A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[N_Molson]

I thought we agree on sending Hollande to the sun.

Yes, but then also Merkel and most of the current state leaders in Europe... An aluminium box will not be enough, let's get a container...

- BTW, do you know where the French nuclear weapons are pointed?

- Up.

:rofl:

BTW we french don't want a liquid-fueled Ariane 6 because we want to build über solid-nuclear-SSTO missles to conquer the world. :yes:

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, but then also Merkel and most of the current state leaders in Europe... An aluminium box will not be enough, let's get a container...

We can't send them all to the sun... just imagine what happens if they try to fight the fusion crisis in the sun. "Oh look how inefficient this star is... we should have a committee to improve this...I disagree. Let us first have a committee to decide who should be in this "committee"..."

 

[N_Molson]

just imagine what happens if they try to fight the fusion crisis in the sun.

Given how productive are the european summits, just nothing I bet. But an heavy launcher might be indeed better so that we could target a black hole outside our system.

I don't know how heavy is the average european leader, but if it's something like 70 kg * 27 that's still a payload of 1890 kgs. Plus the container mass.

Seriously, I never realized that an european summit involved near 2 tons of europeans leaders. Weird thought.

 

[Urwumpe]

Given how productive are the european summits, just nothing I bet. But an heavy launcher might be indeed better so that we could target a black hole outside our system.

I don't know how heavy is the average european leader, but if it's something like 70 kg * 27 that's still a payload of 1890 kgs. Plus the container mass.

Seriously, I never realized that an european summit involved near 2 tons of europeans leaders. Weird thought.

Remember that the average European Leader is rather obese, so make this 100 kg x 27 ... 2700 kg. Plus all their assistants and water boys....

And don't calculate how many consumables a European summit in space would consume. Maybe we can start small and just send Hollande and Merkel into space on a trans lunar trajectory.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Outside of Orbiter, I may never understand the "need" for a big dumb launcher. I also don't believe that ESA will be "left behind" because they don't have an internally available capability for manned flight. Rides are available by contract. An individual with enough disposable income that can pass the physical requirements can visit the Russian segment of the ISS as a tourist (it's been done, and more than once) Yes there are some other req's, but paying customers have been to space.

An organisation can cut a deal to get their own astronauts, scientists or Cirque performers to space by establishing a contract and signing a piece of paper.

Canada has no manned spaceflight program either (eh?), but there sure have been a few Canadian astronauts. There pretty good with hardware too from what I gather (raise em up for the Canadarm).

 

[RGClark]

This begins to be a bit basement-esque for me, and it sounds like a pretty paranoïd reasoning.

It is not a criticism of the French. You can hardly criticize them for acting in their own best interests. Of course they would want to help to defray the cost of their solid rocket missiles by the space launch program.
The point of the matter is it is not in the best interests of the European space launch industry.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

Reusing the SRBs was much cheaper than reusing the SSMEs though. If I remember correctly, refurbishing a single SSME after flight was more expensive than both SRBs.

That's not my recollection. The SSME's cost about $40 million new and cost perhaps $1 to $2 million each to refurbish per flight. Obviously a huge saving over a new one.
I seem to recall the SRB's cost around $30 million. But with the recovery, refurbishing, reassemby, and refilling the used ones cost nearly the same as a new one.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

That's not my recollection. The SSME's cost about $40 million new and cost perhaps $1 to $2 million each to refurbish per flight. Obviously a huge saving over a new one.

Had been $65 million new in 2001. One SSME did cost as much as a Delta II rocket. The refurbishment costs of the SSME are not exactly known ( as all the shuttle costs), but that had been way more than $2 million: $2 million means you employ 8 engineers for one year. The SSME refurbishment did take about 1 month and employed a lot more engineers. And that for the 5 flights per SSME.

 

[RGClark]

Had been $65 million new in 2001. One SSME did cost as much as a Delta II rocket. The refurbishment costs of the SSME are not exactly known ( as all the shuttle costs), but that had been way more than $2 million: $2 million means you employ 8 engineers for one year. The SSME refurbishment did take about 1 month and employed a lot more engineers. And that for the 5 flights per SSME.

OK, but the Delta II was not a very capable rocket. It is not like the medium class Delta IV rocket at ca. 10,000 kg payload capability.
By your estimate of 8 engineers costing $2 million for a year, for a month that cost would be for 100 engineers. Most of the workers though would be technicians which would go for even more workers.


Bob Clark

 

[Furet]

BTW, do you know where the French nuclear weapons are pointed?

But toward the USA, of course!

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2010/07/tir-dessai-dun-missile-m51.html

Google-translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translat...10/07/tir-dessai-dun-missile-m51.html&act=url

Translation slightly modified:

The test launch was in the direction of the United States. This is, officially, to avoid to fly over Spain and Portugal (but a not so long time ago the missiles were launched toward the French Guyana... without flying by the Iberian Peninsula). Should we see in this heading shift, which has been practiced for a few years, a discreet cooperation with the United States?

More seriously:

In deterrence inherited from the Cold War, mainly oriented towards Soviet Russia, France moves to a much more "all-out" posture, which allows it to deter nuclear powers proved (such as China) and emerging ...

 

[Urwumpe]

By your estimate of 8 engineers costing $2 million for a year, for a month that cost would be for 100 engineers. Most of the workers though would be technicians which would go for even more workers.

No, that is the "Nine woman = One baby per month" fallacy. First of all, you have to keep these people busy even if you don't launch 6 times per year.

Next, it is not just the people who touch the SSME, but also all the people in the background, that have to do their work so that the main task can actually be done.

Overhauling the SSME was not much cheaper than buying a new one, but it was cheaper... it did cut some costs since the test effort during refurbishment is the same as the test effort during manufacturing, but without the manufacturing effort.

It was really: Completely disassemble the SSME, measure the wear and tear, replace bearings and other parts designed for failing first, and reassemble it again. They also rebalanced the turbopump shafts, a very time- and labor-intensive task.

It had been 135 missions with 46 SSME procured - each SSME lasted for about 8.8 missions.

 

[N_Molson]

It was really: Completely disassemble the SSME, measure the wear and tear, replace bearings and other parts designed for failing first, and reassemble it again. They also rebalanced the turbopump shafts, a very time- and labor-intensive task.

It shows there has been a misunderstanding or an exageration ; "built with some reusable parts" would have been more clear. "Reusable" has not the same exact meaning in aerospace than in common life ; whatever the technology, space hardware is subject to tremendous forces, which mean it will wear sooner than later. The other point is that, even more than in standard aeronautics, each part must be checked before flight. In space, you can't say "this is going to work well, and if not, they will land on 3 engines on 4, that's not a drama". There are very little abort options and all of them tend to be very risky. So if you neglect to check that a tiny part of a turbopump has a metal crack into it, you are playing with the crew's life, because despite of security systems, a failure of that tiny part can blow the whole vehicle. And yes, inspecting carefully a ultra-high precision machinery like the SSME is a daunting task (and I'm amazed by the fact they have been so reliable given their performances and never caused any crew loss).

So yeah, it's not absurd in that context to consider that building new hardware is cheaper and safer than reusing existing one. At least NASA made the experience with the Shuttle and proved that it was a "false good idea".

 

[Urwumpe]

So yeah, it's not absurd in that context to consider that building new hardware is cheaper and safer than reusing existing one. At least NASA made the experience with the Shuttle and proved that it was a "false good idea".

My summary there is: It was a good first idea. It didn't work out as planned, but you had the chance to learn from your mistakes and by being the first to try it, nobody can blame you for not learning from the mistakes of others.

I feel a Shuttle-Bashing now. People point at how it failed. And not at how it succeeded. The average SSME operated for 4200 seconds in its lifetime. Over one hour at highest performance and power density. That was one big achievement, but it had a price.

That is also the problem that I have with RGClarks naive optimism there, to quote my Clausewitz: "Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult."

He is in the comfortable position of a distant ruler to just say "Here are the goals you have to achieve, if you achieve them, we will have manned spaceflight for cheap from Europe". I see the task from the point of view of somebody who has to achieve these goals first. RGClark never bothers about how to do this small unimportant simple stuff. This must be possible to solve. And he is right pretty often. It is possible. But not now, not instantly and not without lost battles along the way.

 

[RGClark]

But toward the USA, of course!

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2010/07/tir-dessai-dun-missile-m51.html

Google-translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translat...10/07/tir-dessai-dun-missile-m51.html&act=url

Translation slightly modified:

More seriously:

France is not a member of NATO, and has their own independent nuclear force. Perfectly within their rights, obviously. But the idea that the other European nations should pay billions of dollars to help support France's nuclear arsenal is absurd.
But that is the only reason why France supports the solid-version of the Ariane 6. To be fair, Italy also supports the solid-version of the Ariane 6 because they are building the solid-rocket Vega which is largely built in Italy.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

France is not a member of NATO

Wrong. It is just a very demanding member of the NATO. France is not operating under the integrated NATO command.

 

[N_Molson]

The Shuttle was, when it was created, NASA's and USA absolute masterpiece. The best of the best was used. In the late 70's, a few years after Apollo termination, which almost used a primitive technology in comparison, you had fully integrated electronics, fly-by-wire system, the liquid engine with the best specific impuse ever flown, the ability to return massive payloads on Earth, a spacecraft with a crew up to 7, a spaceplane of 100 tons, etc... It was an incredible amount of firsts.

Also, what is interesting, is that Apollo didn't flew even 10 years... The Shuttle made a 30-years long career with an impressive number of flights. Only Soyuz did better on that point, and I bet that those records are not going to fall in the next 20 years.

Wrong. It is just a very demanding member of the NATO. France is not operating under the integrated NATO command.

Yes, that was De Gaulle condition after WWII. He knew how to be persuasive, and the West side couldn't afford to lose France to the East (on that time, the Communist Party was the first one, given that many resistance fighters, now war heroes, were of communist allegiance)...

 

[Urwumpe]

The best of the best was used.

Well... no. Not always. The AP-101B computer had for example still been inadequate, the AP-101S from 1987 was the first one that really met the requirements from the 1970s. When the AP-101S had been selected, there had already been much better computers around. (Again: It is easy to say from top to bottom, what the computer should do and what it should weight. It is harder to build such a computer from bottom to top)

The IMUs also had been a rather economic choice, not state of the art, but rather proven reliable technology that reduced technological risk.

 

[N_Molson]

Now that's Orbiter Forum, the only place where you discuss the differences between the AP-101B and AP-101S Shuttle onboard computers

I guess that those computer had to answer to very specific constraints, too (radiation shielding, immunity to vibration, G-forces and other factors that would shred our frail desktop computers into small bits and bytes, especially hard drives). :compbash2:

 

[Urwumpe]

Now that's Orbiter Forum, the only place where you discuss the differences between the AP-101B and AP-101S Shuttle onboard computers

I guess that those computer had to answer to very specific constraints, too (radiation shielding, immunity to vibration, G-forces and other factors that would shred our frail desktop computers into small bits and bytes, especially hard drives). :compbash2:

And come from the right manufacturer (IBM), because the software development gear and many other computers had been by IBM. IBM also had the AP-1 ready at that time. But the AP-101A, the top of the creme of IBMs "Advanced System/4 Pi" was too slow to do the tasks that the Shuttle GPC should do and had too little memory. The AP-101B was better in both, but lacked both speed and memory as well.

The AP-101S finally had the speed and memory, that the GPC specification called for.

Until then, NASA resorted on many tricks and simplifications, to not overwhelm the AP-101B.

(Essentially, the specification was: The Shuttle should carry the equivalent in computing power, that NASA had on the ground during the Apollo missions)

 

[Furet]

France is not operating under the integrated NATO command.

Wrong. France rejoined the integrated military command of NATO in 2009, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#After_the_Cold_War

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal

 

[Urwumpe]

Wrong. France rejoined the integrated military command of NATO in 2009, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.

Oh... never noticed it. :lol: