Wow, 4 SRB Heavy launcher.

[najab]

If memory serves correctly, SRBs come in at ~$80M per pair.

 

[grooble]

So $400-500 million for the boosters and SSME's. Where does the other $1.5 billion go?

 

[najab]

Same as with the Shuttle - salaries.

 

[john_316]

<br />I still cant see a HLV lift off costing anywhere the same amount of money like that of the shuttle since only the the SRB's will be recovered.. The ET and stuff still go byes and I just can't see another pay people even if they dont work in the program mentality anymore...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[propforce]

I read somewhere that the RSRM actually cost <i>more</i> for being reusable. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

as we've all seen the departure profile of a solid booster from a launch pad is much more .. dramatic than a liquid booster .... meaning ... when the solid ignite .. hold on!<br /><br />I wonder what a 200 ton launch on solids would *look* like ... rapid departure or because of weight a slower departure ala a liquid booster?<br />

 

[georgeniebling]

wasn't the land for the NOVA launch sites actually purchased? I believe it was due North of the LC-39 ... does NASA still own the land?

 

[nacnud]

I would imagin a 5 SSEM 4 SRB SDV ILC launch would have the profile of a Shuttle launch, the noise on the other hand...

 

[grooble]

bump. Too interesting a thread to let die.<br /><br />Anyone know when this 60 day report will be public?

 

[space_dreamer]

15th August, i think!<br />

 

[severian]

If they're not making this rocket resuable, there is almost no reason not to use RS-68s instead of SSMEs. True, they are slightly lower performance, but they deliver an almost equal amount of thrust. Considering they come in at almost 1/10th the cost of an SSME, the few lost tonnes of launch weight is a small price to pay.

 

[propforce]

When it comes to a 2nd stage engine, Isp is very important especially when you have a relatively low performing 1st stage such as the SRBs. <br /><br />The RS-68, as is today, is more than 40 sec Isp <i>less than</i> the SSME which translates into a whole lot <i>less</i> payload.<br /><br />Boeing plans to have an upgraded RS-68 soon that will increase its Isp by ~ 10 sec.<br /><br />RS-68 delivers a lot more thrust than the SSME. <br /><br />I agree it seems too expensive making SSME a disposable engine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

lol, just pin $800 million on the astornauts collar and wish them the best of luck. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />err... not astronauts, the payload. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Some interesting thoughts from Henry Spencer and folks on reentry:<br /><br />http://yarchive.net/space/launchers/reentry.html<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

By the way, maybe he was thinking monoprop.<br /><br />BIG <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

I'm no graphic artist, but this is something like I would like to see fly! It could orbit the Eifle tower...

 

[emerrill]

".... The only mission that only the STS can do is retrieve a satellite. That has only happened once...."<br /><br />No, STS is the only vehicle that return mass/size of any decent amount from orbit. Take the CMG, its not particularly big or heavy, but its big enough that no other vehicle could return it. Or for that matter, most of the contents of the MPLM, yes some of its 'trash' but a large portion of the contents are being refurbished and reused (mostly broken systems), which is saving a large amount compared to making new hardware.<br /><br />Yes, the STS system has its flaws, but it is unique (which is part of the reason for its flaws), and has capabilities that no other vehicle has, or sounds like will have, for a very long time. <br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

You also need to remember to separate the flaws of the vehicle from the flaws of the organization. It isn't that the shuttle is inherently unreliable, it's that NASA hasn't been able to flight it reliably. Both shuttle accidents have root causes in NASA operations. Challenger was, in part, the pressure to launch/not listening to engineers, and Columbia was complacency (foam has fallen off before, so its ok. Really they should have fixed the problem when they first saw foam loss). Now I'm not blaming anyone as NASA, it's just a organizational problem in general, as I see it, no one person can really be held responsible. <br /><br />Personally I'm going to be sad to see the shuttle go. I've grown up with it, and I think it's an amazing vehicle, flawed as it may be. <br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

You know, as I have bored folks with before, Apollo 13 could well have been much like Columbia if things had worked out a bit differently.<br /><br />The "fix" for mitigating Pogo had already been applied to the Apollo 14 craft, but was not retrofitted into the already stacked Apollo 13 craft. The reason was that the effect, though bad enough to fix, had not seemed to threaten the craft.<br /><br />Well, things happen very slightly differently, and you have the destruction of the craft in boost.<br /><br />No craft is inherently safe. No human organization makes all the right decisions.<br /><br />These conditions will still be true when whatever follows the shuttle is built.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[emerrill]

I couldn't agree more (I have always felt that the Apollo 13 crew surviving was a large part 'luck' (Not to degrad the amazing work of the engineers that save them), things being just a little different, and they may not have survived)<br /><br />My only point is that the shuttle gets a bum wrap that it doesn't really deserve IMHO.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Shuttle is also the ONLY vehicle that can launch and return the "Express" science racks to ISS. These things are big!! If the science racks can't get up and down to station, then how can major science get done? <br /><br />With little science being done, criticism of ISS will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Soyuz, CEV and even T-Space's CXV can't carry up and down the racks. ESA's ATV could carry them up, but of course, not down... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Thats where we need a lifting body much like an enlarged X-38 or HL-42 so a 16 ton weight capacity can be managed for the MPLM's can be brought up and back from the ISS. <br /><br />But as far as I can see they will be no longer used after the ISS is completed...<br /><br />Hmmm makes you wonder here....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[john_316]

Perhaps a remote piloted CEV version can deliver the Multi Purpose Logistic Modules to the ISS but the thing that gets me is this. Unless they can be packed into a cargo variant CEV that can re-enter and deploy chutes or land as a plane then they are useless once Shuttle is retired. So sounds to me these units only have 5 more years left in them. Which is really a shame as we can see how much money was spent on them. <br /><br />They of course can always be fitted with crew facilty in one, lab in another, and possibly life support in another and permantely attached them to the ISS on the last 3 Shuttle flights...<br /><br />I am also confused here because is Node 2 being sent to the ISS or was it and is the JEM module still planed to be lifted to the ISS?<br /><br />What are they goign to do with all the remaining ISS pieces not used. What about the Habitation Module wasn't it compelete?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[josh1943]

looks like this has turned into shuttle talk more then next sys talk. so ill continue that (sort of anyway), i see the biggest problem with the shuttle was its rarely been used correctly. mostly cause its the only thing we have for space. the shuttle is great but they need a 2nd or 3rd sys one thats small and cheap to send crew into space (cxv?). the shuttle to do what its best at. and a heavy cargo craft(non man rated).the shuttle is sort of like me saying the 747 is the only airliner needed for flying there is no way in the world the 747 or any other craft can fly all the missions a airliner need to.