Re: Establish demand

Totorkon wrote:

If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.

I've already explained to you in great detail over and over again Tork.

First of all, there will always be a demand for oxygen and fresh water, anywhere and anytime, and anyone who claims otherwise is a crackpot.

Secondly, to establish demand for anything you have to have a product and a means of transporting that product to market. Thus, by simple logical deduction you need a prototype. In order to waive a great deal of the development costs, it is a rational approach to use an existing variation on existing products and markets. In space that means building your prototype out of existing engines and tank technology. Since demonstrably we do not yet have RLV technology, the rational approach indicated that we should first attempt less ambitious variations of existing ELV techniques, for instance, recovery of the first stages, demonstration of cryogenic expendable single stage to orbit, etc.

Now lets get into details. Rocket stages are fragile. They break when even just slightly dented. Ok, let's forget stage recovery. What about stage reuse in orbit? We already have a demonstrable upper stage orbital debris problem, so let's focus on that. For instance, when man rated EELVs dock with the space station, they already include the upper stage as payload, particularly with high energy cryogenic upper stages. Those stages often contain significant amounts of residual fuel, oxygen and hydrogen which is easily converted to water. Thus we have our oxygen to breathe, hydrogen for propellant, and water to drink and grow plants. There then remains the engines, which clearly can be reused in any ambitious deep space exploration program, and the hydrogen tank, which is large enough in any case to be converted to habitat and hotel rooms. The unused engines can be easily returned to Earth to be reused again.

Logic is great, isn't it? Let's consider launch. Single stage to orbit is basically a glorified large upper stage. Thus, the payload (engines, tankage, residual fuel, payload and infrastructure) is always readily available as product demonstrably in demand at any orbital spaceport. The large orbiting cryogenic tankage for all purposes is the spaceport.

I've gone through all of the demonstrable benefits of cryogenic SSTO and TSTO space flight. Now tell me, what the *** is wrong with you people?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.

Quantcast