Quote from: William Barton on 06/16/2008 01:47 pm1. What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime, 2. with some support from USAF and 3. NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)? 4. Might a commercial market for something like that evolve? 1. Zero. They make more money on ESAS systems. The ET is LM territory and not Boeing. Boeing upperstage is out for Direct until an EDS is needed. 2. there is no "real" USAF interest in Direct. 3. Direct is too big for them. They don't even use a D-IV heavy. They actually try to avoid using it. 4. There is no commercial market for this capability. Comsats haven't maxed out Ariane V yet or Atlas V or even D-IV Heavy
1. What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime, 2. with some support from USAF and 3. NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)? 4. Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?
Quote from: Stephan on 06/16/2008 05:02 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 02:33 pm4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?Everyone should get this point very clearly:By law, NASA may not offer a launch vehicle for sale competitive with commercial launch services. (not that NASA could even be price competitive with private industry)There will never be a commercial launch on an ARES or Direct vehicle, ever, without additional legislative intervention from congress.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 02:33 pm4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.
What market?
NASA:1. Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services. NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.2. The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble or Mars Sample Return. DoD3. Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.4. DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV. A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too. But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.5. Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch. If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered. Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.Commercial6. As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.
There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first! That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...Ross.
Quote from: William Barton on 06/16/2008 07:33 pmThat's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.no, 1. No market 2. it still would need NASA resources
Quote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 09:03 pmThere's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first! That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...Ross.How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?
Jim,I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232. I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems. Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive. But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with. Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.J-2X:All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.Thoughts? Opinions?Ross.
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...Simon
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shiftto a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodateload limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system.
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :QuoteFor the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shiftto a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodateload limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system.With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...