Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime
From: Edward Wright (edwright2000_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: Len Lekx: "Re: Rocketbuilding supplies"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Physicist Robert Bacher Dies at 99!"
- In reply to: Ed Kyle: "Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime"
- Next in thread: Ed Kyle: "Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime"
- Reply: Ed Kyle: "Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Nov 2004 13:09:10 -0800
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1101368431.707194.232830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> >Pegasus can launch 375 kg to LEO. An order of magnitude more is 3,750
> >kg. The Mercury capsule only weighed 1,118 kg, so you're off by more
> >than a factor of three.
>
> No one is going to build another Mercury (which weighed 1,355 kg,
> including the retro pack). Mercury could not maneuver,
You're carping. None of the nits you pick change the fact that you
were off by a factor of three, and even if your math weren't off by a
factor of three, it wouldn't prove your claim that an orbital vehicle
will cost a billion dollars to develop or that only the US government
can do it.
> Gemini weighed 3,850 kg, but only provided space for two astronauts
> who also could not move around. Soyuz TMA (7,220 kg) and Shenzhou
> (7,800 kg) are more like what is needed to support a useful human
> orbital space flight program.
Musk's Falcon can launch a Gemini-class capsule.
Short spaceflights don't require space to move around. Moving around
during the first few days simply increases the chances of motion
sickness.
You started off by claiming if NASA doesn't build a Shuttle
replacement, it will mean the end of US human spacefllght. Now, you're
merely carping that private spacecraft won't be as cool as Soyuz or
Shenzhou -- and you haven't offered any convincing proof of that.
> China officials reported that their country spent an estimated $2.2
> billion
> to develop Shenzhou, its launch vehicle, and the needed launch and
> flight
> support systems. And this in a country where labor costs are an order
> of
> magnitude less than in the U.S..
So, if it costs Communists $2.2 billion to do something, it must cost
private enterprise more???
Do you have any evidence that Communism is a more efficient economic
system than capitalism?
> For a Gemini-equivalent it would be about 10x$55 million.
No, it would not. A Gemini development program is not merely 10
Pegasus development programs, so taking the cost of Pegasus and
multiplying it by 10 is meaningless.
> It cost the U.S. more than $3 billion (2003 dollars) to develop the
> Thor missile - and much more has been spent since to upgrade
> Thor into a useful space launcher.
Again, do you have any *evidence* that socialism is more efficient
than private enterprise? Or do you simply take it as an article of
faith?
> $165 million nearly buys a couple of
> Delta II launches, but no one is going to develop a new launch vehicle
> of this size for that amount.
Because Ed Kyle says so? The way NASA said DC-X couldn't be built for
for $40 million?
Has it occured to you that Delta II might not be the cheapest vehicle
that will ever be developed? That someone might decide to make a
vehicle reusuble, so that he doesn't have to replace all that
expensive hardware after every test flight?
- Next message: Len Lekx: "Re: Rocketbuilding supplies"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Physicist Robert Bacher Dies at 99!"
- In reply to: Ed Kyle: "Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime"
- Next in thread: Ed Kyle: "Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime"
- Reply: Ed Kyle: "Re: Northrup Grumman - CEV Prime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
