NASA and the Vision thing

The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle.
Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return
you need something like Soyuz.

When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect
saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. A glider comes back to
Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider
but they are not really a significant part of total cost.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle.
Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return
you need something like Soyuz.

When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect
saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. A glider comes back to
Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider
but they are not really a significant part of total cost.

The Shuttle SRB's are reused, Ariane 5's rocket boosters are not.

And where are your numbers that show that SSME's aren't a significant part
of the total cost? Do you even know how much it costs to build a new SSME
versus inspecting one that has flown?

You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle.
Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return
you need something like Soyuz.

When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect
saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. A glider comes back to
Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider
but they are not really a significant part of total cost.

The Shuttle SRB's are reused, Ariane 5's rocket boosters are not.

And where are your numbers that show that SSME's aren't a significant part
of the total cost? Do you even know how much it costs to build a new SSME
versus inspecting one that has flown?

You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data.

The SSMEs are a national treasure. They are priceless.

http://www.speakeasy.net/~donaldfr/ssme.htm

Compare, for instance, the RD-0120 :

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0120.htm

Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each :

http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/?p=1453

I don't believe the something is better than nothing crap.

http://www.house.gov/science/wood_102199.htm

It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message....

You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data.

Of course not! He's a troll!

Killfile him, please!

--
Dave Michelson

The costs are still twice Ariane's per Kg.

Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each :

The Vulcain is considerably cheaper and does just as good a job.

Ed Ruf wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:59:31 -0500, in sci.space.policy Thomas Lee
Elifritz wrote:


It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W.

You obviously missed the point they are the same company these days.

I don't understand your statement.

Are you claiming that if we need more SSMEs,
or that if I want to buy more SSMEs for my
rocket, that I should not contact P&W for a quote?

If Michael Griffin intends to start throwing away
our national treasure on a very large scale, which
on the face of it is the most absurd thing I have
ever encountered coming out of NASA, then we are
really going to need some more SSMEs, thus a quote
from P&W for stock SSME production seems reasonable.

My point is that we have an STS and ISS and EVA
capabilities to return SSME from and SSTO test
article NOW, and that the expendable SSME option
should never have even been on the table, and that
the people that put the expendable SSME and J2
option on the table should be summarily fired.

If NASA wants to use SRBs to increase the payload
capability of an SSME powered SSTO, then I can
accept that for special purpose missions (this
is the BIG ARIANE design), but to throw away
the ET and SSMEs after they clearly will make
it all the way to orbit, is just plain obscene.
The goal is Single Stage to Orbit first, complete
reusability second, and retrofitting the cryogenic
tankage and storing the residual fuel thirdly, and
finally, creating closed ecological life support
systems in space. Going back to the moon and then
to Mars for the sake of footprints is not in the
best interests of the US, or the world. We have
far greater problems here that need to be addressed.

The SCHTICK, on the other hand, is just a joke.

I will no longer remain silent on these matters,
it's only going to get worse. I am going to continue
to increase the pressure here on everybody, incrementally,
until the ESAS architecture is killed, or George Bush
is either voted out of office, or removed from office
by impeachment. This is that important to everybody.

It was the same thing with MER. We knew in 2001 that
Mars was covered with ice. If NASA's claim was to
'follow the water', then why wasn't water detecting
instruments put on rovers, and why weren't the rovers
put near the water? Spirit landed in a basalt flood plain.

NASA has no vision, and the rudder is seriously jammed.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

wrote in message
oups.com...
The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle.
Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return
you need something like Soyuz.

When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect
saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable.

Now, how about supporting something you said befo How many Ariane parts
have *actually*
been reused? Don't forget to document your sources. Remember to concentrate
on Ariane first stages.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each :

The Vulcain is considerably cheaper and does just as good a job.

How many shuttles have used Vulcain engines?

That is the Ariane engine. Probably the cost of a Vulcain is roughly
comperable to a SSME service.