Here's a guy who speaks from experience.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/21/2009 03:58 pmHere's a guy who speaks from experience. I'm not familiar with what he does now - what sort of experience does he have with developing new launch systems?
There is no reason American companies could not build a similar, but modernized, medium-sized, economical workhorse of a rocket that is simple enough to sustain frequent launching. If NASA were to promise to buy one such rocket a week, the manufacturers could also profitably sell copies for launching commercial spacecraft and satellites — at much lower than current prices — and this would spur the development of space-based industries in fields like telecommunications, earth imaging and even space tourism.
QuoteThere is no reason American companies could not build a similar, but modernized, medium-sized, economical workhorse of a rocket that is simple enough to sustain frequent launching. If NASA were to promise to buy one such rocket a week, the manufacturers could also profitably sell copies for launching commercial spacecraft and satellites — at much lower than current prices — and this would spur the development of space-based industries in fields like telecommunications, earth imaging and even space tourism.Sorry, but if this is an example of a guy who "knows what he's talking about", we need to find another guy...
If NASA were to promise to buy one such rocket a week, the manufacturers could also profitably sell copies for launching commercial spacecraft and satellites — at much lower than current prices — and this would spur the development of space-based industries in fields like telecommunications, earth imaging and even space tourism.
NASA then resells the slots it purchased for cost,
Quote from: libs0n on 12/21/2009 07:59 pm NASA then resells the slots it purchased for cost, NASA can't do that.
-A bill is passed granting NASA the freedom to act in such a manner.-A new rocket buying agency is created, and endowed with such freedom, and NASA must buy rockets through them.-NASA contracts with a third party company to do the buying for them, and the third party resells slots and reimburses NASA.
He rode the R-7 Soyuz rocket to orbit. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet's launched *more* than one R-7 per week to orbit - specifically 1,091 of them during that 20 year span.Perhaps his point is exaggerated, and perhaps it is not just NASA that would be needed to support the flight rate, but he does know exactly what he is talking about - his point is based on historical reality.
John Walker wrote a piece on this topic in 1993.
What exactly are the 52 payloads. Who needs them and who pays for them?
Quote from: agman25 on 12/21/2009 08:09 pmWhat exactly are the 52 payloads. Who needs them and who pays for them?Let's say Booster X delivers 10 mt to LEO(or whatever to GEO or interplanetary) for around 40 million a shot in this program(and is a modular booster that can be used in missions that require greater capability). 52 flights is 520mt of mass orbited a year for 2.08 billion dollars. This could cover the launch needs for all of NASA's ISS, Science, and 2 or so lunar missions for a total that is not egregious.edit: Rachet up or down whatever the cost you think would be the outcome. 60 million a pop/ 3.12 billion. 80 million/4.16 billion.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/21/2009 07:21 pmHe rode the R-7 Soyuz rocket to orbit. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet's launched *more* than one R-7 per week to orbit - specifically 1,091 of them during that 20 year span.Perhaps his point is exaggerated, and perhaps it is not just NASA that would be needed to support the flight rate, but he does know exactly what he is talking about - his point is based on historical reality.USSR had a command based economy where cost was not a factor
Quote from: libs0n on 12/21/2009 11:32 pmQuote from: agman25 on 12/21/2009 08:09 pmWhat exactly are the 52 payloads. Who needs them and who pays for them?Let's say Booster X delivers 10 mt to LEO(or whatever to GEO or interplanetary) for around 40 million a shot in this program(and is a modular booster that can be used in missions that require greater capability). 52 flights is 520mt of mass orbited a year for 2.08 billion dollars. This could cover the launch needs for all of NASA's ISS, Science, and 2 or so lunar missions for a total that is not egregious.edit: Rachet up or down whatever the cost you think would be the outcome. 60 million a pop/ 3.12 billion. 80 million/4.16 billion.The problem is52 x 400 million per spacecraft is 20 billion a year.
the USSR clearly benefited from the commonality that allowed R-7 to be a do-all booster - launching cosmonauts, cargo, spy satellites, comsats, science sats, etc.