Such an operation would be covered by Federal Aviation Administration rules, would share facilities with other commercial companies to cut down on expenses, and would offer launches to NASA under a fixed-price contract.
USA’s (Un. Sp. All.) current estimated price tag of $1.5 billion per year would represent a substantial drop from previous funding levels, which have seen shuttle program costs rise as high as $4 billion per year.
This almost sounds reasonable, but I have a question: why didn't they fly at 1.5 billion per year before? We were doing 2 flights a year rate ever since the post-Columbia restart.
Because the Government operated, Civil Service environment wasn't conducive to cost cutting. The commercial for profit environment is. The trade off is... cutting fat (surplus spending) without cutting meat (operational capability or safety).
Two flights a year?!?
With the Saturn V lifter and crew capsules it could be two flights with 200,000 pounds of cargo a month for the same money...
And why (fer gawd's sake) don't we simply put the Saturn V and the crew return capsules back on the production line? That system has been amortized, man rated, and proven reliable... That bad boy lifter will punch 300,000 pounds into LEO without even breaking a sweat... And no one has to spend 8 billion reinventing the wheel...
denny-o
Probably because they lost the blueprints? (just a guess)And why (fer gawd's sake) don't we simply put the Saturn V and the crew return capsules back on the production line? That system has been amortized, man rated, and proven reliable... That bad boy lifter will punch 300,000 pounds into LEO without even breaking a sweat... And no one has to spend 8 billion reinventing the wheel...
denny-o
And why (fer gawd's sake) don't we simply put the Saturn V and the crew return capsules back on the production line? That system has been amortized, man rated, and proven reliable... That bad boy lifter will punch 300,000 pounds into LEO without even breaking a sweat... And no one has to spend 8 billion reinventing the wheel...
denny-o
The Saturn V is, IIRC, the only launcher that has never had a catastrophic failure...
I can answer that: despite being "amortized", Saturn V was inaffordable. When "beat the Soviets, money no object" period ended, the program was cancelled. Simple as that.And why (fer gawd's sake) don't we simply put the Saturn V and the crew return capsules back on the production line? That system has been amortized, man rated, and proven reliable...
How many did they launch, a dozen in total? The Shuttle launched what, 132 times, one failure on the 25th launch and one failure on re-entry (which I witnessed with my 9 year old nephew I woke up to watch) on the 113th shuttle mission, the 28th for that vehicle.
Comparing the programs safety records in any way is a bit ridiculous. If they would have kept on launching the Saturn Vs, they would have eventually blown one of those up as well. They had the same crappy workmanship as everything the government puts out to bid, and the Apollo program killed one crew and almost a second due to those issues. The only reason a Saturn V didn't blow up was luck.
Apollo 13 was not a failure of the Saturn 5 booster. It was a failure of the service module. That was a separate item from the booster. Apollo 1 was also not a failure of the booster but a failure of the command module, again that is a separate system from the booster.How many did they launch, a dozen in total? The Shuttle launched what, 132 times, one failure on the 25th launch and one failure on re-entry (which I witnessed with my 9 year old nephew I woke up to watch) on the 113th shuttle mission, the 28th for that vehicle.
Comparing the programs safety records in any way is a bit ridiculous. If they would have kept on launching the Saturn Vs, they would have eventually blown one of those up as well. They had the same crappy workmanship as everything the government puts out to bid, and the Apollo program killed one crew and almost a second due to those issues. The only reason a Saturn V didn't blow up was luck.
Tooling, actually. It was all scrapped years ago.Probably because they lost the blueprints? (just a guess)
???? Anyone have real current $$$ numbers on a Saturn 5 launch? I can't imagine those F1 motors are cheap.... Not to mention that they aren't near as efficient as aerospike engines.
How many did they launch, a dozen in total? The Shuttle launched what, 132 times, one failure on the 25th launch and one failure on re-entry (which I witnessed with my 9 year old nephew I woke up to watch) on the 113th shuttle mission, the 28th for that vehicle.
Comparing the programs safety records in any way is a bit ridiculous. If they would have kept on launching the Saturn Vs, they would have eventually blown one of those up as well. They had the same crappy workmanship as everything the government puts out to bid, and the Apollo program killed one crew and almost a second due to those issues. The only reason a Saturn V didn't blow up was luck.
Representatives of NASA, Sierra Nevada Space Systems and the University of Colorado at Boulder held a news conference Saturday to discuss a partnership they hope will lead to a more efficient spacecraft to take astronauts into low Earth orbit.
Sierra Nevada Space Systems is developing a space plane called the Dream Chaser, capable of carrying seven passengers into orbit. The Denver- based branch of the Sierra Nevada Corp. received the most money — $20 million — of any of the companies competing for grants from NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program. The program is designed to help involve the commercial sector in the American space program.