|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
Jim Davis wrote:
Cardman wrote: Maybe, because I am close to the truth, where some people just don't want to hear it. I predict that Rand's opinion of John Ordover is going to improve. :-) I'm trying very very hard to ignore the nagging suspicion that Cardman is an intentional creation of Mr. Ordover. He does seem designed to provide an extreme example of a viewpoint where technology and economics are sufficient to support 100-ton launches by the handful. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
On 23 Jul 2003 23:20:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Cardman wrote: And yet no one has yet provided any facts to prove my ideas wrong. All these very experienced people and I wonder why that is, where instead we get snide comments. Maybe, because I am close to the truth, where some people just don't want to hear it. I predict that Rand's opinion of John Ordover is going to improve. No, they're different categories. Ordover is a troll. This guy is just clueless. At least so far... -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
"Cardman" wrote in message ... Shuttle-C was designed to move cargo about within orbit, where my method was to do this though an always in orbit space tug instead. No, Shuttle-C was a launch vehicle in its various incarnations. Some returned the SSMEs, some din't. Hell you could even use the Shuttle as this space tug provided that they did a few adjustments. The first is to keep it up there, which should not be that hard. Then of course it needs cargo canister handling capability, which it mostly already has. It would be extremely hard. The Shuttle is not designed for long stays in orbit. It's overly massive. It has wings that are useless in orbit, etc. And so with refueling and maintaining the Shuttle always in orbit, then you eliminate the cost of making the space tug. And in emergency situations, then yes the Shuttle can re-enter and land if it cannot go elsewhere. Do you have a concept of how much fuel would be required to turn the shuttle into an useful orbital tug? Far more than it can hold. Sounds like a better use of the Shuttle to me, but I have no idea as to its long term in space limits. I presume that it tends to run out of fuel, which is a problem that I would well solve. And sure anything else it needs can be stored on the ISS. Shuttle-C has been studied at length by NASA. The problem is the high cost per launch and the flight rate, Rubbish. The Shuttle is a highly technical machine that needs to be virtually rebuilt after every launch. Which leads to the low launch rate which leads to high costs. All I need are cheap cargo containing strap on tubes, which are ideally segmented. Even the less clever people around can see the cost savings involved with removing a highly technical machine and just launching dumb cargo cannisters. The less clever people are missing the fact that it's still expensive. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
"Cardman" wrote in message ... The reason that nobody has built a Shuttle-C to date Not that this is quite the design I imagine, when my idea is more of a simple and less complex design. From your previous comments, I'm not sure I believe you have an idea of how complex or simple Shuttle-C was meant to be. Remember, the launch vehicle is only part of the problem. You still have the entire infrastructure of LC-39 that has to be paid for. And if you don't recover the SSMEs, that's a chunk of change right there. If you do want to return them, not you've re-added complexity. Do you have someone who is going to pay to launch something else that sized? Congress could well do so with a Moon Base if NASA could show easy slot together mass produced sections and a heavy launcher to get the stuff out there. There are no voters on the Moon. It's really that simple. NASA exists primarily as a jobs program. (At least on the space side. I'd argue the A has more present value on a dollar for dollar basis.) No doubt it would cost less than the ISS as well. All the support craft is a different question though, when NASA cannot build things cheap these days. Once you have the launch capacity, then it only takes imagination to fill it. You go ask some project manager what they would put in such a launch and they would bound to have great ideas. No, it takes MONEY to fill it. No one's coming up with the bucks. Heck, one way to make the shuttle cheaper is to launch it MORE often, not less. Look up the difference between fixed and marginal costs. (look at the current NASA budget and the "savings" of launching no more shuttle flights this year as one reference.) Cardman. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:15:30 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: "Cardman" wrote in message .. . The reason that nobody has built a Shuttle-C to date Not that this is quite the design I imagine, when my idea is more of a simple and less complex design. From your previous comments, I'm not sure I believe you have an idea of how complex or simple Shuttle-C was meant to be. Well it is such an old idea, where after all this is just a cargo version of the shuttle. Remember, the launch vehicle is only part of the problem. You still have the entire infrastructure of LC-39 that has to be paid for. Certainly, but following the complex Shuttle, I am sure that support can be reduced for a simpler system. And if you don't recover the SSMEs, that's a chunk of change right there. Not that I was thinking of SSMEs, when even NASA knows that these are due replacement. Or was the last time I checked. Some new rocket engines right below the main fuel tank was my idea, where with some good engineering the engines can be separated in orbit and returned to Earth if desired. If you do want to return them, not you've re-added complexity. That is the whole problem with the Shuttle, when 80% of the launch mass is taken up with the launching hardware of the Shuttle. Congress could well do so with a Moon Base if NASA could show easy slot together mass produced sections and a heavy launcher to get the stuff out there. There are no voters on the Moon. It's really that simple. Have they ever tried getting out on the streets and asking people? I don't think that space exploration should really be a voting matter, when people will always put things before exploration, where they soon forget that their own country was found and invaded due to this word. NASA exists primarily as a jobs program. That sounds like a good reason to have no more NASA. Just break the space probe section into a separate company to keep that useful area running, then get rid of all the Shuttle and the ISS (and of course NASA), when obviously they will never be doing anything really useful with them. The primary area that the ISS does do, science, has been heavily criticized by scientists as a waste of money. Oh that was good... So the ISS is not good at what it does, the ISS was built for this purpose, where the Shuttle was built to build the ISS. In other words a waste of money from start to finish. Now imagine if the ISS had been made as a Moon Base instead, when if it did nothing at all, then at least they could say "Hey, we are exploring the Moon here", where more likely they actually would be. (At least on the space side. I'd argue the A has more present value on a dollar for dollar basis.) The "A"? Once you have the launch capacity, then it only takes imagination to fill it. You go ask some project manager what they would put in such a launch and they would bound to have great ideas. No, it takes MONEY to fill it. No one's coming up with the bucks. Well as I said at minimum it would service the ISS for a very long time, where you could use extra capacity for fuel. And well one day in a few years time NASA may put the Moon Base idea before congress, where then we will see if you have a paying customer. Congress usually like space exploration, where they forced NASA to do the Pluto mission, where they would also like NASA to account for what they have done to promote space exploration. So congress is usually pro-space exploration, where NASA gets congress quite annoyed at what it does. Heck, one way to make the shuttle cheaper is to launch it MORE often, not less. Look up the difference between fixed and marginal costs. Certainly, where I can only see that getting rid of the Shuttle and using a much less complex rocket, would help reduce some of those fixed costs. (look at the current NASA budget and the "savings" of launching no more shuttle flights this year as one reference.) So as they have a backlog of ISS components to launch, then why not increase the launch rate and save money? ;-] Cardman. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
Cardman wrote:
So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-] Tires. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
"Cardman" wrote in message ... Because it would be various combinations of being physically impossible and economically ridiculous. No detailed analysis is required to know this, if one understands basic physics, I know basic physics, where nothing I have said charges this. And if NASA knows basic physics, then why did it not put the ISS into a much more useful orbit? Politics. Clinton turned it into a Foreign policy program with the Russians. They can only effectively launch to that inclination. So we changed it. and the basis of space systems costs. I estimate lower launch costs than with the Shuttle, where no one has even began to prove that wrong. People have given you several sources. At the very least pick up the 3rd edition of Space Shuttle by Dennis Jenkin. Flip to page 457 and start reading. Page 459 shows estimated launch costs of $424 million. Not really any cheaper than the Shuttle. We do. You clearly don't, by your own admission. You are also not proving me wrong, where either your ego is too large or you cannot. So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-] Reactants for the Fuel cells currently can not be replaced on orbit. Fuel for the OMS and the RCS currently can not be replenished on orbit. Cardman. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Heard too much and need to vent.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:18:55 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: "Cardman" wrote in message .. . Shuttle-C was designed to move cargo about within orbit, where my method was to do this though an always in orbit space tug instead. No, Shuttle-C was a launch vehicle in its various incarnations. Some returned the SSMEs, some din't. I see. Hell you could even use the Shuttle as this space tug provided that they did a few adjustments. The first is to keep it up there, which should not be that hard. Then of course it needs cargo canister handling capability, which it mostly already has. It would be extremely hard. The Shuttle is not designed for long stays in orbit. Yes, but overlooking the tiny space debris, then cannot it be serviced in orbit? It's overly massive. It has wings that are useless in orbit, etc. Sure it has a lot of mass, but all you need is extra energy to move that mass, where launching 100 tons of cargo can certainly include lots of fuel. And I will presume that you can't cut the wings off... ;-] And so with refueling and maintaining the Shuttle always in orbit, then you eliminate the cost of making the space tug. And in emergency situations, then yes the Shuttle can re-enter and land if it cannot go elsewhere. Do you have a concept of how much fuel would be required to turn the shuttle into an useful orbital tug? Far more than it can hold. I was considering that possibility, where the obvious solution is to increase its fuel capacity. Turn the cargo bay into fuel storage, or maybe by some external method. Well it is all about linking in some extra pipe work to provide extra fuel, where this should not be a major problem to solve. The Shuttle is a highly technical machine that needs to be virtually rebuilt after every launch. Which leads to the low launch rate which leads to high costs. Exactly, where a simple rocket system saves all that support work. All I need are cheap cargo containing strap on tubes, which are ideally segmented. Even the less clever people around can see the cost savings involved with removing a highly technical machine and just launching dumb cargo cannisters. The less clever people are missing the fact that it's still expensive. Yes, but I can only feel that it is better than with now. As like it or not the life of the Shuttle is coming to an end. What heavy launch do you plan if not the Shuttle? Cardman. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|