New Mars Forums

we can do many discussions about engines' costs but they are completely useless for two reason

1. we don't know the REAL costs of these parts

I read different prices on different forums/articles, also, we don't know if an expendable engine will cost less than a reusable one (and how much), if the engine can falls its price of 10, 20, 30 million (since it will be built in dozens units) or if its price will grows due to inflation, R&D costs, etc.

2. the low cost of the engines/tanks is NOT the main advantage/saving of the single-rocket-single-launch architecture

the MAIN advantages are: the giant saving of time to build one rocket instead of two, launch the first moon mission sooner, launch 50% more missions per year (and in total) with the same funds, etc.

and the GIANT money saving of the FAST-SLV (with 4-seg. SRB) don't come from the use of one or another engines, but from:

no CLV to build = 7-10 years of (part of the) NASA budget saved, $5 billion of the (base) R&D costs of the CLV, $2 billion of the (extra) R&D costs for the 5-segments SRB (that my FAST-SLV don't need), $300+ million of hardware, assembly, earth support, etc. multiplied by 20+ CLV launches, etc.

.

.

build a recoverable-engines-pod is NOT a bad idea (it was, first, developed by Boeing for a possible cargo-Shuttle)

but, of course, it is a technology that needs time and money to become safe and reliable

now, the best way is to use expendable engines for the CaLV (or SLV or FAST-SLV or DDHLV or something else)

the ("final"...) choice of NASA is the RS-68 (recent news) that costs $20M each

the expendable version of the SSME costs $40M each (recent news)

but, since the SSME is reusable, it was never built in many units

I think that, also the SSME, may cost less that $40M if it will be built in dozens units

however, the recoverable-engines-pod technology (that, now, is not the cheaper way to build a rocket) may be useful in future if space agencies or privates will build rockets bigger than CaLV (like a super-cargo rocket to build big space stations) and with many engines

.

the "different opinion" is (mainly) with GCNRevenger and (I suppose) with you

the other users/guests that read this thread may have other opinions about my proposal or (simply) want to read the different posts/replies about this argument

however, since I've already explained my proposal here and in my website, now I post only my replies to questions and critics about my idea

.

as explained in my article, the SLV can be used for mixed cargo+crew launches to the ISS (it's like launch one CEV and ten Progress with the same rocket)

This doesn't mean that it is the ONLY acceptable choice for a first stage engine.  Particularly if you do not recover the engine, it is extreamly costly.

if NASA builds the SLV the SSME is the only choice because it is already man-rated

the SSME costs more but not so much like the giant saving of time and money of the SLV

A role it was rejected for because it realy wasn't suited for it.  The SSME is an excellent cryogenic, recoverable, first stage engine.  If you need an engine that fits those requirments (like the shuttle) it is without a doubt the best choice.  I still think it could play an admirable job in our HLLV if it is recovered, especialy if it is paired with the SRB like it is in most designs.  It's playing essentialy the same role it does on the shuttle.  But it has to be recovered to be economical.

the SSME was rejected due to the time/costs problems to develop and air-started version

right, in my design the SSME is used exactly like with the shuttle

my proposal of FAST-SLV already is a big EELV that can be used to launch big satellites, probes, ISS' modules, etc.

recover the SSMEs adds saving but also many problems and risks (especially in the manned launches)

.

stop the Shuttle is only an extra-saving, the main saving come from build a single rocket in less time and with many ready available parts

I still meant even the dumb rocket with no payload...

the timeline to lauch the first (dumb-payload) FAST-SLV is similar to CLV but the FAST-SLV is the ONLY rocket to test, not the FIRST of two...

More redesign means more time and money...

true, redesign the tank/basket needs time and money... but not $17 Billion and 13 years, like design, build and test TWO and greatly NEW rockets

Again, SSME is not like an engine on "all rockets...

the SSME was the first choice for the SDHLV in the ESAS plan, then, it can work

All this means "FAST-SLV = SLOW-SLV"...

probably, but NEVER so slow (and expensive!) like build TWO rockets...

It will cost much more then simply copying the RS-68 assembly from Delta-IV...

do you sell the RS-68s?

Again, this savings is a lie...

no, because NASA must though build a rocket like the FAST-SLV: the CaLV

but, while the CaLV is the first of TWO rockets (= twice the costs) the SLV will be the ONLY rocket (= save money)

that risk isn't nessesarry...

all rockets and all missions are risky

Each SSME, not counting support hardware, costs almost $50M...

the figure I know is $60M each, but one FAST-SLV with FOUR expendable SSME may costs only $400 million of hardware

it's twice to-day's EELVs but the FAST-SLV can lift 110 mT !!!!

Its expensive BECAUSE its the same as Shuttle, not inexpensive...

each Shuttles' launch costs so much due to its maintenance and problems, not due to its hardware costs

.

the original timeline was:

1st CLV launch with dumb upper stage in 2008

1st CLV/CEV launch in orbit unmanned in 2011

1st CLV/CEV manned launch in 2012

1st CaLV test in 2017

1st moon mission in 2018

but, since the CEV choice has one year of delay and other delays will happen, I think that we must add 2+ years to all dates

the foam problem don't exist with the SLV or the FAST-SLV because...

1. the tank must be re-designed, then, the foam problem can be solved in the new design

2. the foam is dangerous for the side-mounted Shuttles and its wings and tiles, with the stacked design the foam can't damage nothing

no

not in my design of the FAST-SLV

I've not suggested this option for two reasons:

1. to avoid critics about complexity, risks, design problems, etc.

2. because the FAST-SLV already is so cheap (also with expendable SSME) and so fast to build (with a giant saving of time and R&D costs) that don't needs to add nothing

however, if NASA will build the FAST-SLV able to reach the orbit and retrieve the SSME for re-use (an idea developed over 10 years ago in a Boeing concept of a possible cargo-Shuttle), the further saving of money will be FANTASTIC !!!!!!!

NASA has 15 (already paid!) SSMEs (nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts) and all was designed to fly 50+ times

with these SSMEs, it's possible to build three reusable "baskets" with five engines each (or five baskets with three SSME) and use them to launch up to SIX FAST-SLV per year WITHOUT BUY ENGINES FOR THE NEW ROCKET !!!! (no RS-68s or new, expendable, SSMEs)

each FAST-SLV flight may costs only $200 million of hardware (two SRBs, one tank and fuel) while, the total money saved with the first 30 orbital/moon launches will be of $60 million x 5 x 30 = $9 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the FAST-SLV is a rocket (like THOUSANDS rockets already launched!), so, it CAN'T HAVE any new or complex problems to design, build and launch

by comparison with the Shuttle, the FAST-SLV can lift up to 110 mT in orbit with the 3-SSMEs design (but a 4-SSME with a redesigned tank and more fuel may be better)

no, because the hardware is the same of the Shuttles (SRB, SSME, launch pad, etc.), then, the first launch with dumb upper stage may happen in 2-3 years and the first unmanned launch in the same time of the CLV/CEV or less (since the FAST-SLV don't need the time and the money to design the 5-segments SRB)

this parallel program may be useful for cheaper orbital vehicles only to be used with the ISS

.

the tank would have to be modified but it don't need 15 years and $25 billion of R&D and tests like two new rockets

the engines' basket is LESS complex than to-day's Shuttle system, then, easy to design and build

the problem of SRB's leaking is solved from '87 but some additional modification can be made to be safer

110mT are sufficient but with one-two more SSME can be increased

about..."Uh, mission control, we set down 25km from our cargo vehicle. That would be within the range of the rover"... if NASA (with to-day's and 2020's technology) is not able to land exactly its vehicles on the moon, I suggest they move from space-travels to holidays' sea-travels, because, land the LSAM 25 km. away from planned site, means a big risk to lose the CREW, not the rover!

.

you're right

my drawing only explain a "CONCEPT" (see the note at the end of my article) since the payload, engines, etc. need a support

but this change can be made in one-two years, then, the "FAST-SLV" will be ready for its first test flight in 2007 !!!

the CLV needs 7 years (and $7 billion) to fly, while the CaLV needs 12 years (and $10 billion)

.

the article is interesting but it is about the heat shield of the CEV

the info I search is about man-rate rockets/engines to know the possible times, costs and procedures to manrate the SLV that I suggest to use for moon missions

however, man-rate the SLV may costs more only in the CaLV-like version, with 5-seg.SRB and RS-68, while, the SLV-light, that I suggest to use, with to-day's SRB and SSME, don't need so much time and money, since, the SRB and SSME, already are man-rated and have made 100+ successful (manned!) flight with the Shuttles!

.

.

about An under 1% chance of failure... this is only your optimistic evaluation (as CLV-fan), there are rockets that, in real launches, are not so reliable... we will see in next year...

about Six billion out of a... the evaluation may change and may be more or less, but, build two rockets (or two cars or two computers or two buildings, etc.) clearly costs TWICE (that mean LOTS of BILLION$$$$$$$$$$$$)

about And hey, only $300M for each CLV... NASA evaluates at $800M/year only the costs of the CLV structure (employers, etc.), no matter if the CLV will fly 1 or 10 per year... each CLV launch will probably cost more than $300M... we will see when it will fly

about "Idiot"... for missions' success and astronauts' safety it's "idiot" to have only one launch pad, it's better to have a second l.p. (if a failed test or unmanned launch damages the first)

some assembly structure can be reused for different vehicles but this is only the last part of rocket assembly, the single parts need (many) single factories

only takes 24hrs or so to roll a rocket to the launch pad... after all problems are solved (like to-day's Shuttles after 114 launches, not 10...)

two days for the CLV to be put into position, two days for checkout and fueling... in your dreams...

your timing is so "real" that NASA have changed the planned orbital LSAM/EDS loither time from 30 to 95 days (probably they know something more than you about assembly, launch, delays, etc.)

.

.

the DOUBLE risk of fail due to TWICE rockets' launches per mission + the risk of moon missions' fail due to a "sum of delays" of the second launch are NOT the only bad aspects of the 1.5 launch architecture

it is also VERY EXPENSIVE and will need more time to see the first launch!

with the SLV architecture, NASA may save:

$5 billion of (planned) R&D costs for the CLV

$2 billion of (announced) extra R&D costs for the 5-segments SRB (I suggest to build a smaller SLV with 4-seg. SRBs)

$6+ billion for the CLV "hardware" of the first 20 moon missions

$15+ billion of standard NASA budget (because they save 3 to 5 years of time and work before the first moon mission: 2015 instead of 2020)

$5+ billion of extra costs for a big 4-astronauts-SLV (with 5-seg. SRB, more engines and 33% bigger LSAM, SM, EDS, tanks, etc.) in the first 20 moon missions

also... NASA may save the costs of two launch pads, two specialized assembly and launch teams, two manufacturing lines and buildings, twice air and surface transport of parts, two assembly costs, two launches earth support, two SRB after-launch recovery-teams (and costs), etc. etc. etc.

not only NASA can make the first moon missions sooner (3 to 5 years BEFORE planned!!!) but, with the same VSE funds, they can make from +50% to TWICE moon missions!!!!!

.

about rocket will have a reliability... the main risk is not the reliability of the two rockets but the the sum of delays of the second launch

also, the 2nd stage CLV will have one J-2 derived engine (and only two in the CaLV 2nd stage) and in one of the 11 apollo missions (apollo13) the central J-2 of the 2nd stage failed, but the other 2nd stage engines of the SaturnV was sufficient for a good orbital insertion

unfortunately, the 2nd stage of the CLV will have only the "central" J-2x.............. (and the CaLV 2nd stage only two J-2x.... both indispensable!)

good luck CLV and CaLV! (and... good luck 12-only moon missions...!)

about It won't have any better emergency options after departure... I hope they will be right (for astronauts' life)

.