Predicting the SLS

[Lars_J]

I hope someone on HEFT bothers to go study the costs ATK are claiming for 4-seg right now with the 4-seg costs we've had for the last 30 years on Shuttle.

"Amazingly" ATK want as much for 'new' 4-segs as they do for 5-segs -- which is why HEFT see's no difference.   But this operational figure is quite different from Shuttle's heritage costs and nobody has noticed yet.

Ross.

At the congressional level is there any kind of team in place or scheduled to be put in place to keep an eye on Marshall and NASA proper?

Sounds like ATK is the entity that needs to be watched - But it is of course embedded at every level of government.

51D eluded that there were mechanisms in the authorization that would stop these kind of shenanigans again but didn't elaborate specifically?

People still seem to be under the mistaken impression that congress cares how efficiently NASA does things. But they don't. As long as not too much money is spent, and jobs are created and money pours in, the level of progress made is just not important enough.

Heck, congress would have happily allowed CxP to continue if Obama had not rocked the boat.

[Robotbeat]

If Shelby's utterances are anything to go by how Congress is thinking he wants Ares V too rather than any Direct vehicle.

Shelby wants to ensure he gets as much work (read money) as possible for MSFC/Alabama.   Like it or not, that is his job description, and nobody doubts that he fights hard for his district in this area.

I really actually don't blame him for that. Right now, everyone needs work/money, and the only one positioned to provide that demand is the federal government.

All I wish he would understand, though, is that not everything MSFC works on, has to be a frakkin' launcher.

AGREED!!!! We need spacecraft, as I've been saying for a while (February).

If we can halve the cost of the launcher development, we can then add a new spacecraft development to the mix -- and Shelby has sufficient political clout to ensure that both projects still get run out of MSFC.

The same money would still go to MSFC, which would satisfy Shelby, but the rest of us would get double the bangs for the bucks and the program would get much greater capabilities than just getting a single large launcher with nothing to fly on top of it!

Ross.

Agree.

[Dappa]

I hope someone on HEFT bothers to go study the costs ATK are claiming for 4-seg right now with the 4-seg costs we've had for the last 30 years on Shuttle.

"Amazingly" ATK want as much for 'new' 4-segs as they do for 5-segs -- which is why HEFT see's no difference.   But this operational figure is quite different from Shuttle's heritage costs and nobody has noticed yet.

Ross.

That goes for me too, I haven't noticed how the new operational figure (either 4-segs or 5-segs) differs from heritage Shuttle.

Would you care to elaborate on the differences?

[simonbp]

Couple of things you missed (besides the SRB cost thing Ross pointed out).

First, the infrastructure can't currently handle 5/5; it would need upgrades.

Second, if you don't need something, and you're as budget-limited as NASA is now, it doesn't matter how cost-effective it would be; it's not worth it.

I'm dubious of the SRB cost differences; the SLS launch rate is going to be so much lower than STS (under any scenario) that the unit prices has to go up.

The existing infrastructure can't handle 4/3 either. But the amount of differences between present and 4/3 is vastly larger than between 4/3 and 5/5. It basically amounts to the SRB facilities, which still cost a bunch for 4-seg, because you have to pay to keep them running during the gap.

Again, according to HEFT (which is all the policy makers have to compare), 5/5 is lower overall cost than 4/3 because of the lower flight rate. Presumably further analysis is under way for the Congressional Report; we'll see what that turns up.

And 5/5 does not not automatically mean J-2X on the upper stage; that's an entirely separate decision.

[simonbp]

All I wish he would understand, though, is that not everything MSFC works on, has to be a frakkin' launcher.

I think he does, considering all the ISS work he has shuttled Marshal's way over the past few decades. I remember visiting MSFC in ~1997 and seeing no less than four ISS modules being constructed in the high bay...

[KSC Sage]

Third that.  SLS, and specifically a SDHLV/DIRECT will never see the light of launch. 

It's unsustainable. Finishing Orion and seeding the rest to commercial and EELV upgrades would be a better use of money.

There is a lot of truth in that.  Bolden in a meeting yesterday at KSC said "everything is still on the table".  No SLS architecture has been chosen yet.  It'll depend on the NASA budget.  Both SDLV and RP-1 based vehicles are being looked at.  An EELV (Atlas Phase 2) is substantially cheaper than the SDLV HLLV.  He stated that a SLS architecture would be chosen and work will begin soon - "within months".

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.

What exactly are you all predicting?  That NASA will propose to Congress an EELV based architecture?  Or that Congress will appropriate funds for one?

And please be clear:  by "Atlas Phase 2" do you mean a vehicle that uses no motors from ATK and no engines from UT/PWR?  You feel NPO Energomash and Aerojet have an equally good shot at getting vehicles that use their products funded by Congress?  Are you thus predicting Congress will make its decisions solely based on the technical merits of the case?

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

[KSC Sage]

I hope someone on HEFT bothers to go study the costs ATK are claiming for 4-seg right now with the 4-seg costs we've had for the last 30 years on Shuttle.

"Amazingly" ATK want as much for 'new' 4-segs as they do for 5-segs -- which is why HEFT see's no difference.   But this operational figure is quite different from Shuttle's heritage costs and nobody has noticed yet.

Ross.

Yes, KSC is well aware of this - actually since Ares V operations planning began years ago.  HEFT only see's no difference in vehicle development costs not in operations costs between 4 and 5 segment SRBs.

[Mark S]

The HEFT2 document showed no real long-term cost difference in either development or operations between the two and recommended 5/5 (5/5 will require less missions which will counter higher unit costs and won't require the 4-seg facilities being kept warm whilst being developed). I don't know why you are all ignoring the current latest official NASA documentation as if it has no bearing on what will happen and 5/5 can launch without an upper stage too. Ares V was never the problem, it was the redundant duplicative capability Ares I that annoyed everyone except the Griffin purists. If Shelby's utterances are anything to go by how Congress is thinking he wants Ares V too rather than any Direct vehicle.

Sorry, I don't accept the HEFT2 document as gospel, or anything but a wish list. They minimized the differences because they want the larger rocket, and all the other goodies that popped out of the woodwork. It's yet another overly grandiose pie-in-the-sky NASA long-range study. These guys never learn.

To address your points:

1) 5/5 requires fewer missions (launches) than 4/3. Fewer launches drives costs up, not down.

2) 4-seg facilities won't need to be kept warm any more than the non-existent 5-seg facilities. Tell ATK that NASA will start taking deliveries of new 4-seg motors in 2014 and let them deal with the interim. Just as they would if we went forward with 5-seg motors.

3) Do you have a reference on launching 5/5 with no upper stage? I don't think they stretched the tanks anywhere near enough to feed five SSMEs all the way to orbit.

4) Ares-v certainly was part of the problem. Besides doubling all of the processing facilities it would also require new CTs, MLPs, crawlerways, and facilities. Scaling back to Ares-V Classic might help, which is basically what HEFT 5/5 is.

5) Shelby will definitely fight for maximizing money to his district. More so now that Rs have the House and Ds lost seats in the Senate. Will he have enough clout to plus-up the NASA budget once the fiscal knives have been drawn by his compadres? I doubt it.

Mark S.

[renclod]

...
3) Do you have a reference on launching 5/5 with no upper stage? I don't think they stretched the tanks anywhere near enough to feed five SSMEs all the way to orbit.
...

Well... take a page from "Direct" and fly LEGO 5/(3,5) with no upper stage.

As far as predictions go, NASA going back to 4-segment SRM is unseemly in the extreme - IMO. 5 or bust.

The small difference in fixed cost (infrastructure) between 4- and 5-seg - as revealed by HEFT 1 (btw HEFT 2 is what is going on now...)  - is easy to accept at such low HLV launch rate as envisioned. I'm sure that train from Utah to Florida can take two more cars without breaking a sweat; also too () I don't think they pour solid propellant flakes 24/7 in those steel casings.

I have some more "predictions", for later.

[93143]

First, the infrastructure can't currently handle 5/5; it would need upgrades.

I'm dubious of the SRB cost differences; the SLS launch rate is going to be so much lower than STS (under any scenario) that the unit prices has to go up.

Any scenario?  That's a bit too pessimistic for my taste...

The existing infrastructure can't handle 4/3 either. But the amount of differences between present and 4/3 is vastly larger than between 4/3 and 5/5. It basically amounts to the SRB facilities...

I'm basing my assertion on this:

5-seg still needs another $2bn to be spent on it to get operational, and the projections I've seen from ATK confirm that the operational cost is going to be about 28% higher than 4-seg has been on Shuttle.   (And yes, they have also plussed-up the 4-seg costs in order to make the 5-segs look better value, but its just another shell game that they're banking the folks in DC are too stupid to notice).   And lets not even start talking about the problems with 5-segs and the Crawler Transporters -- that's a whole other layer of problems.

...

A Stretched Tank would cost about a billion more to modify MAF to handle it.   You can get away with only about 5-7% increased capacity before the infrastructure limits kick in, and the ~30% increase of the "Stretched" configuration also affect KSC too.

Besides which, you completely ignored my second point:

If you don't need something, and you're as budget-limited as NASA is now, it doesn't matter how cost-effective it would be; it's not worth it.

1) 5/5 requires fewer missions (launches) than 4/3. Fewer launches drives costs up, not down.

My apologies, but that's silly.  Fewer launches drives cost per launch up, but that's only because some of the costs don't decrease with the launch rate (fixed costs).  The increase in launch cost will never be high enough to make it cost more in total to launch less.  That would be a really weird operational paradigm...

If you're comparing two different rockets, you have to take a bunch of factors into account, but if it's the same rocket system, launching it less costs less.  It's as simple as that.

5/5 and 4/3 are of course two different rockets; the former is more expensive overall, and for a certain mission (the one defined in the HEFT study), its launch rate is reduced sufficiently to make it competitive with 4/3 in terms of total program cost, under the assumptions used in the study.  It is, however, not obvious a priori which one would have lower cost per kilogram of actual payload over its lifetime, whatever the mission turns out to be.  I suspect it will be more difficult to use 5/5 to capacity as opposed to 4/3, so either certain launches will be less full, or spacecraft will be larger and heavier than they need to be...

[renclod]

My predictions are:

1/ NASA will test fly the 5-segment motor in a single stick config, using the ML from Ares I.

2/ NASA will take the J-2X project to a conclusion - meaning a full development test sequence.

3/ NASA will not subscribe to a launch architecture where Orion/MPCV is bolted on top of a super-heavy launcher. It would be a waste of resources and the death for Orion. This architecture may be forced onto NASA but not successfully, in the end.

[notsorandom]

How many missions do people think SLS will fly a year? Looking at the historic Shuttle flight rates my bet would be that four seems to be pretty doable both schedule wise and budget wise.

[Jim]

My predictions are:

1/ NASA will test fly the 5-segment motor in a single stick config, using the ML from Ares I.

That is wrong already.  There will be no such test flights.

[Lars_J]

How many missions do people think SLS will fly a year? Looking at the historic Shuttle flight rates my bet would be that four seems to be pretty doable both schedule wise and budget wise.

Of course it is doable - and more could be flown. BUT... The big but is what payloads would be flown? There needs to be room in the budget for payloads as well. And BEO payloads do not come cheap.

[sdsds]

How many missions do people think SLS will fly a year?

1.5 times per year if using 5-seg boosters, requiring 15 segments per year.  2.0 times per year if using 4-seg boosters, requiring 16 segments per year.

Looking at the historic Shuttle flight rates my bet would be that four seems to be pretty doable both schedule wise and budget wise.

Budget-wise SLS might not be doable even approaching 0.0 flights per year.  And 0.5 to 1.0 flights per year could end up being more expensive (in total yearly cost) than 1.5 flights per year, due to added costs rehiring and retraining people, and recertifying ground support equipment left idle and uninspected for a year or two.

[marsavian]

The HEFT2 document showed no real long-term cost difference in either development or operations between the two and recommended 5/5 (5/5 will require less missions which will counter higher unit costs and won't require the 4-seg facilities being kept warm whilst being developed). I don't know why you are all ignoring the current latest official NASA documentation as if it has no bearing on what will happen and 5/5 can launch without an upper stage too. Ares V was never the problem, it was the redundant duplicative capability Ares I that annoyed everyone except the Griffin purists. If Shelby's utterances are anything to go by how Congress is thinking he wants Ares V too rather than any Direct vehicle.

Sorry, I don't accept the HEFT2 document as gospel, or anything but a wish list. They minimized the differences because they want the larger rocket, and all the other goodies that popped out of the woodwork. It's yet another overly grandiose pie-in-the-sky NASA long-range study. These guys never learn.

To address your points:

1) 5/5 requires fewer missions (launches) than 4/3. Fewer launches drives costs up, not down.

2) 4-seg facilities won't need to be kept warm any more than the non-existent 5-seg facilities. Tell ATK that NASA will start taking deliveries of new 4-seg motors in 2014 and let them deal with the interim. Just as they would if we went forward with 5-seg motors.

3) Do you have a reference on launching 5/5 with no upper stage? I don't think they stretched the tanks anywhere near enough to feed five SSMEs all the way to orbit.

4) Ares-v certainly was part of the problem. Besides doubling all of the processing facilities it would also require new CTs, MLPs, crawlerways, and facilities. Scaling back to Ares-V Classic might help, which is basically what HEFT 5/5 is.

5) Shelby will definitely fight for maximizing money to his district. More so now that Rs have the House and Ds lost seats in the Senate. Will he have enough clout to plus-up the NASA budget once the fiscal knives have been drawn by his compadres? I doubt it.

Mark S.

1) Only unit and not total costs.

2) Increases risk that capability and skills are lost that can't easily be rehired. This wouldn't be the case if they are kept busy developing the 5-seg.

3) Don't forget SSMEs can be throttled back down to 67% power ...

p32 of HEFT2

Initial Capability ~100 t
5 Segment PBAN SRBs
27.5’ dia Core Stage using 5 RS‐25D
No Upper Stage

[Proponent]

On the polar orbits: - There were some ideas for "dog leg" launches out of the Cape back in the 60s. Are these thought to be too dangerous these days?

Discussed here.

[Ben the Space Brit]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

[Ronsmytheiii]

I predict that no matter what, the SLS will have to come up with a better system to replace the current GUCP setup.

[KSC Sage]

No ATK SRBs.  Atlas "Phase 2 type" HLV  Block I with RD-180s.  IOC in FY2016.  Block II with US built RP-1 engine.  27.5' upper stage with six RL-10s.  Upgrade to J-2X.

I have heard this vehicle in "on the table" and it is cheaper than J-130.  NASA may not be able to afford a SDLV (even the J-130) and Congress will either fork over more money to force the SDLV (won't happen) or go with what NASA can afford and recommends.

Just to clarify: What you're talking about is a clustered 5.4m Atlas-V Phase 2-style core (three or maybe five elements) with an 8.4m upper stage?

Yes - That's my prediction