You are not logged in.
...Simple Newtonian mechanics...
please... don't say to Prof. Isaac Newton you forget that CaLV/SLV's SRBs will be jettisoned at ~45km. ...and that its "empty dry mass" will never reach the orbit, but falls in the ocean...
also... don't say him that 3 SSMEs have 700,000 kbf of thrust in the vacuum... (maybe... he will say you my evaluation is right... and you're wrong...)
...isn't that much about simple engines that needs controlling...
engines will be only part of the CLV/CEV/SM system
I think you must only need to wait to SEE the REAL (and very complex) electronics/smart-sensors/computers that "system" will have!
...chemicals, materials, and techniques to make rockets haven't changed a whole lot in 50 years...
you're right, a solid rocket is very much simpler than a cellular phone and exists from many years
then, an SRB-like solid booster is the "perfect (mature) product" that many aerospace companies can easily manufacture in competition to fall its unit cost (maybe) under $10M in next 10 years to become very cheap within 2015, when the Super SLV will starts its launches!!!
...if companies can't make lots of money, then they can't afford to build space ships...
that was true only for the past "space-monopolies" age!
but to-day (and much more in the future!) there are many countries/companies able to design/build/sell/launch new rockets/vehicles/engines/parts at quickly falling prices
probaly your "CLV-love" keeps you away from realty...
NASA isn't modifying the four-segment...
NASA engineers will do the things they need, then, if they will evaluate and find as "better" an expendable-SRB, they will buy/use them!
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
"SRBs will be jettisoned at ~45km. ...and that its "empty dry mass" will never reach the orbit"
Irrelivent, the early phases of flight are when the most fuel needs to be burned to counteract gravity, which is why the boosters are jettisoned early, because they have good thrust but poor fuel efficiency. After you have some altitude, then gravity-countering is less important as efficiency, so then hydrogen engines are better. Makes essentially no difference, since your rocket is weighed down during the time when it burns the most fuel. And it doesn't eliminate the mass of the structural adapter to use short boosters on stretched tanks.
"I think you must only need to wait to SEE the REAL (and very complex) electronics/smart-sensors/ computers that "system" will have!"
How will it be complex? Delta-IV and Atlas-V aren't all that complex, even moreso with their liquid fueled first stage. Come on, tell me, why will it be so much worse? Put up, or shut up.
"then, an SRB-like solid booster is the "perfect (mature) product" that many aerospace companies can easily manufacture in competition to fall its unit cost (maybe) under $10M in next 10 years, to become very cheap within 2015, when the Super SLV will starts its launches!!!"
Now you are just being stupid, rocket technology is pretty mature, but its STILL expensive. Don't go blaming it on "evil space monopolies" either, because if its soooo easy, then lots of companies would already try to do it, now wouldn't they?
[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
Like button can go here
...quoted out of context...
ok
if they have only 15 engines, that means NASA must buy new engines from 2017 instead of 2018...
...as well as why it will cost you more in the long run...
in my articles/threads/posts I suggest to use only expendable engines
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
...then hydrogen engines are better...
right... better like the SSMEs
...Delta-IV and Atlas-V aren't all that complex...
the full CLV/CEV/SM "system", not only the rocket
...go blaming it on "evil space monopolies" either, because if its soooo easy, then lots of companies would already try to do it...
you can easy say that because, so far, we've seen ONLY the monopolies-age
we must wait a few years to see the new era (that may arrive soon, since, NASA, bored to give money to monopoly-vampires, starts funding some new, little, space-companies, with hundreds million$$$)
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
I find it interesting that you wail and moan and beat your breast about how awful it is for NASA to spend money on the five-segment SRB, but then in the very next breath sing the praises of developing an expendable version of SSME. This would not be cheap either, since the SSME is extremely complex, and reducing this complexity would take time, effort, and cash. Lots of cash. Plus, its very likly the engine you would get after simplification would have substanially less performance than the regular SSME, which would kill your payload even more. The "simplified" SSME might not be any better then RS-68 infact, except has two thirds as much thrust and costs twice as much. And it too would also need man rating!
And if we go your route, we'll be putting the "full CEV" on your SLV rocket too, so it would increase your rockets' complexity by just as much. You can't, then, expect people to consider the combined complexity of CEV/CLV but not the increased complexity of CEV/SLV. Infact, the latter will be even worse, since you would need far more electronics and associated testing for the escape system trigger mechanism on SLV, because it has so many engines.
Since all you are doing is jibbering aimlessly about "evil space monpolies" I don't think I will justify that with a response.
[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
Like button can go here
the praises of developing an expendable version of SSME.
since the expendable-SSME was the first choice for the SDHLV all the costs was already included in the planned R&D budget
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
the praises of developing an expendable version of SSME.
since the expendable-SSME was the first choice for the SDHLV all the costs was already included in the planned R&D budget
If true, this makes your plan even worse, because the CaLV will be cheaper to develop versus the SLV because each rocket would need a highly modified engine (CaLV the five-segment booster, the SLV the simplified SSME), excep that NASA gets the CLV out out of the deal with CaLV too.
[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
Like button can go here
...because the CaLV will be cheaper to develop versus the SLV...
it's simply IMPOSSIBLE since the Super SLV don't needs to develop/build/launch the very expensive (especially for R&D costs!) 5-segments SRB and CLV
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
No it isn't, you are now even contradicting yourself
The SLV will need a fairly expensive and involved engine development to make a new man-rated deritive of the SSME, and probably have to develop the J-2X or J-2S as well for the upper stage.
The CaLV will need no new engines, since the five-segment booster and J-2X will already have been developed for the CLV, hence reducing its development cost versus SLV.
Since we need CLV for ISS duty, this money will already have been spent anyway.
Also, CLV will be much easier to man-rate then SLV will, because of the latters' much higher complexity.
[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
Like button can go here
...new man-rated deritive of the SSME...
your entire list of costs (also multiplied by TEN) never reach the Billion$$$ (of R&D+hardware) saved building ONE rocket
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Not true, if you look at the CLV, its almost "all booster" with a small upper stage. The booster is the first stage. Thus if you develop the five-segment booster, that accounts for alot of the cost of the rocket I would imagine.
Also, since the CLV's upper stage and the CaLV's EDS stage (the upper/trans-Lunar/trans-Martian) stage uses the same engine and construction as the CLV's upper stage. Probably similar avionics too. Thus, the EDS will be very similar to the CLV's upper stage, just with a bigger fuel tank and docking adapters.
[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
Like button can go here
Not true, if you look at the CLV, its almost "all booster" with a small upper stage.
a ("simple"...) "all booster" that costs $7 Billion of R&D and an (optimistic) $5 Billion for the first 25 launches' hardware...
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
$7 billion dollars also include launch pad modifications, rebuilding the J-2 production line, and various other non-rocket items. Last I heard, this figure for CLV would only cost $6Bn to develop too, so its really probably closer to $5Bn if you include non-rocket items, maybe less... And thats not too bad I don't think things considerd.
$5Bn split into 25 flights is only $200M each, which is less then the cost of a Delta-IV Heavy and comperable to the medium EELVs or the Ariane-V. $200M each is not an unreasonable figure, and would cover many years of launches.
[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
Like button can go here
$7 billion dollars also include launch pad modifications, rebuilding the J-2 production line, and various other non-rocket items. Last I heard, this figure for CLV would only cost $6Bn to develop too, so its really probably closer to $5Bn if you include non-rocket items, maybe less... And thats not too bad I don't think things considerd.
$5Bn split into 25 flights is only $200M each, which is less then the cost of a Delta-IV Heavy and comperable to the medium EELVs or the Ariane-V. $200M each is not an unreasonable figure, and would cover many years of launches.
no
the $5 Billion was the NASA claim BEFORE the change to the J-2x and ONLY for the CLV
then, a few weeks ago, the news was of a further $2 Billion of extra-costs to modify the SRB to 5 segments (but these days I read of a possible $3B figure for the SRB...)
$7 Billion split into 25 flights is $280M per launch but ONLY OF SHARED R&D COSTS
you must ADD the CLV-hardware when the rocket will be really built
and don't forget that each second-rocket/launch will cost million$$$ to transport its parts, assembly, launch earth-support, etc. etc. etc.
I think the CLV (sharedR&D+hardware+launch) will costs around $500M each, if used also for ISS' missions, or $800M if used only for the moon missions
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Oh you just keep on whining and moaning and stamping your feet and hoping that its all how you say...
That $5Bn figure includes the SRB doesn't it? And the total cost of modifying it is $2-3Bn, not up $2-3Bn. And how do you know that it doesn't include the cost of modifications to facilities? Also, a big reason for eliminating the air-start SSME was cost, and I bet the J-2X woudl be cheaper to develop. Why haven't you noted that in your calculations? You haven't been - gasp! - lying to us have you?
And hey, if it costs several billion to develop, thats several billion that won't have to be spent on the CaLV.
Edit: I estimate a savings of aproximatly $3Bn from the CaLV program, since the five-segment boosters, J-2X, and some of the avionics will be off-the-shelf.
NASA will be flying the CLV a few more times then just 25:
-two anually for the Lunar program
-three anually for the ISS (est, maybe more)
-one every other year for the Mars program
Total... about 100-110 flights until ~2046, depending on when exactly we start Lunar missions and how long NASA has to prop up the ISS. Thats only $70M each in development cost, if its as high as you claim it will be. Add in roughly $100-130M in cost for each CLV, then each one will cost in total ~$200M. This is less then the cost of a big Delta-IV Heavy, and probably less then a suped-up Atlas-V, and they don't have to amoratize development costs.
[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
Like button can go here
... about 100-110 flights until ~2046...
your evaluation (and MY evaluation too) LACKS a well known problem of ALL space programs/hardware (from Apollo to ISS)
NEVER a planned budget/timeline was respected in the REAL world
REAL costs doubles, triple, quadruplicate, etc.
if, in a few weeks, the R&D costs of ONE part of the VSE plan grows to $3B, just imagine the REAL price of a CLV in 2014 when it will fly!!!!!!!
my evaluation (based on NASA claims and a REASONABLE number of flights in the next 20 years) is VERY optimistic; the REAL cost of a CLV/CEV flight may be THREE times a Shuttle flight!!!
110 flights... Mars...
only crazy evaluations and dreams !!!
the REAL budget (if it don't receive government cuts...) will (probably) be sufficient only to develop the hardware and launch 10-15 ISS/moon missions
then, the VSE budget will ends and NASA will needs a new VSEx2 (or x3) budget (+inflation) to continue the moon missions after 2025 and a further new VSEx5 budget to start the Mars missions
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
your evaluation (and MY evaluation too) LACKS a well known problem of ALL space programs/hardware (from Apollo to ISS)
NEVER a planned budget/timeline was respected in the REAL world
REAL costs doubles, triple, quadruplicate, etc.
if, in a few weeks, the R&D costs of ONE part of the VSE plan grows to $3B, just imagine the REAL price of a CLV in 2014 when it will fly!!!!!!!
my evaluation (based on NASA claims and a REASONABLE number of flights in the next 20 years) is VERY optimistic; the REAL cost of a CLV/CEV flight may be THREE times a Shuttle flight!!!
110 flights... Mars...
only crazy evaluations and dreams !!!
the REAL budget (if it don't receive government cuts...) will (probably) be sufficient only to develop the hardware and launch 10-15 ISS/moon missions
then, the VSE budget will ends and NASA will needs a new VSEx2 (or x3) budget (+inflation) to continue the moon missions after 2025 and a further new VSEx5 budget to start the Mars missions
Now if you just wave your arms a little faster, maybe you can actually get your plan off the ground... I predict that the SLV will cost one trillion dollars, per flight! Haha! This is fun!
Idiot... my figures are based off of the current NASA plans for the Moon, Mars, and the ISS with the rough outline of when these missions are supposed to begin. My estimate is based on the quoted price figures from NASA and other space-investigating journalistic sources. Griffin at NASA has already imposed a 30% budget margin in most of the projects too, if sources are to be believed.
But what do you have? "Oh it might spiral out of control!"
[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
Like button can go here
...my figures are based off of the current NASA plans for the Moon, Mars, and the ISS...
ok
four moon mission per year... nine ISS missions per year... two mars missions per year.. ten moon-bases... three new space stations... six HAL9000... and the Star Trek's Enterprise...
now do you are happy?
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
.
just a question GCNRevenger...
since you write three times my posts, five times long and in half minutes... and that only on my two threads !!!
do you are a (single) person... or a (contractors') "PR-Team"... ?
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Ha, of course, I am just this evil machiavellian manipulator employed by the government to stoke up support for NASA's plan among a few dozen casual space enthusiasts out of ~100 million voters. Sure.
Whats next? Accusing me/us of "keeping your genius plan down?"
[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
Like button can go here
Ha, of course, I am just this evil machiavellian manipulator employed by the government to stoke up support for NASA's plan among a few dozen casual space enthusiasts out of ~100 million voters.
you know it's not true
in ALL countries, 99.9% of peoples/voters are NOT interested in space explorations and space technology
they only have a few (and brief...) interest when "something" of (REALLY) "amazing" appears on TV... the Apollo11 moon walking... the first Shuttles' launches... and (maybe...) the first two-three new moon missions...
they don't read/posts on space forums and blogs
this is a matter of a few thousands peoples (in total!) but their opinions are very important to know (and to change...) since they are experts, journalists, engineers, opinion leaders, etc.
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Ha, of course, I am just this evil machiavellian manipulator employed by the government to stoke up support for NASA's plan among a few dozen casual space enthusiasts out of ~100 million voters.
you know it's not true
in ALL countries, 99.9% of peoples/voters are NOT interested in space explorations and space technology
they only have a few (and brief...) interest when "something" of (REALLY) "amazing" appears on TV... the Apollo11 moon walking... the first Shuttles' launches... and (maybe...) the first two-three new moon missions...
they don't read/posts on space forums and blogs
this is a matter of a few thousands peoples (in total!) but their opinions are very important to know (and to change...) since they are experts, journalists, engineers, opinion leaders, etc.
.
Ha, wrong again... for I am a voter with an interest in space exploration and space technologies. I am not an expert, journalist, engineer, opinion leader, etc. I am an average Joe with no attachment to Nasa or any other space related company at all just a pioneering spirit, interest and a passion to explore.
Offline
Like button can go here
I am a voter with an interest in space exploration and space technologies. I am not an expert, journalist, engineer, opinion leader, etc. I am an average Joe with no attachment to Nasa or any other space related company at all just a pioneering spirit, interest and a passion to explore.
I've said "99.9%"... you're in the 0.1%
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
gaetanomarano
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:
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
-------------------
from Spacedaily: [url]www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Astronauts_To_Fly_New_Space_Ship_By_2014.html [/url]
Washington (AFP) Jun 07, 2006
The space ship that will return astronauts to the Moon should be ready for tests in 2012 and for a manned flight in 2014, NASA announced Monday.
NASA plans to retire its aging shuttle fleet, which has gone through two tragic disasters, by 2010 and replace it with a Crew Exploration Vehicle to take astronauts back to the Moon by 2020.
"Our plan calls for first human flight of CEV in 2014, preceding that, is a flight test program that commences in 2012," said Jeff Hanley, director of Constellation, a program to prepare NASA for a return to the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars.
"We are studying right now a developmental flight test where we could fly as early as April 2009 ... a first stage with a dummy upper stage, with a dummy CEV on top, to validate the concept," he said.
A final decision will be made later this year, he said.
[color=red]"We are confident we can meet the goal of the vision to get human boots back on the Moon by[/color] 2020."
--------------
three weeks after my evaluation... NASA claims I was RIGHT
maybe... I will be right also about the Single Launch Vehicle, reusable-LSAM and Lunar Space Stations ???
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 9&start=40
No, its because Shuttle/ISS are sucking up more money, not because of a planning or development delay. 2014 has always been the date for manned CEV/CLV flights, the 2012 date was the "optimistic" one.
And you are still a moron about stations/landers, and your hairbrained scheme with all its parts and price tags would be a much much more complex prediction then the planned date of the CEV's first flight anyway.
[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
Like button can go here