Author Topic: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS  (Read 138160 times)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« on: 10/12/2011 11:42 pm »
NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 02:59 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #1 on: 10/12/2011 11:55 pm »
NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

Very interesting set of analyses.  The presentation is from back in July.  They're doing a good job of slowly knocking down all the objections to using propellant depots, even if the inconvenient info was suppressed long enough to prevent it from making a difference this time around.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 02:59 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #2 on: 10/13/2011 12:04 am »
It all adds to the knowledge base though. If a propellant depot is eventually put up to multiply SLS's throw to say Mars this shows how commercial could use it too for other objectives.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #3 on: 10/13/2011 12:35 am »
It all adds to the knowledge base though. If a propellant depot is eventually put up to multiply SLS's throw to say Mars this shows how commercial could use it too for other objectives.

The sad and frustrating thing though is that we're picking a slower and more expensive route to exploration that simultaneously puts off meaningful commercial involvement (propellant deliveries) for a decade or more.  It wouldn't be so galling if SLS was actually cheaper or faster, but really we're getting the worst of all worlds, just because Congress and most space fans can't get over their status quo bias, and would prefer to do a 60s remix on steroids (again).

Sorry, just frustrated that critical pieces of contradictory info like this still get suppressed and only see the light of day if someone risks their necks to leak it to places like NASAWatch.

~Jon

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #4 on: 10/13/2011 01:50 am »
It all adds to the knowledge base though. If a propellant depot is eventually put up to multiply SLS's throw to say Mars this shows how commercial could use it too for other objectives.

The sad and frustrating thing though is that we're picking a slower and more expensive route to exploration that simultaneously puts off meaningful commercial involvement (propellant deliveries) for a decade or more.  It wouldn't be so galling if SLS was actually cheaper or faster, but really we're getting the worst of all worlds, just because Congress and most space fans can't get over their status quo bias, and would prefer to do a 60s remix on steroids (again).

Sorry, just frustrated that critical pieces of contradictory info like this still get suppressed and only see the light of day if someone risks their necks to leak it to places like NASAWatch.

~Jon

No, here is what is frustrating.  Do "anything but SLS advocates" really believe they have a lock and a monopoly on frustration?  You are making assumptions yourself.  You are assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong and suggesting that because some do not agree with you that *we* cannot get over our "status quo bias" and that our mentality is equivalent to a "1960's remix".

Now let's review *YOUR* assumptions:

1.  SLS is mutually exclusive to propellant depots
2.  "Meaningful commercial involvement" is delayed.
3.  That "meaningful commercial involvement" is only propellant deliveries.
4.  That we are getting the "worse of all worlds"

Now I've been saying for quite some time (and actually I am more than willing to go out on a limb and say just about everyone left post-culling within the greater "NASA-community", as well as those who were forced out due to the absolute STELLAR execution of the last 3 years) "we" are more than willing to go with whatever makes the most sense.  You know, those questions I have been asking for a long time now here and much longer other places.

While some on "the internet" claim to know so much about "us" and everything else and like to predicate the notion that "we" just want to make a big fat SLS to keep ourselves bloated, nothing could really be further from the truth generally speaking.

Now for the NASAWatch article.  If it's valid, less expensive, quicker, allowing us to do more, etc, let's talk about it.  That is EXACTLY the reason behind said questions I have been asking.  But let's also be objective.  The charts seem to indicate the first missions are not until 2024 with this approach.  It is also says "potentially earlier" than HLV approach.  It says "10s of billions less", how do they validate that?  This approach requires ~20 launches to get to that first mission.  Who pays for that?  Who pays for commercial?  Do you expect commercial to start building tankers with their own funding because of this?  So I believe there are natural questions to ask here, to get into the necessary details.   

According to NASAWatch, these have been "buried deep within NASA".  Is the HAT "deep within NASA"?  Who presented them?  It's odd there is no reference to a particular Team, etc in order to have some credibility, which is quite the norm.  However, NW also says they are "distilled".  What about the open and transparent government that he goes on about so much?  Why did it take until July 21, 2011 (the day the shuttle landed for the last time) for this to come forward?  Where has the NASA Administration been in the YEARS leading up to this and if this plan was so superior why did the NASA Administration not present this much earlier to help shape and inform the SLS or not discussion?  *IF* it was clearly superior and what the administration had planned all along, why so long, and why is the NASA Administration (when he openly claims to support Ms. Garver, etc)getting a free pass when he is so quick to the trigger with everyone else?

So, in the end, it is hardly just you that is frustrated.  I have spent my life, like so many, to get to the point to be able to work on this stuff because it is a passion.  I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time.  We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question. 

I want to fly.  I want to explore.  I do not care how as long as it is the most logical way forward.  I am willing to ask the questions, and have been, and not afraid of the outcome.  But the frustration is real and that frustration partially is focused around others who make assumptions themselves while chastizing others. 
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 01:59 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #5 on: 10/13/2011 04:02 am »
  I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time.
     You worked on R-7 vehicles? Or Ariane IV? Or was it Delta I? Or, to take a different tack, Saturn V? Really?
         -Alex

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #6 on: 10/13/2011 04:22 am »
I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time.  We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question. 

 

Typical shuttle centric.  The other vehicles had larger impacts on the  US and society.

Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert Storm
Altas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other.  Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.
Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches.  It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.

Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society?  Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.

Shuttle workers were fed propaganda just like Soviet workers.   Look around, what tangible results are there from all of the flights.   
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 04:27 am by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #7 on: 10/13/2011 04:34 am »
I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time.  We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question. 

 

Typical shuttle centric.  The other vehicles had larger impacts on the  US and society.

Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert Storm
Altas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other.  Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.
Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches.  It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.

Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society?  Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.


I'm not interested in your need for validation Jim or your insults.  I never said other rockets weren't necessary and did not have their uses! 

However, while we are at it, none of those launched people in 30 years and none of those ever launched as many people.  Nothing else contributed as much to the construction of the ISS, which is now supposed to be the cornerstone destination so that maybe companies will use those rockets that you hold so sacred to reach what shuttle created. 

So you can take your "typical shuttle-centric", blah, blah, blah comments and perhaps read my post again for the appropriate context and what I actually said.  Other people than yourself can have pride in their accomplishments. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #8 on: 10/13/2011 04:55 am »
I was lucky enough to work on the main and principle vehicle for THE PLANET for some time.  We worked very hard and very dilligently to get that ISS up there, and now look where we are with that....in question. 

 

Typical shuttle centric.  The other vehicles had larger impacts on the  US and society.

Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert Storm
Altas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other.  Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.
Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches.  It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.

Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society?  Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.

Shuttle workers were fed propaganda just like Soviet workers.   Look around, what tangible results are there from all of the flights.   
Let's not get into this discussion.

NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577
I would like to see how a small lunar base could be operated with the Falcon Heavy.

Maybe do six month long missions (longer if the body responds well to partial gravity and if radiation shielding is good enough). Maybe a lego like lunar lander, a large version could be used for modules and cargo (on a low thrust trajectory?), smaller version for crew.

Not entirely sure how you could get cargo to the base effectively. Maybe have an unmanned vehicle that retrieves cargo vehicles from their landing site, transports and then connects them to the base.

Maybe something like the image below. And I guess that means after about ten re-supply missions, the moon would have a decent sized junkyard.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 03:00 pm by Chris Bergin »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #9 on: 10/13/2011 05:20 am »
I would like to see how a small lunar base could be operated with the Falcon Heavy.

Maybe do six month long missions (longer if the body responds well to partial gravity and if radiation shielding is good enough). Maybe a lego like lunar lander, a large version could be used for modules and cargo (on a low thrust trajectory?), smaller version for crew.

Not entirely sure how you could get cargo to the base effectively. Maybe have an unmanned vehicle that retrieves cargo vehicles from their landing site, transports and then connects them to the base.

The issuse with a lunar base isn't lifting it, it is landing it.  Given that progress carries aboutr 2.3MT and can supply a crew of 3 for about 3 months or so, all you might need to land for resupply could be like 4-6MT worth of suppply for a six moth stay for 3 people.  FH probably could handle resupply of a base...construction is going to take a prop depot. or multiple launches.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2011 05:31 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #10 on: 10/13/2011 06:11 am »
I would like to see how a small lunar base could be operated with the Falcon Heavy.

Maybe do six month long missions (longer if the body responds well to partial gravity and if radiation shielding is good enough). Maybe a lego like lunar lander, a large version could be used for modules and cargo (on a low thrust trajectory?), smaller version for crew.

Not entirely sure how you could get cargo to the base effectively. Maybe have an unmanned vehicle that retrieves cargo vehicles from their landing site, transports and then connects them to the base.

The issuse with a lunar base isn't lifting it, it is landing it.  Given that progress carries aboutr 2.3MT and can supply a crew of 3 for about 3 months or so, all you might need to land for resupply could be like 4-6MT worth of suppply for a six moth stay for 3 people.  FH probably could handle resupply of a base...construction is going to take a prop depot. or multiple launches.
I'm assuming a prop depot is present and multiple launches are occurring (see the quoted document). The lander concept I have in mind would be like how the Delta V Heavy has additional cores strapped on for when larger payloads are carried.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #11 on: 10/13/2011 07:38 am »
It might be worthwhile to create a separate thread for analyzing the assumptions/charts/estimates/timelines/etc of NASA's (really interesting) depot-based exploration study, while leaving this thread for the more general EELV vs SLS debate
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #12 on: 10/13/2011 07:41 am »
It might be worthwhile to create a separate thread for analyzing the assumptions/charts/estimates/timelines/etc of NASA's (really interesting) depot-based exploration study, while leaving this thread for the more general EELV vs SLS debate
I was considering moving my comments over to the "Spacex and the Moon?" thread.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #13 on: 10/13/2011 09:03 am »
It might be worthwhile to create a separate thread for analyzing the assumptions/charts/estimates/timelines/etc of NASA's (really interesting) depot-based exploration study, while leaving this thread for the more general EELV vs SLS debate

I was considering moving my comments over to the "Spacex and the Moon?" thread.

There is no reason for it to be SpaceX-specific; depots form the basis of the ULA lunar archetecture too, so it is a concept promoted by several commercial space firms.

IIRC, there is an thread on the subject on the HLV forum.  Do a search and resurrect it as this update applies to that issue.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #14 on: 10/13/2011 12:27 pm »

1.  However, while we are at it, none of those launched people in 30 years and none of those ever launched as many people.  Nothing else contributed as much to the construction of the ISS, which is now

2. supposed to be the cornerstone destination so that maybe companies will use those rockets that you hold so sacred to reach what shuttle created. 


1.  Again, so what?  What did it really accomplish?

2.  No, the cornerstone destinations are the ones that I mentioned.  Using them for ISS is just good fiscal policy. 

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #15 on: 10/13/2011 12:47 pm »
Typical shuttle centric.  The other vehicles had larger impacts on the  US and society.

Delta II launched GPS which is in use in cars and in our phones and has helped the troops since Desert Storm
Altas launch UHF comsats so that the troops could talk to each other.  Not to mention the comsats for beepers and satellite TV.
Titan IV launched missile detection spacecraft that saw the Scud launches.  It launched radar and imaging spacecraft, which have been helping the troops since Desert Storm.

Shuttle goes away and what impact does it have on society?  Take away Delta, Atlas and Ariane and it is a different world.

Shuttle workers were fed propaganda just like Soviet workers.   Look around, what tangible results are there from all of the flights.   

You forgot
Ariane 4 and 5, Proton and Zenit which launched most of the Comsats that are being used to bring TV to your homes and Satellite Radio to your cars :)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #16 on: 10/13/2011 01:44 pm »
...  This approach requires ~20 launches to get to that first mission.  Who pays for that?  Who pays for commercial? 
NASA pays, of course!

