Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:43 pm 2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.You are forgetting the escort for the semis. Two lead vehicles and a follower. Hotels or RV to sleep in.Falcon stage have been coming in piecemeal in separate convoys.
2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.
It was a labor intensive vehicle. The lower flight rates drove up the costs of the subcontracted HW (RS-27, AJ-10, GEMs)
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/09/2012 07:32 pmQuote from: Danderman on 02/09/2012 03:57 pmSo, there are two questions or issues here: would it have been feasible to operate Delta II as a standalone produce outside ULA, and is EELV dead if Elon gets any EELV class launches from DoD? Thinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.No, your thinking is wrong. Why do you think SpaceX wants to go reuseable?Looked at the Gas/Petrol prices?ULA has the advantage.
Quote from: Danderman on 02/09/2012 03:57 pmSo, there are two questions or issues here: would it have been feasible to operate Delta II as a standalone produce outside ULA, and is EELV dead if Elon gets any EELV class launches from DoD? Thinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.
So, there are two questions or issues here: would it have been feasible to operate Delta II as a standalone produce outside ULA, and is EELV dead if Elon gets any EELV class launches from DoD?
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:43 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 09:18 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:13 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 08:58 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 08:49 pmThinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.Huh? Based on what data?The operating cost of the ship that ULA is using currently.1. ULA doesn't operate it. 2. Do you know the costs?2. Do you know a better means to get 5 and 4 meter cores cross country?1. Didn't say anything about ship ownership. Just the operating cost.2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.You still didn't answer the most important question Jim posted. What are other better/cheaper means of transporting a 5m core cross-country?
Quote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 09:18 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:13 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 08:58 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 08:49 pmThinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.Huh? Based on what data?The operating cost of the ship that ULA is using currently.1. ULA doesn't operate it. 2. Do you know the costs?2. Do you know a better means to get 5 and 4 meter cores cross country?1. Didn't say anything about ship ownership. Just the operating cost.2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:13 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 08:58 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 08:49 pmThinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.Huh? Based on what data?The operating cost of the ship that ULA is using currently.1. ULA doesn't operate it. 2. Do you know the costs?2. Do you know a better means to get 5 and 4 meter cores cross country?
Quote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 08:58 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 08:49 pmThinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.Huh? Based on what data?The operating cost of the ship that ULA is using currently.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 08:49 pmThinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.Huh? Based on what data?
Thinking about it, SpaceX should able to trucked cores to CCAFS & VAFB at much less cost than the ULA method by ship.
Only way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.
Quote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 05:00 pmIt was a labor intensive vehicle. The lower flight rates drove up the costs of the subcontracted HW (RS-27, AJ-10, GEMs)WHY was it labor intensive?
A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details). Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.
Quote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 10:47 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:43 pm 2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.You are forgetting the escort for the semis. Two lead vehicles and a follower. Hotels or RV to sleep in.Falcon stage have been coming in piecemeal in separate convoys. A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details). Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.
Quote from: Prober on 02/10/2012 02:50 amOnly way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.Wrong, Water is cheaper than rail. Also, Rail is more size constraining than highways. Additionally, US spaceflight hardware does not go by train due to humping.
Quote from: Jim on 02/10/2012 03:31 amQuote from: Prober on 02/10/2012 02:50 amOnly way to bring costs down in the future will be by Rail since you ask.and startup costs for rail cars might get expensive.Wrong, Water is cheaper than rail. Also, Rail is more size constraining than highways. Additionally, US spaceflight hardware does not go by train due to humping.My thinking was mainly about the SpaceX mess of trucking. ship engines for test to TXship tested engines to CA for installship cores to Flaetc.
a titanium upperstage
Quote from: Danderman on 02/10/2012 02:32 amQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 05:00 pmIt was a labor intensive vehicle. The lower flight rates drove up the costs of the subcontracted HW (RS-27, AJ-10, GEMs)WHY was it labor intensive? It had 9 solids to had to be built up, mounted and aligned. The tower was rolled back and forth for first stage and solid installations. It used pyro sequencer for third stage operations that require build up in the field. It had many offline facilities to do launch vehicle component checkout.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 02/09/2012 11:45 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2012 10:47 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 02/09/2012 09:43 pm 2. Operating cost of a ship would be a lot more than several semis. Just the man-hours cost for the ships'd crew alone.You are forgetting the escort for the semis. Two lead vehicles and a follower. Hotels or RV to sleep in.Falcon stage have been coming in piecemeal in separate convoys. A cross-country trip for a 4.2m or smaller diameter thing shaped like a stage is going to be on the order of $25-50,000, including everything (it could be moderately more depending on the details). Once you get over 4.2m, it gets much harder and much more expensive to ship things by road, and most people consider it infeasible except in very specialized situations.I think you meant 4.2m tall transport.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 02/09/2012 04:14 pma titanium upperstageUm, 410 stainless.
Word on the street is NASA is pulling OCO-2 off Taurus XL...
If this happens, is Delta II is only launch vehicle (in this class) certified to launch NASA scientific payloads?
I wonder how much Red rockets would cost if built by Western labor.