Re: What else could you do with the Stick?


Brian Thorn wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2005 19:07:45 -0800, lifeform1@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >> Atlas 5: Engines built in Russia, a country happily selling weapons
> >> technology to Iran, a country which proudly proclaims it wants to wipe
> >> America (and Israel) off the "face of the map". Its future is shaky,
> >> to say the least.
> >
> >But in the present, it exists, does it not?
>
> Irrelevant. Five years from now, the odds are 50/50 at best.

Wow, you prefer some vague hazy unsubstatiated future prediction over
empirical reality of the present.

> >Wow, Russia : our international space partners, no less!
>
> ...who still won't tell us what the hell happened on Soyuz TMA-6...
> who announced that our astronaut on ISS doesn't have a ride home
> unless America pays up... who haven't bent metal for any of their
> promised Space Station modules since Piers... and of yes, proclaim
> they fully support Iran's nuclear program. Don't ya just love 'em?

I fail to see the relevence to launch costs and ISS life support.

> >> Delta IV: More politically viable, but doomed to commercial failure by
> >> its high cost and now being kept alive solely by the government. It
> >> would be gone by now, except for Atlas 5's annoying dependence on the
> >> Russians.
> >
> >Wow, a brand new cryogenic rocket, with a brand new launch pad, and a
> >factory sitting idle capable of producing 18 to 24 Delta IV Mediums a
> >year
>
> ...and Boeing manage to get funded only because they stole LockMart
> pricing data to "win" the government contract, and can't sell a one of
> 'em today except to said government, which is only buying it because
> they don't dare be dependent on the Russians for space access.

I also fail to see any relevence to launch vehicle performance.

> Hoo boy! Now THAT's a testimonial!

Whatever it is, it isn't rocket science.

> >> Stick: Partly reusable, more powerful than either EELV's largest
> >> variant, much more expensive than Atlas 5, but not a lot more
> >> expensive than Delta IV-Heavy.
> >
> >Schtick : Does not exist, will take 10 billion dollars to develop,
> >heavy lift variant proposes to throw away SSMEs,
>
> There's only one Stick variant, and yes it uses SSME. If you have that
> basic premise wrong, why again should I accept your assertions about
> it?

It comes with I program I fully intend to actively get cancelled.

> >the upper stage of
> >which will use 25 year old engines.
>
> Hardly. The engines have been redesigned in the past ten years with
> new turbopumps that weren't even from the original manufacturer (even
> before the new manufacturer bought out the old one). What's the
> problem? You prefer the heavier, much lower thrust-to-weight RS-68, or
> do you not care where the engines come from as long as their cheap?

No, I have nothing against the SSME, I fully intend to fly them well
into the future, it's the throwing away and shipping all the way to
UTAH thing I have against the ESAS. I generally think SRBs are
primitive ape man technology, and certainly their continued use won't
improve reliability, launch costs or technology.
>
> Just asking if you care that some of your tax dollars are working
> their way to Iran to help them wipe us "off the face of the map"...
>
> >That is so coo! What I really think
> >is great about it, is the fact that the SRBs have to be shipped all the
> >way to UTAH and back to be reused.
>
> Oh yeah, freight trains... someday we'll make them cost effective.
> That day was sometime in 1852, I think...

As opposed to say, an SSTO/RLV.

> I suppose you prefer the boat Delta IV arrives in? Or the C-5 that
> hauls in Atlas 5s? Boats. Planes. Trains. Guess which one carries the
> most freight in the US.

I prefer the boat. It would be even better to manufacture the rockets
at the launch site.

> >That will surely reduce launch costs in the future!
>
> Yeah, like EELV has done so much in that effort. Two! Two EELVs for
> the price of... er, the two LVs they replaced.

They're better than the shuttle, and I have a lot of missions I need to
fly on the shuttle.

> >> If you were to cancel one of these, it isn't immediately obvious to me
> >> that it should be the Stick.
> >
> >Well, just offhand, I propose cancelling the one that doesn't exist,
>
> Ah yes, the thinking that left us stuck with Titan IV for 15 years...

It's over, get over it.

> >that doesn't promise to reduce launch costs,
>
> Damn. You've cancelled all of them. Lets hope Falcon works. Oh wait,
> Falcon 5/9 don't exist yet, either, so we can't mention them...

Now you're catching on.

> >and perhaps we should use
> >the ones that do exist, do not require additional development costs,
> >and are currently sitting idle. Now which ones would those be?
>
> They're sitting idle for a reason. If the government is going to keep
> at least one of them afloat (and they will) how about picking the one
> that gets us the most bang for the buck and doesn't leave us begging
> the Russians to please sell us some more of those fancy engines?

Back to the Future again, eh?

> >In the future, I also propose that we concentrate on 1) life support 2)
> >reducing launch costs. You know, the cart and the horse thing.
>
> CEV doesn't need radical new life support technology for its basic
> mission (Space Station and Lunar Expeditions). Moonbase will, but
> that's 2020 or later, we can start on that after Shuttle retires in
> 2010 and still have a decade to make it happen. Mars will too, but
> that's even farther down the road.

I will do everything in my power to CANCEL VSE and ESAS.

> Reducing launch costs isn't the be-all and end-all of spaceflight.
> Payload costs typically dominate total mission costs even now.

No, VSE and ESAS is the end of spaceflight, in America, at least.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SPACE PRIZE
    ... are you saying we can still make progress without ever developing ... > In the case of launch costs, yes, since it isn't a lack of technology ... So what makes the cost high? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: SPACE PRIZE
    ... are you saying we can still make progress without ever developing ... In the case of launch costs, yes, since it isn't a lack of technology ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading