Author Topic: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?  (Read 51787 times)

Offline Space Invaders

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« on: 01/16/2011 08:48 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades... and now that we're removing the very expensive orbiter refurbishment, we can only afford a couple of launches per year! It seems paradoxical.

What is it that makes SD-HLV recurring costs so great?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #1 on: 01/16/2011 09:13 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades... and now that we're removing the very expensive orbiter refurbishment, we can only afford a couple of launches per year! It seems paradoxical.

What is it that makes SD-HLV recurring costs so great?

The disassembly of the existing shuttle manufacturing tools in the attempt to push Constellation forward is part of it.  Also, the predominant SD-HLV push seems to insist on keeping the least affordable solutions to issues.

In my study of the issue for my AJAX proposal, I found that the overhead costs for some parts can be shared, but for others the SD-HLV will have to shoulder them alone.  One of the reasons AJAX looks the way it does is to limit those unique portions, either through gaining use of the overhead with some other system, or by eliminating that system entirely.

The Shuttle has been grandfathered in with some components which, when it was originally designed were shared with other systems.  But over time, those systems have been replaced by others.  Now the SD-HLV will have to shoulder them alone.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #2 on: 01/16/2011 09:16 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades..


Not really.   That was the problem, the shuttle was too expensive.  There isn't five payloads other than station logistics

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #3 on: 01/16/2011 09:24 pm »
Let see about 10,000 workers needed vs. about 3000 for EELV.
And I will bet no more than 2,000 are needed to service the Oribiter.

The shuttle’s main engines are the most expensive rocket engine  made in the US.  This is acceptable because they are reusable but when you go to disposbable they are expensive to dump and expendable versions are not cheaper than the RS68…

The shuttle systems were designed with reusability in mind which means that low cost was not the driver. It is the difference between throwing out a plastic fork vs. throwing out silverware.

The shuttle is based on30 year old technology and processes.  Most EELV incoperate far more new technology and processes.

Refurbishing the Orbiter isn’t the only expensive thing about the shuttle. The Crawler, VAB, Specially built train cars to haul SRM segements, SRM handing is not cheap.

Lots of reasons

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #4 on: 01/16/2011 09:28 pm »
The first thing is the mission hardware. Shuttle only carries 20ish metric tons of payload per launch, and much of that has come out of the ISS budget including international hardware and funding arrangements. SDHLV would carry at least 70mT of payload per launch, primarily free-flying manned exploration spacecraft funded by NASA. The missions hardware for each launch is going to be considerably more expensive, even if we're just putting an Earth-departure propulsion stage on top.

The second issue is the 5-seg SRBs. Not only are the SRBs very expensive, and the 5-segs more than their fair share more expensive than the 4-segs, but (as I understand it), the 5-seg SRBs require the core tank to be stretched so that the forward thrust structures of the SRBs tie into the intertank cross-member. And since the 5-seg SRBs roll out to the pad loaded with propellant grain, the crawlerways will have to be overhauled in order to support the extra weight. The Saturn-style service toward mounted on the MLP (which I understand is the preferred pad configuration) would further exacerbate this issue (note that Saturn was all-liquid).

A final consideration is that two launches per year isn't dramatically cheaper than five launches per year because of the fixed costs of maintaining all the facilities and employees necessary to launch. To an extent, you'll have the same factors of production employed, just being less productive. And this consideration circles back to the cost of the mission hardware and ultimately the lack of a compelling and long-lasting mission that involves several launches per year over several years.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #5 on: 01/16/2011 09:48 pm »
A final consideration is that two launches per year isn't dramatically cheaper than five launches per year because of the fixed costs of maintaining all the facilities and employees necessary to launch. To an extent, you'll have the same factors of production employed, just being less productive. And this consideration circles back to the cost of the mission hardware and ultimately the lack of a compelling and long-lasting mission that involves several launches per year over several years.

An heavy lift vechile by its nature is out sized to do many missions a year.  The reason why one uses Heavy lift is to save on launches. Even my favorite EELV derived heavy lift isn't as cheap as a single ELLV launch.

Unless outside customers come in NASA will never be able to afford many HLV launches of any kind including the falcon XX. It isn't so much launch but payload.

For LEO spaceflight a simple capsule and  a space station is all you need. The space station is used for years(reuse) and the capsule does not need to be as capable as on for deep space flight. The shuttle likewise got some economies from reuse(i.e. Unlike a side mount HLV you don't need to replace the shuttle's structure and avionics after a successful mission).

For BEO spaceflight a more capable capsule is needed along with habs and or landers. Now you are throwing out 2 spacecraft per mission verse say one for a space station flight. This also drives up the price and limits the amount of rockets you will buy.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #6 on: 01/16/2011 10:45 pm »
Shuttle-derived economics are bad primarily because of the "Heavy" part of "SD-HLV". Congresspeople for whom high costs (in their districts) is a feature not a bug doesn't help either.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #7 on: 01/16/2011 11:24 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades..


Not really.   That was the problem, the shuttle was too expensive.  There isn't five payloads other than station logistics

It didn't have to be Jim.  You, of course, know that don't you?

Out of curiosity, what did you do on Shuttle?  Were you then CS?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #8 on: 01/17/2011 12:03 am »
Two reasons: SRBs and SSMEs.

SRBs (no matter how many segments) are expensive because they were designed around a high flight rate (>10 launches per year) from both the East and West coast, and assuming reusability. Thus, all the loading is done at separate facility in Utah and the segments transported by rail to the pad. In reality, there never were any launches from Vandenburg, and we haven't hit the 10/year rate since before Challenger. So, Shuttle limped along with this uneconomical infrastructure because it avoided any further redesigns. The situation for SLS is even worse, as the flight rate is much less and there's zero real desire for reuse.

SSMEs are bad economically because they were designed to be very optimized for two things: Reusability and Specific Impulse. In these two areas, SSME is has no equal in the world today. However, the optimization for Isp meant that SSME is pretty low-thrust for its size, thus requiring thrust augmentation, such as from SRBs. But even then, SSME is overkill for expendable rockets because it has so many expensive features (mostly revolving around high chamber pressure) that make sense for reuse, but are too expensive for a throw-away engine. NASA did spend money in the 1980s to create an expendable SSME called STME, which later morphed into RS-68. Any modern attempts to create an expendable SSME would likely result in something with slightly better performance than RS-68A, but much more expensive.

And that's why noone has ever built a true SDLV: it is just too compromised because of decisions made back in 1972...

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #9 on: 01/17/2011 12:07 am »
Yep folks, train tracks are the reason.  You heard it here on the internet.  It must be true. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #10 on: 01/17/2011 12:47 am »
Yep folks, train tracks are the reason.  You heard it here on the internet.  It must be true. 

OV, actually I thought I heard that in a Discovery Channel doc.  If that's not the reason, what was? 
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #11 on: 01/17/2011 12:50 am »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades..
Not really.   That was the problem, the shuttle was too expensive.  There isn't five payloads other than station logistics

It didn't have to be Jim.  You, of course, know that don't you?

Out of curiosity, what did you do on Shuttle?  Were you then CS?

I was in the military in the USAF Shuttle program office, working flight assignments (I was a member of the FAWG) and mission costs.  My office helped show that it cheaper to put GPS and DSCS  on ELV.  Before that, it was the editor of an USAF report on the ability of the shuttle to meet DOD requirements.  I also supported architecture studies such as STAS and ALS.

I also was shuttle "user" while working for Spacehab

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #12 on: 01/17/2011 02:39 am »
SSMEs are bad economically because they were designed to be very optimized for two things: Reusability and Specific Impulse. In these two areas, SSME is has no equal in the world today. However, the optimization for Isp meant that SSME is pretty low-thrust for its size, thus requiring thrust augmentation, such as from SRBs. But even then, SSME is overkill for expendable rockets because it has so many expensive features (mostly revolving around high chamber pressure) that make sense for reuse, but are too expensive for a throw-away engine. NASA did spend money in the 1980s to create an expendable SSME called STME, which later morphed into RS-68. Any modern attempts to create an expendable SSME would likely result in something with slightly better performance than RS-68A, but much more expensive.
The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #13 on: 01/17/2011 02:45 am »
Nothing about Shuttle was designed in the 70s to be "cheap". Can vouch for that the decisions then being not decided by "lowest cost" or "lowest bidder" but by unique need to be satisfied.

Then the point was to demonstrate the first RLV. Except that we couldn't afford to do so. So we got a partially reusable LV. Which was an extremely expensive to partially reuse. Which was extremely fragile to fly. Which was extremely complex to process for reuse and fly. Which because of all of the above, did not have the ability to employ a LAS or other crew protection when all of the above "went south" if deftly managed processes before, during, and after ... didn't work out as anticipated. This put an extreme burden on Shuttle operations - have a been impressed by the professionalism and attention to detail of those that have accomplished this hundreds of times. But in no way are these inexpensive.

So why did we accept all of this? Because we'd get "half a loaf" and get the rest later. Never happened. Never could afford to take the concept further.

So while its amazing when it flys ... one must be realistic given the origins of it's components. Specific for need.

The SSME is an amazing engine for what it does, in the volume it uses, under the flight envelope it is intended for. It is the ideal engine for a reusable space plane LV, so anyone wanting to use it for such has the hardest to design component already ready ... if you can only find a way to rebuild the engine cost effectively for the next flight (cf John Shannon).

The RSRB's are a replacement for a reusable stage 0 that should have been present (which started as a flyback S-1C RP stage). They might have been economic if costs to reuse the casings had been less, and had flight rates from 2+ pads (including military that didn't work out) exceeded 40-50.

Many related systems also are extremely expensive "one-offs" justified because of the necessity to make the Shuttle work - an imperative.

So, for true Shuttle systems, not unlike Saturn before, (and I could wax on about avionics, flight computers, software, TPS, and much, much more) nothing is cheap or could ever be cheap. It is the diametrically opposite of say SpaceX components, where  the vertically integrated business is thought through from the smallest to the largest with cost factoring all the way up. Midway between this are the EELV's, who greatly reduced  certain cost factors from the Titan Delta Atlas ELV forebears. Perhaps there will be even greater improvements by future industry developments.

But Shuttle Heritage systems like 5 seg and reusable SSME (so called RS-25e) won't and can't be anything but more expensive than  existing Shuttle hardware. I believe than 5 seg will actually (in the end) cost 2x more than 4seg by the time a SLS would be ready, and that the development costs are less than half paid for - its cheaper to do the cancellation then to buy the stupid things. The volume of SSME would not be enough to ever recover its development and tooling costs, so would be much more than the existing units.

Bottom line - SDLV isn't being done for economic reasons. So to OP - economics are bad because they were never needed to be good to begin with - the point was to build Shuttle and make it fly. It is incredibly hard to take something that wasn't designed cost effectively from the start and then make it so - too many earlier decisions made commit things to a specific cost profile. Also, when you change ANYTHING the cost of changes now have to ride off large enough volumes to work down said costs. LV systems are too specific need driven to make it easy to substantially improve volumes. In SpaceX case, the Merlin 1 volumes brought with it the the significant issue of risking 9 engines on the first stage.

The theory of RLV used behind Shuttle was to bootstrap an RLV future, but not to get it right  from the start. In the end it scared the US away from RLVs period as being highly uneconomic.

Many feel that RLVs will come back as smaller scale LVs where the economics of reuse work better (e.g. its a matter of scale - like that of mammals being smaller, while dinosaur reptiles failed being too large/vulnerable). SpaceX wants to incrementally mine out recovered boosters for parts, and slowly work processes up in quality/frequency to incrementally lower costs on a subsequent flight. Orbital is getting engines and tanks and structures from less expensive international sources (e.g. outsourcing). AF is interested in "rocket back" recoverable first stages as a concept that might evolve EELVs forward in reusablity.

The arguments for SDLV are more about continuing  much of what we already have with Shuttle. Not in competitive costing.

The lowest cost SDLV ... what the Congress originally had in mind ... was to reuse existing components undeveloped. The idea was to forgo development costs by using already existing components "as is". The moment we stopped doing that was the moment SDLV costs began to grow without ceiling.

Could you do something more cost effective with Shuttle components? Theoretically yes. Practically ... are you out of your mind?
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 03:42 am by nooneofconsequence »
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Space Invaders

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #14 on: 01/17/2011 06:33 am »
So the biggest problem is not the hardware itself, but rather people wanting to make a gargantuan rocket with that hardware (i.e., using new 5-seg SRB instead of existing ones, tank stretching, crawler redesign, MLPs, etc.).

How much better would the economics be if Shuttle-heritage hardware were used as-is?

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #15 on: 01/17/2011 07:05 am »

How much better would the economics be if Shuttle-heritage hardware were used as-is?

 Even worse.

It is like a plastic fork vs. silverware. One is more appropriate for a picnic and the other better at a formal dinner. For a picnic paper plates, plastic forks and cup are much easier to handle (they don’t break) than fine china, silverware, crystal.  They are also cheaper and can be thrown out without much cost. The fine china, ect. while it can be used for a picnic will be more hassle and are so costly that you would never throw them out. 

Some things like the shuttle's avionics can't be used like that because they are no longer in production. You need to make new Avionics for any shuttle derived rocket and new software.

Other things like the fuel tank need to be redesigned because they were built with the loads(both aerodynamic and otherwise) that the shuttle puts on it not a canister and not supporting the mass of the payload on top or being lifted from the bottom.

Engines need to be put into regular production and a higher rate and these engines are much more expensive than the engines that go into EELV.

SRB's were chosen for the shuttle not because they are operationally cheap (a loaded SRB is hazardous and heavy) but because they were cheaper to develop in the 70ies and because at high flight rate (20+ a year) they do not increase in cost as much as a liquid fuel booster would. Only problem was the flight rate was beyond unrealistic and the shuttle does not benefit from this factor.

VAB and Crawler does not a cheap rocket use. The crawlers themselves are leftovers from the Saturn V and are 40+ years old and most rockets are either horizontally integrated or stacked at the pad.



It is like turning lead into gold. Yes you can in a nuclear reaction but it is much cheaper just to mine gold than install an atom smasher at the lead plant.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 07:26 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #16 on: 01/17/2011 07:59 am »
Engines need to be put into regular production and a higher rate and these engines are much more expensive than the engines that go into EELV.
The figures I have do not back this up.  Comparing production rate, the RS-25d is not coming in as much more expensive than comparable engines that I am finding.  The RS-25d is suffering from high price due to low production volume.  One per year in most cases.  Once volume goes up, price would come down.
Quote

VAB and Crawler does not a cheap rocket use. The crawlers themselves are leftovers from the Saturn V and are 40+ years old and most rockets are either horizontally integrated or stacked at the pad.

In my study, they *can* make for a cheaper rocket if used in the right configuration.  We just have never even come close to exploring the options for this.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #17 on: 01/17/2011 08:07 am »
The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.



This is more expensive by 40% to me. In the world of production parts costing 1 cent more are rejected in favor of cheaper parts if they will do the job.  And what would be the point of an expendable if you need another source of thrust to act as a first stage engine in most cases. Why even develop this engine when other engines could be used?
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 08:08 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #18 on: 01/17/2011 09:39 am »
Congresspeople for whom high costs (in their districts) is a feature not a bug doesn't help either.

This is the main reason. There are no incentives to make it better.

If no one is interested to make it less expensive, how do you think it will become less expensive? Hardware optimizing itself without human intervention? :)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #19 on: 01/17/2011 01:06 pm »
The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.

This is more expensive by 40% to me. In the world of production parts costing 1 cent more are rejected in favor of cheaper parts if they will do the job.  And what would be the point of an expendable if you need another source of thrust to act as a first stage engine in most cases. Why even develop this engine when other engines could be used?

The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.  It requires several modifications such as a regenerative nozzle and this turns it into a schedule long-pole as well as increasing the overall cost of the project.  Right now, SSME is the only hydrolox engine that the US has to hand that would survive as the core stage engine of an SDLV.

It all boils down to "You want it when?".  If you want it soon (by 2016, as suggested by Congress), then you need SSME and you suck up the greater cost and inferior low-altitude performance.  If you can wait until the 2020s, then RS-68B becomes more attractive.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #20 on: 01/17/2011 02:04 pm »
Another big problem with SDHLV is also billed as perhaps its greatest benefit: Using existing infrastructure.

What makes it a problem is that maintaining that existing infrastructure for many years until you actually launch your BEO mission is quite expensive. How much money does it cost every year to maintain the Shuttle-heritage infrastructure? Add in compound interest until the day you launch.

And there are lots of problems with using an HLV, too, which I won't get into. (Okay, I'll do one: You have to build two HLVs if you want to protect against the possibility of a problem with your HLV that would lead to a two-year launch hiatus... something that will happen again, someday, if you keep the HLV launching for long enough... after all, it happened twice for the Shuttle system... Meanwhile, there are at least two existing domestic EELV-class launchers already available, plus at least another two foreign EELV-class launchers...)
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 02:10 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #21 on: 01/17/2011 02:43 pm »
Another big problem with SDHLV is also billed as perhaps its greatest benefit: Using existing infrastructure.

What makes it a problem is that maintaining that existing infrastructure for many years until you actually launch your BEO mission is quite expensive. How much money does it cost every year to maintain the Shuttle-heritage infrastructure? Add in compound interest until the day you launch.

And there are lots of problems with using an HLV, too, which I won't get into. (Okay, I'll do one: You have to build two HLVs if you want to protect against the possibility of a problem with your HLV that would lead to a two-year launch hiatus... something that will happen again, someday, if you keep the HLV launching for long enough... after all, it happened twice for the Shuttle system... Meanwhile, there are at least two existing domestic EELV-class launchers already available, plus at least another two foreign EELV-class launchers...)

So you're willing to condemn Shuttle derived based on "dreaded infrastructure" saying this is what "makes it a problem" and then immediately follow that statement up with asking how much it costs. 

How does that even make sense? 

Also, again, the "infrastructure" is not going anywhere.  It is not being abandoned.  In fact it is supposed to get more money, to make it into a "21st century launch complex" when we don't even know "what" we are launching from it.  If one does not know that, how can one efficiently apply the "how" and the "why".  Where is the outrage on that?

 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #22 on: 01/17/2011 02:47 pm »
Yep folks, train tracks are the reason.  You heard it here on the internet.  It must be true. 

OV, actually I thought I heard that in a Discovery Channel doc.  If that's not the reason, what was? 

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #23 on: 01/17/2011 02:49 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades..
Not really.   That was the problem, the shuttle was too expensive.  There isn't five payloads other than station logistics

It didn't have to be Jim.  You, of course, know that don't you?

Out of curiosity, what did you do on Shuttle?  Were you then CS?

I was in the military in the USAF Shuttle program office, working flight assignments (I was a member of the FAWG) and mission costs.  My office helped show that it cheaper to put GPS and DSCS  on ELV.  Before that, it was the editor of an USAF report on the ability of the shuttle to meet DOD requirements.  I also supported architecture studies such as STAS and ALS.

I also was shuttle "user" while working for Spacehab

Outstanding!  So you learned that "one size launcher for all" isn't always economical. 

In that office though, and as a CS, you also probably know that it didn't have to be as expensive as it was. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #24 on: 01/17/2011 03:05 pm »

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?


On their own special cars....No I think that if you didn't have SRB segements at all it would be cheaper or if thoose segements didn't need to be sent to Utah from florida it could be cheaper.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #25 on: 01/17/2011 03:08 pm »
Another big problem with SDHLV is also billed as perhaps its greatest benefit: Using existing infrastructure.

What makes it a problem is that maintaining that existing infrastructure for many years until you actually launch your BEO mission is quite expensive. How much money does it cost every year to maintain the Shuttle-heritage infrastructure? Add in compound interest until the day you launch.

And there are lots of problems with using an HLV, too, which I won't get into. (Okay, I'll do one: You have to build two HLVs if you want to protect against the possibility of a problem with your HLV that would lead to a two-year launch hiatus... something that will happen again, someday, if you keep the HLV launching for long enough... after all, it happened twice for the Shuttle system... Meanwhile, there are at least two existing domestic EELV-class launchers already available, plus at least another two foreign EELV-class launchers...)

1) So you're willing to condemn Shuttle derived
2) based on "dreaded infrastructure"

3) saying this is what "makes it a problem"
4) and then immediately follow that statement up with asking how much it costs. 

How does that even make sense? 

5) Also, again, the "infrastructure" is not going anywhere.  It is not being abandoned. 

6) In fact it is supposed to get more money, to make it into a "21st century launch complex" when we don't even know "what" we are launching from it. 

7)If one does not know that, how can one efficiently apply the "how" and the "why".  Where is the outrage on that?

1) I wasn't "condemning" anything. Hyperbole doesn't contribute to the dialogue/argument.
2) I never said it was "dreaded." See #1.
3) Infrastructure isn't free. That money comes from somewhere.
4) It is a very significant cost. Do you deny this? I would like to know exactly how significant it is, so I'm asking. Sue me.
5) Well, then, if you just assume the conclusion, you don't really have to have a real argument, do you?
6) On the contrary, it is not a certainty: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/07/20/205-century-launch-complex-house-bill-cuts-ksc-upgrades-87-percent/
It's not certain that even that amount will be spent. There's a new Congress.
7) See #5.


The SD-HLV infrastructure upkeep isn't free (same as existing EELV infrastructure, except the existing EELV infrastructure will remain with or without NASA).
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 03:10 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #26 on: 01/17/2011 03:23 pm »
Look, I simply pointed to a problem in your arguement.  The fact that you don't know about the "infrastructure cost" yet, based on your statement, are willing to suggest it is the problem.  It's like having to pass the healthcare law to know what's in it. 

You can chop my post up if you will and ramble on, I don't care.  The fact is the infrastructure is not going anywhere.  Seems to make sense to use it instead of just paying for it or adding more money to it when we don't even know for what. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #27 on: 01/17/2011 03:26 pm »
The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.  It requires several modifications such as a regenerative nozzle and this turns it into a schedule long-pole as well as increasing the overall cost of the project.  Right now, SSME is the only hydrolox engine that the US has to hand that would survive as the core stage engine of an SDLV.

Only with a Saturn V-style monolithic first stage. If you use a clustered first stage, the air gap between the cores prevents stagnant flow from accumulating, thus allowing a much more benign thermal environment for the center engine.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23832.0
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 03:32 pm by simonbp »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #28 on: 01/17/2011 03:28 pm »
Look, I simply pointed to a problem in your arguement.  The fact that you don't know about the "infrastructure cost" yet, based on your statement, are willing to suggest it is the problem.  It's like having to pass the healthcare law to know what's in it. 

You can chop my post up if you will and ramble on, I don't care.  The fact is the infrastructure is not going anywhere.  Seems to make sense to use it instead of just paying for it or adding more money to it when we don't even know for what. 
The whole thread is about why SD-HLV economics are so bad. Part of the answer could very well be:
The Shuttle-associated "infrastructure is not going anywhere" (for whatever reason) no matter how expensive and thus we will build around that, no matter how expensive.

EDIT: Just because it's "inevitable" doesn't mean it isn't expensive!!!
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 03:38 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #29 on: 01/17/2011 03:55 pm »
The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.



This is more expensive by 40% to me. In the world of production parts costing 1 cent more are rejected in favor of cheaper parts if they will do the job.  And what would be the point of an expendable if you need another source of thrust to act as a first stage engine in most cases. Why even develop this engine when other engines could be used?
You ignore the other benefit, that SSME does not require a high thrust upper stage. RS-68 would in this kind of vehicle. This right now means J-2X, at twice cost of the RS-68 and the associated development costs.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #30 on: 01/17/2011 04:01 pm »
The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.

This is more expensive by 40% to me. In the world of production parts costing 1 cent more are rejected in favor of cheaper parts if they will do the job.  And what would be the point of an expendable if you need another source of thrust to act as a first stage engine in most cases. Why even develop this engine when other engines could be used?
You ignore the other benefit, that SSME does not require a high thrust upper stage. RS-68 would in this kind of vehicle. This right now means J-2X, at twice cost of the RS-68 and the associated development costs.



True, but odds are you would only need 1-2 J2x engines on that stage where as you will need 3+SSME on the lower stage. In a perfect world you would need niether and would go with RL10 or RL60(I think).


Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #31 on: 01/17/2011 04:12 pm »
...

The lowest cost SDLV ... what the Congress originally had in mind ... was to reuse existing components undeveloped. The idea was to forgo development costs by using already existing components "as is". The moment we stopped doing that was the moment SDLV costs began to grow without ceiling.

Could you do something more cost effective with Shuttle components? Theoretically yes. Practically ... are you out of your mind?

Thank you for filling in many of the "whys" of SDHLV expense. It's surprising the professionals here tend to ignore posts such as this with these historical and current realities, even when examples such as our current difficulties with STS-133 illustrate just how problematic the Shuttle architecture is. One wonders what grief we will face extending this system with larger SRBs and an extended tank on a shoestring budget.

For me, the politics behind NASA's SLS are one of my litmus tests on whether the Tea Party are simply re-branded Republicans or not. NASA's budget is the largest non-discretionary one in government. If fiscal concerns really are paramount, they will examine the compromise made last year, listen to the Administration's recommendations once again and look at private sector solutions.

After all, if you're interested in saving money and a private company with a track record claims they can do it so cheaply that you can pay out all your legacy contracts with penalties and still be less expensive than the NASA-designed system on the table, you wouldn't be doing your job if you don't take another look.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #32 on: 01/17/2011 05:14 pm »
The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.

This is more expensive by 40% to me. In the world of production parts costing 1 cent more are rejected in favor of cheaper parts if they will do the job.  And what would be the point of an expendable if you need another source of thrust to act as a first stage engine in most cases. Why even develop this engine when other engines could be used?
You ignore the other benefit, that SSME does not require a high thrust upper stage. RS-68 would in this kind of vehicle. This right now means J-2X, at twice cost of the RS-68 and the associated development costs.



True, but odds are you would only need 1-2 J2x engines on that stage where as you will need 3+SSME on the lower stage. In a perfect world you would need niether and would go with RL10 or RL60(I think).


We found when we tested that, that you needed 2 J-2X on a 7-RS-68A base to compare to a 6 RS-68, 1 SSME, and 1 RL-10. (to meet the 130mT to orbit target)  This wound up that the one with the SSME cost $15 mil less to build and support.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #33 on: 01/17/2011 05:24 pm »

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?


On their own special cars....No I think that if you didn't have SRB segements at all it would be cheaper or if thoose segements didn't need to be sent to Utah from florida it could be cheaper.

Um, ok.  So now its "special cars" on railroad tracks that are the problem. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #34 on: 01/17/2011 05:30 pm »

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?

On their own special cars....No I think that if you didn't have SRB segements at all it would be cheaper or if thoose segements didn't need to be sent to Utah from florida it could be cheaper.

Um, ok.  So now its "special cars" on railroad tracks that are the problem.

From recent posts on another thread here I understood that ATK was hiking SRB prices in the past, despite them being an already developed, mature product which usually should mean steady or falling prices. Apparently, 5-seg transition will be utilized to fullest extent to do that yet again.

*This* is the problem.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #35 on: 01/17/2011 05:37 pm »

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?

On their own special cars....No I think that if you didn't have SRB segements at all it would be cheaper or if thoose segements didn't need to be sent to Utah from florida it could be cheaper.

Um, ok.  So now its "special cars" on railroad tracks that are the problem.

From recent posts on another thread here I understood that ATK was hiking SRB prices in the past, despite them being an already developed, mature product which usually should mean steady or falling prices. Apparently, 5-seg transition will be utilized to fullest extent to do that yet again.

*This* is the problem.

So what does that have to do with railroad cars?  Or train tracks? 

Where is your proof of this?  It is the job of the government, via a variety of means, to make sure a company cannot just take advantage of government money for the heck of it.  There must be justification that the government accepts.  If the government is doing that, or is willing to that, is another matter.  However, I am hardly ready to jump to thos conclusions based on "recent posts on another thread". 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #36 on: 01/17/2011 05:48 pm »
So the biggest problem is not the hardware itself, but rather people wanting to make a gargantuan rocket with that hardware (i.e., using new 5-seg SRB instead of existing ones, tank stretching, crawler redesign, MLPs, etc.).
Almost. I prefer the expression "the camels' nose in the tent".  Once you allow little changes ... then its much easier to add more, add more ... then you have the camel in the tent. With govt projects you have schedule/budget/scope creep ... requires unbelievable discipline.

For such discipline to work, you must have high unanimity, good will, and good faith among all parties.  Not likely these days.

Quote
How much better would the economics be if Shuttle-heritage hardware were used as-is?
They could be better. They would be hands down better on RSRB's. SSME is a hard one to probe, as the issue is ANY engines at this point and corporate overhead. J-2x isn't Shuttle heritage ... its Saturn/X-33.

The SSME is not that much more expensive if produced in the same volume. The cost can get down to just under 50% over the RS-68A, and the projected cost of the expendable version gets the two quite close.
This is more expensive by 40% to me. In the world of production parts costing 1 cent more are rejected in favor of cheaper parts if they will do the job.  And what would be the point of an expendable if you need another source of thrust to act as a first stage engine in most cases. Why even develop this engine when other engines could be used?
IMHO SSME could be cheaper than RS-68A, yet if RS-68A is flown with Delta IV, then there is significant cost sharing - helps PWR. Realize that the heritage here.

The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.  It requires several modifications such as a regenerative nozzle and this turns it into a schedule long-pole as well as increasing the overall cost of the project.  Right now, SSME is the only hydrolox engine that the US has to hand that would survive as the core stage engine of an SDLV.
Yes. But SSME is also optimized for three engine cluster. May be changed for use significantly.

The issue here is change discipline and fitness for purpose. Hard to see best choice IMHO.

You ignore the other benefit, that SSME does not require a high thrust upper stage. RS-68 would in this kind of vehicle. This right now means J-2X, at twice cost of the RS-68 and the associated development costs.
Yes.

One wonders what grief we will face extending this system with larger SRBs and an extended tank on a shoestring budget.
Actually small changes can be cost effective. However, some changes are incredibly expensive (J-2X, 5seg). They get lumped together.

Quote
For me, the politics behind NASA's SLS are one of my litmus tests on whether the Tea Party are simply re-branded Republicans or not. NASA's budget is the largest non-discretionary one in government. If fiscal concerns really are paramount, they will examine the compromise made last year, listen to the Administration's recommendations once again and look at private sector solutions.

