Author Topic: Implications of ITS (formerly MCT) for other space agencies and companies  (Read 55463 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28484
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8361
  • Likes Given: 5485
How is that surprising?
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 RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 449
A small slip by Blue and a contradiction to the Raptor timing implied by the Air Force contract.

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Israel
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 110
NASA produced the plans that congress wanted, everyone in the process knew that congress would only accept a recommendation to make a shuttle derived vehicle..
Shuttle derived anything, and not in terms of hardware components and designs, but in terms of continuation of people employed. They could have proposed a Shuttle derived black monolith on the Moon or a sand monument and it would have been passed, with basic political maneuvering skills.
In other words, Jim Webb was needed, but only Griffins and Boldens were around.
Assuming SX builds BFR and it flies as expected

If SX licensed the production of the BFR, as in the booster only, to a NASA guided commercial consortium founded for that purpose, would that be able to provide the "jobs argument" for the Congress to drop SLS?

They'd get a production and cost optimised design - something NASA was unable, or maybe not supposed to produce - which they could tweak to their needs and develop second stages and payloads. Kind of a "code fork". With Musk having the Silicone Valley mentality he may think that opening the BFR design, a few years after it flies, to keep the competitive advantage, might be beneficial to the overall orbital lift economy. He's done it with Tesla IP... 

Do you think the SLS workforce could manage BFR production, given the chance?

What part of the notional SLS budget would suffice to convert to BFR production?

Infrastructure sharing between SX BFR and derivations could be substantial - pads, integration assets. Workforce opportunities, payload compatibility, etc.

Why wouldn't this happen?




Online rakaydos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 4
Why wouldn't this happen?

For the same reason Coal Miners are up in arms about a presidential canidate saying their jobs are obsolite.

Different training, different tools, and they resent being told their life's work is now worthless. Even though it is.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 595
  • Likes Given: 134


Maybe in a Jim dictatorship, but in reality, it depends upon the whims of voters.

Voters aren't going to back this

Quote
The poll was prefaced with information that NASA spending (about $18.4 billion in 2011) represents about half a percent of the overall federal budget. Poll respondents incorrectly estimated that NASA's budget represents about 2.5 percent of the total budget. Given that information, 75 percent of poll respondents said that NASA's funding should be increased to about 1 percent of the total federal budget in order to fund a Mars mission.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-manned-mars-mission


Yeah, in western nations 35-55% of GDP is government, and the US spends about 0.1% of GDP on space, other nations even less. The US also spends ~3.5% of GDP on defense. I bet if you asked a poll question saying "The US spends 3.5% of GDP on defense and 0.1% of GDP on space exploration. Would you be in favor of shifting funds from defense to increase space exploration to 0.5% of GDP?" You could easily achieve a majority opinion.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3750
  • Earth
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 3144
... problems of hydrogen, methalox is dirt cheap. Some rough propellant cost figures I've found look like this:

$6.00/kg Hydrogen
$0.75/kg RP-1
$0.20/kg Methane/LNG
$0.07/kg LOX

This gives rough fuel costs of(changing a bit because of mixture ratios):

$1.00/kg Hydrolox
$0.30/kg Kerolox
$0.10/kg Methalox

I've also gotten around $100.00/kg for Hypergolic fuel (though Russia likely pays less) and $5-20 million per SRB depending on the size.

Thus, the propellant costs for some rockets look like this:
~$25,000,000 Proton
$1,157,000 Saturn V
$922,000 SLS (+$~25 million per SRB)
$865,000 ITS/BFR
$633,000 Delta IV Heavy
$401,000 Falcon Heavy
$343,000 Angara A7
$203,000 Angara A5
$181,000 Ariane 5 (+~$15 million per SRB)
$174,000 New Glenn 3 stage
$155,000 Falcon 9
$122,000 New Glenn
$106,000 Atlas V (+$~10 million per SRB)
Hydrogen is more like 50 cents per kilogram now because of this technology -
www.proton.energy

Which makes the price gap far less.. 
Depending on whether Florida, California, or Texas introduce carbon taxes (or Federal carbon tax) the price difference between hydrogen and hydrocarbons diminishes a lot.
It's with mentioning that Elon is a carbon tax proponent.  ...For Earth humans anyway. 
If Alberta is doing a $50/tonne carbon tax then it's possible to imagine anywhere. 
$50/tonne adds about $2.50 per mcf.  Which is not insignificant. 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 60
Hydrogen is more like 50 cents per kilogram now because of this technology -
www.proton.energy

I'm all for looking for creative ways to lower costs, but pointing to a startup that was founded last year and has yet to produce a working prototype as proof that hydrogen is about to plunge in cost is misguided.

Also, you are ignoring the fact that hydrogen is (far) harder to handle than other fuels. Given the already low cost of fuel as percentage of total launch costs, I don't see even a significant drop in unit cost for hydrogen swaying anyone's decision.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2016 08:09 PM by JH »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3750
  • Earth
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 3144
Hydrogen is more like 50 cents per kilogram now because of this technology -
www.proton.energy
you are ignoring the fact that hydrogen is (far) harder to handle than other fuels. Given the already low cost of fuel as percentage of total launch costs, I don't see even a significant drop in unit cost for hydrogen swaying anyone's decision.
There are over 800 hydrogen fueling stations worldwide already, mostly in places with aggressive CO2 reduction targets, and plans for aggressive expansion.  I was passed by a big liquid hydrogen truck in Germany a few weeks ago.  Toyota and others are scaling up mass production of fuel cell cars, and the solar and wind guys love excess power to hydrogen (electrolysis) schemes.  Fortunes are being spent on hydrogen infrastructure, there are thousands of km of hydrogen pipelines already, and...  Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make is I foresee a continued dramatic price decline for hydrogen.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 595
  • Likes Given: 134
Hydrogen is more like 50 cents per kilogram now because of this technology -
www.proton.energy
you are ignoring the fact that hydrogen is (far) harder to handle than other fuels. Given the already low cost of fuel as percentage of total launch costs, I don't see even a significant drop in unit cost for hydrogen swaying anyone's decision.
There are over 800 hydrogen fueling stations worldwide already, mostly in places with aggressive CO2 reduction targets, and plans for aggressive expansion.  I was passed by a big liquid hydrogen truck in Germany a few weeks ago.  Toyota and others are scaling up mass production of fuel cell cars, and the solar and wind guys love excess power to hydrogen (electrolysis) schemes.  Fortunes are being spent on hydrogen infrastructure, there are thousands of km of hydrogen pipelines already, and...  Well, I guess the point I'm trying to make is I foresee a continued dramatic price decline for hydrogen.

I doubt it.

Hydrogen is a dead-end technology. Everything about hydrogen sucks, the more you learn, the worse it is. The only reason those companies you mentioned exist is to soak up subsidies and cover government mandates.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2016 10:54 PM by ZachF »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 595
  • Likes Given: 134
... problems of hydrogen, methalox is dirt cheap. Some rough propellant cost figures I've found look like this:

$6.00/kg Hydrogen
$0.75/kg RP-1
$0.20/kg Methane/LNG
$0.07/kg LOX

This gives rough fuel costs of(changing a bit because of mixture ratios):

$1.00/kg Hydrolox
$0.30/kg Kerolox
$0.10/kg Methalox

I've also gotten around $100.00/kg for Hypergolic fuel (though Russia likely pays less) and $5-20 million per SRB depending on the size.

Thus, the propellant costs for some rockets look like this:
~$25,000,000 Proton
$1,157,000 Saturn V
$922,000 SLS (+$~25 million per SRB)
$865,000 ITS/BFR
$633,000 Delta IV Heavy
$401,000 Falcon Heavy
$343,000 Angara A7
$203,000 Angara A5
$181,000 Ariane 5 (+~$15 million per SRB)
$174,000 New Glenn 3 stage
$155,000 Falcon 9
$122,000 New Glenn
$106,000 Atlas V (+$~10 million per SRB)
Hydrogen is more like 50 cents per kilogram now because of this technology -
www.proton.energy

Which makes the price gap far less.. 
Depending on whether Florida, California, or Texas introduce carbon taxes (or Federal carbon tax) the price difference between hydrogen and hydrocarbons diminishes a lot.
It's with mentioning that Elon is a carbon tax proponent.  ...For Earth humans anyway. 
If Alberta is doing a $50/tonne carbon tax then it's possible to imagine anywhere. 
$50/tonne adds about $2.50 per mcf.  Which is not insignificant.

No, the cost of hydrogen, now, is $5-6/kg. Pointing to some dime a dozen startup who is at least 5-10 years away from a working prototype, 15-20 years from commercialization (provided the technology works without a hitch and the company doesn't fold, both unlikely) is not "now".

Tags: