Re: Waiting for controversy...?

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:25:52 GMT, Monte Davis
<monte.davis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

But a robust, reusable 2STO launch vehicle could easily be
built in a few years, given (unlike Shuttle) realistic funding and
design parameters.

Let's see: for the Shuttle, as of 1970-71 NASA was looking for
~$11B... in 1972 got a commitment for about half that... and ended up
spending ~$10B by 1981.

NASA's NewStart inflation calculator tells me that $10B in 1976
(picking the year in the middle) should be about $40B as of 2010.
Is that your figure for "realistic" funding?

It would depend on the design parameters, especially payload size and
launch rate. IMO $20G would be enough to develop a robust and
reusable LFBB + orbiter system able to launch a 10T payload in a bay
the size of a standard 6m shipping container to LEO, for an order of
magnitude less per kilo in variable costs than Shuttle or expendables
by 2010.

Or are your "realistic"
design parameters so dazzlingly economical that this is going to be
funded out of, say, Virgin Galactic's annual net?

I don't believe private industry currently has a viable opportunity to
invest in launch technology, because there is too much government
(i.e., taxpayer) competition in the final market.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Waiting for controversy...?
    ... for the Shuttle, as of 1970-71 NASA was looking for ... design parameters so dazzlingly economical that this is going to be ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Waiting for controversy...?
    ... Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow ... for the Shuttle, as of 1970-71 NASA was looking for ... design parameters so dazzlingly economical that this is going to be ... You didn't adjust for the private/government cost factor. ...
    (sci.space.policy)