To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2

[JIS]

kraisee - 16/12/2007  7:10 PM

Marsman - 15/12/2007  10:22 AMThanks for the comments, Ross.

1)      You have me here. What was your DIRECT team planning for your LOR-LOR architectures with Orion directly on the EDS? Theoretically, Orion could be docked tail end first to the EDS, but this adds a more complex docking system and therefore more mass.

For the LOR missions, we never transitioned the Orion.   It stayed on top of the Spacecraft Adapter all the way through TLI - allowing the SM to act as the abort engine the whole time.   We just sucked-up the mass hit of the SCA in the interests of safety.   If you launch the EDS separately this does indeed become a little more tricky with a rear-docking.   Not impossible, just trickier.   You will also have to account for something akin to an SCA in your mass-thru-TLI calculations too.

Why abort using Orion SM would be required during TLI burn? Is there any failure scenario when such abort would help?
If anything goes wrong during the TLI burn the J-2X will shutdown and Orion can disconnect using RCS.

     It would be relatively easy to fly an NEO mission from the L1 station.

It's actually an opposite. NEO is easier from LEO using just few launches (one is the best) as timing is quite critical. Also dV will be lower from LEO.
All the current architecture needs is a new mission module instead of LSAM.

[JIS]

kraisee - 15/12/2007  3:17 AM

5) Orion mass at 22.4mT is low.   Current Orion mass is 23.6mT at docking to LSAM.

Ross.

Was that number ever mentioned in any NASA document? Why it doesn't appear on any Cx document?
Based on CxP ISTIM Outbrief to JSC Engineering Mgmt from end of Nov 2007
The Orion Target 607 Mass (predicted) is 46,263 (20,084 kg) for lunar mission.
And controlled mass including Orion management reserves is 21.9mt
Cx management holds another 1.4mt reserve and Ares 1 holds 1.3mt reserve.
So if architecture and Ares reserve is allocated to Orion it could weight up to 24.5mt at the time of injection (the document still mentions -11x100nmi injection orbit).  

So 24.5mt is absolute maximum hypothetical current weight of Orion. It's including payload adaptor (0.5mt) and propellant required for circularisation to 100nmi orbit where EDS+LSAM is waiting.
However, Orion weighting 24.5mt would expend all managerial reserves which wouldn't be a good practice at this design stage.

It's is quite possible that after some upgrades to Ares and Orion the real Lunar Orion in 2018 will weight 23.6mt at TLI but the current Ares V allocates just 20.2mt.

[A_M_Swallow]

kraisee - 16/12/2007  7:10 PM
{snip}
I agree that there was certainly a general bias towards the final solution in ESAS (CLV and CaLV), but it was against all other options, EELV and also LV-24/25 too.   I have actually seen the data which made up the cost structure and the EELV's aren't the magical solution some seem to suggest.   You need to follow the money.   Per-kg to LEO costs are substantially higher for EELV solutions than for an SDLV HLLV (I prefer HL-SDLV).   A higher flight rate improves things, but is equally true for the SDLV options too.

And the EELV advanced options would still have to be built to NASA standards - and that means they'll cost the same in the end.   There's no magic possible as long as NASA remains the organization in control of the US Human Space Flight Program - and I just don't see anyone else yet trying to set themselves up as a commercial replacement independently.   NASA is still the only real game in town.

The question ultimately comes down to "what point does the SDLV performance:cost ratio balance off the total cost of development?"

Cost trade offs depend on your starting point.  Changing to an EELV architecture at the moment would be very expensive.  However if a future president cancels Ares_V and J-232 then using smaller rockets becomes viable/necessary.  Particularly if NASA wants to avoid a 15 year development programme (Constellation is 2005 to 2020).

This architecture would have few problems using Jupiter-120s instead of EELV to lift the people, Landers and propellent.  A drop back to EELV could be triggered by a future US President cancelling the Ares_I and laying off all the Shuttle people.  The president after that may be the person restarting Moon trips.

[A_M_Swallow]

Firing all the Shuttle people will not be cheap.  I hope they will get new jobs, possible on other space projects.

As for the human rating rules changing rather than the EELV, I am not surprised.

[Jim]

A_M_Swallow - 18/12/2007  11:06 PM

Firing all the Shuttle people will not be cheap. .

It is very cheap.  It doesn't cost anything

[clongton]

Jim - 19/12/2007  9:55 AM

A_M_Swallow - 18/12/2007  11:06 PM

Firing all the Shuttle people will not be cheap. .

It is very cheap.  It doesn't cost anything

It will cost the economy a lot. Shuttle people are not limited to KSC. They are co-located all over the agency, plus there are perhaps as many as 2x the number of Contractor people working some aspect of STS as there are government people. Firing “all” the STS people would not be cheap. It will ripple everywhere. It would be a huge hit to several regional economies all over the country.

[JIS]

clongton - 19/12/2007  3:27 PM

Jim - 19/12/2007  9:55 AM

A_M_Swallow - 18/12/2007  11:06 PM

Firing all the Shuttle people will not be cheap. .

It is very cheap.  It doesn't cost anything

It will cost the economy a lot. Shuttle people are not limited to KSC. They are co-located all over the agency, plus there are perhaps as many as 2x the number of Contractor people working some aspect of STS as there are government people. Firing “all” the STS people would not be cheap. It will ripple everywhere. It would be a huge hit to several regional economies all over the country.

What puzzles me is where NASA is going to spend all that money. After all the money ends up in people's pockets. The money is the same. Will those be different pockets or the same ones? If lot of STS people are retiring NASA would end up with less people or would have to hire new ones. If NASA has less people they can afford to spend more on contractors.

[A_M_Swallow]

I read somewhere that the DOD launch pads are fully booked so launching a EELV every two weeks will require the NASA launch sites modifying.  That will be a significant cost and so will the wages of the people who build and launch the rockets.

[MKremer]

A_M_Swallow - 19/12/2007  9:03 PM

I read somewhere that the DOD launch pads are fully booked so launching a EELV every two weeks will require the NASA launch sites modifying.  That will be a significant cost and so will the wages of the people who build and launch the rockets.

That's because Missile Row is down to only 4 pads, and once Delta II goes away only 2 will be left (1 Atlas-V, 1 D-IV).

(I refuse to count a Space X pad until something is actually launched from it)

[Jim]

A_M_Swallow - 19/12/2007  10:03 PM

I read somewhere that the DOD launch pads are fully booked so launching a EELV every two weeks will require the NASA launch sites modifying.  That will be a significant cost and so will the wages of the people who build and launch the rockets.

Not so.  First thing is that they are not "DOD" pads, they belong to ULA.  NASA doesn't and won't have EELV launch sites

Delta and Atlas are only working 1 shift for 5 days.  The flight rates can be increase with a little increase in personnel.  Also the factories are under utilized.


OSP looked at adding a pad for each vehicle, which came to 500 million each, which cheap vs other options

[kraisee]

A_M_Swallow - 19/12/2007  10:03 PM

I read somewhere that the DOD launch pads are fully booked so launching a EELV every two weeks will require the NASA launch sites modifying.  That will be a significant cost and so will the wages of the people who build and launch the rockets.

The Pads are fine and can handle quite a few more launches each year.

The problem is fitting a lot of NASA payloads in amongst the DoD Payloads.   The funding for EELV development and operational costs remain primarily funded by DoD.   They thus have first-call on schedule.

As it stands right now, NASA payloads can be 'bumped' to make room for any more important DoD payload.

NASA really wants something a little more 'guaranteed' to base its schedule upon - especially if it will ever be flying many payloads.   ULA have yet to somehow provide anything like this, and they won't ever be considered seriously by NASA until they can provide some assurances.   I doubt DoD will allow their payloads to ever take second-place though, for any reason.

This was the key driving requirement for the extra pads Jim mentioned, although the costs are higher these days.   I'm hearing figures closer to $1.5-2bn for a new pad, not to mention the costs of decommissioning LC-39 on top - and currently any plans to do *that* are being laughed out of the building because of the workforce/politics issues.   OSP could consider it only because it was surplus to Shuttle - not replacing it.

Ross.

[meiza]

Why would the cost have boomed from 500 million to 2 billion? It's not as if the existing EELV pads were built 40 years ago and all the suppliers were lost... It's only 5 years from the first flights.

The scrapping being so expensive sounds weird too. Are the sites to become some nature reserve and thus require very expensive cleaning? Is this cleaning somehow not required when the pads are still in operation? Sounds like a political problem rather than a real one.

Could it be possible for NASA or USAF to still keep possession of the ground area as reserve for future use? Just remove the buildings and chemicals that could produce additional hazards when left unattended. It would be a lot cheaper to keep the pads that way than to keep them in operation, that much is certain.

All in all the "scrapping the shuttle launch complexes would be so expensive that it means they have to be used in VSE" is a very weird meme.

I mean, if it's so darn expensive, then feel free to keep skeleton launch crews mimicking launches from there if it is supposed to be so much cheaper.

[O2H2]

There is a key misunderstanding here that is affecting your thinking.  LC40, the Atlas pad, is a clean pad concept where the launcher only occupies it for a few hours prior to launch.  Vehicle assembly takes place in the Vertical Integration Facility.  Although there is only one VIF presently at LC40 from the outset it was intended that there would be multiple VIF's to support each customer's foibles about having priority etc.  The launch pace for NASA is a very different animal than for DoD.  So NASA can take their time in VIF 2 and it would be very unlikely to affect a DoD launch.  

These VIF's are simple structures that cost only a couple hundred million dollars from GO.  This is chump change compared to the cost of any possible revision to LC39 for two different rockets.  NASA will bear the total maintenance costs for that dedicated facility into the indefinite future.  That alone is a foolish business decision.  We see at present the debacle that NASA finds itself in with respect to Delta II.  With the launch of the final DoD Delta II NASA would be compelled to pay for all maintenance itself without benefit of cost sharing.  This is a surprisingly high cost and represents an overhead that cannot be attacked with technology.  

The key to this architecture ( it is similar to one we proposed several years ago) is that it uses hardware that is used by others.  The present NASA architecture and the proposed Direct options both ignore this fundamental problem.  Solving this problem is MORE IMPORTANT than optimizing delta V budgets.  Custom hardware is almost never a good solution.  You must use what is commercially viable or you will be eaten alive by overheads that are yours alone to bear.  If on the other hand you encourage commercial operations by amping up launch rate you will see an enormous decline in costs.  Right now most suppliers for the Atlas and Delta are at absolutely bare minimum rates.  This means that overheads are minimally diluted and there are disproportionate hardware costs.  

If you make the  ULA launch rate quadruple you will see a total turn-around in cost to orbit.  You will also create a profit motive and that encourages more rapid development of cost savers and greater lift capability.  There are plans for an advanced upper stage that is perfect for lunar and Mars exploration but remains attractive for commercial and DoD satellite launches.  There are similar plans for better boosters- also with strong commercial and DoD applications.  Neither of these can be justified based on present launch rate and missions.

NASA has it in its power to create an atmosphere of commercially driven innovation that will set the stage for space-based activities well beyond their exploration plans.  Or they can retard this growth by funneling all the funding into yet another single-purpose design that has absolutely no use for anyone else.  Sickening as it is this latter path seems to be the preferred one.  Why they think this is the path to maximize jobs is a total mystery to me- growth in the industry and not just NASA is the path to job growth that lasts more than a few months.  

It is important to note that 80% of the stuff you have to move around in space has no inherent value- it consists of LO2 and a little LH2.  With this in mind it is obvious that NASA does not need to be directly involved in these launches- they should simply contract for X tons of LO2 at such and such a place before Y time.  This is perfect for commercial operations as it allows these launches to be timed for economic efficiency.  They are asynchronous to the launch of crews and expensive science hardware.  If there is a failure (increasingly unlikely as launch rates rise) all you lose is some propellant.  Yes you have to determine root cause etc but your other launcher (Delta for example) is still flying.  The likelihood of a total mission wipe-out is in fact smaller because you have dispersed the job over multiple launchers. NASA can also focus its attention on the high-criticality missions with people and irreplaceable hardware.  Isn't this a better division of labor?

Now you may argue that Direct or ARES are superior solutions since they require fewer launches.  That was true of Saturn too.  Saturn was a classic case of a great design with no longevity or significant utility due to its single-minded concept.  This was also the case for Shuttle.  Perhaps this time we will see that the ARES and Direct concepts are not viable due to fundamental ECONOMIC reasons.  Remember that you can FORCE these into reality by pouring in money but that does not solve the problem of their unaffordability- that will persist until you are exhausted and THEN you will be forced to go commercial.  You will just waste tens of billions of dollars and decades doing it.  Without a commercially viable architecture for moving mass at will around the earth-moon system you will NEVER get to Mars and do anything meaningful.

[A_M_Swallow]

meiza - 20/12/2007  4:53 PM

I mean, if it's so darn expensive, then feel free to keep skeleton launch crews mimicking launches from there if it is
supposed to be so much cheaper.

Basic politeness - firing one's friends is expensive even if only costs $1.

Replacing Project Constellation by EELV has the cost of getting rid of all the Ares stuff - people, pads and contracts.

[A_M_Swallow]

From the document attached to the first post.
page 1 "...  By restocking the station with propellant from international partners three to five lunar missions per year can be performed."

page 7 "{snip}   Only flying 4-5 times per year, the two ventures have been forced to merge into the United Launch Alliance (ULA) to stay in business."

page 7 "With 14 propellant-related launches per year and 8 lunar mission launches per
year Constellation becomes a 22 launch program in a full year.{snip}"


NASA may only be running 5 missions a year but with this proposed architecture 22 rockets are being launched every year.  This is 22 / 5 = 4.4 times the current US launch rate.  An additional launch every 52 / 22 = 2.4 weeks will be keeping someone somewhere busy.