Author Topic: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid  (Read 121103 times)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #120 on: 02/01/2011 02:34 am »
I agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown.  It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. 

That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever).  I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions.  Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?
ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV.  Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. 

In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.

That makes no sense.  How do you claim the Atlas V is man-rated but the Delta IV is not?
Because both Augustine and ULA have stated it that way, that the Atlas just requires the addition of a sensor suite and computer, while Delta requires design changes to the design.  ULA has listed the sensor package for the Atlas as an option for order.  On the flip side, for Delta, ULA is listing a development plan for $1.5 billion, which adds the necessary changes to the design, redundant valves, piping, sensor systems. 

I am only going by what has been published, and ULA lists the time/cost to produce a manned Atlas as being nothing other than the addition of an extra sensor package at time of order, but listing Delta as requiring extensive and time consuming redesign work in dozens of subsystems. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #121 on: 02/01/2011 02:39 am »
I think you're kind of missing the point I was making.  It's not a big deal.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #122 on: 02/01/2011 02:50 am »
I think you're kind of missing the point I was making.  It's not a big deal.
I did miss it.  I just was putting out there what ULA has said, you know?

chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #123 on: 02/01/2011 03:48 am »
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheus

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw



Oh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #124 on: 02/01/2011 04:07 am »
I agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown.  It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. 

That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever).  I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions.  Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?
ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV.  Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. 

In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.

Not that this thread is the place to ask, but where did ULA give those numbers, because I don't remember hearing numbers in that range before.  Most of the ULA numbers I had heard were for much lower amounts.

Edit: I stand a little bit corrected.  According to their A-com presentation (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf), and this paper (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/HumanRatingAtlasVandDeltaIV.pdf), I'm seeing more like 5 years and $1.3B, most of which was pad mods for supporting crews.  The vehicle itself only needed $500M for human rating.  Pad mods and "human rating" for Atlas were about $400M.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 02/01/2011 04:18 am by jongoff »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #125 on: 02/01/2011 04:29 am »
I agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown.  It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. 

That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever).  I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions.  Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?
ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV.  Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. 

In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.

Not that this thread is the place to ask, but where did ULA give those numbers, because I don't remember hearing numbers in that range before.  Most of the ULA numbers I had heard were for much lower amounts.

~Jon
A report on the man-rating costs for the EELV's.  I have a copy on my other system. 

Here is the Schedule, however:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/HumanRatingAtlasVandDeltaIV.pdf

You can see that the Atlas is a case of developing the EDS and then ordering the vehicle, with an Atlas V Heavy ready for Orion by year 4.  Delta, however, has a much larger R&D segment, which pushes it's first launch till halfway through Year 5.

A slightly older number reference:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/361835main_08-ULA_1.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

if you look at the costs, $800m pad mods, $500m launcher mods, $300m launch cost.  The Delta IV program requires two test flights, so $800 + $500 + $300 + $300 = $1.6 bil.  The extra year in R&D time now vs when Augustine was submitted I'd suspect as a result of the RS-68A being so close to completion.  The time/cost factor would give letting the RS-68A come online be a better option.

Lastly, look at the pad options:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf

The LC39 approach looks to be the best bet for it.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #126 on: 02/01/2011 05:43 am »
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheus

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw

Oh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.

That or they're Alien fans. Ridley Scott is making an Alien-universe "prequel" called Prometheus
DM

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #127 on: 02/01/2011 05:06 pm »
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheus

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw

Oh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.

That or they're Alien fans. Ridley Scott is making an Alien-universe "prequel" called Prometheus

I think the Ares 1/5 architecture might have been better named "Epimetheus".  That's Prometheus's brother.  Prometheus stole fire from the gods and has his liver pecked out every day and regrown every night according to the greeks.  Prometheus means forethought. 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #128 on: 02/01/2011 05:36 pm »
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheus

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw



More interestingly, it has a budget.  $3.5-4B, with a B.  That's got to be a budgetary non-starter.  ...

Depends where and how that money is spent.  Congress might well prefer to spend a lot more in the 'right' places. They generally do.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #129 on: 02/01/2011 05:41 pm »
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheus

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw



More interestingly, it has a budget.  $3.5-4B, with a B.  That's got to be a budgetary non-starter.  ...

Depends where and how that money is spent.  Congress might well prefer to spend a lot more in the 'right' places. They generally do.
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for?  If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #130 on: 02/01/2011 05:52 pm »
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for?  If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.

So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #131 on: 02/01/2011 06:17 pm »
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheus

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw


DOA
Elons pricing idea for the Merlin 2 and the HLV suddenly are looking cheap again.


More interestingly, it has a budget.  $3.5-4B, with a B.  That's got to be a budgetary non-starter.  SNC claims <$1B for comparable approach.  And there are other proposals on the table that are even less, with more capability.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #132 on: 02/01/2011 06:40 pm »
Wrong. Not about sticker shock but what you get for the money.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #133 on: 02/01/2011 06:41 pm »
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for?  If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.

So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question.
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight.  The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern.  It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would.  Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6).  Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc.  It's a ton of minor tweaks. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #134 on: 02/01/2011 07:01 pm »
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight.  The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern.  It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would.  Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6).  Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc.  It's a ton of minor tweaks. 

I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #135 on: 02/01/2011 07:22 pm »
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for?  If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.

So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question.
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight.  The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern.  It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would.  Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6).  Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc.  It's a ton of minor tweaks. 


These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc.  I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people?  It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.

I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space.  Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now?

Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. 

The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part. 

« Last Edit: 02/01/2011 07:23 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #136 on: 02/01/2011 07:23 pm »
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight.  The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern.  It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would.  Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6).  Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc.  It's a ton of minor tweaks. 

I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it.
Exactly, until there is a commitment, why waste money doing it? 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #137 on: 02/01/2011 07:26 pm »
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight.  The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern.  It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would.  Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6).  Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc.  It's a ton of minor tweaks. 

I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it.
Exactly, until there is a commitment, why waste money doing it? 

I bet if you didn't have to do it to the detail you are suggesting a lot of people hoping to play in "commerical space" would feel a lot better about their business case.  That's likely to have an impact right there. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #138 on: 02/01/2011 09:22 pm »

These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc.  I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people?  It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.

I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space.  Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now?

Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. 

The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part. 



OV106, I suspect ULA started angling to get crew launches the moment Ares-1 was clearing going down in flames if not before. ULA knows what needs to be done and with the CCDEV money given last round is producing an EDS system. It might take a year or so longer than ULA thinks it might happen but trust me it will happen faster than NASA could.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Orbital's lifting-body CCDev-2 bid
« Reply #139 on: 02/01/2011 09:40 pm »
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for?  If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.

So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question.
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight.  The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern.  It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would.  Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6).  Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc.  It's a ton of minor tweaks. 


These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc.  I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people?  It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.

I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space.  Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now?

Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. 

The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part. 

I wholeheartedly agree with what OV-106 had to say here (and what Griffin said back before he was NASA Admin). 

I probably don't need to add anything to what you said OV, but I can't resist.

While there may be some well-meaning elements that honestly think that all these "tweaks" will make a vehicle the NRO thinks is good enough for $1B spy sats "safer", and while I'm sure ULA wouldn't mind getting paid $1.5B to make all those tweaks and get paid to do some flight tests...that money would be better spent elsewhere than in the pursuit of what may be illusory safety gains.  Especially with how few times Orion is likely to fly on DIV-H.

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0