CEV to be made commercially available

the SSME can be cut off and returned.

Returned how? The CEV isn't big enough to return an SSME.

And whoever said use the CEV for that role? Again, *think.* Try to come
up with an approach. Think about it from the standpoint of the
entepreneur. There are, say, a dozen SSME's on orbit, each worth
$30-$90 *million* dollars, fully refurbed. How would *you* go about
getting 'em? I've already pointed out a relatively straightforward and
cheap means of returning them. Refine that idea, or do better.

look how many ET's have been dumped into the ocean

ET's aren't Stick upper stages, anymore than the CEV is the Shuttle.

their lunar mission architecture requires only a single docking in LEO before departing for the moon.

Good for them!

They lack the desire to do any orbital assembly (beyond a single docking).

They also lack the desire for hypersonic in-flight refueling. The
*******s!

Your wishful thinking will not change this, just as the same wishful thinking never resulted in a single ET being taken to LEO.

And just as wishful thinking has not built a private orbital manned
spacecraft, much less put someone on the moon. But here's the
difference: the Stick Stage 2 will end up in some sort of orbit.
Instead of whining like a little bitch, talk (calmly) to your
Congresscritters and get them to order NASA to either use the stages on
orbit, or have them transfer ownership to the highest bidder. Write
letters to the editor with simialr suggestions, call NASA PAO, arrange
a meeting with Mike Griffin, whatever. Or some other suggestion more
useful than "WAAAAH! WAAAAAAHHHH! They're not doing things the way *I*
want them to!!!!!"

Their "new" lunar mission architecture is so similar to Apollo that it's ...

.... technologically boring. Which is *exactly* the right approach if
you want to actually *do* something.

Henry Spencer wrote:
[...]
...the SSME can be cut off and returned.

I don't believe that CEV, by current notions, is big enough to return it.
This is a theoretical future possibility, not something that can
reasonably be cited as a virtue of the current system.

It's only a lack of
even moderate imagination that makes the 2nd stage expendable.

No, it's the lack of a reentry system that could return it for reuse. I
agree that the hardware itself isn't inherently limited to a single use --
as best one can tell, given how little detail exists -- but as currently
conceived, that stage is 100% expendable.

Demonstartor 2R tells us that cheap recovery systems for the SSME (and
CMGs when shuttle stands down) are still "just around the corner".

/dps

P.S. D-2R is "fluffy" without the tubesocks cooling system, Pete.

In article , Pat Flannery says...



Henry Spencer wrote:

The fundamental cost of
putting mass into orbit with LOX/kerosene is under $1.50/kg.

Wait a minute; leaving the LOX out of the equation, I can accelerate 1
kg of mass to 18,000 mph and 100 miles altitude with the energy in
around 2/3rds of a gallon of Kerosene?

Yes. Yes you can. Higher heating value of gasoline typically runs
about 20,000 btu/lb, or in proper units 45 MJ/kg. Two-thirds of a
gallon of gasoline weighs in at 1.8 kilograms. So, over eighty
megajoules of energy to play with.

Combined kinetic and potential energy of an object at 100 miles and
18,000 mph is thirty-four megajoules per kilogram. So you only need
to achieve an overall efficiency of 40% to pull this off. Rockets
can do this easily.

It's running around $2.75 at the moment.

Domestic retail, including road-use tax. We'll be buying wholesale, and
where we're going, we don't need *roads*.

Price of LOX in 2001 was about $.67 per gallon.

Cheaper than that if you build your own LOX extractor on-site, which is
worth doing if you're using it in rocket-propellant quantities.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article , JHNichols says...

There's a South Park episode lurking in there somewhere.
(Cut to image of Kenny impaled on a solar array.) :-D

There is an episode were the children are standing at the bus stop before
school and MIR falls on Kenny.

"Oh, my God, MIR killed Kenny! You *******s!"

Hmm. Was a "Kenny McCormick" ever one of Maggie O'Connell's boyfriends
on _Northern Exposure_? Some things can't be coincidence, and others
can but shouldn't be :-)


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article .com,
says...

Their "new" lunar mission architecture is so similar to Apollo that it's ...

... technologically boring. Which is *exactly* the right approach if
you want to actually *do* something.

If you want to *do* something, I suggest twiddling your thumbs. It's much
cheaper and easier than building rockets.

If you want to do some *specific* thing, then what exactly is it that you
want to do? Send a few men to the moon over the course of a few years, to
poke around doing amateur geology, plant flags, pose for the TV cameras and
say "America wuz here"?

We've already *done* that. Some of us, are profoundly uninterested in doing
it again, and baffled by anyone who is enthusiastic about the prospect.

And beyond that, what specific things can you do, things that are actually
worth doing, with Stick/CEV?


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:13:47 -0500, Jeff Findley wrote
(in article ):
Then I pick neither. Unless NASA is willing to do for manned
spaceflight
what NACA did for air transport, then I don't feel it should be in the
business of manned spaceflight at all.

Whining about 45 years' worth of entrenched methodology doesn't help,
either. Expecting change out of a government agency is absurd.

At the same time, the Glories of Private Enterprise haven't stepped up
to the plate either.

NASA does appear to be at a decision point here. If we go ahead with the
CEV, stick, and SDHLV, it's insuring that NASA will continue with its
business as usual approach to manned spaceflight. There will be little
opportunity for change if NASA gets its way.

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
the SSME can be cut off and returned.

Returned how? The CEV isn't big enough to return an SSME.

And whoever said use the CEV for that role? Again, *think.* Try to come
up with an approach. Think about it from the standpoint of the
entepreneur. There are, say, a dozen SSME's on orbit, each worth
$30-$90 *million* dollars, fully refurbed. How would *you* go about
getting 'em? I've already pointed out a relatively straightforward and
cheap means of returning them. Refine that idea, or do better.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. Astronautix.com is littered with thousands of
ideas, but very few have led to actual flight hardware because few of them
have ever been funded to completion. The idea of recovering SSME's from
spent (expendable) upper stages isn't new, it's just unfunded.

Right now NASA is in quite a bit of a funding crisis. It seems it can't
afford to keep flying the shuttle for ISS assembly flights and start CEV and
stick development at the same time on its existing budget. They're not
about to compound that development effort (and increase the development
costs by billions) just to recover a few SSME's or start a LEO junkyard made
up of spent upper stages (that would need constant reboosts to counter
aerodynamic drag). That's reality. What you propose is very pie in the sky
by comparison.

look how many ET's have been dumped into the ocean

ET's aren't Stick upper stages, anymore than the CEV is the Shuttle.

How many times has *any* spent upper stage or launch vehicle engine that's
in LEO, been recovered or reused? Even the Skylab Wet Workshop concept was
quickly dropped when a surplus Saturn V became available.

their lunar mission architecture requires only a single docking in LEO
before departing for the moon.

Good for them!

But bad for anyone proposing a use for spent upper stages. NASA badly wants
to avoid any and all zero gravity EVA's. I'm sure if a private company
could get to LEO and figure out a way to use the spent stages, that they
might be able to reach an agreement with NASA to do so. However, those
spent stages will still be property of the US government, so they really
will need permission to do anything with them.

They lack the desire to do any orbital assembly (beyond a single
docking).

They also lack the desire for hypersonic in-flight refueling. The
*******s!

Your wishful thinking will not change this, just as the same wishful
thinking never resulted in a single ET being taken to LEO.

And just as wishful thinking has not built a private orbital manned
spacecraft, much less put someone on the moon. But here's the
difference: the Stick Stage 2 will end up in some sort of orbit.
Instead of whining like a little bitch, talk (calmly) to your
Congresscritters and get them to order NASA to either use the stages on
orbit, or have them transfer ownership to the highest bidder. Write
letters to the editor with simialr suggestions, call NASA PAO, arrange
a meeting with Mike Griffin, whatever. Or some other suggestion more
useful than "WAAAAH! WAAAAAAHHHH! They're not doing things the way *I*
want them to!!!!!"

Resorting to name calling in a debate is always telling.

I'm just being realistic. Congress doesn't care about recovering spent
rocket stages in LEO. If they did, Delta IV and Atlas V wouldn't be
completely expendable. The fact is that any use of these stages will
require a substantial up front development cost. That's a cost the
government has historically been unwilling to pay.

But if you're so convinced this is a viable strategy, why not start your own
company and work on a solution yourself? If it's such a good idea,
investors won't hesitate to give you development money.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
Their "new" lunar mission architecture is so similar to Apollo that it's
....

... technologically boring. Which is *exactly* the right approach if
you want to actually *do* something.

Which is why they should be buying launches, not developing new launch
vehicles.

NASA should be working on the hard problems that prevent us from being a
true spacefaring nation, not keep repeating the successes of the past.

The hard problems are things like:

1. High launch costs
2. Cumbersome, low pressure EVA suits and gloves
3. Better EVA tools
4. Better designs for hardware intended for assembly or swap-out during an
EVA (e.g. ISS assembly and Hubble servicing)
5. Refueling techniques for cryogenic fuels and oxidizers
6. Automated rendezvous and docking (useful for commercial ISS resupply)
7. Inexpensive reentry and recovery techniques for large pieces of hardware
(e.g. SSME's)

and etc.

NASA ought to work on enabling technologies and techniques to open up space,
not on developing hardware that could otherwise be purchased commercially.
As these technologies are matured, it's up to the commercial launch
providers to choose to use these technologies, just as early aircraft
manufacturers were free to choose to use NACA airfoil designs.

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

We've already *done* that.

We've already cured diseases. Why do it again?

And beyond that, what specific things can you do, things that are actually worth doing, with Stick/CEV?

Building a space-based civilization. If somebody else can come up with
somethign else to do it with, great.