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.

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

The real seemingly inescapable problem (I haven't seen an answer in
some fifty years) is that all the real sharp 'Skunkworks' types retire
or get elbowed aside by career bureaucrats whose main thrust in life
is never having to make a single-handed decision, because it might be
wrong and oops there goes the career. Better to place the action in
the hands of a committee (share the blame), wait for someone else to
stick their neck out, or temporize (wait) and hope the problem goes
away or is overtaken by events. In the meantime relie on dubious
statistics to show the problem really isn't that serious in the first
place. Both Shuttle losses can be attributed to this kind of thinking.
- "It's only a few degrees colder . . ."
- "We haven't had any problems with pieces of foam so far . . .
A personnel staffing problem that needs fixing - the question remains
- how? Mybe private industry could do it, but the bean-counters and
short-term bottom-line thinking from the Harvard Business School
eventually killed the Skunkworks . . .
Walt BJ

Remember VenurStar? http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/x-33.htm It
was built by Skunkworks in the late 1990s. The project was canceled after
the propulsion tank failed the test. The tank had to have very complex
shape because it had to fit with in the airframe that resemble flattened
cone. To cut weight, they had to used Graphite composite. The Graphite
composite simply didn't work too well at the liquid Hydrogen temperature.
I mean they had to push the envelop of technology in every area to achieve
single stage to orbit. To date we don't have the material to build such
space ship.

The most efficient single stage vehicle ever built was in 1960s. It was
Atlas. It had 1% throw weight and the tank was made out of .030 inch
stainless steel. Unless the tank was filled with fuel or pressurized the
whole thing would crumple down to scrap metal!

Emilio

"Walt BJ" wrote in message
om...
The real seemingly inescapable problem (I haven't seen an answer in
some fifty years) is that all the real sharp 'Skunkworks' types retire
or get elbowed aside by career bureaucrats whose main thrust in life
is never having to make a single-handed decision, because it might be
wrong and oops there goes the career. Better to place the action in
the hands of a committee (share the blame), wait for someone else to
stick their neck out, or temporize (wait) and hope the problem goes
away or is overtaken by events. In the meantime relie on dubious
statistics to show the problem really isn't that serious in the first
place. Both Shuttle losses can be attributed to this kind of thinking.
- "It's only a few degrees colder . . ."
- "We haven't had any problems with pieces of foam so far . . .
A personnel staffing problem that needs fixing - the question remains
- how? Mybe private industry could do it, but the bean-counters and
short-term bottom-line thinking from the Harvard Business School
eventually killed the Skunkworks . . .
Walt BJ