A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CEV PDQ



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 8th 05, 06:37 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CEV PDQ

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg
Ads
  #2  
Old May 8th 05, 12:17 PM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 08 May 2005 05:37:04 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg


Geez, Also Sprach Zarathustra was playing in my mind as the
page was loading. After she's glazed and fired, she should
reenter the atmosphere just fine

Dale
  #3  
Old May 8th 05, 09:26 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Scott Lowther wrote:

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg



Yeepers, you work really fast!
There's talk now that there may be some Shuttle components used on the
finished system (probably for an unmanned cargo carrier) and that they
may want the CEV to be larger than currently planned:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7345
Using the Shuttle's ET and SRBs on a unmanned cargo carrier would at
least vastly decrease the number of launches needed for a lunar landing
mission over what could be done with Delta IV Heavies.
One of the main things that worked against the Shuttle cargo versions
was the need to try and recover the SSMEs due to their cost, but two of
the Delta IV's RS 68s give around the same thrust, and they are designed
to be expendable.
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.

Pat
  #4  
Old May 9th 05, 12:39 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.


Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one. You have to build it from scratch, adding only the
bits that are absolutely necessary.

Dave Urie of the Lockheed Skunk Works, asked in 1997 about the idea of
launching VentureStar from LC-39, said: "It's cheaper to build new pads."
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #5  
Old May 9th 05, 03:06 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.


Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one. You have to build it from scratch, adding only the
bits that are absolutely necessary.

Dave Urie of the Lockheed Skunk Works, asked in 1997 about the idea of
launching VentureStar from LC-39, said: "It's cheaper to build new pads."


Given the "success" of VentureStar I don't think that's really saying much.


--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |




  #6  
Old May 9th 05, 04:04 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.



Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one.


Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter
and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less
than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just
ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*.
  #7  
Old May 9th 05, 04:13 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.



Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring

bits
off a high-cost one.


Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter
and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less
than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just
ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*.


So $60 million for a pair of RSRMs, another $60 million for an ET, say $20
million (WAG) for a boattail and engines (all disposable) and then you still
need a standing army for the VAB (to stack all this), the
crawler-transporter, crews for pad refurbishment, etc. pretty soon you're
talking real money.



  #8  
Old May 9th 05, 05:49 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Henry Spencer wrote:



In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:




[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.




Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring


bits


off a high-cost one.



Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter
and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less
than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just
ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*.



So $60 million for a pair of RSRMs, another $60 million for an ET, say $20
million (WAG) for a boattail and engines (all disposable) and then you still
need a standing army for the VAB (to stack all this), the
crawler-transporter, crews for pad refurbishment, etc. pretty soon you're
talking real money.





Shuttle is currently about $400M per launch. Shuttle-C or similar would
not be more. EELV Heavy is about $300M per launch, last I heard. But
Shuttle-C would launch, what, 5 times as much?
  #9  
Old May 9th 05, 04:41 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one.


It ought to be a good way to use any leftover tanks and SRBs, rather than
using them as museum pieces.


  #10  
Old May 9th 05, 05:13 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 09 May 2005 04:49:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


So $60 million for a pair of RSRMs, another $60 million for an ET, say $20
million (WAG) for a boattail and engines (all disposable) and then you still
need a standing army for the VAB (to stack all this), the
crawler-transporter, crews for pad refurbishment, etc. pretty soon you're
talking real money.





Shuttle is currently about $400M per launch.


That's not a meaningful number. Marginal cost is much less, and
average cost is much more, at expected flight rates.

Shuttle-C or similar would not be more.


It would be if the launch rate is lower.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.