Shuttle-C Encore - Just Say No!

According to :

"http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html"

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline? Why pay billions more to extend the STS
program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit
the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs
provided by EELV to do the same job? It would require more
EELV launches, sure (the heavies can haul 25 tonnes), but
haven't we proved to ourselves over and over that total launch
costs per year for any launch vehicle system don't vary
significantly with the number of launches? That a large
fixed sum is required to keep the rocket factories and launch
facilities open whether there are two launches or 20? Aren't
the two EELVs together capable of supporting a launch rate in
excess of 20 per year? Just how many Shuttle-derived cargo
carrier launches would NASA expect to launch in a year by
comparison? Shouldn't NASA be planning to *close down* its
inefficient shuttle hardware production lines and overbuilt
launch facilities rather than plotting to continue the present
course?

- Ed Kyle

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

What other EELV boosters can launch 100 metric tons into orbit?

Why pay billions more to extend the STS
program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit
the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs
provided by EELV to do the same job?

How many times can an EELV be launched?

Once.


It would require more
EELV launches, sure (the heavies can haul 25 tonnes), but
haven't we proved to ourselves over and over that total launch
costs per year for any launch vehicle system don't vary
significantly with the number of launches?

Ok suppose we decided to launch a lunar mission with the Shuttle-C and those 25
tone EELVs.

With the Shuttle-C, one vehicle launches the Lunar lander and the other
launches the lunar tug to take it into lunar orbit and back. Now how do you
propose to launch a 100 tone lunar lander with 25 tone capacity launch
vehicles. Do you launch 4 quarters of a lunar lander and 4 quarters of an
orbital tug?

Tom

Alan Erskine wrote:

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
According to :

"http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html"

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

Depends on what they're going to do with it. If they're going back to the
Moon or going on to Mars, they'll need all the HLV's they can get. Using
proven technology is a less-expensive (cheap?) way of gaining that
capability.

If you want a new government-sponsored moon shot, why not just use Atlas V
heavy? You will need hundreds of Atlas V Cores, but that is *good* since it
lets you work out the bugs and get some economies of scale. You could have
an assembly line like the russians have for protons.

If you want to launch some really heavy parts, you could use a Atlas V super
heavy using seven clustered Atlas V core stages. The Atlas V core stage is
rugged enough for this to work without too many problems.

But I think it would be more economical to launch your moon ferry or
whatever in parts and assemble it in orbit.

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

What other EELV boosters can launch 100 metric tons into orbit?


Delta IV and Atlas V can, with multiple launches. And the more
these vehciles fly, the cheaper each launch will become for all
of their users. The designs, the manufacturing capacity, and
the launch sites already exist! A Shuttle-derived, on the other
hand, would cost a few billion and several more years just to
develop and a couple billion per year additional to support.
A new moon flight effort might require, what, two or three
100 metric ton flights per year? Do it with 8-12 EELV launches
instead and you'll be able to abandon LC 39 and the massive ET
plant at Michoud and the SRB retrieval fleet and the SRB
production facilities and maybe even a NASA center or two. At
the same time you would help sustain two U.S. launch vehicles,
allowing them to have a shot at commercial viability in future
years.

Why pay billions more to extend the STS
program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit
the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs
provided by EELV to do the same job?

How many times can an EELV be launched?

Once.


The same number of times a shuttle-derived vehicle can fly.


Ok suppose we decided to launch a lunar mission with the Shuttle-C and
those 25 tonne EELVs.

With the Shuttle-C, one vehicle launches the Lunar lander and the other
launches the lunar tug to take it into lunar orbit and back. Now how do you
propose to launch a 100 tone lunar lander with 25 tone capacity launch
vehicles. Do you launch 4 quarters of a lunar lander and 4 quarters of an
orbital tug?


Most of the mass is propellant, which can be carried incrementally.
Take Apollo for example. CSM and LM (and their propellants) only
accounted for 32.8% of the 134 metric tons lifted into low earth
orbit by Saturn V.

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:

According to :

"http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html"

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could
EVER make something as well as we can. That and a ton of money
covertly poured into all sorts of military programs(you don't
think toilet seats really cost them $1000, do you?)

Why pay billions more to extend the STS
program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit
the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs
provided by EELV to do the same job?

Well, there IS a problem with the current Shuttles. The original
design called for titanium construction. One of our Presidents
at the time said all the titanium needed to go towards our war efforts
in Vietnam(yes, teh designs are THAT old) in the early 70s and they
were made out of aluminum.

Hence the need for the extra solid fuel boosters and the fact that it
gets into orbit half as far as it was originally supposed to. It also
was supposed to be liquid fuel only, causing a LOT less stress on the
design and payload. Oh - no O-rings to fail, either.

Also, it's JUST possible the shuttle might have survived re-entry
if it was titanium, as it has a MUCH higher melting poin, and those
few seconds may have been enough to keep that wing intact until they
made it to the lower atmosphere.

In short, we badly need some sort of replacement AS WELL AS a new
heavy lifter. IMO, they new shuttle should be a small space-plane
for ferrying people and gear and something like the Sea Dragon should
be used for heavy payloads.

ed kyle wrote:

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

What other EELV boosters can launch 100 metric tons into orbit?



Delta IV and Atlas V can, with multiple launches. And the more
these vehciles fly, the cheaper each launch will become for all
of their users. The designs, the manufacturing capacity, and
the launch sites already exist! A Shuttle-derived, on the other
hand, would cost a few billion and several more years just to
develop and a couple billion per year additional to support.
A new moon flight effort might require, what, two or three
100 metric ton flights per year?

Nope. Try 2-3 a month at that rate. It's really that large a
project. They need a heavy booster for cargo - like the Sea Dragon.
Get 100 tons or more in one huge shot. Ten such shots, or about
1,000 tons should have enough to start a colony.

We could do this with our present technology. Not in 30 years.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:43:40 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could
EVER make something as well as we can.

Your theory falls apart when you consider that both EELVs are being
entrusted with our most classified national security payloads, and
that one EELV or the other will be the launch vehicle for the Orbital
Space Plane, America's next manned spacecraft.

Brian

On 14 Nov 2003 07:36:23 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle,

Evidently NASA sees a need for it. Since they presumably have a better
idea than we of what Bush is considering as a post-ISS space
objective, we might want to wait and see what Bush does before we
start railing against NASA as being wasteful and anti-EELV for the
umpteenth time.

Aren't
the two EELVs together capable of supporting a launch rate in
excess of 20 per year?

The EELVs will be able to take on more missions, but not a great deal
more. One Shuttle mission will require three EELV launches to replace
it, which gets us to over half of the 20 launches per year EELV can
provide, and we haven't counted DoD, Civil, and Commercial missions
yet. There's not a lot of room left for post-ISS missions without more
infrastructure expansion.

Meanwhile, NASA still sees a need for the Shuttle, whether manned or
unmanned to provide large spares delivery and large downmass for ISS.
So if Shuttle is still going to be around, its infrastructure can be
put to good use for SDLV operations.

Just how many Shuttle-derived cargo
carrier launches would NASA expect to launch in a year by
comparison?

Without knowing the mission plans (is this a resumption of individual
lunar exploration missions, or something more ambitious like a moon
base?) it's impossible to say.


Brian

Joseph Oberlander wrote in message nk.net...
ed kyle wrote:

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline?

Because they are not U.S. made and we can't admit that other could
EVER make something as well as we can. ...

Huh? Are you telling me the rocket builders who toil in
Boeing's Decatur, Alabama factory and in Lockheed Martin's
Denver facility are not U.S. citizens? True that Atlas V is
boosted by Russian rocket engines and uses European payload
fairings and that Delta IV uses Japanese second stage tanks,
but these EELVs are as essentially U.S.-made as any
other product these days - the era that sees the U.S.
importing Chryslers and GM products while building Hondas,
Nissans, and Toyotas within its borders.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
According to :

"http://space.com/missionlaunches/rtf_shuttlec_031114.html"

NASA is looking at shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo carriers
as one possible option for future heavy-lift requirements in
the 100 metric tonne to LEO class.

Why develop yet another unneeded launch vehicle, in a world
awash in launch overcapacity, when two brand-spanking-new
EELV boosters are waiting for customers just down the Cape
Canaveral coastline? Why pay billions more to extend the STS
program, with its massive fixed costs, when NASA could exploit
the built-in high launch rate capability and lower fixed costs
provided by EELV to do the same job? It would require more
EELV launches, sure (the heavies can haul 25 tonnes), but
haven't we proved to ourselves over and over that total launch
costs per year for any launch vehicle system don't vary
significantly with the number of launches? That a large
fixed sum is required to keep the rocket factories and launch
facilities open whether there are two launches or 20? Aren't
the two EELVs together capable of supporting a launch rate in
excess of 20 per year? Just how many Shuttle-derived cargo
carrier launches would NASA expect to launch in a year by
comparison? Shouldn't NASA be planning to *close down* its
inefficient shuttle hardware production lines and overbuilt
launch facilities rather than plotting to continue the present
course?


You have a crystal ball or something? Maybe this heavy lift is needed
for throwing to the Moon or Mars without assembly in orbit. As to the
fixed costs...they will be reduced without people on board.

--Chris Vancil