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?