Incoming Chairman Hall believes that Cx was the right/only path, and blames Obama for cost overruns due to FY2011 differences. He doesn't believe in commercial HSF: "NASA should be taking steps to prioritize spending on projects that are likely to have applicability in a future heavy lift vehicle, in an effort to maintain production lines and reduce inefficient use of taxpayer funds. "

Quote
After all, if you're interested in saving money and a private company with a track record claims they can do it so cheaply that you can pay out all your legacy contracts with penalties and still be less expensive than the NASA-designed system on the table, you wouldn't be doing your job if you don't take another look.
Hall: "We must work to restore U.S. capability to get American astronauts to and from the International Space Station, once the Shuttle is retired later this year, and I'm not convinced that the commercial market is ready to fill that role. If they should fail, we will have no option but to continue buying seats from the Russians, an option I find unacceptable."

His budgetary priorities are clear. However, he may "backwater" on HLV funding, use Cx abandonment as an electioneering issue next year, so I wouldn't count on him for immediate HLV advancement.

Oh, and the longer no clarity, costs for EELVs, ATK/PWR uncertainties increase, J2/5seg increase(certain cancellation and payout), and no advancement of alternatives, thus Soyuz for much, much longer. Likely now.

I see too much in the way of crocodile tears on the right here. Ironically, leaves the left off the hook for any HSF funding. But that is just me. Can't stand either. 
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #37 on: 01/17/2011 06:15 pm »
Engines need to be put into regular production and a higher rate and these engines are much more expensive than the engines that go into EELV.
The figures I have do not back this up.  Comparing production rate, the RS-25d is not coming in as much more expensive than comparable engines that I am finding.  The RS-25d is suffering from high price due to low production volume.  One per year in most cases.  Once volume goes up, price would come down.

I have a really hard time believing this.  An engine that's driven at more than twice the pressure, has twice as many turbopumps and precombustors, etc. only costs a bit more at the same production rate?  I still flat out don't believe this.

Also, while an SSME may be "only" 50% more, don't you also tend to need more SSMEs for a given vehicle due to the lower thrust?

I'll admit that my propulsion engineering experience never got to turbopump-fed rockets, I just have a hard time believing that the full-wrap cost per SSME is ever going to be anywhere near as cheap as you claim.

~Jon

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #38 on: 01/17/2011 06:26 pm »
Engines need to be put into regular production and a higher rate and these engines are much more expensive than the engines that go into EELV.
The figures I have do not back this up.  Comparing production rate, the RS-25d is not coming in as much more expensive than comparable engines that I am finding.  The RS-25d is suffering from high price due to low production volume.  One per year in most cases.  Once volume goes up, price would come down.

I have a really hard time believing this.  An engine that's driven at more than twice the pressure, has twice as many turbopumps and precombustors, etc. only costs a bit more at the same production rate?  I still flat out don't believe this.

Also, while an SSME may be "only" 50% more, don't you also tend to need more SSMEs for a given vehicle due to the lower thrust?

I'll admit that my propulsion engineering experience never got to turbopump-fed rockets, I just have a hard time believing that the full-wrap cost per SSME is ever going to be anywhere near as cheap as you claim.

~Jon
It depends on your configuration.  In the particular scenario we were studying in the all-liquid thread last week, we had 1 SSME with 6 RS-68A as boosters.  That one SSME enabled the replacement of a pair of expensive US engines (2x J-2X) with a single inexpensive US engine (RL-10B2).  For AJAX, the use of 4 SSME we replace 3 RS-68A's and 2x J-2X.  The key is to use them where they are strongest.

SSME is not an ideal lift-off motor.  It is an ideal motor for US work, but needs to be parallel staged.  So you build the rocket with that in mind.  The RS-68 and RD-180 are fantastic take-off motors, but run out of fuel too quickly for many applications.  You wrap RS-68 boosters around an SSME,  that SSME works as both a half-power ground engine *and* an upper stage motor.  All you would need is a single inexpensive engine for orbit insertion and maneuvering, RL-10 or AJ-10. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #39 on: 01/17/2011 08:11 pm »
So what does that have to do with railroad cars?  Or train tracks? 

IMHO, the problem isn't the railway, it's everything else.

ATK's segmented SRBs require their own completely unique infrastructure to support, both in Utah and at the Cape. Only Shuttle uses these facilities now, and only SLS has any potential to use them in the future. On the other hand, RS-68 based boosters would share commonality with Delta IV, while any potential RP-1 boosters would share engines with the USAF Atlas V replacement (once the RD-180s run out). Even J-2X shares a lot of common systems with RS-68, and SSME a bit with RL-10 (though that's stretching it). Only the SRBs require SLS to have a completely unique support infrastructure that does not share the cost with any other stakeholders.

Indeed, the only part of the SRB cycle that is shared-use is the railway. The problem is what happens at either end.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #40 on: 01/17/2011 08:17 pm »
The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.  It requires several modifications such as a regenerative nozzle and this turns it into a schedule long-pole as well as increasing the overall cost of the project.  Right now, SSME is the only hydrolox engine that the US has to hand that would survive as the core stage engine of an SDLV.

Only with a Saturn V-style monolithic first stage. If you use a clustered first stage, the air gap between the cores prevents stagnant flow from accumulating, thus allowing a much more benign thermal environment for the center engine.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23832.0

This thread is about SD-HLV.  Whether a large number of RS-68s could operate under a cluster of Delta-IV cores is irrelevant.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #41 on: 01/17/2011 08:26 pm »
Guys,
The only reason why SD-HLV's costs are so high is because of the multiple layers of bureaucracy that NASA imposes at every single layer of the Program -- And that simply isn't going to change, for any system NASA implements.

Senior managers I have spoken with confirm that it is not uncommon, for both the NASA side, and the Contractor's side, to have positions that are SIX DEEP -- for a total of 12 deep -- all simply in order to handle the vast amounts of paperwork that are generated.

Make no mistake, NASA is a government bureaucracy.

And the commercial world is NOT immune.    Space-X has grown from less than 300 people in 2007, to more than 1,300 at the end of 2010 (433% in three years).   One of the biggest reasons for this remarkable growth has nothing to do with new manufacturing requirements, it is mostly due to needing to meet NASA's vast administrative requirements required by their CRS contract.


In many areas of NASA, (CxP being a prime example) it has become more important to make sure the paperwork is correct, than the actual product itself!   Man, I could tell you some horror stories about Ares-I and its support infrastructure at KSC!


As an aside; since the loss of Columbia, the Space Shuttle Program has, somewhat unexpectedly, become one of the leaner programs in NASA's arsenal.   Sadly, CxP had nothing to do with SSP.


Yet, even accounting for this massive red-tape anchor hanging around their necks, a ***correctly implemented*** Jupiter-246 configuration is still capable of lowering payload costs to around $3,000 per kg to LEO.   That's a whopping $2,000 lower than Falcon-9's new low-cost bar that has been set and it is a level that no amount of 'increases in flight-rate' could even hope to match.


So I dispute the very premise of this thread's title.

If implemented, the lower-cost SD-HLV (Jupiter-130/246) economics -- even with their problems -- would still result in the lowest-cost launch system anywhere on the Earth.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2011 09:11 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #42 on: 01/17/2011 09:03 pm »

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?


On their own special cars....No I think that if you didn't have SRB segements at all it would be cheaper or if thoose segements didn't need to be sent to Utah from florida it could be cheaper.

Not sure if this is that big of a deal.
The much touted SpaceX builds everything in SoCal, then ship the engines to TX, then back to SoCal, then integrated the engines and 1st stage, then truck it all to Florida.  Seems like actually a longer logistics train than Utah to Florida.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #43 on: 01/17/2011 09:06 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades... and now that we're removing the very expensive orbiter refurbishment, we can only afford a couple of launches per year! It seems paradoxical.

What is it that makes SD-HLV recurring costs so great?

Great topic.  I'm a SDHLV proponent, but am very interested in the merits of the arugments againts.  Ultimately, I'm for the best options, but have yet to be convinced that's EELV, given their very high costs for everything but SpaceX...and time will tell if SpaceX's cost actually come in at their projections or end up being more like ULA.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #44 on: 01/17/2011 09:43 pm »
I'd like to start this new topic to discuss the awful economics of SD-HLV. We've been affording at least 5 Shuttle flights per year for almost three decades..


Not really.   That was the problem, the shuttle was too expensive.  There isn't five payloads other than station logistics

Now this simple statement I can see merrit in.  (Jim has a way to cut right to the chase)   Because -if- they do a SDHLV similar to Direct, instead of letting creep make it something less economically efficient (as it sounds like they are looking at doing with 5-seg SRB and J2X and 5th SSME), then J130/J246 type rockets seem to be much more cost effective in $$/kg than current EELV's.  (SpaceX might be different, if they're costs come in around projections).

But, while NASA could maybe afford like 10 SDHLV per year once relieved of the burden of the orbiter costs and extra difficulties associated with it (like no LAS, fragile tiles, foam shedding, all the things that probably lead NASA to be more ponderous with testings and proceedures and weather and such than they might be with a less fragile system) 10 LV's per year do you no good if you don't have money for payloads for them.

Having a nice new truck doesn't you no good if you can't afford to liscence it, insure it, fuel it, and drive it.

However, that said, let's say NASA only does 4 SDHLV launches per year because there's just not enough money to fund payloads for more.  Assume that's maybe two launches to support a BLEO mission like a NEO visit, and two more launches for satilites/probes/ISS support.
Those 4 launches can put 280-400mt into LEO depending on a J130 or J246.  5 Shuttles launches cost the same, and put 100mt in LEO tops, and none of that is in any support of any actual HSF exploration.  It's ISS construction/support.  Or maybe a Hubble support thrown in there.

So, if the same price, you get a lot more stuff up there, even if you have fewer launches per year.  That's kinda where I'm coming from. 

And unless SpaceX gets F9 and F9H or maybe something larger flying for something around their production costs, if NASA can't afford around 4 SDHLV flight per year with exploration/Human payloads, I don't see them affording all of these other EELV flights required to put together any type of BLEO mission and some seem to think they'll be able to afford if we go that way instead of SDHLV.

But, since I don't have numbers for that, that's just my assumption.  So I look forward to the EELV proponents making their cost-case for an affordable EELV solution for human BLEO/Lunar/NEO/Mars missions that NASA -can- afford if they ditch everything Shuttle related and go private LV only.  And do it in a time frame that doesn't have us parked for the next decade or two.  We need to make it happen in a reasonable time frame.

I start off very skeptical, but have an open mind.  PArt of that skepticism, are engines.  A lot has been said about the high costs of SSME's.  But if you've read the work the Direct guys have done, an expendable, higher production volume SSMEe would dramatically cut that cost (to 50-60% of SSMEd I believe).  It's already human rated, and has a stellar and LONG track record as a human rated engine. 
Sounds like RS-68 would be difficult to man rate, and isn't good in a wide body base heating environment, and thus would need to have a regeneratively cooled veriant.  That would take a long time, and be very expensive.  Even if it ended up being a little cheaper than SSMEe, it'd likely be a very LONG time before you'd make it up.

the RD-180 would be easier to man rate from what I understand, but it sounds like there's a lot of political problems with sending up astronauts on a Russian built engine (ironically, bad decisions and political haggling will banish US astronauts to fly on Russian built engines...and rockets, for a long time).  So that might not be a viable option, unless PWR starts making it themselves, then they need to man rate it.  That's a whole development line there that might not be any cheaper than a regenerative RS-68.

So there's all kinds of road blocks with the engine on the current EELV launchers, and that's just the engines.  Then we have the issues of the zillion launches required to get any mission of size going, as would be neede for a new lunar mission, NEO mission, Mars mission, etc, and the ISS-like erector set construction you'd have to do in space to do that.  (we see how complex and expensive that was for the ISS)

So these are just the start of my skeptism of EELV going forward.  I have many more I can get in to.

I mean, if all we're looking to do for the next several decades is put a LEO capsule on top of a simple EELV like F9, and send a few people and a duffle back of supplies to the ISS like Soyuz does, or Dragon might, then yea, SDHLV is complete unecessary.  A 10mt EELV and small capsule is all we need.  But then that's all we have....  And if we don't have a HLV, and it will require a brand new program to get one, whether it's NASA, SpaceX, or ULA, will there ever be the will to do it.  Those costs will always be there to startup a bring new program, with new designs, new engines, new hardware, new avionics, and new people and new logistics and a new launch facility, etc.   So, in my opinion, if we say, "Go EELV now, with growth to EELV Heavy and super heavy later, and grow into these heavy payloads", that will probably never happen because those development costs will always be there.

So I look forward to learning some new stuff, and if and where I'm wrong.

:-)


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #45 on: 01/17/2011 09:56 pm »

After all, if you're interested in saving money and a private company with a track record claims they can do it so cheaply that you can pay out all your legacy contracts with penalties and still be less expensive than the NASA-designed system on the table, you wouldn't be doing your job if you don't take another look.


This I whole heartedly agree with.  Something Ronald Reagan said once, "Outside their Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, the Federal Government does NOTHING as well as the private sector".

I couldn't agree more.
However, there's a caviat there.  And that's the gevernment-only contractor.  I've dealth with a lot of them over the hears (in non-space related fields) as well as a lot of actual, compete-on-the-open-market real private companies.  I've also dealth with the governemnt direct.

The Government is the most difficult to workwith, and spends the most time screwing around with red and and proceedures rather than worrying about addressing the actual issue.  Complete lawyer-ball.

The government-only contractor is a close second, and other than their name, you'd think you were dealing directed with the government.  10 people sitting around wondering about delivery terms, liquidated damages, deadlines, purchase terms, etc, and 1 guy actually addressing the actual issue.  (Had a real 'fun' time with a government contractor on a wastewater treatment plant project here in town recently, and that's totally the way it is)

Finally is the free-market private business.  They are worried about getting the problem fixed.  All the red tape and beuracracy doesn't get the job done.  And if you screw'em, they go to your competition the next time, who WILL take care of them so they don't have to have 10 guys sitting there dealing with all the other stuff.

So, while I agree with Reagan, there's often very little difference between the Government, and Government-only contractor.  So consider that when looking at "free market" solutions.  Governemnt only contractors have almost nothing to do with the 'free market'.   It's more about the paperwork than the product, and they are used to getting those contracts as long as they play the government's paperwork game.  After awhile, you can't tell where one starts and the other stops.
;-)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #46 on: 01/17/2011 10:01 pm »

How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?

On their own special cars....No I think that if you didn't have SRB segements at all it would be cheaper or if thoose segements didn't need to be sent to Utah from florida it could be cheaper.

Um, ok.  So now its "special cars" on railroad tracks that are the problem.

From recent posts on another thread here I understood that ATK was hiking SRB prices in the past, despite them being an already developed, mature product which usually should mean steady or falling prices. Apparently, 5-seg transition will be utilized to fullest extent to do that yet again.

*This* is the problem.

But ANY government contractor will do that to the government once they are locked in!  That's my point.  Because once you are at that point, it's more money to switch to a new supplier, with all the money, red tape, paper work, personell shifts, and testing that would entail.  ATK knows that.  As will any other government contractor. 

I don't think getting rid of Shuttle contracts for new contracts with new government contractors gets you anything but the same problem down the road....


Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #47 on: 01/17/2011 10:02 pm »

I start off very skeptical, but have an open mind.  PArt of that skepticism, are engines.  A lot has been said about the high costs of SSME's.  But if you've read the work the Direct guys have done, an expendable, higher production volume SSMEe would dramatically cut that cost (to 50-60% of SSMEd I believe).  It's already human rated, and has a stellar and LONG track record as a human rated engine. 
*nods*
Quote
Sounds like RS-68 would be difficult to man rate, and isn't good in a wide body base heating environment, and thus would need to have a regeneratively cooled veriant.  That would take a long time, and be very expensive.  Even if it ended up being a little cheaper than SSMEe, it'd likely be a very LONG time before you'd make it up.
It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming to change then qualify.  By estimates, the RS-68 would take 3 years to be completely qualified, and there is a slight chance that some performance would be lost.  Not a game stopper, but it does need to be weighed
Quote
the RD-180 would be easier to man rate from what I understand, but it sounds like there's a lot of political problems with sending up astronauts on a Russian built engine (ironically, bad decisions and political haggling will banish US astronauts to fly on Russian built engines...and rockets, for a long time).  So that might not be a viable option, unless PWR starts making it themselves, then they need to man rate it.  That's a whole development line there that might not be any cheaper than a regenerative RS-68.
PWR's and Lockheed both have published numbers for a US built RD-180, it would be cheaper to get ready than the RS-68, and the cost per-engine would not increase that dramatically.

I'd also point out, there are more engines than just the RD-180, RS-68 and SSME as well.  Aerojet's AJ-26 is already tested and ready for flight, and it was one of the alternatives to the RD-180 for the Atlas V.  As with PWR, Aerojet is confident that it can produce the engine.  However, unlike the RD-180, there is no Russian factory building the engines now that such a program would be in competition with. 

Also, PWR has a license to the RD-171 as well, should we ever wish to explore that area.  And there are several other engines, from PWR and TWR which also could have their development completed as well.  There are a lot of options to explore.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #48 on: 01/17/2011 10:21 pm »

I start off very skeptical, but have an open mind.  PArt of that skepticism, are engines.  A lot has been said about the high costs of SSME's.  But if you've read the work the Direct guys have done, an expendable, higher production volume SSMEe would dramatically cut that cost (to 50-60% of SSMEd I believe).  It's already human rated, and has a stellar and LONG track record as a human rated engine. 
*nods*
Quote
Sounds like RS-68 would be difficult to man rate, and isn't good in a wide body base heating environment, and thus would need to have a regeneratively cooled veriant.  That would take a long time, and be very expensive.  Even if it ended up being a little cheaper than SSMEe, it'd likely be a very LONG time before you'd make it up.
It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming to change then qualify.  By estimates, the RS-68 would take 3 years to be completely qualified, and there is a slight chance that some performance would be lost.  Not a game stopper, but it does need to be weighed
Quote
the RD-180 would be easier to man rate from what I understand, but it sounds like there's a lot of political problems with sending up astronauts on a Russian built engine (ironically, bad decisions and political haggling will banish US astronauts to fly on Russian built engines...and rockets, for a long time).  So that might not be a viable option, unless PWR starts making it themselves, then they need to man rate it.  That's a whole development line there that might not be any cheaper than a regenerative RS-68.
PWR's and Lockheed both have published numbers for a US built RD-180, it would be cheaper to get ready than the RS-68, and the cost per-engine would not increase that dramatically.

I'd also point out, there are more engines than just the RD-180, RS-68 and SSME as well.  Aerojet's AJ-26 is already tested and ready for flight, and it was one of the alternatives to the RD-180 for the Atlas V.  As with PWR, Aerojet is confident that it can produce the engine.  However, unlike the RD-180, there is no Russian factory building the engines now that such a program would be in competition with. 

Also, PWR has a license to the RD-171 as well, should we ever wish to explore that area.  And there are several other engines, from PWR and TWR which also could have their development completed as well.  There are a lot of options to explore.


Thanks for the input Downix.  That's why I really try to avoid using launguage in absolutes, because I sure as heck don't usually know for sure!

That's good stuff.  I was just using SSME, RS-68, and RD-180 as they are the engines the US is currently flying.  (Not including the new Merlin, but at their current size, you'd need a zillion to get a HLV off the ground, so I didnt' consider them).  I'm not very familiar with teh RD-171 or AJ-26.  Read some spec's on them before, but as they aren't in production and flying right now, I was just sticking with the ones that are, with a proven track record.

AS for RS-68, well, I guess you could maybe use a human rated version of them as strap on boosters around a core using SSME, AJAX style, right?  At least you'd only have two propellants to worry about, rather than 3, as you would with AJAX.  Dunno if that's much of an advantage though.

Myself, I like going with a Direct approach (and not for the 5-seg and J2X creep that seems to be going on now).  Start with J130 as Phase 1 to get us up and flying again.  Use maybe a Centaur US on payloads initially that are going BLEO (like large probes).
Then J246 as Phase 2 for more serious heavy lifting.  Lunar Mission support, other BLEO mission, etc.
The got o AJAX as Phase 3, down the road, once we're doing exploration again, and maybe have some time to figure out how to get away from ATK politically.


Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #49 on: 01/17/2011 10:40 pm »

I start off very skeptical, but have an open mind.  PArt of that skepticism, are engines.  A lot has been said about the high costs of SSME's.  But if you've read the work the Direct guys have done, an expendable, higher production volume SSMEe would dramatically cut that cost (to 50-60% of SSMEd I believe).  It's already human rated, and has a stellar and LONG track record as a human rated engine. 
*nods*
Quote
Sounds like RS-68 would be difficult to man rate, and isn't good in a wide body base heating environment, and thus would need to have a regeneratively cooled veriant.  That would take a long time, and be very expensive.  Even if it ended up being a little cheaper than SSMEe, it'd likely be a very LONG time before you'd make it up.
It's not difficult, but it is time-consuming to change then qualify.  By estimates, the RS-68 would take 3 years to be completely qualified, and there is a slight chance that some performance would be lost.  Not a game stopper, but it does need to be weighed
Quote
the RD-180 would be easier to man rate from what I understand, but it sounds like there's a lot of political problems with sending up astronauts on a Russian built engine (ironically, bad decisions and political haggling will banish US astronauts to fly on Russian built engines...and rockets, for a long time).  So that might not be a viable option, unless PWR starts making it themselves, then they need to man rate it.  That's a whole development line there that might not be any cheaper than a regenerative RS-68.
PWR's and Lockheed both have published numbers for a US built RD-180, it would be cheaper to get ready than the RS-68, and the cost per-engine would not increase that dramatically.

I'd also point out, there are more engines than just the RD-180, RS-68 and SSME as well.  Aerojet's AJ-26 is already tested and ready for flight, and it was one of the alternatives to the RD-180 for the Atlas V.  As with PWR, Aerojet is confident that it can produce the engine.  However, unlike the RD-180, there is no Russian factory building the engines now that such a program would be in competition with. 

Also, PWR has a license to the RD-171 as well, should we ever wish to explore that area.  And there are several other engines, from PWR and TWR which also could have their development completed as well.  There are a lot of options to explore.


Thanks for the input Downix.  That's why I really try to avoid using launguage in absolutes, because I sure as heck don't usually know for sure!

That's good stuff.  I was just using SSME, RS-68, and RD-180 as they are the engines the US is currently flying.  (Not including the new Merlin, but at their current size, you'd need a zillion to get a HLV off the ground, so I didnt' consider them).  I'm not very familiar with teh RD-171 or AJ-26.  Read some spec's on them before, but as they aren't in production and flying right now, I was just sticking with the ones that are, with a proven track record.
The RD-171 is in production right now, it is used on the Sea Launch Zenit rocket. The AJ-26 is due to flight operations by the end of the year.
Quote
AS for RS-68, well, I guess you could maybe use a human rated version of them as strap on boosters around a core using SSME, AJAX style, right?  At least you'd only have two propellants to worry about, rather than 3, as you would with AJAX.  Dunno if that's much of an advantage though.

Myself, I like going with a Direct approach (and not for the 5-seg and J2X creep that seems to be going on now).  Start with J130 as Phase 1 to get us up and flying again.  Use maybe a Centaur US on payloads initially that are going BLEO (like large probes).
Then J246 as Phase 2 for more serious heavy lifting.  Lunar Mission support, other BLEO mission, etc.
The got o AJAX as Phase 3, down the road, once we're doing exploration again, and maybe have some time to figure out how to get away from ATK politically.


Once we go down the ATK road, you'll be married to them for decades I fear.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #50 on: 01/17/2011 11:01 pm »
Once we go down the ATK road, you'll be married to them for decades I fear.

Already are.  Don't know that we can get a divorce in a reasonable amount of time, and without their lawyers taking us to the cleaners.  But maybe that situation can be planned for in the future.

I don't know, I don't understand that politics of it all that well.

Besides, then we just get married to ULA for the CCB's for AJAX, and are probably in a similar abusive relationship sooner or later.  ;-)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #51 on: 01/17/2011 11:05 pm »
Once we go down the ATK road, you'll be married to them for decades I fear.

Already are.  Don't know that we can get a divorce in a reasonable amount of time, and without their lawyers taking us to the cleaners.  But maybe that situation can be planned for in the future.

I don't know, I don't understand that politics of it all that well.

Besides, then we just get married to ULA for the CCB's for AJAX, and are probably in a similar abusive relationship sooner or later.  ;-)
Slightly different tho.  ULA is a partnership between Lockheed and Boeing.  Lockheed/Boeing are already deeply embedded into our systems, the result of decades of merger-mania.  They are less likely on squeezing NASA for their cash, as they have other areas to work on.  Diversified interests means less focus on one area.  ATK has one big bang in them, by comparison.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #52 on: 01/17/2011 11:35 pm »
Worth reading:
  Analysis: NASA flails as forces pull on it from all directions

"Senate staffers who helped craft the new law say that NASA has no choice but to extend the contracts. However, several contracting lawyers disagree, saying that a new rocket is a significant-enough change in the scope of the project as to require NASA to rebid the contracts or face potentially lengthy legal action."

"Nelson and Hutchison were not amused"

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #53 on: 01/18/2011 02:54 pm »
What is the thrust in lbs for the AJ-26?  Is is similar to the RD-180? 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #54 on: 01/18/2011 03:10 pm »
What is the thrust in lbs for the AJ-26?  Is is similar to the RD-180? 
Half, but it is also a single nozzle. They would use two to replace one RD-180. It has better thrust/weight, in fact it has the best T/W of any engine produced.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #55 on: 01/18/2011 03:42 pm »
What is the thrust in lbs for the AJ-26?  Is is similar to the RD-180? 
Half, but it is also a single nozzle. They would use two to replace one RD-180. It has better thrust/weight, in fact it has the best T/W of any engine produced.

FWIW, I suspect that 4 x AJ-26 in a 5m (Delta tooling-derived) booster would probably be the best option as a booster for something AJAX-like, if you don't want the delay of designing and proving a new engine.  You could stick an Ares-I upper stage onto it and use it as a CLV too.


[edit]
Added qualifier re: schedule
« Last Edit: 01/18/2011 03:49 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #56 on: 01/18/2011 05:16 pm »
What is the thrust in lbs for the AJ-26?  Is is similar to the RD-180? 
Half, but it is also a single nozzle. They would use two to replace one RD-180. It has better thrust/weight, in fact it has the best T/W of any engine produced.

FWIW, I suspect that 4 x AJ-26 in a 5m (Delta tooling-derived) booster would probably be the best option as a booster for something AJAX-like, if you don't want the delay of designing and proving a new engine.  You could stick an Ares-I upper stage onto it and use it as a CLV too.


[edit]
Added qualifier re: schedule
*whistles innocently*
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #57 on: 01/18/2011 05:41 pm »
Worth reading:
  Analysis: NASA flails as forces pull on it from all directions

"Senate staffers who helped craft the new law say that NASA has no choice but to extend the contracts. However, several contracting lawyers disagree, saying that a new rocket is a significant-enough change in the scope of the project as to require NASA to rebid the contracts or face potentially lengthy legal action."

"Nelson and Hutchison were not amused"


Well, that was wholly discouraging...

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #58 on: 01/18/2011 06:31 pm »
Well, how much improvement in LEO payload would an AJ-26 designed Atlas V or Atlas V phase II be over the RD-180? 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #59 on: 01/18/2011 06:36 pm »
Well, how much improvement in LEO payload would an AJ-26 designed Atlas V or Atlas V phase II be over the RD-180? 
I did an estimate once, they came out so close that it was a rounding error.  Slightly in the RD-180's favor, but we're talking a marginal difference at best.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #60 on: 01/18/2011 06:57 pm »
Well, how much improvement in LEO payload would an AJ-26 designed Atlas V or Atlas V phase II be over the RD-180? 
I did an estimate once, they came out so close that it was a rounding error.  Slightly in the RD-180's favor, but we're talking a marginal difference at best.

Then simplicity wins.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #61 on: 01/18/2011 07:06 pm »
Well, how much improvement in LEO payload would an AJ-26 designed Atlas V or Atlas V phase II be over the RD-180? 
I did an estimate once, they came out so close that it was a rounding error.  Slightly in the RD-180's favor, but we're talking a marginal difference at best.

Then simplicity wins.
Precisely, which is why the RD-180 won the contract.  One engine vs 2.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #62 on: 01/18/2011 07:55 pm »
As with PWR, Aerojet is confident that it can produce the engine.  However, unlike the RD-180, there is no Russian factory building the engines now that such a program would be in competition with. 

In my opinion, we'll never see Aerojet, or PWR, build a Russian engine in the U.S.  A couple of years ago, for example, Aerojet was talking to the Russians about restarting NK33 production - in Russia.

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/aerojet-looking-restart-production-nk-33-engine.html

 - Ed Kyle

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #63 on: 01/19/2011 12:38 am »
In my opinion, we'll never see Aerojet, or PWR, build a Russian engine in the U.S.  A couple of years ago, for example, Aerojet was talking to the Russians about restarting NK33 production - in Russia.
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/aerojet-looking-restart-production-nk-33-engine.html
    The article seems to say that construction in either the US or Russia are regarded as entirely feasible (indeed, "fully prepared" in the US), but that Russian engines might be available somewhat sooner and cheaper. "We believe there would be a price benefit of being able to purchase the engines from Russia. That might not be true in five years, but that’s the case today [2009]".
    The issue is demand. If NK-33 is used only for a relatively few Taurus II boosters for the first major round of CRS missions, then no. If Aerojet is looking to enter the domestic kerolox business in a bigger way -- for Atlas's future domestic kerolox \`a la DOD planning, or perhaps even SLS boosters, then the demand curve may be quite, quite different.
   -Alex

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #64 on: 01/19/2011 06:18 am »
Moving this to a more appropriate thread ...

It's totally irrelevant, an Atlas V cargo clone is not Ares I/V and would be expected to be cheaper, again stop trolling this thread.

"The GAO report above shows Ares I/Orion costing between $35B and $49B"
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09306sp.pdf

They have the cost of Orion as $20 to $29bn which is clearly not just the development cost as NASA is not getting anywhere near that for Orion to be ready by 2016+. The other thing about these costs is it includes NASA civil servant and infrastructure costs as well as contractor costs something that is ignored when SpaceX costs are quoted, everyone thinks all NASA support costs for SpaceX are 0. I would have thought that 30 something billion would be a more realistic estimate of Ares I/Orion but for that you would have got a fully BEO capsule as well as theoretically the safest manned launcher as well as a down payment on Ares V hardware. Obviously some in power thought this wasn't a price worth paying so that is why we are getting SLS for roughly the same price as Ares I. The total amount spent on SpaceX is well over a billion now and cargo Dragon is not complete but I agree it's great value for the size of vehicle/capsule. I don't mind discussing these issues but please do them in appropriate threads as we all end up looking like zealots without any self-control if all threads get bombed with the same message whatever that message is. Discussing ULA/SpaceX options on an SLS thread when it has already been decided to be a SD-HLV is just a masochistic waste of time and bandwidth whatever the strength of your argument.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2011 06:36 am by marsavian »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #65 on: 01/19/2011 10:11 am »
I would have thought that 30 something billion would be a more realistic estimate of Ares I/Orion but for that you would have got a fully BEO capsule as well as theoretically the safest manned launcher as well as a down payment on Ares V hardware. Obviously some in power thought this wasn't a price worth paying so that is why we are getting SLS for roughly the same price as Ares I.
    The theoretical safety of the Ares I is hotly debated. Few people would be willing to argue against an AV-402, although it's fair to object that it's not in the same performance class as Ares I and won't lift a fueled Orion.

