You are not logged in.
From Private industry a good or bad business model is a make or break when it comes to making profit.
Earlier today I had posted the cost of the External tanks and of the shuttle operations launch use figures came from another forum member.
This sparked my interest in trying to justify why we are using the shuttle and for the same point why the CEV is ultimately needed to replace it.
Yes some cludged together combinations of off the shelf and or clean slate design are being thought of by not only us on this board but also by real rocket makers.
Existing rockets we know in the delta and atlas for the lift of payload capability and of there approximate cost.
But does these make for a good business model for the private industry.
If any one knows more specific cost of pieces we could see if changes could be made to make rocketry costs lower. This could be done for each rocket in use and can be applied to others including the SDV, clean slate approach to the CEV and to others still yet to be thought of.
So lets run the numbers for the Shuttle.
Each orbiter vehicle cost to build a specific amount and are either amonitized or averaged per flight use. We at various points have had a max of 6 though we have lost 2 and one was never meant to fly leaving the remainder (3) to be used until retired.
Anybody know the cost of each to compile the data with?
Each when initially used most likely had new or reconditioned SRB motors per flight for the totals used so far of course times 2. In addition there has been changes made to there design due to oring leakeage when cold but also thrust enhancements as well over time.
Does any one know these cost per unit?
Each shuttle use get one External tank cost 40 million. Thou the tank has gone though changes to make it lighter over time. I dont know the cost saves or additional cost for having done these things.
Fuel and Oxidizer cost is probably been pretty constant but may have gone up in price over time like everything else for the most part does.
By time we have all the figures the best model will either show expendables or Re-usable to be the better for private business model to use I hope.
Offline
As Bwhite noted under the Might Shuttle C Topic if I can paraphase his comment correctly, Even bad management can change a good model into a poor or bad one. Not to mention funding like wise can also be just as damaging.
Offline
If any one knows more specific cost of pieces we could see if changes could be made to make rocketry costs lower. This could be done for each rocket in use and can be applied to others including the SDV, clean slate approach to the CEV and to others still yet to be thought of.
So lets run the numbers for the Shuttle.
Each orbiter vehicle cost to build a specific amount and are either amonitized or averaged per flight use. We at various points have had a max of 6 though we have lost 2 and one was never meant to fly leaving the remainder (3) to be used until retired.
Anybody know the cost of each to compile the data with?
Each when initially used most likely had new or reconditioned SRB motors per flight for the totals used so far of course times 2. In addition there has been changes made to there design due to oring leakeage when cold but also thrust enhancements as well over time.
Does any one know these cost per unit?
Each shuttle use get one External tank cost 40 million. Thou the tank has gone though changes to make it lighter over time. I dont know the cost saves or additional cost for having done these things.
I know the exact number, I'm giving you rough number on a few item as a starting point for the Shuttle. These are numbers that I remember reading and so are just a guestomate of the real numbers and don't account for inflation or any other factor.
The development cost for the Space Shuttle Orbiter was somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 billion dollars.
It cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.2 to 1.5 billion to build each individual Space Shuttle Orbiter.
The last Orbiter they build was a replacement for the one that blew up and it cost about one billion dollars. The reason that the cost was so low was, they still had spare parts and many of those spare parts when into building the replacement shuttle.
If we build another replacement shuttle to replace this one that blew up, it going to cost between 2 to 3 billion dollars to build and if we want any others after that it will cost 1.2 to 1.5 billion dollars. That because there going to have to retool and add any redesign for the new shuttles that we intend to buy.
It cost about 200 to 300 million dollars to launch one shuttle and they originally intended to six to eight a year. Which would give it about 2 to 3 billion dollars operating window for one year.
There are other cost that may have pushed up the cost of a shuttle launch per launch by another 100 to 200 million dollars and or budget cuts that compromised NASA launch schedule. Also inflation may have had an effect too, because shuttle have been flying for over 30 years and the price for sending up one shuttle has also double over the last 30 years.
Then you have to count the NASA pit crew at the Kennedy Space Center too, because the current design of Space Shuttle is a very high maintaince space ship and so has to have a large pit crew to keep it going. That pit crew is somewhere between 1,000 to 2,000 people and what it cost to keep them on the job, I don't knew. But, if we just take a fifty thousand dollar per person for the pit crew we are looking at 50 to 100 million dollars for the pit crew.
Now these numbers don't take into consideration of any of the technology improvement or upgrades or safety enhancement that you would want to do to keep the shuttle safe or improve the performances of this shuttle. These upgrades could cost millions to a billion or more for one or more upgrades or for a group of upgrades that need to be done for this shuttle.
This Shuttle was a compromise from other designs that they were looking at. Some of the other Shuttle designs would have cost lest to operate, but would have cost more to develop and so lost out to our current shuttle design because of development cost alone. So we got a shuttle that nobody wanted, but we got it because of the lower development cost.
**********************************************
For the new shuttle that they were planning if they continue with it will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 billion dollars.
I assume once developed that those shuttle will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 to 2 billion dollars a copy.
Supposedly there going to cost between 1/4 to 1/10 the cost of the present day shuttle to operate.
They were going to be a two shuttle design that looked more like Space Ship One and the White Knight configuration, but they would go higher up in the orbit than Space Ship One by almost 200 hundred miles so they could reach the ISS like the current shuttle does. You also would not need as big a pit crew to keep it running either. Also it would not have a cargo bay like the current shuttle has either and the cargo would be separated to a cargo system of some type.
That will give you some number to get started with as to what it cost and what it will cost to change to a new shuttle design. I didn’t go into the private sector space shuttles, because I don’t know the number and I don’t know there capability either.
Needless to say, space is an expensive place to work and do business or to build and run shuttle or even rockets.
Larry,
Offline
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shulelsa.htm
Somthing like this. Two-stage solutions offer superior performance if we are going to be stuck with subsonic airbreathing engines and chemical rockets (perhaps primitive Scramjets too) for a while, and winged/wheeled recovery is vital to limiting operational costs.
The "first stage" would be powerd by air-breathing engines up to low mach numbers up to 100,000 or so. Then, Liquid Oxygen and a little cooling fluid (water, liquid air perhaps) would be injected into the engines' intake to accelerate the stack up to low-hypersonic mach numbers to the edge of the atmosphere.
Then, the "second stage" would separate where the air is thin and ignite its Hydrogen/Oxygen rocket engines and enter orbit. The Hydrogen would be stored as a slush in composit tanks rather than a liquid, because the slush is much denser. Metallic aluminum powder could be added to increase specific impulse.
To minimize takeoff weight and to avoid the need for cryogenic mid-air refueling, the first stage carrier vehicle could be equipped with a device that liquifies and separates ambient air as the vehicle flies. So, the LOX needed to power both stages and possibly liquid nitrogen (if needed) to cool the first stage engines could be produced after takeoff en route. The lack of LOX onboard will make ground handling easier and limit the chance of ground explosion (only fire) compared to conventional jet aircraft.
Both stages would be designed for runway landing, but optimized for low reentry heating rather than high cross-range like Shuttle (that the USAF demanded), and the silica tile madness abandoned. With no serious debries hazards during launch, strengthend RCC pannels would suffice for the nose and leading edge of the upper stage. The Slush Hydrogen/LOX engines on the upper stage would be built new, and designed in such a fasion that they WILL operate reliably enough for multiple flights without signifigant inspection.
Two versions of the upper stage would be built; both models sharing identical mold lines, rocket engines, landing gear, main TPS, guidence, jet engines for post-reentry loiter, and lower stage mating clamps:
One which is built without a crew compartment and would operate completly unmanned to maximize payload bay size/mass and not risk people for mundane cargo launches. The cargo bay could be outfitted with a large cryogenic fuel tank for use as an orbital tanker or a stretch version of the MPLM pressurized cargo module for "softer" payloads. LOX and LH2 payloads could be shipped separatly to mitigate the chance of ground explosion.
And a second version that spares no mass expense to maximize safety. A hardend crew compartment which doubles as escape pod that is itself reentry-capable would be in place of the forward portion of the cargo bay & nose, and an extra-wide airlock coverd with doors just to the rear of the compartmentfacing upwards. Telescoping docking collar for docking standard, of course.
____
Ultimatly, the idea is to use our experience with high-speed jet aircraft and their superior efficency to reduce the size of a chemical rocket powerd vehicle and the risks associated therein to a vehicle of fairly small size and gentler dynamics (less thrust, smaller fuel tankage, glide abort/reentry etc). The technology for all this is available... combined-cycle jet engines, ceramic/metalic TPS, advanced reuseable cryogenic engines, advanced supersonic aircraft design, advanced composit structures & tankage, perhaps a midair LOX plant... The pricetag would be high, $20-30Bn, but the extremely low operational cost would be orders of magnetude better than expendable rockets from any nation.
There are therefore two questions...
How big does it need to be?
Seats four? Six? Twelve? Twenty?
Carry 8MT? 12MT? 20MT? 40MT?
What do you intend to do with it?
ISS flights are definatly way overkill...
Not enough satelites to fly to make money that way...
Way too big of an investment for tourist flights...
Huge development cost requires many many flights for economy...
Build new super space stations?
Build Moon/Mars ships?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
The pricetag would be high, $20-30Bn, but the extremely low operational cost would be orders of magnetude better than expendable rockets from any nation.
You should know that the price tag for operation of things like this is always much too optimistic. The reason for this is, of coarse, that an optimistic cost estimate means that it will have a better chance of being funded.
What do you intend to do with it?
ISS flights are definatly way overkill...
Not enough satelites to fly to make money that way...
Way too big of an investment for tourist flights...
Huge development cost requires many many flights for economy...
Build new super space stations?
Build Moon/Mars ships?
This is a big problem for any reusable launcher, and one of the main reasons why expendables are still cheaper. When the Space Shuttle was being proposed, it was estimated that it would require around 30 flights each year to break even with the Titan IV in costs. NASA decision makers believed that the shuttle would end up launching about that many payloads by launching a large number of Air Force and commercial payloads in addition to NASA payloads. Whether the shuttle would have been competitive with expendables even with the expected flight rate is debatable, but in the end the Air Force bailed out, most commercial satellites are being sent to GEO, and there are not as many NASA payloads as expected. The shuttle currently launches 4-8 times a year (when it is not grounded), and that is not nearly enough for it to be economical.
I wouldn't even consider using an RLV unless I could guarantee a launch rate approaching the 30/year figure that was anticipated for the shuttle.
Offline
There are therefore two questions...
How big does it need to be?
Seats four? Six? Twelve? Twenty?
Carry 8MT? 12MT? 20MT? 40MT?What do you intend to do with it?
ISS flights are definatly way overkill...
Not enough satelites to fly to make money that way...
Way too big of an investment for tourist flights...
Huge development cost requires many many flights for economy...
Build new super space stations?
Build Moon/Mars ships?
Those are good question.
But, I would add a few questions to the issue.
Do we want to develop space or do we want it profitable?
You can't have it both way, because if you make it small enough to make it profitable, you will have to give up the heavy buster and the air line idea of going into space, your going to have a problem developing or colonizing space. This capacity will be need if we intend to build colonies on the moon, Mars or any of the asteroids. That means we are going to have to have somebody taking the hit to develop space and it not going to be private enterprise that will take the hit, because they will go out of business. Also your going to have to create a market for space for venture in space for private companies even for the smaller space ships.
So do we want the bigger space craft for NASA as to passenger carrier and cargo so we get the heavy launcher and passenger carriers as a place holder or doing future development in space?
And Would we want to leave the smaller space craft to private venture for servicing the ISS after we finish upgrading it and/or Hubbell Space Telescope and other such projects to private companies?
So we may decide we need four version to cover the different choices that we want to make. There is no point in hunting rabbit with an Elephant gun or hunting Elephants with a bee bee Gun. So we are in a catch 22 or on the horns of a dilemma as to what we want to do.
Larry,
Offline
The pricetag would be high, $20-30Bn, but the extremely low operational cost would be orders of magnetude better than expendable rockets from any nation.
You should know that the price tag for operation of things like this is always much too optimistic. The reason for this is, of coarse, that an optimistic cost estimate means that it will have a better chance of being funded.
What do you intend to do with it?
ISS flights are definatly way overkill...
Not enough satelites to fly to make money that way...
Way too big of an investment for tourist flights...
Huge development cost requires many many flights for economy...
Build new super space stations?
Build Moon/Mars ships?This is a big problem for any reusable launcher, and one of the main reasons why expendables are still cheaper. When the Space Shuttle was being proposed, it was estimated that it would require around 30 flights each year to break even with the Titan IV in costs. NASA decision makers believed that the shuttle would end up launching about that many payloads by launching a large number of Air Force and commercial payloads in addition to NASA payloads. Whether the shuttle would have been competitive with expendables even with the expected flight rate is debatable, but in the end the Air Force bailed out, most commercial satellites are being sent to GEO, and there are not as many NASA payloads as expected. The shuttle currently launches 4-8 times a year (when it is not grounded), and that is not nearly enough for it to be economical.
I wouldn't even consider using an RLV unless I could guarantee a launch rate approaching the 30/year figure that was anticipated for the shuttle.
But, assuming that your right that it will be cheaper in the short run to use a proven rockets design for our access to space, which it probably will be.
The question is do we want to limit our access to space on price alone and not develop new technologies that are more expensive, but will eventually open up space to mankind?
The Space Shuttle Orbiter was only a first effort to crack the barrier between rockets and going a complete shuttle design to space. It might take two or three more generation of shuttle and developing technologies to fully make the transition to a fully integrated one piece shuttle design that is comparable to one use rocket and then buy another rocket type design.
Which ever decision we make will either promote or retard space development and colonization. If we go cheap, we will tend to retard space development and colonization, because we will stay with rocket, which will by nature have a limiting quality about them. But, if we go the expensive rout, we will need a sugar daddy to fund the operation to develop those shuttle that will open up space. The only sugar daddy big enough to finance something like that is the one that sent up to the moon.
So going the cheapest rout may not be the best rout for what we want to do in space and may even be counter productive also, because we will choose to go in the wrong direction for developing space. As long as we stay with rocket, it will be for primarily astronauts and engineers with most of the rest of us left out of the picture as far as to having access to space. The rocket design or the Space Shuttle Orbiter will never fully get out of being a laboratory test vehicle to being used like air lines of today for flying from one city to the next or overseas.
Larry,
Offline
You should know that the price tag for operation of things like this is always much too optimistic. The reason for this is, of coarse, that an optimistic cost estimate means that it will have a better chance of being funded.
This is a big problem for any reusable launcher, and one of the main reasons why expendables are still cheaper. When the Space Shuttle was being proposed, it was estimated that it would require around 30 flights each year to break even with the Titan IV in costs. NASA decision makers believed that the shuttle would end up launching about that many payloads by launching a large number of Air Force and commercial payloads in addition to NASA payloads...
I wouldn't even consider using an RLV unless I could guarantee a launch rate approaching the 30/year figure
I think that the costs can be controlled to the $20-30Bn range, depending on how large of a vehicle is desired. So much of the technology involved would not have to be new, that its a question more of managing the development than developing the technology as with Shuttle.
As for a high flight rate needed to access the economies of scale of a true RLV, thats pretty obvious. I think that a destination or reason that demands order-of-magnetude improvement in launch costs or vastly increased flight rate (people moving & supplying) will be needed to justify making an RLV... And right now, since we aren't flying much very often, even under VSE, expendable or partialy expendable rockets are obviously the best choice.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Let's simplify your question a bit, GCNRevenger, and just ask whether we want a reusable shuttle able to put 12 tonnes into LEO or one able to put 25 tonnes instead. If we get a sense of advantages and disadvantages of each size, maybe we can refine the question.
12 tonnes can launch:
1 normal satellite designed for geosynchronous orbit, including booster stage.
almost any wheeled vehicle we can imagine for use on the lunar and martian surfaces.
small surface habs and inflatable orbit modules
How many tourists, if you assume a vehicle with maximum safety features?
24 tonnes can launch:
A pair of geosynchronous satellites (a common arrangement nowadays)
Fuel stages of decent size, especially liquid hydrogen tanks (12 tonnes to LEO would require a lot of assembly; liquid hydrogen being very low in density, tanks become a major fraction of the total launch mass at smaller sizes)
Orbital habs of a reasonable size
Mars Direct spacecraft (fuel, booster stages, and landing stages require extra launches).
Heavy earth-moving (regolith-moving?) equipment and large industrial units
More tourists per shot; but how many?
GCNRevenger, have you any way to guess the number of tourists one could launch in 12-tonne and 24-tonne vehicles? These would have launch escape systems and hardened cabins, I suppose. This is a key consideration; if the market can bear six tourists to orbit per week, we may prefer a weekly launch with a smaller vehicle to a twice-monthly launch with a bigger vehicle. If the market is even smaller, we'd want the smaller vehicle.
What is the cost per launch we are looking at? It's hard to guess, but that's a crucial guess as well. If the vehicle can launch 12 tonnes and costs 12 million per launch, that's $1,000 per kilogram. If it can launch a crew plus rwelve tourists, that's $1 million per tourist (double the price with other costs and profit, though).
Are there other sizes we should consider, such as 6 tonnes or 36 tonnes? I'm trying to keep the increments large.
-- RobS
Offline
What GCNRevenger is discussing is a two stage spaceplane, which has been planned by a couple of companies/organisations here is there cargo and passenger capacity planned.
MBB Sanger
this was a Junkers design first proposed in the 1960's and was continually developed into the 90's.
Sanger was fueled by two stages both using hydrogen fuel and the first stage to save cost could also be used as a high priority cargo carrier. Sanger would seperate at Mach 7 and was due to carry 36 passengers cargo about 5 tonnes and cost about $400,000 a flight. Development cost was to be about $17 billion.
Bristol spaceplanes Spacebus
This a more modern design and is again 2 stages.
The fuel used for the lower stage is kerosene and only at the end of the run does it use rockets to accelerate. The second stage was to carry 50 passengers and again 5 tonnes cargo and at $250,000 a flight.
It also could use the lower stage to deliver high priority cargo.
Development cost again is about the $17 billion.
These though are designs for delivering high numbers to earth orbit, and it is unlikely short of tourism that these numbers are needed unless heavy utilisation of space is initialised. I do not think the safety options inbuilt meet GCNRevengers escape pod as they are more like airliners than the spaceshuttle. I like the idea of being able to recue the whole passenger compartment but I have to ask.
How much to make it.
How many passenger spaces will it take
If we insist upon it will it stop space utilisation for years
Oh one thing to note space planes are only effective if they are part of a full spectrum of space launch capacity. Ie this means Heavy launcher and space station to go to.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
No, the Saenger nor SpaceBus would have much in the way of escape or emergency reentry hardening, though I am wondering how practical an "escape pod" is... Perhaps make the crew compartment and the nose in one structure out of more conventional materials, but configure it so it could separate from the rear airlock and deploy an inflatable heat shield from the rear of the compartment and an emergency parachute(s) from the nose section. Kind of a super-duper stretch capsule, with the passengers riding backs-down, but it would require a 180 degree reorient. Another possibility, design the crew compartment & nose structure to be like the Lockheed OSP concept, a "semiballistic lifting body reentry sled," with folding wing-lets that conform to the shape of the escape pod for easier separation. Theoreticly capable of reentering unpowerd safely.
As for the size, I think it safe to talk about crew sized in the 8-12 range for the smaller model, and 12-20 region for the larger one. I don't see any vehicle with under about 10MT of cargo capacity being worthwhile, and one that carries more than 25MT will get awfully big.
The chicken/egg problem is back in full force, and I don't think that such a vehicle will ever be built prior to a grand vision or grand project or grand need for an order of magnetude reduction in launch costs... and the solution to such need would be to build a spaceplane. I think it safe to discuss an order of magnetude reduction in launch cost per-kilo, like the Lite version weighing in at under $10M a flight and the Heavy version in the under $20M per flight.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
In order to make space more afforable for humanflight, the space vessels (orbiters) and the support facilities must be run at a reasonable cost, currently we are build hand-made spacecrafts, we need to smaller modular designed vehicles ( 1/2 or 1/3 of the current space shuttle ) that we can build in mass production, using the same hull design for both unmanned cargo transports to space stations and crew movements for government and private sector. Target price $ 350-600 MB per orbiter depending on internal features. with 60+ launches before maintenance. Limited ground crew, Automatic Hangar Structural Scanning Systems to detect faults, reducing Mainteance hours and downtime.
We could design variations for launching from vertical launch boosters to horizonital high altitude reusable transporter, and the launch boosters could be used in lifting large components into orbit at 40-60 tons.
Because we are creating more and smaller ones, the overall cost will be down, based on aircraft and motor vehicle assembly production. We could also develop a sub-orbital variation for high-speed transport across the world from any airport.
Offline
Some would laugh at the attempt by the Privately Funded Falcon-1 Rocket Nears First Flight but I for see this as a step to get Nasa and the big guy's to start thinking of ways to lower cost access to space.
Offline
The intent of my thread was to give a cost based analysis as to what should be the avenue of choice. What should be the cheaper heavy lift launcher developement and manufacturing cost to create infrastructure for the future. Based on the current rockets as models for what not to do.
Large protoype design cost and over runs
Cost over runs to solidly consistant manufacturing of expendable rocket designs
Cost over runs for refurbishment of re-usable craft designs
Operations launch cost
Workfare when staff is not really working but is idle
Questions for those that know more about the Lockheed and of Boeing rockets.
Does either launch there own rockets for profit?
What is there work staff base for carrying on these facets of infrastruture?
From earlier in another thread using the RD-170 versus the F1 of the Saturn is a good choice for a first stage engine.
This sort of sound like a Saturn 1 or V re-du derivative only modernized for a business model using what is a close match for the old specification.
Offline
In order to make space more afforable for humanflight, the space vessels (orbiters) and the support facilities must be run at a reasonable cost, currently we are build hand-made spacecrafts, we need to smaller modular designed vehicles ( 1/2 or 1/3 of the current space shuttle ) that we can build in mass production, using the same hull design for both unmanned cargo transports to space stations and crew movements for government and private sector. Target price $ 350-600 MB per orbiter depending on internal features. with 60+ launches before maintenance. Limited ground crew, Automatic Hangar Structural Scanning Systems to detect faults, reducing Mainteance hours and downtime.
We could design variations for launching from vertical launch boosters to horizonital high altitude reusable transporter, and the launch boosters could be used in lifting large components into orbit at 40-60 tons.
Because we are creating more and smaller ones, the overall cost will be down, based on aircraft and motor vehicle assembly production. We could also develop a sub-orbital variation for high-speed transport across the world from any airport.
We hand-build spacecraft because it doesn't make sense to make a robot assembly line if you aren't going to build less than 100's of them, its better just to let engineers do it by hand, its cheaper. If a hypothetical spaceplane is going to have a 1-2 week (maybe less!) turn around, then it doesn't make sense to build 100's of vehicles when there isn't going to be a demand.
Also, sending up very large objects in tiny (under 20-25MT) bite-size pieces doesn't make good sense either, since assembly is hard not easy and the larger the object, the more volume it has per-mass. 10MT might be enough to haul up liquid oxygen in thimble-full quantities or a few tons of LH2 (tank volume limitation), but you are going to waste alot of payload to extra tankage. A very-very small ship tailored for people might also be just too small for payloads of any sort.
I think that verticle launch ought to be abandoned; even if it would make a 25MT spaceplane carry 40MT to orbit, it would be cheaper just to fly it twice rather than to throw away a booster rocket. It would require some big-time design concessions for it to work too. The whole idea is to make a large medium-high altitude mid-supersonic airplane that carries a rocket powerd orbiter launched and recoverd by runway. The carrier plane, with the LOX tanks deleted and such, could be a supersonic airliner for specialty payloads.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
You are right if the price per unit is not effected by building by an assembly line process though automation versus by hand for a fix quantity of build. But that is just part of the problem is that high cost of build.
Offline
I think the issue is the development of launch vehicles for different activities. It depends on the goals and objectives for the launch vehicle and duration of life of the vehicle.
The next is the fuel mix, most of the fuel is blasted back onto earth for LEOs, So if we use Hydrogen / Oxygen mix then we can refuel and refuel. Secondly the base designs could be with or without heatshields or crew compartments, or small - large cargo spaces, But the outer design is still the same.
GCVRevenger,
The Assembly Factory can be used to build variation models, for all countries of this world. We could have the same volume as aircrafts in the sky, as in space. ( not hundreds -100s but thousands - 1000s ) All future spacecrafts for 60+ missions, at the same time we need to lower costs for design, building / assembly, launching, flight operations, recovery, maintenance, and storage.
Therefore, does rockets fit, reusability standard of multiple launch if you can do that then do it, but not then not use them, develop the next generation in reusable launch vehicles.
Offline
The goal of the vehicle is to carry useful quantities of people (6-12+) or payload (10-20MT) into orbit many (20+) times a year for several years an order of magnetude cheaper per-flight than expendable launch vehicles, and to do this with a minimum of overhead costs (runway launch & landing, airliner like processing, no mid-air refueling) even at the expense of high one-time development costs.
The fuels have already been discussed. Takeoff by combined-cycle jet/ramjet burning air+kerosene then moving up to 100,000ft at low mach numbers, followed by injecting liquid air or LOX+water along with kerosene into the Ramjet to reach ~200,000ft+ and mach 5-6, followed by upper stage separation and ignition of its LOX/slush H2 rocket to enter orbit.
The first persons to come up with a totally reuseable vehicle this robust would obviously corner the much of the global nonmilitary (and some of it) launch market... As for countries able to BUY it, I don't know about that, since it would make a dandy unstopable hypersonic bomber too.
The idea of hundreds and thousands of these being built in the near to mid term future is not really credible, there just isn't any need for it... The entire global market into the forseeable future could be coverd by only a dozen true medium RLVs, and as such an automated assembly line for them would be worthless.
If I read you right, are you talking about using an expendable upper stage to leverage the reuseability of the lower stage before the upper is developed?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
GCNRevenger,
I agree in many of your thoughts, but the design is out there it was designed as part of the original shuttle variations, and also lately in various sci-fi programs. Many of the designs in scifi have reached reality, including some command centres, for disaster and security industries.
I just think that we need to visit these designs, in the shows and then work them into reality with exact measures and see if they would work for the purposes required.
We need a space vessel (orbiter) that could launch and land on a normal airport, using current technology for up to 6-12 crew and we can launch multiple launches per week, also the expansion of space platforms would require alot of humanflight vessels (orbiters) for corporations to own and manage themselves.
Variation (v) of the orbiter would be a cargo transport and could be used to bring cargo from earth to the platform and back from platform. VT-1 Crew only up to 12; VT-2 unmanned +Cargo x 12; VT-3 Crew of 2 + Cargo x 10; VT-4 Crew of 4 + Cargo x 8; VT-5 Crew of 6 + Cargo x 6. That would allow coman crew changes, or scientific crew changes and resupply with low crew or unmanned vechicles.
Also you can develop a replacement of the orbiter with a one-way cargo transport for larger components including space station modules, for larger platform components the next level of launch vehicles would be used.
The orbiter replacement is only for humans in space, but using the available vehicle types they would have a low ground crew and also rapid response cycle for emergencies in space.
Offline
Bwhite supplied a link to the Futron Corporation Space Transportation Costs: http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf
Offline
Found on the Futron site a history of the X-33 or the OSP project.
Offline
Also on the Futron sire is a study on the Orbital Space Travel & Destinations with Suborbital Space Travel.
Offline
I don't know if even an order of magnetude reduction in the cost of launch is going to permit a huge "space goldrush" that will require a vehicle to turn around in days or hours... I think that a week or two between flights per vehicle is quite reasonable. Since the orbiters might stay up a few days, you could even get by with more orbiters than carrier planes.
The idea of carrying heavy cargo AND people on the same flight is a terrible one considering how good unmanned airplanes are now. This way, the cargo vehicles can be built to haul the maximum of volume and the maximum of mass, and people can be carried in maximum safety. Trying to do both with one vehicle will make it do either one poorly, like Shuttle is today. Also, making the vehicles of standard size and not many variations will keep manufacturing and maintenance costs down too. Don't go overboard with varients, make two sizes of carrier planes, four orbiters (one small and large manned and unmanned each), and an expendable upper stage for optional heavier launch.
And statisticly, sooner or later one of these vehicles are going to fail and explode. It is going to happen. So, the fewer flights that carry people, the less chance of people dying.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
As I noted elsewhere Falcon rocket rides slow road toward flight SpaceX deals with hurdles associated
with engine and environmental rules
Offline
Boeing delays first launch of Delta 4 Heavy rocket
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/ … delta4.htm
May if we wait long enough India can help with one of the vehicles used as a derivative.
India designs next generation launch vehicle GSLV-MkIII, a heavier lift launcher that would meet the four tonne class communication satellite requirements, the new generation vehicle which would be developed by ISRO by 2007-2008.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_962531,0008.htm
Offline