Author Topic: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs  (Read 27670 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« on: 09/10/2013 01:56 am »
In the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012).  Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots?  I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I).  There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists.  Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?

Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only.  Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #1 on: 09/10/2013 01:59 am »
Also, supporters point to some unreleased, internal study supporting depots. Even a member of Congress has requested it, I'm not sure if it ever materialized.
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 darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #2 on: 09/10/2013 04:19 am »
This doesn't answer your question, but I'd include the Golden Spike and Inspiration Mars papers in your list of non-HLV papers.  They demonstrate that bare bones human lunar and Mars missions can be undertaken with a Falcon 9 and an Atlas V (lunar orbit), a ~50t Falcon Heavy-class vehicle with a Centaur-class upper stage and propellant drop tank (lunar landing), and a ~50t Falcon Heavy or two Atlas Vs or an Atlas V and a DIVH (circum-Mars).

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

http://www.inspirationmars.com/Inspiration%20Mars_Feasibility%20Analysis_IEEE.pdf

FWIW...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #3 on: 09/10/2013 05:05 am »
All the Mars DRMs assume HLVs, but I don't believe they actually usually bother comparing with smaller vehicles.
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 spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #4 on: 09/10/2013 10:50 am »
I have some of the older DRM papers stashed away somewhere on my Hard Drive.

It's amazing how things go "missing" on the internet.

What's googleable there today might not be there tomorrow. I reckon Google will need every second of those 300 years they say it will take to index all the knowledge of the world if it's even possible.

NTRS is like Rome after the empire. It's still there but it's not the same shining jewel it once was.

Ok I've found it.

They show the 200ton+ launch vehicles from DRM1 and explain why they're traded out.

The Magnum is introduced which is less capable than the SLS to LEO (85mt) but has a nuclear TMI stage.

Download this document and keep it safe. I believe it to be a critical piece in the Mars mission puzzle.

Without further ado I give you DRM3.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2013 10:57 am by spectre9 »

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #5 on: 09/10/2013 02:23 pm »
They show the 200ton+ launch vehicles from DRM1 and explain why they're traded out.

The Magnum is introduced which is less capable than the SLS to LEO (85mt) but has a nuclear TMI stage.

... Without further ado I give you DRM3.

That is interesting.  A decade-and-a-half ago, we argued we could get to Mars with an 80-ton EELV-derived HLV.  Now we claim it can only be done with a 130-ton Shuttle-derived HLV.

What I also find interesting in both DRM3 and DRM5 is the flight rate and annual or mission payload tonnage requirements and how far short of these requirements the SLS flight rate falls.  DRM3 assumes six 80-ton launches per year or 480 tons per year.  At a production rate of one 130-ton HLV every two years, SLS requirements meet only 14% of DRM3's lift needs.  IIRC, DRM5 assumes three Mars landing missions over a decade massing 800 tons each, or 2400 tons total.  At a production rate of five 130-ton HLVs every decade (or 650 tons total), SLS requirements meet only 27% of DRM5's lift needs.

I'm sure the SLS production rate could be increased from one vehicle every two years with more budget, but it's hard to see how it could be increased nearly four-fold (for DRM5) or nearly ten-fold (for DRM3).  At least based on NASA's human Mars DRMs, it appears that SLS is not on the critical path to human Mars landings.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #6 on: 09/10/2013 06:30 pm »
Now that I think about it, I suppose one could argue that Spudis and Lavoie (2011) consider approaches both with and without a 70-tonne Shuttle-derived HLV and prefer the HLV, though they rely on propellant depots either way.  Their baseline plan includes a couple of HLV launches at a late stage but they can accomplish their goal -- the return of humans to the lunar surface with ISRU -- with just EELVs.  Since the baseline includes HLV, one could say they prefer it to the EELV-only option.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #7 on: 09/11/2013 12:59 am »
I'm sure the SLS production rate could be increased from one vehicle every two years with more budget, but it's hard to see how it could be increased nearly four-fold (for DRM5) or nearly ten-fold (for DRM3).

Not really.  The bottleneck is really the launch infrastructure, which as we've seen can easily handle 10 launches per year.  If they have to upgrade some of the production infrastructure back up to near Shuttle levels, so be it; it's just money.  (IIRC, one of the advantages of RS-25E over RS-25D is that the latter is hard to make faster than 12 per year.)

NASA is designing SLS with the expectation of a launch rate of two per year at design maturity.  They've said as much.  The low maximum flight rate currently being implemented is purely a cost-saving measure.

The reason SLS doesn't launch often is that it has nothing to do.  The reason it has nothing to do is that the politicians can't agree to give it something to do, and the White House and OMB are at least as guilty as Congress.  We'll see what happens after 2016...

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #8 on: 09/11/2013 02:23 am »
The bottleneck is really the launch infrastructure, which as we've seen can easily handle 10 launches per year.

Assuming GAO weighs in soon on the Blue Origin/SpaceX spat, before the year is out, the pads available to SLS will be cut in half (from 2 to 1) from what STS enjoyed.

Quote
NASA is designing SLS with the expectation of a launch rate of two per year at design maturity.  They've said as much.

That may be someone's expectation, but it's not what's been written into the NRA requirements appendix.  Over the long run, launch rate can't exceed production.  Although SLS has a requirement for a "maximum rate of three launches" in a single year (presumably by skipping launches and storing hardware for a half decade or so prior), SLS production is being designed and developed to support only "one launch every other year".   

The "expectation" for the launch rate that you refer to and the production _requirement_ are off by a factor of four.

I can believe that SLS production could be doubled from what the requirements are currently driving it to.  Maybe (big maybe) tripled.  But sustained four-, five-, and ten-fold increases don't seem realistic given where the requirements are being set.  It's too big a disconnect -- like the disconnect between what the advertised Shuttle flight rate was during development and what it actually turned out to be. 

Quote
The reason SLS doesn't launch often is that it has nothing to do... the White House and OMB are at least as guilty as Congress.

Quote
If they have to upgrade some of the production infrastructure back up to near Shuttle levels, so be it; it's just money...

Even if there wasn't such a huge disconnect between SLS production requirements and SLS flight rate expectations (or Mars DRM requirements), money is still a problem.  If OMB, the White House, and Congress aren't providing enough funding to give SLS payloads and missions, there won't be any funding to increase SLS production, either.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #9 on: 09/11/2013 06:32 am »
The bottleneck is really the launch infrastructure, which as we've seen can easily handle 10 launches per year.
Assuming GAO weighs in soon on the Blue Origin/SpaceX spat, before the year is out, the pads available to SLS will be cut in half (from 2 to 1) from what STS enjoyed.

Which leaves the known achievable launch rate at...  whaddya know: exactly ten times the frequency you said they could never ever multiply by 4, never mind 10.

Quote
Quote
If they have to upgrade some of the production infrastructure back up to near Shuttle levels, so be it; it's just money...
Even if there wasn't such a huge disconnect between SLS production requirements and SLS flight rate expectations (or Mars DRM requirements), money is still a problem.  If OMB, the White House, and Congress aren't providing enough funding to give SLS payloads and missions, there won't be any funding to increase SLS production, either.

You're conflating "can't" and "won't".  Obviously if no one pays for any real exploration, SLS won't launch very often if at all.  But that's an entirely separate question from whether or not it's possible to ramp up production by a significant factor if the government decides it wants something to happen.

Shuttle-derived systems with two pads available are known to be able to launch at least 10-12 times per year without trouble, possibly a lot more.  The legacy production, transportation, and processing infrastructure is known to be able to handle it.  The near-term production requirements do not reflect any physical limit; they are simply an affordability measure intended to minimize the fixed cost of the system, and the only possible impacts are on new infrastructure (tooling and such) and workforce size.  Ramping up would mean expanding the production capability, but there's no reason existing facilities couldn't handle it; it's not a question of building another factory.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 06:50 am by 93143 »

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #10 on: 09/11/2013 04:25 pm »
Shuttle-derived systems with two pads available are known to be able to launch at least 10-12 times per year without trouble, possibly a lot more.

That's not true.

The STS annual flight rate peaked at 9 in 1985.  It never hit 10, nevertheless 12.

And it was well below 10 in most years.  The average annual flight rate for STS was 4.5 flights per year (135 missions over 30 years).

The actual, proven, annual launch rate for Shuttle systems is slightly more than one-third to less than one-half to of what you think it is in theory.

Quote
Which leaves the known achievable launch rate at...  whaddya know: exactly ten times the frequency you said they could never ever multiply by 4, never mind 10.

That's not realistic over the long-term.  It requires two miracles:

1) SLS has to hit a launch rate per pad (5 launches per pad per year), year after year, that is higher than what STS ever achieved in a single year (4.5 launches per pad in 1985).  That could happen in theory, but the probability is very low given that STS never achieved that rate and give that STS only got close to that rate in one year out of 30.  Even setting aside probabilities, it's hard to see how SLS will not suffer from many of the same, multi-month schedule delays as STS when they use many of the same subsystems (LH2 leaks in tanks and RS-25x engines, ET/core structure cracks, etc.).

2) SLS production has to be increased ten-fold over the very low requirement that it is being designed and developed to.  It's unclear that could be done technically given how much STS production capability has already been turned off, how much more STS production capability will be turned off to achieve that very low production rate cost-effectively, and how little SLS-unique production capability will be developed to achieve that very low production rate cost-effectively.  Anything is possible in theory, but the probability is very low given the order of magnitude difference in production rates and give that about 45 years of NASA budget history post-Apollo never provided anything close to the necessary resources.

I don't think either of these miracles is in the offing, nevertheless both.

Quote
You're conflating "can't" and "won't".

I'd put it a different way.

You're arguing from a theoretical viewpoint.  What flight rate could SLS achieve in a perfect world with an enormous and sustained budget infusion from OMB, the White House, and Congress to pay for: 1) payloads and missions to utilize an existing SLS production rate of 1 unit every 2 years; 2) additional workforce, tooling, and infrastructure to support and maintain a 10-fold-plus increase in SLS production; and 3) payloads and missions to utilize an additional 9-plus SLS launches every 2 years?  And what flight rate could SLS achieve in a perfect world where the production requirement for SLS has no impact whatsoever on whether and how is scales and ramps up 10-fold in the future?  And what flight rate could SLS achieve in a perfect world where SLS performs even better, year after year, than Shuttle's best year in terms of launch rate per pad?

I'm arguing from a realistic viewpoint.  Realistically, what budget resources are OMB, the White House, and Congress going to make available to NASA, given the agency's ~45-year budget history post-Apollo.  And realistically, what launch rate could SLS achieve given the very low production requirement that the system is being designed and developed to.  And realistically, what launch rate could SLS achieve given actual STS flight history.

Call me crazy, but I think it's better to base my expectations for SLS around realistic, not theoretical, assessments.  The world needs hope, but I don't think it's a good foundation upon which to build a multi-billion dollar engineering development program.

My 2 cents... YMMV.

[Edit:  Grammar/spelling.]
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 07:46 pm by darkbluenine »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #11 on: 09/11/2013 04:34 pm »
They could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.

What I'd like to see is a study supporting use of HLVs when the budget is flat or slightly declining at current levels.
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 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #12 on: 09/11/2013 07:57 pm »
The STS annual flight rate peaked at 9 in 1985.

And it would have kept climbing, if not for a system vulnerability that SLS doesn't share.

Quote
The average annual flight rate for STS was 4.5 flights per year (135 missions over 30 years).

That's due to the orbiter, mostly.  Difficulties with processing, difficulties with launch constraints (the launch constraints on STS were very severe.  Apollo 12 launched through a rainstorm that was apparently on the verge of being a thunderstorm - if you had suggested to an STS manager that they launch a Shuttle mission in that kind of weather, whether at the Cape or at the TAL sites, he would have assumed it was a bad joke), outright disasters followed by RTF gaps...  Remove those issues and things become much more predictable.

Quote
The actual, proven, annual launch rate for Shuttle systems is less than one-half to slightly more than one-third of what you think it is in theory.

Non sequitur, in this context.

Besides, have you noticed that 4.5 is really close to 5, which is the higher number you were ridiculing, and way larger than 2, which is the lower one?  (Per pad vs. total is not relevant here; the KSC infrastructure proved it could do that rate on one pad in 1985.)

You were actually claiming that SLS would be unable to hit 2 flights per year.  A reality check may be in order.

Quote
it's hard to see how SLS will not suffer from many of the same, multi-month schedule delays as STS when they use many of the same subsystems (LH2 leaks in tanks and RS-25x engines, ET/core structure cracks, etc.).

Not hard at all.  Leaving aside the orbiter-related conditions, SLS is being designed with all those problems already part of the knowledge base.  They won't just re-use a system if it's possible to design out a known flaw.  As for the ET stringer cracking, that was a bad batch of Al-Li alloy, which is known to be fairly brittle in general and which SLS isn't using.  The engines for SLS are a new design iteration (which was well underway 10 years ago but shelved) that completely changes the cooling channel design and is overall much more robust - besides, IIRC all the engine problems had to do with used engines, which SLS won't have a problem with...

Quote
given ~45 years of NASA budget history post-Apollo never providing anything close to those kinds of resources

What kind of resources?  According to the 2011 ESD Integration budget availability report, it seems that adding an SLS Block 1 launch to the future schedule costs about $300M in 2011 dollars.  Add $100M as a rough approximation of the delta for Block 2, and doing five launches per year would only cost about $1.8B extra, or about 10% of NASA's current budget, on top of the infrastructure costs for STS-like flight rates, which multiple sources put at $1.6-2B - but that's before the SLS program's cost-saving measures, not all of which are mere production capacity restrictions, and it's also before the advanced boosters, which should help substantially, especially if they're liquid-fueled.  A Shuttle-like launch rate shouldn't add much more than $3-3.5B per year at worst, which is less than the increase from 1987 to 1991 in 1987 dollars, or about one-third of that increase in 2013 dollars (NASA New Start Inflation Index).

If a future government decides it wants a Mars mission, and the nation isn't in the grip of a series of financial crises, and NASA can avoid the temptation to pull another BSG like during SEI, the required cash for the SLS ramp-up should easily be forthcoming.

Quote
Quote
You're conflating "can't" and "won't".
I'd put it a different way.

And then you go right ahead and do exactly what I said you were doing all over again.

Your argument was that SLS would be technically incapable of sustaining the launch rate necessary to do a manned Mars mission.  Now you're arguing not only that the government will never fund a Mars mission, but that the two arguments are the same.

Your "reality" seems to involve low-order extrapolation over at least a decade, probably two.  Six years ago the economy looked like it was in great shape.  Eleven years ago, Columbia was still flying.  Thirteen years ago, VentureStar was the next big thing.  Twenty-two years ago, SEI was still on.

In my opinion, NASA needs a tool to help them get human crews out of LEO and do actual pioneering, before the growth of non-governmental spaceflight in LEO makes their human program entirely redundant.  The nature of the tool doesn't much matter, as long as it isn't extravagantly overblown like Ares.  It would also be great if they were working on cheap access to space, but the government doesn't seem at all interested in that right now, whereas private companies seem to just maybe be on the cusp of cracking it...

Quote
The world needs hope, but I don't think it's a good foundation upon which to build a multi-billion dollar engineering development program.

NASA isn't building SLS in the hope that the government will fund missions for it.  NASA is building SLS because the government told them to.  Once they get it built, the ball is in the government's court again.

If the USG wants a big launcher (and Congress at least does; they've stuck to the idea since 2005), they get to pay to use it or else look like fools.  Not much of a predictor, really...

What I'd like to see is a study supporting use of HLVs when the budget is flat or slightly declining at current levels.

Is there a study that says any exploration is possible with slightly declining budgets?  Remember, most of NASA's budget is stuff other than manned spaceflight and exploration systems...

[Remember also that Congress doesn't fund NASA - Congress funds programs at NASA.  Eliminate a program, and the funding disappears.  Especially if the reason the program is eliminated is so it can be replaced with a different one that does the same thing but without satisfying anyone important's political interests...]

As for flat, SLS/Orion development is around $3B per year, and if NASA isn't blowing smoke with their $500M number for one launch per year (which is possible), the system should be a lot cheaper in operation, at least at a low flight rate.  That could free up a couple billion per year for payload development, procurement and launch...
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 08:12 pm by 93143 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #13 on: 09/11/2013 08:08 pm »
...
What I'd like to see is a study supporting use of HLVs when the budget is flat or slightly declining at current levels.

Is there a study that says any exploration is possible with slightly declining budgets?  Remember, most of NASA's budget is stuff other than manned spaceflight and exploration systems...
Absolutely! I can show you one. But that is technically off-topic.
Quote
[Remember also that Congress doesn't fund NASA - Congress funds programs at NASA.  Eliminate a program, and the funding disappears.  Especially if the reason the program is eliminated is so it can be replaced with a different one that does the same thing but without satisfying anyone important's political interests...]

As for flat, SLS/Orion development is around $3B per year, and if NASA isn't blowing smoke with their $500M number for one launch per year (which is possible), the system should be a lot cheaper in operation, at least at a low flight rate.  That could free up a couple billion per year for payload development, procurement and launch...
$500 million is the "marginal" cost, meaning the cost you save by not ordering parts and not having extra shifts for the launch pad crew for a launch, etc. It doesn't include the cost to keep up the pad infrastructure, the manufacturing capability, people on staff ready to launch and build, etc. It is a tiny portion of the total cost of SLS per year. If it was really the full cost of SLS per year for one flight, of course I would support SLS full-heartedly, because then we could actually afford to build payloads. But you're misinterpreting what NASA is saying.
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 muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #14 on: 09/11/2013 08:22 pm »
In the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012).  Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots?  I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I).  There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists.  Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?

Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only.  Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.

Q:  Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?
Q:  Are both "depots" and "refueling stages" excluded.
Q:  For lunar only or for Mars class missions?  (one could possible have a two launch ~50 mT for the moon).
 
To complicate depots vs refueling stages:  The ULA paper attempts to answer the question "How do we assure there is propellant demand and that we do NOT sit with a full LEO depot for years"?   IOW:  they did not provide ZBO in LEO, but assumed that they would push the entire "depot" to L2 in short time frame to avoid boiloff.  Consequently, its a depot with engines acting as a transfer stage in addition:  sent to LEO, filled in a month or so, and sent to L2 (See figure 4).

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #15 on: 09/11/2013 08:28 pm »
$500 million is the "marginal" cost

Evidence?

Working completely from STS and Ares numbers, with no cost savings at all, SLS Block 1's incremental cost comes out to no more than $300M in 2011 dollars.  And NASA did say that the cost doesn't seem to strongly depend on the version of the launcher.

At one flight per year, infrastructure doesn't need to cost anywhere near what it did for Shuttle, especially with Orbiter maintenance deleted.  With advanced liquid-fueled boosters, the SRB fixed costs are gone, and with Aerojet Rocketdyne consolidating rocket engine production lines (and heavily upgrading the RS-25 manufacturing processes), the RS-25 and RL-10/NGE or J-2X (and probably F-1B or maybe AJ-1E6) fixed costs should be lower and shared with the Air Force.

Remember, KSC ground systems are not included in this...

Also note that NASA specifically associated that cost with a flight rate.

It does seem like a bit of a stretch to claim that $500M is the total annual cost, which is why I said it was possible, not definite.  Frankly I find the idea that it's the incremental cost of SLS plus Orion more plausible (but even there it seems to imply negative cost savings over legacy systems).

Or maybe it's related to NASA's odd claim that Shuttle's incremental cost was $450M - perhaps they're including some costs that more properly qualify as fixed costs, which might make it a good estimate of the cost per year to add a flight per year permanently...  though that does seem to match the ESD Integration scenario I got the incremental cost estimate from...

Alternately, NASA could simply have meant $500M in then-year dollars, which depending on when they expect to hit one flight per year with the fully-evolved system could easily make sense as an incremental cost...  though that still leaves the question of why they associated it with a flight rate...
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 08:59 pm by 93143 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #16 on: 09/11/2013 09:06 pm »
Q:  Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?
In the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012).  Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots?  I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I).  There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists.  Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?

Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only.  Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.

Q:  Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?
Q:  Are both "depots" and "refueling stages" excluded.
Q:  For lunar only or for Mars class missions?  (one could possible have a two launch ~50 mT for the moon).

Basically what I'm looking for is studies which conclude "It's better to use a Shuttle-derived HLV to perform mission X than to use Y," where Y is anything.  Actually, any studies concluding "It's better to use an HLV to perform mission X than to use Y" would also be of interest. 

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #17 on: 09/11/2013 09:32 pm »
As I recall, DIRECT showed that according to their numbers, Jupiter was about a match for Atlas V at two Lunar missions per year, and got cheaper for higher flight rates.  It was a straight tonnage comparison rather than a high-resolution study...

I know of two Mars architecture studies that didn't use HLV, and one of them didn't close while the other relied on Skylon (and may not have been high-enough resolution to compare with NASA's DRMs).  It seems to be accepted that for Mars, you need either an HLV or a preposterously cheap MLV.  Mark Hempsell said something similar, about how even with Skylon involved the trade is "very finely balanced"...  a couple of papers are mentioned here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24621.msg735577#msg735577
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 09:41 pm by 93143 »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #18 on: 09/11/2013 09:43 pm »
Q:  Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?
In the perennial debate between SLS and alternatives (either smaller rockets combined with propellant depots or commercially-managed HLVs such as Atlas V Phase 2), depot supporters often point to three studies in particular (Zegler & Kutter 2010, the leaked NASA internal study of 2011, and Wilhite et al. 2012).  Which studies compare alternatives and don't recommend depots?  I'm aware of ESAS of 2005, which of course recommended Ares V (in addition to Ares I).  There is also the study that Administrator Bolden mentioned in House testimony in 2011, but this seems never to have been made public and I'm not certain it actually exists.  Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?

Please note that I am looking for pointers to studies only.  Please let us not debate HLVs and depots in this thread.

Q:  Is your question directed at LVs in between the 20 mT class and the 70 mT class?
Q:  Are both "depots" and "refueling stages" excluded.
Q:  For lunar only or for Mars class missions?  (one could possible have a two launch ~50 mT for the moon).

Basically what I'm looking for is studies which conclude "It's better to use a Shuttle-derived HLV to perform mission X than to use Y," where Y is anything.  Actually, any studies concluding "It's better to use an HLV to perform mission X than to use Y" would also be of interest.
NASA selects companies for heavy lift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle

Unfortunately, many of the NASA reports state something to this effect:  "we have studied numerous (even thousands) HLV configurations" and these are the best".   No comparisons to others are provided because.....its the law to build HLV and it would be against the law to study anything else, or show it up.

The studies that do not close usually prohibit technology development 'to explore sooner'.

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #19 on: 09/11/2013 09:47 pm »
They could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.

Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"

I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 02:18 am by jongoff »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #20 on: 09/11/2013 09:56 pm »
You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...

It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument.  It gets exhausting.  It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 10:00 pm by 93143 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #21 on: 09/11/2013 10:13 pm »
You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...

It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument.  It gets exhausting.  It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.

Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.

Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #22 on: 09/11/2013 10:30 pm »
Dudes, this is going downhill fast.  Let's not get the thread locked.

Could we please stay focused on the topic:  studies that do the trades and conclude that an HLV, particularly a Shuttle-derived HLV, is better than the alternatives?

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #23 on: 09/11/2013 10:51 pm »
Like I said:

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.369

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362

There may be others; these were just the ones Mark Hempsell mentioned in that one post.

Perhaps not exactly what you asked for, but pretty close.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 10:56 pm by 93143 »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #24 on: 09/12/2013 12:35 pm »
You routinely wack people for "speculation" but right here you are predicting the demise of a program that while facing serious budget issues, is making technical headway. Interesting...




Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.

Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2013 01:30 pm by newpylong »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #25 on: 09/12/2013 12:42 pm »
You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...

It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument.  It gets exhausting.  It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.
The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV study

Quote from: HLVStudyBAA
"NASA is laying the ground work to enable humans to safely reach multiple potential destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs.
6.0   This BAA is soliciting proposals for Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology Systems Analysis and Trade study and seeks industry input on technical solutions in support of heavy lift system concepts studies. These studies will capture potential system architectures and identify propulsion technology gaps (to include propellant tanks, main propulsion elements, health management, etc.).  This BAA request Offerors to expand upon the initial NASA technical assessments provided in the technical data package included.  This effort will include architecture assessments of a variety of heavy lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle architectures employing various propulsion combinations and how they can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives.  A variety of in-space architectural elements, such as space transfer stages, space transfer vehicles, propellant depots may be included. The focus will be on developing system concepts that can be used by multiple end users with a strong emphasis on affordability, based on the offeror’s business assumption.

     Aerojet, Analytical Mechanics, Andrews Space, Alliant Techsystems, Boeing, LM, NG, OSC, PW, SAIC,     
     SpaceX, ULA, USA

NASA has spent decades improving the technology of shuttle, including selecting 13 companies to study heavy lift once again.  NASA could find and locate awards that total approximately $7.5 million with a maximum individual contract award of $625,000.

While any government action to stimulate growth is welcome, a focus on research and technology and skills development provides the seed-corn of long term sustainability. 

Perhaps these studies give new insight, but are they in the public domain?

You can read more about Why technology will drive down exploration costs.

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #26 on: 09/12/2013 04:00 pm »
They could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.

Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"

I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.

~Jon

I think that was "if you got it spinning fast enough", but yes, Dr. Raisor was hilarious.  I also loved his "This will be true, always and forever - world's without end," and "Whoa, mister, back up the truck!" quotes.  (Sorry that that was off topic.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled HLV vs depot study conversation.)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #27 on: 09/12/2013 04:34 pm »
They could fly 100 SLSes a year with a big enough budget.

Reminds me of a quote about tolerancing parts from my freshman CAD professor (back in '96): "Ten thousandths?!? You could send a dog through that if you got it going fast enough!"

I removed the rest of my comment as it was a bit much even for me.

~Jon

I think that was "if you got it spinning fast enough", but yes, Dr. Raisor was hilarious.  I also loved his "This will be true, always and forever - world's without end," and "Whoa, mister, back up the truck!" quotes.  (Sorry that that was off topic.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled HLV vs depot study conversation.)
Not necessarily depot.
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 Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #28 on: 09/13/2013 04:11 am »
Quote from: muomega0
The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV study

Am I mistaken or did the 33' RP-1 version win the competition hands down?

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #29 on: 09/13/2013 05:08 am »
And it would have kept climbing, if not for a system vulnerability that SLS doesn't share.

@93143:  So we don't continue running Proponent's thread off the rails with an off-topic discussion of SLS launch rates, I posted my response to your latest here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27299.45

I may not keep up with discussion after this, but feel free to have at it there.  Thx.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #30 on: 09/13/2013 10:06 am »
Quote from: muomega0
The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV study

Am I mistaken or did the 33' RP-1 version win the competition hands down?

Yeah, the RAC-2 design came out looking best in the long run, but its up-front costs were higher.  All three RAC designs, though, were NASA-managed and NASA-specific HLVs, so the RAC study isn't relevant to this thread.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #31 on: 09/13/2013 10:22 pm »
Have you noticed tha 1.7mlbf is what the supposed Merlin 2 had of SL thrust? F-1A had 1.8, I think. And 33' was the Falcon XX proposal. Also had SIX of said engines. The more I look at it, the cloae it looks to the Falcon XX. Surprising,or not?

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #32 on: 09/13/2013 10:50 pm »
Cost comparison model of one LV vs another for a given BEO mission:

# of launches needed of LV "A" [to get X amount of payload to orbit in total time period Y] * the cost per launch

# of launches needed of LV "B" [to get X amount of payload to orbit in total time period Y] * the cost per launch

Delta cost/savings to payload to make it fit on the different LV
(NOTE: This could be a + or – value. Do not assume that because the replacement LV has a smaller payload that this aggregate delta will be an additional cost. It could be a savings. Such as since most of the payload to orbit is probably propellant a smaller tanker could represent a much cheaper alternative in delta costs even if dividing up the other systems increase the costs with a net negative delta when combined.)

Also note that to compare the two LV's the time period of launches must be over the same amount of time Y. Such as a 100mt HLV launching 5 times over 2 years vs a 10mt LV launching 50 times over 2 years. Once every 5 months vs 1 every 2 weeks. Frequency of launch figures greatly in the launch costs.

So the question to ask about a study is does it conform to this cost comparison model when comparing the mission costs for the mission using the candidate LV's? If not then the study is not a faithful cost comparison and costs cannot be a selection factor unless the total mission cost (payloads and LV's) difference is very significant > 20%.

The next question is if the mission success rate changes between the LV options? Here too a non-significant difference can become lost in the SN (signal-to-noise or accuracy +/- variance) possible.

The last question is the option detail technically feasible in the time until when the mission would be proposed to occur? Usually this encompasses a lot of assumptions and guesses and a great variance in development costs depending on the technology needed to be developed to make option N possible.

So the final item is if someone who has read through most of these studies to create a table for each mission type and fill in the values for the variables? This method of a summary can give better perspective and also may show where one option can have uses across multiple BEO mission types to be either no change or cheaper/eaiser/quicker.

BEO MissionLV OptionEquivalent payload to LEOLaunch period# of launchesLaunch costsPayload Delta cost/SavingsTotal Mission costNotes and needed technology to be developedStudy Citation

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #33 on: 09/13/2013 11:00 pm »
You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...

It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument.  It gets exhausting.  It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.

Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.

Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.

And be replaced with what? What do you think SLS will be replaced with, Jim if it gets 'replaced' at all? What do you think and/or hope will happen?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #34 on: 09/14/2013 02:13 pm »
Interesting questions, but could we please keep it on topic:  trade studies recommending HLV over alternatives.  Could I suggest posting the question elsewhere.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2013 01:16 pm by Proponent »

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #35 on: 09/14/2013 04:17 pm »
Quote from: muomega0
The heavy lift studies BAA initiated in 2010 contained a HLV study

Am I mistaken or did the 33' RP-1 version win the competition hands down?

Judging from some in this crowd, the 33 1/3 rpm vinyl records are the winners.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #36 on: 09/15/2013 10:04 am »
I found another good one.

This one is from before SLS. It gives the thumbs up for heavy lift.

This mentions heavy lift a couple a times. They seem keen on NASA heavy lift with Orion.

Red Rocks.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #37 on: 09/15/2013 01:15 pm »
But that study does not compare Shuttle-derived heavy lift with other options.


Just to review where I coming from....  As mentioned in the OP, there are several studies out there suggesting that non-HLV architectures are much cheaper than Shuttle-derived HLVs for launching BEO missions of one sort or another.  I've read these studies, and it seems to me they make a pretty good case.  That's why I tend to like depots (and not because I rocket with "NASA" written on the side).  But I would really like to see comprehensive criticism the concept in comparison with alternatives.  Lots of people raise reasonable concerns, e.g., the increased complexity and its impact on reliability, but these one-shot criticisms aren't very informative.  But, for one thing, many of them are addressed in the studies mentioned.  More importantly, though, every architecture has its weaknesses: to make a sensible choice among them, one must consider each as a whole, weighing up its overall strengths and weaknesses against those of the alternatives.  If Shuttle-derived HLVs or even commercially-operated HLVs really are the way to go (and the certainly do have advantages), can't we see a comprehensive argument making the case?

In short, I'd like to have a better basis for discussion among the alternatives than usual "You hate NASA!"-"You only care about pork!" kinds of shouting matches that we usually have.

P.S.  I am certain there are scenarios in which the very best thing to do is build a Shuttle-derived HLV, and I am sure there are scenarios in which the very best thing to do is build a commercial HLV.  I haven't seen much evidence, though, that we're in any of those scenarios.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2013 01:42 pm by Proponent »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2129
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #38 on: 09/29/2013 07:59 pm »
Can anyone point to other studies that consider the options for one sort of BEO mission or another and do not recommend depots?

The Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.

However the Augustine Committee also stated that without more money meaningful manned BEO exploration was not possible. Such a robust budget seems unlikely so the relevance of their advice to current NASA decision-making is unclear. I'm simply pointing out their report since you asked for pointers.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #39 on: 10/11/2013 11:53 am »
The Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.

As far as I can tell, Augustine insists that a launch vehicle of at least 50 tonnes' capability is needed, but I don't see where it recommends a super-heavy.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2129
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #40 on: 10/11/2013 01:54 pm »
The Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.

As far as I can tell, Augustine insists that a launch vehicle of at least 50 tonnes' capability is needed, but I don't see where it recommends a super-heavy.

The Augustine report discusses lower limits on launch vehicle size in detail in section 5.2.1 (including the 50 mt minimum you mention) and summarizes the size question in section 6.5.3 with "[ULA Phase 2 is] larger than the Committee’s estimated smallest possible launcher to support exploration, which is in the range of 40 to 60 mt.". There does not appear to be a standard definition of super-heavy so you can choose whether or not Augustine endorses SHLV by defining "SHLV" appropriately.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 01:55 pm by deltaV »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #41 on: 10/11/2013 05:45 pm »
The Augustine Committee considered propellant depots but for various reasons recommended the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle anyway. See section 5.2.1 of the report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.

As far as I can tell, Augustine insists that a launch vehicle of at least 50 tonnes' capability is needed, but I don't see where it recommends a super-heavy.

The Augustine report discusses lower limits on launch vehicle size in detail in section 5.2.1 (including the 50 mt minimum you mention) and summarizes the size question in section 6.5.3 with "[ULA Phase 2 is] larger than the Committee’s estimated smallest possible launcher to support exploration, which is in the range of 40 to 60 mt.". There does not appear to be a standard definition of super-heavy so you can choose whether or not Augustine endorses SHLV by defining "SHLV" appropriately.

