It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)

At least according to Keith Cowing at
"http://www.nasawatch.com/"

"SDLV Finalist

Editor's note: Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has
more or less settled on a 120 metric tonne payload,
in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System."
(6/23/05)

120 tonnes, if correct, implies something more powerful
than the standard two-SRB in-line concepts that have
floated around for so many years. It means five-segment
SRBs at least. It means no RS-68s. It means at least
four SSMEs with maybe a fifth thrown in as an upper stage
engine. It means that this thing will be an
all-expendable launcher that will have near-Saturn V
lifting ability.

- Ed Kyle

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 24 Jun 2005 10:46:41 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

At least according to Keith Cowing at
"http://www.nasawatch.com/"

"SDLV Finalist

Editor's note: Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has
more or less settled on a 120 metric tonne payload,
in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System."
(6/23/05)

120 tonnes, if correct, implies something more powerful
than the standard two-SRB in-line concepts that have
floated around for so many years. It means five-segment
SRBs at least. It means no RS-68s. It means at least
four SSMEs with maybe a fifth thrown in as an upper stage
engine. It means that this thing will be an
all-expendable launcher that will have near-Saturn V
lifting ability.

Sounds like a marginal cost of a quarter of a billion, at least.

And a lot of development effort and cost. A new
launcher of this type won't fly until 2015 or so.
Once operational, NASA probably will only be able
to launch 2-3 of these each year.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
At least according to Keith Cowing at
"http://www.nasawatch.com/"

"SDLV Finalist

Editor's note: Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has
more or less settled on a 120 metric tonne payload,
in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System."
(6/23/05)

120 tonnes, if correct, implies something more powerful
than the standard two-SRB in-line concepts that have
floated around for so many years. It means five-segment
SRBs at least. It means no RS-68s. It means at least
four SSMEs with maybe a fifth thrown in as an upper stage
engine. It means that this thing will be an
all-expendable launcher that will have near-Saturn V
lifting ability.

- Ed Kyle

Why all expendable? Couldn't it use a recoverable propulsion/avionics
pod?

Will McLean

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
"SDLV Finalist

Editor's note: Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has
more or less settled on a 120 metric tonne payload,
in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System."
(6/23/05)

120 tonnes, if correct, implies something more powerful
than the standard two-SRB in-line concepts that have
floated around for so many years. It means five-segment
SRBs at least. It means no RS-68s. It means at least
four SSMEs with maybe a fifth thrown in as an upper stage
engine. It means that this thing will be an
all-expendable launcher that will have near-Saturn V
lifting ability.

If this turns out to be true, it will be the undoing of the CEV program.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
Making average cost more like a billion or so. But that's about the
flight rate, and activity level, that they seem to have in mind. I
can't imagine how they think that so much money for so little activity
is either affordable, or sustainable.

It's about as affordable and sustainable as ISS. :-(

I just hope that congress realizes how expensive this will be and puts a
stop to it. It's arguable that ISS would have been killed if not for the
foreign policy angle. I'm not sure CEV has much of anything going for it
besides continuing to provide jobs at NASA.

This is starting to sound too much like a welfare for engineers program
rather than a program that is intended to be not only sustainable, but
extensible without (much of) an increase in funding. With per launch costs
that huge and payloads that big, the incremental cost of adding one more
launch per year isn't going to be cheap.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:31:04 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
If this turns out to be true, it will be the undoing of the CEV program.

I wonder if they've gotten concurrence from the Pentagon?

If so, I wonder what 120 metric ton payloads the Pentagon would like to put
into LEO.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Rand wrote:

Sounds like a marginal cost of a quarter of a billion, at least.

Well, the previous description implied it had larger SRB's,
more of them, and 4/3 or 5/3 as many SSME's. Shuttle launches
cost .5 billion.

I'd have to guess it's going to be .7 to .8 billion a flight.

Especially if they're starting an assembly line for their fly-twice-a
year vehicle.

Phil

On 2005-06-24, wrote:
Rand wrote:

Sounds like a marginal cost of a quarter of a billion, at least.

Well, the previous description implied it had larger SRB's,
more of them, and 4/3 or 5/3 as many SSME's. Shuttle launches
cost .5 billion.

I'd have to guess it's going to be .7 to .8 billion a flight.

Note that Rand quoted _marginal_ cost - Shuttle's marginal cost is hard
to determine, but is probably closer to a hundred million, maybe a
hundred and fifty, rather than half a billion.

--
-Andrew Gray

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
"SDLV Finalist

Editor's note: Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has
more or less settled on a 120 metric tonne payload,
in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System."
(6/23/05)

120 tonnes, if correct, implies something more powerful
than the standard two-SRB in-line concepts that have
floated around for so many years. It means five-segment
SRBs at least. It means no RS-68s. It means at least
four SSMEs with maybe a fifth thrown in as an upper stage
engine. It means that this thing will be an
all-expendable launcher that will have near-Saturn V
lifting ability.

If this turns out to be true, it will be the undoing of the CEV program.

How so? My impression was that CEV will be orbited by
a "smaller" launch vehicle than this heavy-lifter.

- Ed Kyle

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
Making average cost more like a billion or so. But that's about the
flight rate, and activity level, that they seem to have in mind. I
can't imagine how they think that so much money for so little activity
is either affordable, or sustainable.

It's about as affordable and sustainable as ISS. :-(

I just hope that congress realizes how expensive this will be and puts a
stop to it. ...
This is starting to sound too much like a welfare for engineers program
rather than a program that is intended to be not only sustainable, but
extensible without (much of) an increase in funding. With per launch costs
that huge and payloads that big, the incremental cost of adding one more
launch per year isn't going to be cheap.

The launch vehicle is only a fraction of the
program effort. Returning humans to the Moon
for longer stays than Apollo means a big
costly effort. And, since this program is
meant to be a precursor to Mars missions,
heavy lift must play a role (since heavy lift
will absolutely be required for Mars
exploration).

Griffin has studied this problem for years,
and years ago he decided that heavy-lift was
the cheapest, most logical way to go. But
no matter the approach, lunar exploration is
going to cost gobs of money. The $billions
needed to develop and launch the rockets will
represent a percentage of the total effort.

- Ed Kyle