NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On 13 Mar 2004 18:19:26 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

It's a bad analogy .....

I don't think so. And you're twisting it:

.... The fact that it's cheaper to build one thing (oil
rigs) in shipyards does not mean it's cheaper to build *everything* in
shipyards ....

I never said EVERYTHING should be. Now who's being assinine?

..... Office buildings are not built in shipyards, then towed to
their final location, even though your analogy suggests they should.


But the materials for building an office building arrive on trucks,
not one motor-scooter load at a time.

The issue is whether something like Falcon 1, which can only deliver
about 700 kg to a 200 km orbit, is too small for an LEO option. I
agree with those who say it is. There's the right size for the jove;
below that size, and it is improbable to do.


Because space stations aren't oil rigs and the cost of a heavy launch
vehicle is much higher than the cost of towing an oil rig. Much, much,
much, much higher.


However, relying on smaller vehicles and more on-orbit assembly only
makes sense if the cost of all the launches and ALL the assembly is
less than the cost of one or two HLLV launches. And if you argue that
CATS methods can make the smaller boosters tha cheap, why not make
BIGGER boosters, even heavy lifters, that cost considerably less than
$500 million for one launch?


That's right, Mike, and that's why the cost of going into space will
go down. Not because of new technology, but because of economics --
which you ignore.


The economics of air travel are slightly different from the kind of
cost decrerease you are talking about.

Airlines are selling a perishable product. When you buy a seat on a
plane, you are buying that particular seat on a particular flight --
let's say, Next Tuesday's 10:30 flight to Chicago. If that flight
leaves with fifty empty seats, then that's it -- they will never be
able to sell seats on that particular flights again.

So the airlines have to do whatever they can to get bums on seats.
That is why the seats are cheaper. It is also why such cheap tickets
are nonrefundable and come with a host of strings attached --- once
they have you, they want to be sure you're on that plane! They also
overbook to compensate for passengers changing plans and canceling
trips; otherwise, there would be empty seats again. Round trip
tickets are cheaper than one-ways to make you buy more seats on more
planes and so forth.

What you are referring to is how a technology is introduced and is
initially a plaything for the rich, but later the costs drop so more
people can get them. Automobiles spring to mind. And it's a valid
analogy.

But that has nothing to do with why advance round trip tickets are as
cheap as they are.

..... It is another to make a whole damn country wait an
unknown number of years for spaceflight to be "affordable" before we
go to Mars.

You are not the whole damn country, Mike ....

Neither are you, Ed.

..... The whole damn country is
not obligated to spend unlimited sums of money just because you have
ants in your pants.


Then why should it be obligated to wait because you say, "Sooner or
later, any day now ...... "

Tell me, Ed, can you tell me when we will have CATS? Can you give me
a date, five years from now, ten?

A lot sooner than that, most likely.


How soon is "a lot sooner"? When will someone have plans for an LEO
vehicle to buy contracts on?

The government can start enforcing the Launch
Services Purchase Act. It can offer prizes for low-cost space travel.
It can sign binding contracts for the purchase of low-cost launch
services. It can offer tax breaks to launch companies and investors.
It can simplify regulations.


If that can be done within the framework of a Moon/Mars initiative,
hey, no problem; if THAT is what you are proposing, taking action to
ensure CATS plays its role in building towards Moon and Mars landing
as opposed to an open-ended wait, not problem.


We cannot go now, Mike. We cannot even go into space right now, let
alone to the Moon or Mars. Nor is NASA doing anything to change that.
I know, they're showing some viewgraphs of future trips to the Moon
and Mars, but that does not mean that you are invited to go with them.

You know, when I was a little kid, I wanted to be an astronaut and go
to the Moon. My life has not turned out that way; I will never be in
the astronaut corps. But that doesn't mean I think NO ONE should go.

All Europeans did not go with the earliest explorers of the Americas.
And All Europeans did not take advantage of the option to go to
colonies when it was possible; that is why Europe has hundreds of
millions of people today. I will be perfectly happy if a dozen people
can go. You want to say no one should go because you can't buy a
ticket to Mars from your travel agent and no one should go anywhere
near it until you can, be my guest. But forgive me if I don't go
along with that. All that does is hold up the works, and I am not
interested in doing that.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 13 Mar 2004 17:24:50 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

No, the comparison is to the DC-3. That was the light lift option at
the time, not biplanes.


