Pete Wilson (RAND): cancel SLS now

[beancounter]

Dear John

Thanks for your insightful commentary on my posting.

I'm sorry you're still confused as to what I was trying to say.

I mean if SLS is produced, not cancelled in development then not used for exploration because the whole BEO architecture doesn't appear.

Please accept my apologies for my poorly worded rantings and thanks for your response.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen

Can't see exactly how the exploration architecture is going to 'appear'.  The money is being sucked into SLS, MPCV, and the ISS basically.  Operating costs for all will continue to be huge given that they are all basically using legacy systems.  Saw a photo of MPCV being constructed, hand welding the stringers FGS!!

Dear Stephen.  Don't know where you get your faith in NASA HSF.  Looking at their record, it's pretty dismal.  Whereas the commercial entities are meeting milestones on their CCiCap Program and SpaceX has launched Dragon 3 times in the last 10 months, all successfully.  Oh well.
 

[spectre9]

Faith in NASA HSF?

LC-39 isn't shutting down. No way, no how.

There's no medium rocket panacea.

Imagine we're in the gap between Apollo and Shuttle. Is there resistance? Are there naysayers? Who would believe shuttle will launch at all?

Well it did. Over 100 times across 3 decades.

What makes NASA today different to the NASA that made the shuttle work over such a long period? They didn't just have the launch vehicle, they had a space station which eventually became ISS and this is the model they're working with. They build as much as they can and hope they can scrounge up the rest from overseas.

ESA has already chipped in a SM. Russia needs to get in on the action too.

There's still plenty of negotiation to do. Just because NASA is current anti-Lunar (even though laws say they shouldn't/can't be) doesn't mean potential partners like ESA and Roscosmos are cold on the idea of sending the first non-Americans to the Lunar surface.

If a Lunar base isn't acceptable a gateway station + occasional sorties might be.

NASA has always developed too much at once and 2013 is no exception. 4 manned spacecraft, numerous deep space probes, numerous Earth observation spacecraft, a giant telescope, a heavy lift rocket... the list goes on and that's all in addition to the current missions like ISS which require large amounts of funding to support them.

NASA is trying to funnel as much cash as they can to SpaceX. It's not politically viable to have them building everything. The time for that has not come.... yet 

[JohnFornaro]

Ha, finally a 'Dear John' letter, er post. 

Dear Bean:

I have been studying this issue for over a half century, but have not yet figured out why literally all the letters I receive begin this way.

Sincerely,

John

[JohnFornaro]

...Please accept my apologies ...

Apology accepted.

[muomega0]

SLS is extremely poor value but it's a path to a launch vehicle that works.

Not everyone agrees with that statement.. nor does history.
"Ares is extremely poor value but it's a path to a launch vehicle that works." - Mike Griffin (paraphrasing)

-With Ares, a second launch vehicle for crew came from existing, although multiple, product lines. (J2X, SSME, ET, SRM, upper stage)

-With SLS, the same product lines, with the addition of 5seg composite and liquids, are added to the LEO launchers. (J2X, SSME, ET, SRM, composite SRM, liquids strap-ons, upper stage, plus COTS for LEO). The likelihood of mixing cargo and crew is increased with SLS (oversized 20mT capsule lofted on 70-130mT vehicle).

-Too many product lines with SLS around.

So why not convert the 2.5B a year (ET, SSME, J2X, ET, SRM, Orion, liquid and composite boosters) to mission hardware and technology development?

Why is Falcon Heavy needed?  Which leads too…

Falcon Heavy is a disruptive development. Until it actually exists it's not an alternative. I will treat all FH based proposals as pure fantasy until SpaceX sorts out their development and operations for such a large launch vehicle.

SLS is still the best path forward today.

Even SpaceX doesn't think FH is big enough. They wouldn't be considering a 7m+ core MCT if they did.

FH is big enough - fuel depots
FH is the more fiscally responsible
You cannot come on this board and tell me the engineers at MSFC and JSC are so stupid they could not build a mission using multiple FH launches.  They could......privately some have.

All in a much quicker time frame and on much sounder economic footing.
No one can even tell me one payload that will fly on SLS.  There is ZERO funding for payloads and missions.  We have to build the rocket first... kind of like we have to pass the bill before we see whats in it.

Constellation was two lunar sorties or one mars mission every other year.   That’s 2x120,000kg or 450,000 kg/2  or about 240,000kg/annually. Apollo ~ 120 mT.

So *ONE* launch vehicle that launches 10 times a year results in a 25 mT LV, but the US and the world have many LVs.    See Making the Business Case Close for SLS to see a plot comparing *Individual* LVs—the US and the world have many LVs.

1) There are some people who think that NASA shouldn't be building launch vehicles when there are several suitable commercial launch vehicles which launch defense and commercial payloads already and for a pretty low cost (compared to cost of NASA developing its own independent capability).

2) There are some people who think NASA should not develop its own launch vehicle no matter what the price in the private sector is.

3) There are also some people who think SLS as is designed is unnecessary given the launch rate.

4) There are some people who like SLS but think that the money would be more appropriately spent on other aspects, such as HSF payloads, before we start spending a lot of money on a new big launch vehicle.

5) There are some people who accept SLS as a potentially valuable LV, but who continue to point out that LV(s) need be no larger than seventy 25 tons to LEO in its initial configuration [to go to the moon twice a year or Mars every other year, which were the goals of the Constellation program]

This fifth viewpoint could lead to a sustainable US HSF program for the next few decades

a few edits to 5)

In regards to the 70 ton configuration,
The fixed costs of 1B/year or more to fly zero HLVs has always been ignored by those who favor adding/keeping an additional LV to the US fleet, which leads to 6)

That said, if you are willing to take on (name your 3B/yr target tax shift to NASA, i.e. corporate loopholes, tax breaks for US jobs, oil and corn and soy subsidies, health care for only the special folks, ...) ...Godspeed.

6) There are many people who see that the HLV architecture is not cost effective and over the last four decades, no serious attempt has been made to develop a cost effective launch system.  The most recent attempt started 5 new engine development programs without properly sizing the LV nor capsule first.  Here is one example:  ULA claim gap reducing solution via EELV exploration master plan

Here is a quote from 1992:  "175M could not be found out of NASA's 14B budget to develop a cost effective launch system.  The appropriations committees effectively zeroed programs to develop ... new {cost effective} launch systems."    what was the cost to crew rate EELV, < $1B?  Decades later, the goal is "poor value"? 

7) There are MANY people who see that the world and the US have excess launch capacity with multiple launchers, that the HLV architecture has zero technology spinoffs to the economy with the current plans for the coming decades, that the capsule was designed to be too heavy for the existing fleet, low flight rate affects reliability, and only a handful of missions are possible with the current budget.

8 ) There are some folks who outline technology development to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer.  There are other folks that outline technology to reduce overall costs, do not include it in the baseline architecture, and ensure its drastically underfunded, for decades, while funding LVs to the tune of $4T, not B.

[JohnFornaro]

5) There are some people who accept SLS as a potentially valuable LV, but who continue to point out that LV(s) need be no larger than seventy 25 tons to LEO in its initial configuration [to go to the moon twice a year or Mars every other year, which were the goals of the Constellation program]

This fifth viewpoint could lead to a sustainable US HSF program for the next few decades

a few edits to 5)

I have no idea problem  [doggone it.  second edit.] with the principle of your edit there.  But I would suggest you add it as point #9 to your list:

9)  There's no reason that we could not build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability.  Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands.  Could happen.

Edit:  Thanks Lar.

[Lar]

9)  There's no reason that we could build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability.  Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands.  Could happen.

Could or could not ?? I'm confused.

I think we COULD build such an infrastructure with 25 mt to LEO[1] capability

1 - my fingers typed LEGO there and I had to correct

[JohnFornaro]

9)  There's no reason that we couldn't build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability.  Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands.  Could happen.

Could or could not ?? I'm confused.

I think we COULD build such an infrastructure with 25 mt to LEO[1] capability

1 - my fingers typed LEGO there and I had to correct

Thanks sharp tooth.  I mean sharp eyes.  edited.

[muomega0]

5) There are some people who accept SLS as a potentially valuable LV, but who continue to point out that LV(s) need be no larger than seventy 25 tons to LEO in its initial configuration [to go to the moon twice a year or Mars every other year, which were the goals of the Constellation program]

This fifth viewpoint could lead to a sustainable US HSF program for the next few decades

a few edits to 5)

I have no idea with the principle of your edit there.  But I would suggest you add it as point #9 to your list:

9)  There's no reason that we could not build a cis-lunar infrastructure with 25 ton to LEO launch capability.  Should that infrastructure prove to be a profitable economic sphere, the throw weights of the launch vehicles would increase in size, according to private market demands.  Could happen.

Edit:  Thanks Lar.

A single 25 mT launcher could fulfill the Mars mission assuming the mass estimates of the Mars DRM and is not limited to earth moon.  With ZBO LEO depots, access to a whole fleet is possible to reduce costs of staging at L2 for likely EP or hybrid chemical EP, to Mars.

Private market demands are significantly less than government mass to IMLEO and will be for decades  (any data that states otherwise?).

[JohnFornaro]

A single 25 mT launcher could fulfill the Mars mission assuming the mass estimates of the Mars DRM and is not limited to earth moon.  With ZBO LEO depots, access to a whole fleet is possible to reduce costs of staging at L2 for likely EP or hybrid chemical EP, to Mars.

Launched multiple times, I presume.  And that's 25 tons to LEO, I also presume.  I think that a Mars effort based on that "small" launcher would be possible technically, but it seems like too small a launcher to me.  As for the cis-lunar arena, again, small, but technically possible.

My thought is that you need a launcher able to put 20-25 tons on the lunar surface.  Which I believe that the 70 ton initial variant of SLS could do.

Private market demands are significantly less than government mass to IMLEO and will be for decades  (any data that states otherwise?).

As you probably already know, if that tourism market and ISRU prop manufacture market were to prove profitable, that cis-lunar market could start growing.  Decades is probably about right.

The private market, other than defense, is always going to be larger than the government market, given time and a free market.  Anyhow...

Pete Wilson is wrong in principle, but may turn out to be correct in prediction.

[deltaV]

Delta IV Heavy can apparently do 29 mt to LEO (as of the RS-68A upgrade). Falcon Heavy is planned to get 53 mt to LEO. I'm not aware of any American rockets than can handle 25 mt to LEO but not 29 mt too. How'd you choose the 25 mt to LEO figure?

[muomega0]

Delta IV Heavy can apparently do 29 mt to LEO (as of the RS-68A upgrade). Falcon Heavy is planned to get 53 mt to LEO. I'm not aware of any American rockets than can handle 25 mt to LEO but not 29 mt too. How'd you choose the 25 mt to LEO figure?

A very simple way to determine the size of a single launch vehicle is to determine the average annual mass to orbit and divide by 10.

Using Constellation as a reference, two lunar missions is 2X120,000kg per year over 10 launches is a 24 mT LV.   Or Mars DRM, one Mars mission every other year is 450,000 kg / 20 is about the same ( i skipped the 500 day stay on the surface ).

Why 10?

The next step is to examine the actual fixed and recurring costs as shown in the example of this link:

Determining the average mT/year required is a key figure of merit and stating the LV size is the wrong parameter

Plot the $/kg versus number of flights, then plot $/kg versus mT/year.

It ends up that the $/kg flatten around 8-10, but it depends on the ratio of the fixed to recurring costs.  So "10" lets one subtract a zero.

Note that this assumes that only *one* launch vehicle is being compared to another, no common hardware, component costs decrease with volume, *no* recovery of development costs,......

The only other constraint is if the piece of hardware fits in the LV (size and volume).  (need link...this was done). 

I know you have indicated a preference for a 45 mT LV, but it takes much more work to trade individual improvements, get better cost estimates, ....

Most every one knew when ESAS was released that the size was too big since 10*100+mt = 1000+ mT/year.  Even 50 mT is too big, as a "rule of thumb".

In a chemical architecture, at least 70% of the mass is fuel, so 30% of 120,000 kg is 40,000.    With a prop depot, only one-two launches of hardware are required to head to the moon if its filled up on-orbit prior to departure, for example.


Why a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will Help Tremendously

[deltaV]

@muomega0: your rule of thumb says that if one were to build a clean-sheet launch vehicle (and the costs of splitting payloads are negligible) it should lift 24 mt. Your rule of thumb is not applicable to comparing a clean-sheet vehicle to an existing vehicle. We already have two launch vehicles with more than 24 mt capacity (Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy), neither of which NASA has to pay the fixed costs for. Furthermore Falcon Heavy is planned to have a very low cost per kilogram (to LEO). Using one of these existing 29 mt+ vehicles is cheaper and better than developing a brand new 24 mt launcher.

[pippin]

Falcon Heavy doesn't exist, yet.

[Robotbeat]

Falcon Heavy doesn't exist, yet.

It's being built as we speak in Hawthorne.

[Robotbeat]

Multiple launch works just fine. ISS has had how many flights to it? By the time it is splashed, the number will be about a couple hundred.

[Lar]

Falcon Heavy doesn't exist, yet.

Neither do the moon/mars/asteroid exploiting payloads that would fly on it

Betcha FH gets into double digit flights way before SLS flies twice.

[Jim]

Betcha FH gets into double digit flights way before SLS flies twice.

That is nonsense too.

[Jeff Bingham]

We are almost a 15 TRILLION Dollar economy. That's 15,000 Billion produced in goods and services every year.

And we're getting hung up over a few BIllion to build a Heavy Lift capability? What a farce. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We conquered LEO and are now passing it off quite appropriately to commercial as best we can. An action I think will have profoundly positive implications in both the near and the long term.

BLEO, in my view, is different. At least for now. I believe we will need SLS and the full weight and resources of the US Gov't to enable a meaningful Human presence BLEO. If not for today, then for tomorrow.  And not for the remembrance of glories past but for an amazing future to come. A future realized by our drive to imagine and our need to explore.

Besides, I can't take another damn commission. So let's just get on with it.

Thank you!

[muomega0]

@muomega0: your rule of thumb says that if one were to build a clean-sheet launch vehicle (and the costs of splitting payloads are negligible) it should lift 24 mt. Your rule of thumb is not applicable to comparing a clean-sheet vehicle to an existing vehicle. We already have two launch vehicles with more than 24 mt capacity (Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy), neither of which NASA has to pay the fixed costs for. Furthermore Falcon Heavy is planned to have a very low cost per kilogram (to LEO). Using one of these existing 29 mt+ vehicles is cheaper and better than developing a brand new 24 mt launcher.

You are correct.  It is just ball park "rule of thumb" as stated in Simple Cost Comparison of *ONE* LV vs another.

Ironically (?), without including development costs, as was stated, the existing fleet is still cheaper assuming SLS is fully developed.  Hence the statement by Augustine Commission:  "even if you were handed SLS developed, NASA could not afford to operate it."

Lets do some more math:  with 2 to 4  existing LVs, then the capacity drops to 12 to 6 mT/ year.  Likely too small for hardware, but may reduce the cost of propellant delivery.  IOW:  need a mixed size fleet with common product lines.

Further, rather than consider 240,000 kg/yr, consider 8 missions over 20 years that may fit in the budget:   so 240,000 * 8 /20  is only about 100,000 mT/year divided by "10" or a 10,000 kg LV, assuming only 1.

now these are just approximate values.   clearly the folks working all the design trades would have to explain the details since they clearly do not add up and because

The goalpost keep shifting to try and make the SLS Business Case Close.

Lets suppose a few B/year was added to NASA's budget to provide payloads to perform the lunar and mars missions.   The numbers show at NASA can still perform the missions without a HLV, while performing technology development that has guaranteed spinoffs back to earth.  One study said 15 missions over 20 years was $57B less expensive.

From a distance view, the path forward is quite clear:  shift to a depot centric/EP architecture with the smaller fleet and make the tough cuts.  The LEO ZBO depot and gateway have many scientific and economical benefits to exploration and should be seriously considered to address the number one cost driver (HLV) and mass driver (radiation protection) to exploration.  Simply adding radiation protection around a DSH will substantially increase the flight rate .  By starting with small scale prototypes for the crew tended habitat to gradually extend the stay to 1 year, it would not break the bank (the cost of SLS for one year perhaps!).

After decades of $$ not being spent on economical access to space,  a simple solution is to eliminate product lines of the HLV and provide a more  flexible budget to PMs.  IOW, NASA does not need more $ for HLV, it uses the savings for payload and technology development instead. 

Less is more, more is less?

We are almost a 15 TRILLION Dollar economy. That's 15,000 Billion produced in goods and services every year.

And we're getting hung up over a few BIllion to build a Heavy Lift capability? What a farce. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We conquered LEO and are now passing it off quite appropriately to commercial as best we can. An action I think will have profoundly positive implications in both the near and the long term.

BLEO, in my view, is different. At least for now. I believe we will need SLS and the full weight and resources of the US Gov't to enable a meaningful Human presence BLEO. If not for today, then for tomorrow.  And not for the remembrance of glories past but for an amazing future to come. A future realized by our drive to imagine and our need to explore.

Besides, I can't take another damn commission. So let's just get on with it.

Thank you!