Re: Space Shuttle costs.

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:
> Len wrote:
>
> > Derek Lyons wrote:
> >> Postulated for discussion: Let's say that $mega-billions were spent,
> >> (where $mega > 33), what happens? Could we really have developed a
> >> system with a 30 day turnaround capability on our first try?
> >> Considering that $mega were (in this scenario) spent, could flights
> >> still have been cheap enough to attract enough flights to make the
> >> Shuttle 'economical'?
> >>
> > IMO, almest every aspect of the Shuttle program was flawed from
> > Day 1. IIRC, the Economic (ECON) model was flawed in that it did not
> > allow for the possibility that reusability--and incremental flight
> > testing--could actually reduce development costs. Rather, this
> > flawed economics model treated reusability as an add-on cost. IMO,
> > the far superior, fully reusable, Phase A designs could have been
> > developed for the same or less money spent on the partially reusable
> > design that became the Space Shuttle.
>
> Ic an see your point: If it is a different kind of beast, treat it
> different. However, I do not think you did answer the core of Dereks
> question: could it have been done right, the first time, with high
> flight rate etc.? (Ignoring if it would have taken more money or
> a different kind of leadership...)
>
> There ia no precursor to shuttle as a winged spaceship which actually
> flew. So, whichever approach would have been taken, a lot of new ground
> had to be covered. Could NASA and Rockwell(or whoever would have won)
> learned their lessons fast enough, so that shuttle would have been
> operational on time, fulfilling the promises?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Robert Kitzmueller

I'll try a somewhat different argument. I doubt that anyone would
seriously consider developing an airplane with a development program
that called for losing the aircraft with every test. I suspect that
the typical aircraft is more complex that the typical launch vehicle.
However, there is little doubt that launch vehicle programmatics are
typically far more complex that a low-rate production prototype
aircraft program.

Perhaps it is the development approach that is in question. Launch
systems have generally only considered test programs using expendable
vehicles--and the Shuttle falls much more into the expendable than
reusable category in this respect.

As George William Herbert points out, the Phase A boosters, at least,
might have allowed an incremental test program. George suggests that
difficulties with the upper stages could be delayed by using expendable
upper stages--which would likely be far smaller and cheaper than
expendable boosters.

I have generally tried to constrain all my space transport designs to
approaches that allow incremental flight testing and safe abort from
just about any point in the trajectory. The Space Shuttle does not
meet this standard.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... > That does not necessarily make it true of all reusable vehicles. ... > quite arguable that the shuttle is expensive not because it's partially ... So the shuttle is over three times more unsafe than Soyuz and more ... reusability has ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... >>> That does not necessarily make it true of all reusable vehicles. ... the shuttle is the only one we know anything about. ... >> Only because of the vast sums we throw at it at the expense of many ... reusability ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... > Infrastructure is something that costs more as it ages, ... have had a much higher flight rate. ... and a Shuttle II program might have been ... Reusability, or lack of reusability, isn't as important as flight ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... The shuttle program has cost tens of billions ... >> That does not necessarily make it true of all reusable vehicles. ... reusability has ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: An alternative to Orion/Constellation?
    ... Derek Lyons wrote: ... in expounding upon my responses, ... I'm now gravitating toward the view that the Titan III would have displaced it fairly quickly in the absence of the shuttle. ... but the more I study them the more I'm struck by the commonality of the design of the internal systems. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast