Author Topic: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.  (Read 121268 times)

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #120 on: 08/01/2016 03:02 am »
This is from GAO "The cost and schedule estimates for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) program substantially
complied with five of six relevant best practices, but could not be deemed fully
reliable because they only partially met the sixth best practice—credibility....Moreover, as stressed in prior GAO
reports, SLS cost estimates only cover one SLS flight in 2018 whereas best
practices call for estimating costs through the expected life of the program."  As people have stated before SLS is expensive..GAO does not believe NASA figures for SLS.    NASA is not showing the figures for the marginal costs or average costs...I don't have to wonder...

Offline TrevorMonty

Here is fiso teleconference on this mars habitat.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Jolly-Bailey_7-27-16/

The crew sleeping quarters habitat is surrounded by LH LOX tanks. Not described but I think propulsion stage is ACES based which would be fuelled when needed.

I'm sure how they plan to keep LH cool for up to 2yrs. In deepspace with enough insulation and sunshade it maybe possible but this design doesn't have sunshade plus it will be exposed to heat radiated from Mars.

If the habitat stays in Mars capture, the DV requirements are not that demanding, 4km/s round trip from EML2. Using ACES as propulsion approx 140-150t of fuel would be required for every 100t of equipment doing round  trip. That is approx 10 Vulcan launches for the fuel.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2016 10:30 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #122 on: 08/01/2016 10:47 am »
The crew sleeping quarters habitat is surrounded by LH LOX tanks. Not described but I think propulsion stage is ACES based which would be fuelled when needed.

I'm sure how they plan to keep LH cool for up to 2yrs. In deepspace with enough insulation and sunshade it maybe possible but this design doesn't have sunshade plus it will be exposed to heat radiated from Mars.

The propellant tanks would help shielding the crew from radiation, but keeping that hydrogen cool is a problem.  And yeah, indeed the lack of a sunshade won't help; I don't know if Mars would be as big an issue as it is for Venus and Mercury regarding heat, but if we're talking storing liquid hydrogen every bit of external heat may raise hell.

If the habitat stays in Mars capture, the DV requirements are not that demanding, 4km/s round trip from EML2. Using ACES as propulsion approx 140-150t of fuel would be required for every 100t of equipment doing round  trip. That is approx 10 Vulcan launches for the fuel.

The central node and moon exploration system is apparently going to be delivered by SEP, which may be problematic on capture orbit assumptions.  A SEP spirals in whereas a chemical arrival tends to start elliptical.  The setup could end up parked further than Deimos, but it may be circular which equals multiple orbital adjustments by the arriving elements and more fuel spent.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2016 10:48 am by redliox »
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #123 on: 08/01/2016 11:55 am »
The ESD Budget Availability Scenarios produced in 2011 indicate a cost of about $2.6 billion (in FY2025 dollars) for one 130-tonne SLS launch per year, and $3 billion for one 130-tonne and one 70-tonne launch per year.  To my knowledge, that's the only hard data we have on what SLS will cost to operate (and note that it's an increase over the annual budget during development), but it's not very hard.  A figure of $500 million has definitely been floated by NASA, but it seems that could only be a marginal cost, and it may be no more than a hope.

From the American Institute of Aeronautics 2012 Conference.

Quote
"We've estimated somewhere around the $500 million number is what an average cost per flight is," SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said Tuesday during a presentation at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ SPACE 2012 conference in Pasadena, Calif."

The cost of SLS per flight has not quadrupled since this statement was made.

Ok so I take it that $500 Million average cost per flight ignores any fixed costs to support the SLS?  I have never seen NASA float a number that you can get 2 SLS launches per year with a total cost of $1 Billion.  That is the problem with a low flight rate LV, your fixed costs will be larger than your marginal per flight cost.
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #124 on: 08/01/2016 03:23 pm »
The ESD Budget Availability Scenarios produced in 2011 indicate a cost of about $2.6 billion (in FY2025 dollars) for one 130-tonne SLS launch per year, and $3 billion for one 130-tonne and one 70-tonne launch per year.  To my knowledge, that's the only hard data we have on what SLS will cost to operate (and note that it's an increase over the annual budget during development), but it's not very hard.  A figure of $500 million has definitely been floated by NASA, but it seems that could only be a marginal cost, and it may be no more than a hope.

From the American Institute of Aeronautics 2012 Conference.

Quote
"We've estimated somewhere around the $500 million number is what an average cost per flight is," SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said Tuesday during a presentation at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ SPACE 2012 conference in Pasadena, Calif."

The cost of SLS per flight has not quadrupled since this statement was made.

Ok so I take it that $500 Million average cost per flight ignores any fixed costs to support the SLS?  I have never seen NASA float a number that you can get 2 SLS launches per year with a total cost of $1 Billion.  That is the problem with a low flight rate LV, your fixed costs will be larger than your marginal per flight cost.

So you would include fixed/development cost for NASA, but when referencing SpaceX and other launch providers you only reference per flight cost?

Much of the fixed cost for NASA would still be there even if SLS didn't exist.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #125 on: 08/01/2016 05:46 pm »

So you would include fixed/development cost for NASA, but when referencing SpaceX and other launch providers you only reference per flight cost?

Much of the fixed cost for NASA would still be there even if SLS didn't exist.

I am not referencing development cost.  If we included development the number would be even worse. 

I am referencing fixed costs to support manufacturer of the SLS, pad support etc..  That would be SLS specific costs both fixed and variable. 

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Shuttle_FixVar.htm  It wouldn't be correct to say that the Space Shuttle cost only $165 Million per flight because they had $2.5 Billion a year of fixed costs.  It is true that NASA has certain fixed costs regardless of what space launch vehicle it has in service.  For example they still need to maintain the VAB, pads, etc. 

When Commercial providers sell launch services, it builds in all of it's fixed costs to support the manufacturer, launch sites, etc. into that launch price.  They forecast a certain flight rate and then add the complete costs into the launch services price, including a profit margin.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline TrevorMonty

There are plenty of threads to discuss SLS launch costs THIS thread NOT one.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #127 on: 08/02/2016 12:13 am »
The ESD Budget Availability Scenarios produced in 2011 indicate a cost of about $2.6 billion (in FY2025 dollars) for one 130-tonne SLS launch per year, and $3 billion for one 130-tonne and one 70-tonne launch per year.  To my knowledge, that's the only hard data we have on what SLS will cost to operate (and note that it's an increase over the annual budget during development), but it's not very hard.  A figure of $500 million has definitely been floated by NASA, but it seems that could only be a marginal cost, and it may be no more than a hope.

From the American Institute of Aeronautics 2012 Conference.

Quote
"We've estimated somewhere around the $500 million number is what an average cost per flight is," SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said Tuesday during a presentation at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ SPACE 2012 conference in Pasadena, Calif."

The cost of SLS per flight has not quadrupled since this statement was made.

It does not make sense that one SLS per year would cost $500 million, two would cost $1 billion and so on: there is surely a substantial fixed cost, just as there was for the Shuttle, simply to keep the personnel and hardware on line, even if they're doing nothing.  Hence, the phrase "per flight" must be meant to indicate a marginal cost.  Even 94143, one of SLS's most articulate and forceful supporters in this forum, does not argue that total annual costs would be as low as $500 million.

Could you provide a precise reference to the quote above, so that we could examine the context in which it was made?  This might help, for example, to determine how firm the figure is and to which version of SLS it is meant to apply.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #128 on: 08/02/2016 04:48 am »
Sorry about starting a firestorm.

But what I was trying to point out is that LM's proposed mission architecture is not really tied to SLS, and likely more affordable if it was not. All the mission elements at <34mt each would fit on a Vulcan/ACES including Orion. Only the operational costs and mission rates would differ but not the development costs which would be the same regardless of LV. Even if SLS "goes away" the mission architecture is still viable by LM selling Orion's commercially flying on a Vulcan/ACES distributed launch.

My point is that this architecture is not tied to SLS other than by statements of its use. To pitch to NASA by specifying SLS is a positive in getting support for the mission architecture.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #129 on: 08/02/2016 01:49 pm »
SLS is more of a Boeing thing, which is why this architecture isn't as tied to it. Of course, it IS tied to Orion, though it seems like a very poor and highly inefficient choice. Because Orion is Lockmart.
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 Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #130 on: 08/02/2016 05:44 pm »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #131 on: 08/02/2016 07:48 pm »
@Blackstar after some thinking on the spiderwalker EVA concept in the Lockheed Martin proposal. Do they really need someone in a spacesuit to operate the walker directly? Maybe a smaller remote operated unmanned walker that is semi-expendable with sortie time determine by propellants & battery life. Smaller walker also means you can embark more walkers on-board. Also unmanned walker don't require man-rating.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #132 on: 08/02/2016 10:22 pm »
I'm sure how they plan to keep LH cool for up to 2yrs. In deepspace with enough insulation and sunshade it maybe possible but this design doesn't have sunshade plus it will be exposed to heat radiated from Mars.

Cryocoolers.

If the habitat stays in Mars capture, the DV requirements are not that demanding, 4km/s round trip from EML2. Using ACES as propulsion approx 140-150t of fuel would be required for every 100t of equipment doing round  trip. That is approx 10 Vulcan launches for the fuel.

He says the Mars orbit is one sol.

Also those tank farms won't have ACES-like mass fractions. Zero boil-off cryogenic in-space stages are usually assumed to have a pmf of ~80%.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2016 10:23 pm by Oli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #133 on: 08/03/2016 12:23 am »
NASA always assumes ridiculously heavy stages. Nothing you'd ever see in the final draft of a mission concept would ever assume ACES-like mass fraction.

Lockheed may not be so unrealistic, though.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2016 12:23 am by Robotbeat »
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 Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #134 on: 08/07/2016 01:16 pm »
NASA always assumes ridiculously heavy stages. Nothing you'd ever see in the final draft of a mission concept would ever assume ACES-like mass fraction.

Lockheed may not be so unrealistic, though.

Mostly because of different requirements.

NASA's cryogenic propulsion stages:
- ZBO. That means cryocoolers, solar panels and radiators.
- Launched fully fueled, must withstand ~5g.
- Often have an additional payload on top during launch.
- Standard aluminum construction without common bulkheads.

In other CPS / depot studies (often with ULA involvement), such as from Spaceworks:
- Passive insulation. Topped off before in-space launch with tankers.
- Launched empty or with little fuel.
- Stainless steel with common bulkheads.

Lockheed's ZBO tank farm arrangement resembles more the former than the latter.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 01:53 pm by Oli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #135 on: 08/07/2016 08:31 pm »
Not just different requirements, but a complete lack of living experience actually building good rocket stages except for the Shuttle External Tank, which wasn't even a stage.

Assumptions of NASA's parametric studies have not changed much in the last 40 years while stage dry mass efficiency has significantly improved.
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 Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #136 on: 08/22/2016 12:00 am »
Sorry about starting a firestorm.

But what I was trying to point out is that LM's proposed mission architecture is not really tied to SLS, and likely more affordable if it was not. All the mission elements at <34mt each would fit on a Vulcan/ACES including Orion. Only the operational costs and mission rates would differ but not the development costs which would be the same regardless of LV. Even if SLS "goes away" the mission architecture is still viable by LM selling Orion's commercially flying on a Vulcan/ACES distributed launch.

My point is that this architecture is not tied to SLS other than by statements of its use. To pitch to NASA by specifying SLS is a positive in getting support for the mission architecture.

I suspect SpaceX would also put in a pretty attractive bid to launch all that stuff on FHR in the next few years or BFR in the 2020's not that anyone would care.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #137 on: 10/03/2016 06:15 pm »
IAC presentation here:


Of note is the "other half" of Mars Base Camp, apparently very preliminary.

Offline happyflower

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Earth
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #138 on: 10/13/2016 05:08 am »
I am an extreme non scientist, but love space stuff. I listened to the Lockheed Martin presentation because I love this kind of stuff. But I am a bit confused, so maybe somebody can explain it better to me?

From all the stuff I have ever read/seen, it seems humans are the weak link in space. Everything that they talked about humans in space during this video seems very fun, but isn't having people in space too dangerous to make up for what a human can do in Mars orbit? Everything they talked about seems like it can be done robotically (obviously slower, but I don't think the robots mind).

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #139 on: 10/13/2016 09:00 am »
I think it is at best debatable whether a crewed station in orbit around Mars is worth it, though to my mind the major question is whether it's worth not the risk to the astronauts but the cost.  But Lockheed Martin is a stock corporation that is obligated to make money for its shareholders, and if it can talk NASA and Congress into this, it is doing its job, regardless of whether it's a good use of the taxpayers' dollars.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2016 09:13 am by Proponent »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1