Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:45:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Gary W. Swearingen) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

That's not the point. The poster claimed that Sonic Cruiser was a
step toward supersonic flight. It is not.

Nobody said that

In the context of a discussion of the Concorde, the comment was that
Sonic Cruiser "would have been a small step in the right
direction."

It's not.

(though it certainly is that, in the same way that
my step toward the door is a step towards the porch on the other
side).

In your analogy, Sonic Cruiser was not a step in the direction of the
porch.

Let's review. First, "vthokie" said:

I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its
"Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the
right direction. If Cessna can design the Citation X business jet
to fly at Mach 0.95 economically, surely the technology exists to
design a commercial airliner that can do the same!

See anything there about supersonic flight? I don't.

Only because you pulled the comment out of context.

On 22 Jan 2004 17:22:49 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

It'd be great if NASA could develop a low cost RLV.

They could give that a shot if these RS-84 engines come about.

But the simple, sad fact is that they
*cannot* do it and very likely cannot be *made*
to do it.

NASA's half-assed attempts so far have left little to inspire, but
since they are now serious about replacing their Shuttle, then they
have gone back to the basics of what does work.

Rocket and capsule.

And I do not believe that it is that hard to build a reusable rocket,
when with the RS-84 engines, then you just need to attach these to
your rocket frame that can make a safe landing.

Since NASA has never really tried to do that, then it is a little
early to say if they could succeed or not.

If they do, then this could well provide great advantages, when buying
those expendable rockets, certainly in NASA's ideal size, are not
cheap you know.

If directed to do it they would more
than likely both fail

Since NASA has been running the Shuttle for years, then until now they
have not had much desire to replace it. Also it is congress who
usually ends these projects by denying further funding.

and hobble commercial development in that area.

How so? NASA does not launch commercial payloads and I do not see any
other company trying to profit from a RLV.

It's very difficult
to compete profitably with an organization
which does not need to make a profit.

NASA is as much in the area of competition as it is with profit.

It is
similarly difficult to obtain funding from
investors expecting a decent rate of return
when there is little hope of profit due to said
destructive competition.

If NASA does make a successful RLV system, then this will give others
the reason to do so.

NASA has, to date,
tried to reinvent orbital launch with *several*
times, spending anywhere from a mere billion to
tens of billions of dollars at each try. And
always it has failed.

Maybe it has never really tried to make a replacement vehicle, but all
this past research will prove useful in their CEV.

X-33 is only the most recent failure.

The one with the now fixed fuel tank I guess.

However, NASA can run the numbers on this one and figure out that it
does not make financial sense.

The most dramatic is perhaps
the Shuttle itself, which was supposed to be
somewhere between ten to a hundred times cheaper
than it turned out to be (i.e. one of the most
expensive launch vehicles ever made).

Clearly NASA was not interested in reducing launch costs when they
made the Shuttle, or they would not have made it.

Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch
vehicle development is a very, very good thing.

Perhaps, but NASA will still have to develop technology that they
need, but does not exist.

I am fully happy for Boeing or LM build their RLV instead, at NASA's
direction, when this could lower their support costs.

Worst case situation is that if their reusable rocket does not work
out, in terms of cost per pound launched, then they can always fall
back on the likes of the Delta IV-H anyway.

NASA does need a new rocket to make the Moon though.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

"Dick Morris" wrote in message

The Shuttle failed to become a low cost RLV because it was turned into a
Partly Expendable LV.

Well, the ET really is a small price to pay in the whole scheme of things.
The shuttle failed to become a low cost RLV largely because of the support
costs and the inability to be turned around quickly.

jon

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
news
Dick Morris wrote:

The Shuttle is not an RLV, so it's hard to see how it could. Throwing
away a $60 million External Tank on every flight is not how to build an
RLV, and it certainly cannot lead to low costs, so the Shuttle proves
nothing.

Even if the ETs were free, the shuttle launches would not be significantly
cheaper. The cost is from the standing army of workers and low flight
rate,
which ultimately comes back to complexity and tight engineering margins.

Well, the marginal cost would drop significantly, but the overall base cost
would not.

And again this shows why "cutting back flights per year" isn't much of a
cost savings.



Paul

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:16:51 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Ool"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ...
"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
"Ool" wrote in message
...

That launcher cost MORE than the shuttle.

How so, with all that dead weight you have to lift along with it in
the form of the Shuttle? What was it that made the Shuttle cheaper?

Bureaucracy. You're focusing on the wrong metrics. Dead weight to orbit
ultimately isn't a great metric.

It is if fuel is expensive.

It's not.

Hydrogen/oxygen/aluminum/polyurethane...? Maybe it isn't.

So what does make the rocket so expensive? The hulls, which burn up
in the atmosphere or get bent out of shape crashing into the sea? The
complexity? The manhours needed? The risk of disaster?

Are there any comprehensible cost estimates listing just what makes
the Shuttle and expendable rockets most expensive?


--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:07:17 +0100, "Ool"
wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:16:51 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Ool"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ...
"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
"Ool" wrote in message
...

That launcher cost MORE than the shuttle.

How so, with all that dead weight you have to lift along with it in
the form of the Shuttle? What was it that made the Shuttle cheaper?

Bureaucracy. You're focusing on the wrong metrics. Dead weight to orbit
ultimately isn't a great metric.

It is if fuel is expensive.

It's not.

Hydrogen/oxygen/aluminum/polyurethane...? Maybe it isn't.

So what does make the rocket so expensive? The hulls, which burn up
in the atmosphere or get bent out of shape crashing into the sea? The
complexity? The manhours needed? The risk of disaster?

The standing armies of people required to maintain a program. Wether
you rocket flies 0 times a year or 100 times a year you need to keep
your plant up and running, launch facilities must be maintained,
people must be trained and kept around so that the knowledge and
experience nesesary to build launch and operate the evhicle are
maintained.

The only way to significantly reduce the cost of launch is to
dramatically reduce the number of people involved. This means simple
robust systems with lots of self diagnostic capability. The Delta
Clipper (not Graham) was a good start.

Kelly McDonald

Are there any comprehensible cost estimates listing just what makes
the Shuttle and expendable rockets most expensive?

"Kelly McDonald" wrote in message ...

The only way to significantly reduce the cost of launch is to
dramatically reduce the number of people involved. This means simple
robust systems with lots of self diagnostic capability. The Delta
Clipper (not Graham) was a good start.


Yeah. To bad the *military* has no use for a rocket that can touch
down again in one piece...



--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:03:16 -0500, in a place far, far away, Kelly
McDonald made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


The only way to significantly reduce the cost of launch is to
dramatically reduce the number of people involved.

Or dramatically increase the number of launches. There are more
people involved in air transport than space transportation, but air
transport is affordable.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:03:16 -0500, in a place far, far away, Kelly
McDonald made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The only way to significantly reduce the cost of launch is to
dramatically reduce the number of people involved.

Or dramatically increase the number of launches. There are more
people involved in air transport than space transportation, but air
transport is affordable.


Begging the question, *could* the Shuttle have launched a hundred
times a year if the demand and hence the money had existed? Fifty?
Twenty?



--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Ool" wrote in
:


Begging the question, *could* the Shuttle have launched a hundred
times a year if the demand and hence the money had existed? Fifty?
Twenty?


Not a chance... an average flight rate of twelve/year would have been quite
a struggle, although a 2-3 flight short-term "surge" might have been
possible (as was done during the recent ISS truss missions). As it turns
out, the design was too fragile to achieve the "100 flight/year" kind of
flight rate...

As it turns out, the low flight rate made it possible to cope with the
limitations of the design by giving the KSC & Downey workers plenty of time
to repair & maintain the orbiters between flights.


--
Reed