Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50
  1. #11
    Joe Strout's Avatar
    Joe Strout Guest

    Default CEV Announcement



    In article <1118913104.638687.46250@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
    "kert" <kaido_kert@hotmail.com> wrote:


    I think the assumption is that one basket is dramatically cheaper than
    two.

    Whether that assumption is true, I don't know, though I can well imagine
    it might be. One way, you get economies of scale in the launcher
    itself, though the other way, you get some economies of scale in the
    launch rate. I can't guess which would dominate.

    ,------------------------------------------------------------------.
    | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
    | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
    `------------------------------------------------------------------'


  2. #12
    Henry Vanderbilt's Avatar
    Henry Vanderbilt Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    Tom Cuddihy wrote:

    Another possibility: For longer missions, launch two four-man CEV's
    with three aboard each, dock them to each other in orbit, then operate
    them as a dual-redundant unit with a bit of extra elbow room.

    Which eliminates the need to fly a six-man CEV with attendant new
    larger-than-EELV-heavy booster every time you rotate Station crew.
    (Might as well still be flying Shuttle; it'll end up costing about
    as much per flight.)

    Henry


  3. #13
    Douglas Holmes's Avatar
    Douglas Holmes Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    "Mike Chan" <ope011@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1118799259.120297.320410@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
    Not exactly.
    About a third of the weight is fuel.
    With only enough fuel for an ISS missions it would drop down to
    just over 20 tons. Which both can carry.
    With dual or quad rl-10s, depending on weight, both can also launch
    the larger version.


  4. #14
    kert's Avatar
    kert Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    Joe Strout wrote:

    No, not only launch rate. With smaller vehicle you can (potentially)
    get flexibility, economic savings and redundancy in picking the
    launcher itself as well.
    IOW larger vehicle makes sense if you look at given vehicle/launcher
    combination in isolation, ignoring the existing launch market.

    -kert


  5. #15
    Allen Thomson's Avatar
    Allen Thomson Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    Douglas Holmes wrote:



    What's the latest on how the CEV crew is supposed to land on the
    moon, be sustained for however long they're going to stay doing
    whatever they're going to be doing, and get back to earth?


  6. #16
    Ed's Avatar
    Ed Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    kert wrote:

    being able to put everthing up in one throw has been the the norm for
    the last several decades, during the end of the the gemini program the
    plan was to use several launches to get to the moon.

    if you used the gemini big transport 2 crew + 7 passengers, (16,000 kg
    + 4,000 kg launch escape tower) you would need the Delta iv (cost 140
    mill '99) you would still have 4,000 kg of unused cargo to iss.
    if you where using the origianl gemini a crew of 2, (2,000 kg) using
    the same atlas v 401 (cost 77 mill '98) you would get 2 to iss and
    10,000 kg of unused cargo to iss.

    while one would assume that with the gemini big the unused cargo mass
    could be stowed aboard, while with the original gemini, anouther modual
    would be required, possibly something simular to the shuttles extenetd
    duration or fuel pallets could make use of the extra avaliable launch
    mass. but that doesn't address the problems of where to park or
    transfer systems.
    if you where going to the moon then you need to fuel and resupply
    launches for the cev as well.


    a kg/dollar comaprison

    4 - atlas v 401 - 48,000 kg - 308 million, just for boosters
    2 - delta iv - 46,000 kg - 280 million, just for boosters


  7. #17
    Henry Spencer's Avatar
    Henry Spencer Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    In article <1118858201.025313.229000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
    Tom Cuddihy <tom.cuddihy@gmail.com> wrote:

    Why? Work 8 hours, relax/eat/etc. 8 hours, sleep 8 hours.

    Apollo had a crew of 3 because it was supposed to run three shifts. Very
    early, they figured out that this doesn't work in a modest-sized spacecraft.
    You want everybody sleeping at the same time.

    There's no particular reason *not* to put everybody on the same schedule.
    Unless you're doing something tricky like driving a pressurized rover
    nonstop over long distances, there's no particular need to have somebody
    awake at all times. Given modern technology, there's no need to have
    somebody sitting there watching gauges -- computers do that better than
    humans -- and if there *is* some reason for continuous equipment
    monitoring, at least on the Moon, it can be done from Earth.
    --
    "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
    -- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net


  8. #18
    kert's Avatar
    kert Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    Atlas 401 has a nice substitute called Proton, available via ILS. So
    when there's a problem with one launcher, you can use another, from the
    same supplier.
    Dunno whether Proton would be any cheaper. Assuming it isnt, i'd say
    even paying that 10% extra is still reasonable price for such
    redundancy.

    -kert


  9. #19
    ruzicka's Avatar
    ruzicka Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    "Ed" <glass01915@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1119121400.705163.192940@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

    It'll be interesting to see if those cost numbers stay the same or change,
    once (if) the United Launch Alliance merges the two launch vehicle lines
    into one company.


  10. #20
    Ed's Avatar
    Ed Guest

    Default CEV Announcement

    the price of the delta was if you where buying a dozen, the stated
    price is 170 million for just one, so for occasional use you can move
    more mass for less with the single price quoted for the atlas. What is
    interesting is that the cev is supposed to have a 700 day life cycle,
    given that iss is suposed to last 20 years from launch. iss will be a
    destination for meny years to come, if the soyez is 60 mill plus the
    booster cost, it is less than the cost of the delta iv for transfering
    a couple of specialists. the 3 seat soyez at 7,000 kg would have 5,000
    kg unused cargo on the atlas, i doubt that anyone could build a 2 seat
    gemini b (4,000 kg) for less than a soyez, and keep it up to the
    current crew volume demands of nasa.


 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Moving Announcement
    By EricFD in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-02-2010, 02:17 AM
  2. Announcement
    By Vinnie in forum Astronomy Forum Announcements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 12:00 AM
  3. Meade Jan 3rd announcement
    By Paul Murphy in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-13-2005, 02:24 AM
  4. ANNOUNCEMENT: AstroHub
    By Al Testani in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-03-2004, 02:58 PM
  5. important announcement
    By Jon Kickerston in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-28-2004, 10:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM.