Lauching money into the atmosphere

[Bdude42]

Whenever NASA goes through with a shuttle launch, they strap on these 1000 ton fuel tanks to take the actual spacecraft out of the atmosphere. Then, they jettison them in the upper earth's atmosphere and they tumble to the Earth, usually burning up in the process. Or here is a different scenario. They jettison them from the space craft and they float off into oblivion. Sending these multi-million dollar fuel tanks into space or "the drink" isn't what I would call "cost-effective". If there was some way to save the drawbacks of this design, it would greatly improve space travel. Since we would not be spending loads of money on spaceship parts we are going to ditch later, wouldn't we be accelerating further technologically towards exploring planets farther away, such as Jupiter. Even if I am completely wrong, you have to admit that the giant fuel tanks hold back the ship while launching (just with their own weight) and affect how often we launch spacecraft because of expenses. I don't have extensive knowledge about this subject but I have my opinions.

What do you think?

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think it's a moot point, since the current STS is the only way we have to get to the ISS. And in about 18 months, even that will be gone. So I would suggest you spend you energy on the next system to get to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and not waste your time worrying about a system that has a very short time to be active. The STS cannot be revived. The contactors and amterials required no longer exist. Sorry, but life is tough.

 

[kelvinzero]

Sounds like a more general comment about the desirability of reusable launchers.

This certainly isnt something that just hasnt occured to people before! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system

There is a problem with reusable launchers though: If you only have a small flight rate, reusable can be more expensive. The reason? If you only need to build a new launcher every decade or so, what are the factories and workers doing in the meantime? If you think a single-use rocket is expensive, try counting the cost of biffing away all your infrastructure and all your skilled workers after a single project. It is skilled workers and infrastructure where the money really goes, not into the rocket itself.

There are many promising technologies but what we really need is an assured moneyspinner to justify a much higher rate of launch. This also has not been overlooked.

 

[drwayne]

Tangentially related point. By law, if a group has a workable idea for using an external tank on-orbit, then it has to be provided to them.

The shuttles trajectory currently is shaped to put the tanks down in a defined area of the ocean. They could
in principle however be taken into orbit.

Several compnaies worked for years on this sort of idea.

Wayne

 

[DrRocket]

There are many promising technologies but what we really need is an assured moneyspinner to justify a much higher rate of launch. This also has not been overlooked.

Absopositively correct.

The key to the launch business is not in the launcher itself, but rather in finding a solid business case for going to orbit in the first place. The business of bulding launchers is in the dumps right now and the reason is lack of demand. And lack of demans stems for loak of "an assured money spinner". Communications satellites fit the bill, but the new ones last a long time reducing the requirement for launchers.