Author Topic: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download  (Read 150883 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #160 on: 10/24/2009 07:02 PM »
So what is correct usage? Payload encompasses crew, cargo and spacecraft? Does propellant count as cargo or is it a separate category?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7112
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 637
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #161 on: 10/24/2009 07:04 PM »
2.  no, it is not cargo, it is a spacecraft. 

This is not my opinion, it is the facts.

ESMD do not seem to share your interpretation of the facts.  Why else would they divide up the ESAS mission equipment as they do?
"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: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10775
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #162 on: 10/24/2009 07:05 PM »
So what is correct usage? Payload encompasses crew, cargo and spacecraft? Does propellant count as cargo or is it a separate category?

In the CAIB, it means a payload that doesn't require a crew interaction

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10775
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #163 on: 10/24/2009 07:09 PM »
2.  no, it is not cargo, it is a spacecraft. 

This is not my opinion, it is the facts.

ESMD do not seem to share your interpretation of the facts.  Why else would they divide up the ESAS mission equipment as they do?

Incorrect, it follows them exactly.  Ares I is a crew launcher.  Ares I is only to lift Orion and crew with nothing else to the ISS, MTV or to meet the LSAM.  It doesn't bring logistics to the ISS with the crew.   It doesn't launch a comsat with Orion.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2009 07:11 PM by Jim »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7112
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 637
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #164 on: 10/24/2009 07:14 PM »
2.  no, it is not cargo, it is a spacecraft. 

This is not my opinion, it is the facts.

ESMD do not seem to share your interpretation of the facts.  Why else would they divide up the ESAS mission equipment as they do?

Incorrect.  Ares I is only to lift Orion and crew with nothing else to the ISS, MTV or to meet the LSAM.  It doesn't bring logistics to the ISS with the crew.

Uhhh... Okay, let's try this again. 

In your reply to mmeijeri, you define cargo as "payload that does not require crew interaction." The LSAM most assuredly does need crew interaction because, as you rightly point out, it is a spacecraft.  Yet, there appears to be a dogmatic assumption that the crew must be launched seperate from all these items and the suggestion by, for example, the DIRECT team, to do otherwise seems to be unacceptable (the CAIB is often waved around as justification for this). 

They thus appear to be defining the LSAM, MTV and any other crew-utilised payload apart from the Orion as cargo to be launched seperately.
"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 MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #165 on: 10/24/2009 07:17 PM »

Augustine showed that Ares *can* get NASA to the Moon with the same budget increase that would be needed for the Flex alternative.  It can be done with Ares I/V, or with the Committee's favored dual Ares V-Lite option. 

If NASA doesn't get more money, it isn't doing "Flex" or any other beyond LEO program.

 - Ed Kyle

They did, but with a pretty big asterisk on p.66. "...the more aggressive Ares V thermal environment." issue will either require a lot more unbudgeted money or a switch to the SSME. If the development and operational costs of the base heating solution are high enough both the POR and 2xA-V-lite options will start to pull away from the Flex budget, significantly.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10775
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #166 on: 10/24/2009 07:20 PM »
Orion and Ares I were/are going to the ISS first before the MTV and LSAM existed.  Hence there was no need to fly Orion on a vehicle larger than Ares I.  Also remember Ares V was/is to be capable of manrating.  And Ares V could fly an unmanned LSAM to the moon without the accompanying Orion and Ares I.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10775
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #167 on: 10/24/2009 07:23 PM »
  Yet, there appears to be a dogmatic assumption that the crew must be launched seperate from all these items and the suggestion by, for example, the DIRECT team, to do otherwise seems to be unacceptable

By who?
NSC doesn't follow this.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 3944
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #168 on: 10/24/2009 09:35 PM »
There is a glaring omission in the report. They endorse in-space refueling, but don't provide any analysis or reasoning about the costs of fuel (per kg) to the depot (or tanker) in LEO. Without such an assessment, how can they make a recommendation for in-space propellant depots?

They recommend to develop and operate an HLV. Variable costs of HLVs are in the 3,000 to 5,000 USD range per kg to LEO. Fuel to depots (kg of fuel to LEO) need to have net costs lower than that to make sense economically.

Sounds like another study to me...

Like in the Direct architecture though, you can still have a HLV that requires, or is enhanced by, depots. We may not be at that point now, but we could end up being there depending on destination.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #169 on: 10/24/2009 10:23 PM »
There is a glaring omission in the report. They endorse in-space refueling, but don't provide any analysis or reasoning about the costs of fuel (per kg) to the depot (or tanker) in LEO. Without such an assessment, how can they make a recommendation for in-space propellant depots?

