Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Tom's Shuttle-C costs

29 views
Skip to first unread message

Marcus Lindroos INF

unread,
Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98
to

>On 21 Jan 1998 14:45:57 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos
>INF) wrote:

>>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Jan 1998 10:00:44 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
>>---

> Marcus, we can assume a Shuttle-C launch cost in that range, if we
>can assume that relaunching the space shuttle Columbia cost less that
>$100 million. All the sources I have say its less than that figure.
>As a matter of fact, I found another source last night that quoted the
>same $60 to $80 million figure.

What SPACEFLIGHT issue contained the Columbia reflight estimate you
mention? I want to check the exact wording of these statements.

>>The cost of launching the Shuttle has been one of my main
>>interests for some time, and I think I have a decent collection
>>of literature sources to draw upon. Let's compare notes:
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>1) Recurring cost of two SRBs:
>>
>>-$99 million for production of new SRB components,

> How does this cost apply to the actual cost of a set of SRB's to be
>used on one launch? If this new cost applies to the first Shuttle-C
>launch, then how much for the second launch?

Don't know, but one of my sources (Dietrich Koelle's TRANSCOST)
claims the _production_ cost of a new pair of SRBs is essentially
the same as the _recurring_ cost of producing new spare parts,
refurbish & recover old parts! I.e., you essentially assemble
a "unique" booster from segments that have been used a few times
at most, with a significant number of new parts added. Can anyone
confirm this?

>>Each use doesn't cost
>>$99 million. And to my way of thinking, the initial cost of new space
>>shuttle main engines would come out of the development budget, not the
>>launch budget.

OK, you are right about the old SSMEs having already been paid for,
as long as they are taken from an existing Orbiter. As for the SRBs...
we can argue about it, but I think it is pretty clear they cost at
least $60-80 million per flight at least. I have _several_ sources
for that one.

>>2) ET production cost
>
>>-$30 million/flight
>>(Source: Nelson-"Space Shuttle II:New Generation Space Launch
>> System",SPACEFLIGHT 1994 p.68)
>>
>>-$42 million/flight (NASA's FY'97 figures)

> Same argument as above. You are dividing the number of shuttle
>flights per year into the yearly ET budget, which includes more than
>the bare hardware costs. And you don't have the breakdown of these
>figures, do you?

Nelson specifically states you have to pay $30 million for a new
ET. I assume the second figure probably contains a few millions
for Al-Li ET work.

>>3) SSME production cost:
>
>>-$34 million (Source:Interavia 1989/90)
>>-$38 million (from Dennis Jenkins' excellent book on the
>> history of the STS program)

> Why should space shuttle main engine's (SSME) production costs be
>mentioned in this context? If we use a Shuttle-C that does not reuse
>the SSME, we won't use brand new shuttle engines but rather we'll use
>the oldest workable engines we have, and these won't cost the full
>price.

You do have a point here (see above). I merely wanted to list the
cost, in case you have to use brand-new SSMEs on an expendable
Shuttle-C. Which is what you had to do sooner rather than later
if you plan on launching lots of HLLVs (only ~36 SSMEs have been
completed).

>If we build a Shuttle-C with a reusable engine pod (which is
>the current plan) then the cost of these engines does not figure into
>the cost of anything but the first launch. After the first launch,
>only the cost of refurbishing the engines will be included, until they
>wear out and have to be replaced. How many reuses can we get per
>engine?

I think it's a matter of definition, because some parts (e.g.
the turbopumps) only last a single flight and the engine requires
spare parts worth ~$10 million/flight or so.
---
The Jenkins book makes it sound as if almost all SSMEs built so
far are still "in the circulation". I checked his table on SSME
history, and the only serial #s retired seem to be the early
test engines plus Challenger.

>>You do have a point that it is slightly "unfair" to simply
>>divide than annual NASA budget by the number of flights. But
>>the difference is not as great as you seem to think. My
>>own estimate for FY'94 was slightly more than $200
>>million/flight spent on recurring costs, while Roger's excellent
>>analysis (posted in this newsgroup two days ago)
>>came in at $260 million (it is hard to draw the line
>>precisely between program support and operations cost).


> Both of you are a little high. NASA's latest Shuttle-C design,
>according to BitFlip, was estimated to be able to launch 175,000
>pounds to low-Earth orbit for about $175 million. I don't know how
>that cost breaks down, but that would sound like a reasonable cost if
>one were launching more than one or two Shuttle-C's per year.

And, where can I find this on the Internet? Is "BitFlip" still
around?

>The argument is that any
>workforce can do more work than it is currently doing, up to a certain
>point, without incurring extra labor costs. So it is theoretically
>possible that the shuttle launch workforce could work harder and
>faster than normal and launch at least one extra shuttle without
>incurring overtime. Of course we have a practical example with the
>Columbia reflight and they did incur some overtime but not that much,
>so it is theoretically possible to double our launch rate (current
>cost $3 billion per year for 8 shuttle launches) for just a few
>hundred million dollars more per year. Say 8 launches for $3 billion
>and 15 for $4 billion. And if some of those extra launches are
>Shuttle-C's we can have an active manned Moon and/or Mars program for
>that extra one billion dollars in launch costs per year.

Again, my main source is Jenkins, who says that the KSC facilities
can handle a maximum of 14 launches a year *only* if at least
three or so of these involve the Shuttle-C.

>>Shuttle-C would cost a song to develop,
>>comparatively speaking, because it would use expensive
>>"off-the-shelf" components originally developed for multiple use
>>on the Shuttle. These include the SSMEs, OMS, RCS, engine
>>"boattail" designed for many flights, auxiliary power units etc.
>>Compared with the STS Orbiter, you save some money because less
>>stringent testing will be required and there is no costly
>>refurbishment afterwards, but you also throw away many _very_
>>expensive items such as the SSMEs after a single use.

> The first Shuttle-C study used throwaway SSME's, but not any more.
>The latest version uses a reusable engine pod which returns for reuse,
>so the only costs are the refurbishment costs, after the initial
>hardware buy.

And what about the rest of the stuff on the list...? You totally
ignore the cost of an expendable, fairly complex piece of hardware
weighing 30t or more, that has to do many of the same tasks as the
Shuttle Orbiter. Even if some of the off-the-shelf components
may be obsolete and/or readily available (e.g. the old General
Purpose Computers from the 1970s and 1980s), it won't come for
free.

>> NASA concluded that for high launch rates, the
>>Shuttle-C's cost-per-pound would be even higher than the Titan
>>IV's.

> I don't see how that can be. The Titan IV costs as much as
>launching the space shuttle ($400 million per launch),

_Including_ a Centaur...irrelevant for LEO missions. You often
compare the most favorable Shuttle-C config. with the worst
possible ELV.

>and both can
>launch about the same tonnage to orbit (Titan IV= 22 tons, and shuttle
>can lift a little more=29 tons), but Shuttle-C can lift four or five
>times as much as Titan IV or shuttle, and I think you would agree that
>we could at least launch Shuttle-C for the same cost as a shuttle
>launch, so Shuttle-C is several times as cheap as Titan IV at putting
>tonnage in orbit.

No -- my figures are for the 2-SSME, ~42t payload variant...it
would cost less than the 3-SSME version that could lift 68t to LEO.

>And using NASA's new number of $175 million per
>Shuttle-C launch, makes the cost difference between Shuttle-C and
>Titan IV (or any other existing vehicle) that much greater.

I would like to have this estimate verified by BitFlip...

>>In the late 1980s, it was hoped that Shuttle-C would not require
>>the OMS and other systems for rendezvous with Space Station
>>Freedom and subsequent de-orbit (these functions would have
>>been carried out by SSF's Orbital Transfer Vehicle). This would
>>have reduced the cost to the =<$2000/lb figure (for a 100,000 lb
>>payload) Tom is so fond of quoting. In comparison, the Shuttle
>>Orbiter cost $7500/lb and the Delta II was about $3793/lb.
>>Unfortunately, the OTV was cancelled and more expensive Shuttle
>>Orbiter systems had to be incorporated in the Shuttle-C design
>>as well.

> I don't think that changes my basic argument any.

Oh, it should...because you have been advocating that we use
Shuttle-C to launch ISS modules for years. And the OMS pod
increase the weight and launch costs, while reducing the
payload capability.

--
MARCU$

---------------------------------------
Marcus Lindroos
Skyttegatan 20A
98137 Kiruna,Sweden
Email:mlin...@aton.abo.fi
Fax:358-15-616667
WWW:http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo
--------------------------------------


TonyRusi

unread,
Jan 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/28/98
to

the srb's are soon to be replaced with cheaper reuasable liquid rocket boosters
that fly back.

Michael P. Walsh

unread,
Jan 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/28/98
to

TonyRusi wrote:
>
> the srb's are soon to be replaced with cheaper reuasable liquid rocket boosters
> that fly back.
----
----
----
Right now this is just a study program which has not been
given the big bucks go ahead it will require.

If it is approved, then it will have to be designed,
constructed and tested.

Don't expect that to be "real soon".

Mike Walsh

Strider

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

TonyRusi wrote:
>
> the srb's are soon to be replaced with cheaper reuasable liquid rocket boosters
> that fly back.


I wouldn't hold your breath. In fact, I wouldn't count on this at all.

--
Greg D. Moore President moo...@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com/
518-283-4083


Tom Abbott

unread,
Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98
to

On 27 Jan 1998 15:32:46 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos
INF) wrote:

>>On 21 Jan 1998 14:45:57 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos
>>INF) wrote:
>
>>>Tom Abbott wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 19 Jan 1998 10:00:44 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) wrote:
>>>---
>

>>[TA]: Marcus, we can assume a Shuttle-C launch cost in that range, if we


>>can assume that relaunching the space shuttle Columbia cost less that
>>$100 million. All the sources I have say its less than that figure.
>>As a matter of fact, I found another source last night that quoted the
>>same $60 to $80 million figure.
>

>[ML]: What SPACEFLIGHT issue contained the Columbia reflight estimate you

>mention? I want to check the exact wording of these statements.

Marcus, that would be the October 1997 issue, Vol. 39, No. 10, p.
347.


>
>>>[ML]: The cost of launching the Shuttle has been one of my main
>>>interests for some time,

Me, too. :)

>>>[ML]: and I think I have a decent collection


>>>of literature sources to draw upon. Let's compare notes:
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>1) Recurring cost of two SRBs:
>>>
>>>-$99 million for production of new SRB components,
>

>>[TA]: How does this cost apply to the actual cost of a set of SRB's to be


>>used on one launch? If this new cost applies to the first Shuttle-C
>>launch, then how much for the second launch?
>

>[ML]: Don't know, but one of my sources (Dietrich Koelle's TRANSCOST)


>claims the _production_ cost of a new pair of SRBs is essentially
>the same as the _recurring_ cost of producing new spare parts,
>refurbish & recover old parts! I.e., you essentially assemble
>a "unique" booster from segments that have been used a few times
>at most, with a significant number of new parts added. Can anyone
>confirm this?
>

>>>[TA]: Each use [of SRB's] doesn't cost


>>>$99 million. And to my way of thinking, the initial cost of new space
>>>shuttle main engines would come out of the development budget, not the
>>>launch budget.
>

>[ML]: OK, you are right about the old SSMEs having already been paid for,

>as long as they are taken from an existing Orbiter. As for the SRBs...
>we can argue about it, but I think it is pretty clear they cost at
>least $60-80 million per flight at least. I have _several_ sources
>for that one.

I would be interested in seeing what those sources have to say. Do
they give a breakdown between the actual hardware costs and labor
costs? I have the contract numbers for all these components and plan
to do a Freedom of Information Act request to see if I can get the
actual contracts. Then maybe we can get a better breakdown of the
costs.

>
>>>2)[ML]: ET production cost


>>
>>>-$30 million/flight
>>>(Source: Nelson-"Space Shuttle II:New Generation Space Launch
>>> System",SPACEFLIGHT 1994 p.68)
>>>
>>>-$42 million/flight (NASA's FY'97 figures)
>

>>[TA]: Same argument as above. You are dividing the number of shuttle


>>flights per year into the yearly ET budget, which includes more than
>>the bare hardware costs. And you don't have the breakdown of these
>>figures, do you?
>

>[ML]: Nelson specifically states you have to pay $30 million for a new
>ET.

Well, I won't argue with that figure too much, it's probably pretty
close.

>[ML]: I assume the second figure probably contains a few millions
>for Al-Li ET work.

My understanding is the new aluminum-lithium ET costs $70 million
per copy, although I've lost the reference. I don't know if that
price includes labor costs or not. Maybe we can find that out with
the FOIA request.

>
>>>[ML]: 3) SSME production cost:


>>
>>>-$34 million (Source:Interavia 1989/90)
>>>-$38 million (from Dennis Jenkins' excellent book on the
>>> history of the STS program)
>

>>[TA]: Why should space shuttle main engine's (SSME) production costs be


>>mentioned in this context? If we use a Shuttle-C that does not reuse
>>the SSME, we won't use brand new shuttle engines but rather we'll use
>>the oldest workable engines we have, and these won't cost the full
>>price.
>

>[ML]: You do have a point here (see above). I merely wanted to list the


>cost, in case you have to use brand-new SSMEs on an expendable
>Shuttle-C. Which is what you had to do sooner rather than later
>if you plan on launching lots of HLLVs (only ~36 SSMEs have been
>completed).

I'll agree with that, although I'm mainly trying to get at the cost
of launching just one Shuttle-C in order to find a "baseline" cost.

>
>>[TA]: If we build a Shuttle-C with a reusable engine pod (which is


>>the current plan) then the cost of these engines does not figure into
>>the cost of anything but the first launch. After the first launch,
>>only the cost of refurbishing the engines will be included, until they
>>wear out and have to be replaced. How many reuses can we get per
>>engine?
>

>[ML]: I think it's a matter of definition, because some parts (e.g.


>the turbopumps) only last a single flight and the engine requires
>spare parts worth ~$10 million/flight or so.

So, if we assume $30 million per ET and $30 million to refurbish 3
SSME's we get a total of $60 million, not including whatever the SRB's
cost to refurbish.

>---
>[ML]: The Jenkins book makes it sound as if almost all SSMEs built so


>far are still "in the circulation". I checked his table on SSME
>history, and the only serial #s retired seem to be the early
>test engines plus Challenger.

To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.

>
>>>[ML]: You do have a point that it is slightly "unfair" to simply


>>>divide than annual NASA budget by the number of flights. But
>>>the difference is not as great as you seem to think.

Well, one of my points is, we just don't know how great this
difference is.

>>>[ML]: My


>>>own estimate for FY'94 was slightly more than $200
>>>million/flight spent on recurring costs,

That would jibe with NASA's latest estimate of $175 million per
launch for Shuttle-C (87.5 tons to low-Earth orbit).

>>> while Roger's excellent
>>>analysis (posted in this newsgroup two days ago)
>>>came in at $260 million (it is hard to draw the line
>>>precisely between program support and operations cost).

I agree, and that's one of the lines I'm trying to draw, in order to
understand the total costs and where efficiencies might be had.

>
>
>>[TA]: Both of you are a little high. NASA's latest Shuttle-C design,


>>according to BitFlip, was estimated to be able to launch 175,000
>>pounds to low-Earth orbit for about $175 million. I don't know how
>>that cost breaks down, but that would sound like a reasonable cost if
>>one were launching more than one or two Shuttle-C's per year.
>

>[ML]: And, where can I find this on the Internet? Is "BitFlip" still
>around?

Here is where BitFlip mentions NASA working on heavy-lift (what he
calls "extreme lift):

http://www.reston.com/nasa/ss.development/05.24.97.update.html

I also have another source which specifically mentions a capacity of
175,000 lbs to low-Earth orbit at a cost of $175 million per launch.
I posted this to sci.space.policy some time ago, and I'll try to dig
it up and post it again (can't find it at the moment).

And here is where BitFlip mentions that reducing the cost to orbit to
$1000.00 per pound using heavy-lift isn't good enough for Dan Goldin.
I guess it doesn't matter to Dan that $1000.00 per pound is cheaper
than any other current launch vehicle by far, and is cheaper than the
projected cost of the new so-called cheaper RLV launch vehicles in
development. (DG in BitFlip's post stands for Dan Goldin:)

http://www.reston.com/nasa/ss.development/11.22.97.update.html


You can go to Keith Cowing's "NASA Watch" and do a search on "BitFlip"
for all his NASA updates. They are quite interesting, and we are
lucky to have this kind of inside information. Keith's page is at:

http://www.reston.com/nasa/watch.html

>
>>[TA]: The argument is that any


>>workforce can do more work than it is currently doing, up to a certain
>>point, without incurring extra labor costs. So it is theoretically
>>possible that the shuttle launch workforce could work harder and
>>faster than normal and launch at least one extra shuttle without
>>incurring overtime. Of course we have a practical example with the
>>Columbia reflight and they did incur some overtime but not that much,
>>so it is theoretically possible to double our launch rate (current
>>cost $3 billion per year for 8 shuttle launches) for just a few
>>hundred million dollars more per year. Say 8 launches for $3 billion
>>and 15 for $4 billion. And if some of those extra launches are
>>Shuttle-C's we can have an active manned Moon and/or Mars program for
>>that extra one billion dollars in launch costs per year.
>

>[ML]: Again, my main source is Jenkins, who says that the KSC facilities

>can handle a maximum of 14 launches a year *only* if at least
>three or so of these involve the Shuttle-C.

