CEV PDQ

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg

On Sun, 08 May 2005 05:37:04 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg

Geez, Also Sprach Zarathustra was playing in my mind as the
page was loading. After she's glazed and fired, she should
reenter the atmosphere just fine

Dale

Scott Lowther wrote:

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg


Yeepers, you work really fast!
There's talk now that there may be some Shuttle components used on the
finished system (probably for an unmanned cargo carrier) and that they
may want the CEV to be larger than currently planned:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7345
Using the Shuttle's ET and SRBs on a unmanned cargo carrier would at
least vastly decrease the number of launches needed for a lunar landing
mission over what could be done with Delta IV Heavies.
One of the main things that worked against the Shuttle cargo versions
was the need to try and recover the SSMEs due to their cost, but two of
the Delta IV's RS 68s give around the same thrust, and they are designed
to be expendable.
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.

Pat

On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:42 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg

Yeepers, you work really fast!

....Amazing what you can do with a dull old pocket knife and a bar of
Irish Spring :-)

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:42 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

There's talk now that there may be some Shuttle components used on the
finished system (probably for an unmanned cargo carrier) and that they
may want the CEV to be larger than currently planned:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7345

....Yeah, I forgot to mention that in today's blog, too. Apparently
someone's dug up the old Shuttle-C papers, and pointed out that
there's really nothing wrong with the basic ET & SRB configuration if
you're just using it to boost cargo, and some costs could be cut by
keeping the Shuttle-C and using the existing Shuttle pads. Again, this
whole mess is going to have to go back to the drawing boards at least
three or four times, but keep in mind that happened with the Apollo
Block I at least twice before they finalized the design.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:42 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Scott Lowther wrote:



Behold... the prototype Lockheed CEV, nearly finished:

http://up-ship.com/ptm/cevprototype.jpg


Yeepers, you work really fast!



...Amazing what you can do with a dull old pocket knife and a bar of
Irish Spring :-)


Wish it was that simple. However, the silicone rubber mold is up and
running, with two good casts made; the extra bits for the aft end -
flaps, RCS, hatch - are now embedded within silicone rubber, hopefully
with first casts made sometime tonight. Should be in limited production
tomorrow (limitted because I'm about out of resin, and the manufacturer
no longer sells directly to the public, the *******s).

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.

Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one. You have to build it from scratch, adding only the
bits that are absolutely necessary.

Dave Urie of the Lockheed Skunk Works, asked in 1997 about the idea of
launching VentureStar from LC-39, said: "It's cheaper to build new pads."
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.

Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one. You have to build it from scratch, adding only the
bits that are absolutely necessary.

Dave Urie of the Lockheed Skunk Works, asked in 1997 about the idea of
launching VentureStar from LC-39, said: "It's cheaper to build new pads."

Given the "success" of VentureStar I don't think that's really saying much.


--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.



Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring bits
off a high-cost one.


Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter
and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less
than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just
ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


[Shuttle-C variants]
Operating costs of such a vehicle could be kept low due to the amount
of man-hours that could be saved in not having to deal with the
orbiter's refurbishment and upkeep.



Emphasis on the word "could". That's not the same as "would".

Generally speaking, you cannot get a truly low-cost process by paring
bits
off a high-cost one.


Except in this case, it *should* be entirely feasible. It's the orbiter
and the standing army that costs. ATK sells each RSRM to NASA for less
than $30M, and makes a profit doing so; much of the Shuttle system just
ain't that expensive. Get rid of the bits that *are*.

So $60 million for a pair of RSRMs, another $60 million for an ET, say $20
million (WAG) for a boattail and engines (all disposable) and then you still
need a standing army for the VAB (to stack all this), the
crawler-transporter, crews for pad refurbishment, etc. pretty soon you're
talking real money.