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?
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..
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.
Quote from: Space Invaders on 01/16/2011 08:48 pmI'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
Yep folks, train tracks are the reason. You heard it here on the internet. It must be true.
Quote from: Jim on 01/16/2011 09:16 pmQuote from: Space Invaders on 01/16/2011 08:48 pmI'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?
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.
How much better would the economics be if Shuttle-heritage hardware were used as-is?
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.
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.
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.
Congresspeople for whom high costs (in their districts) is a feature not a bug doesn't help either.
Quote from: Downix on 01/17/2011 02:39 amThe 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?
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...)
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/17/2011 12:07 amYep 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?
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/16/2011 11:24 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/16/2011 09:16 pmQuote from: Space Invaders on 01/16/2011 08:48 pmI'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
How can anyone logically believe that if the SRB segments were transported on something different than rails, that everything would be different?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/17/2011 02:04 pmAnother 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?
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.
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.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/17/2011 08:07 amQuote from: Downix on 01/17/2011 02:39 amThe 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.
...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?
Quote from: Downix on 01/17/2011 03:55 pmQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/17/2011 08:07 amQuote from: Downix on 01/17/2011 02:39 amThe 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).
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/17/2011 02:47 pmHow 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.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/17/2011 03:05 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 01/17/2011 02:47 pmHow 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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/17/2011 05:24 pmQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/17/2011 03:05 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 01/17/2011 02:47 pmHow 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 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.).
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.
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.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/17/2011 07:05 amEngines 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 from: Downix on 01/17/2011 07:59 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/17/2011 07:05 amEngines 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
So what does that have to do with railroad cars? Or train tracks?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2011 01:06 pmThe 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
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.
Quote from: Lobo on 01/17/2011 09:43 pmI 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*QuoteSounds 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 weighedQuotethe 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.
Quote from: Downix on 01/17/2011 10:02 pmQuote from: Lobo on 01/17/2011 09:43 pmI 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*QuoteSounds 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 weighedQuotethe 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.
Once we go down the ATK road, you'll be married to them for decades I fear.
Quote from: Downix on 01/17/2011 10:40 pmOnce 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. ;-)
What is the thrust in lbs for the AJ-26? Is is similar to the RD-180?
Quote from: spacenut on 01/18/2011 02:54 pmWhat 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.
Quote from: Downix on 01/18/2011 03:10 pmQuote from: spacenut on 01/18/2011 02:54 pmWhat 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
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, how much improvement in LEO payload would an AJ-26 designed Atlas V or Atlas V phase II be over the RD-180?
Quote from: spacenut on 01/18/2011 06:31 pmWell, 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.
Quote from: Downix on 01/18/2011 06:36 pmQuote from: spacenut on 01/18/2011 06:31 pmWell, 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.
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
Quote from: marsavian on 01/18/2011 07:07 pmIt'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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: marsavian on 01/19/2011 10:17 amand 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.
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.
For such discipline to work, you must have high unanimity, good will, and good faith among all parties. Not likely these days.
Incoming Chairman Hall ... doesn't believe in commercial HSF.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 01/17/2011 05:48 pmIncoming 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.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/20/2011 04:23 pmIn 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?
Quote from: Lobo on 01/17/2011 09:03 pmThe 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.
Both are Ares class. While noone has ordered an Atlas V Heavy, it is available as of the last time I checked.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/20/2011 02:33 pmThe 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.
Quote from: Downix on 01/20/2011 04:46 pmBoth 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.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/20/2011 04:23 pmIn 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?
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).
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.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/20/2011 06:09 pmBecause 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.
Quote from: ugordan on 01/20/2011 06:21 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/20/2011 06:09 pmBecause 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.
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.
The big problem is that RS-68 doesn't really like the environment under a wide-body core like that of an SDLV.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2011 01:06 pmThe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Downix on 01/21/2011 07:45 pmThey 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?
Quote from: alexw on 01/19/2011 11:02 amQuote from: marsavian on 01/19/2011 10:17 amand 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
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.
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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 01/20/2011 02:25 pmQuote from: Lobo on 01/17/2011 09:03 pmThe 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. :-)
Quote from: heroineworshiper on 01/23/2011 03:25 amAny 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.
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!
Quote from: heroineworshiper on 01/23/2011 03:25 amAny 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....
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 01/25/2011 01:46 amQuote from: heroineworshiper on 01/23/2011 03:25 amAny 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.
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.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2011 01:06 pmIt 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
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?
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.
Quote from: luke strawwalker on 02/02/2011 09:48 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2011 01:06 pmIt 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.
Not sure how the RP-1 was delivered to the Cape..... Highway tanker trucks (18 wheelers) is also a possibility but at higher cost. snipLOX, AFAIK, is produced on-site (air distillation?) snipHydrogen 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.
Quote from: Lobo on 01/20/2011 04:51 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 01/20/2011 02:25 pmQuote from: Lobo on 01/17/2011 09:03 pmThe 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.
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
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.
Quote from: luke strawwalker on 02/02/2011 11:05 pmNot sure how the RP-1 was delivered to the Cape..... Highway tanker trucks (18 wheelers) is also a possibility but at higher cost. snipLOX, AFAIK, is produced on-site (air distillation?) snipHydrogen 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.
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?
Quote from: Lobo on 01/20/2011 04:51 pmOut 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.QuoteThe RS-68's come from PWR, right? Where are they manufactured? Florida California. RL10's are made in FloridaQuoteThe 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.
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 !!!
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
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.