Article View: sci.space
Article #6570Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
From: Henry Spencer
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:57
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:57
16 lines
1491 bytes
1491 bytes
In article <neff.12.725643434@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff) writes:
>It is common for the shuttle to fly without a full cargo. In your calculation
>you assumed that the payload was the maximum for the orbit. You figures are
>the lower limit to the cost per pound for the shuttle.
This is true for all launchers, actually. It's not that rare for them to
fly with less-than-maximum payload due to other constraints, e.g. payload
volume, limits of deployment mechanisms, or a payload that simply doesn't
want hitchhikers for whatever reason. It's somewhat more common for the
shuttle only because most shuttle missions are to low orbit and a large
fraction of non-shuttle missions are to Clarke orbit (where propulsion
systems for stationkeeping are invariably needed, so it's possible to
adjust fuel load to fully exploit the launcher).
--
"God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<C01E43.JIJ@zoo.toronto.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utzoo!henryReferences:
<n1351t@ofa123.fidonet.org> <neff.12.725643434@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) Message-ID: <C01E43.JIJ@zoo.toronto.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:57:36 GMT References: <n1351t@ofa123.fidonet.org> <neff.12.725643434@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 16