They recommend to develop and operate an HLV. Variable costs of HLVs are in the 3,000 to 5,000 USD range per kg to LEO. Fuel to depots (kg of fuel to LEO) need to have net costs lower than that to make sense economically.

Not so. Even if you use the HLV to fill the depot, it gets you some important advantages

If you assemble your mission in LEO by docking or berthing only, no piece can be larger than your HLV payload, and if it's smaller than that you waste payload capacity. The depot lets you use the full throw weight on every launch. Also you need mass for docking hardware for components that are only docking because you have to break the stack into pieces.

Second, only the hardware launches are mission critical.

Third, the EDS can be more efficient. The baseline Ares EDS has more massive tanks than it needs for its TLI propellant, since it also has to complete the LEO insertion first.

Finally, your loiter reserve isn't wasted. If you don't need it you can leave it at the depot instead of dumping it.

« Last Edit: 10/24/2009 10:27 PM by Will »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7112
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 637
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #170 on: 10/24/2009 10:24 PM »
  Yet, there appears to be a dogmatic assumption that the crew must be launched seperate from all these items and the suggestion by, for example, the DIRECT team, to do otherwise seems to be unacceptable

By who?
NSC doesn't follow this.

It depends on who you ask and, once again, we get back to my original point. 

The assumption that NASA (specifically the exploration mission directorate) makes is that everything else must be seperate from the crew vehicle.  Now, other teams, even other parts of NASA, don't accept this.  However, it does seem to have been a basic assumption of the Augustine Commisson's assessment of LVs.

[edit]
Apologies for the late change of my post.  It's sort of late over here in the UK and, after re-reading my original post, I realised that it didn't make any sense at all
« Last Edit: 10/24/2009 10:30 PM by Ben the Space Brit »
"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: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10775
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #171 on: 10/24/2009 10:28 PM »

1.  It depends on who you ask and, once again, we get back to my original point. 

2.  some artificially complex three-launch scenario with seperate launches for the Orion and crew EDS

1.  No it doesn't.  It has been consistent.   You just have be asking the wrong people.   It follows my definition.

2.  It isn't that.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2009 10:29 PM by Jim »

Offline MP99

Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #172 on: 10/25/2009 10:03 PM »

And to stay with the topic of this thread - the table in the report shows how tremendously important depots really are.
They say, if you have a 75mt to LEO launcher, with the use of propellant transfer in LEO, you got 55mt to TLI with just one launch and in-space fuel transfer. If you got a 100mt to LEO launcher, a single launch and fuel transfer suffices to get 75mt to TLI or more than the current Ares I/V baseline. That's right, a directly shuttle derived HLV could carry out lunar missions with a single launch and refueling. Talk about mission complexity...

Yeah, there we go.

Assuming the topic is "how tremendously important DEPOTS really are", and also assuming exploration-class vehicles, ie TSTO...

"75mt to LEO launcher, with the use of propellant transfer in LEO, you got 55mt 75mT to TLI".

These two statements (and the one below) are not compatible with a depot-fuelled TLI. They are just right for 2x J-130 SSTO, which is not an exploration-class launcher (1x CLV/CaLV launch + 1x ACES-71 EDS launch).

Are you sure the report actually said these used a depot or just "PT"?



"If you got a 100mt to LEO launcher, a single launch and fuel transfer suffices to get 75mt 100mt to TLI." 75mT is a bit less than DIRECT phase 2, which is a dual-launch, no-depot architecture.

TSTO (J-24x, NSCB2) + depot pushes every Kg through TLI that was lifted into LEO (less station-keeping RCS & an ASE). 100mT launch = 100mT through TLI. Really, that's the whole point of a depot - size the EDS / upper stage right and you can max out the launcher, and push the whole payload through TLI.



But a depot doesn't just have to be used for TLI, it can also fuel the EDS to perform LOI.

Take a 99mT payload in LEO (110mT gross, less 10%), add 173mT of fuel from a depot and you have 98mT of payload (incl L1 margin) pushed through TLI with 24mT of EDS fuel remaining. That is enough for the EDS to also perform LOI.

Following CxP rules, that leaves you with 87mT of lander in LLO. With an H2/O2 descent engine, that would get you 53mT of landed mass. Assuming Altair's PMF, that's 39mT of landed payload.

One J-241 Heavy + depot can land a crew, an ascent module, and over 21mT of cargo. That's better than three Ares V Lite launches & two landers, and there's no chance for the crew to come down away from a pre-positioned cargo or hab.



I'm not suggesting NASA could afford to fill such payloads, but if there's an argument that they are needed to justify a huge launcher, they can be covered just as well with a smaller launcher (with a big PLF) and a depot.

cheers, Martin

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #173 on: 10/26/2009 04:26 PM »
I now consider SpaceX to be The American Space Program as they are the only people who are thinking about the most important space related engineering question- reducing the $/kg to LEO ratio.

(1) Why do you not include ULA in this category?  I know why I would.  ELC is not a valid rejoinder.  Saying that would belie an ignorance of the 7 years prior to the formation of ULA and the ELC.

So (2) what's your rationale for why you do include SpaceX?
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #174 on: 10/26/2009 04:29 PM »
You're saying that SDLV on its first flight will automagically be as safe as Shuttle is now?  Thankfully, "B1" decriminalized whatever you're smoking earlier this week.

Answer: 0/0 (17/17) and 2/3 (9/10) and 126/128.
But just pointing out that the EELV's do not have the flight record to compare to the Shuttle.

But that's my point: EELV to Shuttle is not a valid comparison when discussing what will be done in the future.  EELV with demonstrated history (and demonstrated benign failures) need to be compared to SDLVs (which are on paper), not to Shuttle.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #175 on: 10/29/2009 12:28 AM »
This was/is heading into off topicland, so split into two. Other part here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19262.0

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #176 on: 10/30/2009 11:42 PM »
Here's my interpretation of the AC report, which will form the meat of a letter to my politicians. To make my letter unbiased and easy to evaluate I'm sticking as closely to the report as possible. Any comments? In particular can someone confirm that (1) the AC used side-mount for their costing and scheduling and (2) the differences between inline and side-mount are enough to explain why AC says 3 launches are needed for a moon mission but DIRECT says 2?

----

Augustine Commission (AC) findings and implicit recommendations include:
* Either boost budget or forget exploration (Principal Finding 1 (PF1) in exec summary)
* Extend International Space Station (ISS) (PF 5, also p87)
* Cancel Ares I, do commercial crew instead (PF 7, also p90)
* Cancel Ares V and replace it with either Ares V lite or another launcher (p89)
* Destination should be "flexible path" (e.g. Martian moons), not "moon first" (p95)
* Create large technology development program (PF 9)

The AC report left open the choice between:
* Ares V lite (option 5A)
* EELV (5B) (p94ish)
* Directly shuttle derived (option 5C)
* Directly shuttle derived w/shuttle extension (not among the official options, I'll call it 5C+SE)

My favorite two options are 5A and 5C+SE. If I took the report as gospel I would conclude that 5A (Ares V lite) is best, however to save time to commission apparently did a preliminary evaluation of the two directly shuttle derived vehicles (side-mount and inline), concluded they were similar, and focused on the NASA-supported side-mount as representative of the class. This decision was not unreasonable given the time constraints, but side-mount is an inferior vehicle (p 67, p92). In particular, two inline vehicles are sufficient for a moon mission (according to the DIRECT team), whereas the report assumed three (perhaps because the large second stage proposed by the DIRECT team won't fit inside the side-mount's limited cargo volume). In light of this 5C+SE is probably a somewhat better option than 5A.

If I had to make a decision with the information I know (which is admittedly limited), I would start by following the 6 AC recommendations outlined above. I would adopt 5C+SE, inline version, immediately as a temporary baseline to give NASA engineers something to work on, while more detailed trade studies are done by NASA to choose between side-mount, inline, and Ares V lite. The DIRECT/Jupiter team had the foresight to see the troubles with Ares I/V and propose something similar to 5C+SE several years ago and has been developing it since, so the DIRECT designs would be a good start for the aforementioned temporary baseline.

Additionally I would suggest:
 (i) Invite international partners to develop and build lunar hardware for delivery by our heavy lift vehicle. (See Principle finding 2 on international cooperation) They would build the lunar lander, lunar rover, and other surface hardware while we concentrate on a heavy lift vehicle and interplanetary spacecraft. Our hardware alone would be enough for the flexible path missions, pushing new frontiers. If the international partners do their part as hoped, the result would be a lunar program for very little additional cost to us since we'd pay only the incremental costs of launching more often.
 (ii) To make "flexible path" more inspiring, set an explicit goal to visit a Martian moon by 2025 (roughly 250th anniversary of USA).

---

Update: Clongton answered my question. See
« Last Edit: 11/02/2009 02:49 AM by deltaV »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #177 on: 11/01/2009 04:50 PM »
And I want a pony.  And a million dollars. 

OK, that leaves the pony. :)
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17797
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 3944
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #178 on: 11/01/2009 04:54 PM »
And I want a pony.  And a million dollars. 

OK, that leaves the pony. :)

LOL....good one.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Liked: 1308
  • Likes Given: 840
Re: Augustine HSF Review FINAL Report Download
« Reply #179 on: 11/05/2009 01:38 PM »
This article may have been posted already but is summarizes the HSF committee's positions/options very well:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1483/1

Tags: