|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
wrote in message oups.com... The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return you need something like Soyuz. When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. A glider comes back to Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider but they are not really a significant part of total cost. The Shuttle SRB's are reused, Ariane 5's rocket boosters are not. And where are your numbers that show that SSME's aren't a significant part of the total cost? Do you even know how much it costs to build a new SSME versus inspecting one that has flown? You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return you need something like Soyuz. When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. A glider comes back to Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider but they are not really a significant part of total cost. The Shuttle SRB's are reused, Ariane 5's rocket boosters are not. And where are your numbers that show that SSME's aren't a significant part of the total cost? Do you even know how much it costs to build a new SSME versus inspecting one that has flown? You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data. The SSMEs are a national treasure. They are priceless. http://www.speakeasy.net/~donaldfr/ssme.htm Compare, for instance, the RD-0120 : http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0120.htm Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each : http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/?p=1453 I don't believe the something is better than nothing crap. http://www.house.gov/science/wood_102199.htm It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
|
#294
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
The costs are still twice Ariane's per Kg.
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each :
The Vulcain is considerably cheaper and does just as good a job. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
Ed Ruf wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:59:31 -0500, in sci.space.policy Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W. You obviously missed the point they are the same company these days. I don't understand your statement. Are you claiming that if we need more SSMEs, or that if I want to buy more SSMEs for my rocket, that I should not contact P&W for a quote? If Michael Griffin intends to start throwing away our national treasure on a very large scale, which on the face of it is the most absurd thing I have ever encountered coming out of NASA, then we are really going to need some more SSMEs, thus a quote from P&W for stock SSME production seems reasonable. My point is that we have an STS and ISS and EVA capabilities to return SSME from and SSTO test article NOW, and that the expendable SSME option should never have even been on the table, and that the people that put the expendable SSME and J2 option on the table should be summarily fired. If NASA wants to use SRBs to increase the payload capability of an SSME powered SSTO, then I can accept that for special purpose missions (this is the BIG ARIANE design), but to throw away the ET and SSMEs after they clearly will make it all the way to orbit, is just plain obscene. The goal is Single Stage to Orbit first, complete reusability second, and retrofitting the cryogenic tankage and storing the residual fuel thirdly, and finally, creating closed ecological life support systems in space. Going back to the moon and then to Mars for the sake of footprints is not in the best interests of the US, or the world. We have far greater problems here that need to be addressed. The SCHTICK, on the other hand, is just a joke. I will no longer remain silent on these matters, it's only going to get worse. I am going to continue to increase the pressure here on everybody, incrementally, until the ESAS architecture is killed, or George Bush is either voted out of office, or removed from office by impeachment. This is that important to everybody. It was the same thing with MER. We knew in 2001 that Mars was covered with ice. If NASA's claim was to 'follow the water', then why wasn't water detecting instruments put on rovers, and why weren't the rovers put near the water? Spirit landed in a basalt flood plain. NASA has no vision, and the rudder is seriously jammed. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
wrote in message oups.com... The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return you need something like Soyuz. When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. Now, how about supporting something you said befo How many Ariane parts have *actually* been reused? Don't forget to document your sources. Remember to concentrate on Ariane first stages. |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
wrote in message ups.com... Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each : The Vulcain is considerably cheaper and does just as good a job. How many shuttles have used Vulcain engines? |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
That is the Ariane engine. Probably the cost of a Vulcain is roughly
comperable to a SSME service. |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
wrote in message oups.com... That is the Ariane engine. Yes it is. Probably the cost of a Vulcain is roughly comperable to a SSME service. Why don't you find out and report back here with verifiable references? It shouldn't be too hard to find out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|