Shuttle dumped within 5 years

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
(Alex Terrell) writes:

David Ball wrote in message
. ..
Personally, I would like to see us develop and use a heavy lift
capability with expendables. I'd like to see the ability to launch
larger/heavier payloads than the Shuttle can handle. For ISS though, I
think we're too far down the road of using Shuttle to change without
destroying the ISS program.

Agreed - it's a shame they didn't develop a Shuttle C and launch the
ISS in one or two shots with nice 8m diameter hab modules.

This is the wrong way to go. Launch vehicles that only fly one or two
times to build a space staion fly so little that you never make back
the money you spent on developing the HLV in the first place. There
is no need for HLV, there is a need for cheaper access to space (cost
per kg to LEO). One could make a launch vehicle that's only capable
of putting a one person capsule (CRV/CTV) into ISS orbit and it would
be a success, if it's cheap enough and can sustain a high flight rate.

IMO you overestimate the costs and underestimate the capability of HLV.
While at the same time overestimating the saving from lowering launch costs.
HLV's rarely require significant additional technology but instead really on
existing technology stretched to its limits.
By doing this they actually lower cost per pound to orbit.

Take the Saturn V if used as a single engine rocket 1 F-1 and one J-2 would
have put less then 15 tons in orbit yet a full Saturn V could put 120 tons
into orbit with no additional technology except larger tanks. Note that you
have increased the use of rockets better then five fold, so you get many of
the benefits of increased launch rate. You have also increased mass to orbit
more then 8 fold. So if you take 5 Atlas or Delta engines and put one on top
you have a Heavy lift vehicle with only a little research.

The other method is stretching and large boosters. Araine 5 is a good
example of this model but because the size of the engine is comparable to a
Delta II it only becomes a medium+ rather then heavy lift. Take a stretched
Atlas 5 or Delta 4 and add two shuttle solid boosters and you increase the
launch mass around 40 tons but in this case more importantly you increase
the volume. This unfortunately does not provide the extra rocket engines the
Saturn model does but the low level of equipment (1 atlas or delta engine, 2
solid rocket booster, 1 modified shuttle tank) keeps cost down.

HLVs allow things to be done that can not be done at least easily with much
smaller rockets.
Skylab, Apollo, Hubble are all good examples of this.

Skylab could have been done with a smaller launcher but would have taken
many more launches of smaller rockets and hundreds if not thousands of
hours of spacewalks to accomplish the same thing and a massive increase in
cost.
As you decrease the size of your launch vehicle the number of spacewalk
hours increases and those are extremely expensive.

If you want to go to the Moon or Mars HLV is almost a necessity.

Lowering launch costs while very important long term may not have as much
effect short term as many people think.
Launch costs have become only a small fraction of many NASA and Air Force
projects and even in private projects it many times is only a fraction of
the costs.
NASA has a 15 billion dollar budget but spends less then 5 billion
including the Shuttle for launch costs.
NASA could with just about 30% of this buy 52 or more Atlas 5/ Delta 4
launches not counting any savings for volume.

SIRTF according to some reports will cost 1.2 billion but was launched
aboard a rocket that cost less the $60 million dollars even if you cut the
cost of the launch by 90% you change total cost by less then 5%.

There in is a growing problem. We are lowering launch cost but the savings
seem to be going towards other expenses rather then towards more launches.

Anthony Frost wrote:

In message
Reed Snellenberger wrote:

Rutan's ship *is* a toy -- a cool one, one that I hope works, one that
I'll want to see video clips and pictures of. But still a toy, but one
that will earn him the money then be put away in closet once it's done
its job.

Really? You don't think there's a market for a fully reusable sounding
rocket that can put a 50kg payload plus a technician into freefall for
over 3 minutes?

If the demonstrator gets even close to meeting turn-around times there's
a market for several pairs and a follow on for improved rocket stages.



Even the X-15 occasionally carried small experiments not related to
its operation, thus acting as a manned sounding rocket....

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:32:45 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

Take the Saturn V

An extraordinarily expensive rocket to develop, by the way.

if used as a single engine rocket 1 F-1 and one J-2 would
have put less then 15 tons in orbit yet a full Saturn V could put 120 tons
into orbit with no additional technology except larger tanks. Note that you
have increased the use of rockets better then five fold, so you get many of
the benefits of increased launch rate. You have also increased mass to orbit
more then 8 fold. So if you take 5 Atlas or Delta engines and put one on top
you have a Heavy lift vehicle with only a little research.

Actually, it takes a lot of research. Or, rather more than EER Systems
thought was necessary for the Conestoga (a bunch of Delta strap-ons
put together to form a new launcher.)

And then there is the Ariane 501 debacle, where Arianespace tried to
save a few bucks and reuse Ariane 4 gudiance with disastrous results,
or Boeing's Delta III, another victim of the "we're just scaling-up...
save a few research dollars" school of thought.

NASA has a 15 billion dollar budget but spends less then 5 billion
including the Shuttle for launch costs.

The Shuttle program's 2002 budget was $3.3 Billion. Your $5 billion
figure was Shuttle and Station combined.

NASA could with just about 30% of this buy 52 or more Atlas 5/ Delta 4
launches not counting any savings for volume.

But you'd need some sort of manuevering vehicle to get your payloads
to the Space Station. That's included in the Shuttle budget, and would
eat into your savings on EELVs. And then there's the need for a manned
spacecraft...

Brian

jeff findley wrote in message ...
(Alex Terrell) writes:

David Ball wrote in message . ..
Personally, I would like to see us develop and use a heavy lift
capability with expendables. I'd like to see the ability to launch
larger/heavier payloads than the Shuttle can handle. For ISS though, I
think we're too far down the road of using Shuttle to change without
destroying the ISS program.

Agreed - it's a shame they didn't develop a Shuttle C and launch the
ISS in one or two shots with nice 8m diameter hab modules.

This is the wrong way to go. Launch vehicles that only fly one or two
times to build a space staion fly so little that you never make back
the money you spent on developing the HLV in the first place. There
is no need for HLV, there is a need for cheaper access to space (cost
per kg to LEO). One could make a launch vehicle that's only capable
of putting a one person capsule (CRV/CTV) into ISS orbit and it would
be a success, if it's cheap enough and can sustain a high flight rate.

Jeff

I partly agree. I think the focus should be on minimising cost for
about a 4-10 ton payload.

However, if a HLV can be developed for low cost, even if it has a high
unit cost, it will be worth it occassionally. Somethings just need to
be taken up in big modules - at least till we have better in space
assembley.

The HLV contenders would be a Shuttle C and a Saturn 5, or see what
the Russians have got.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:55:30 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

Delta III is pretty much an example of how not to scale up. An extra
30,000-60,000 pounds in the first stage would have been a lot more help.

I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here.

NASA has a 15 billion dollar budget but spends less then 5 billion
including the Shuttle for launch costs.

The Shuttle program's 2002 budget was $3.3 Billion. Your $5 billion
figure was Shuttle and Station combined.

I was talking about Shuttles, Deltas, Atlases and all other launchers
combined.

Ah. But NASA doesn't operate other launchers, it just buys their
services. This year, I think the grand total is four Delta IIs (MER-A,
MER-B, SIRTF, and GP-B.) More interesting would be how much industry
and government together are spending on launch services.

My point was that less then 1/3 of NASA's budget goes for launch costs and
most of that is the Shuttle.

Agreed, but its closer to 1/4.

I was trying to stress that NASA is spending a lot of money on things other
then launch services.
My concern is that even if we cut the cost of launch services massively we
will not get that much of a savings or that many more launches. As Things
are now I doubt a 100 fold decline in launch costs would lead a 10 fold
increase in launch mass.

It could open up a great many markets that don't as yet exist, such as
orbital tourism or high-speed global package delivery. But we have a
chicken/egg problem to overcome to get there.

Brian

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:40:19 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:08:07 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

[snip]

The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money
into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return,
so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't
going to be putting people in space who will?

Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for
public space transportation. They're already making the investment to
do so.

And the launch vehicle, and launch pad location?

There are several, in several locations. Go do a little research.

All in America or in other countries?

No, there are one or two aspirants in your own back yard.

They are all planing a sub orbital hop, not a true space shot.

As he said, look it up.

Why should I, he's the one with supposedly all the answers.

Which you seem not to accept. Thus, do your own research.


You take offence at a certain amount of sceptism, geezh get-a-life.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

"Dholmes" wrote in message ...

NASA has a 15 billion dollar budget but spends less then 5 billion
including the Shuttle for launch costs.
NASA could with just about 30% of this buy 52 or more Atlas 5/ Delta 4
launches not counting any savings for volume.

SIRTF according to some reports will cost 1.2 billion but was launched
aboard a rocket that cost less the $60 million dollars even if you cut the
cost of the launch by 90% you change total cost by less then 5%.

There in is a growing problem. We are lowering launch cost but the savings
seem to be going towards other expenses rather then towards more launches.

NASA's FY 2002 shuttle budget was $3.27 billion. Of this,
$2.03 billion was for hardware (ET production, SSME and SRB
production/refurbishment, Orbiter maintenace and updgrades,
etc), $0.61 billion was for ground operations (launch/landing
sites), $0.24 billion was for flight operations (mission
control, astronaut training, etc), and $0.4 billion was for
other stuff like payload integration, program management,
facilities, and the like.

If NASA bought EELV launches, like USAF, to launch a crew
transfer vehicle, it would cost about $200 million a pop
just for the launch vehicle. NASA would still have to
maintain and upgrade its CTV fleet (if it is reusable) or
have new vehicles built for each flight (for megabucks
per mission). The agency would still have to control its
crewed vehicles and would have to train its astronauts. It
would have to manage the program, integrate the payloads,
upgrade support facilities, etc. At STS-like flight rates,
such a program would almost certainly cost $2.5 billion-ish
per year. Some savings, perhaps.

Keep in mind that NASA succeeded in significantly lowering
shuttle program costs during the late 1990s. Some would
argue that STS-107 was the result.

- Ed Kyle

(Tom Merkle) writes:

jeff findley wrote in message ...
This is the wrong way to go. Launch vehicles that only fly one or two
times to build a space staion fly so little that you never make back
the money you spent on developing the HLV in the first place. There

Yeah, wake up--you never 'make back' the money you spend developing a
special-purpose vehicle for any government endeavor. Whether it's a
military fighter jet, orbital space vehicle, nuclear submarine capable
of surfacing at the North pole, or whatever, you never directly 'make
back' what you put into it--but that's really not the point, is it?

If you never make back the money you put into it, why are you
developing the new system in the first place? Why not stick with, and
incrementally improve, what you have? The Russians are still
launching Soyuz and Proton.

The purpose of a heavy launch vehicle (to anyone who is honest) is to
allow payloads large enough to be really useful and robust to reach
orbit. Payloads like...manned vehicles made as a step towards a new
Moon or Mars program. Or a space station capable of actually testing
different artificial gravity conditions, especially in regards to
closed ecosystems.

You miss the point. These payloads are not only unfunded, but are
vanishingly unlikely to be funded. That is, congress and the
administration are vanishingly unlikely to hand NASA the gigabucks
necessary for NASA to run such a program. They've been too badly
burned by ISS. I know that congress and the administration are part
of the problem (they wouldn't fund the cost and schedule overruns and
kept forcing NASA to scale back and redesign things to be cheaper).

The fact is that the system is broken. Today's political climate will
not accept another ISS sized program. Without which, you simply don't
need a new HLV. Delta and Atlas will be good enough for any NASA
program that will actually receive new funding.

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

"Dholmes" writes:

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
This is the wrong way to go. Launch vehicles that only fly one or two
times to build a space staion fly so little that you never make back
the money you spent on developing the HLV in the first place. There
is no need for HLV, there is a need for cheaper access to space (cost
per kg to LEO). One could make a launch vehicle that's only capable
of putting a one person capsule (CRV/CTV) into ISS orbit and it would
be a success, if it's cheap enough and can sustain a high flight rate.

IMO you overestimate the costs and underestimate the capability of HLV.
While at the same time overestimating the saving from lowering launch costs.
HLV's rarely require significant additional technology but instead really on
existing technology stretched to its limits.
By doing this they actually lower cost per pound to orbit.

History has proven you wrong. NASA repeatedly looked at shuttle
derived HLV's for station launch. Just look at the many Shuttle-C
designs they tossed around since the beginning of the shuttle
program. The fact is that the billions that it would have taken NASA
to develop such a vehicle never materialized. Why? Because the
shuttle wasn't going to stop flying and it *needed* missions. Take
away station assembly missions and there simply isn't much for the
shuttle to do (except the occasional Hubble repair mission).

NASA didn't need, and still doesn't need a HLV if the shuttle is
flying.

Take the Saturn V if used as a single engine rocket 1 F-1 and one J-2 would
have put less then 15 tons in orbit yet a full Saturn V could put 120 tons
into orbit with no additional technology except larger tanks. Note that you
have increased the use of rockets better then five fold, so you get many of
the benefits of increased launch rate. You have also increased mass to orbit
more then 8 fold. So if you take 5 Atlas or Delta engines and put one on top
you have a Heavy lift vehicle with only a little research.

Paper rockets are a dime a dozen. The ones that are useful enough to
gain funding are the only ones that matter. HLV won't be funded
because it doesn't have funded missions to fly. Once ISS is done,
there won't be any big follow-on. There is no political will to give
NASA tens of billions of dollars for a fiscal repeat of ISS.

Skylab could have been done with a smaller launcher but would have taken
many more launches of smaller rockets and hundreds if not thousands of
hours of spacewalks to accomplish the same thing and a massive increase in
cost.
As you decrease the size of your launch vehicle the number of spacewalk
hours increases and those are extremely expensive.

Skylab as done with surplus Apollo hardware. Without it, there never
would have been a Skylab. Skylab and ASTP were the only Apollo
Applications Projects to be funded. They were only funded because
budget cuts forced lunar landing missions to be canceled, which made
Apollo hardware surplus.

If you want to go to the Moon or Mars HLV is almost a necessity.

These missions are vanishingly unlikely to be funded (government
funding for NASA).

There in is a growing problem. We are lowering launch cost but the savings
seem to be going towards other expenses rather then towards more launches.

That is because congress and the administration aren't interested in
manned spaceflight. Their interest on par with the Russians (who can
barely keep Soyuz and Progress flying), it's just that their economy
is in far worse condition than ours.

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

(Alex Terrell) writes:
However, if a HLV can be developed for low cost, even if it has a high
unit cost, it will be worth it occassionally. Somethings just need to
be taken up in big modules - at least till we have better in space
assembley.

The HLV contenders would be a Shuttle C and a Saturn 5, or see what
the Russians have got.

You just killed your own argument. NASA repeatedly looked at
Shuttle C for launching large payloads. It was on the drawing
boards "forever". It was never funded because it simply makes no
sense.

The fact is that (for a reasonable station inclination) the shuttle is
oversized for station resupply flights and undersized for station
assembly flights. The horrible ISS inclination forced upon NASA by
Clinton and the Russians masks this.

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