The study also shows lunar missions using only seven Falcon 9 Heavy, or ten Delta 4 Heavy, launches.  The Falcon 9 Heavy approach would need a maximum of four launches per year.  Delta 4 Heavy would need eight per year max.  (Eight per year is a stretch, but not impossible, but if anything, this study really argues for bigger-than-EELV rockets.)

I see depots as viable for low-rate missions to the Moon, but not to Mars.  I've also long thought that storable propellants make more sense than cryos for depot architectures. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #17 on: 10/13/2011 02:05 pm »
...  This approach requires ~20 launches to get to that first mission.  Who pays for that?  Who pays for commercial? 
NASA pays, of course!

The study also shows lunar missions using only seven Falcon 9 Heavy, or ten Delta 4 Heavy, launches.  The Falcon 9 Heavy approach would need a maximum of four launches per year.  Delta 4 Heavy would need eight per year max.  (Eight per year is a stretch, but not impossible, but if anything, this study really argues for bigger-than-EELV rockets.)

I see depots as viable for low-rate missions to the Moon, but not to Mars.  I've also long thought that storable propellants make more sense than cryos for depot architectures. 

 - Ed Kyle
Actually, the key technology for cryo depots (i.e. low boiloff) is needed for Mars missions in the vast majority of architectures I've seen (all-chemical, chemical plus aerobrake, NTR, etc).

And eight per year is NOT a stretch, not at all. That's the minimum rate where EELVs start being financially viable, and they were designed for a considerably higher flight rate.
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 Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #18 on: 10/13/2011 03:04 pm »
In case you hadn't seen it, Spaceref has an internal NASA report that says that depots are better (both cheaper and allow for earlier exploration) than HLV based systems

Among the advantages listed in the report

*Tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and lower up-front costs to fit within budget profile
*Allows first NEA/Lunar mission by 2024 using conservative budgets
*Launch every few months rather than once every 12-18 months
   -Provides experienced and focused workforce to improve safety
   -Operational learning for reduced costs and higher launch reliability.
* Allows multiple competitors for propellant delivery
   -Competition drives down costs
   -Alternatives available if critical launch failure occurs
   -Low-risk, hands-off way for international partners to contribute
* Reduced critical path mission complexity (AR&Ds, events, number of unique elements)
* Provides additional mission flexibility by variable propellant load
* Commonality with COTS/commercial/DoD vehicles will allow sharing of fixed costs between programs and "right-sized" vehicle for ISS
* Stimulate US commercial launch industry
* Reduces multi-payload manifesting integration issues

Also very interesting is the issue of launch rate & capacity issues, (and how that related to the heft studies)
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Periander

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA Study Shows Cheaper Alternatives to SLS
« Reply #19 on: 10/13/2011 03:16 pm »
In case you hadn't seen it, Spaceref has an internal NASA report that says that depots are better (both cheaper and allow for earlier exploration) than HLV based systems

Among the advantages listed in the report

*Tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and lower up-front costs to fit within budget profile
*Allows first NEA/Lunar mission by 2024 using conservative budgets
*Launch every few months rather than once every 12-18 months
   -Provides experienced and focused workforce to improve safety
   -Operational learning for reduced costs and higher launch reliability.
* Allows multiple competitors for propellant delivery
   -Competition drives down costs
   -Alternatives available if critical launch failure occurs
   -Low-risk, hands-off way for international partners to contribute
* Reduced critical path mission complexity (AR&Ds, events, number of unique elements)
* Provides additional mission flexibility by variable propellant load
* Commonality with COTS/commercial/DoD vehicles will allow sharing of fixed costs between programs and "right-sized" vehicle for ISS
* Stimulate US commercial launch industry
* Reduces multi-payload manifesting integration issues

Also very interesting is the issue of launch rate & capacity issues, (and how that related to the heft studies)

It's only common sense, and should be a surprise to no one. Being against SLS is pro-NASA and pro-HSF.

Tags:
 

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