If Cost did Equal V^2, So What was Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?

From: redneckj (redneckj_at_tampabay.rr.com)
Date: 10/03/04 

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:35:09 GMT

"Edward Wright" <edwright2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32b558f9.0410022203.7ad6b932@posting.google.com...
> greg@see-web-page.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote in message
news:<cjne1p$uhb$1@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>...
>
> > But I didn't ask for hundreds of real-world examples. How about *one*?
>
> It's impossible to prove a statistical model by one data point.
>
> How about picking up a book on statistics?

So what if costs were to go as the square of velocity. We've been using
~9,000 m/s to orbit on these groups as a round number for years.
Were SS1 to launch into a partial orbital trajectory instead of the
vertical,
final velocity would be in the mach 4 range with a much lower peak.
It would achieve this after overcoming virtually all drag and backpressure
losses and most of the gravity losses. Remaining velocity to orbit
would be in the 6,600-6,800m/s range. SS1 is getting 1/4 of the total V
to orbit behind it, not 1/8.

4 squared is 16 times the development cost of SS1 for a total of $480M.
4 cubed is 64 " " " " " " " "
" " $1.92B.
These numbers are based on the $30M high end. So for the cost of
between 1 and 4 shuttle flights, (assuming they were actually flying)
this orbital transportation system could be developed. The next several
tail numbers could be expected to be somewhat lower. If this would
get us constant access to orbit at reasonable recurring costs, it would be
a bargain.

I have no idea what the actual factor is, or even if a valid one exists.
I just wanted to point out that Kuperbergs' Law would not be a show
stopper. Further, I don't consider SS1 to be the poster child of cheap
development.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Modest Proposal - Common Interplanetary Booster
    ... Recall, that high specific impulse on orbit, translates to more ... sized vehicle can do much to reduce costs as well. ... It is attached to a flight element that has 15,384 pounds ... per launch. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: White Elephant (was Re: Naming the stick)
    ... can re-enter to glide back to the launch center again, ... oxygen and refurbishment costs are the only recurring costs. ... Two launches and an on orbit docking, allow 400 tons of payload to be ... Five satellites generate a GW, and 5,000 satellites generate a TW. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Why is space flight so expensive?
    ... What would it take to bring the price down to $100 per pound, ... What amazes me is that it _still_ costs 10k bucks to get into orbit - ... Government ...
    (sci.space.station)
  • Re: "NASA Watch" gets really pissed off.
    ... >>It's already in orbit. ... >>those costs. ... With launch vehicles, the same launch vehicles we use to visit it, reboost it, and extend it with. ... Reboosting is a continuous process, with very small delta V increments, it's not as if the ISS is going anywhere far away. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Commercial suborbital point-to-point flights
    ... > higher mach numbers than SS1 which implies much more expensive construction. ... A liquid-fueled ship should be ... SS1, so more flights, so each flight cheaper. ... Anybody know the development, vehicle-build, and operating costs for a ...
    (sci.space.policy)