    The down-payment on Ares V is murky. NASA still projected replacing the J-2X'ed version of the Ares V EDS with an RL-10 version for Mars (and thus NEO) missions, and since NASA intended to go for man-rated Ares V in the long run anyway, J-2X would no longer have a role. Still need to develop the 5 segs into 5.5 segs. Vehicle wouldn't have been ready before about late-2020s at best. Obviously, some in power thought this was a price not worth paying. Thank goodness they did.
 
 -Alex

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #66 on: 01/19/2011 10:17 am »
and since NASA intended to go for man-rated Ares V in the long run anyway, J-2X would no longer have a role.

How does this follow ? J-2X is obviously man-rated.


Still need to develop the 5 segs into 5.5 segs.

Not necessary with this year's Ares V flavor ;).
« Last Edit: 01/19/2011 10:19 am by marsavian »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #67 on: 01/19/2011 11:02 am »
and since NASA intended to go for man-rated Ares V in the long run anyway, J-2X would no longer have a role.
How does this follow ? J-2X is obviously man-rated.
     When the Ares V EDS went to an RL-10 cluster, and NASA dropped Ares I when man-rated Ares V became available (and used for BEO missions), there there would seem to be no vehicle using the J-2X left.
     -Alex

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #68 on: 01/19/2011 01:37 pm »
and since NASA intended to go for man-rated Ares V in the long run anyway, J-2X would no longer have a role.
How does this follow ? J-2X is obviously man-rated.
     When the Ares V EDS went to an RL-10 cluster, and NASA dropped Ares I when man-rated Ares V became available (and used for BEO missions), there there would seem to be no vehicle using the J-2X left.

Well... things have changed.

You are correct that, in the original D-SDLV In-line plan, there were to be two distinct phases to the vehicle's development.  Block-I would use 4-seg RSRMs and an RL-10 cluster on the upper stage.  However, Block-I would not be crew-rated.  Block-II would go to the 5-seg RSRM-V and J-2X on the upper stage and would be crew-rated.

Recent events seem to suggest that NASA has abandoned their plans for block-I entirely in favour of a rush to Block-II.  So, the current Ares-V will indeed have a J-2X upper stage.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #69 on: 01/20/2011 02:25 pm »
It is the job of the government, via a variety of means, to make sure a company cannot just take advantage of government money for the heck of it.  There must be justification that the government accepts.  If the government is doing that, or is willing to that, is another matter.

The bolded part is a very big part of the problem with costs.  The government certainly seems to accept lack of accomplishment as a "justification".

For such discipline to work, you must have high unanimity, good will, and good faith among all parties.  Not likely these days.

That's a problem too; not readily quantifiable.

Quote
Incoming Chairman Hall ... doesn't believe in commercial HSF.

Seems to be an instance of the observation that Democrats don't believe in private industries on Earth, and Republicans don't believe in private industries off Earth.

One of the biggest reasons for [SpaceX's] remarkable growth has nothing to do with new manufacturing requirements, it is mostly due to needing to meet NASA's vast administrative requirements required by their CRS contract.

I'm sure that's correct to a certain extent.  But if you to say "mostly", then I would want to ask you to prove it.

The much touted SpaceX builds everything in SoCal, then ship the engines to TX, then back to SoCal, then integrated the engines and 1st stage, then truck it all to Florida.  Seems like actually a longer logistics train than Utah to Florida.

Yes, but you need to factor in that all of SpaceX's shipping is dry and safe, but ATK's shipping is loaded and not-safe.  Length of the train is not the only factor here.

Interesting discussion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #70 on: 01/20/2011 02:33 pm »
The bolded part is a very big part of the problem with costs.  The government certainly seems to accept lack of accomplishment as a "justification".


The government is just as responsible in the lack of accomplishment under the current structure through constant shifts in requirements, design, etc.  The contractor is just responding to the customer.   

That has nothing to do with how the government verifies that only things within scope of the contract are charged, that rates do not jump unfairly, etc. 

This is exactly why people who so frown on cost + contracts, suggesting that is the sole reason for things and eager to blame the contractors, are not getting it *exactly* right. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #71 on: 01/20/2011 04:04 pm »
The government is just as responsible in the lack of accomplishment under the current structure through constant shifts in requirements, design, etc.  The contractor is just responding to the customer.

That's true too, I'd say. The contractors are not blameless, however.  Who knows how often a contractor makes the suggestions:  Well, why don't we... or  As long as we're doing that, we should... or Wouldn't it be nice if...  or, You could do this for only that, as long as you... along with the less savory You do this for me, and I'll make sure the revolving door stops for you...

History may someday reveal some of these faults which are currently hidden, but I'm more interested in the future path, rather than the historical apportionment of blame among the parties.

As you've said several times, it is not necessarily that the "thing" is too expensive, it is more that the "way" we price the "thing" which is the problem.  Along these lines, management culture is a significant problem in the establishment of cost.  Both public and private management.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #72 on: 01/20/2011 04:23 pm »
Incoming Chairman Hall ... doesn't believe in commercial HSF.

Seems to be an instance of the observation that Democrats don't believe in private industries on Earth, and Republicans don't believe in private industries off Earth.

In fairness to Rep. Hall, you can understand his skepticism.  He's no expert, so I imagine his credulity is probably stretched by commercial's claims to be able to do for less than a billion dollars what NASA is apparently unable to accomplish for tens of billions of dollars except on a decade or longer time-scale.

I also suspect that there is a certain degree of reluctance for NASA to operate (either directly or through contractors) multiple crewed spaceflight systems for fear of busting the budget.  I have seen a general momentum amongst politicians towards Orion/MPCV being the only US crew launch system, at least until there is sufficient confidence in commercial spacecraft technology and a clear need (high flight rate) for commercial crew launch.

Consider it a kind of intellectual conservatism and risk aversion with public funds.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #73 on: 01/20/2011 04:42 pm »
In fairness to Rep. Hall, you can understand his skepticism.

Can you? To move away from the worn-out SpaceX argument, how much did LockMart and Boeing spend to create 2 families of launch vehicles (one of which is Ares I class) and 4 different launch pads? Contrast that to Ares I development alone.

If these politicians are so wary of huge cost overruns by the "commercial" providers, why do they simultaneously have no problem with sham flight tests (need I name it?) costing $450M for little more than a PR stunt?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #74 on: 01/20/2011 04:46 pm »
In fairness to Rep. Hall, you can understand his skepticism.

Can you? To move away from the worn-out SpaceX argument, how much did LockMart and Boeing spend to create 2 families of launch vehicles (one of which is Ares I class) and 4 different launch pads? Contrast that to Ares I development alone.

If these politicians are so wary of huge cost overruns by the "commercial" providers, why do they simultaneously have no problem with sham flight tests (need I name it?) costing $450M for little more than a PR stunt?
Both are Ares class.  While noone has ordered an Atlas V Heavy, it is available as of the last time I checked.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #75 on: 01/20/2011 04:51 pm »

The much touted SpaceX builds everything in SoCal, then ship the engines to TX, then back to SoCal, then integrated the engines and 1st stage, then truck it all to Florida.  Seems like actually a longer logistics train than Utah to Florida.

Yes, but you need to factor in that all of SpaceX's shipping is dry and safe, but ATK's shipping is loaded and not-safe.  Length of the train is not the only factor here.

Interesting discussion.

But that's from a transportation safety standpoint, not an overall cost standpoint, which is what the argument was for having a private company build the rocket rather than NASA.  SpaceX claims they will have really low prices, and yet they ship their components all over the country.  So is the shipping costs of sending the booster segments (dry) from Florida to Utah for refurb and refuel, and then ship back to Florida really a big deal, when SpaceX is able to ship their engines from SoCal to TX and back, and then ship all of their hardware to Florida for integration?

Ideally, it'd be great to refurb and refuel all the segments right there at KSC, and to build the ET's and engines there too, so you don't have to ship these components anywhere.  But barring that, you'll have major components shipped with pretty much any system you have.

Out of curiosity, where are the Atlas and Delta cores built and integrated?  There at the Cape?  Someplace else and shipped in?
The RS-68's come from PWR, right?  Where are they manufactured?
The RD-180's were built in Russia and shipped clear from Russia to the US and stored in a wearhouse where?  Until needed?

PS:  From a safety standpoint, dry components will always be safer than fueled SRB segments.  However, just because they are fueled at the pad, doesn't mean that fuel magically appears there.  Where does the RP-1 come from?  That's shipped in tanker trucks or tanker train cars right?  Isn't that a hazard like the solids are?
Same with the LOX and LH2.  Where's that produced and how is that transported to the pad.  You have pressure and cryogenic considerations with those in addition to just the tankage.  Two things that aren't a concern with solids (or RP-1).  A physical impact that creates a leak in either of those becomes a big explosion hazard, which is not the case for solids.
I don't really know how all of that is transported to the Cape, but all of that liquid propellant will contain as much potential energy as the SRB's.  Which means as big of a BOOM as solid.  It takes the same amount of potential energy to get a rocket of a certain size launched, regardless of if it's solid, kerolox, hydrolox, or a giant sling shot.  :-)

« Last Edit: 01/20/2011 04:56 pm by Lobo »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #76 on: 01/20/2011 04:52 pm »
Both are Ares class.  While noone has ordered an Atlas V Heavy, it is available as of the last time I checked.

No need to be petty, I'm perfectly aware of Atlas V HLV, but didn't want someone coming in saying it doesn't exist. Which it really doesn't, irregardless of the fact it's past CDR. It would require additional money to field. I stuck with the Heavy that actually flew and will fly again today.

The Atlas that exists today can come close to, but not quite Ares I class. Then again, Ares I doesn't exist, either.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2011 05:00 pm by ugordan »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #77 on: 01/20/2011 04:58 pm »
The government is just as responsible in the lack of accomplishment under the current structure through constant shifts in requirements, design, etc.  The contractor is just responding to the customer.

That's true too, I'd say. The contractors are not blameless, however.  Who knows how often a contractor makes the suggestions:  Well, why don't we... or  As long as we're doing that, we should... or Wouldn't it be nice if...  or, You could do this for only that, as long as you... along with the less savory You do this for me, and I'll make sure the revolving door stops for you...

History may someday reveal some of these faults which are currently hidden, but I'm more interested in the future path, rather than the historical apportionment of blame among the parties.

As you've said several times, it is not necessarily that the "thing" is too expensive, it is more that the "way" we price the "thing" which is the problem.  Along these lines, management culture is a significant problem in the establishment of cost.  Both public and private management.

It nice to see I'm having an impact but there are nuisances here that are absolutely critical to understand if one wishes to understand the bigger picture.  Frankly, unless you have opportunity to do this, I’m not sure I or anyone can really adequately explain it to someone for educational purposes.   

I didn't say contractors were absolutely "blameless" in all cases and every situation, because it really depends.  That said, it is important to understand that control authority of design decisions, processes, procedures, etc is done at a board.  That board is made up of several "voting members", which include the senior contractor management.  They have their say and they make a recommendation to change, approve, etc (whatever is appropriate for the issue on the table) but the ultimate authority lies with the customer, NASA and the manager for that project/program/etc.  If that NASA person decides to something different than the recommendations of the board, that person has the authority to do so. 

Sometimes, some of the "why don't we....as long as we're doing that" does happen.  Why?  Because in my experience you generally have an idea of what the "wish list" is going to be.  If you know what that "wish list" is, and you can expect another change based on that, it can sometimes be cheaper and more efficient to kill "two birds with one stone".  Not always, like I said, but certainly has happened. 

However, in the examples you give you're really suggesting, regardless if you realize this or not, there are unethical motivations dominating everything else and NASA is too "stupid" to realize that.  In my experience, that is simply not true.  Furthermore, at my level and my experience, I have been known to "manage NASA", for lack of a better word, attempting to be the voice of reason when perhaps all the "bells and whistles" are not needed or that they understand what is being asked and making sure the reasons behind "wanting something" are valid.  Again, this is at my level and some of my experience, and not always, but certainly has happened. 

« Last Edit: 01/20/2011 05:18 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #78 on: 01/20/2011 05:00 pm »
Both are Ares class.  While noone has ordered an Atlas V Heavy, it is available as of the last time I checked.

No need to be petty, I'm perfectly aware of Atlas V HLV, but didn't want someone coming in saying it doesn't exist. Which it really doesn't, irregardless of the fact it's past CDR. It would require additional money to field. I stuck with the Heavy that actually flew and will fly again today.

The Atlas that exists today can come close to, but not quite Ares I class.
The Atlas 551 with the Boeing Star 48B 3rd stage can get comparable performance for BEO operations to Ares I or Delta IV Heavy so I understand.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2011 05:01 pm by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #79 on: 01/20/2011 06:09 pm »
In fairness to Rep. Hall, you can understand his skepticism.

Can you? To move away from the worn-out SpaceX argument, how much did LockMart and Boeing spend to create 2 families of launch vehicles (one of which is Ares I class) and 4 different launch pads? Contrast that to Ares I development alone.

I'm pretty sure that most politicians are unaware of ULA's existance (given the fact that Alabama's junior senator admitted that they were unfamilliar to him and couldn't even get the name right).  If you asked them, I'm fairly sure that Delta-IV would be "the Air Force's rocket" and Atlas-V would be the rocket NASA uses to launch space probes - both public sector projects.  Even if they are aware of ULA, they probably don't really think of it as being commercial, even if they are aware of it at all.  The news that they are commercially operated would probably come as a distinct and unpleasent surprise to them.

Quote
If these politicians are so wary of huge cost overruns by the "commercial" providers, why do they simultaneously have no problem with sham flight tests (need I name it?) costing $450M for little more than a PR stunt?

Because at least they know that something will come out of it at the end, even if it is (and almost certainly will be) billions of dollars over budget and years late.  Remember, to them, "commercial" is SpaceX and its ilk - enthusiastic amateurs with little or no track record and therefore with no guarantee that anything will be produced at the end.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2011 06:11 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #80 on: 01/20/2011 06:21 pm »
I'm pretty sure that most politicians are unaware of ULA's existance (given the fact that Alabama's junior senator admitted that they were unfamilliar to him and couldn't even get the name right).

I don't buy that, at least not for those few politicians who are fighting over NASA. They can't be that ignorant. They can pretend to be ignorant on purpose because it's much easier to attack SpaceX's track record than ULAs so they simply choose to not even mention the latter. Typically disingenous.

Because at least they know that something will come out of it at the end, even if it is (and almost certainly will be) billions of dollars over budget and years late.

Something can come out out of the "commerical" world just as well if you keep throwing money at it so this just reinforces my comment. To keep arguing against "commercial" on budgetary grounds is hypocritical IMHO.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #81 on: 01/20/2011 06:31 pm »
Because at least they know that something will come out of it at the end, even if it is (and almost certainly will be) billions of dollars over budget and years late.

Something can come out out of the "commerical" world just as well if you keep throwing money at it so this just reinforces my comment. To keep arguing against "commercial" on budgetary grounds is hypocritical IMHO.

Look, I think that we all know that this is really about huge, inefficient factories and design bureaux with thousands of more staff than they need or can even really afford but keep down unemployment in certain districts.  We're all big boys and girls (probably mostly boys) and can handle this fact. 

However, the human mind is an odd place and no one really likes admitting that they are making a choice based on short-term and selfish criteria.  So, at least in the mind, the fiction of commercial being 'unproven' and 'high-risk' is born.  Say it enough and you begin to believe it.  Of such things is the poltical mind forged.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #82 on: 01/20/2011 06:45 pm »
Because at least they know that something will come out of it at the end, even if it is (and almost certainly will be) billions of dollars over budget and years late.

Something can come out out of the "commerical" world just as well if you keep throwing money at it so this just reinforces my comment. To keep arguing against "commercial" on budgetary grounds is hypocritical IMHO.

Look, I think that we all know that this is really about huge, inefficient factories and design bureaux with thousands of more staff than they need or can even really afford but keep down unemployment in certain districts.  We're all big boys and girls (probably mostly boys) and can handle this fact. 

However, the human mind is an odd place and no one really likes admitting that they are making a choice based on short-term and selfish criteria.  So, at least in the mind, the fiction of commercial being 'unproven' and 'high-risk' is born.  Say it enough and you begin to believe it.  Of such things is the poltical mind forged.



The bigger problem is failure. NASA isn't getting enough funding for a totally SDHLV and likely will not. As the jobs get lost by the shuttle shutdown so will the pressure to build something and if NASA fouls up again they won’t ever build another rocket. There are no more chances at bat here. They need something cheap, fast, and functional and allows them to afford payloads within current or slightly less than current budget parameters. Otherwise NASA will simply become a source of funding for commercial crew and lord know what happens when the ISS ends.

The reason why congress is saying so isn’t because they think that ULA can’t do the job. It is because they know the average American does not know about Space x or even know about ULA. The average American thinks that NASA launches all rockets. This allows them to look good against such a “radical” position of having NASA actually use as much as possible what is currently available.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #83 on: 01/20/2011 06:48 pm »
Look, I think that we all know that this is really about huge, inefficient factories and design bureaux with thousands of more staff than they need or can even really afford but keep down unemployment in certain districts.  We're all big boys and girls (probably mostly boys) and can handle this fact. 

I'm pretty aware of what it's all about.  My original comment was a reply to your statement that we can/should understand Hall's skepticism. We (here at least) can't understand his skepticism because frankly, it's unfounded and the U.S. industry has proven that. What I can understand is his motives, but that's not being discussed here.

When you have different motives, then you obviously can have "risk aversion with public funds". That doesn't mean it's completely founded in reality and, obviously, there appears to be no such aversion as long as the money keeps flowing where it "should".

Maybe I'm arguing semantics, but there you have it. Anyway, this is off topic.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #84 on: 01/20/2011 08:15 pm »
To return to topic, it is clear that people do not track the units of our different sources of LV, and the point of why we have them.

There are (at the moment) four discrete sources of potential HSF vehicles - govt(national security related), ULA (partial horizontal business model), SpaceX (vertical business model), and possibly Orbital (Taurus II - outsource from former soviet union, possible horizontal with ULA/other).

Govt HSF LV are driven by a confluence of competing factors - these coordinate to push a camel-like solutions out of a variety of committees that appears to partially satisfy many without being critically responsible to anyone. They come into existence out of abstract need (Saturn - "moon race", Shuttle - "cold war", Ares - "ISS follow-on"), and they live until supplanted by a new rubric. Attempts to keep them alive are similarly driven by a confluence of factors, but in the end these factors conspire to undercut the programs themselves (there's a book here to write alone to justify this). The follow-on project is a form of a "second system" scenario, where more better of the past is justifying the next - in this case cost of Shuttle components. The arsenal system rushes together a suitable replacement with cost plus vendor help.  They are around primarily as a "crisis" capability to respond to abstract/real threats. The muddy nature of all of this disguises the rational/effectiveness of the effort, which hides both bad (massive waste) and good (ability to focus on the problem past cost effective bounds). Also, political "ends justifies the means" frequently overwhelms, and the program fails because it cannot retain coherence.

ULA is a traditional supplier of necessary LV services to the US and others. Unlike govt LV, ULA has accumulated and maintains a perpetual capability that is relied upon as a counterbalance to govt LV. Thus is is best to keep them separate, and it is the case that there is a mixture of fixed price and cost plus contracts that provide a profitable business to shareholders in areas of constant need (access to space) and unique capabilities (accumulated heritage).

A new entry here is a potential vertically integrated provider called SpaceX - the point is to horn in on certain niche portions of constant need and build a business out of that alone, along with probably a cost-plus business justified off of variations on the niche need. If successful, its advantage over say ULA would be a lower cost profile around such volume of access to space businesses. In no way could/would they go after heritage business, because it is too costly and too speculative. However, volume gives them interesting advantages presuming they can make the vertical business components and process choices/execution correctly - an example is that everytime they fly, 10 Merlin's accumulate flight history as opposed to 1 RD-180. This mounts up fast and should not be ignored.

They even have a "loss leader" known as Falcon 1e. Definitely a theoretical mass market play going against China/Russian/other LV provider.

Orbital is a canny outsourcer that consumes lower cost of manufacturing goods outside of US with indigenous integration and processing to deftly bring to an opportunity a requested capability - in a sense they compete with govt "rapid response" and ULA "reliability/capability". Effective designs carefully targetting need, program management skill/speed and contracting with external suppliers are how they are attempting to respond to need with a cost effective solution.

So with this you should see that the units of comparison are all quite different - people have a tendency to over reach, and go out of context with each of these. Please attempt to keep them straight.

They all are misused for what they are intended for. SpaceX won't be doing "arsenal system" launchers. ULA won't be competing with low end Chinese or Russian LV's. SpaceX and ULA won't do speculative launchers (e.g. Minotaurs)  that Orbital can do/does. Nor is the AF going to depend on SpaceX or Orbital for significant national security payloads to orbit. And anyone who thinks that govt launch can compete with SpaceX launch economics for HLV ought to have their head examined.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2011 08:44 pm by nooneofconsequence »
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #85 on: 01/20/2011 08:23 pm »
Thanks nooneofconsequence, very interesting summary of the LV situation.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #86 on: 01/21/2011 07:40 pm »
The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.

Neither did the mighty F-1 like the environment under the Saturn V.

Von Braun's solution? Instead of making the engine able to withstand the temps; simply cover the F-1s in about 1,200 pounds of insulation per engine.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2011 07:40 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #87 on: 01/21/2011 07:45 pm »
The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.

Neither did the mighty F-1 like the environment under the Saturn V.

Von Braun's solution? Instead of making the engine able to withstand the temps; simply cover the F-1s in about 1,200 pounds of insulation per engine.
The F-1 could handle the conditions far longer than the RS-68 can, due to it's regen nozzle.  The insulation was sufficient for that.  They studied such for the RS-68, but the RS-68 is ablative cooled, nothing takes the heat away, so it would be trapped.  A heat blanket would help, but not enough.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #88 on: 01/21/2011 08:04 pm »
However, in the examples you give you're really suggesting, regardless if you realize this or not, there are unethical motivations dominating everything else and NASA is too "stupid" to realize that.

No I am not.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #89 on: 01/21/2011 08:19 pm »
They studied such for the RS-68, but the RS-68 is ablative cooled, nothing takes the heat away, so it would be trapped.  A heat blanket would help, but not enough.

Are those studies available anywhere?


Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #90 on: 01/21/2011 08:21 pm »
They studied such for the RS-68, but the RS-68 is ablative cooled, nothing takes the heat away, so it would be trapped.  A heat blanket would help, but not enough.

Are those studies available anywhere?


NASA has them, the heat-wrapped RS-68 is called RS-68B.  They found the wrap would extend the life, but not enough for the application, so they were studying other ways to further reduce the heat.

There was a good document that came out last year on it, I'll see if I can find it.
-- still hunting for the exact doc, but found a one page overview on the last page here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/278840main_7603_Cook-AresV_Lunar_Ind_Day_Charts_9-25%20Final%20rev2.pdf
« Last Edit: 01/21/2011 09:04 pm by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #91 on: 01/22/2011 12:26 am »
and since NASA intended to go for man-rated Ares V in the long run anyway, J-2X would no longer have a role.
How does this follow ? J-2X is obviously man-rated.
     When the Ares V EDS went to an RL-10 cluster, and NASA dropped Ares I when man-rated Ares V became available (and used for BEO missions), there there would seem to be no vehicle using the J-2X left.
Well... things have changed.
You are correct that, in the original D-SDLV In-line plan, there were to be two distinct phases to the vehicle's development.  Block-I would use 4-seg RSRMs and an RL-10 cluster on the upper stage.  However, Block-I would not be crew-rated.  Block-II would go to the 5-seg RSRM-V and J-2X on the upper stage and would be crew-rated.
Recent events seem to suggest that NASA has abandoned their plans for block-I entirely in favour of a rush to Block-II.  So, the current Ares-V will indeed have a J-2X upper stage.
     I'm not referring to the early Not-Shuttle-C sidemount phase I/II/III division, but to e.g. Mars DRA 5 based on (CxP) Ares V.
     -Alex

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #92 on: 01/22/2011 04:15 pm »
     I'm not referring to the early Not-Shuttle-C sidemount phase I/II/III division, but to e.g. Mars DRA 5 based on (CxP) Ares V.
     -Alex

I wasn't talking about Sidemount either.  I was referring to the in-line proposals that MSFC were making before Jeff Hanley's promotion sideways.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline heroineworshiper

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #93 on: 01/23/2011 03:25 am »
Any NASA derived booster is a financial disaster because of the way NASA does business & its visibility.  NASA just has to be perfect in whatever it does & over certify every step of the process.  A less visible business which can fail without being criticized for wasting taxes can take more chances & not over analyze everything.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #94 on: 01/25/2011 01:46 am »
Any NASA derived booster is a financial disaster because of the way NASA does business & its visibility.  NASA just has to be perfect in whatever it does & over certify every step of the process.  A less visible business which can fail without being criticized for wasting taxes can take more chances & not over analyze everything.
Sorry no.

HSF is a difficult business - it has to be near perfect for it to work at all.

This is as it should be.

You may argue how to accomplish this - quite fair. But the skill set and professionalism used to accomplish this most difficult task are among the most difficult to master in the history of the human race.

Never sell it short. Never deny the NASA accomplishment and the people who have done so.

It is because I want them to win that I'm critical. I suggest for you the same.

Its really hard when you've had to live with certain mistakes. Even if it was one in a million. Keep that in mind.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #95 on: 01/26/2011 04:17 am »
From a safety standpoint, dry components will always be safer than fueled SRB segments.  However, just because they are fueled at the pad, doesn't mean that fuel magically appears there.  Where does the RP-1 come from?  That's shipped in tanker trucks or tanker train cars right?  Isn't that a hazard like the solids are?
Same with the LOX and LH2.  Where's that produced and how is that transported to the pad.  You have pressure and cryogenic considerations with those in addition to just the tankage.  Two things that aren't a concern with solids (or RP-1).  A physical impact that creates a leak in either of those becomes a big explosion hazard, which is not the case for solids.

That's all true, but the liquid propellants can be stored in facilities that are expressly designed to contain them safely.  Since an RP-1 storage tank, for example, doesn't need to fly, it can readily be optimized for safety.  And we're good at making such facilities safe.  For example, in gasoline facilities, better known as filling stations, a liquid more hazardous than RP-1 is handled daily in large quantities by unskilled users with a low rate of accidents.

Solid propellant, on the other hand, is necessarily "stored" in a flight-weight container.  Operations on the vehicle necessarily take place in the presence of that propellant.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2011 04:31 am by Proponent »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #96 on: 01/26/2011 02:43 pm »

The much touted SpaceX builds everything in SoCal, then ship the engines to TX, then back to SoCal, then integrated the engines and 1st stage, then truck it all to Florida.  Seems like actually a longer logistics train than Utah to Florida.

Yes, but you need to factor in that all of SpaceX's shipping is dry and safe, but ATK's shipping is loaded and not-safe.  Length of the train is not the only factor here.

Interesting discussion.

But that's from a transportation safety standpoint, not an overall cost standpoint, which is what the argument was for having a private company build the rocket rather than NASA.  SpaceX claims they will have really low prices, and yet they ship their components all over the country.  So is the shipping costs of sending the booster segments (dry) from Florida to Utah for refurb and refuel, and then ship back to Florida really a big deal, when SpaceX is able to ship their engines from SoCal to TX and back, and then ship all of their hardware to Florida for integration?

Ideally, it'd be great to refurb and refuel all the segments right there at KSC, and to build the ET's and engines there too, so you don't have to ship these components anywhere.  But barring that, you'll have major components shipped with pretty much any system you have.

Out of curiosity, where are the Atlas and Delta cores built and integrated?  There at the Cape?  Someplace else and shipped in?
The RS-68's come from PWR, right?  Where are they manufactured?
The RD-180's were built in Russia and shipped clear from Russia to the US and stored in a wearhouse where?  Until needed?

PS:  From a safety standpoint, dry components will always be safer than fueled SRB segments.  However, just because they are fueled at the pad, doesn't mean that fuel magically appears there.  Where does the RP-1 come from?  That's shipped in tanker trucks or tanker train cars right?  Isn't that a hazard like the solids are?
Same with the LOX and LH2.  Where's that produced and how is that transported to the pad.  You have pressure and cryogenic considerations with those in addition to just the tankage.  Two things that aren't a concern with solids (or RP-1).  A physical impact that creates a leak in either of those becomes a big explosion hazard, which is not the case for solids.
I don't really know how all of that is transported to the Cape, but all of that liquid propellant will contain as much potential energy as the SRB's.  Which means as big of a BOOM as solid.  It takes the same amount of potential energy to get a rocket of a certain size launched, regardless of if it's solid, kerolox, hydrolox, or a giant sling shot.  :-)


This is false. What's safer, a stick of dynamite or a cup of diesel? Or, heck, a cup of nitroglycerin or a cup of cooking oil? The diesel and oil have more energy content then the equivalent mass of dynamite or nitroglicerine. Energy content is not the same as explosive hazard.

Case. In. Point:

(big explosion at 46 seconds looks like a mushroom cloud)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster
There were multiple explosions, and the largest explosion measured about the same as 1 kiloton of TNT. This was the propellant used for the Shuttle SRBs (in fact, the slow-down in Shuttle missions after Challenger led to a build-up of the material, which contributed to this disaster). People died and hundreds were injured. Years later, another large explosion of the propellant by the same company caused someone to lose their life.

When you mix the oxidizer with the fuel, like you do in all solids, you have a much more dangerous situation for transport, etc, than if you keep them separate (like in bipropellant liquid and hybrid rockets). Monopropellants also are dangerous for the same reason (though there may be some arguable safety from the need for a catalyst... I'm not arguing that).
« Last Edit: 01/26/2011 06:02 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #97 on: 01/26/2011 03:13 pm »
I've read that a chocolate chip cookie contains more energy than an equivalent mass of dynamite, but dynamite can release its energy faster.

This is why you should not eat too many cookies at once!

 - Ed Kyle

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #98 on: 01/26/2011 09:16 pm »
Any NASA derived booster is a financial disaster because of the way NASA does business & its visibility.  NASA just has to be perfect in whatever it does & over certify every step of the process.  A less visible business which can fail without being criticized for wasting taxes can take more chances & not over analyze everything.
Sorry no.

HSF is a difficult business - it has to be near perfect for it to work at all.

This is as it should be.

You may argue how to accomplish this - quite fair. But the skill set and professionalism used to accomplish this most difficult task are among the most difficult to master in the history of the human race.

Never sell it short. Never deny the NASA accomplishment and the people who have done so.

It is because I want them to win that I'm critical. I suggest for you the same.

Its really hard when you've had to live with certain mistakes. Even if it was one in a million. Keep that in mind.

Well said, and highly relevant - this week, in particular.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #99 on: 01/27/2011 12:56 am »
I've read that a chocolate chip cookie contains more energy than an equivalent mass of dynamite, but dynamite can release its energy faster.

This is why you should not eat too many cookies at once!

I know exactly what you mean.  I've noticed that if I eat too many chocolate-chip cookies my waistline explodes--but, consistent with the slow energy release, it explodes slowly :).

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #100 on: 01/27/2011 01:23 am »
Any NASA derived booster is a financial disaster because of the way NASA does business & its visibility.  NASA just has to be perfect in whatever it does & over certify every step of the process.  A less visible business which can fail without being criticized for wasting taxes can take more chances & not over analyze everything.
Sorry no.

HSF is a difficult business - it has to be near perfect for it to work at all.

This is as it should be.

...

Not disparaging the incredible commitment and skills of many at NASA, but I disagree with this bit.

There are many who think an alternative approach is possible, if not better. Accepting that perfection is impossible, and instead allowing for higher margins, excess redundnancy, graceful degredation. At the cost of reduced performance.

I believe some who follow this paradigm have proved it works.

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #101 on: 01/31/2011 05:16 pm »
Any NASA derived booster is a financial disaster because of the way NASA does business & its visibility.  NASA just has to be perfect in whatever it does & over certify every step of the process.  A less visible business which can fail without being criticized for wasting taxes can take more chances & not over analyze everything.
Sorry no.

HSF is a difficult business - it has to be near perfect for it to work at all.

This is as it should be.

...

Not disparaging the incredible commitment and skills of many at NASA, but I disagree with this bit.

There are many who think an alternative approach is possible, if not better. Accepting that perfection is impossible, and instead allowing for higher margins, excess redundnancy, graceful degredation. At the cost of reduced performance.

I believe some who follow this paradigm have proved it works.

That paradigm is great. Otherwise, human error (which prevents perfection) will cause unacceptable failure rates.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #102 on: 02/02/2011 09:48 pm »
It all boils down to "You want it when?".  If you want it soon (by 2016, as suggested by Congress), then you need SSME and you suck up the greater cost and inferior low-altitude performance.  If you can wait until the 2020s, then RS-68B becomes more attractive.

BUT, if you can wait til the 2020's, then you'd do better to go to a kerolox system with a new (or restarted) kerosene engine development project, ditch the expense and infrastructure impacts of heavy 5 segment SRB's, and optimize around that...

OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #103 on: 02/02/2011 09:52 pm »
It all boils down to "You want it when?".  If you want it soon (by 2016, as suggested by Congress), then you need SSME and you suck up the greater cost and inferior low-altitude performance.  If you can wait until the 2020s, then RS-68B becomes more attractive.

BUT, if you can wait til the 2020's, then you'd do better to go to a kerolox system with a new (or restarted) kerosene engine development project, ditch the expense and infrastructure impacts of heavy 5 segment SRB's, and optimize around that...

OL JR :)
You can dump them now with the AJAX approach, shrink the ET's fuel load so weight matches the Atlas V CCB.  You can then migrate to a new kerolox later on w/o disruption to launch capability.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #104 on: 02/02/2011 09:54 pm »


Also, again, the "infrastructure" is not going anywhere.  It is not being abandoned.  In fact it is supposed to get more money, to make it into a "21st century launch complex" when we don't even know "what" we are launching from it.  If one does not know that, how can one efficiently apply the "how" and the "why".  Where is the outrage on that?

 

Maybe that was the point that he was trying to make... the use of money for maintaining/improving the infrastructure to support a 5 segment SRB based SDHLV, which uses money that COULD be diverted to funding the development of a more affordable alternative. 

Agree TOTALLY on the outrage about the "21st century launch complex" which is basically a lot of rubbish... It's strictly politician-ese for "we don't want the blowback from closing KSC, so we'll just throw money at it hoping some use materializes for it in the interim (or the future if SDLV doesn't work out (again).  It's TOTALLY about pork, throwing money out to buy votes under thin pretenses with basically NO defined reason or purpose for the changes, let alone defined requirements...

Throw 'em a bone... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #105 on: 02/02/2011 10:02 pm »
Thank you for filling in many of the "whys" of SDHLV expense. It's surprising the professionals here tend to ignore posts such as this with these historical and current realities, even when examples such as our current difficulties with STS-133 illustrate just how problematic the Shuttle architecture is. One wonders what grief we will face extending this system with larger SRBs and an extended tank on a shoestring budget.

For me, the politics behind NASA's SLS are one of my litmus tests on whether the Tea Party are simply re-branded Republicans or not. NASA's budget is the largest non-discretionary one in government. If fiscal concerns really are paramount, they will examine the compromise made last year, listen to the Administration's recommendations once again and look at private sector solutions.

After all, if you're interested in saving money and a private company with a track record claims they can do it so cheaply that you can pay out all your legacy contracts with penalties and still be less expensive than the NASA-designed system on the table, you wouldn't be doing your job if you don't take another look.


That depends on what your job is... if it's to keep as many people on the payroll and keep the gov't money going where it has historically gone to the extent possible so that you can get re-elected, SURE YOU CAN! (ignore cheaper alternatives that upset the applecart). 

OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #106 on: 02/02/2011 11:05 pm »

The much touted SpaceX builds everything in SoCal, then ship the engines to TX, then back to SoCal, then integrated the engines and 1st stage, then truck it all to Florida.  Seems like actually a longer logistics train than Utah to Florida.

Yes, but you need to factor in that all of SpaceX's shipping is dry and safe, but ATK's shipping is loaded and not-safe.  Length of the train is not the only factor here.

Interesting discussion.

But that's from a transportation safety standpoint, not an overall cost standpoint, which is what the argument was for having a private company build the rocket rather than NASA.  SpaceX claims they will have really low prices, and yet they ship their components all over the country.  So is the shipping costs of sending the booster segments (dry) from Florida to Utah for refurb and refuel, and then ship back to Florida really a big deal, when SpaceX is able to ship their engines from SoCal to TX and back, and then ship all of their hardware to Florida for integration?

Ideally, it'd be great to refurb and refuel all the segments right there at KSC, and to build the ET's and engines there too, so you don't have to ship these components anywhere.  But barring that, you'll have major components shipped with pretty much any system you have.

Out of curiosity, where are the Atlas and Delta cores built and integrated?  There at the Cape?  Someplace else and shipped in?
The RS-68's come from PWR, right?  Where are they manufactured?
The RD-180's were built in Russia and shipped clear from Russia to the US and stored in a wearhouse where?  Until needed?

PS:  From a safety standpoint, dry components will always be safer than fueled SRB segments.  However, just because they are fueled at the pad, doesn't mean that fuel magically appears there.  Where does the RP-1 come from?  That's shipped in tanker trucks or tanker train cars right?  Isn't that a hazard like the solids are?
Same with the LOX and LH2.  Where's that produced and how is that transported to the pad.  You have pressure and cryogenic considerations with those in addition to just the tankage.  Two things that aren't a concern with solids (or RP-1).  A physical impact that creates a leak in either of those becomes a big explosion hazard, which is not the case for solids.
I don't really know how all of that is transported to the Cape, but all of that liquid propellant will contain as much potential energy as the SRB's.  Which means as big of a BOOM as solid.  It takes the same amount of potential energy to get a rocket of a certain size launched, regardless of if it's solid, kerolox, hydrolox, or a giant sling shot.  :-)



Not sure how the RP-1 was delivered to the Cape in the Apollo days (or for the Atlas or Falcon) but since it's basically kerosene it could be shipped similarly to kerosene-- railroad tank cars or tanker barges/ships would be the cheapest per loaded mile, presumably coming from petroleum refineries, most of which (most volume anyways) is along the Gulf Coast.  Highway tanker trucks (18 wheelers) is also a possibility but at higher cost.  For that matter you could ship it in by pipeline but I'm sure that would have significant issues and wouldn't be used for such a specific fuel as RP-1. 

LOX, AFAIK, is produced on-site (air distillation?)  Hydrogen I think is also produced on-site using natural gas, liquified, and then pumped to the storage tanks.  Hauling LOX by tankers hasn't been done since the early Mercury days AFAIK... VERY hazardous and volatile!  Better to have permanently installed infrastructure!  Hydrogen is similarly difficult and risky to handle.  Hence the permanent infrastructure to handle transfer of the fuels (by pipeline from storage tanks) to the vehicles for fuelling. 

The MAIN problem with SRB segments is that they are shipped with the FUEL AND OXIDIZER FULLY LOADED AND MIXED.  That makes it MUCH more hazardous to ship than an entire trainload or shipload of liquid propellant, which in hazardous materials shipping regulations aren't usually even allowed to be shipped together on a combined manifest... IE regulations prohibit train cars of oxidizers like say, chlorine, from being coupled next to cars of potential fuels like various hydrocarbons being shipped on the same train.  At the very least these cars have to be seperated by a number of railroad cars containing inert or non-hazardous materials to act as a buffer in the event of an accident.  On truckload shipments, usually carrying more than a small amount of a specific oxidizer, corrosive, or potential fuel material in combinations on the same truckload is illegal.  Quantity restrictions also apply to the maximum amount of materials that can be carried on any one vehicle as well, depending on the material.  Hazardous materials transportation regulations are easy to look up. 

Problem with SRB's are that the fuel and oxidizer are intimately mixed and shipped ready-to-fire, for all intents and purposes.  This makes it a hazardous operation by necessity.  Consider the regulations specified for transporting even small model rocket motors, where more than 62.5 grams of APCP (ammonium perchlorate composite propellant) kicks in hazardous shipping regulations and hazmat charges!  Consider the fact that each SRB segment has a couple hundred thousand pounds of composite solid propellant in them, and you see the problem! 

Anyway, transporting pre-mixed loaded solid propellants is significantly safer than transporting, say, a railroad train consisting of an energy equivalent of alternating tanker cars filled with say RP-1 and LOX, or LH2 and LOX, but the hazards are doubtlessly higher in transporting loaded SRB segments than say a train carrying strictly a load of RP-1, even if carrying substantially more RP-1, so long as there is no oxidizer being transported in the same trainload....

Later! OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #107 on: 02/02/2011 11:29 pm »
It all boils down to "You want it when?".  If you want it soon (by 2016, as suggested by Congress), then you need SSME and you suck up the greater cost and inferior low-altitude performance.  If you can wait until the 2020s, then RS-68B becomes more attractive.

BUT, if you can wait til the 2020's, then you'd do better to go to a kerolox system with a new (or restarted) kerosene engine development project, ditch the expense and infrastructure impacts of heavy 5 segment SRB's, and optimize around that...

OL JR :)
You can dump them now with the AJAX approach, shrink the ET's fuel load so weight matches the Atlas V CCB.  You can then migrate to a new kerolox later on w/o disruption to launch capability.

That's why I like the AJAX and Neptune approaches-- eliminating costly "SDLV only" programs that are anchors around the financial neck of the program, while instituting 'cost sharing' measures by sharing systems and infrastructure with other programs/users and increasing flight rates, which should lower costs for ALL users while making the suppliers more robust in the process... Win/win/win...

What's not to like?? (Unless you're ATK!) :) 

Later! 

OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #108 on: 02/03/2011 12:57 am »

Not sure how the RP-1 was delivered to the Cape.....
 Highway tanker trucks (18 wheelers) is also a possibility but at higher cost.

snip

LOX, AFAIK, is produced on-site (air distillation?) 

snip

Hydrogen I think is also produced on-site using natural gas, liquified, and then pumped to the storage tanks.  Hauling LOX by tankers hasn't been done since the early Mercury days AFAIK... VERY hazardous and volatile!  Better to have permanently installed infrastructure!  Hydrogen is similarly difficult and risky to handle.  Hence the permanent infrastructure to handle transfer of the fuels (by pipeline from storage tanks) to the vehicles for fuelling. 

RP-1 is trucked in.

LOX is trucked in from Mims, FL (near Titusville)

LH2 is trucked in from Louisiana.

Each commodity is trucked directly to pad.  There is no infrastructure interconnecting the pads for this commodities.  Only a high pressure GN2 line that goes from the south gate of KSC to LC-39 then LC-41, 40 and 37.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2011 01:07 am by Jim »

Offline Adam K

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #109 on: 02/04/2011 05:10 am »

The much touted SpaceX builds everything in SoCal, then ship the engines to TX, then back to SoCal, then integrated the engines and 1st stage, then truck it all to Florida.  Seems like actually a longer logistics train than Utah to Florida.

Yes, but you need to factor in that all of SpaceX's shipping is dry and safe, but ATK's shipping is loaded and not-safe.  Length of the train is not the only factor here.

Interesting discussion.

But that's from a transportation safety standpoint, not an overall cost standpoint, which is what the argument was for having a private company build the rocket rather than NASA.  SpaceX claims they will have really low prices, and yet they ship their components all over the country.  So is the shipping costs of sending the booster segments (dry) from Florida to Utah for refurb and refuel, and then ship back to Florida really a big deal, when SpaceX is able to ship their engines from SoCal to TX and back, and then ship all of their hardware to Florida for integration?

Ideally, it'd be great to refurb and refuel all the segments right there at KSC, and to build the ET's and engines there too, so you don't have to ship these components anywhere.  But barring that, you'll have major components shipped with pretty much any system you have.

Out of curiosity, where are the Atlas and Delta cores built and integrated?  There at the Cape?  Someplace else and shipped in?
The RS-68's come from PWR, right?  Where are they manufactured?
The RD-180's were built in Russia and shipped clear from Russia to the US and stored in a wearhouse where?  Until needed?

PS:  From a safety standpoint, dry components will always be safer than fueled SRB segments.  However, just because they are fueled at the pad, doesn't mean that fuel magically appears there.  Where does the RP-1 come from?  That's shipped in tanker trucks or tanker train cars right?  Isn't that a hazard like the solids are?
Same with the LOX and LH2.  Where's that produced and how is that transported to the pad.  You have pressure and cryogenic considerations with those in addition to just the tankage.  Two things that aren't a concern with solids (or RP-1).  A physical impact that creates a leak in either of those becomes a big explosion hazard, which is not the case for solids.
I don't really know how all of that is transported to the Cape, but all of that liquid propellant will contain as much potential energy as the SRB's.  Which means as big of a BOOM as solid.  It takes the same amount of potential energy to get a rocket of a certain size launched, regardless of if it's solid, kerolox, hydrolox, or a giant sling shot.  :-)



Not sure how the RP-1 was delivered to the Cape in the Apollo days (or for the Atlas or Falcon) but since it's basically kerosene it could be shipped similarly to kerosene-- railroad tank cars or tanker barges/ships would be the cheapest per loaded mile, presumably coming from petroleum refineries, most of which (most volume anyways) is along the Gulf Coast.  Highway tanker trucks (18 wheelers) is also a possibility but at higher cost.  For that matter you could ship it in by pipeline but I'm sure that would have significant issues and wouldn't be used for such a specific fuel as RP-1. 

LOX, AFAIK, is produced on-site (air distillation?)  Hydrogen I think is also produced on-site using natural gas, liquified, and then pumped to the storage tanks.  Hauling LOX by tankers hasn't been done since the early Mercury days AFAIK... VERY hazardous and volatile!  Better to have permanently installed infrastructure!  Hydrogen is similarly difficult and risky to handle.  Hence the permanent infrastructure to handle transfer of the fuels (by pipeline from storage tanks) to the vehicles for fuelling. 

The MAIN problem with SRB segments is that they are shipped with the FUEL AND OXIDIZER FULLY LOADED AND MIXED.  That makes it MUCH more hazardous to ship than an entire trainload or shipload of liquid propellant, which in hazardous materials shipping regulations aren't usually even allowed to be shipped together on a combined manifest... IE regulations prohibit train cars of oxidizers like say, chlorine, from being coupled next to cars of potential fuels like various hydrocarbons being shipped on the same train.  At the very least these cars have to be seperated by a number of railroad cars containing inert or non-hazardous materials to act as a buffer in the event of an accident.  On truckload shipments, usually carrying more than a small amount of a specific oxidizer, corrosive, or potential fuel material in combinations on the same truckload is illegal.  Quantity restrictions also apply to the maximum amount of materials that can be carried on any one vehicle as well, depending on the material.  Hazardous materials transportation regulations are easy to look up. 

Problem with SRB's are that the fuel and oxidizer are intimately mixed and shipped ready-to-fire, for all intents and purposes.  This makes it a hazardous operation by necessity.  Consider the regulations specified for transporting even small model rocket motors, where more than 62.5 grams of APCP (ammonium perchlorate composite propellant) kicks in hazardous shipping regulations and hazmat charges!  Consider the fact that each SRB segment has a couple hundred thousand pounds of composite solid propellant in them, and you see the problem! 

Anyway, transporting pre-mixed loaded solid propellants is significantly safer than transporting, say, a railroad train consisting of an energy equivalent of alternating tanker cars filled with say RP-1 and LOX, or LH2 and LOX, but the hazards are doubtlessly higher in transporting loaded SRB segments than say a train carrying strictly a load of RP-1, even if carrying substantially more RP-1, so long as there is no oxidizer being transported in the same trainload....

Later! OL JR :)

You are highly mis-informed...  Loaded segments are not as hazardous as one may think as it takes a highly energetic explosive for igniter to start a segment.  Segments for the most part are insensitive because of mixture.  Even to general fire...   Any compressed gas is highly more sensative than cured solid rocket propellant.  All you need to do is look at the shipping classifications.  SRBS are shipped as 1.3C. 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #110 on: 02/04/2011 05:21 am »

You are highly mis-informed...  Loaded segments are not as hazardous as one may think as it takes a highly energetic explosive for igniter to start a segment.  Segments for the most part are insensitive because of mixture.  Even to general fire...   Any compressed gas is highly more sensative than cured solid rocket propellant.  All you need to do is look at the shipping classifications.  SRBS are shipped as 1.3C. 
They are toxic.  There are more definitions to hazardous than being explosive.  Is it as toxic as nuclear waste?  No.  But they do require specialized handling.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #111 on: 02/04/2011 02:06 pm »
Quote from: luke haymaker... strawmaker
Anyway, transporting pre-mixed loaded solid propellants is significantly safer than transporting, say, a railroad train consisting of an energy equivalent of alternating tanker cars filled with say RP-1 and LOX, or LH2 and LOX

Come on.  At least make the comparison fair:  Transporting pre-mixed loaded solid propellants, along with a carelessly packaged explosive igniter, and an engineer high on cocaine, is significantly less safe than transporting, say, a railroad train consisting of energy equivalent tanker cars filled with RP-1, each tanker carefully filled, driving well under the speed limit, with only the most sober engineer.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2011 12:42 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #112 on: 02/05/2011 01:05 am »
The Atlas 551 with the Boeing Star 48B 3rd stage can get comparable performance for BEO operations to Ares I or Delta IV Heavy so I understand.

What performance does the Ares I have to TLI? Darn close to 0.  It was being designed for sub-LEO flight, with no true upper stage, or payload fairing for that mater.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #113 on: 02/05/2011 04:30 am »

Not sure how the RP-1 was delivered to the Cape.....
 Highway tanker trucks (18 wheelers) is also a possibility but at higher cost.

snip

LOX, AFAIK, is produced on-site (air distillation?) 

snip

Hydrogen I think is also produced on-site using natural gas, liquified, and then pumped to the storage tanks.  Hauling LOX by tankers hasn't been done since the early Mercury days AFAIK... VERY hazardous and volatile!  Better to have permanently installed infrastructure!  Hydrogen is similarly difficult and risky to handle.  Hence the permanent infrastructure to handle transfer of the fuels (by pipeline from storage tanks) to the vehicles for fuelling. 

RP-1 is trucked in.

LOX is trucked in from Mims, FL (near Titusville)

LH2 is trucked in from Louisiana.

Each commodity is trucked directly to pad.  There is no infrastructure interconnecting the pads for this commodities.  Only a high pressure GN2 line that goes from the south gate of KSC to LC-39 then LC-41, 40 and 37.

Ok... learn something new everyday.   Thought it was produced onsite.  Having seen the training films of oxygen handling incidents leading to accidental fires/explosions, figured it was a lot safer doing it that way than hauling the stuff around in tankers...  So they deliver it one 18 wheeler load at a time to the giant tank farm facilities at KSC then??  Interesting...  Knowing that hydrogen leaks burn clear and are therefore almost invisible (had a fire marshal buddy that got burned pretty badly in a hydrogen fire while he was working as a fireman at a chemical plant one time) and knowing how difficult hydrogen is to contain and prevent leaks in connections I find that rather surprising too... Personally I'd worry less about sharing the road with an RP-1 tanker than one heading to refill the local gasoline station, but I don't think I'd want to be within a mile of a loaded LO2 or LH2 tanker--  BAD DAY if something goes wrong! 

As far as loaded SRB segments go, well, I guess all the rules about how many segments can be in the VAB and storage issues at KSC for segments and personnel limitations in the VAB is all pointless arm-waving, since they're SO safe... must SURELY be so...  after all they take an energetic "explosive" ignitor to fire them up (I'm aware of the fact that composite propellant takes not only heat/flame but also pressure to "ignite") but I'm also well aware that when an oxidizer and fuel are intimately mixed, there is a higher risk than having the two components completely seperate. 

Also, I guess that huge explosion at that PEPCON plant when all that ammonium perchlorate blew up is COMPLETELY unrelated to any risks that similarly fuelled SRB segments might pose... (r-i-g-h-t....) 

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #114 on: 02/05/2011 08:20 am »

Out of curiosity, where are the Atlas and Delta cores built and integrated?  There at the Cape?  Someplace else and shipped in?
Built in Alabama, integrated on the launch pad.  They are shipped using a barge called the Delta Mariner.
Quote
The RS-68's come from PWR, right?  Where are they manufactured?

Florida
Quote
The RD-180's were built in Russia and shipped clear from Russia to the US and stored in a wearhouse where?  Until needed?

I believe in either Alabama or Florida.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #115 on: 02/05/2011 12:08 pm »
Part of the high cost per launch stems from the fact that the Shuttle was designed for high launch rate, but is flying several times per year.  This reduced rate is due to a combination of technical and market reasons.  While the Shuttle was sold as a truck serving every need, the Shuttle has wound up being a nitch product.

In my opinion the Shuttles most valuable use has been as a mini space station, conducting experiments for a few weeks and coming home.

Hauling "heavy" payloads and crew to ISS also plays on the Shuttles strengths.

The Shuttle is not really suited to launching satellites to GTO, GSO or Earth escape.  With an IUS the GEO performance was 2,238 kg , about equivalent to an Atlas 521 (2,632 kg).

Shuttle is also not well suited to delivering individual modest sized payloads, such as Landsat, to unique orbits.

The limited ISS demand has resulted in a limited demand for Shuttle launches.

Offline starsalor

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Naple, Florida
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #116 on: 02/05/2011 12:30 pm »
Why ..Why..? Do you really have to ask ? If the government would get out of the way we'd be building the SD-HLV now !! No congress involved with Musk or Bigelow or others are there ??? If Nasa began as a civilian entity then congress should get kicked to the street  !! They have done absolutely NOTHING right since the last man on the Moon returned !!!
"Without Risk There Can Be No Adventure "

Offline Nancyloo

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #117 on: 02/05/2011 12:30 pm »

Out of curiosity, where are the Atlas and Delta cores built and integrated?  There at the Cape?  Someplace else and shipped in?
Built in Alabama, integrated on the launch pad.  They are shipped using a barge called the Delta Mariner.
Quote
The RS-68's come from PWR, right?  Where are they manufactured?

Florida  California.  RL10's are made in Florida
Quote
The RD-180's were built in Russia and shipped clear from Russia to the US and stored in a wearhouse where?  Until needed?

I believe in either Alabama or Florida.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #118 on: 02/05/2011 06:29 pm »
Why ..Why..? Do you really have to ask ? If the government would get out of the way we'd be building the SD-HLV now !! No congress involved with Musk or Bigelow or others are there ??? If Nasa began as a civilian entity then congress should get kicked to the street  !! They have done absolutely NOTHING right since the last man on the Moon returned !!!

Quote from: Elon Musk
We stand on the shoulders of giants.

You are completely kidding yourself if you think NASA has not influenced the like of Biglow or SpaceX. 

Biglow got the basic technology from... NASA.  NASA originally developed the inflatable technology.  Biglow got it, improved it, and made it better.  Now NASA is interested.

SpaceX did all of the design and development of the Falcon family of rockets, but where did those people come from?  NASA.  NASA has helped SpaceX with a lot of issues.  Especially on Falcon 9.  This is not to say SpaceX would not achieve what it did, it would have just taken longer.  SpaceX testing is much better thanks to NASA.

That being said, you can see how much more "rapidly" SpaceX and Biglow can move.  It doesn't hurt that both Biglow and SpaceX also have BILLIONS (Billion with a B) of private sector dollars behind them.  This does not mean they have spent billions, they just have it if they should need it.  It give credibility to both of these companies.

Both Orbital and ULA could make the same argument.

I do not agree with your use of the word "government".  I would say NASA (management) has hurt itself more than anything Congress did... however; that is for a different thread.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #119 on: 02/07/2011 11:03 pm »
Part of the high cost per launch stems from the fact that the Shuttle was designed for high launch rate, but is flying several times per year.  This reduced rate is due to a combination of technical and market reasons.  While the Shuttle was sold as a truck serving every need, the Shuttle has wound up being a nitch product.


Couldn't this be said for any LV though?  If Delta 4 or Atlas 5 were launching at 5 times their current rate or more, wouldn't their expensive costs costs be brought down too?   Would that not also apply to any SDHLV?

The question is, at what launch rate do you need to get before EELV's break even with a SDHLV?  It would take about 4 D4H's to get into LEO what one J246 would.  The Direct guys seem to think the J246 would cost $500M per launch on the high end assuming low flight rate. 
Currently I think D4H cost around $250M per launch (or more) from what I've heard.  So just right there you are are about 1/2 the cost for SDHLV vs. D4H.  D4H would have to get down to around $125M per flight to compare with low-flight rate SDHLV (assuming something like Direct, and not something larger like they are looking at now...yuck..)

I think Atlas 5 puts 10-20mt into LEO depending on config, so assume 15mt, and around $190m per launch (again, pricing from what I've heard).  So you need about 7 of those to get the equivalent of a J246. 
So SDHLV is a little more than a 1/3 the cost of that.  So you need to get Atlas 5 launches down to about $70/launch to break even with low flight rate SDHLV.

So, unless either NASA really screws with SDHLV, and shoots it's cost per launch way up, or unless the Direct guys were low on their worst case cost estimates by a factor of 2 to 3, then the economics for SDHLV purely from an LV standpoint, beat out EELV by quite a bit, unless and until EELV can get their prices down to 1/2/ to 1/3 of where they are now.  (not taking into consideration issues about payload availability).

The Shuttle cost more per flight than a Direct style SDHLV would because of the high oribter processing costs.  I think I heard Shuttle launches usually ran around $750M-$1 billion per launch depending on how many they launched per year?  And that was only putting into LEO the equivalent of a D4H.
So, Shuttle economics vs. EELV were very bad.

And yes, the Shuttle's largest advantage throughout most of it's history was prior to the ISS being complete, when we had no place to go in LEO, and it served as a mini-space station to operate from.  With the ISS there now, that use has pretty much dissappeared.  LEO experiements and such can be done from the ISS, and the Shuttle is a horribly inefficient LV for payloads.
In my opinion anyway...

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #120 on: 02/08/2011 12:57 am »
Shuttle's recent cost history has been $3B to $5B per year averaging less than 4 launches annually.  Some state that the orbiter represents the bulk of SLS recurring costs.  But in an expendable configuration the addition of expendable engines, avionics, 8 to 10m payload fairing, etc will add substantially to the launch cost.  It may well be that an in-line HLV program will cost about the same per year as the current shuttle.  The HLV launch rate is also in question.  It may well be that the HLV will only launch 10 times over the next 2 decades as suggested by HEFT DRM 4.  This results in over $6B per launch or $60,000/Kg for a 100 mT HLV.  At MSFC's hopped for 4 HLV launches per year the cost is possibly reduced to around $7,500/Kg.

EELV costs are certainly as debatable as Shuttle's, but in 2008 the AF paid $124m for an Atlas 531 to launch MUOS.  An Atlas 531 can deliver over 15 mT to LEO resulting in $8,300/Kg.  To deliver the equivalent of an HLV flying every other year NASA would have to buy 3 Atlas 552's per year.  The equivalent of 4 HLV's per year is 20 Atlas 552's.  While ULA can certainly launch an extra 3 Atlas's per year, what added infrastructure is required to increase this to 20?  What kind of bulk buy discount could NASA get if they locked in 5 years at 20 launches per year?  As SpaceX proves the Falcon 9, what will it's costs be?  If NASA truly generates a substantial launch market will other launch providers compete, further reducing costs?

At optimistic launch rates that NASA doesn't appear able to afford HLV will at best be equivalent in cost to EELV's. 

If bulk buys and/or competition reduce EELV class LV costs the EELV class could be substantially less expensive than HLV

At lower launch rates HLV will be drastically more expensive than EELV class rockets.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WHY are SD-HLV economics so bad?
« Reply #121 on: 02/08/2011 01:33 am »
Sarcasm to [ON]

Indeed.  A Shuttle-derived HLV will cost at least 10 billion a year.  It will cost at least 2 billion in recurring costs alone.  A good portion of that will be going to ATK due to the fact that they only want "pork".  The rest of it will go to the hugely excessive salaries that all the rest of us contractors get due to the "special-relationship" we have with the folks in DC who are also only interested in paying us for nothing and using a government program, where no work is actually ever done, as a "go-between" in order to not draw too much attention.  Whatever funding is left will naturally be used to supress commercial activity and make sure everyone who trys, fails, somehow and someway.  We should not do a shuttle-derived HLV then if we are ever to break this cycle.

There.  Is that what everyone wants to hear?  That basically sums up the arguement.  Will that end 9 pages of saying the same thing over and over and over and over again in a thread that was intentionally named to show a bias?

I mean after all, let's reject any kind of insight anyone may be able to offer, potential pros and cons, things that we should at least think about and insert "other" logic based on no hard evidence or experience just a "gut-feel" for some who do not want to see any other version of a rocket anyway except "their" favorite, which will naturally be better. 

Sarcasm to [OFF]
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1