Author Topic: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with  (Read 29075 times)

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #20 on: 12/08/2009 05:27 PM »
If the US seriously wants to reduce the US orbital human space flight gap, it should fund an Orion Lite spacecraft atop an Atlas V. If it's willing to spend even more, offer SpaceX a contract to demonstrate as backup a mannable Dragon atop an Atlas V by a specified date, payment on delivery only.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #21 on: 12/08/2009 05:41 PM »
5. Considering how conservative the Committee has been with regard to other options (all HLVs not before the early 2020s even with an enhanced budget), we can safely assume it has also been conservative when looking at the Ares I/Orion program. A slip of less than 18 months under a priority-Ares I/Orion program (more funding) seems thus likely. This would put a still conservative estimate of the first launch of Orion I still in FY2015 and Orion II and III in the first half of FY2016. With a Shuttle-extension to the end of FY2011 with STS-135 added this results in an effective 4 year gap.

Ares 1 will be available in FY2015, IF:
-there are no further technical issues with thrust oscillation
-they are given the budget they where originally promised, and extra to make up for the shortfall to date
-they can pass all reviews from here to launch
-there are no budget cuts between now and then
-a launch abort engine is developed that can abort flight through the whole flight range
-no issues are found in the data being analysed now, nor the data gathered from Ares 1Y

So yes, you are right, it CAN be available in 2015, if ALL these things happen.  Good luck with that.

Atlas 5 will still have flown 29 times by then, and Dragon likely 10 times.  The original cost estimate for Ares 1 was 28 Billion (40 Billion now).  Assuming the 28 Billion development cost is the REAL number, that buys you 215 Atlas 5 launches at current costs (130 Million a piece), or as many launches as the American HSF program has launched to date, all on the Atlas 5.

All so we can have a vehicle that will have a LOC every 600 years instead of 300 years.  Great value.

BTW if 40 Billion is the real number that gets you 307 launches, which is greater than the toal HSF flights of humanity at this point, all on Atlas 5.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28124
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7925
  • Likes Given: 5278
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #22 on: 12/08/2009 05:44 PM »
If the US seriously wants to reduce the US orbital human space flight gap, it should fund an Orion Lite spacecraft atop an Atlas V. If it's willing to spend even more, offer SpaceX a contract to demonstrate as backup a mannable Dragon atop an Atlas V by a specified date, payment on delivery only.

That last part doesn't make any sense. Why on top of an Atlas? All the testing will be done with a Falcon 9. Sure, Atlas V has done 19 launches, but by the time 2015 rolls around, Falcon 9 (if it sticks to its manifest, which, like everyone else's manifest, will likely slip) will have already launched about 20 times (assuming no other flights are added to its manifest). Assuming it can hit those 20 flights already on its manifest, then it's likely that more flights would be scheduled.

So, the Falcon 9, which is--according to SpaceX--designed to be man-rated, will likley have the same order of magnitude flights under its belt as the Atlas V will have at that point. And it's designed with engine-out capability in the first stage, which should more than mitigate the added risk of nine newer engines.

So why fly a Dragon on an Atlas V, when the Dragon (in its uncrewed form) is going to have a heck of a lot more experience flying on a Falcon 9 than any other rocket, no matter if its chosen or not? Also, by using the same launch vehicle, you lose the redundancy of having a totally different launch stack, and hence losing much of the reason for funding the Dragon-on-Atlas-V scenario you described.

Besides, it would be virtually guaranteed to be cheaper for NASA to go with a Dragon+Falcon9 stack than for a Dragon+AtlasV stack.
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

Online MP99

Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #23 on: 12/08/2009 05:49 PM »
Atlas 5 will still have flown 29 times by then, and Dragon likely 10 times.  The original cost estimate for Ares 1 was 28 Billion (40 Billion now).  Assuming the 28 Billion development cost is the REAL number, that buys you 215 Atlas 5 launches at current costs (130 Million a piece), or as many launches as the American HSF program has launched to date, all on the Atlas 5.


I don't think that also buys you 215 Orions, though?

Augustine said that Delta IV, launched without a second stage, was their EELV Orion launcher of choice (but too expensive unless part of a wider commercial programme).

cheers, Martin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #24 on: 12/08/2009 06:09 PM »

Besides, it would be virtually guaranteed to be cheaper for NASA to go with a Dragon+Falcon9 stack than for a Dragon+AtlasV stack.

what guarantee?  Spacex costs haven't been validated by recurring operations

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #25 on: 12/08/2009 06:10 PM »

So, the Falcon 9, which is--according to SpaceX--designed to be man-rated, will likley have the same order of magnitude flights under its belt as the Atlas V will have at that point.

By what standards?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #26 on: 12/08/2009 06:14 PM »

what guarantee? 

The guarantee that SpaceX is the savior of us all as are other architectures and launchers, the mythical "Orion-Lite", Dreamchaser (for some reason), etc.  Go on Jim, join them it probably won't hurt. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #27 on: 12/08/2009 06:17 PM »
If the US seriously wants to reduce the US orbital human space flight gap, it should fund an Orion Lite spacecraft atop an Atlas V. If it's willing to spend even more, offer SpaceX a contract to demonstrate as backup a mannable Dragon atop an Atlas V by a specified date, payment on delivery only.

That last part doesn't make any sense. Why on top of an Atlas? All the testing will be done with a Falcon 9. Sure, Atlas V has done 19 launches, but by the time 2015 rolls around, Falcon 9 (if it sticks to its manifest, which, like everyone else's manifest, will likely slip) will have already launched about 20 times (assuming no other flights are added to its manifest). Assuming it can hit those 20 flights already on its manifest, then it's likely that more flights would be scheduled.

So, the Falcon 9, which is--according to SpaceX--designed to be man-rated, will likley have the same order of magnitude flights under its belt as the Atlas V will have at that point. And it's designed with engine-out capability in the first stage, which should more than mitigate the added risk of nine newer engines.

So why fly a Dragon on an Atlas V, when the Dragon (in its uncrewed form) is going to have a heck of a lot more experience flying on a Falcon 9 than any other rocket, no matter if its chosen or not? Also, by using the same launch vehicle, you lose the redundancy of having a totally different launch stack, and hence losing much of the reason for funding the Dragon-on-Atlas-V scenario you described.

Besides, it would be virtually guaranteed to be cheaper for NASA to go with a Dragon+Falcon9 stack than for a Dragon+AtlasV stack.

Insurance, in case Falcon 9 has schedule slippage and reliability issues like Falcon 1.

SpaceX will be integrating Dragon and Falcon 9 in any case, so if Falcon 9 proves to be about as reliable as Atlas V by 2015, then you can still fly on Falcon 9 and save money.

However, I would be quite surprised if Falcon 9 has twenty successful flights by 2015.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7443
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #28 on: 12/08/2009 06:19 PM »
If the US seriously wants to reduce the US orbital human space flight gap, it should fund an Orion Lite spacecraft atop an Atlas V.

Wise words.

Quote
If it's willing to spend even more, offer SpaceX a contract to demonstrate as backup a mannable Dragon atop an Atlas V by a specified date, payment on delivery only.

More wise words. Including Delta would be another good thing to do.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #29 on: 12/08/2009 06:22 PM »
If the US seriously wants to reduce the US orbital human space flight gap, it should fund an Orion Lite spacecraft atop an Atlas V.

Wise words.

Quote
If it's willing to spend even more, offer SpaceX a contract to demonstrate as backup a mannable Dragon atop an Atlas V by a specified date, payment on delivery only.

More wise words. Including Delta would be another good thing to do.

Someone please describe to me exactly what you think "Orion-Lite" is?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28124
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7925
  • Likes Given: 5278
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #30 on: 12/08/2009 06:26 PM »
If the US seriously wants to reduce the US orbital human space flight gap, it should fund an Orion Lite spacecraft atop an Atlas V. If it's willing to spend even more, offer SpaceX a contract to demonstrate as backup a mannable Dragon atop an Atlas V by a specified date, payment on delivery only.

That last part doesn't make any sense. Why on top of an Atlas? All the testing will be done with a Falcon 9. Sure, Atlas V has done 19 launches, but by the time 2015 rolls around, Falcon 9 (if it sticks to its manifest, which, like everyone else's manifest, will likely slip) will have already launched about 20 times (assuming no other flights are added to its manifest). Assuming it can hit those 20 flights already on its manifest, then it's likely that more flights would be scheduled.

So, the Falcon 9, which is--according to SpaceX--designed to be man-rated, will likley have the same order of magnitude flights under its belt as the Atlas V will have at that point. And it's designed with engine-out capability in the first stage, which should more than mitigate the added risk of nine newer engines.

So why fly a Dragon on an Atlas V, when the Dragon (in its uncrewed form) is going to have a heck of a lot more experience flying on a Falcon 9 than any other rocket, no matter if its chosen or not? Also, by using the same launch vehicle, you lose the redundancy of having a totally different launch stack, and hence losing much of the reason for funding the Dragon-on-Atlas-V scenario you described.

Besides, it would be virtually guaranteed to be cheaper for NASA to go with a Dragon+Falcon9 stack than for a Dragon+AtlasV stack.

Insurance, in case Falcon 9 has schedule slippage and reliability issues like Falcon 1.

SpaceX will be integrating Dragon and Falcon 9 in any case, so if Falcon 9 proves to be about as reliable as Atlas V by 2015, then you can still fly on Falcon 9 and save money. ...
I see. Very logical, although this option would only happen with two, independent, complete failures: Failure of Falcon 9 to succeed AND Failure of Orion. It also requires both Dragon and man-rated-Atlas V to be successful.


Besides, it would be virtually guaranteed to be cheaper for NASA to go with a Dragon+Falcon9 stack than for a Dragon+AtlasV stack.



what guarantee?  Spacex costs haven't been validated by recurring operations
Jeez, Jim. There's a clear advantage to vertical integration and economy of scale (i.e. all of the roughly similar uncrewed Dragon flights) for SpaceX, here. Falcon 9 need not be any cheaper by itself than Atlas V by itself for this point to remain.
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 bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #31 on: 12/08/2009 06:31 PM »
Someone please describe to me exactly what you think "Orion-Lite" is?

Something that looks like Orion, but not really Orion at all: a LEO ferry. Big-G in an Apollo CM skin.


but for mythical spaceflight saviors, I prefer JP Aerospace's ATO. Dream big.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #32 on: 12/08/2009 06:36 PM »
Someone please describe to me exactly what you think "Orion-Lite" is?

Something that looks like Orion, but not really Orion at all: a LEO ferry. Big-G in an Apollo CM skin.

Means starting over. That won't close the gap. It will lengthen it.
JRF

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #33 on: 12/08/2009 06:49 PM »
Someone please describe to me exactly what you think "Orion-Lite" is?

Something that looks like Orion, but not really Orion at all: a LEO ferry. Big-G in an Apollo CM skin.


but for mythical spaceflight saviors, I prefer JP Aerospace's ATO. Dream big.

I know and this is the problem I keep trying to point out.  So, it's really only two things:

1.  Either something that just "looks" like Orion for some reason but still requires someone to fund all the development of the vehicle for the various systems.

2.  A stripped down Orion, which means requirement deletion and therefore capability loss.  Everyone seems to think that is no big deal except it is the government that owns the design.  Therefore no company can just build down a stripped down version without leasing the rights to do so from the government.  That then introduces a whole lot of other problems then too.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7443
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #34 on: 12/08/2009 06:56 PM »
Someone please describe to me exactly what you think "Orion-Lite" is?

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html

That was a trick question, right?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #35 on: 12/08/2009 06:59 PM »
Someone please describe to me exactly what you think "Orion-Lite" is?

Something that looks like Orion, but not really Orion at all: a LEO ferry. Big-G in an Apollo CM skin.


but for mythical spaceflight saviors, I prefer JP Aerospace's ATO. Dream big.

I know and this is the problem I keep trying to point out.  So, it's really only two things:

1.  Either something that just "looks" like Orion for some reason but still requires someone to fund all the development of the vehicle for the various systems.

2.  A stripped down Orion, which means requirement deletion and therefore capability loss.  Everyone seems to think that is no big deal except it is the government that owns the design.  Therefore no company can just build down a stripped down version without leasing the rights to do so from the government.  That then introduces a whole lot of other problems then too.

Are there examples of designs leased from the Federal government in the way you are talking about? All I know about are copyrights, and government-owned copyrights are basically "public domain with attribution."

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #36 on: 12/08/2009 07:01 PM »
OV:

I don't believe that having two development programs will kill one or the other. Orion was designed with Cx missions in mind. It's not an ideal LEO ferry any more than the USS Ronald Regan is the ideal way to ferry cars the Cheaspeake.

And since it's mission isn't going to be needed for awhile, it's really the perfect time to develop a vastly simpler, vastly cheaper vehicle that will keep the US in spaceflight during the gap. Dragon is pretty close to the Big-G concept. Orion Lite might be, but I do agree, using that name is confusing, and hopefully whoever proposes it formally will avoid it.

The simplest option, by a longshot, would be this:
http://www.aio50.org/UAHproject.php
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #37 on: 12/08/2009 07:21 PM »
OV:

I don't believe that having two development programs will kill one or the other. Orion was designed with Cx missions in mind. It's not an ideal LEO ferry any more than the USS Ronald Regan is the ideal way to ferry cars the Cheaspeake.

And since it's mission isn't going to be needed for awhile, it's really the perfect time to develop a vastly simpler, vastly cheaper vehicle that will keep the US in spaceflight during the gap. Dragon is pretty close to the Big-G concept. Orion Lite might be, but I do agree, using that name is confusing, and hopefully whoever proposes it formally will avoid it.

The simplest option, by a longshot, would be this:
http://www.aio50.org/UAHproject.php

There is a huge difference and two development programs would most certainly have an effect.  If you are talking about a spiral or block development, that is different.

However, all this talk about Orion Lite stemmed from Bigelow (mind you they have teamed with Boeing on their CCDEV proposal), someone who has no right to suggest this or make this a reality.  He wants it for his commercial stations and I very much understand why he needs multiple modes of transportation for his business.  That still does not change the fact the this is a NASA design, owned by the government, where Lockheed is the prime contractor.  This means LockMart is paid by the government to produce what they want.  They cannot take that design and produce it for their own means anymore than they can produce anything they produce in their SkunkWorks division and sell it as a commercial product to gain additional revenue to other countries. 

If NASA were to agree to this, certain issues would have to worked out.  For example if I were developing a vehicle that would be in competition with Orion Lite, I would have a problem since the case could be easily made that they are essentially be subsidized by the government (use of the same production facilites, vendors, etc).
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #38 on: 12/08/2009 07:31 PM »
but if Orion Lite is only shaped like Orion, it has no more unfair advantage than AIO50's Gemini, Tspace with the Corona shape etc.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The HSF gap and what to reduce it with
« Reply #39 on: 12/08/2009 07:35 PM »
but if Orion Lite is only shaped like Orion, it has no more unfair advantage than AIO50's Gemini, Tspace with the Corona shape etc.

No one is stopping anyone from making something with the same shape, the government does not own that shape anymore than it owns circles and squares.  But that was not the purpose of Orion-Lite that has been discussed here.  Read the space.com article linked above. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags: