Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!udel!gatech!bloom-beacon!spdcc!husc6!think!craig
From: craig@think.COM (Craig Stanfill)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Heavylift Boosters
Message-ID: <28624@think.UUCP>
Date: 26 Sep 88 14:12:31 GMT
Sender: uucp@super.ORG
Lines: 33

The recent discussion of how a heavylift booster might be constructed
from space shuttle components sounds encouraging.  My understanding
is that the SSME is much more efficient than engines from the Saturn 
days.  Also, by the standards of large solid-fuel boosters, the Shuttle
SRB's aren't _too_ awful in terms of how often they blow up; with the
limited redesign just completed they might actually be reasonably safe.

Of course, it is a littly looney putting men on top of solid-fueled 
boosters.

We've now paid for developing some nice engines, which I believe are
the longest lead-time and most expensive (development-wise) components
of a launch system.  If we can use them as the basis for a family of
expendables, we'll undo part of the damage of the past several years.
If Shuttle engines are produced in sufficient quantity to be usable in
expendables, the cost ought to come down and the reliability ought to
increase.

There are, however, some fundamental questions:

	1.  How much better are SSME's than other liquid-fueled engines?
	2.  How do the SRB's compare to other large solids in terms
	    of reliability and cost?
	3.  How would the cost & lead time for developing a launch vehicle
	    based on Shuttle components compare with developing one from
	    scratch?
	4.  How would the cost of developing a family of launch vehicles
	    (varying the number of SSME's and SRBs) compare with the
	    cost of independent development efforts?
	5.  Is it plausible that shuttle-based launch vehicles could
    	    replace the Titan?