Low Cost Shuttle Competition

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/01/sc...partner=GOOGLE

Rob

Study was done in the past concerning space flight cost. The conclusion was
that space flight cost will never come down close to jet flight cost.
Typical airliner flight consists of flying to point A to B, refuel, pilot
gets out and kick the tire, and fly back to point A. Typical space flight
is totally different. Space craft leave for orbit, come back, technicians
must go over and certify all systems for flight worthiness before the next
flight. That includes checking every inch of external surface. The space
system consequently has terrible turnover, not to mention capacity of
delivery is a fraction of system weight.

Emilio.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/01/sc...=1057636800&am
p;en=e08df88fc4310282&ei=5062&partner=GOOG LE

Rob

"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Study was done in the past concerning space flight cost. The conclusion
was
that space flight cost will never come down close to jet flight cost.
Typical airliner flight consists of flying to point A to B, refuel, pilot
gets out and kick the tire, and fly back to point A. Typical space flight
is totally different. Space craft leave for orbit, come back, technicians
must go over and certify all systems for flight worthiness before the next
flight. That includes checking every inch of external surface. The space
system consequently has terrible turnover, not to mention capacity of
delivery is a fraction of system weight.

Emilio.


The problem is much more fundamental IMHO

1) Putting an object into orbit requires a considerable
expenditure in energy since you have to accelerate it
to around 18,000 mph

2) You have to dissipate that energy to come home,
currently that means using atmospheric friction with its
resultant high temperatures.

Given that we havent been able to manufacture
aircraft that could operate economically at mach 2
expecting that a space vehicle could match the costs
of subsonic airliners is unrealistic.

Keith

"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Study was done in the past concerning space flight cost. The conclusion
was
that space flight cost will never come down close to jet flight cost.
Typical airliner flight consists of flying to point A to B, refuel, pilot
gets out and kick the tire, and fly back to point A. Typical space flight
is totally different. Space craft leave for orbit, come back, technicians
must go over and certify all systems for flight worthiness before the next
flight. That includes checking every inch of external surface. The space
system consequently has terrible turnover, not to mention capacity of
delivery is a fraction of system weight.

Only if it is something designed by NASA. It is possible to build craft that
opperate in very demanding environments that don't require a standing army.
The SR-71 and DC-X are the classic examples.

You'll never make something that is as cheap to operate as a 737 but there
is a three orders of magnitude difference between the cost of a flight and
the cost of a launch. There should be some room for improvement.

One more Shuttle disaster and Congress will put us out of
the manned space flight business permanently. But NASA will
never give up the Shuttle cash cow it has been riding for
almost half a century for a safer, better industry designed
system.

WDA

end

"David Pugh" -cay wrote in message
...
"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Study was done in the past concerning space flight cost.
The conclusion
was
that space flight cost will never come down close to jet
flight cost.
Typical airliner flight consists of flying to point A to
B, refuel, pilot
gets out and kick the tire, and fly back to point A.
Typical space flight
is totally different. Space craft leave for orbit, come
back, technicians
must go over and certify all systems for flight
worthiness before the next
flight. That includes checking every inch of external
surface. The space
system consequently has terrible turnover, not to
mention capacity of
delivery is a fraction of system weight.

Only if it is something designed by NASA. It is possible
to build craft that
opperate in very demanding environments that don't require
a standing army.
The SR-71 and DC-X are the classic examples.

You'll never make something that is as cheap to operate as
a 737 but there
is a three orders of magnitude difference between the cost
of a flight and
the cost of a launch. There should be some room for
improvement.

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
t...
One more Shuttle disaster and Congress will put us out of
the manned space flight business permanently. But NASA will
never give up the Shuttle cash cow it has been riding for
almost half a century for a safer, better industry designed
system.

Worse still, access to space is controlled by physicists that low balled
engineering slots years ago. As they say in LA, "you can't get there from
here".



WDA

end

"David Pugh" -cay wrote in message
...
"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Study was done in the past concerning space flight cost.
The conclusion
was
that space flight cost will never come down close to jet
flight cost.
Typical airliner flight consists of flying to point A to
B, refuel, pilot
gets out and kick the tire, and fly back to point A.
Typical space flight
is totally different. Space craft leave for orbit, come
back, technicians
must go over and certify all systems for flight
worthiness before the next
flight. That includes checking every inch of external
surface. The space
system consequently has terrible turnover, not to
mention capacity of
delivery is a fraction of system weight.

Only if it is something designed by NASA. It is possible
to build craft that
opperate in very demanding environments that don't require
a standing army.
The SR-71 and DC-X are the classic examples.

You'll never make something that is as cheap to operate as
a 737 but there
is a three orders of magnitude difference between the cost
of a flight and
the cost of a launch. There should be some room for
improvement.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
t...
One more Shuttle disaster and Congress will put us out of
the manned space flight business permanently. But NASA will
never give up the Shuttle cash cow it has been riding for
almost half a century for a safer, better industry designed
system.

WDA

end

The shuttle was designed by the aerospace industry, North American
Rockwell
was the prime contractor.

Rockwell Rocketdyne Division designed and developed the main engines.

Rockwell Space Transportation Systems selected to designed and developed
the orbiter.

Martin Marietta got the external tank contract and Morton Thiikol got
the contract for solid rocket boosters.

Jesus, I sometimes wonder how Willshaw remembers to breath.

I find this stuff very interesting. I'm curious to see if (within the
next 30 years) space travel actually becomes a consumer industry
rather than a government only industry. With backstreet boys being
launched into space, towers into the atmosphere, corporations
competing on new shuttle designs, etc...who knows what this will all
bring.

On 2 Jul 2003 03:59:44 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/01/sc...partner=GOOGLE

Rob

"Bradford Liedel" wrote in message
...

I find this stuff very interesting. I'm curious to see if (within the
next 30 years) space travel actually becomes a consumer industry
rather than a government only industry. With backstreet boys being
launched into space, towers into the atmosphere, corporations
competing on new shuttle designs, etc...who knows what this will all
bring.



The nearest thing to an initiative for this is the X-prize competiton

http://www.xprize.org/

One of the teams involved, the UK based starchaser group
claims to be building a reusable space vessel for suborbital launch
next year

http://www.starchaser.co.uk/

Another is using an aircraft based approach

http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/

Keith

Right! And my fellow Rockwell employees did a great job for
their time - remember slide rules and T squares?

But why continue with a forty year old vehicles that are now
falling out of the sky and killing people, especially with
NASA insisting on flying with ice cycles hanging off the
shuttle, leaking booster gas seals, and fuel tanks shedding
insulation?

We could certainly do it much cheaper, safer, and better
today, right?

WDA

end

"Keith Willshaw" wrote
in message ...

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
t...
One more Shuttle disaster and Congress will put us out
of
the manned space flight business permanently. But NASA
will
never give up the Shuttle cash cow it has been riding
for
almost half a century for a safer, better industry
designed
system.

WDA

end

The shuttle was designed by the aerospace industry, North
American Rockwell
was the prime contractor.

Rockwell Rocketdyne Division designed and developed the
main engines.

Rockwell Space Transportation Systems selected to designed
and developed
the orbiter.

Martin Marietta got the external tank contract and Morton
Thiikol got
the contract for solid rocket boosters.

Keith