Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:14:59 -0400, in a place far, far away, Josh
Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>>>>OK, you're claiming that a Mars mission is impossible without heavy
>>>>lift. So it's either one piece, or two or three, but you obviously
>>>>don't believe that things can be affordably assembled in orbit.
>>>
>>>Why do you routinely remove the qualifiers from what I say?
>>
>>What qualifiers did I remove that change the point?
>
>I didn't say that a Mars mission using 20K launches was impossible,
>but /virtually/ impossible.

A point without a useful difference for this discussion. It's not
even "virtually" impossible. It's not even necessarily more
difficult.

> And I pointed out that it was more
>expensive to make several small launches, assemble the items in orbit,
>and deal with reliability problems than it is to use an HLV.

>This assumes that the HLV and 20K vehicles use similar technology, of
>course; if the price of the 20K launches could be brought down
>significantly with a new vehicle /and/ it weren't economically
>practical to build an HLV using comparable technology

That is, in fact the case.

>then I can see
>scenarios in which it might make more sense to use the smaller
>vehicle, if you could figure out a way to avoid making significant
>reliability and safety compromises.

>>>Experience suggests, though, that that would lead Congress and the
>>>White House to cut it down to a few again.
>>
>>What experience do we have with low-cost launch?
>
>None, but again -- what's achievable at this point, in a reasonable
>timeframe and assurance of success, with the financial resources we
>have?

Low-cost launch. It would cost no more to get it than NASA plans to
spend on their new high-cost launcher.

>Also, it's been pointed out that Congress doesn't understand
>utilization very well. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say
>that if you can launch two missions a year for $500 million and one
>mission a year for $450, Congress will cut you back to the one mission

One more reason that this has to be more market driven.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VonBraun and his crew
    ... The von Braun team always looked at it as a pretty hasty lash-up to get something that could put a good-sized payload into orbit in a hurry. ... In their heart-of-hearts what they probably wanted for a Saturn 1 first stage was something along the lines of a super-sized Jupiter with a single F-1 engine on its base. ... and there's going to be at least one orbital test of the CSM/LM combo in orbit before a Moon mission, so that's two more launches there...and a orbital flight of the CSM around the Moon ala' Apollo 8 - two more launches minimum. ... And if even one of the four launches fails for some reason on the lunar landing missions that whole mission gets scrubbed unless you have other Saturn 1Bs standing by to replace the payload the failed rocket was carrying. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: VonBraun and his crew
    ... Saturn 1 was a awfully large and complex rocket for the payload it could ... payload into orbit in a hurry. ... two more launches minimum. ... landing missions that whole mission gets scrubbed unless you have other ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: VonBraun and his crew
    ... payload into orbit in a hurry. ... In their heart-of-hearts what they probably wanted for a Saturn 1 first ... two more launches minimum. ... landing missions that whole mission gets scrubbed unless you have other ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... I didn't say that a Mars mission using 20K launches was impossible, ... it's been pointed out that Congress doesn't understand ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: EOR with Stick
    ... > Ed Kyle wrote: ... >> or three Stick launches could do an Early Lunar Access ... > also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS). ... > NASA's 2004 mission architectures called for use ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading