Quote from: nadreck on 07/24/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/24/2015 07:10 pmQuote from: nadreck on 07/24/2015 06:58 pmNote it may still be more economic to ship water from a source off earth to LEO for conversion there into propellant via electrolysis and liquifaction. Just not in an on demand fashion.Actual when I studied the costs of various scenarios where the H2O was converted and liquefied only affected the cost by +-10%. The sensitivity was such that at this time you could not determine what would actually be the cheapest scenario without actual hardware prototypes and real costs.Agreed, add to the mix to determine the efficiency of various scenarios where some of the solar power components and some of the electrolysis components themselves are produced off earth with materials from off earth.The scenarios leaned toward for LEO prop delivered from Earth and for L2 water delivered from the Moon.This was due to not only the cost of equipment but the cost of getting the equipment to the location. In the case of the Moon the cost of getting extra equipment to the Lunar surface vs just having to get that extra equipment to only L2. additionally having the infrastructure at L2 could be used by captured NEO's processed water as well supplanting delivered Lunar water.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/24/2015 07:10 pmQuote from: nadreck on 07/24/2015 06:58 pmNote it may still be more economic to ship water from a source off earth to LEO for conversion there into propellant via electrolysis and liquifaction. Just not in an on demand fashion.Actual when I studied the costs of various scenarios where the H2O was converted and liquefied only affected the cost by +-10%. The sensitivity was such that at this time you could not determine what would actually be the cheapest scenario without actual hardware prototypes and real costs.Agreed, add to the mix to determine the efficiency of various scenarios where some of the solar power components and some of the electrolysis components themselves are produced off earth with materials from off earth.
Quote from: nadreck on 07/24/2015 06:58 pmNote it may still be more economic to ship water from a source off earth to LEO for conversion there into propellant via electrolysis and liquifaction. Just not in an on demand fashion.Actual when I studied the costs of various scenarios where the H2O was converted and liquefied only affected the cost by +-10%. The sensitivity was such that at this time you could not determine what would actually be the cheapest scenario without actual hardware prototypes and real costs.
Note it may still be more economic to ship water from a source off earth to LEO for conversion there into propellant via electrolysis and liquifaction. Just not in an on demand fashion.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/24/2015 07:53 pmQuote from: nadreck on 07/24/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/24/2015 07:10 pmQuote from: nadreck on 07/24/2015 06:58 pmNote it may still be more economic to ship water from a source off earth to LEO for conversion there into propellant via electrolysis and liquifaction. Just not in an on demand fashion.Actual when I studied the costs of various scenarios where the H2O was converted and liquefied only affected the cost by +-10%. The sensitivity was such that at this time you could not determine what would actually be the cheapest scenario without actual hardware prototypes and real costs.Agreed, add to the mix to determine the efficiency of various scenarios where some of the solar power components and some of the electrolysis components themselves are produced off earth with materials from off earth.The scenarios leaned toward for LEO prop delivered from Earth and for L2 water delivered from the Moon.This was due to not only the cost of equipment but the cost of getting the equipment to the location. In the case of the Moon the cost of getting extra equipment to the Lunar surface vs just having to get that extra equipment to only L2. additionally having the infrastructure at L2 could be used by captured NEO's processed water as well supplanting delivered Lunar water.But did it examine which gravity well components might come from (moon, mars, or none if it was asteroid materials)?
This commercial study was just mentioned at SpaceNews.com so it is slowly getting noticed.I wager with a plan like this, NASA's role (if it switches tracks to Lunar instead of Martian exploration) will probably be a minor (yet affordable) taxi role with SLS/Orion.
It seems to me that being in polar orbit around the Moon is not the best place from which to depart to Mars.
Something that I have learned for studying the Spudis and Lavoie 2010 paper...
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/24/2015 02:09 pmI was referring to Tiangong 1, which is already flying, so we at least do have some actual operating numbers for Tiangong 1, rather than Tiangong 3.I was not aware China has shared any operational cost data. Have they?And even if they did share operational cost info, Tiangong 1 was not big enough, or used enough, to create a valid comparison between it and the ISS. Remember the ISS masses 50X larger.
I was referring to Tiangong 1, which is already flying, so we at least do have some actual operating numbers for Tiangong 1, rather than Tiangong 3.
QuoteEven if you take the position that we don't have good numbers on Tiangong 1, we do have good numbers for Mir, for Saylut, and Skylab.Like comparing a Douglas DC-3 to a Boeing 747.Plus, do we really have access to valid operational cost data from the USSR on Saylut and Mir? I'd be surprised if we did.
Even if you take the position that we don't have good numbers on Tiangong 1, we do have good numbers for Mir, for Saylut, and Skylab.
Speaking of Spudis & Lavoie, here's what Paul Spudis has to say about the evolvable lunar architecture.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/24/2015 07:37 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/24/2015 02:09 pmI was referring to Tiangong 1, which is already flying, so we at least do have some actual operating numbers for Tiangong 1, rather than Tiangong 3.I was not aware China has shared any operational cost data. Have they?And even if they did share operational cost info, Tiangong 1 was not big enough, or used enough, to create a valid comparison between it and the ISS. Remember the ISS masses 50X larger.I'll grant I don't know if we actually have data. However, my point was, and is, that we have example proofs that show that station operations does not need to be $3Billion a year.
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/25/2015 04:06 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/24/2015 07:37 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/24/2015 02:09 pmI was referring to Tiangong 1, which is already flying, so we at least do have some actual operating numbers for Tiangong 1, rather than Tiangong 3.I was not aware China has shared any operational cost data. Have they?And even if they did share operational cost info, Tiangong 1 was not big enough, or used enough, to create a valid comparison between it and the ISS. Remember the ISS masses 50X larger.I'll grant I don't know if we actually have data. However, my point was, and is, that we have example proofs that show that station operations does not need to be $3Billion a year.It seems we will eventually have reusable first stage rockets, but it took SpaceX trying to do this to get others thinking of trying to do it.So we need low yearly cost of station being done.We also need space station which last 100 or more years.So I think we should move ISS out of Low earth orbit, and attempt to be able to use it for hundred years- and say sometime in 2100s, have it become a historical heritage site.
We need a station (which I believe will grow out of the first depot) that is cheaper to maintain than the ISS.
Quote from: nadreck on 07/25/2015 08:59 pmWe need a station (which I believe will grow out of the first depot) that is cheaper to maintain than the ISS.It's kind of interesting to see how nobody talks about an ISS successor. The NRC's "Pathways to Exploration" report as well as the recent "Minimal Architecture" from JPL assume that all the ISS money will go towards exploration in 2024/2028.IMO that just proves how unsustainable NASA's exploration plans are. There is no reason to believe that HSF to LEO will suddenly become cheap as dirt and not even show up in the NASA budget.I can already see it. In 2050 after a few Mars missions, NASA will go back to square one and build a station in LEO, as well as a reusable shuttle.Ok that was sarcasm, back to topic.
NASA is hoping for private space stations after ISS where NASA can rent lab space.
Quote from: RonM on 07/25/2015 11:08 pmNASA is hoping for private space stations after ISS where NASA can rent lab space.As I said in some previous post, NASA will pay ~$2bn only for resupplying the ISS with crew and cargo. That doesn't include Russia's and Japan's contributions. Why should a "private" station need less of those? Frankly all this talk about "commercial" and "private" is just a smoke screen. NASA will still be the number one customer and thus pretty much define how a station and everything around it will work.
Quote from: gbaikie on 07/25/2015 06:44 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/25/2015 04:06 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/24/2015 07:37 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/24/2015 02:09 pmI was referring to Tiangong 1, which is already flying, so we at least do have some actual operating numbers for Tiangong 1, rather than Tiangong 3.I was not aware China has shared any operational cost data. Have they?And even if they did share operational cost info, Tiangong 1 was not big enough, or used enough, to create a valid comparison between it and the ISS. Remember the ISS masses 50X larger.I'll grant I don't know if we actually have data. However, my point was, and is, that we have example proofs that show that station operations does not need to be $3Billion a year.It seems we will eventually have reusable first stage rockets, but it took SpaceX trying to do this to get others thinking of trying to do it.So we need low yearly cost of station being done.We also need space station which last 100 or more years.So I think we should move ISS out of Low earth orbit, and attempt to be able to use it for hundred years- and say sometime in 2100s, have it become a historical heritage site.We need a station (which I believe will grow out of the first depot) that is cheaper to maintain than the ISS. If you move the ISS out to a higher orbit that doesn't decay you still have to keep it active to be able to avoid collisions with space debris. That will cost far too much to be worthwhile.
For example, if I look at the notional NASA budget for 2020, ISS Crew and Cargo transport takes $2.3bn. As we all know that's "commercial".
So I have no idea how they intend to develop, build and operate a lunar mining outpost and stay below a budget of $3bn annually.
Quote from: Oli on 07/25/2015 04:21 pmFor example, if I look at the notional NASA budget for 2020, ISS Crew and Cargo transport takes $2.3bn. As we all know that's "commercial".Not sure what is included in the $2.3B number, I can only get ~$1.8B by assuming 2 Cygnus, 3 Cargo Dragon, 1 CST-100 and 1 Crew Dragon.QuoteSo I have no idea how they intend to develop, build and operate a lunar mining outpost and stay below a budget of $3bn annually.The phase 1 round trip cost to the Moon is estimated as $780M, the budget assumes 2 missions per year, so that's about $1.6B per year (the chart shows ~$1.7B probably with NASA overhead), it's not that far away from the $2.3B ISS number. I suspect they used the wrong price for FH expendable, so probably need to increase the mission price by $200M if we follow their phase 1 architecture exactly, but there would probably be ways to reduce this assuming various form of reusability.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/24/2015 07:37 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 07/24/2015 02:09 pmI was referring to Tiangong 1, which is already flying, so we at least do have some actual operating numbers for Tiangong 1, rather than Tiangong 3.I was not aware China has shared any operational cost data. Have they?And even if they did share operational cost info, Tiangong 1 was not big enough, or used enough, to create a valid comparison between it and the ISS. Remember the ISS masses 50X larger.I'll grant I don't know if we actually have data. However, my point was, and is, that we have example proofs that show that station operations does not need to be $3Billion a year.Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/24/2015 07:37 pmQuoteEven if you take the position that we don't have good numbers on Tiangong 1, we do have good numbers for Mir, for Saylut, and Skylab.Like comparing a Douglas DC-3 to a Boeing 747.Plus, do we really have access to valid operational cost data from the USSR on Saylut and Mir? I'd be surprised if we did.I don't know about Saylut, but for Mir - absolutely. Mircorp couldn't have happened if that data didn't exist. Again, my main point was to say that it's not true that we only have the ISS as a data point for how much it costs to operate a station, and therefore the assumption MUST be that station operation is $3 B a year
I suspect they used the wrong price for FH expendable, so probably need to increase the mission price by $200M if we follow their phase 1 architecture exactly, but there would probably be ways to reduce this assuming various form of reusability.