consider to be rather unorthodox design choices. These choices no doubt negatively impacted performance compared to an "optimized" design, but helped keep overall program costs low. For example, many aerospace engineers make fun of Falcon 9's *nine* first stage engines. It would have been more efficient, and resulted in better payload, to develop a much bigger first stage engine and dispense with the complexity and added weight of nine separate engines. But engine development is very expensive. Having as much commonality as possible between the engines of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9's stages means lower costs for the company overall. These savings can be passed on to customers. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?
On Feb 2, 1:37*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Rick Jones wrote: Weren't there "issues" with igniting the engine of an SLBM while it was still in the water? *Or was that more a question of lighting the candle while it was still in the tube? The engine didn't ignite till the missile was clear of the water. They did have problems keeping the rocket booster on the Subroc submarine-to-submarine missile firing while it was heading for the surface though. Pat Doesn't the solid-rocket fuel contain it's own oxidizer? Once it lights off, it should keep burning, even under water. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1/10 scale model of Saturn V scheduled fly | [email protected] | Misc | 6 | April 26th 09 03:18 PM |
Need to Sell 1:48th Scale Saturn V | Dale | History | 15 | December 14th 06 05:57 PM |
Saturn V 1:48th Scale on Ebay! | surfduke | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | December 11th 06 05:30 AM |
Saturn V 1:48th Scale on Ebay! | surfduke | Space Station | 0 | December 10th 06 08:34 PM |
Need to Sell 1:48th Scale Saturn V | Dale | History | 0 | December 4th 06 03:01 AM |