The VERY HUMILIATING close encounter that will NEVER happen:

[carp]

Wow you are a seer!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no... if the weight of to-day car's engines is 40% of total car weight, it's easy to calculate the car/car's-engine weight ratio of future cars (it will be "around 40%")<br />

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but, also using your suggestion to launch many SDHLV tanks, the problem will remain orbital-moving and and space-assembly... a job that needs the Shuttle-truck not a little capsule <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The Russians managed to build Mir without "big shuttle-truck", while only having "little toy capsule"<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />this is possible only if each module has its own navigation system, engine, fuel, structure, auto-assembly hardware, etc.<br /><br />but the "NET" space-station-module-payload of each (very expensive) SDHLV launch falls to 40 tons<br />

 

[grooble]

Well the NET payload the shuttle can get to the moon is 0 tons. The vehicle is no use for the lunar and martian ambitions.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />true... the SDHLV is designed ONLY for LSAM+booster launch (around 12 flights in 2020-2025)<br />

 

[carp]

You are a without hope case;a shuttle fetichist.

 

[grooble]

The moon landings and expansion will be permanent this time, it must be or the US will lose superpower place to China.

 

[josh_simonson]

>true... the SDHLV is designed ONLY for LSAM+booster launch (around 12 flights in 2020-2025) <br /><br />Yup, and titan II was designed only to drop bombs on the USSR...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no one replies to me about the list of things made with shuttle... or give a list like that for CEV in next 25 years<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />probably China will try to land on the moon... for prestige... but will certainly leave to US the privilege of a permanent base... moon is not an interesting market for China's low cost mass products... USA, Europe and Russia will CERTAINLY lose their superpower place in future, simply because China population is TWICE the SUM of USA, Europe and Russia populations...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />if you consider the price of one SDHLV launch its not consolating if the NET payload will be 70 tons and not only 40 tons<br /><br />the comparison with Shuttle-C can't be made because Shuttle-C don't exist<br /><br />true... the SDHLV will boost 55 tons to moon... but this will be its ONLY ability... but this operation is different from shuttle because the moon-SDHLV will be launched to a defined orbit where it will wait for CEV/SM... nothing more... a Shuttle can fly from orbit to orbit, make a slow approach to the ISS without risks, dock the ISS, assembly new modules, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />ALL knows that SDHLV will be NOT able to do it<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />do you know other 125 tons payloads that may need a so expensive rocket to launch it?<br />

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>do you know other 125 tons payloads that may need a so expensive rocket to launch it?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Future, larger space stations; Mars mission hardware ,which nasa has estimated will require 500mt lifted to LEO, that would take the HLV about 4-5 launches and the shuttle 20 launches. If as you say that HLV does end up costing a couple of billion dollars per launch (but i bet it will be a lot cheaper) then construction would cost maybe $10 billion vs $20 billion using the shuttle. And this does not include the far less time taken to launch 5 HLV's (maybe 1.5 years) than 20 shuttle missions (at best maybe 3-4 years).<br /><br />Plus, as space exporation is about to enter a new age, doubtlessly larger payloads and lifting powers will become more required and unforseen uses for the HLV will appear. It's far better to have a system that can lift more than you need at the moment rather than building one to lift exactly what you need now and finding out later that this is insufficient.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">probably China will try to land on the moon... for prestige... but will certainly leave to US the privilege of a permanent base... moon is not an interesting market for China's low cost mass products... USA, Europe and Russia will CERTAINLY lose their superpower place in future, simply because China population is TWICE the SUM of USA, Europe and Russia populations... </font><br /><br />If there were any particular correlation between population (on the one hand) and a nation's position in the world (on the other), India would have become the world's premier superpower years ago.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

A pair of paroms could tow an entire SDHLVs payload to the station in 2 trips, since each can haul 30t. Parom is only ~6000lb, so 4 would weigh only 12t. Seems 10% of the SDHLV payload aught to be more than enough to get it to and dock with the station if a parom were not used.<br /><br />Sure the shuttle's launched alot of neat stuff, but the CLV could launch 2 hubbles, and the HLV could launch 10. They're both just big rockets, so there will undoubtedly be new telescopes and space probes launched from them as well. Painting these systems as lunar only is just a lame attempt to set up a straw man argument. <br /><br />The HLV fairing weighs 5t BTW, not 25.

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Shuttle: $600 million per flight: 13 tonnes to ISS. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Actually the shuttle costs closer to $ 1 billlion per launch, making it even more expensive compared to the SDHLV than you've said here.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">Future, larger space stations; Mars mission hardware</font><br /><br /><br />mars missions are very away from now... 2040 up... and it will use BETTER vehicles than CEV and SDHLV... then, to-day, Mars is only "science fiction"...<br /><br /><br />the half-made LEGO-like ISS cost is probably around $100 billion... find money for a LARGER space station is "economy science fiction"...<br /><br /><br />SDHLV may be used for interplanetary probes, but, future probes will be SMARTER than now NOT heavier... NOT 125 tons!!!<br /><br />due to VSE, Shuttle and ISS, NASA has (and will have) great lack of funds for probes, so, they will cut also many projects of LITTLE probes... <br /><br />about SDHLV costs... wait and you will see

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">India would have become the world's premier superpower years ago</font><br /><br /><br />not in the past... not to-day... but, thanks to global economy, China and India will have an incredible economy growth in next 20 years... 300,000,000 of chinese ALREADY have an european-like income... when 1,000,000,000 of chinese and 300,000,000 of indians will have the same income you will see with your eyes the "correlation between population and nation's position in the world"...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />when you dream of possible SDHLV uses... don't forget that payloads' costs was, is and will be HIGHER than rocket costs, so, NASA will need TWICE the (very high) SDHLV funds to launch "something usefull" with its 125 tons payload!<br /><br />I don't think that, after spending so much money for CEV, VSE, moon, etc., there will be so much money to build many 125 tons' "usefull payloads" to launch with SDHLV...<br /><br />SDHLV will be used only for moon... "other uses" will remain only a dream due to lack of funds to send in space many (incredibly expensive) 125 tons payloads<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />$1 billion SDHLV launch cost... only a dream! (it will be the cost of one CEV/CLV launch)<br /><br />13 tons Shuttle payload... false! (the max "nominal" Shuttle payload is 28 tons)<br /><br />the Shuttle-C DON'T EXIST... the time to build and test it may be the same of CLV or SDHLV<br /><br />about space tugs... if and when NASA or Russia will really build them

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />true... one Shuttle launch costs $1 billion... but EACH Shuttle's payload mean $400 million saved (the cost of two big rockets launches) ...also, the Shuttle crew (7/8) is TWICE than orbital-CEV (3/4), then, EACH Shuttle-seat costs around $75 million, while, each orbital-CEV will cost from $166 million per "seat" (but only with RARE six-astronauts launches) to $250-333 million per "seat" with REAL 3/4 astronauts orbital/ISS missions!!!!!!!! <br /><br /><br />about SDHLV... don't forget that it can't launch astronauts, so, after launch 70 tons in orbit, the SDHLV payload need the launch of a TUG (to move the payload in orbit) and two orbital CEV (to have the SAME "assembly specialists" and "space work" of ONE shuttle launch!!!!)<br /><br />the sum of one (very expensive) SDHLV + two CEV/CLV + one TUG + robotarm = <font color="yellow">A MONSTROUS AMOUNT OF MONEY!!!</font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the 28 tons "nominal" shuttle payload is from a NASA webpage<br /><br />but your argument is very important and interesting... we can't compare to-day's vehicles with unexisting rockets because we don't know their real missions' details<br /><br />it's very probable that a SDHLV's 125 tons payload will be NOT for high orbits but only for a very low (but safe) orbit sufficient for CEV/SM docking<br /><br />an higher orbit mean "less payload", so, SDHLV launches to ISS may have very little REAL payloads<br /><br />we need to wait to know true figures<br /><br /><br />I've found dozens of possible new rockets (like Shuttle-C) that can be built with shuttles' components but no one of them will be made, so, the Shuttle-C will never exist (since the only "shuttle derived" rockets planned are CLV and HLV)<br /><br /><br />$1 billion will be the CEV/CLV launch cost<br /><br />an SDHLV launch (excluding its payload) will have a cost that, to-day, simply we can't imagine!<br /><br />the first reason of its high cost will be the very little number of SDHLV launches (see may previous posts)<br /><br /><br />all these rockets and vehicles will be NOT "infrastructures" because 99% of ESAS plan will use only expendable vehicles<br /><br />the only "reusable" parts will be the SRBs but these are a microscopical fraction of the entire ESAS "system" costs!<br />

 

[josh_simonson]

Launch pads, assembly building, rocket, tank and engine production facilities are all infrastructure too. Much of that will be just converting the stuff we've already got, but they'll also be mass producing SSMEs.

 

[subzero788]

gaetanomarano, you can keep creating figures for the costs of CLV/HLV launches, as your entitled to your opinion, but please don't use these made up figures to support your arguments. If you have an official source thats estimates the cost of a CLV launch at $ 1 billion and HLV twice or more than that please tell us! But don't keep repeating unsubstantiated facts. We would be much more accepting to your arguments and ideas (which can be good <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />) if you supported them with an occasional fact.