As an aside, I think Ed has a good concept here for something that could have been a good offering to meet Augustine's size recommendation in a pretty efficient way.  If NASA would have accepted a two heavy-lift option anyway.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32976.msg1107950#msg1107950

Something similar could use RD-180's rather than F-1B's, and save even that development, as well as cost share with USAF.  Nice, simple clean.  Two stages, two engines, two launches (for flagship HSF missions).






« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 05:51 pm by Lobo »

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #42 on: 10/26/2013 03:30 am »
You know, the reason non-SLS-haters have stopped arguing with you people is not that you have unanswerable truth on your side...

It's fashionable to hate SLS, and egregious distortions of carefully-selected known facts coupled with sarcastic dismissal of any other interpretation as fantasy are completely acceptable only on one side of the argument.  It gets exhausting.  It's probably a big part of why OV-106 got less and less cordial and helpful over the duration of his use of that handle.

Quite the opposite, he just couldn't face the truth.

Just as I predicted the demise of Ares I, SLS will follow the same path.

And be replaced with what? What do you think SLS will be replaced with, Jim if it gets 'replaced' at all? What do you think and/or hope will happen?

I think that's an important consideration, because that decision effects the future of the manned space program.  When President Obama canceled Constellation, at least he had some kind of alternative in the FY2011 budget.  The merits of the alternative are not as important as the fact he didn't leave us with nothing.

So let's assume for the sake of argument that ISS is deorbited in 2020.  I know it could be extended, but let's say it's not.  Regardless of whether commercial crew has flown by then, that's the end of that.  If SLS and Orion are axed a year later, we are left with ...

... nothing.

I know, I can hear it: "But St. Elon will have terraformed Mars for $13.80 by the time the first work order for an SLS core stage comes out of the printer!"  But let's say he doesn't.  Let's say he got the commercial crew contract and when that goes, so does Dragon, because no other customer wants it.  What then?

The US would then be left without any sort of manned space program at all, and if one thing has been true of a decade of post-Columbia fumbling is that the US may not make it a priority, but the US does not want to NOT do it.

So unless there is an alternative to SLS complete with a roadmap, schedules, destinations, and so forth, the SLS -- which hasn't been canceled yet -- may be a round for a while. 

"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 2129
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #43 on: 10/26/2013 02:03 pm »
CNYMike that's off topic in this thread. See e.g. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26222.0 for a discussion of how else NASA could procure launch services for its exploration needs.

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #44 on: 10/27/2013 08:50 pm »
Interesting questions, but could we please keep it on topic:  trade studies recommending HLV over alternatives.  Could I suggest posting the question elsewhere.

"Trade studies" may be hard to find, but support for a new HLV isn't new.  Twenty years ago, the Synthesis Group charged with coming up with architectures for Bush I's Space Exploration Initiative also called for heavy lifters, although ones MUCH bigger than SLS IIRC; the argument was that fewer launches per mission lower cost.  The Mars Direct people also proposed a shuttle-derived HLV for their plans, and IIRC, ironically enough, it was called Ares.

A lot of it comes down to the issues you've noted: Smaller rockets = more on-orbit assembly = more complexity.  Factor in the cost of researching refueling, building the depots, and then keeping the depot stocked with fuel, is this cheaper in the long run than launching a spacecraft in one shot with a really big rocket?  Sadly, it depends on whom you ask.  But HLV concepts have a long pedigree and it might help to research historical designs and see what you find.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #45 on: 10/28/2013 03:36 pm »
Have you noticed tha 1.7mlbf is what the supposed Merlin 2 had of SL thrust? F-1A had 1.8, I think. And 33' was the Falcon XX proposal. Also had SIX of said engines. The more I look at it, the cloae it looks to the Falcon XX. Surprising,or not?
If you look up the older SLS articles on this site, it does state that FXX was being evaluated by RAC2.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Studies Supporting Use of HLVs for BEO Programs
« Reply #46 on: 02/18/2016 09:45 pm »
Like I said:

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.369

I recently had a look at that paper while at the library.  The conclusion is that if you have a Skylon-like RLV for most things, a larger cargo lifter may still be desirable, even if it's expendable.  Larger, though, means about 40 tonnes with a 7-m fairing:  more of a Phase 1 EELV, Vulcan or Falcon Heavy than an SLS.

Quote
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362

That study is about putting a space station in LEO.  A particular mass model is applied to estimate launch costs as a function of size of launch vehicle.  As the vehicle gets smaller, the total mass to be orbited increases, because of the need for more couplings and such.  Launch vehicle sizes considered range from 6 to 57.8 tonnes.  So, at the upper end we're talking about a Phase 1 EELV or a Falcon Heavy rather than an SLS.  Furthermore, for BEO missions, most of the mass to LEO is propellant, which is much more readily divisible than are space-station modules.

Ironically, since this thread was last active, NASA has produced the Evolvable Mars Campaign, in which payloads are no larger than 50 tonnes. (L2 Link to presentation)

EDIT: "sSince" -> "since" in final sentence.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2016 10:19 am by Proponent »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0