Re: Establish demand

kT wrote:

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.

Other than perhaps Atlas, can you name some?

> 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.

Scattered across various orbits, at various times. You want to expend more propellant to gather it all to a useful location?

> 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.

Will your guests be launched on these expendables?

Similar things were proposed for the shuttle ET, but it didn't consider how fast any possible market would be saturated. Or wht would happen when the next vehicle eventually came along that didn't use a big ET. (And not all your upper stages are a useful volume, either)

The unused engines can be easily returned to Earth to be reused again.

By what means?

Logic is great, isn't it? Let's consider launch. Single stage to orbit is basically a glorified large upper stage.

Why?

> 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?

We prefer reality? And to think things through?

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"No matter how big or soft or warm your bed is, you still have to get out of it."
- Grace Slick
.