A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA studies new booster (UPI)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 3rd 04, 12:52 AM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

In article , TKalbfus wrote:
Nonsense. Do you think astronauts are the only people whose lives are
worth anything?

The only thing an unmanned orbiter would do is increase the risk to
people on the ground.


This is not Trantor! Their are only 6 billion people living on Earth and the
chance of a piece of space debris hitting someone on the head is small. I
suppose you've never been outside of your city and you think the
whole world is one sprawling metropolis.


Hmm. Columbia, according to the CAIB, had about a 10-25% change of
causing a severed injury through debris fall. The area it fell in is
about two-thirds as densely populated as the planetary average (for
habitable land), maybe a bit sparser. Over a city, maybe ten times that
probable casualty rate.

It's not a major danger, compared to everything else, but it's certainly
a nontrivial one... especially when you consider the indirect economic
impact of the debris, the requirements to recover and clean up after it,
which are *expensive*. (As a rough rule-of-thumb, the economic impact of
a death is about $5-10m - the Columbia recovery cost at least $300m,
not counting 'uncharged' costs in volunteer or already-employed labour)

--
-Andrew Gray

  #22  
Old March 3rd 04, 05:39 AM
Gallery Neolithica
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

That's the beauty of an unmanned craft? That's the kind of crapola thinking
that got us our present do-nothing go-nowhere space program. Toss the
shuttle and everyone involved with it into the recycle bin, pull out the
Saturn 5 blueprints (imagine, a rocket we know that works) and get back on
the moon. Use the Titan and Atlas for cargo. When Von Braun was right, he
was right.

Eugene Sanger sucks.


  #23  
Old March 3rd 04, 06:10 PM
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:44:09 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:


So it still costs $3 billion dollars plus.
Which means there is no money freed up to go to the Moon.


Only if $3 billion is budgeted to going to the Moon. However, the
program will probably cost a bit more than that.

And the article makes a good point about how a shuttle-derived booster
would use the same facilities and workforce as the shuttle: Make use
of the infrastructure and expertise already in place, as opposed to
starting over from scratch.




----== 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 =---
  #24  
Old March 3rd 04, 07:10 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

In article ,
Michael Gallagher wrote:
And the article makes a good point about how a shuttle-derived booster
would use the same facilities and workforce as the shuttle: Make use
of the infrastructure and expertise already in place, as opposed to
starting over from scratch.


Except that said infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.

Some years ago at Space Access, back when X-33 was a going concern and
VentureStar was still taken seriously, Dave Urie was asked about operating
from LC-39. His response: "it's cheaper to build new pads".

If *Lockheed Martin* thinks LC-39 is too expensive to be worth it...
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #25  
Old March 3rd 04, 08:58 PM
Edward Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message .. .

So it still costs $3 billion dollars plus.
Which means there is no money freed up to go to the Moon.


No, you're mistaken. The variant chosen will be a cargo module on top of the
current Shuttle tank, probably with engines in it, a Shuttle-C type system,
but not reusable. That will markedly reduce costs as most of the money spend
by the Shuttle program is making sure the manned vehicle doesn't blow up.


And it won't matter if your moon rocket blows up?
  #26  
Old March 5th 04, 04:39 AM
ed kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

"Dholmes" wrote in message .. .
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...


Only if CEV weighs 50,000 pounds. It should weigh much less
than that.

After all, 3-man Soyuz TM weighs only 7.15 metric tons
(15,766 pounds). Shenzhou is believed to weigh about 7.8 tons.
A straight Delta IV-Medium (no strap-on boosters even) can put
at least 10.5 metric tons into LEO (the most recent such rocket
put 10.56 tons into a 186x401km parking orbit, not counting the
dry mass of the second stage).

I think you may be in for a rude shock.
From what little I have seen we are talking about just under 50,000 pounds
of which 2/3's will be fuel.


That might make sense for a trans-lunar CEV, but it is
way beyond overkill for a LEO/ISS CEV. The vehicle you
describe would provide more than 3,400 meters/sec delta-v.
Apollo CSM only provided 2,804 m/s. Space shuttle orbiters,
on the other hand, only provide about 700 m/s. Soyuz TMA
provides about 390 m/s. Gemini only provided 98 m/s.

If CEV were to have the 7.5 metric ton dry mass you
describe, it would only have to weigh 12.63 tons or
so fully fueled to provide the same delta-v as space
shuttle - and only 10.1 tons to provide Soyuz-class
delta-v. A Medium-class EELV (with no strap-on
boosters) could handle these LEO missions, but it
*would* take a Heavy to do the trans-lunar CEV.

- Ed Kyle
  #27  
Old March 5th 04, 04:00 PM
McLean1382
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Ed Kyle writes

That might make sense for a trans-lunar CEV, but it is
way beyond overkill for a LEO/ISS CEV. The vehicle you
describe would provide more than 3,400 meters/sec delta-v.
Apollo CSM only provided 2,804 m/s. Space shuttle orbiters,
on the other hand, only provide about 700 m/s. Soyuz TMA
provides about 390 m/s. Gemini only provided 98 m/s.


Note that Gemini had both manuever engines and solid deorbit rockets. I think
the total was about 300 m/s

Will Mclean
  #28  
Old March 5th 04, 04:58 PM
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:10:21 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

Except that said [LC39/Shuttle] infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.


Two sides of the same coin -- that which makes Shuttle-C look
attractive, using LC39 and related facilties and personel, is also
something that counts against it, as you point out.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the Advanced Launch
System they were thinking about 14 or so years ago. It was supposed to
be relatively cheap to operate; IIRC, they were talking about getting
firms skilled in doing off shore oil rigs to design the launch pads!
(Brown and Root was looking at that sort of thing at the time.) But
OTOH, it would have been very expensive to develop, and that is what
lead to its downfall. A new booster built for Constellation COULD,
hypothetically, face the same delemma, cheaper to operate but
expensive to develop. Shuttle-C is just the opposite, relatively
cheap to develop but expensive to operate.

Talk about your no win scnenario.

That doesn't mean there's a third option that cuts between both
possibilities. But two of the options seem to leave you in a bind no
matter what you pick.





----== 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 =---
  #29  
Old March 5th 04, 10:59 PM
Edward Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

Two sides of the same coin -- that which makes Shuttle-C look
attractive, using LC39 and related facilties and personel, is also
something that counts against it, as you point out.


It depends on what your goal is. If you want to protect Shuttle jobs,
Shuttle-C is the way to go. If you want to reduce the cost of space
transportation, expand the space economy, open the frontier, and
create new jobs, it isn't.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the Advanced Launch
System they were thinking about 14 or so years ago. It was supposed to
be relatively cheap to operate; IIRC, they were talking about getting
firms skilled in doing off shore oil rigs to design the launch pads!


Hardly the opposite end of the spectrum. Relatively cheap? Perhaps. It
depends on who your relatives are.

Hiring industrial construction contractors to build launch pads is not
a new idea. The early launch towers were oil gantries. The problem is
not that building launch pads is expensive, it's that the useage rate
is trivial. Building an runways is expensive, too, but an airport
runway will be used once every few minutes, while launch pads are used
once every few months.

A new booster built for Constellation COULD,
hypothetically, face the same delemma, cheaper to operate but
expensive to develop. Shuttle-C is just the opposite, relatively
cheap to develop but expensive to operate.

Talk about your no win scnenario.

That doesn't mean there's a third option


Of course there's a third option. NASA doesn't need a new booster. It
could use existing rockets, whose development costs are already sunk.
There's even a fourth option. Instead of developing its own capsules
and launch system, NASA could offer to buy rides from the lowest
provider.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Station 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 11:14 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.