For a manned spacecraft assembled in LEO, in terms of *payload,* I'd
compare the DC-3 to a Saturn 1 or 1B, or anything with the same
capability. The Falcon is a lot smaller than that AFAIK.

Why isn't Falcon too small for LEO EOR?

Because it's big enough to do the job.


Which comes back to assembling something 600 kg pounds at a time using
a lot of spacewalks.

No sequitar. Communication satellites are not manned (or womanned)
spaceflight .....

It IS an example of a private industry going out of initial government
funded developments.

..... Show me the "private manned industry" that resulted from the
Apollo Moon expeditions.


I will when you show me the privately funded manned spacecraft capable
of going to Mars. You can't, because there is none.


..... You have a double standard. You assume that if private enterprise
isn't already doing something, it means private enterprise can't do it
-- but if government isn't already doing the same thing, it means
government can and must do it.


Wrong.

I am not saying that private enterpise CAN'T do it, I am saying no one
has any idea when or if the private sector WILL do it, and I do not
want to hold up a Moon/Mars effort to wait for something when we have
no idea when it will be produced.

In another post, you mentioned the action the government can take to
help the private CATS effort along -- tax incentives, changes to
regulations, and signing binding contracts, and so forth. Having the
govenment go to industry and say, "We will do these things and sign
the contracts for vehicles with our sepcified capabilites, and we will
pay for delivery, but you have to produce it by a certain date," yes,
I have no problem with that. If it can actually produce the vehicles
we want (and this assumes you can secure enough investment, which is
another ball of wax), and is not a way to stall a program out of
existence, no problem at all. But if you are saying something like,
"No one should even think about going to Mars until the private sector
gives everyone the capability to buy a round trip ticket for under
$200," I don't agree with that. If the whole point of your argument
is to prevent a Mars mission altogether by imposing a condition that
can't possible be met, then you bet I don't like that.

Helping CATS along -- no problem. Twiddling my thumbs hoping the
magical private sector will make it possible for me to buy a ticket
before I die of old age, problem. The former is reasonable; the
latter serves no purpose but to stall a proposed program out of
exsitence.


..... I hope you never eat out. I pity your poor waiter or
waitress!

I eat out at Bob Evans twice a week; I'm usually served pretty
promptly. Actually made freinds with a couple of the servers. One,
whom I haven't seen in a while, owns my old '99 Sunfire. 'Course, if
NO ONE were to serve me after I'd been sitting for half an hour, I'd
walk out. And one night, I had to go to Wendy's because BE was
packed.

Since apparently, it's ok to be personal, what would you do? Oh, I
know, you'd find an empty lot with a "for sale" sign, and you and your
guest(s) would sit there and wait because you know someday someone
will build a restaurant there, and then you can place your order, but
you're in no hurry in the mean time. I can see it all now:

"Um, Ed?"

"What!?"

"You know, it's a nice night and all, but we've been sitting in this
field for hours, and I, for one, am getting hungry."

"The market will respond. It's only a matter of time before someone
builds a restaurant here, and we can eat."

"But what about the other restaurants in town?"

"Too expensive."

"'Too expensive'!? Bob Evans has a meat loaf dinner for $11.13 per
serving!"

"It's unreasonable to assume that anyone should pay more than 25 cents
for a four course dinner."

"And what makes you think someone will uild such a restaurant?"

"Are you a socialist!? Don't you have any faith in the free market?"

"Plenty, acutally, but even if, for the sake of argument, such a
restuarant is going to be built he This is a resdential area. No
one is going to build a restaurant here."

"Pure specualtion on your part! How could you know that?"

"Well, aside from the For Sale sign we're sitting next to having a
diagram of residential lots, I'm the real estate agent who's putting
it up for sale."

"Non sequitor. It's just you saying that."

"And it's just me going ...... "

"Fine! Go and spend exorbident amounts on money on a burger and
fries. See if I care ..... "

Six months later, the mumified body of Ed Wright is found in a field
by workers constructing a house.

:P





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 13 Mar 2004 16:45:01 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Launching an Agena in pieces was not a real mission. It's nonsense you
made up because you didn't have any real arguments.


Um, Ed, pardon me all to hell, but you started this mess by claiming
the Falcon booster is an acceptable heavy life option and we can just
use lots and lots of Earth orbital assembly.

The Falcon 1, according to the spacex web site, can put 670 kg in a
200 klick orbit. In contrast, the Mercury capsule weighed 1934 kg at
launch (with escape tower), 1,355 kg on orbit, and 1,130 kg on
spalshdown (figures from Illustrated Encylcopedia of Space
Technology). Falcon 1 could not possibly launch that, and we're
ralking about one guy in a couch who can't move around.

Falcon V can put 4,200 kg in orbit. This a little over the 3,736 kg
of the Gemini spacaecraft, and that was called two men in the front
seat of a Volkswagen.

The Apollo CSM -- just the CSM, mind you --- weighed aoubt 31,000 kg,
right off Falcon V's charts. And that's just the CSM. The lander was
another 15,000 kg. So something like 46,000 kg of spacecraft just for
Apollo's LOR architecture. And what Bush has proposed goes beyond
Apollo -- a permanent presence on the Moon, and missions to Mars that
will by definition require building the base because you can't return
to Earth immediately after landing (unless you don't care that Earth
won't be there to meet you when you get bck to its orbit).

And you appear to be saying we can do it all with 670 kg to LEO and do
lots and lots of assembly. Just to do what Apollo did would take
about 80 aucnches with Falcon 1, ten with Falcon 5. And as noted, we
will go beyond Apollo.

So, who started this? Someone named Ed, yes. Last name Kyle, no.



..... Earth Orbit
Rendezvous is obviously not as difficult, risky, or dangerous as you
believe. It's certainly no more difficult than Lunar Orbit Rendezvous,
which you are obsessed with.


Then why did von Braun go along with seeing EOR whittled down to two
launches? Why then did he go along with LOR? If EOR wasn't more
expensive and difficult than LOR, why bother?

Maybe .... because it was?





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"johnhare" wrote in message . com...
... A single back up to a six
launch mission at 98% per launch takes overall mission reliability to
99.73%. It is roughly the 11% chance of one of the first six launchers
failing multiplied by the 2% chance of the back up failing. Mission
reliability clearly goes to the multiple launch.


You need one backup for propellant and two backups for spacecraft
launches because the spacecraft launches are time-constrained by
propellant boil-off and are, as a result, independant of the
propellant launches.

you would lose 2.4 smaller launchers
or .4 large launchers in a 20 mission scenerio. These numbers suggest the
maximum requirement is 123+1 small or 21+1 large launches. 124 x 0.166
=20.708 while 22x1=22 giving the cost advantage to the smaller vehicle,
once the lost vehicles and subsequent back ups are added. Subtracting
a single vehicle by assuming the lesser loss from each column still gives
a cost advantage to the smaller vehicle.


Incorrect. For EELV/EOR, you need 120 successful launches
plus three backup vehicles plus replacements for 2 to 3
failed vehicles - a total of 125-126. For HLV/Direct, you
only need 20-21 vehicles to complete 20 missions, since
this launcher does not need a backup to achieve 0.98 mission
launch reliability.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle writes:

Cryogenic
propellants, which would have to be used to do a six-launch
mission, boil-off in orbit, so all six launches would have
to be completed within a few weeks at the most.

If the lander uses storables, it isn't particularly time sensitive.

Properly insulated lox doesn't boil off that quickly.

The only *really* time sensitive elements are the hydrogen tank and the crew
module. That's two launches, not six.

Will McLean

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...

Launch vehicles are not scarce commodity items

You need to go back to your Economics 111 book and look up the
definition of "scarce."

with a fixed price and capacity. See:
"http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf"
which shows that, in the real world, larger launch
vehicles orbit payloads at less cost per kg than smaller
launch vehicles do.

No, it doesn't. Their data shows that the tiny 4,250-lb Athena II has
almost exactly the same cost per pound as the big 18,982-lb Atlas IIAS
($5,310 per pound compared to $5,136 per pound).

It also shows the 22,467-lb Ariane 44L and the 63,443-lb Shuttle
having almost the same cost per pound ($5,007 vs. $4,729), even the
Shuttle is almost three times larger than Ariane 44L.

Furthermore, the little 9,592-lb. Dnepr ($1,548 per pound) is cheaper
than the 15,418-lb. Soyuz ($2,431 per pound) or the 43,524-lb. Proton
($1,973 per pound).

If bigger is always cheaper, as you claim, the cost per pound should
be in this order:

Shuttle Proton Ariane V Soyuz Denpr

In reality, , the cost per pound is in this order:

Dnepr Proton Soyuz Shuttle Ariane

No faster than they will on the Moon. Boil off is not the insoluble
problem you think.

Limiting boil off requires insulation which adds mass which
requires more launch capacity.

If you think that humanity should never develop any significant launch
capacity, that's a good argument. That is not my goal, however.

Most well-considered lunar landing plans do not use cryogenic propellants for ascent

Yet, your boil-off argument assumes it's impossible to use
non-cryogenic propellants.

and, thus, do not require cryogenic propellant storage on
the lunar surface.

Your astronauts are going to breathe without LOX.

No, the same backup launcher could be used for propellant, CEV, or
LL,
as needed. Designing each payload to require a different launcher
would be dumb.

Study the EELV user guides and you'll find that it takes
about four weeks to prepare an EELV-Heavy launch vehicle.

If it takes four weeks to bolt a payload onto your launch vehicle,
you're doing something wrong. When Max Hunter was developing Thor, he
used to prepare them for launch in 24 hours.

How many weeks will it take to prepare a Shuttle-C -- including the
time required to clear your pad after a launch explosion, since you
say you're only going to have one pad?

If a propellant launcher fails and you use the backup to
take it's place, you will, using your plan, revert to
non-redundant launches for the CEV and LL elements.

Only if I was stupid enough to 1) launch cryogenic propellants that
have a boil-off problem first, and 2) not have more than one backup.

Besides, if this really were my plan, I would use a real launch
vehicle, not a crappy ELV.

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...
so all six launches would have to be completed within a few weeks at the most. One backup
propellant launcher would be needed, as would one backup
launcher for both CEV and LL.

No, the same backup launcher could be used for propellant, CEV, or LL,
as needed. Designing each payload to require a different launcher
would be dumb.

Not so easy to replace a back up for a unique cargo. This woud imply
building each component of the lunar base twice.



Anyway, where does six launches come from?

Assuming LEO mass is 24 tons, exhaust V =3430m/s (Kerosene / LOX) and
Delta V = 4100 m/s, Dry mass fraction =30%. Kerosene / LOX Interorbit
rockets are quite simple, so payload might be 25% = approx 6 tons.

So three Delta IV-Heavies should be able to put 18 tons into lunar
orbit.

Now Lunar Orbit to surface Delta V is 2100 m/s. Again assuming
Kerosene/LOX, dry mass fraction is 54%, so out of the 18 tons we can
land 10 tons. About 8 tons could be cargo.

If we use Hydrogen / LOX for the LEO to Lunar Orbit section (Exhaust V
= 4410m/s), dry mass fraction goes up to 40%. The rocket is heavier,
so lets assume cargo is 30%. Now we have 22 tons in lunar orbit, so
should be able to land 10 tons of cargo.

All from three Delta IV-Heavies














These redundant launchers
would be required to raise the mission launch reliability
to at least 0.98, raising mission cost to 1.5.

If you do the math correctly, you need only a single backup launcher
to obtain that level of reliability.

I have also not considered the significantly higher launch
facility costs that EELV/EOR-redundant would require.

Nor have you proven that there will be significantly higher launch
facility costs, or even insignificantly higher launch facility costs.
You just keep waving your hands and pulling numbers out of thin air.

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

Falcon V can put 4,200 kg in orbit. This a little over the 3,736 kg
of the Gemini spacaecraft, and that was called two men in the front
seat of a Volkswagen.

You keep saying that as if it's significant. What's your point. Gemini
wasn't luxurious enough?

The Apollo CSM -- just the CSM, mind you --- weighed aoubt 31,000 kg,
right off Falcon V's charts. And that's just the CSM.

But the Lunar Gemini would have been just 3,170 kg. Don't assume a
semi when a Volkswagon will do.

The lander was another 15,000 kg.

But this one is only 3,500 kg --
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmllight.htm

-- and this one is 3,284 kg --
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmlghter.htm

-- while this one is only 1,460 kg --
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmlhtest.htm

Just to do what Apollo did would take about 80 aucnches with Falcon 1, ten with Falcon 5. And as noted, we
will go beyond Apollo.

And your point is --? You want to go "beyond Apollo" yet you insist we
must do everything the same way we did in Apollo?

..... Earth Orbit
Rendezvous is obviously not as difficult, risky, or dangerous as you
believe. It's certainly no more difficult than Lunar Orbit Rendezvous,
which you are obsessed with.

Then why did von Braun go along with seeing EOR whittled down to two
launches? Why then did he go along with LOR? If EOR wasn't more
expensive and difficult than LOR, why bother?

Maybe .... because it was?

Because von Braun's concern was time, not cost of sustainability. That
has been explained time and time again.

Just von Braun did something doesn't mean we need to recreate it. Von
Braun also launched V-2 missiles at London, but I'm not in favor of
the United States recreating that.

(ed kyle) writes:

(Edward Wright) wrote in message om...

No, it doesn't. Your numbers assume it's impossible to replace a
failed vehicle, which is obviously not correct. Having more launches
makes the effect of any one single launch failure smaller, making it
easier to have backups and replacements. This was explained before.
Why repeat arguments you know are wrong?

Adding backup vehicles adds more cost and schedule
complexity to the EOR scheme, making it even less viable.
And adding backups still does not decrease the probability
of mission failure compared to a single large launch
vehicle.

In either case, you handle this by having the hardware for two
missions, more or less, ready to fly.

Let's assume 99% reliable launch vehicles. If you fly 100 missions
made up of 10 launches each, you'd expect 10 launch failures. So, you
had to fly 1010 launches in order to have 100 successful missions.

If you fly 100 missions made up of 1 launch each, you'd expect to
loose 1 launch and have to replace it with 1 extra launch to get to
your 100 mission mark.

In both cases, you had to fly 101 copies of the hardware to accomplish
100 missions. This appears to be a wash when all other things are
equal. In the real world, they're not equal.

I'd pick the launch vehicle that flies more, so that you can work more
of the bugs out of the system sooner and end up with a more reliable
vehicle in the end. Sometimes you have to have launch failures to
learn what it is you need to fix. You'll find those sooner with the
vehicle that has the 10x flight rate, hopefully leading to higher
overall reliability.

Unfortunately, to really get the reliability up, you might need to fly
a vehicle several orders of magnitude more than 100 times. If you
always try to minimize the number of launches per mission, I don't see
how we'll ever get the reliability much over 99%.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

..... Show me the "private manned industry" that resulted from the
Apollo Moon expeditions.

I will when you show me the privately funded manned spacecraft capable
of going to Mars. You can't, because there is none.

I never CLAIMED there were any privately funded manned spacecraft
capable of going to Mars.

You DID claim that government space spending would result in "private
manned industry."

We've had plenty of government space spending. Approximately one
trillion dollars so far. Where is the "private manned industry"?

If there isn't any, what makes you think spending more government
money in the same way will create it?

I am not saying that private enterpise CAN'T do it, I am saying no one
has any idea when or if the private sector WILL do it,

That's false, Mike. You have no idea when or if the private sector
will do it. I've tried to give you some idea, but you refuse to accept
it. Neverthelees, the fact that you have no idea does not mean "no
one" has one.

and I do not want to hold up a Moon/Mars effort to wait for something when we have
no idea when it will be produced.

You have shown no evidence that the private sector would "hold up" a
Moon/Mars effort. You ASSUME that a government program would be faster
and "guaranteed," but you haven't offered facts to support that
assumption.

'Course, if NO ONE were to serve me after I'd been sitting for half an hour, I'd
walk out.

You're willing to wait 30 minutes for a hamburger but you have to go
to Mars "right now"? :-)

The rest of your post is too inane to bother responding.