Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- From: simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:07:04 GMT
On 24 Jun 2005 11:00:35 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
<edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> >120 tonnes, if correct, implies something more powerful
>> >than the standard two-SRB in-line concepts that have
>> >floated around for so many years. It means five-segment
>> >SRBs at least. It means no RS-68s. It means at least
>> >four SSMEs with maybe a fifth thrown in as an upper stage
>> >engine. It means that this thing will be an
>> >all-expendable launcher that will have near-Saturn V
>> >lifting ability.
>>
>> Sounds like a marginal cost of a quarter of a billion, at least.
>
>And a lot of development effort and cost. A new
>launcher of this type won't fly until 2015 or so.
I'm not sure why it would have to take that long. It's actually a
pretty straightforward development.
>Once operational, NASA probably will only be able
>to launch 2-3 of these each year.
Making average cost more like a billion or so. But that's about the
flight rate, and activity level, that they seem to have in mind. I
can't imagine how they think that so much money for so little activity
is either affordable, or sustainable.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- References:
- It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- From: Ed Kyle
- It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- Prev by Date: Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- Next by Date: Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- Previous by thread: Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- Next by thread: Re: It's In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|