CEV, STS Shuttle, and "Orion"

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer" wrote:
>
> (Was Re: Priorities in government and space)
>
> doug
> >Has anyone heard or read a reasonable cost estimate of the new Space
> >Shuttles, err... I mean Orion's cost per launch? The STS was
supposed to
> >cost $20 million per launch and fly something like 100 times per year.
> >Obviously it missed both projections.
> >
> >While I don't expect "Orion" to be the cost effective solution to
enable
> >space settlements, If saving money now gets us to a more affordable,
> >reliable system sooner, then I guess I'm all for it.
>
> Harvey wrote
> >The government would see NASA cut its own budget to finish
construction and
> >would then cut NASA's budget to save more money in the Federal
budget. They
> >have done it before and killed the expendable launchers of the
1960's and
> >'70's. The Saturn V was a monster lifter that could still be used
and would
> >have been enhanced over the years.
> >NASA has proven over the years that they over-estimate capabilities
and
> >under-estimate costs, especially when Congress requires changes of the
> >programs for compatability with USAF military programs.
> >
> from "Gun Fighter"
> >Orion a shuttle? hummm from NASA artwork looks a lot more like a no
> >frills rocket and capsule to me... Which I take more of a sign that
> >NASA is wanting something simple and cheap as a stop gap till private
> >space launch vehicle/s is available and meets their needs for low
> >earth orbit, than Orion can be kept for heavy lift and interplanetary
> >missions...

Never called Orion a step backwards, but than again you may have not
been quoting me there.. And you raise a good point about the shuttle
not truly bing a shuttle at all.. I would call the "shuttle" a mis
step we all need to learn from as well as NASA and move past...

>
> I don't see the (present) "Orion" CEV people-mover as a step
backwards, so
> much as a belated "marking time" way to catch up to where we should
have
> been all along.
>
> The thing they're calling Orion now -formerly Constellation,
formerly the
> CEV- represents something we haven't had since the last finished Apollo
> capsule and Saturn-related booster were thrown away in '76 (the
Apollo-Soyuz
> handshake). That's a safe, simple way to LEO and back for people: Abort
> anywhere from 0 airspeed/0 altitude to hypersonic/orbital. They'd
meant to
> use that capsule for revisiting/saving Skylab. Instead Skylab was
left to
> fall.
> With the politically motivated bad decision to stop production of
all other
> boosters and throw all US launch business the Shuttle's way, we also
gave up
> on all other ways to attempt to lift cargoes cheaply and reliably.
The USAF
> rebelled quickly, even before the Challenger disaster let them do it
> publicly and finally, but civil space was left with only the Shuttle.
>
> The big problem and disconnect for most people, is that the STS
Shuttle has
> never been anything but a highly experimental craft. Many unknowns
taken for
> granted or (hopefully) worked around, and many places where simple
things
> can spell disaster for the crew riding the unforgiving plane.
> Even if some things have been done to upgrade them to use more modern
> technologies, the basic launch stack philosophy remains wrong - for
lifting
> cargo, for doing on-orbit work, and for moving people. It's a camel
(horse
> lover's joke for a beast designed by committee, so it's bad tempered,
> smelly, spits occasionally, and has humps. At least the real camel is
> superbly adapted to be the unequalled "Ship of the Desert").
> Because of the bad burn from the STS Shuttle over the years, I don't
like
> calling Orion CEV a "Shuttle", either, although a shuttle capability
is what
> it gives us. Actually, the "Space Shuttle" shouldn't be called that. A
> shuttle by definition, like on a weaving loom, is only made to go
back &
> forth, rapidly and repeatedly.
> You don't build a 747 so that it goes to one destination, staying on
the
> tarmac to be used as a hotel and workshop, and after going back home it
> needs an army to rebuild it. That's not what a "shuttle" vehicle is
supposed
> to do, either.
>
> One nice thing about any small people-mover "CEV thing" is that if you
> remove the crew carrier, that will probably give you a booster
capable of
> neatly replacing the Shuttle's capacity, for a vastly cheaper
unmanned cargo
> launch (in an aeroshell bigger than the Shuttle's cargo bay). It
only needs
> to be met at a previously lifted EVA prep/servicing arm mounted
volume by a
> manned launch. I'll bet the whole assembly could be flown and
re-used more
> cheaply than a single STS Shuttle launch.
> So two such assemblages need to be placed into orbit to have the
ability to
> launch payloads from different inclinations. In no way does it need
to be as
> expensive as the Shuttle-built ISS. I saw John Young (Gemini/Apollo
> astronaut) at the first Mars Society 'con give a talk on space. He
said once
> that the solar cells on most satellites, the Salyut/Mir, and Skylab are
> great things to have. Open them up, point them at the Sun, and
you've got
> power.
> The ISS has solar arrays too; do you know what they need to produce
power?
> Software.
> As Zubrin pointed out in "Entering Space", there's no good material
reason
> why a Titan booster costs the government more than what anybody can
spend
> for a 747 (maybe even if you outfitted it as a living/work space).
> "An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications". I'd say
that a
> diplodocus is the NASA version, but it has to have 5 heads, and
can't take
> any action unless at least 3 of them agree, so it starves more often
than
> not.
>
> And I agree that "Orion" (probably only the Mk-1 atom-bomb propelled
ship)
> is the best presently buildable way for crossing the solar system (with
> people anyway, other things such as supertanker-sized bags of NEA
ices, can
> move by other means).
> Other things might become available by the time we need Nuclear Pulse
> rocketry's capabilities, but I don't see anything as capable, as
attainable