Re: shuttle breaks up on re-entry

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 14:45:24 MST


--- Technotranscendence <neptune@mars.superlink.net> wrote:
>
> The Shuttle program,
> in particular, is so focused on reusability that efficiency falls by
> the
> wayside. (Okay, I'm ready for a certain rocket engineer to chime in
> with "you don't throw away a 747 everytime you fly it." If the cost
> of maintaining the plane after one flight were more than building a
> new, I would. Throwaway Saturn Vs would probably be more efficient
> and maybe even safer than the Shuttles.)

A new space shuttle cost to build, back in the 1980s, 1-1.5 billion
dollars. I suspect the cost would be somewhere upwards of $4 billion
today. A single flight, turnaround and refurbishment of the shuttle and
its SRBs, plus replacing the main fuel tank, costs about $100 million.

The Saturn - Apollo project cost $25 billion dollars (in 1966 dollars)
by the time they put the first two men on the moon, and this counted
the first several missions being only Saturn IB boosters, which could
only put 19,000 lbs or so into orbit. Counting by Apollo missions, each
mission cost $2.21 billion in 1966 dollars. Taking inflation into
account, and accounting for the fact that this is old technology with
less R&D requirements, this would be in the order of $4 billion per
mission today. At this rate, we are getting 22 Shuttle missions for the
price of one Saturn 5 mission.

The Saturn project could only boost a crew of 3 at a time, and could
not return cargo to earth (like recovered satellites).

The Saturn V booster was also the very most complex machine ever built
by man. It has several times more moving parts than the Shuttle system,
and is thus a more risky vehicle by that very fact. In all, there were
I think 18 Saturn missions. Columbia alone flew 22 times before it's
breakup, yet it has a slightly better accident rate than all of the the
Saturn (recall that Apollo I killed its crew on the launch pad) rockets
combined.

An entire R&D project would have to be undertaken to develop less
complex systems, thus more money...

I might also point out that the Saturn's main booster burns methane,
not hydrogen, so the opposition of the environmental groups would be higher.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                     - Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST