Author Topic: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.  (Read 43677 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #40 on: 03/04/2009 04:16 pm »

The Falcon 9 Heavy is not the requirement for SpaceX, simply their Falcon 9 is.  It can serve in the launching of propellant, namely LOX, to the orbital depot. 

Taking SpaceX at its word, it would cost even more to use Falcon 9 rather than Falcon 9 Heavy.  SpaceX launch prices come in at $5.4 million per LEO payload tonne for Falcon 9 (assuming the 6.8 tonne standard maximum payload) and $3.19 million per LEO payload tonne for Falcon 9 Heavy, according to the current web site numbers.  These costs may assume stage recovery, which is an iffy proposition IMO.

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #41 on: 03/04/2009 08:50 pm »
If you wish to change the dynamic, you will have to change the underlying political system which the US utilizes first.

So far, over the history of the US space program, the total amount of money which has been sourced for space-related activities through truly commercial sources accounts for less than 1% of the total investment in space.

The other 99% comes from the government in some fashion or another, be it NASA, NOAA, USAF, NRO or whomever.

The way Government hands out money has just as much to do with where those moneys will be spent -- specifically in which politicians district -- as it ever has to do with accomplishing the task they're being appropriated for.   For the politicians handing out the money, I actually think in the majority of cases the "where" actually is of far greater importance that the "what".

Today we have a lot of companies making space products for Shuttle systems, EELV systems and more recently, to a smaller extent, also New Space systems, all scattered across a lot of different states, all employing people and all generating Tax revenues for those regions.   So I guarantee that the politicians who represent those areas will fight tooth and nail to ensure that dynamic does not change too much.

As long as space activities continue to rely upon the government for the vast bulk of its funds, don't expect this dynamic to change.   And don't expect that the government will hand out funds to benefit commercial operators at the expense of their own districts which currently benefit from existing arrangements.

I know its not ideal.   But it is what we have to work with.   To change it, you will have to revolutionize the entire political landscape first.   Best of luck with that.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2009 08:55 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #42 on: 03/04/2009 11:36 pm »
"Capitalism works better than socialism, history have shown that much."

History has shown no such thing, and that's just fantasy propaganda by subsets of some US political parties. What history has shown is, rich mismanaged democratic republics are better than poor mismanaged autocratic states. Yamamoto understood this, when he made his famous remark about sleeping dragons. The disadvantage of autocratic states is, bad decisions go unchallangers. Democratic republics are harder to screw up because so many politicians are struggling for control, but, as events of the past decade show, it can be done.

No kidding.
The event of the past couple months in particular.  Good lord but I think these politicians have completely lost their heads now...

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #43 on: 03/04/2009 11:52 pm »
"Capitalism works better than socialism, history have shown that much."

History has shown no such thing, and that's just fantasy propaganda by subsets of some US political parties.

What you don't know is, I personally came from a former socialistic country. I was living there. I saw its failure by my own eyes. I KNOW how it fails, and WHY: because when only government produces socks and soap, get ready for socks and soap shortages.

I don't know whose propaganda you allude to, but I definitely wasn't subjected to it.

Quote
What history has shown is, rich mismanaged democratic republics are better than poor mismanaged autocratic states.

How interesting that only "mismanaged democratic republics" consistently are becoming richer in the long run? Why is it so?

So? I grew up in a so-called capitalistic country. When only business produces socks and soap, get ready for a thousand competing brands of socks and soap, subjected to upward price pressure and downward quality pressure, until all thousand brands are identical low-quality products and all the producers of high-quality products have been driven out of business. I already explained why mismanaged democratic republics do better than mismanaged autocratic states. An autocratic state will fail based on one big bad decision. It takes a bunch of little bad decisions to make a democratic republic fail. This has nothing to do with economic systems, and a democratic socialist republic can be rich and successful. Sweden, for example. By the same token, a good example of an autocratic capitalist state might be Congo. The best example of both types of failure in modern history is Germany, where a bunch of little mistakes added up to the democratic election of the Nazis, who then committed one big bad autocratic mistake, leading to their destruction. Final point: In all cases we're comparing mismanaged states. I'm not sure history has provided an example of a well-managed state so far.

The ultimate problem with ours or any other democratic republic, or other form of partimentary democracy, is sooner or later, you get a majority of people taking rather than contributing.  Western Europe's already there, and we're getting very close if not there right now. 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."

Not sure who originally coined that (there's some doubt about the actual person who first said it), but that's where democracy's eventually head to.

But at the end of the day, I have to agree with Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried."
;-)

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #44 on: 03/05/2009 11:15 am »
The ultimate problem with ours or any other democratic republic, or other form of partimentary democracy, is sooner or later, you get a majority of people taking rather than contributing.  Western Europe's already there, and we're getting very close if not there right now. 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."

Not sure who originally coined that (there's some doubt about the actual person who first said it), but that's where democracy's eventually head to.

Eventually? How long UK is a de-facto democracy? Do you see signs of it becoming something else? Like what?

Quote
But at the end of the day, I have to agree with Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried." ;-)

Exactly. Any system isn't flawless, and Western democracies aren't without flaws.

If you only ever lived in one of those, you perceive them as "flawed" and even "hopeless".

You have to live in some other social system for some years (not just visit as a tourist!) to appreciate the multitude of things which do work much better in Western democracies.

Back on-topic. Since I saw two major social systems in my life, I think that NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is indeed a mistake. NASA building and operating a tiny LV would be a mistake too.

It's ok for NASA to build and operate only those things which won't be built by business entities today (like Mars rovers or Europa orbiters).
« Last Edit: 03/05/2009 12:10 pm by gospacex »

Offline Integrator

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #45 on: 03/05/2009 11:25 am »

It seems to me that requiring NASA to "support" the "commercial" U.S. launch industry

This should be done by NASA issuing an RFP*, specifying payload mass, orbit parameters, spacecraft services, GSE requirements, etc, just like it does for unmanned launches.  * safety requirements would be added.

MFSC should not be designing Ares

Then who should? PLEASE tell me where the Chief Designer is sir!
"Daddy, does that rocket carry people?"
"No buddy, just satellites."
"Why not?"
   --- 5 year old son of jjnodice,  21.01.2011

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #46 on: 03/05/2009 12:12 pm »

It seems to me that requiring NASA to "support" the "commercial" U.S. launch industry

This should be done by NASA issuing an RFP*, specifying payload mass, orbit parameters, spacecraft services, GSE requirements, etc, just like it does for unmanned launches.  * safety requirements would be added.

MFSC should not be designing Ares

Then who should? PLEASE tell me where the Chief Designer is sir!

Boeing, LM, OSC, SpaceX, Masten, Mitsubishi, (not necessarily in that order), and generally anyone who is willing to put their $$$ into it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #47 on: 03/05/2009 12:19 pm »

It seems to me that requiring NASA to "support" the "commercial" U.S. launch industry

This should be done by NASA issuing an RFP*, specifying payload mass, orbit parameters, spacecraft services, GSE requirements, etc, just like it does for unmanned launches.  * safety requirements would be added.

MFSC should not be designing Ares

Then who should? PLEASE tell me where the Chief Designer is sir!

There is no such thing.   Developing an architecture and putting it into requirements does not need a chief designer.  Neither does taking the requirements and turning them into a rocket. 

Chief Designer is a misnomer.  Von Braun was never one for the US

« Last Edit: 03/05/2009 12:23 pm by Jim »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #48 on: 03/05/2009 04:35 pm »
The ultimate problem with ours or any other democratic republic, or other form of partimentary democracy, is sooner or later, you get a majority of people taking rather than contributing.  Western Europe's already there, and we're getting very close if not there right now. 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."

Not sure who originally coined that (there's some doubt about the actual person who first said it), but that's where democracy's eventually head to.

Eventually? How long UK is a de-facto democracy? Do you see signs of it becoming something else? Like what?

Quote

It'll still look like a democracy on the outside.  It'd still have it parlementary system.  Just like we'd still have our White House and Congress.  But you develop a permanent majority, which then can strip down the powers of the minority.  Historically, the majority in power is reluctant to do that because they may be the minority part again some time.  But once you have a permanent majority, you can pretty much cut the minority out entirely of having any influence.

And what do you need to have a permanent majority party?  Just work it so that a majority of the population doesn't pay taxes, and are dependant in some manner on the government.  The tax paying minority never has the votes to gain any say again, and the majority keeps the politicians in power to will maintain that status quo.  We're almost there already, and with the current policies being pushed, we'll likely be there before long.

Once you get that, do you really have a democracy any more?
Technically yes.  But you really have more of an oligarchy.
Technically, Nazi Germany was still a democracy.  But once the Nazi's got not only into power, but worked themselves a permanent majority, then the Reichstag was little more than window dressing, like the British Monarchy is today.

Of course today in Western Europe and here in the US it woudn't be with the bloodshed of the Nazi's, I don't mean to draw any such comparisons, but it's be a dependant nanny-state, where the majority won't vote out the hand that feeds them, and eventually the minority will tire of footing the entire bill and having no say in how all their tax money is spent.  "Taxation without representation".  And they'll stop trying or move away...which is why true Socialism never works anywhere it's been tried, and socialist style democracies like you see in Western Europe only function minimally.
There's a saying that goes, "Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money".

But yea, this is really a side topic.  Sorry to get off on the tangent!
:-)

Now, to the main topic of the US government operating a HLV, I do think they should.  But even the HLV's they operate are already consctructed by private contractors.  So in essence, what you advocate is already being done.  Just that NASA takes ownership of the finished vehicle and operates it.  For unmanned cargo it's probably not such an issue to ship your payload to a separate company so they can launch it for you, but when it's -your- astronauts, I think it's best to have more control over the vehicle.
Just my 2 cents.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #49 on: 03/05/2009 11:53 pm »

It seems to me that requiring NASA to "support" the "commercial" U.S. launch industry

This should be done by NASA issuing an RFP*, specifying payload mass, orbit parameters, spacecraft services, GSE requirements, etc, just like it does for unmanned launches.  * safety requirements would be added.

MFSC should not be designing Ares

Then who should? PLEASE tell me where the Chief Designer is sir!

There is no such thing.   Developing an architecture and putting it into requirements does not need a chief designer.  Neither does taking the requirements and turning them into a rocket. 

Chief Designer is a misnomer.  Von Braun was never one for the US



Werner Von Braun was most assuredly the Chief Designer. He had a staff, and consulted them carefully and often. He asked for and took their advise, but in the end all the major design decisions were his and his alone. He was the Chief Designer.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #50 on: 03/06/2009 01:39 am »

Werner Von Braun was most assuredly the Chief Designer. He had a staff, and consulted them carefully and often. He asked for and took their advise, but in the end all the major design decisions were his and his alone. He was the Chief Designer.

Not true wrt to the Saturn IB and Saturn V.  He was a manager and leader, not the designer.  The Saturn V design was done by H. Kohlle and approved by A. Silverstein
« Last Edit: 03/06/2009 01:41 am by Jim »

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #51 on: 03/06/2009 05:41 pm »
The Von Braun myth I believe is fundamentally at the core of NASAs problems...  In a world when the contractors have the launch vehicle experience they should be doing the detailed designs not MSFC.  And yet the "Von Braun myth" imbedied so deep in the NASA mentality they can't do the right thing.  Ares I should have never been and there been an open contract to provide a 25 kg capable launch service.  Just like everyother spacevehicle contract from NRO, to USAF, to New Horizons.  NASA should have focued efforts on Orion and bidded the launch contract to those who have the knowledge.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #52 on: 03/06/2009 05:54 pm »
TrueGrit, I agree completely.

Though there is nothing preventing NASA from specifying certain conditions in that process too.   For example, they could define the contract bid process in such a way as, perhaps:-

"The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 requires the next generation vehicle to be based on as much of the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce as possible, so contractors are instructed to bear this requirement in mind".

That would still have allowed the contractors to leverage their own expertise, while also allowing NASA to stick to the requirements imposed upon them from above too.


But no, the new Administrator had a pre-potted plan in mind, refused to listen to anyone else, and here we are today trying to work out how best to fix the mess we find ourselves in now.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2009 05:55 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #53 on: 03/06/2009 06:28 pm »
TrueGrit, I agree completely.

Though there is nothing preventing NASA from specifying certain conditions in that process too.   For example, they could define the contract bid process in such a way as, perhaps:-

"The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 requires the next generation vehicle to be based on as much of the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce as possible, so contractors are instructed to bear this requirement in mind".

That would still have allowed the contractors to leverage their own expertise, while also allowing NASA to stick to the requirements imposed upon them from above too.


But no, the new Administrator had a pre-potted plan in mind, refused to listen to anyone else, and here we are today trying to work out how best to fix the mess we find ourselves in now.

Ross.

Bare in mind that Griffin's vision of how to move forward predated the Authorization Act and his views were widely known to the principles before that document came into being. It is my opinion that Griffin's vision of moving forward was well aligned with the Legislators from the space coast and other areas and may have influenced the wording of that document in order to offer him the Congressional support he needed to put his plan into action. Now mind you that is only an impression I have. I say as clear as I can that I do not know that to be fact. But it is what I suspect to be the case.

In terms of just the launch vehicle choice, excluding Orion, if such STS-specific language had not been put into the document, we very well may have ended up with an Atlas-V Phase 2 CaLV and a Delta-IV Heavy CLV. In which case, a Block-1 Orion may well have been already flying today, in 2009, as we transition from a still flying Shuttle. Shuttle would have retired in 2010 with no gap in American human spaceflight. We would have a 2-launch lunar architecture using the Atlas HLLV. We would be using the RD-180 while a domestic equivilant was developed and deployed. The Atlas-V Phase 2 CaLV would eventually be powered by the domestic equivilant engine and the lunar timeline would have better reflected the use of the available resources from the commercial fleet.

At least, that's how I think it probably would have played out.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2009 06:35 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #54 on: 03/06/2009 10:06 pm »

Even if Falcon 9 Heavy were available and reliable, at the prices listed on the web site (which are a couple years old now I think), it would still cost $800 million or more just to launch one mission into LEO.  The payload and TLI stage would probably cost a billion or two on top of that.  This doesn't include the infrastructure to process and launch a bunch of Heavies in a hurry.  SpaceX has been puttering around at SLC 40 for the better part of a year now without an operational launch site to show for it to date.  How long would it take the company to get  three or four pads - or processing hangers and extra transporter erectors - into service, and at what cost?  It would take 224 Merlin 1C engines to put up one lunar mission.  How long to build and test all of those engines?

 - Ed Kyle
Don't know - put the order in (say 12 missions over 3 years, 2,500 engines, and you might find out).

How long does it take Mercedes to build 224 trucks, each with more moving parts than a Merlin 1c?

Next question - what limits pad use? How long does a pad take to cool, then how long to place an empty rocket on stand and fuel it (if you're doing this on a frequent basis)?

It used to take months to retool a car plant for a different model. Now, every car coming down the line is personalised.

Point is, you can't take the current business and technical models for EELVs and extrapolate to a requirement of 100 tons per year on the lunar surface.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2009 10:07 pm by alexterrell »

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #55 on: 03/07/2009 07:34 am »
A response of mine in a thread in the general section pertaining to what can be done to lower launch costs has relevance here and so I repost it below.  Perhaps alexterrell's post above can indicate the type of environment we could see in the mid-2020s if NASA did indeed decide to go down the path of this thread.

So given that experience what is really needed to get costs down to say S20 / lb and is that even possible.

Higher flight rates.  But there isn't the payloads for higher flight rates.  It is the chicken or the egg question

Maybe force CxP to use RLVs and EELVs for all parts that can be broken down into sections smaller then 30T vs HLLVs and you'll get a high flight rate to boot strap the system.

For the near term future, it is NASA that has the potential to be the one to start the ball rolling down the hill.  Their upcoming lunar payload demand dwarfs that of the current launch mandate.  Putting that mass to market will increase the flight rate of present systems and near future ones.

It will also spark a drive to service this newly created market.  We know this will happen.  We saw it in the late nineties when a possible market of new satellite constellations and the multiple launches needed to establish them drove the creation of several new ventures who sought to compete for those payloads.  The market dried up, and so too then the commercial ventures, but that is incidental to what occurred when that apparent payload demand appeared.  Seeing a future market, a future, entrepreneurs created their own companies, sought or funded them with private capital, to attempt to compete to service this market.  NASA launch needs can be that large payload demand for the next decades, they can be that beacon of light that leads to progress.

NASA putting its payload needs to the commercial launch industry to fulfill will increase flight rates among present and near present operators, leading to a more healthy environment for them.  This environment will attract new comers who will attempt to beat the established operators through lower launch costs.  Any lower costs this arrangement will bring forth then has the potential to attract new payloads to the system, further enlarging the market, further prompting more competition for it and lower costs, and perhaps then further attracting new business, and so on, in a cycle of positive growth.  As the federal agency of note for space, it is the duty of NASA to help foster the development of the industry in this fashion, rather than setting up shop with its own new internal launch vehicles that compete against it by depriving it of those scarce payloads.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2009 07:34 am by libs0n »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #56 on: 03/07/2009 03:14 pm »

Even if Falcon 9 Heavy were available and reliable, at the prices listed on the web site (which are a couple years old now I think), it would still cost $800 million or more just to launch one mission into LEO.  The payload and TLI stage would probably cost a billion or two on top of that.  This doesn't include the infrastructure to process and launch a bunch of Heavies in a hurry.  SpaceX has been puttering around at SLC 40 for the better part of a year now without an operational launch site to show for it to date.  How long would it take the company to get  three or four pads - or processing hangers and extra transporter erectors - into service, and at what cost?  It would take 224 Merlin 1C engines to put up one lunar mission.  How long to build and test all of those engines?

 - Ed Kyle
Don't know - put the order in (say 12 missions over 3 years, 2,500 engines, and you might find out).

How long does it take Mercedes to build 224 trucks, each with more moving parts than a Merlin 1c?

Rocket engines aren't trucks.  The limiting factor for their delivery would be qualification testing, which means static testing on a test stand.  Sufficient test stands would have to be constructed to test all of those engines.  More than one engine test would have to be performed, successfully, every day, on average, to support even two lunar missions per year. 

Rocketdyne, at its busiest during the Atlas/Thor/Jupiter buildup, probably never had to deliver much more than one engine per day - at least not at sustained rates.  Even Glushko probably never had to deliver engines at a substantially faster rate than that.  But four lunar missions per year would require 4-5 Merlin engines to be delivered (fully qualified) every *day*.

Quote
Next question - what limits pad use? How long does a pad take to cool, then how long to place an empty rocket on stand and fuel it (if you're doing this on a frequent basis)?

Pad use is limited by several factors.  First, some refurbishment, especially of the flame deflector/flame duct, may be needed after a launch.  The electrical and mechanical functionality of all launch umbilicals must be checked.  Then the launch vehicle must be erected, moved to the pad, and powered up for general functionality and RF tests .  Then the launch vehicle, usually, must be fueled in a "wet dress rehearsal".   All of this testing takes time, and only after it is completed can the payload be attached to the launch vehicle, initiating yet another round of testing.

We are often impressed by the spectacle of Soyuz and Proton and Zenit and Ariane 5 and Atlas 5, etc.,  launching from their pads only hours or days after being rolled out to their pads.  What we don't usually see are the rollouts that occur weeks before the launch for electrical/mechanical interface and propellant loading tests that take place before payloads are attached to the launch vehicles.

Quote
It used to take months to retool a car plant for a different model. Now, every car coming down the line is personalised.

Point is, you can't take the current business and technical models for EELVs and extrapolate to a requirement of 100 tons per year on the lunar surface.


I don't doubt that the potential for innovation exists.  There is no precedent for it to date, however, in the space launch field.  Launch campaigns tend to be labor intensive.  In the past, the only way to increasing launch rates was to build more pads and hire more people, at great cost.   

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/07/2009 10:50 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #57 on: 03/08/2009 03:57 pm »

Rocket engines aren't trucks.  The limiting factor for their delivery would be qualification testing, which means static testing on a test stand.  Sufficient test stands would have to be constructed to test all of those engines.  More than one engine test would have to be performed, successfully, every day, on average, to support even two lunar missions per year. 

Rocketdyne, at its busiest during the Atlas/Thor/Jupiter buildup, probably never had to deliver much more than one engine per day - at least not at sustained rates.  Even Glushko probably never had to deliver engines at a substantially faster rate than that.  But four lunar missions per year would require 4-5 Merlin engines to be delivered (fully qualified) every *day*.

 - Ed Kyle
Rocketdyne NEVER HAD TO deliver more than one engine per day - perhaps that's a difference.

But if you're focus is on high production, you' probably make some design changes and sacrifice a little bit of performance or reliability.

For example, lets say we use Falcon 9H for lifting fuel only. We need three to eight missions per lunar landing, but only one is cargo and one might be crew. Most are fuel, perhaps in the form of a low cost EDS.

Falcon 9 has engine out capability. Certainly 1 out of 9 on the normal Falcon, and perhaps 3 out 27 on the 9H. So what's the probability of four or more unqualified, or partially qualified, engines failing?

And if I'm just launching fuel stages once per week, I'd launch one every six days and not be too fussed if fewer than 1 in 7 don't make it (as long as they don't blow the pad).

What you'll find is that after four years of this (200 launches), your Falcon 9H with unqualified engines will be safer than an Ares I, which might have flown a dozen times in the same period.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #58 on: 03/08/2009 04:08 pm »
Regarding engine production rates, how long did it take to produce the 6,000+ V2 engines that actually flew?

Regarding qualification, does anyone have a guess at what point one would decide to trust the manufacturing process? Say you flew a thousand engines, and only two or three of them failed. Is that a rate you could live with? Type of failure? Two or three explosions, no; two or three flame-outs, yes?

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: NASA building and operating a heavy lifter is a mistake.
« Reply #59 on: 03/08/2009 04:15 pm »
Regarding qualification, does anyone have a guess at what point one would decide to trust the manufacturing process? Say you flew a thousand engines, and only two or three of them failed. Is that a rate you could live with? Type of failure? Two or three explosions, no; two or three flame-outs, yes?

The Space Systems/Loral Aquarius launcher was planned to have a 1 in 3 failure rate at a planned cost of $1000/kg. They felt that was good enough for launching consumables / bulk materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Launch_Vehicle
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

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