High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

"Kim Keller" wrote in message om...

If NASA doesn't build a new pad somewhere,
Cape Canaveral/KSC will be left with only four or so active
launch pads in a few years, less than half of today's number.

Just how many do we need?

-Kim-

That is a really good question. The answer is "it depends".
It depends more than anything on how many launch vehicle
types there are, because none of the launch vehicles are
flying anywhere near their maximum launch rates. The Cape
and KSC combined have flown less than 20 launches per year
during recent years. In theory, two "universal" pads could
have supported that total, but nine pads were used during
that time.

- Ed Kyle

"Kim Keller" wrote in message om...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
Any idea how much time?

Probably a month, given no expansion of today's facilities.

-Kim-

I think some process reengineering might be cheaper than new facilities.

"Kim Keller" wrote...
NASA, of course,
will have an unused assembly building with a pair of launch
pads after 2010.
Yeah. That's why I think there'll be a push to develop Shuttle-C or
something similar.

Talking with my brother this afternoon, the question came up as
to where the main costs were in the STS. Answer - the standing army.
If you end up with an expendable unmanned heavy lifter and not a
rebuildable manned orbiter, can you reduce the army at all? If
we're talking about a shuttle-derived vehicle, we're still talking
about the solids and the external tank. That's about $100 mil/launch.
If the core resembles a Delta-4, that's maybe another $100 mil
if we're lucky. Could we do $200 mil/launch for 6 launches per
year, with maybe 75 metric tons to LEO for each launch?

- Cris Fitch
San Diego, CA
http://www.orbit6.com/

On 4 Feb 2004 19:54:35 -0800, (ed kyle)
wrote:

"Kim Keller" wrote in message .com...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Interesting. Note that a fully fueled Delta IV 5-meter
diameter second stage weighs nearly 31 metric tons (less
than 4 tons empty), several tons in excess of what
Delta IV-Heavy is reported to be capable of boosting to
low earth orbit. The logical approach would be to upgrade
Delta IV-Heavy enough to be able to put 31 tons into LEO
so that these stages could be orbited fully fueled. This
two-stage plus CEV stack, which appears capable of
translunar insertion, would then require three Delta IV-
Heavy launches.

Trouble is, Delta IV isn't exactly suited to salvo launch operations. For
that matter, neither is Atlas V. Both would require additional facilities to
make such a mission achievable. From the look of budget numbers, there won't
be enough money to take that approach.


If the money isn't there, then the U.S. is not going to the
Moon. Any lunar mission is going to require new launch
facilities, whether it be via EELV or not.



I have to disagree with you here. NASA will not need new
launch facilities if it uses the Shuttle-C heavy-lift
vehicle for Moon and Mars programs. Shuttle-C can use the
existing space shuttle launch facilities and work force.

[snip]


TA

On 5 Feb 2004 15:11:57 -0800, (Alex
Terrell) wrote:

"Kim Keller" wrote in message .com...
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Interesting. Note that a fully fueled Delta IV 5-meter
diameter second stage weighs nearly 31 metric tons (less
than 4 tons empty), several tons in excess of what
Delta IV-Heavy is reported to be capable of boosting to
low earth orbit. The logical approach would be to upgrade
Delta IV-Heavy enough to be able to put 31 tons into LEO
so that these stages could be orbited fully fueled. This
two-stage plus CEV stack, which appears capable of
translunar insertion, would then require three Delta IV-
Heavy launches.

Trouble is, Delta IV isn't exactly suited to salvo launch operations. For
that matter, neither is Atlas V. Both would require additional facilities to
make such a mission achievable. From the look of budget numbers, there won't
be enough money to take that approach.

Using just existing facilities would lead to some components having to wait
in orbit for quite some time before the mission package is assembled. Now,
that may not be a huge challenge but it does complicate things, particularly
if cryogenic fuels are used.

-Kim-

Any idea how much time?

I was thinking that the current "Heavies" can lift about 25 tons to
LEO. Two of these could put about 10 tons on the moon. One would put
up an upper stage (20-25 tons) which would dock with the Lander (10
tons) plus cargo(10 tons).



I guess that makes the space shuttle a heavy-lift vehicle
since it can put 30 tons in LEO. Right?


TA

On 27 Jan 2004 22:22:51 -0800, (Cris
Fitch) wrote:

"Dholmes" wrote...
Going from just over a 5 meter diameter rocket to an almost six meter
diameter rocket even if only for the central rocket would allow for a lot
more launch capability in a Delta Heavy.
Dual MB-60 second stage could also increase mass to orbit.

If we do get sucked into the path of building heavier launchers,
then perhaps the question is, how to do so in the most cost-effective
manner.


Every official commission that has ever studied the
problem of Moon and Mars missions has said a heavy-lift
cargo launcher was *essential*. And the bigger, the better.
So my guess is we will take that path.

The most cost-effective manner to build a heavy-lift
vehicle is to convert the space shuttle launch system into
an unmanned cargo launcher.

[snip]


TA

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though
there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done
instead?

I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a
bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility.

-Kim-

"Tom Abbott" wrote in message
...
I have to disagree with you here. NASA will not need new
launch facilities if it uses the Shuttle-C heavy-lift
vehicle for Moon and Mars programs. Shuttle-C can use the
existing space shuttle launch facilities and work force.

Question is, can we *afford* the present workforce?

-Kim-

Hi!

"Kim Keller" writes:
Question is, can we *afford* the present workforce?

You are perhaps the most qualified person on this group to answer that
question.

What is the rough number of employees for different parts
of the shuttle system?

Needed for a fairly simple shuttle-c:
External tank handling equipment and staff.
SRB handling and staff.
Stacking equipment and staff.
Vab, crawler, launchpad and misc building maintainance
and support staff.

New staff for a fairly simple shuttle-c:
RS-68 engine specialists.
Boat tail specilists, inertial system and avionics.
( TLI stage specialists are needed in any choice of
launchers. )

Made redundant:
Shuttle orbiter specialists, OMS, RCS, thermal protection,
enviromental systems, shuttle arm, ET-orbiter separation
system, landing gear, etc, etc.
Emergency airfield staff, orbiter landing staff, orbiter handling
equipment, orbiter transport 747:s.

How much of the total manpower is used for the orbiter?
75% or is it more?

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:25:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though
there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done
instead?

I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a
bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility.

Then we'll give your criticism, and "feelings" all the respect they're
due.