I'm surprised that Jenkins mentioned Shuttle-C in this context.
Could you elaborate? It is my understanding that the plan is to
eventually increase the shuttle launch rate to 15 or so launches per
year, although additional infrastructure will be needed when they get
to around 12+ launches.

>
>>>[ML]: Shuttle-C would cost a song to develop,


>>>comparatively speaking, because it would use expensive
>>>"off-the-shelf" components originally developed for multiple use
>>>on the Shuttle.

One of the very good reasons for building a shuttle-derived
heavy-lift vehicle. Another good reason is shuttle-derived heavy-lift
can use the existing space shuttle launch infrastructure and workforce
(if there are any left, after Goldin gets done:).

>>>[ML]: These include the SSMEs, OMS, RCS, engine


>>>"boattail" designed for many flights, auxiliary power units etc.
>>>Compared with the STS Orbiter, you save some money because less
>>>stringent testing will be required and there is no costly
>>>refurbishment afterwards, but you also throw away many _very_
>>>expensive items such as the SSMEs after a single use.
>

>>[TA]: The first Shuttle-C study used throwaway SSME's, but not any more.


>>The latest version uses a reusable engine pod which returns for reuse,
>>so the only costs are the refurbishment costs, after the initial
>>hardware buy.
>

>[ML]:And what about the rest of the stuff on the list...? You totally

>ignore the cost of an expendable, fairly complex piece of hardware
>weighing 30t or more, that has to do many of the same tasks as the
>Shuttle Orbiter.

If you are referring to the External Tank, Marcus, I do not ignore
this cost. It is included in the launch costs. If you are talking
about something else, please explain.

>[ML]: Even if some of the off-the-shelf components


>may be obsolete and/or readily available (e.g. the old General
>Purpose Computers from the 1970s and 1980s), it won't come for
>free.

No, it they won't be free, but they will be a whole lot cheaper
"off-the-shelf" than if we had to develop them from scratch.

>
>>>[ML]: NASA concluded that for high launch rates, the


>>>Shuttle-C's cost-per-pound would be even higher than the Titan
>>>IV's.
>

>>[TA]: I don't see how that can be. The Titan IV costs as much as


>>launching the space shuttle ($400 million per launch),
>

>[ML]: _Including_ a Centaur...

I would have to double check, but I believe a Centaur upper stage
costs a maximum of $30 million. So comparing a Shuttle-C launch of a
satellite to geosynchronous orbit (GEO), with a Titan IV launch to GEO
would go like this: Shuttle-C launch cost = $175 million + $30
million for a Centaur = $205 million; Titan IV launch cost = $400
million. Looks like Shuttle-C would cost half as much even with a
Centaur upper stage.

>[ML]: You often


>compare the most favorable Shuttle-C config. with the worst
>possible ELV.

Well, I don't think I do that, but you can give an example if you
want.

>
>>[TA]: and both can


>>launch about the same tonnage to orbit (Titan IV= 22 tons, and shuttle
>>can lift a little more=29 tons), but Shuttle-C can lift four or five
>>times as much as Titan IV or shuttle, and I think you would agree that
>>we could at least launch Shuttle-C for the same cost as a shuttle
>>launch, so Shuttle-C is several times as cheap as Titan IV at putting
>>tonnage in orbit.
>

>[ML]: No -- my figures are for the 2-SSME, ~42t payload variant...it


>would cost less than the 3-SSME version that could lift 68t to LEO.

The current Shuttle-C estimate using three space shuttle main
engines is 87.5 tons, not 68 tons.

>
>>[TA]: And using NASA's new number of $175 million per


>>Shuttle-C launch, makes the cost difference between Shuttle-C and
>>Titan IV (or any other existing vehicle) that much greater.
>

>[ML]: I would like to have this estimate verified by BitFlip...

I can do better than that (as soon as I can dig it up). I have an
official NASA document giving these figures. If you are in a hurry
you might try doing a DejaNews search on my name AND "175,000" on the
sci.space.policy newgroup (that ought to narrow down the hits to a
couple of hundred:). I posted the pertinent parts of the document not
long ago.

>
>>>[ML]: In the late 1980s, it was hoped that Shuttle-C would not require


>>>the OMS and other systems for rendezvous with Space Station
>>>Freedom and subsequent de-orbit (these functions would have
>>>been carried out by SSF's Orbital Transfer Vehicle). This would
>>>have reduced the cost to the =<$2000/lb figure (for a 100,000 lb
>>>payload) Tom is so fond of quoting.

You mean a 100 ton payload don't you, Marcus? :)

>>>[ML]: In comparison, the Shuttle

>>>Orbiter cost $7500/lb and the Delta II was about $3793/lb.
>>>Unfortunately, the OTV was cancelled and more expensive Shuttle
>>>Orbiter systems had to be incorporated in the Shuttle-C design
>>>as well.

The new US Control Module can serve this orbital transfer function
with some modifications. In fact, I'll pay Dan Goldin a compliment
for building the Control module, which in effect, eliminates the need
for Russian Progress space station reboost capability, and eliminates
the need for Russian refueling hardware (Progress). Two critical path
birds eliminated with one stone! He's also decided to get the X-38
space station rescue vehicle derivative on-line as soon as possible.
Another critcal path problem eliminated! Now, if this had only been
done in 1994, instead of 1998!

>
>>[TA]: I don't think that changes my basic argument any.
>
>[ML]: Oh, it should...because you have been advocating that we use

>Shuttle-C to launch ISS modules for years. And the OMS pod
>increase the weight and launch costs, while reducing the
>payload capability.
>

Well, OMS pods won't reduce the payload of a Shuttle-C enough to
matter when it comes to launching space station components. Shuttle-C
has more than enough capacity to make up the difference.

Tom Abbott

External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.vswap.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm

Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org

National Space Society: http://www.nss.org

External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

Marcus, here is a reference to NASA's heavy-lift Moon/Mars vehicle,
its capacity and launch cost:

"NASA Sizes Up Market for Heavy-Lift Booster, by Anne Eisele, Space
News, Sept. 1-7, 1997, p. 3:

"A team led by Bob Armstrong of Marshall's Vehicle Systems and
Technology Office is developing a database of all possible payloads
for a would-be monster booster, code-named Magnum, which is being
designed at Marshall for the Mars mission. Those payloads include
military, civil and commercial space hardware.

The goal is a launch vehicle able to send payloads as large as 80,000
kilograms into Earth orbit for about $175 million per launch,
according to an Aug. 20 notice posted on NASA's procurement home page
on the internet.

By way of comparison, Lockheed Martin Corp's Titan 4B launch vehicle
can boost about 22,000 kilograms and cost between $250 million and
$450 million. NASA is paying $450 million for the Titan 4B launch of
its Cassinin mission to Saturn in October."

Marcus Lindroos INF

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: Marcus, here is a reference to NASA's heavy-lift Moon/Mars vehicle,

: its capacity and launch cost:
:
: "NASA Sizes Up Market for Heavy-Lift Booster, by Anne Eisele, Space
: News, Sept. 1-7, 1997, p. 3:
:
: "A team led by Bob Armstrong of Marshall's Vehicle Systems and
: Technology Office is developing a database of all possible payloads
: for a would-be monster booster, code-named Magnum, which is being
: designed at Marshall for the Mars mission. Those payloads include
: military, civil and commercial space hardware.
:
: The goal is a launch vehicle able to send payloads as large as 80,000
: kilograms into Earth orbit for about $175 million per launch,
: according to an Aug. 20 notice posted on NASA's procurement home page
: on the internet.

"The GOAL is...", yeah. While I believe (expendable-) Shuttle-C cost
figures and predictions are a lot more credible than some hypothetical
commercial RLV, you can't have the same degree of confidence for a
Shuttle HLLV based on reusable liquid flyback boosters... These are
*not* just some minor modification to the existing system, consequently
the cost _goals_ should be taken with a grain of salt.

:
: Tom Abbott


:
: External Tank space station Web page:
: http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
: http://www.vswap.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm
:
: Space Studies Institute Web page:
: http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
: e-mail s...@ssi.org
:
: National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
:
: External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm

:

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

Marcus Lindroos INF wrote:

> "The GOAL is...", yeah. While I believe (expendable-) Shuttle-C cost
> figures and predictions are a lot more credible than some hypothetical
> commercial RLV, you can't have the same degree of confidence for a
> Shuttle HLLV based on reusable liquid flyback boosters... These are
> *not* just some minor modification to the existing system,
> consequently the cost _goals_ should be taken with a grain of salt.

Yeah, Abbotts numbers are also pulled out of his arse. I looked in
SEVERAL Major, Credible Aerospace magazines, and all of them quoted
the price of a STS launch at $.55G, And since the shuttle C is going
to be using the same stuff as the STS, I'll stick with their figures.
Not some hockus-pockus reflight BS that I still can't find reference
to anywhere.

--
Jonathan Goff

"An engineer is someone who can build for a dollar
what any damn fool can build for ten." - R. Hienlein

Jacob McGuire

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 2-Feb-98 Re: Tom's Shuttle-C
costs by Jonathan A Go...@et.byu.e
> Yeah, Abbotts numbers are also pulled out of his arse. I looked in
> SEVERAL Major, Credible Aerospace magazines, and all of them quoted
> the price of a STS launch at $.55G, And since the shuttle C is going
> to be using the same stuff as the STS, I'll stick with their figures.
> Not some hockus-pockus reflight BS that I still can't find reference
> to anywhere.

While I do agree with the general concept of taking Tom Abbott's
numbers with a grain of salt, suggesting that Shuttle-C should cost less
than normal Shuttle flights is reasonable (on a recurring-cost basis).
For example, Shuttle-C wouldn't have to spend any time in the OPF, so
all of those workers wouldn't have to be paid. Large shuttle subsystems
are not required for Shuttle-C, for example all life support, fuel
cells, etc.


--
Jake McGuire mcgu...@andrew.cmu.edu
Small towns in western Germany are usually about ten kilotons apart

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

Jacob McGuire wrote:

> While I do agree with the general concept of taking Tom Abbott's
> numbers with a grain of salt, suggesting that Shuttle-C should cost
> less than normal Shuttle flights is reasonable (on a recurring-cost
> basis).

Yes, but I think the $200M is pure guano. Personally I doubt it will
dip much below $400M. Since it is a multistage RLV, you have to
reinspect all the engines, work on all the tiles, and check the frame
for microfractures, for EVERY launch. That is probably what costs so
much.

> For example, Shuttle-C wouldn't have to spend any time in the OPF, so
> all of those workers wouldn't have to be paid.

And why not? I thought the Shuttle-C was going to be RLV just minus
all that life support. At least that is what I got from the artists
work. All showed winged vehicles. Sure looks like reprocessable stuff.

> Large shuttle subsystems are not required for Shuttle-C, for example
> all life support, fuel cells, etc.

I highly doubt that will cut the costs by more than $50M. Let alone the
$400-$450M that Tom is touting.

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:12:16 -0700, Jonathan A Goff
<jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

>Jacob McGuire wrote:
>
>> While I do agree with the general concept of taking Tom Abbott's
>> numbers with a grain of salt,

A wise policy, Jacob. Of course, one should take all numbers with a
grain of salt.


>>[JM]: suggesting that Shuttle-C should cost

>> less than normal Shuttle flights is reasonable (on a recurring-cost
>> basis).

I think so, too, Jacob.

>
>[JG]: Yes, but I think the $200M is pure guano. Personally I doubt it will


>dip much below $400M. Since it is a multistage RLV, you have to
>reinspect all the engines,

This costs about $30 million per flight, according to Marcus'
sources, Jonathan.

>[JG]: work on all the tiles,

What tiles? The Shuttle-C reusable boattail doesn't use space
shuttle tiles.

>[JG]: and check the frame


>for microfractures, for EVERY launch.

NASA claims they relaunched the shuttle Columbia, which requires all
the inspections you describe above, including tiles, for about $80
million or less.

>[JG]: That is probably what costs so
>much.

Probably?

>
>>[JM]: For example, Shuttle-C wouldn't have to spend any time in the OPF, so


>> all of those workers wouldn't have to be paid.
>

>[JG]: And why not? I thought the Shuttle-C was going to be RLV just minus


>all that life support. At least that is what I got from the artists
>work. All showed winged vehicles. Sure looks like reprocessable stuff.

The current version of Shuttle-C uses a reusable propulsion
"boattail" which does not go all the way to orbit, but parachutes back
to a water landing where it is recovered.

>
>>[JM]: Large shuttle subsystems are not required for Shuttle-C, for example

>> all life support, fuel cells, etc.
>

>[JG]: I highly doubt that will cut the costs by more than $50M. Let alone the


>$400-$450M that Tom is touting.

Doubt all you want, but *I* doubt you'll win many arguments that
way.

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

On 2 Feb 1998 11:26:05 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF)
wrote:

>Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:


>: Marcus, here is a reference to NASA's heavy-lift Moon/Mars vehicle,
>: its capacity and launch cost:
>:
>: "NASA Sizes Up Market for Heavy-Lift Booster, by Anne Eisele, Space
>: News, Sept. 1-7, 1997, p. 3:
>:
>: "A team led by Bob Armstrong of Marshall's Vehicle Systems and
>: Technology Office is developing a database of all possible payloads
>: for a would-be monster booster, code-named Magnum, which is being
>: designed at Marshall for the Mars mission. Those payloads include
>: military, civil and commercial space hardware.
>:
>: The goal is a launch vehicle able to send payloads as large as 80,000
>: kilograms into Earth orbit for about $175 million per launch,
>: according to an Aug. 20 notice posted on NASA's procurement home page
>: on the internet.
>

>"The GOAL is...", yeah. While I believe (expendable-) Shuttle-C cost
>figures and predictions are a lot more credible than some hypothetical
>commercial RLV,

Marcus, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. :)


> you can't have the same degree of confidence for a
>Shuttle HLLV based on reusable liquid flyback boosters...

Well, I'm not basing *my* figures on liquid flyback boosters, and I
don't know that NASA is either.

> These are
>*not* just some minor modification to the existing system, consequently

>the cost _goals_ should be taken with a grain of salt.
>

No, they are not minor modifications, but I don't think liquid flyback
boosters are required to reach the Shuttle-C payload and cost goals.
The early Shuttle-C studies did not use liquid flyback boosters. They
used the standard ET, solid rocket boosters and space shuttle main
engines, and claimed to be able to put 75 tons in orbit with this
combination. The current version, which claims to be able to put 88
tons (that's tons not tonnes) could reach this tonnage goal using
5-segment solid rocket boosters and the new aluminum/lithium ET.

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 10:45:24 -0700, Jonathan A Goff
<jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

>Marcus Lindroos INF wrote:
>
>> "The GOAL is...", yeah. While I believe (expendable-) Shuttle-C cost
>> figures and predictions are a lot more credible than some hypothetical
>> commercial RLV,

>> you can't have the same degree of confidence for a
>> Shuttle HLLV based on reusable liquid flyback boosters...

>> These are
>> *not* just some minor modification to the existing system,
>> consequently the cost _goals_ should be taken with a grain of salt.


>


>Yeah, Abbotts numbers are also pulled out of his arse. I looked in
>SEVERAL Major, Credible Aerospace magazines, and all of them quoted
>the price of a STS launch at $.55G,

Jonathan, let's approach this shuttle launch cost argument from a
different direction. Suppose that NASA had launched NO space shuttles
for a particular year. The launch infrastructure (all the buildings
and other hardware and equipment) would still be there and would need
to be maintained, and the shuttle workforce would still be there.
This all costs a certain amount of money. This is referred to as the
"fixed" cost, and costs about $2 billion or a little less per year.

Now, if we want to launch a shuttle, we have to spend additional
money on space shuttle main engines, an External Tank and solid rocket
boosters. These are referred to as the marginal or incremental costs,
and amount to from $100 million or less, to $200 million in additional
costs, depending on the source.


> And since the shuttle C is going
>to be using the same stuff as the STS, I'll stick with their figures.

Shuttle-C will use a lot less "stuff" than the space shuttle.


>Not some hockus-pockus reflight BS that I still can't find reference
>to anywhere.

Well, just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Here, are a few references:


Crew Prepares for First-Ever Shuttle Reflight, by William Harwood [a
highly respected space journalist, BTW], Space News, June 30-July 6,
1997, p. 7:

"The incremental cost of the [Columbia] reflight came to just $8.6
million for the payload and around $55 million for shuttle
processing."


From Landing. . . To Launch, Preparing for the Reflight of STS-83, by
Keith T. Wilson, FBIS, the British Interplanetary Society's
Spaceflight, Vol. 39, No. 10, p. 347:

"The reflight is expected to cost NASA an extra $50-$80 million."


For April 18, 1997

Columbia gets July re-flight, other missions move back

By Todd Halvorson

FLORIDA TODAY

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Shuttle Columbia's recently abbreviated
research mission will be flown again in early July, a move that will
trigger delays in three other 1997 shuttle missions.

Shuttle Atlantis, meanwhile, remains on track for a planned May 15
launch despite extra engine compartment work that will delay a planned
move out to its Kennedy Space Center launch pad.

In a cross-country teleconference Thursday, NASA managers decided to
press ahead with a plan to launch Columbia on a $500 million science
flight cut short earlier this month because of a potentially explosive
power generator failure in space.

Target launch date for the re-flight - which is expected to cost NASA
an extra $50 million to $80 million - is July 1.

The quick turnaround for Columbia - which returned to Earth April 8
after completing just four of 16 planned days in space - will be among
the fastest in shuttle history."


7/1/1997

Columbia streaks to the heavens to pick up unfinished business

By NEDRA PICKLER

Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The space shuttle Columbia rocketed into sunny
Florida skies Tuesday to repeat a 16-day research mission cut short in
April.

The mission is a repeat of an April flight curtailed after just four
days because of a faulty electrical power generator. NASA crews
processed the shuttle for reflight in an unprecedented short time.
After the Challenger shuttle disaster, preparation guidelines were
tightened.

Just 84 days passed between Columbia's April 8 landing and Tuesday's
launch, beating the previous 103-day record. The same crew is on this
flight, and their responsibilities will be identical.

NASA officials said they hope to learn from the quick turnaround,
which they estimate will cost $58 million to $70 million. About $500
million was spent on the first flight."

Now, where did you say I got those figures, Jonathan?

StarFurie

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

In article <34d9b8ee...@207.126.101.78>, tab...@intellex.com (Tom
Abbott) writes:

>>[JG]: And why not? I thought the Shuttle-C was going to be RLV just minus
>>all that life support. At least that is what I got from the artists
>>work. All showed winged vehicles. Sure looks like reprocessable stuff.
>
> The current version of Shuttle-C uses a reusable propulsion
>"boattail" which does not go all the way to orbit, but parachutes back
>to a water landing where it is recovered.

Tom, this is part of the reason that I always type "SD-HLV" instead of
"Shuttle-C." There have been other designs with the Shuttle-C name. To avoid
confusion, I avoid the name.

Star...@AwOL.COM

"No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars or sailed to an
uncharted land or opened a new heaven to the human spirit." - Helen Keller

Mr J P Kerslake

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to
Has any one got any drawing or specifisation for the Maginum booster?
--
John Percy Kerslake, kers...@SEES.bangor.ac.uk
Pager 01426-235878, dysliexia rules k o
Sorry My spell checker will not work with my mail package
I am writing this at work on a sun sparc station

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Title says it all. why are we talking about 87 tons to LEO? Especially
when the proposed orion could put 10,000 Tons on mars? Environmental
damage would not be significant, especially if we launched it from
antartica. I'm pissed, that stuff was practically ready to be assembled
back in the 50's, and we're still dinking around with this Von Braun
crap?!?

> > "No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars or sailed to
> > an uncharted land or opened a new heaven to the human spirit." -
> > Helen Keller

Oh really now.....Never mind, I won't.

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
> Title says it all. why are we talking about 87 tons to LEO? Especially
> when the proposed orion could put 10,000 Tons on mars? Environmental
> damage would not be significant, especially if we launched it from
> antartica.


Each launch would put tons of plutonium and hundreds
of pounds of fission products into the atmosphere.

Tell me the ad agency that can sell that to the public
as "insignificant"; I want to invest in them.

Paul

Jacob McGuire

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 4-Feb-98 Re: Screw Shuttle-C go
Orion! by Paul Dietz@interaccess.c

Not to mention destroying approximately every single satellite in
orbit. But I'm sure that Mr. Goff already knew that and is simply being
obnoxious, as usual.

Bruce "B-chan" Lewis

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Paul Dietz wrote:
>
> Jonathan A Goff wrote:

>>Title says it all. why are we talking about 87 tons to LEO? Especially
> > when the proposed orion could put 10,000 Tons on mars? Environmental
> > damage would not be significant, especially if we launched it from
> > antartica.
>
> Each launch would put tons of plutonium and hundreds
> of pounds of fission products into the atmosphere.

So? That's bad news, but it's not the end of the world. For the price of
a single B-2 or SEAWOLF I'm sure them smart college boys over at LLNL
can figure out a laser-triggered bomb or something that'll eliminate the
plutonium problem entirely.

Besides, a few more cancer deaths per decade are a fair trade for a
whole new planet; look how many people die every year mining coal, for
God's sake. I'll even volunteer to be one of the victims. Just promise
to bury me in the hills overlooking Luna City.



> Tell me the ad agency that can sell that to the public
> as "insignificant"; I want to invest in them.

If I were a zillionaire, there'd be no problem selling the public
anything. I'd buy some land in Siberia, rent an army of former Soviet
nuke boys, and build the damned thing under armed guard. Goatee-sporting
Greenpeacers with signs and banners will be fun target practice for my
roving squads of bored, surly, AK-47-armed ex-Soviet Army gun boys. I'd
pay off the UN snoopies and CIA boys just like that nice young Aldrich
Ames fellow, then one day, pow -- there she is! I'd invite Ted and Jane
to cover the launch live on CNN from our protected press bunker 150
meters from Ground Zero. Oops -- did I say 150 meters? That should have
been fifteen HUNDRED meters...sorry, guys...ow, that's gotta sting...

My shockingly undemocratic opinion: screw the public. We'll never vote
our way to the stars, that's for sure! Joe Six-Pack wants his bread and
circuses instead, but who cares what Joe Six-Pack wants, anyway? Get
your own money, build a space cruiser, and shove it down his beefy,
cheese-puff-clogged throat! Fait accompli, you sons of bitches! Mars,
here we come!

Voting is useless. Only bold, manly ACTION will ever get us into space.
Our species cries out for a hero with a Heinlein novel in one hand and a
pile of money in the other.

Paging Delos D. Harriman; your species needs you!

Fly Me to the Moon,

B-chan

Anime Lover Since 1969

NEWLY UPDATED! ISSUE #3 NOW ONLINE!
************************************
KURO NEKO : THE ONLINE JOURNAL OF
SUPER DIMENSION FAMILY HENDERSON-LEWIS
UPDATED! Babylon 5: The Anime
NEW! "Grease" Movie Essay
UPDATED! Chapter 3 of ISH-MEL:The Online Novel
AND MORE! Visit us today at
http://home.pacbell.net/bchan/index.html
************************************

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Paul Dietz wrote:

> Each launch would put tons of plutonium and hundreds
> of pounds of fission products into the atmosphere.
>

> Tell me the ad agency that can sell that to the public
> as "insignificant"; I want to invest in them.

It comes out to less than 1% of what was put up by US nuclear testing
alone, and you only need one launch for this. BTW, they are only
popping about the equivalence of 100-200 ktons warheads. That equates
to about 50 lbs of radioactive material. Unless you gots some funky
new nuke that creates mass.....

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Jacob McGuire wrote:
>
> Not to mention destroying approximately every single satellite in
> orbit.

Well, if the EM from a dinky little .1 kt TACTICAL nuke is enough to
fry a sattelite, I would be suprised that they are still up there.
And if you are talking about the blast....

> But I'm sure that Mr. Goff already knew that and is simply being
> obnoxious, as usual.

You haven't even see me be obnoxious.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Bruce "B-chan" Lewis wrote:

Thanks for the backup.

> So? That's bad news, but it's not the end of the world. For the price
> of a single B-2 or SEAWOLF I'm sure them smart college boys over at
> LLNL can figure out a laser-triggered bomb or something that'll
> eliminate the plutonium problem entirely.

The funny thing about this is that burning coal releases this level of
radiation from radioactive contaminants all the time. I don't see the
locals dropping like flies though....strange.....Actually, I'm looking
into light metal fission, which could potentially solve the problem...
Hey, I might even join the nuclear club....How much you think they
charge for admission. :-)

> Besides, a few more cancer deaths per decade are a fair trade for a
> whole new planet; look how many people die every year mining coal, for
> God's sake. I'll even volunteer to be one of the victims. Just promise
> to bury me in the hills overlooking Luna City.

Luna?!?!? H*ll, I'm going to Mars! 10,000 tons will do quite nice.



> If I were a zillionaire, there'd be no problem selling the public
> anything. I'd buy some land in Siberia, rent an army of former Soviet
> nuke boys, and build the damned thing under armed guard.
> Goatee-sporting Greenpeacers with signs and banners will be fun
> target practice for my roving squads of bored, surly, AK-47-armed
> ex-Soviet Army gun boys. I'd pay off the UN snoopies and CIA boys just
> like that nice young Aldrich Ames fellow, then one day, pow -- there
> she is! I'd invite Ted and Jane to cover the launch live on CNN from
> our protected press bunker 150 meters from Ground Zero. Oops -- did I
> say 150 meters? That should have been fifteen HUNDRED meters...sorry,
> guys...ow, that's gotta sting...

LOL, I like that sense of humor. But seriously, the 1958 figure for a
launch was $200M for fuel and a cheap steel structure. Don't need to
be a billionaire. BTW, don't give me ideas.....



> My shockingly undemocratic opinion: screw the public. We'll never vote
> our way to the stars, that's for sure! Joe Six-Pack wants his bread
> and circuses instead, but who cares what Joe Six-Pack wants, anyway?
> Get your own money, build a space cruiser, and shove it down his
> beefy, cheese-puff-clogged throat! Fait accompli, you sons of bitches!
> Mars, here we come!

AMEN. ;-)

> Voting is useless. Only bold, manly ACTION will ever get us into
> space. Our species cries out for a hero with a Heinlein novel in one
> hand and a pile of money in the other.
>
> Paging Delos D. Harriman; your species needs you!

All I can say is, satellites, fallout, and the UN be damned. I get the
money, and I'll build it!

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/4/98
to

Filip De Vos wrote:

> *ulp* The satellites that would be fried by the multiple EMP's do ot
> form part of our environment?

From a tactical nuke? BTW, here is how EMP works in laymans terms.
Nuke goes boom. Fast Gamma rays interact with atmospheric atoms.
Atoms lose electrons at high velocity. High velocity electrons form
a massive EM field. That is the pulse. In outerspace, EMP is purely
LOS. In fact, a 20kt nuke ain't hardly going to do jack EMP wise.
And if it fscks over a few government sattelites, bonus.

> I would gladly settle for a Sea Dragon or twenty.

Eh?

Filip De Vos

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Subject: Re: Screw Shuttle-C go Orion!
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <34d9b8ee...@207.126.101.78> <19980204115...@ladder03.news.aol.com> <34D8A6B7...@sees.bangor.ac.uk> <34D8D2...@et.byu.edu>
Distribution:

Jonathan A Goff (jon...@et.byu.edu) wrote:
: Title says it all. why are we talking about 87 tons to LEO? Especially
: when the proposed orion could put 10,000 Tons on mars? Environmental
: damage would not be significant, especially if we launched it from

*ulp* The satellites that would be fried by the multiple EMP's do ot form
part of our environment?

: antartica. I'm pissed, that stuff was practically ready to be assembled


: back in the 50's, and we're still dinking around with this Von Braun
: crap?!?

I would gladly settle for a Sea Dragon or twenty.

: "An engineer is someone who can build for a dollar

: what any damn fool can build for ten." - R. Hienlein

So the Von Braun crap is more or less OK, it is just that it has to be
built by a Heinleinian engineer.


--
Filip De Vos FilipP...@rug.ac.be

There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system.
-- John S. Lewis --

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
> Paul Dietz wrote:
>
> > Each launch would put tons of plutonium and hundreds
> > of pounds of fission products into the atmosphere.
> >
> > Tell me the ad agency that can sell that to the public
> > as "insignificant"; I want to invest in them.
>
> It comes out to less than 1% of what was put up by US nuclear testing
> alone, and you only need one launch for this. BTW, they are only
> popping about the equivalence of 100-200 ktons warheads. That equates
> to about 50 lbs of radioactive material. Unless you gots some funky
> new nuke that creates mass.....

Each explosion adds only a few tens of meters per second
to the speed of the vehicle (too big an impulse and the
peak acceleration is too high). So you need hundreds
of bombs. Each of those bombs needs a critical
mass of fissionable material. This means the bombs
are, of necessity, inefficient, spreading most
of their plutonium unfissioned. 300 bombs x 5 kg Pu =
1.5 tonnes of Pu. Even highly efficient bombs will
fail to fission most of their fissionable material.

I'm not sure where the "50 lbs of radioactive material"
comes from. The description of Orion at
http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html
says that the 10000 ton concept would be detonating
a 20 kiloton bomb every ten seconds. If most of the
bombs are 20 kT, and 300 are used, this is 6 MT of
yield, creating perhaps 400 kg of fission products.

All the bomb testing done by the US put something like
7 tonnes of plutonium into the environment.

I do wish those advocating this would reconnect with
reality (reading some of the other responses, I realize this
is asking a lot.) Orion isn't now, and won't be in the foreseeable
future, an even slightly plausible option for launch from the
Earth's surface.

Paul

Jacob McGuire

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 4-Feb-98 Re: Screw Shuttle-C go
Orion! by Jonathan A Go...@et.byu.e
>> Not to mention destroying approximately every single satellite in
>> orbit.
>
>Well, if the EM from a dinky little .1 kt TACTICAL nuke is enough to
>fry a sattelite, I would be suprised that they are still up there.
>And if you are talking about the blast....

Detonated in the upper atmosphere and low earth orbit, this would
quite certainly destroy all LEO satellites, and do significant damage to
GEO satellites as well.

Marcus Lindroos INF

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Sigh....oh well, there is one thing I agree with at least. If you want
to go, you will have to raise the cash yourself. I.e., *first* become
a zillionaire (televangelism, computer software or whatever), *then*
burn lots of cash on space hardware that will take you to Mars.
Orion is out of the question, though -- a spacecraft that pollutes
the Earth and blasts the electronics of every satellite within
sight is acceptable only to the fascists on board.
---
I think Ron Hubbard might be a better role model than Heinlein --
some sort of pseudo-scientific cult that has mass appeal to rednecks,
fundamentalists, gun-nuts and UFO believers would be a smash...
Maybe Jonathan, Bruce & me could become the gray eminences of some
new religion?:-) Provided we could get some charismatic fellow
to star for us on television, it might well work.

bearpaw

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

"Bruce \"B-chan\" Lewis" <"bchan"@pacbell. net> writes:
> ...

>Voting is useless. Only bold, manly ACTION will ever get us into space.
>Our species cries out for a hero with a Heinlein novel in one hand and a
>pile of money in the other.

"Oh, he's a atomjack and he's ok
He glows all night and he works all day
He plans and schemes
Eats No Free Lunch
And tinkers in the lab-o-t'ry ..."

Bearpaw

ObDuh: Yes, I know that radiation doesn't make you "glow".

+---< bea...@world.std.com >-< http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ >--+
| "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen ... |
\ and stupidity." - Harlan Ellison /


Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Paul Dietz wrote:

> I'm not sure where the "50 lbs of radioactive material"
> comes from. The description of Orion at
> http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html
> says that the 10000 ton concept would be detonating
> a 20 kiloton bomb every ten seconds. If most of the
> bombs are 20 kT, and 300 are used, this is 6 MT of
> yield, creating perhaps 400 kg of fission products.

Hmm...spread out over antartica, I don't see this caussing many problems
As it is, they've detonated bigger than that over in Nevada, and the
Cancer rates downwind have only increased by a statistically
insignificant amount.


> All the bomb testing done by the US put something like
> 7 tonnes of plutonium into the environment.

Actually the exact statement by people who designed it was 1%, so that
means it is only putting about 70kg into the atmoshpere. Or you forgot
to add in the other world superpowers.



> I do wish those advocating this would reconnect with
> reality (reading some of the other responses, I realize this
> is asking a lot.) Orion isn't now, and won't be in the foreseeable
> future, an even slightly plausible option for launch from the
> Earth's surface.

And chemical rockets are? Face it, you will never have a space program
that can do Jack Or Shit without a nuclear drive of some sort. Mars in
a year one way with five guys is unnaceptable. Shuttle-C is STILL total
Pie in the Sky, and the space shuttle is an obsolete piece of crap.
The Space plane isn't slated for starting operations until 2020-2030.
How the hell else are we going to do it O aerospace god. :P

--
Jonathan Goff

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Marcus Lindroos INF wrote:
>
> Sigh....oh well, there is one thing I agree with at least. If you want
> to go, you will have to raise the cash yourself. I.e., *first* become
> a zillionaire (televangelism, computer software or whatever), *then*
> burn lots of cash on space hardware that will take you to Mars.
> Orion is out of the question, though -- a spacecraft that pollutes
> the Earth and blasts the electronics of every satellite within
> sight is acceptable only to the fascists on board.

A) Rockets allready release tons of pollution into the atmosphere.
B) It would cost Hundreds of billions of dollars with Regular
Stuff what we could do for Hundreds of Millions
C) I am not a fascist, and it seems more likely that the fascists would
be the ones wanting us to stick with the Space Cow.
D) A .1kt tactical nuke would not fry any sattelites further than
about 100 miles away.
E) The pollution if launched from an unpopulated area would be very
insignificant. Less than what Utah received from Nevada Nuclear
Tests, and cancer rates have decreased since that.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jacob McGuire wrote:

> Detonated in the upper atmosphere and low earth orbit, this would
> quite certainly destroy all LEO satellites, and do significant damage
> to GEO satellites as well.

Nope, EM drops off with the square of the distance, and a .1kt bomb is
less than 1/30,000th the size of one that would only destroy the
electronics in the continental US. Basically, you are full of crap.
A .1kt yield bomb detonated 1000s of miles from the nearest sattelite
will only mess up readings for about 10 minutes. Tactical nukes just
don't let off that much EMP

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Marcus Lindroos INF wrote:

> I think Ron Hubbard might be a better role model than Heinlein --
> some sort of pseudo-scientific cult that has mass appeal to rednecks,
> fundamentalists, gun-nuts and UFO believers would be a smash...
> Maybe Jonathan, Bruce & me could become the gray eminences of some
> new religion?:-) Provided we could get some charismatic fellow
> to star for us on television, it might well work.

Naw, I allready got meself a good religion. However, since the bad boy
could be built o' steel, and specific components could be mass produced,
we could do it cheap. Not to mention I'm in international finance....

Also, I'm looking into light metal fission that releases NO RADIOACTIVE
materials, because the fuel isn't radioactive. That ought to kill any
reasons for not launching. As I said, I'm going to mars, whether the
luddites on this list want me to or not.

Graham Nelson

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

In article <34D8D2...@et.byu.edu>, Jonathan A Goff

<URL:mailto:jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
> Title says it all. why are we talking about 87 tons to LEO? Especially
> when the proposed orion could put 10,000 Tons on mars? Environmental
> damage would not be significant, especially if we launched it from
> antartica. I'm pissed, that stuff was practically ready to be assembled
> back in the 50's, and we're still dinking around with this Von Braun
> crap?!?

Leaving aside this suggestion per se, it's always amusing to see
libertarian babble trying to engage with the real world. In
another post today, Mr Goff calls for an end to licensing and
regulation and bureaucracy of space ventures. Combining these
two posts, let's allow anybody who wants to, to launch from
anywhere they like (e.g. a suburb of New York City) by a serious
of nuclear explosions, and they can have whatever safety features
they themselves happen to feel are worth bothering with (e.g.
none).

Mention of "environmental damage" is intriguing. What's the correct
libertarian dogma on this? I would guess it's to deny that there's
any such worry or concern, and that the whole thing is got up by
tree-hugging communists, or something of that kind -- because the
only way to protect limited Earth resources is plainly by some kind
of collective action, and if you don't believe in collective action
you have a problem, surely?

Antarctica is, of course, the last place on Earth we should
pollute: its usefulness to science is exactly that it is the last
place on Earth that we have polluted. But hey, that's just what
Communist penguin-huggers like myself _would_ say.

--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom


Graham Nelson

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

In article <34D948...@et.byu.edu>, Jonathan A Goff
<URL:mailto:jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

> And if it fscks over a few government sattelites, bonus.

You never want to see another weather forecast, then?

Pierce Nichols

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Marcus Lindroos INF wrote:
>
> I think Ron Hubbard might be a better role model than Heinlein --
> some sort of pseudo-scientific cult that has mass appeal to rednecks,
> fundamentalists, gun-nuts and UFO believers would be a smash...
> Maybe Jonathan, Bruce & me could become the gray eminences of some
> new religion?:-) Provided we could get some charismatic fellow
> to star for us on television, it might well work.
>

Hey, I have a friend who's noising around about starting her own mass
religion. Maybe we could join forces -- preaching our way to the stars!

Pierce Nichols

--
"A book should be an axe for the frozen sea inside."

-Franz Kafka

--Begin Geek Code Block--|------Begin Goth Code Block------
v3.12 |v3.1
GAT[GCS,GS] d-@ s+: !a |GoCS2)$PS3$ TJtAn PGL B10Bk!
c++@>$ u+>+++>$ P+>+ |CDbrp8S V6s M4 ZGoPuExgExtClMe
L+>++ E+>+ W+ N++ !o K+ |C7ome a20 n5F b56 h180 g6T??95F/A
W-- O- M- V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ |m1Ea@Z3? w6TA V3 r6EP p54565Rd
PGP t+@ 5+ X++ R+[GURPS] |D37 h6 sM9P SsYy k6Z N??91OE
[DARKSUN] !tv b++>+ D I+ |RfsS Lus9
!D G++ e>+++++ h r% y++ |-------End Goth Code Block-------
---End Geek Code Block---|
------------Begin Magick Code Block, v0.92------------
M[WITCH] S* W+ N+ P[CE][GR][OT]++ Dr a- C++ G !Q 666 Y
---------------End Magick Code Block------------------

umfr...@cc.umanitoba.ca

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Marcus Lindroos INF wrote:
>
> Sigh....oh well, there is one thing I agree with at least. If you want
> to go, you will have to raise the cash yourself. I.e., *first* become
> a zillionaire (televangelism, computer software or whatever), *then*
> burn lots of cash on space hardware that will take you to Mars.
> Orion is out of the question, though -- a spacecraft that pollutes
> the Earth and blasts the electronics of every satellite within
> sight is acceptable only to the fascists on board.
Sure. In fact we could all get together and pool our resources. Like
I've heard some rich guy say. "The first million is the hardest one to
make" so get 10 people with 100,000 and you've really got something.

> ---


> I think Ron Hubbard might be a better role model than Heinlein --
> some sort of pseudo-scientific cult that has mass appeal to rednecks,
> fundamentalists, gun-nuts and UFO believers would be a smash...
> Maybe Jonathan, Bruce & me could become the gray eminences of some
> new religion?:-) Provided we could get some charismatic fellow
> to star for us on television, it might well work.

Better yet have competing cults and stage a "holy war" sort of like the
Pepsi/Coke competition where each sides followers end up spending more
and more of their money, pulling in people on all sides. haha! it just
might work.

Allen Thomson

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

In article <34D9EC...@et.byu.edu> Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> writes:

[snip]

>
>Also, I'm looking into light metal fission that releases NO RADIOACTIVE
>materials, because the fuel isn't radioactive. That ought to kill any
>reasons for not launching. As I said, I'm going to mars, whether the
>luddites on this list want me to or not.

Er, just how light is light? (You might want to look up something
called the "curve of binding energy"). Anyway, U235 and even Pu239
aren't violently radioactive -- what's left over after they fission
is, and that's the problem.


Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Graham Nelson wrote:

> > And if it fscks over a few government sattelites, bonus.
>
> You never want to see another weather forecast, then?

Ok, maybe I could cover the bases and just have upgraded replacement
sattelites for the ONE or maybe TWO sattelites I injure. Get a clue,
these are light tacnukes, not wiggin' Megaton Citybusters.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Allen Thomson wrote:

> Er, just how light is light? (You might want to look up something
> called the "curve of binding energy"). Anyway, U235 and even Pu239
> aren't violently radioactive -- what's left over after they fission
> is, and that's the problem.

Lithium 6 + deuterium fusion. Low activation energy (about 10 keV
IIRC), causes the two to fuse into Beryllium 8 which has a half life
of two microseconds, afterwards it decomposes into to alpha particles,
which are merely high velocity helium ions. Pound per pound twice as
powerful as Plutonium or Uranium Fission. No pollution. Was classified
due to the fact that it is a key component in the H-Bomb.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Graham Nelson wrote:

> Leaving aside this suggestion per se, it's always amusing to see
> libertarian babble trying to engage with the real world. In
> another post today, Mr Goff calls for an end to licensing and
> regulation and bureaucracy of space ventures. Combining these
> two posts, let's allow anybody who wants to, to launch from
> anywhere they like (e.g. a suburb of New York City) by a serious
> of nuclear explosions, and they can have whatever safety features
> they themselves happen to feel are worth bothering with (e.g.
> none).

However they have to deal with the fact that under common law,
regardless of wether there is a regulation or not, if they harm
someone, like launching an Orion out of a suburb of New York, they
have to pay damages. Cancer treatment for 20 million is such a
hassle that the launch company by economic realities HAS to launch
from a relitively uninhabited area of the world. Also, they have to
time their launch so as to not damage satellites, as those would cost
lots to replace.



> Mention of "environmental damage" is intriguing. What's the correct
> libertarian dogma on this? I would guess it's to deny that there's
> any such worry or concern, and that the whole thing is got up by
> tree-hugging communists, or something of that kind -- because the
> only way to protect limited Earth resources is plainly by some kind
> of collective action, and if you don't believe in collective action
> you have a problem, surely?

Quite simple, if the idiot is stupid enough to launch in a populated
area, they have to pay damages to everyone who had enough fallout land
on their land to cause damage. And that would be a lot of people, so
once again you end up with the launch being from the Sahara region,
Siberia, Antartica, or the middle of the Pacific. Not to tough really.
With the verticle launch, if the thing is unsafe, it crashes down on
top of the launcher. Most nukes could be shot at and not go off. You
enviro-commies need to take some engineering and law classes.



> Antarctica is, of course, the last place on Earth we should
> pollute: its usefulness to science is exactly that it is the last
> place on Earth that we have polluted. But hey, that's just what
> Communist penguin-huggers like myself _would_ say.

The launch from the Sahara, or the middle of Australia, or the Pacific,
or Central Brazil. Allout of that low of levels would only really
damage an area about 20 miles in diameter, and spread minimal pollution
downwind. So antartica was just a suggestion, use your brain and I bet
even you could come up with a better, more realistic site.

Jacob McGuire

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 5-Feb-98 Re: Screw Shuttle-C go

Orion! by Jonathan A Go...@et.byu.e
>> Detonated in the upper atmosphere and low earth orbit, this would
>> quite certainly destroy all LEO satellites, and do significant damage
>> to GEO satellites as well.
>
>Nope, EM drops off with the square of the distance, and a .1kt bomb is
>less than 1/30,000th the size of one that would only destroy the
>electronics in the continental US. Basically, you are full of crap.
>A .1kt yield bomb detonated 1000s of miles from the nearest sattelite
>will only mess up readings for about 10 minutes. Tactical nukes just
>don't let off that much EMP

An interesting hypothesis.

Here's an excerpt from a DoD study done on the threat from a third
world country detonating a 50kt blast in LEO.

"Limited Third World Nuclear Threat
"A single low-yield nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude
(> 100 km) can negate a majority of LEO space assets in a few months.
- Tens of billions of dollars in space assets destroyed
- Recovery would require several years
- Some capability would not be recoverable
- Dire consequences for U.S. defense posture and economy"

The large Orion you seem to advocate will be detonating a total yield
of around 6 megatons, probably killing these satellites in about a week,
not to mention any astronauts currently in orbit.

And if you think, for even a microsecond, that the USAF or the NRO
will let you destroy their precious satellites, you've got another think
coming.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jacob McGuire wrote:

> Here's an excerpt from a DoD study done on the threat from a third
> world country detonating a 50kt blast in LEO.
>
> "Limited Third World Nuclear Threat
> "A single low-yield nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude
> (> 100 km) can negate a majority of LEO space assets in a few
> months.
> - Tens of billions of dollars in space assets destroyed
> - Recovery would require several years
> - Some capability would not be recoverable
> - Dire consequences for U.S. defense posture and economy"

And it dances a jig, while playing a fife, and doing your laundry all
at once. Basically, I think it is pure guano. I had read a report
that it would take 3 ONE MEGATON BOMBS detonated in LEO to EMP fry the
US's assets. I'd like to see your hokie report.


> The large Orion you seem to advocate will be detonating a total
> yield of around 6 megatons, probably killing these satellites in about
> a week, not to mention any astronauts currently in orbit.

The radiation from EMP is NOT CUMULATIVE. IT CAUSES AN EM WAVE. It is
only letting off 20kt at a time, which is less than half what the study
was using. And a couple of atoms per square meter of radioactive dust
is NOT going to kill astronauts and fry sattelites.

> And if you think, for even a microsecond, that the USAF or the NRO
> will let you destroy their precious satellites, you've got another
> think coming.

From the above statements, I feel that you have no clue whatsoever about
how nuclear weapons work. How would it fry everything in LEO? EMP is
line of sight ONLY! The radioactive dust can't be the problem either,
as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are far worse.

Jacob McGuire

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 5-Feb-98 Re: Screw Shuttle-C go
Orion! by Jonathan A Go...@et.byu.e
>> The large Orion you seem to advocate will be detonating a total
>> yield of around 6 megatons, probably killing these satellites in about
>> a week, not to mention any astronauts currently in orbit.
>
>The radiation from EMP is NOT CUMULATIVE. IT CAUSES AN EM WAVE. It is
>only letting off 20kt at a time, which is less than half what the study
>was using. And a couple of atoms per square meter of radioactive dust
>is NOT going to kill astronauts and fry sattelites.

>From the above statements, I feel that you have no clue whatsoever about


>how nuclear weapons work. How would it fry everything in LEO? EMP is
>line of sight ONLY! The radioactive dust can't be the problem either,
>as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are far worse.

Neither the EMP nor the radioactive dust is the problem. The problem
is that the high energy photons given off by the bomb ionize large
portions of the upper atmosphere, creating a bunch of energetic
electrons that go zinging off down the magnetic field lines. These
electrons will go away eventually (mainly due to atmospheric drag), but
in the meantime they will wreak havoc on satellites in LEO.

Are you a freshman, just out of curiosity?

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jacob McGuire wrote:

> Neither the EMP nor the radioactive dust is the problem. The
> problem is that the high energy photons given off by the bomb ionize
> large portions of the upper atmosphere, creating a bunch of energetic
> electrons that go zinging off down the magnetic field lines. These
> electrons will go away eventually (mainly due to atmospheric drag),
> but in the meantime they will wreak havoc on satellites in LEO.

Hmmm....That's it? Wow, that could be a really good energy source to
power a Perrault Valve.....Heck, that's a lot of freakin' power......
You just gave me an idea that might make the thing all the more
feasible......



> Are you a freshman, just out of curiosity?

Nope, a Junior in Manufacturing Engineering. Why?

George Herbert

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
>From the above statements, I feel that you have no clue whatsoever about
>how nuclear weapons work. How would it fry everything in LEO? EMP is
>line of sight ONLY! The radioactive dust can't be the problem either,
>as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are far worse.

From the above statement, it is apparent
that you don't understand EMP either.
One of the many effects, the one which is
for orbital vehicles the most damaging,
is pumping energy into those Van Allen belts.

Look up the Starfish test (7/9/62) sometime.
It took years for the belts to quiesce after
Starfish.


-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gher...@crl.com

jjw...@tassie.net.au

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

In article <34D9EA...@et.byu.edu>,

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

> > I do wish those advocating this would reconnect with
> > reality (reading some of the other responses, I realize this
> > is asking a lot.) Orion isn't now, and won't be in the foreseeable
> > future, an even slightly plausible option for launch from the
> > Earth's surface.
>
> And chemical rockets are? Face it, you will never have a space program
> that can do Jack Or Shit without a nuclear drive of some sort. Mars in

> a year one way with five guys is unnacceptable. Shuttle-C is STILL total


> Pie in the Sky, and the space shuttle is an obsolete piece of crap.
> The Space plane isn't slated for starting operations until 2020-2030.
> How the hell else are we going to do it O aerospace god. :P

World public opinion will never allow any kind of nuclear booster to
operate from earth surface. And the thought of operating it from
Antarctica? Are you serious? Temperatures between -10 and -40 degrees
celcius? The one place that practically all nations have signed an
agreement to NEVER exploit like the rest of the planet? And you want to
launch a nuclear booster from there?

I agree that it would be fabulous to have a booster capable of what Orion
(or anything above and beyond STS) could do for manned exploration of the
solar system, but we have to stay in touch with reality here. What you
propose will NEVER be allowed to happen. Politicians won't touch what
they know Joe Public won't accept. Mind you, if it was the French we
were talking about, who don't seem to give a crap about world opinion
(ie., nuclear testing in the South Pacific) it might happen! ;-)
-------------------------------------- Justin Wigg -
jjw...@tassie.net.au

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981
--------------------------------------

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

> A) Rockets allready release tons of pollution into the atmosphere.

All pollution is equivalent?

Paul

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

> Also, I'm looking into light metal fission that releases NO RADIOACTIVE
> materials, because the fuel isn't radioactive. That ought to kill any
> reasons for not launching. As I said, I'm going to mars, whether the
> luddites on this list want me to or not.

You are perhaps talking about hydrogen-boron reactions.
Getting these to go *at all* is a major problem, let
alone in bomb form. But if you could: you've just
invented a proliferation nightmare, a nuclear weapon
not requiring uranium isotope enrichment or plutonium
production reactors.

BTW, having a fuel that is not radioactive does not
mean you don't release radioactive materials. Consider
DD fusion: it produces tritium and neutrons (which active
surrounding materials).

Paul

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
> Allen Thomson wrote:
>
> > Er, just how light is light? (You might want to look up something
> > called the "curve of binding energy"). Anyway, U235 and even Pu239
> > aren't violently radioactive -- what's left over after they fission
> > is, and that's the problem.
>
> Lithium 6 + deuterium fusion. Low activation energy (about 10 keV
> IIRC), causes the two to fuse into Beryllium 8 which has a half life
> of two microseconds, afterwards it decomposes into to alpha particles,
> which are merely high velocity helium ions. Pound per pound twice as
> powerful as Plutonium or Uranium Fission. No pollution.

Of course that would cause pollution. For one thing, there
would be the much high cross section DD reactions. Also,
the state populated by 6Li + D is energetic, and will also decay
by other modes, such as 7Be + n, 4He + T + p, or 4He + 3He + n.

The reaction rate of 6Li + d at 10 keV is extremely small.
Even the much cleaner H + 6Li is very slow at that temperature
(reaction parameter around 5 x 10^-21 cm/s, vs. about 10^-16
cm/s for DT. And most of that reactivity is due to the high
energy tail of the thermal distribution.

Paul

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

> > All the bomb testing done by the US put something like
> > 7 tonnes of plutonium into the environment.
>
> Actually the exact statement by people who designed it was 1%, so that
> means it is only putting about 70kg into the atmoshpere.

What are you saying here: that Orion only puts 1% of the radioactives
from its launch into the atmosphere? Clearly not. That past bomb
tests only put 1% of their Pu into the atmosphere? This is not
true, and if it were, would make Orion look even worse.


> > I do wish those advocating this would reconnect with
> > reality (reading some of the other responses, I realize this
> > is asking a lot.) Orion isn't now, and won't be in the foreseeable
> > future, an even slightly plausible option for launch from the
> > Earth's surface.
>
> And chemical rockets are? Face it, you will never have a space program
> that can do Jack Or Shit without a nuclear drive of some sort.

Chemical rockets are an *excellent* way of launching
from a planetary surface. The problem is that
the market has been too small to drive down their
cost. This will change.

Notice that I said "for launch from the Earth's surface".

It is amusing to see libertarians lusting after Orion,
a monument to cold-war government gigantism if there
ever was one. But then you could say that about the entire
manned space program.

Paul

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

> Nope, EM drops off with the square of the distance, and a .1kt bomb is
> less than 1/30,000th the size of one that would only destroy the
> electronics in the continental US. Basically, you are full of crap.

You don't understand that EMP affecting spacecraft
is different from the EMP that would affect terrestrial
electronics. In space, x rays and gammas from the blast
directly interact with the spacecraft structure, scattering
electrons and causing large, near instantaneous charge separation
in the spacecraft itself. Zap.

Paul

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Paul Dietz wrote:

> What are you saying here: that Orion only puts 1% of the radioactives
> from its launch into the atmosphere? Clearly not. That past bomb
> tests only put 1% of their Pu into the atmosphere? This is not
> true, and if it were, would make Orion look even worse.

No, the ammount of radiation it would put up compared to the ammount
allready put up would be less than 1% of whats allready up there.

> Chemical rockets are an *excellent* way of launching
> from a planetary surface. The problem is that
> the market has been too small to drive down their
> cost. This will change.

Yeah right. When? When will we EVER build a chemical rocket that can
put 10,000 tons to mars for less than $.5G?



> Notice that I said "for launch from the Earth's surface".
>
> It is amusing to see libertarians lusting after Orion,
> a monument to cold-war government gigantism if there
> ever was one. But then you could say that about the entire
> manned space program.

Well, Orion was started before the bomb was even a sure thing, so I sure
think that is well below Cold War government gigantism. Especially
seeing as how it would be cheap enough that private enterprise could
build it.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Paul Dietz wrote:

> You are perhaps talking about hydrogen-boron reactions.
> Getting these to go *at all* is a major problem, let
> alone in bomb form. But if you could: you've just
> invented a proliferation nightmare, a nuclear weapon
> not requiring uranium isotope enrichment or plutonium
> production reactors.

Actually, it is Lithium Hydrogen, NOT Hydrogen Boron. Heck, I wouldn't
even share it with the US. It would be mine.



> BTW, having a fuel that is not radioactive does not
> mean you don't release radioactive materials. Consider
> DD fusion: it produces tritium and neutrons (which active
> surrounding materials).

Lithium Hydrogen produces two Heliums.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Paul Dietz wrote:

> You don't understand that EMP affecting spacecraft
> is different from the EMP that would affect terrestrial
> electronics. In space, x rays and gammas from the blast
> directly interact with the spacecraft structure, scattering
> electrons and causing large, near instantaneous charge separation
> in the spacecraft itself. Zap.

I've been thinking about this, and the answer popped into my head. If
the thing launches in early 2000, it will avoid all problems.

A) the Y2k bug will have made all the satellites in orbit into oh so
much garbage anyway
B) With almost all microelectronics wigging out, nobody will be able
to stop a launch, and most wouldn't even know it happened, as TV
wouldn't work.

Thanks, you helped me solve that problem too.

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

> I've been thinking about this, and the answer popped into my head.

Wrong verb, wrong direction, and wrong part of your anatomy.

Please tell me this has been a well-constructed troll.

Paul

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

> Well, Orion was started before the bomb was even a sure thing, so I sure
> think that is well below Cold War government gigantism. Especially
> seeing as how it would be cheap enough that private enterprise could
> build it.

The Manhattan project was not also an example of government gigantism?
That's where Orion (or its predecessors) was conceived.

Private enterprise is not going to build an Orion. The liability
would be outrageous. The payoff is nonexistent. No governments
would allow it, or even modest steps toward it (try setting
up that private nuclear bomb factory, for example).

I used to be a libertarian, but (I hope) I wasn't *this*
bizarrely detached from the rational universe. Your proposals
are like bad comic book plot lines.

Paul

Kermitus

unread,
Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98
to

bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<EnwxC...@world.std.com>...
> "Bruce \"B-chan\" Lewis" <"bchan"@pacbell. net> writes:
> > ...
> >Voting is useless. Only bold, manly ACTION will ever get us into space.

<voice = Dudley Do-Right>

"Wish me luck, Nell, for I am off to do (strikes heroic pose)
BOLD, MANLY things!" ;o)

> >Our species cries out for a hero with a Heinlein novel in one hand and a
> >pile of money in the other.
>
> "Oh, he's a atomjack and he's ok
> He glows all night and he works all day
> He plans and schemes
> Eats No Free Lunch
> And tinkers in the lab-o-t'ry ..."
>
He Fears No Evil
He groks the Truth,
And has Time Enough for Laaaaahve!
He'd like to bed a girlie
Who's just like dear mamaaaaa!

(Okay, so it ain't Irving Berlin. This is Usenet ;o)
--
When you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn?


Filip De Vos

unread,
Feb 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/6/98
to

Jonathan A Goff (jon...@et.byu.edu) wrote:
: Filip De Vos wrote:

: > *ulp* The satellites that would be fried by the multiple EMP's do ot
: > form part of our environment?

: From a tactical nuke? BTW, here is how EMP works in laymans terms.
: Nuke goes boom. Fast Gamma rays interact with atmospheric atoms.
: Atoms lose electrons at high velocity. High velocity electrons form
: a massive EM field. That is the pulse. In outerspace, EMP is purely
: LOS. In fact, a 20kt nuke ain't hardly going to do jack EMP wise.

I am afraid your high velocity electrons get trapped in the coils of the
earth's magnetic field, and will continue to career in them for quite a
while. Those satellites _will get fried, especially since you are not just
detonating _one 20kt device.

: And if it fscks over a few government sattelites, bonus.

If you really think the governments of the world (including your own) will
stand idly by and allow you to zap their precious satellites, then you are
sadly mistaken, naive 'libertarian'.

: > I would gladly settle for a Sea Dragon or twenty.

: Eh?

The Sea Dragon was a design for a re-usable twostage rocket of stupendous
proportions, by Bob Truax. Just like the Shuttle introduced 'new
technology in all areas', it would eliminate them, and replace with
ordinary engineering, even of shipyard tolerances. Shipyard is needed
anyway to build the beast, and the launch pad (and recovery site) would be
the open ocean.

: "An engineer is someone who can build for a dollar

: what any damn fool can build for ten." - R. Hienlein

^^
Could you please reverse these letters order? This way, it looks ...
untidy.


--
Filip De Vos FilipP...@rug.ac.be

There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system.
-- John S. Lewis --

Allen Thomson

unread,
Feb 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/6/98
to

In article <34DA46...@et.byu.edu> Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> writes:

[snip]

>


>From the above statements, I feel that you have no clue whatsoever about
>how nuclear weapons work. How would it fry everything in LEO? EMP is
>line of sight ONLY! The radioactive dust can't be the problem either,
>as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are far worse.


The van Allen belts are exactly the problem. Even one 50 kT bomb
detonated in the right place can put enough electrons into the
belts to fry nonhardened devices in one to six months. One bomb,
and just about everything in LEO is toast next year.

Dr John Stockton

unread,
Feb 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/6/98
to

JRS: In article <34DA8E...@et.byu.edu> of Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:14:56
in sci.space.policy, Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
>Jonathan Goff

>
>"An engineer is someone who can build for a dollar
>what any damn fool can build for ten." - R. Hienlein

YWII. Who is R. Hienlein, and why is he quoting R. A. Heinlein?

I am impressed by the scale of the challenge that byu has undertaken.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v1.12 MIME.
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> - about usage of News.
Don't Mail News. No Binaries. Quote before reply. Snip Sigs. Write clearly.

George Herbert

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
>> Er, just how light is light? (You might want to look up something
>> called the "curve of binding energy"). Anyway, U235 and even Pu239
>> aren't violently radioactive -- what's left over after they fission
>> is, and that's the problem.
>
>Lithium 6 + deuterium fusion. Low activation energy (about 10 keV
>IIRC), causes the two to fuse into Beryllium 8 which has a half life
>of two microseconds, afterwards it decomposes into to alpha particles,
>which are merely high velocity helium ions. Pound per pound twice as
>powerful as Plutonium or Uranium Fission. No pollution. Was classified
>due to the fact that it is a key component in the H-Bomb.

Not very classified, it's been open knowledge since I was in grade
school if not earlier than that.

I just packed away all my reference books for a move, but my impression
is that Li6-D fusion requires enough activation energy that you can't
induce it short of fission-fusion multistage ullam-teller implosive
devices. If it were that easy, we'd see it in use for all sorts
of useful things.

FYI, that reaction is also not aneutronic unless you are using
a particle acellerator to inject the Deuterium; the D-D->T+N
reaction has lower activation energy, so in a reaction chamber
(reactor or bomb) you get D-D->T+N neutrons out AND you get
Li6-T->2He+N neutrons out much faster than the Li6-D reaction
rates... this does not in fact make "clean" bombs or reactors.
Most of the neutrons coming out of two stage fission/fusion
nuclear weapons come out of those two reactions, though the
ingredients in the implosive section are usually tritium spiked
Li6-D (which start to form more Tritium immediately upon
implosive ignition... which burns off rapidly). Much of the
energy of typical two stage weapons comes off in the form
of fast neutrons, and in three stage weapons (fission-fusion-fission)
you use a blanket of U-238 to capture some of that fast neutron
energy and about half the average three stage weapon's overall
energy is from this neutron capture fission in the tamper.

George Herbert

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Leaving aside this suggestion per se, it's always amusing to see
>libertarian babble trying to engage with the real world. In
>another post today, Mr Goff calls for an end to licensing and
>regulation and bureaucracy of space ventures. Combining these
>two posts, let's allow anybody who wants to, to launch from
>anywhere they like (e.g. a suburb of New York City) by a serious
>of nuclear explosions, and they can have whatever safety features
>they themselves happen to feel are worth bothering with (e.g.
>none).

Now that's a new take on the Manhattan Project...


-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com


George Herbert

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

Posted and mailed.

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

>Paul Dietz wrote:
>> I'm not sure where the "50 lbs of radioactive material"
>> comes from. [...]


>
>> All the bomb testing done by the US put something like
>> 7 tonnes of plutonium into the environment.
>
>Actually the exact statement by people who designed it was 1%, so that

>means it is only putting about 70kg into the atmoshpere. Or you forgot
>to add in the other world superpowers.

I suspect something was wrong with that estimate.

If we assume roughly 1-hertz detonations giving you a very
optimistic 50 m/s per blast, that's about 8,000/50 or 160
explosions before you reach orbit. Before you reach orbit,
I am going to posit without detailed proof that roughly 100%
of the fission products of explosions prior to attaining orbital
velocity will eventually end up in the atmosphere and on the
surface of the planet. Each bomb would need a pit of say
7.5kg unless we get amazingly fancy, over 7kg of which
remains as fallout (plus the bomb casing, etc). So we're
talking more like a thousand kilos into the atmosphere,
not 70 kilos.

>"An engineer is someone who can build for a dollar
>what any damn fool can build for ten." - R. Hienlein

Always an interesting quote, but you're missing some of
the spirit here. An Engineer is also someone who knows
enough about a broad range of applicable subjects that
they can sketch out an accurate first guess at the scale
and feasibility of a project on a few sheets of e-paper,
not missing any critical problems or underestimating any
serious effects. The breadth of knowledge needed to be
able to do that well is quite amazing when it comes to
spacecraft engineering.

In particular in your attempts at nuclear engineering
relative to this set of postings, you've missed a number
of relatively major problems, ranging from your using the
1% number when an easy back-of-the-envelope calculation
shows it to be over an order of magnitude off, to not having
known the physics of the EMP/Van Allen Belt interactions
and the resultant Earth orbit energetic particle environment
effects of Orion launches. I don't want to discourage you
too much, every great "Idea" engineer goes through this phase
when they know enough to be dangerous and not enough to
be safe yet. But a good engineer knows their limitations.

Please take these corrections as a suggested leaping off
point for further research on your own (engineering libraries
are some of the most useful places on earth 8-).
It's much easier to learn the required knowledge to
be able to practice engineering than try and make
non-enthusiastic, non-creative people come up with
useful new ideas. You're in a good position to contribute
a lot in the future, if you identify what you don't know
and learn it.

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:34:47 +0000, Mr J P Kerslake
<kers...@sees.bangor.ac.uk> wrote:

>Has any one got any drawing or specifisation for the Maginum booster?

I looked on the Marshall Spaceflight Center's webpage for the Magnum
heavy-lift vehicle, and they have several pages that look like the
right place but they're all under construction at the present time!

Here's the url:

http://astp.msfc.nasa.gov/

TA

Paul Dietz

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

George Herbert wrote:

> FYI, that reaction is also not aneutronic unless you are using
> a particle acellerator to inject the Deuterium; the D-D->T+N
> reaction has lower activation energy, so in a reaction chamber
> (reactor or bomb) you get D-D->T+N neutrons out AND you get
> Li6-T->2He+N neutrons out much faster than the Li6-D reaction
> rates... this does not in fact make "clean" bombs or reactors.
> Most of the neutrons coming out of two stage fission/fusion
> nuclear weapons come out of those two reactions, though the
> ingredients in the implosive section are usually tritium spiked
> Li6-D (which start to form more Tritium immediately upon
> implosive ignition... which burns off rapidly). Much of the
> energy of typical two stage weapons comes off in the form
> of fast neutrons, and in three stage weapons (fission-fusion-fission)
> you use a blanket of U-238 to capture some of that fast neutron
> energy and about half the average three stage weapon's overall
> energy is from this neutron capture fission in the tamper.


This is not quite right. Most of the energy comes from
the cycle

n + 6Li --> T + 4He
T + D --> 4He + n

The fuel is typically compressed to the point that
a neutron scattering length is less than the linear
dimensions of the fuel, so most of the neutrons
interact rather than escape. Even those that are
not absorbed tend to be thermalized before escaping
the fuel.

I understand modern thermonuclear weapons in fact use a HEU
tamper, for even higher yield. U235 has no fission
energy threshold, and a high fission cross section
at all neutron energies.

Initial neutrons mostly come from DD reactions;
some extra may come from the (n,2nT) reaction on 7Li,
and from the (n,2np) reaction on 6Li. These are endothermic.

See the FAQ at http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/ for many
details.

Paul

Craig Bingman

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In article <34D95858...@interaccess.com>,
Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> wrote:

>Each explosion adds only a few tens of meters per second
>to the speed of the vehicle (too big an impulse and the
>peak acceleration is too high). So you need hundreds
>of bombs. Each of those bombs needs a critical
>mass of fissionable material. This means the bombs
>are, of necessity, inefficient, spreading most
>of their plutonium unfissioned. 300 bombs x 5 kg Pu =
>1.5 tonnes of Pu. Even highly efficient bombs will
>fail to fission most of their fissionable material.

The advocates (serious advocates) of such poposals imagined relatively
"clean" fission-triggered fusion devices. These devices were triggered
with transuranic elements that had a much lower critical mass than Pu-239.

Either that didn't pan out, or I have not heard about it yet.

EMP was not a serious consideration at that time. It is now.

Craig

Craig Bingman

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In article <34DA8D...@et.byu.edu>,

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

>Yeah right. When? When will we EVER build a chemical rocket that can
>put 10,000 tons to mars for less than $.5G?

In all likelihood, we never will build a chemical rocket that will put
10,000 metric tons on Mars for less than a half a billion dollars.

And if an Orion-type device that is built for that amount of money (give
me a freaking break, you can't break wind in the aerospace world for a
half of a billion dollars, let alone boost a payload to Mars... is this
with payload planning?) If it fries one comsat in geosynchrnous orbit,
then at 0.5 billion dollars, it has just doubled its price. If you take
out two... then it gets to be a bit more expensive. If you take out all
of them in the solid angle sampled by the booster going to Mars (and that
will be about one hundred percent of them) then your booster just became
substantially more expensive.

This is granting you that you can pull this task off for a half a billion
dollars. You can't.

Craig

Craig Bingman

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In article <34dec475...@207.126.101.78>,
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:

>NASA officials said they hope to learn from the quick turnaround,
>which they estimate will cost $58 million to $70 million. About $500
>million was spent on the first flight."
>
>Now, where did you say I got those figures, Jonathan?
>
>Tom Abbott

Any evidence that these figures are at all representative of the cost of
launching the shuttle? So from this I can extrapolate that a series of
10 relaunches actually will cost $580 million dollars, right? How about
a hundred, for $5.8 billion? What is the payload throw weight of the
shuttle to LEO, something like 20-30 metric tons? So for $5.8 billion, I
can expect 2 million pounds in LEO? Hallefuckingluia, the cost for a kg
in orbit is now 2.9 k$/kg? So we are now at ~$1,000 per lb.

I'd be slightly impressed, aside from the fact that there is no way in
hell that the recycling of One Orbiter on One Instance is in any way,
shape or form indicative of the costs to boost a kg to LEO by the shuttle
program.

Is NASA ready to put out contracts to do 100 more or less repetitive
shuttle launches for $58 million a pop? They ought to take out an ad in
the NYT. I'm sure many people would be interested.

Maybe it will actually get less expensive the more they do it? I mean,
practice makes perfect, right? So they recycled one orbiter for $58
million, maybe we can do 100 launches for you know, $2 billion or so. So
now we are down to a figure more like $500 per lb on orbit.

So now we have come to the rather absurd conclusion that we can do 100
launches for what it takes to just pay people on the ground for one year
to maintain shuttle infrastructure on the ground.

Wow. I'm amazed. If you start out with meaningless and probably
somewhat cooked numbers, you can transform them into anything you like.

What was it that you said about this rapid turnaround delaying several
other orbiter launches? Have you ever seen a real business contract in
your life? If you slip three launch windows, then that is going to cost
nontrivial money. It will be in the contract.

I've No Doubt that anyone can make a program look rather amazing for one
turnaround. Ask them for price quotes for 10 or 100 launches, and you
will get an answer that has a lot more to do with reality...

Seems like you are already about halfway into LEO. Perhaps to boost cost
from there is lower than it is from the surface of the planet.

Craig


P.S. For anyone who has their feet on the ground, what is the real cost
of filling the STS's external tank with liquid hydrogen and liquid
oxygen, and maintaining that until liftoff? I can make a rough cut at
that for the LOX cost, but I don't have a good handle on the LH2 costs.

Craig Bingman

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In article <34D9EB...@et.byu.edu>,

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

>A) Rockets allready release tons of pollution into the atmosphere.

Tons of what kind of pollution? A ton of HCl from solid rockets is not
the health equivalent of a ton of fission daughters.

>B) It would cost Hundreds of billions of dollars with Regular
> Stuff what we could do for Hundreds of Millions

You can't even make the baby nukes for a hundred million dollars, let
alone undertake the engineering burden and construction costs of making
it work. Nor can you even come close to paying for the assets in LEO
that would be damaged by this.

>C) I am not a fascist,

No, you are... something else.

>E) The pollution if launched from an unpopulated area would be very
> insignificant. Less than what Utah received from Nevada Nuclear
> Tests, and cancer rates have decreased since that.

So you are saying that cancer rates in Utah decreased since the trinity
device was detonated there? Really?

Three goals for you:

1) show that it happened.

2) demonstrate that detonating the Trinity device caused cancer rates to
decrease in people in the fallout plume from that event.

3) get your message out to the people. If a little fallout is good for
us (I mean, in 2 you just demonstrated a causal link between fallout and
a decrease in cancer rates) is more fallout even better for us? Should
there be a USRDA for fission daughters?

Good luck.

Craig

George Herbert

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>George Herbert wrote:
>
>> FYI, that reaction is also not aneutronic unless [...]

>
>This is not quite right. Most of the energy comes from
>the cycle
> n + 6Li --> T + 4He
> T + D --> 4He + n
>[...]

>See the FAQ at http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/ for many
>details.


Most specifically http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Library/Fusion.html

I have a complete dump of the HEW files and this one, but it's
buried in a box under about 2 tons of other books and paperwork until
I get the bookshelves up in the new house...

Marcus Lindroos INF

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Subject: Re: Tom's Shuttle-C costs
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <34d9b8ee...@207.126.101.78> <19980204115...@ladder03.news.aol.com> <34D8A6B7...@sees.bangor.ac.uk> <34df4072...@207.126.101.78>
Organization: Abo Akademi University
Distribution:

Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:34:47 +0000, Mr J P Kerslake


: <kers...@sees.bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
:
: >Has any one got any drawing or specifisation for the Maginum booster?
:
: I looked on the Marshall Spaceflight Center's webpage for the Magnum
: heavy-lift vehicle, and they have several pages that look like the
: right place but they're all under construction at the present time!

Heck, the entire Magnum _CONCEPT_ is still rather poorly defined... I
checked SPACE NEWS yesterday and was amazed to find how little there
was.
---
There is _no way_ Tom can go out and confidently "predict" that this
HLLV will be capable of orbiting 80 metric tons for just $175 million!!!
The last thorough analysis (for Shuttle-C) said a launch will cost
$400 million+ and these were NASA's *own* figures. So I will use this as
my baseline for now.

: Here's the url:
:
: http://astp.msfc.nasa.gov/
:
: TA
:
:

--
MARCU$

---------------------------------------
Marcus Lindroos
Skyttegatan 20A
98137 Kiruna,Sweden
Email:mlin...@aton.abo.fi
Fax:358-15-616667
WWW:http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo
--------------------------------------


--
MARCU$

---------------------------------------
Marcus Lindroos
Skyttegatan 20A
98137 Kiruna,Sweden
Email:mlin...@aton.abo.fi
Fax:358-15-616667
WWW:http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo
--------------------------------------


Strider

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Craig Bingman wrote:
>
> In article <34dec475...@207.126.101.78>,
> Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>
> >NASA officials said they hope to learn from the quick turnaround,
> >which they estimate will cost $58 million to $70 million. About $500
> >million was spent on the first flight."
> >
> >Now, where did you say I got those figures, Jonathan?
> >
> >Tom Abbott
>
> Any evidence that these figures are at all representative of the cost of
> launching the shuttle? So from this I can extrapolate that a series of
> 10 relaunches actually will cost $580 million dollars, right?

To a point yes. Until you exceed the launch capacity of LC-39, in
which case you'll need to add more to you're infrastructure costs.

> How about
> a hundred, for $5.8 billion? What is the payload throw weight of the
> shuttle to LEO, something like 20-30 metric tons? So for $5.8 billion, I
> can expect 2 million pounds in LEO? Hallefuckingluia, the cost for a kg
> in orbit is now 2.9 k$/kg? So we are now at ~$1,000 per lb.
>

Ayup. This is one reason a RLV should become cost effective.

> I'd be slightly impressed, aside from the fact that there is no way in
> hell that the recycling of One Orbiter on One Instance is in any way,
> shape or form indicative of the costs to boost a kg to LEO by the shuttle
> program.
>

Why not? It does give a baseline. For one thing you can pretty safely
argue that without huge changes, you can't launch a shuttle for anything
less than about $60 million.

On the other hand, it also indicates that adding an extra launch or two
doesn't require an additional .5-1 billion dollars either.

> Is NASA ready to put out contracts to do 100 more or less repetitive
> shuttle launches for $58 million a pop? They ought to take out an ad in
> the NYT. I'm sure many people would be interested.
>

Are you being snide to try to make a point, or just being dense. No
one, not even Tom is arguing that NASA can launch the shuttle 100 times
a year.

> Maybe it will actually get less expensive the more they do it? I mean,
> practice makes perfect, right? So they recycled one orbiter for $58
> million, maybe we can do 100 launches for you know, $2 billion or so. So
> now we are down to a figure more like $500 per lb on orbit.
>

Ayup.

> So now we have come to the rather absurd conclusion that we can do 100
> launches for what it takes to just pay people on the ground for one year
> to maintain shuttle infrastructure on the ground.
>

Who's we? YOU came to this conclusion to demolish it. It's called a
strawman argument.

> Wow. I'm amazed. If you start out with meaningless and probably
> somewhat cooked numbers, you can transform them into anything you like.
>
> What was it that you said about this rapid turnaround delaying several
> other orbiter launches? Have you ever seen a real business contract in
> your life? If you slip three launch windows, then that is going to cost
> nontrivial money. It will be in the contract.
>
> I've No Doubt that anyone can make a program look rather amazing for one
> turnaround. Ask them for price quotes for 10 or 100 launches, and you
> will get an answer that has a lot more to do with reality...
>
> Seems like you are already about halfway into LEO. Perhaps to boost cost
> from there is lower than it is from the surface of the planet.
>

The fact of the matter is, no matter how absurd you want to make your
arguments is that NASA was originally budgeted for 7 missions in 1997
and flew 8.


No one is arguing that the Shuttle can be turned around 100 times in
one year. If it could though, I am sure that costs would be
considerably less per flight than the current cost of around $400
million.

Tom often goes overboard with his enthusiasm, but some of his points
are correct.

During the 1986-88 stand down, NASA was still paying several billion
per year on the shuttle budget, yet no shuttle flights were flown.
Given this, one could argue that the cost to fly a shuttle is infinite.

Or one could reasonably conclude that the fixed cost of LC-39 is rather
high. I prefer this conclusion.

On top of your fixed cost, which is clearly capable of providing
services for 8 flighs a year in a safe manner, and according to some
reports, scaling to 12 flights a year in a safe manner with minor
changes, you need to add the incremental costs of a flight. And
depending on who's numbers you believe, it costs anywhere from $60
million to $120 million for your ET, fuel, SRB refurbishment, SSME
refurbishment, etc.

So, one can reasonably conclude that NASA could if they wanted/needed
to, increase the flight rate by about 50% for only $480 million
dollars. Make that an even $500 million.

So, you have: 8 flights at $3.2 billion, or $400 million/flight or with
a 40K lb payload, $10,000/lb
or, you have: 12 flights at $3.7 billion, or $308 million/flight or
$7708/lb.

So yes, increasing flight rate DOES drive down costs of individual
costs and the payload costs. Any airline will tell you this.

(Where I tend to disagree with Tom, and where I think you're hanging
your argument, is that you can't sell the first 8 flights for $400
million each, and then charge only $100 million for the remaining ones.
You have to break the costs out evenly.)

> Craig
>
> P.S. For anyone who has their feet on the ground, what is the real cost
> of filling the STS's external tank with liquid hydrogen and liquid
> oxygen, and maintaining that until liftoff? I can make a rough cut at
> that for the LOX cost, but I don't have a good handle on the LH2 costs.


(P.S. I just checked the new NASA budget:
http://www.nasa.gov/budget/99budget_summary.html
and get a cost of 2.9 billion for 1998 fiscal year, so my numbers were a
bit high).

(I don't consider payloads/Spacelab as part of the shuttle budget.)

--
Greg D. Moore President moo...@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com/
518-283-4083


Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Strider wrote:

> > Any evidence that these figures are at all representative of the
> > cost of launching the shuttle? So from this I can extrapolate that
> > a series of 10 relaunches actually will cost $580 million dollars,
> > right?
>
> To a point yes. Until you exceed the launch capacity of
> LC-39, in which case you'll need to add more to you're infrastructure
> costs.

Actually, they are total BS. I asked some people at JSC, and they told
me that the recurring costs for a launch was $448M. Not these Peter
Pan numbers that Tom keeps touting.

> Ayup. This is one reason a RLV should become cost effective.

Not likely. They are just to complex to become cost effective. Complex
makes it risky. Risky means it needs lots of maintanance and inspection
after every launch. RLVs also mean that the engine has to be reusable,
which greatly increases the cost. The costs and weights of most of the
airframes are also significant. Arthur Schnitt did the parametric
analysis, and found that a two stage vehicle with a robust recoverable
first stage designed to MCD criteria would be by far cheaper. Shuttle-C
and Venture Star are singing the same tune as the original STS. And
look what that delivered. No offense, but you are deluding yourself
if you seriously think RLV will be cheaper then a semi-recoverable ELV.



> Why not? It does give a baseline. For one thing you can
> pretty safely argue that without huge changes, you can't launch a
> shuttle for anything less than about $60 million.
>
> On the other hand, it also indicates that adding an extra
> launch or two doesn't require an additional .5-1 billion dollars
> either.

I'll trust NASAs numbers thank you.

> Are you being snide to try to make a point, or just being
> dense. No one, not even Tom is arguing that NASA can launch the
> shuttle 100 times a year.

But they were back when the program was funded.....

> Ayup.

Who are you saying is being dense?




> Who's we? YOU came to this conclusion to demolish it. It's
> called a strawman argument.

Its called taking exactly what Tom said, and showing that it is totally
absurd. The only bit of his own conjecture was the $2G thing.

> Or one could reasonably conclude that the fixed cost of LC-39
> is rather high. I prefer this conclusion.

Or that it was porkbarrel money to try to get the wheels of beauracracy
greased a bit to continue with STS. This was after challenger correct?

> On top of your fixed cost, which is clearly capable of
> providing services for 8 flighs a year in a safe manner, and according
> to some reports, scaling to 12 flights a year in a safe manner with
> minor changes, you need to add the incremental costs of a flight. And
> depending on who's numbers you believe, it costs anywhere from $60
> million to $120 million for your ET, fuel, SRB refurbishment, SSME
> refurbishment, etc.

Not bloody likely. $448M recurring. That is I guess including the
maintanance and inspections and everything else.

> > P.S. For anyone who has their feet on the ground, what is the real
> > cost of filling the STS's external tank with liquid hydrogen and
> > liquid oxygen, and maintaining that until liftoff? I can make a
> > rough cut at that for the LOX cost, but I don't have a good handle
> > on the LH2 costs.

Probably fairly expensive, cryogenics are not fun.

--
Jonathan Goff

"Dare to dream, and bend reality around your dream it until it fits.
THAT is the American Way." - Bruce Lewis

Strider

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:

>
> Strider wrote:
>
> > > Any evidence that these figures are at all representative of the
> > > cost of launching the shuttle? So from this I can extrapolate that
> > > a series of 10 relaunches actually will cost $580 million dollars,
> > > right?
> >
> > To a point yes. Until you exceed the launch capacity of
> > LC-39, in which case you'll need to add more to you're infrastructure
> > costs.
>
> Actually, they are total BS. I asked some people at JSC, and they told
> me that the recurring costs for a launch was $448M. Not these Peter
> Pan numbers that Tom keeps touting.
>

I respectfully disagree with either your terminology or your friends.
Recurring costs are not necessarily the same as incremental costs. And
Tom has been open about claiming his numbers are incremental costs.

And considering the line item marked Space Shuttle was less than 3.5
billion last year, I'm not sure how recent your friends numbers are.

> > Ayup. This is one reason a RLV should become cost effective.
>

> Not likely. They are just to complex to become cost effective. Complex
> makes it risky. Risky means it needs lots of maintanance and inspection
> after every launch. RLVs also mean that the engine has to be reusable,
> which greatly increases the cost. The costs and weights of most of the
> airframes are also significant. Arthur Schnitt did the parametric
> analysis, and found that a two stage vehicle with a robust recoverable
> first stage designed to MCD criteria would be by far cheaper. Shuttle-C
> and Venture Star are singing the same tune as the original STS. And
> look what that delivered. No offense, but you are deluding yourself
> if you seriously think RLV will be cheaper then a semi-recoverable ELV.
>

I'll remember that next time I get into my stage Airplane to the West
coast. Or perhaps my expendable airplane to Florida.

> > Why not? It does give a baseline. For one thing you can
> > pretty safely argue that without huge changes, you can't launch a
> > shuttle for anything less than about $60 million.
> >
> > On the other hand, it also indicates that adding an extra
> > launch or two doesn't require an additional .5-1 billion dollars
> > either.
>

> I'll trust NASAs numbers thank you.
>

Those are NASA's numbers. The $58 million number for the Columbia
reflight comes FROM NASA. In fact, most of us argue it's too low. So,
if you want to believe NASA's numbers, you better not pick and chose too
much.


> > Are you being snide to try to make a point, or just being
> > dense. No one, not even Tom is arguing that NASA can launch the
> > shuttle 100 times a year.
>

> But they were back when the program was funded.....
>

No, they weren't.

> > Ayup.
>
> Who are you saying is being dense?
>
>

> > Who's we? YOU came to this conclusion to demolish it. It's
> > called a strawman argument.
>

> Its called taking exactly what Tom said, and showing that it is totally
> absurd. The only bit of his own conjecture was the $2G thing.
>

> > Or one could reasonably conclude that the fixed cost of LC-39
> > is rather high. I prefer this conclusion.
>

> Or that it was porkbarrel money to try to get the wheels of beauracracy
> greased a bit to continue with STS. This was after challenger correct?
>

Yes. And they still had to pay most of the employees at the Cape.

Fixed costs include things like:
Air conditioning of the VAB
Repainting the pads (to counter-act effects of salt)
Paying the astronauts while they keep their skill sets up
Paying the electic bill in the LCC
etc.

These don't go away when you launch less shuttles. They also don't
change dramactically when you launch 1 or 2 more.


> > On top of your fixed cost, which is clearly capable of
> > providing services for 8 flighs a year in a safe manner, and according
> > to some reports, scaling to 12 flights a year in a safe manner with
> > minor changes, you need to add the incremental costs of a flight. And
> > depending on who's numbers you believe, it costs anywhere from $60
> > million to $120 million for your ET, fuel, SRB refurbishment, SSME
> > refurbishment, etc.
>

> Not bloody likely. $448M recurring. That is I guess including the
> maintanance and inspections and everything else.
>

Let's see, we can trust your number from some unnamed NASA friend, or
we can trust the numbers from the budget.

> > > P.S. For anyone who has their feet on the ground, what is the real
> > > cost of filling the STS's external tank with liquid hydrogen and
> > > liquid oxygen, and maintaining that until liftoff? I can make a
> > > rough cut at that for the LOX cost, but I don't have a good handle
> > > on the LH2 costs.
>

> Probably fairly expensive, cryogenics are not fun.
>

Pennies per pound as I recall.

> --
> Jonathan Goff
>
> "Dare to dream, and bend reality around your dream it until it fits.
> THAT is the American Way." - Bruce Lewis

--

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

Strider wrote:
>
> I respectfully disagree with either your terminology or your
> friends. Recurring costs are not necessarily the same as incremental
> costs.

I asked them what the non fixed cost was per launch.

> And Tom has been open about claiming his numbers are incremental
> costs.

If incremental costs aren't the cost to launch the thing, then I don't
care.

> And considering the line item marked Space Shuttle was less
> than 3.5 billion last year, I'm not sure how recent your friends
> numbers are.

Hmm...8*448 is just around 3.5 billion. Does that 3.5 include the costs
of running the cape? Or is that soaked up in other things.



> I'll remember that next time I get into my stage Airplane to
> the West coast. Or perhaps my expendable airplane to Florida.

Hey, if that airplane has cryogenic fuels, scramjets, and tiles that
heat up to over 2000K in flight, I'd be rather suprised. Spacecraft
are NOT AIRPLANES!!! Also, you will note that your airplane you fly
to florida in is probably made of aluminum, not Carbon Composites.
Also, that airplane you are flying on is proven technology from years
ago. The Venture star by the time it starts operations around 2020,
is allready going to be uneconomical

> Those are NASA's numbers. The $58 million number for the
> Columbia reflight comes FROM NASA.

Thats funny, because the NASA guy I asked said it was ~448M a launch,
I even asked him about the reflight, he said nope 448. Maybe you are
all misreading it, and the relaunch cost $58M *LESS* than the normal
launch. If that is the case it is feasible. There is just no way you
can possibly launch that space cow for $58 million.

> > > Are you being snide to try to make a point, or just being
> > > dense. No one, not even Tom is arguing that NASA can launch the
> > > shuttle 100 times a year.
> >
> > But they were back when the program was funded.....
> >
>
> No, they weren't.

Lets see, the claims were a full RLV capable of 100+ flights a year,
carrying so much cargo that it would cost $100/lb in orbit. At least
this time they are only claiming $1000/lb in orbit, which is semi
realistic. Same tune, different name.

<snip>

> These don't go away when you launch less shuttles. They also
> don't change dramactically when you launch 1 or 2 more.

I understand what fixed costs are. I just do not believe that almost
90% of the budget is fixed costs. If it was so cheap, other companies
would have made their own shuttle (or shuttle-c) by now. As it is,
almost all other launchers of that size cost over $150M to launch.
With the complexity of the parts, that NASA guy must have lied, or you
must have missunderstood him, because it is not possible to do all that
for merely $58M.



> Let's see, we can trust your number from some unnamed NASA
> friend, or we can trust the numbers from the budget.

I spoke with the people that answer questions at NASA. That was the
response. And I haven't seen anywhere on the budget that says you
can launch for $58M.

> Pennies per pound as I recall.

To store them and keep them from leaking/exploding? I doubt it.

p...@globalreach.net

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

In article <34E1B7...@et.byu.edu>,

Jonathan A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

> Hey, if that airplane has cryogenic fuels, scramjets, and tiles that
> heat up to over 2000K in flight, I'd be rather suprised. Spacecraft
> are NOT AIRPLANES!!! Also, you will note that your airplane you fly
> to florida in is probably made of aluminum, not Carbon Composites.
> Also, that airplane you are flying on is proven technology from years
> ago. The Venture star by the time it starts operations around 2020,
> is allready going to be uneconomical

I'm thinking of buying a road bicycle... my last one was in the
early 80's and was made of chrome-moly.

Nowadays I can choose between Aluminum (welded or bonded), Titanium,
Metax, Aluminum Metal Matrix, or composite.

I'm leaning towards composite.

Phil

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Strider

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
> Strider wrote:
> >
> > I respectfully disagree with either your terminology or your
> > friends. Recurring costs are not necessarily the same as incremental
> > costs.
>
> I asked them what the non fixed cost was per launch.
>

Then your friend is woefully misinformed.

> > And Tom has been open about claiming his numbers are incremental
> > costs.
>

> If incremental costs aren't the cost to launch the thing, then I don't
> care.
>

The incremental costs the cost to add or delete a flight. You may not
care, but I'm sure any USA accountants charged with figuring how they
could sell extra flights on Columbia care (assuming the restriction is
ever lifted on commercial flights on the shuttle).

> > And considering the line item marked Space Shuttle was less
> > than 3.5 billion last year, I'm not sure how recent your friends
> > numbers are.
>

> Hmm...8*448 is just around 3.5 billion. Does that 3.5 include the costs
> of running the cape? Or is that soaked up in other things.
>

Probably soaked up in other things, such as operations budgets.

Besides, I gave the URL to look up the budget numbers yourself. I
suggest you do.


> > Those are NASA's numbers. The $58 million number for the
> > Columbia reflight comes FROM NASA.
>

> Thats funny, because the NASA guy I asked said it was ~448M a launch,
> I even asked him about the reflight, he said nope 448. Maybe you are
> all misreading it, and the relaunch cost $58M *LESS* than the normal
> launch. If that is the case it is feasible. There is just no way you
> can possibly launch that space cow for $58 million.
>

No, perhaps your friend doesn't have a clear clue of the numbers.
Several people here, Tom, myself, Marcus and George (I think) have all
provided sources for the numbers. Depending on which numbers you take,
it comes to between $58 million (the number NASA stated and was quoted
in AW&ST I believe) and $120 million for incremental costs. This
includes:
Refurbishment of the SSME's
Refurbishment of the SRB's
A new ET
Fuel
And stacking the thing.

Admittedly, the Columbia reflight is going to come in less than a normal
"extra" flight since they was very little charge to cargo changes.
(i.e. the work required in the OPF and payload changeout room was lower
than normal.)


> > > > Are you being snide to try to make a point, or just being
> > > > dense. No one, not even Tom is arguing that NASA can launch the
> > > > shuttle 100 times a year.
> > >
> > > But they were back when the program was funded.....
> > >
> >
> > No, they weren't.
>

> Lets see, the claims were a full RLV capable of 100+ flights a year,
> carrying so much cargo that it would cost $100/lb in orbit. At least
> this time they are only claiming $1000/lb in orbit, which is semi
> realistic. Same tune, different name.
>

Can you name a source for 100+ flights a year. All my sources after
1972 claim 50 or so flights a year with a 5 craft fleet. By 1974 or so
it was pretty apparent that this would never happen.

> <snip>


>
> > These don't go away when you launch less shuttles. They also
> > don't change dramactically when you launch 1 or 2 more.
>

> I understand what fixed costs are. I just do not believe that almost
> 90% of the budget is fixed costs. If it was so cheap, other companies
> would have made their own shuttle (or shuttle-c) by now. As it is,
> almost all other launchers of that size cost over $150M to launch.
> With the complexity of the parts, that NASA guy must have lied, or you
> must have missunderstood him, because it is not possible to do all that
> for merely $58M.
>

"that NASA guy must have lied" You're the only one here that claims to
have spoken so some NASA guy. I'm taking my numbers from the budget.
So either they are lieing to Congress and pulling money out of nowhere,
or the costs are close to what they claim.

And yes, the problem with the shuttle is that the fixed costs ARE so
damn high and that the reflight rates are so low. That's the whole
POINT!

It takes according to one estimate I've seen, 2000 hours to turn a
shuttle around for a flight. It takes an airplane roughly 15-30
minutes. If a 747 could only fly 4 times a year, neither of us could
afford to fly on it.

This is where RLV's hope to make the biggest dent, keeping turn-around
times low. And they hope to use a lot less infrastructure.

Consider how many gallons per mile the crawler burns, the maintenance
just on that, the paint for the MLP, air conditioning the VAB, etc.
Stuff like that adds up, quickly.

> > Let's see, we can trust your number from some unnamed NASA
> > friend, or we can trust the numbers from the budget.
>

> I spoke with the people that answer questions at NASA. That was the
> response. And I haven't seen anywhere on the budget that says you
> can launch for $58M.
>

Let's start at the beginning, again.
Start with: http://www.nasa.gov/budget/99budget_summary.html

And tell me what line item marked SPACE SHUTTLE reads. I'll give you a
hint, it's less than $3.5 billion. That should give you some idea how
accurate the $448 million number you keep throwing around is.

> > Pennies per pound as I recall.
>

> To store them and keep them from leaking/exploding? I doubt it.
>

Well, I don't recall the exact numbers, but I think you can take
delivery of LO2 for under a $1/lb. Roughly speaking 1 lb of L02 I'd
guess is about 1 gallon, you can figure it from there.

These numbers I'll admit are WAGs.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

p...@globalreach.net wrote:

> I'm leaning towards composite.

Which is a good choice. I've personally been learning about how to use
comosites, and for some areas, they are extremely useful. Bikes and
sports gear is one of them. If we ever actually get a real RLV (which
we won't), it will probably use composites. In fact, some cheaper
composites (S-glass filament wound) would actually be slightly better
cost wise, for instance working on the fuel tanks. Basically, I'm all
for good technology, I just think these guys are being unrealistic and
sucking up everything they hear like a Hoover. I've been guilty of it
too, but as the saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice
shame on me."

frank...@delphi.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

<jjw...@tassie.net.au> writes:

>I agree that it would be fabulous to have a booster capable of what Orion
>(or anything above and beyond STS) could do for manned exploration of the
>solar system, but we have to stay in touch with reality here. What you
>propose will NEVER be allowed to happen. Politicians won't touch what
>they know Joe Public won't accept. Mind you, if it was the French we
>were talking about, who don't seem to give a crap about world opinion
>(ie., nuclear testing in the South Pacific) it might happen! ;-)


I do have this recurring fantasy of France and China getting together to
build an Orion-type vehicle, but I'm not holding my breath....

Frank

frank...@delphi.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> writes:

>> A) Rockets allready release tons of pollution into the atmosphere.
>
>All pollution is equivalent?


Espically if we're talking H2/O2 rockets....

Frank

Rand Simberg

unread,
Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98
to

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:36:59 -0700, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
A Goff <jon...@et.byu.edu> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>Thats funny, because the NASA guy I asked said it was ~448M a launch,
>I even asked him about the reflight, he said nope 448. Maybe you are
>all misreading it, and the relaunch cost $58M *LESS* than the normal
>launch. If that is the case it is feasible. There is just no way you
>can possibly launch that space cow for $58 million.

Without weighing in on what the cost of Shuttle is, simply quoting "a
NASA guy" has no value to an argument. NASA has thousands of
employees, and very few of them even understand the elements of
costing, let alone how much a Shuttle flight costs. If you can't be
more specific about the source of the statement, don't expect us to
take it very seriously. In any event, and without saying what is
right, your "NASA guy" is clearly confused about costing terminology,
and wrong.

************************************************************************
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov

Eddie Cochrane

unread,
Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98
to

Absolutely Frank, releasing deadly Di-Hydrogen Monoxide into the
environment.

Cheers, Eddie

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

On 10 Feb 1998 08:39:03 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos
INF) wrote:


>Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:


>: On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:34:47 +0000, Mr J P Kerslake
>: <kers...@sees.bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
>:
>: >Has any one got any drawing or specifisation for the Maginum booster?
>:

>:[TA]: I looked on the Marshall Spaceflight Center's webpage for the Magnum


>: heavy-lift vehicle, and they have several pages that look like the
>: right place but they're all under construction at the present time!
>

>[ML]: Heck, the entire Magnum _CONCEPT_ is still rather poorly defined... I


>checked SPACE NEWS yesterday and was amazed to find how little there
>was.
>---
>There is _no way_ Tom can go out and confidently "predict" that this
>HLLV will be capable of orbiting 80 metric tons for just $175 million!!!

Marcus, I am only repeating a claim made by NASA. And why wouldn't
a $175 million cost be reasonable? The shuttle incremental costs are
less than that, even if you just divide the annual shuttle budget by
the marginal hardware costs (about $120 million). That leaves $55
million for labor and other costs. A $175 million launch cost sounds
like it's in the ballpark.


>The last thorough analysis (for Shuttle-C) said a launch will cost
>$400 million+ and these were NASA's *own* figures.

You must mean the space shuttle instead of Shuttle-C. I would like
to see the pertinent references from the study you mention if it is
indeed a Shuttle-C launch cost prediction.

> So I will use this as
>my baseline for now.

You are in effect saying Shuttle-C would cost as much to launch as a
space shuttle. Considering the shuttle would require more labor/cost
between launches, how do you justify this assertion?

Tom Abbott

External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.vswap.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm

Space Studies Institute e-mail: s...@ssi.org

National Space Society: http://www.nss.org

External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm


Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 05:15:07 GMT, cbin...@netcom.com (Craig Bingman)
wrote:

>In article <34dec475...@207.126.101.78>,
>Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>
>>NASA officials said they hope to learn from the quick turnaround,
>>which they estimate will cost $58 million to $70 million. About $500
>>million was spent on the first flight."
>>
>>Now, where did you say I got those figures, Jonathan?
>>
>>Tom Abbott
>

>[CB]: Any evidence that these figures are at all representative of the cost of
>launching the shuttle?

Any evidence they are not, Craig?

>[CB]: So from this I can extrapolate that a series of
>10 relaunches actually will cost $580 million dollars, right? How about

>a hundred, for $5.8 billion?

I would say the $58 million figure pertains only to this launch of
Columbia. The relaunch had unique characteristics which would not
apply to all exta launches. Very little payload handling was required
and other steps in normal shuttle processing were skipped such as
weighing the orbiter. This would not be the case with other launches
so costs would be higher. How much higher is the "64 thousand dollar
question."

>[CB]: What is the payload throw weight of the

>shuttle to LEO, something like 20-30 metric tons?

About 30 tons.

>[CB]: So for $5.8 billion, I

>can expect 2 million pounds in LEO?

It wouldn't be quite that much since I think your assumptions are
faulty.

>[CB]: Hallefuckingluia,

My dictionary didn't list this word.

>[CB]: the cost for a kg

>in orbit is now 2.9 k$/kg? So we are now at ~$1,000 per lb.

Well, that would beat anything currently launching, assuming your
figures were correct. Now figure how much the cost would be using
Shuttle-C, which could launch three times more tonnage to orbit than
the shuttle, for the same or less cost than a shuttle.

>
>[CB]: I'd be slightly impressed, aside from the fact that there is no way in

>hell that the recycling of One Orbiter on One Instance is in any way,
>shape or form indicative of the costs to boost a kg to LEO by the shuttle
>program.

True, but then you should consider the amount of labor required for
a Shuttle-C verses a space shuttle. Three times the tonnage to orbit
for three times less labor (my guess, on the labor).

>
>[CB]: Is NASA ready to put out contracts to do 100 more or less repetitive

>shuttle launches for $58 million a pop? They ought to take out an ad in
>the NYT. I'm sure many people would be interested.

I think USA is doing that study right now, so we may see what they
think they can launch an extra shuttle for, in the not too distant
future.

>
>[CB]: Maybe it will actually get less expensive the more they do it? I mean,
>practice makes perfect, right?

That is in fact, right. NASA and USA just cut off 600 shuttle
workers and claim they will make up the difference through
"efficiencies."


>[CB]: So they recycled one orbiter for $58

>million, maybe we can do 100 launches for you know, $2 billion or so. So
>now we are down to a figure more like $500 per lb on orbit.
>

>So now we have come to the rather absurd conclusion that we can do 100
>launches for what it takes to just pay people on the ground for one year
>to maintain shuttle infrastructure on the ground.

No, you alone, have come to that absurd conclusion.


>
>[CB]: Wow. I'm amazed. If you start out with meaningless and probably

>somewhat cooked numbers, you can transform them into anything you like.

As you have just demonstrated with your cooked numbers.

>
>[CB]: What was it that you said about this rapid turnaround delaying several
>other orbiter launches?

I don't know, what did I say?

>[CB]: Have you ever seen a real business contract in
>your life?

I've seen a couple. And?

>[CB]: If you slip three launch windows, then that is going to cost

>nontrivial money. It will be in the contract.
>
>I've No Doubt that anyone can make a program look rather amazing for one
>turnaround. Ask them for price quotes for 10 or 100 launches, and you
>will get an answer that has a lot more to do with reality...

No doubt.

>
>[CB]: Seems like you are already about halfway into LEO. Perhaps to boost cost

>from there is lower than it is from the surface of the planet.

Insinuating one is out of touch with reality is a poor form of
rebuttal, and poor form in general.

>
>Craig
>
>
>[CB]: P.S. For anyone who has their feet on the ground, what is the real cost

>of filling the STS's external tank with liquid hydrogen and liquid
>oxygen, and maintaining that until liftoff? I can make a rough cut at
>that for the LOX cost, but I don't have a good handle on the LH2 costs.

It's a drop in the bucket compared to other associated shuttle
launch costs. I believe it was stated it cost less than 1 million
dollars to drain and then refill an External Tank in case of a launch
delay. That doesn't include the actual cost of the propellants, but
those costs are minimal.

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:37:47 -0500, Strider <moo...@greenms.com>
wrote:

>Craig Bingman wrote:
>>
>> In article <34dec475...@207.126.101.78>,
>> Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>>

>> >[TA]: NASA officials said they hope to learn from the quick turnaround,


>> >which they estimate will cost $58 million to $70 million. About $500
>> >million was spent on the first flight."
>> >
>> >Now, where did you say I got those figures, Jonathan?
>> >
>> >Tom Abbott
>>

>>[CB]: Any evidence that these figures are at all representative of the cost of


>> launching the shuttle? So from this I can extrapolate that a series of
>> 10 relaunches actually will cost $580 million dollars, right?
>

>[GM]: To a point yes. Until you exceed the launch capacity of LC-39, in


>which case you'll need to add more to you're infrastructure costs.
>

>>[CB]: How about


>> a hundred, for $5.8 billion? What is the payload throw weight of the
>> shuttle to LEO, something like 20-30 metric tons? So for $5.8 billion, I
>> can expect 2 million pounds in LEO? Hallefuckingluia, the cost for a kg
>> in orbit is now 2.9 k$/kg? So we are now at ~$1,000 per lb.
>>
>

>[GM]: Ayup. This is one reason a RLV should become cost effective.
>
>>[CB]: I'd be slightly impressed, aside from the fact that there is no way in


>> hell that the recycling of One Orbiter on One Instance is in any way,
>> shape or form indicative of the costs to boost a kg to LEO by the shuttle
>> program.
>>
>

>[GM]: Why not? It does give a baseline. For one thing you can pretty safely


>argue that without huge changes, you can't launch a shuttle for anything
>less than about $60 million.
>
> On the other hand, it also indicates that adding an extra launch or two
>doesn't require an additional .5-1 billion dollars either.
>

>>[CB]: Is NASA ready to put out contracts to do 100 more or less repetitive


>> shuttle launches for $58 million a pop? They ought to take out an ad in
>> the NYT. I'm sure many people would be interested.
>>
>

>[GM]: Are you being snide to try to make a point, or just being dense. No


>one, not even Tom is arguing that NASA can launch the shuttle 100 times
>a year.

That is correct, Greg. Since, to me, the object of building a
Shuttle-C is to do Moon and/or Mars exploration, I usually suggest
from four to eight Shuttle-C launches per year. As for shuttle
launches, I usually suggest two to four shuttle launches per year,
since that is all that is required to staff a space station.

>
>>[CB]: Maybe it will actually get less expensive the more they do it? I mean,


>> practice makes perfect, right? So they recycled one orbiter for $58
>> million, maybe we can do 100 launches for you know, $2 billion or so. So
>> now we are down to a figure more like $500 per lb on orbit.
>>
>

>[GM]: Ayup.
>
>>[CB]: So now we have come to the rather absurd conclusion that we can do 100


>> launches for what it takes to just pay people on the ground for one year
>> to maintain shuttle infrastructure on the ground.
>>
>

>[GM]: Who's we? YOU came to this conclusion to demolish it. It's called a
>strawman argument.

Ayup. :)
>
>>[CB]: Wow. I'm amazed. If you start out with meaningless and probably


>> somewhat cooked numbers, you can transform them into anything you like.
>>
>> What was it that you said about this rapid turnaround delaying several
>> other orbiter launches? Have you ever seen a real business contract in
>> your life? If you slip three launch windows, then that is going to cost
>> nontrivial money. It will be in the contract.
>>
>> I've No Doubt that anyone can make a program look rather amazing for one
>> turnaround. Ask them for price quotes for 10 or 100 launches, and you
>> will get an answer that has a lot more to do with reality...
>>
>> Seems like you are already about halfway into LEO. Perhaps to boost cost
>> from there is lower than it is from the surface of the planet.
>>
>

>[GM]: The fact of the matter is, no matter how absurd you want to make your


>arguments is that NASA was originally budgeted for 7 missions in 1997
>and flew 8.

That's correct, and NASA didn't spend $400 million extra to do it
either. In fact, they spent some of the shuttle budget on the space
station. That's why they are laying off 600 shuttle workers.


>
>
>[GM]: No one is arguing that the Shuttle can be turned around 100 times in


>one year. If it could though, I am sure that costs would be
>considerably less per flight than the current cost of around $400
>million.
>
> Tom often goes overboard with his enthusiasm, but some of his points
>are correct.

Only "some," Greg. :) Which ones are not?

>
>[GM]: During the 1986-88 stand down, NASA was still paying several billion


>per year on the shuttle budget, yet no shuttle flights were flown.
>Given this, one could argue that the cost to fly a shuttle is infinite.
>
>Or one could reasonably conclude that the fixed cost of LC-39 is rather
>high. I prefer this conclusion.
>
>On top of your fixed cost, which is clearly capable of providing
>services for 8 flighs a year in a safe manner, and according to some
>reports, scaling to 12 flights a year in a safe manner with minor
>changes, you need to add the incremental costs of a flight. And
>depending on who's numbers you believe, it costs anywhere from $60
>million to $120 million for your ET, fuel, SRB refurbishment, SSME
>refurbishment, etc.
>
>So, one can reasonably conclude that NASA could if they wanted/needed
>to, increase the flight rate by about 50% for only $480 million
>dollars. Make that an even $500 million.
>
>So, you have: 8 flights at $3.2 billion, or $400 million/flight or with
>a 40K lb payload, $10,000/lb
>or, you have: 12 flights at $3.7 billion, or $308 million/flight or
>$7708/lb.

An excellent summation, Greg.

>
>[GM]: So yes, increasing flight rate DOES drive down costs of individual


>costs and the payload costs. Any airline will tell you this.
>
>(Where I tend to disagree with Tom, and where I think you're hanging
>your argument, is that you can't sell the first 8 flights for $400
>million each, and then charge only $100 million for the remaining ones.
>You have to break the costs out evenly.)

We are not really in disagreement, Greg, we are just looking at the
costs differently. The total launch costs are the same whether one
divides all shuttle flights in a year into the total budget, or adds
the additional costs of extra shuttle flights on top of the baseline
shuttle launch rate.

Here is one of your quotes above, Greg:

"So, one can reasonably conclude that NASA could if they wanted/needed
to, increase the flight rate by about 50% for only $480 million
dollars. Make that an even $500 million."

This is the reason I prefer to add the incremental launch costs on
top of the baseline shuttle launch cost. I think it is much more
meaningful to Congress if one can tell them it will cost the US
taxpayers $500 million in extra launch costs per year to have a
full-blown human Moon program (assuming the 50 percent flight rate
increase consists of Shuttle-C vehicles). This gives them a figure
they can hang their hat on. The costs can be stated in other ways,
but they are less direct, and harder to visualize, IMO.


>
>> Craig
>>
>>[CB]: P.S. For anyone who has their feet on the ground, what is the real cost


>> of filling the STS's external tank with liquid hydrogen and liquid
>> oxygen, and maintaining that until liftoff? I can make a rough cut at
>> that for the LOX cost, but I don't have a good handle on the LH2 costs.
>
>

>[GM]: (P.S. I just checked the new NASA budget:


>http://www.nasa.gov/budget/99budget_summary.html
>and get a cost of 2.9 billion for 1998 fiscal year, so my numbers were a
>bit high).
>
>(I don't consider payloads/Spacelab as part of the shuttle budget.)

I don't consider any payload costs, other than those associated with
attaching the payload to the launch vehicle, to be launch costs.

Strider

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

Do you realize how many people have filled their longs with this stuff
and died? Nasty stuff.

And they say fish %&*^ in it!

>
> Cheers, Eddie

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

Tom Abbott wrote:

> Marcus, I am only repeating a claim made by NASA. And why wouldn't
> a $175 million cost be reasonable? The shuttle incremental costs are
> less than that, even if you just divide the annual shuttle budget by
> the marginal hardware costs (about $120 million). That leaves $55
> million for labor and other costs. A $175 million launch cost sounds
> like it's in the ballpark.

The same people who told us that shuttle would fly 100 times a year,
and that it would lower launch costs to $100/lb. At least this time
they are only shooting for $1000/lb, but I still think it isn't going
to happen.

Tom Abbott

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:48:18 -0700, Jonathan A Goff
<jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:

>Tom Abbott wrote:
>
>> Marcus, I am only repeating a claim made by NASA. And why wouldn't
>> a $175 million cost be reasonable? The shuttle incremental costs are
>> less than that, even if you just divide the annual shuttle budget by
>> the marginal hardware costs (about $120 million). That leaves $55
>> million for labor and other costs. A $175 million launch cost sounds
>> like it's in the ballpark.
>
>The same people who told us that shuttle would fly 100 times a year,
>and that it would lower launch costs to $100/lb.

There were also many people inside and outside NASA saying the
claims for the shuttle would never happen. The shuttle not flying 100
times per year is only a surprise to the uninformed. And I think most
of the people making extravagant claims for the shuttle in the early
1970's have all retired.

> At least this time
>they are only shooting for $1000/lb, but I still think it isn't going
>to happen.

TA

StarFurie

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

In article <34e42e9b...@newshost.dsbc.icl.co.uk>, eddiec@NO_SPAM_cix.co.uk
(Eddie Cochrane) writes:

>Absolutely Frank, releasing deadly Di-Hydrogen Monoxide into the
>environment.

BAN DIHYDROBEN MONOXIDE!

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted
thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental
inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there.
Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of
DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a
bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those
who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile
brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

CONTAMINATION IS REACHING EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake,
and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the
contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In the midwest alone DHMO has
caused millions of dollars of property damage.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains
contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done
to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is
extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

THE HORROR MUST BE STOPPED!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use
of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this
nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting
experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control
and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research
facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground
distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE!

Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous
chemical. What you don't know CAN hurt you and others throughout the world.
Send email to no_...@circus.com, or a SASE to:

Coalition to Ban DHMO
211 Pearl St.
Santa Cruz CA, 95060

Star...@AwOL.COM

"No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars or sailed to an
uncharted land or opened a new heaven to the human spirit." - Helen Keller

Marcus Lindroos INF

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
: >Tom Abbott wrote:
: >
: >> Marcus, I am only repeating a claim made by NASA. And why wouldn't
: >> a $175 million cost be reasonable? The shuttle incremental costs are
: >> less than that, even if you just divide the annual shuttle budget by
: >> the marginal hardware costs (about $120 million). That leaves $55
: >> million for labor and other costs. A $175 million launch cost sounds
: >> like it's in the ballpark.

The $450 million/flight estimate is from Dennis Jenkins' book on the
history of the Space Shuttle. I expect the expendable cargo
element (which replaces the Shuttle Orbiter and weighs some 30t) would
cost well in excess of $100 million alone -- perhaps more than that,
_even_ if you assume that the SSMEs, general purpose computers etc.
have already been paid for.
---
The propulsion/avionics/cargo module would incorporate a fair number
of (very expensive-) systems from the SHuttle Orbiter, and it would
be used only once. While obsolete (e.g. old GPCs) and/or surplus
components could be used "for free" to some extent, you still need
to manufacture some new items as well. For example, the Shuttle-C
would require an almost off-the-shelf SSME "boattail" thrust structure
from the Orbiter. AFAIK, this is a very expensive piece of equipment
since it was originally designed to last several dozen missions and
you require a new boattail per flight. Of course, the advantage is
there is no need to develop new hardware so the DDT&E cost would
be very low.
---
You often cite partially reusable Shuttle-C configurations as
a solution to the problem, but past studies have concluded that
recovering the propulsion/avionics module will increase the
development cost & weight a great deal. The payload capability
to LEO naturally decreases as well -- unless you introduce further
costly performance enhancements to the SRBs, ET's etc..

Charles Buckley

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

In article <pVSm2Ef.f...@delphi.com>, <frank...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> writes:
>
>>> A) Rockets allready release tons of pollution into the atmosphere.
>>
>>All pollution is equivalent?
>
>
> Espically if we're talking H2/O2 rockets....
>

Actually, to be fair...

At the exhaust, the primary gas will be H2O, but there will be residual
other nitrate compounds created when the superheated exhaust gases react
with the atmosphere. But.. we are talking small amounts.

--
"Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography."
--Paul Rodriguez


pat

unread,
Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98
to

In article <34f2c95f...@207.126.101.78>, tab...@intellex.com says...

>
>On 10 Feb 1998 08:39:03 GMT, mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos
>INF) wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Abbott (tab...@intellex.com) wrote:
>
>
>>: On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:34:47 +0000, Mr J P Kerslake
>>: <kers...@sees.bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
>>:
>>: >Has any one got any drawing or specifisation for the Maginum booster?
>>:
>>:[TA]: I looked on the Marshall Spaceflight Center's webpage for the
Magnum
>>: heavy-lift vehicle, and they have several pages that look like the
>>: right place but they're all under construction at the present time!
>>
>>[ML]: Heck, the entire Magnum _CONCEPT_ is still rather poorly defined... I
>>checked SPACE NEWS yesterday and was amazed to find how little there
>>was.
>>---
>>There is _no way_ Tom can go out and confidently "predict" that this
>>HLLV will be capable of orbiting 80 metric tons for just $175 million!!!
>
> Marcus, I am only repeating a claim made by NASA. And why wouldn't
>a $175 million cost be reasonable? The shuttle incremental costs are
>less than that, even if you just divide the annual shuttle budget by
>the marginal hardware costs (about $120 million). That leaves $55
>million for labor and other costs. A $175 million launch cost sounds
>like it's in the ballpark.
>
>

and this is the same NASA that is looking at a 75% overrun on
the X-33 program. Sorry, NASA still lacks the systems engineering
discipline to manage large programs.

They are competent to do discovery programs. We know this now, it
still seems they can't manage programs at the $1B range.

>> So I will use this as
>>my baseline for now.
>
> You are in effect saying Shuttle-C would cost as much to launch as a
>space shuttle. Considering the shuttle would require more labor/cost
>between launches, how do you justify this assertion?
>
>Tom Abbott

additional payload integration costs. Bigger payload more integration.

pat


0 new messages