Will, you're totally off with your estimates.A fully operational Shuttle Program (not the one we have today which is half-way into Shutdown mode, I'm talking prior to STS-107) cost approximately $5 billion each year. ISS another $2 billion/yr. That was $7 billion *routinely* for the human spaceflight program.The LSAM alone is going to be at least a $3 billion program annually.And $4 billion wouldn't even cover the fixed costs of the Ares-I and Ares-V together, let alone the flight costs for any launches or spacecraft.Trust me when I say that $8 billion is the lowest you're going to get a useful Lunar Exploration Architecture operating for, and that's about $4 billion below the current CxP estimates.Ross.
Quote from: Khadgars on 01/18/2009 10:34 pmQuote from: clongton on 01/18/2009 03:58 pmQuote from: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:27 pmAlso, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares? Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.You are missing the point.1. With Ares, there will never be a propellant depot. Ares costs too much to allow the funding to deploy one.
Quote from: clongton on 01/18/2009 03:58 pmQuote from: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:27 pmAlso, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares? Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.
Quote from: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:27 pmAlso, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.
Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.
60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively.
Ben,The Lunar Outpost is critical. A 4-person team on a short-duration "sortie" mission can produce somewhere about 336 man-hours of real work during their mission.But the same 4-person team able to stay for a 6-month expedition could perform 8,640 man-hours of equivalent work during their stay.Ross.
They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's. ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.
Mars;The information I have indicates that the ESAS team steered the "study" toward the "option" that was favored by Griffin. How that process actually worked internally I have no idea, nor does it really matter at this point. I have no interest in demonizing anyone; I only state what I know and where that leads my thought process and let others respond as they will, such as yourself. I understand what you're saying, but that still leaves me with the statement I paraphrased above which leads me to a different conclusion. If you have something to add to that that can shed more light on it I am not opposed to hearing it. In fact I am certainly interested in hearing it.
I sometimes wonder if the inclusion of weighted technical merit in these studies may not be a mistake.
Quote from: Will on 01/19/2009 02:24 pmThey aren't my estimates, they are NASA's. ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.I think I know part of what you're missing. You aren't including the Program Integration and Operations costs in your figures.The NASA Budget Request for 2009 lumped all those various costs together in one rather ambiguous lump -- my assumption is that they did so hoping it would not catch people's attention and it would help make everything look lower cost. Well, that tactic seems to have worked to a degree.But those PI&O costs are actually a conglomeration of another layer of costs which are actually still part of the costs for all the other individual elements -- and they account for a fairly large percentage actually. It took me ages to get the underlying data though, but that clarifies it very well.It is really amazing what they got away with in the FY2009 Request documents. Its all there if you know what to look for, but who's going to go through that document with a fine toothed comb except a geek like me Ross.
Quote from: Eerie on 01/19/2009 07:49 amQuote from: BogoMIPSJ-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.Now this is interesting.How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?
Quote from: BogoMIPSJ-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.Now this is interesting.How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.
Quote from: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 08:26 amQuote from: Eerie on 01/19/2009 07:49 amQuote from: BogoMIPSJ-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.Now this is interesting.How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?Well identified. Good kitty The thing I'm still trying to work out is which specific cost profile NASA is considering?Are they planning to simply build current-spec SSME's (RS-25d) at ~$60m each, or are they planning a re-development first (~$500m) to turn them into 'expendable' SSME's (RS-25e) costing more like ~$30m each?If it's the second, then they'll need 4-6 years to do the development & testing and they won't hit the 'break even' point until the 17th production engine (which would be on the 6th Jupiter-130 flight). That sounds worthwhile to me. I just don't know what NASA is thinking on this issue yet.A third option might be to re-start production of the RS-25d and while those are being made, fund the development of the RS-25e, then phase those in whenever they are ready. But funding both in parallel is quite an expensive option.Its these sorts of things which have to be answered and then fed into the calculations to find out what's good value and what's not.One thing is for certain though: Individual SSME's are each more expensive than RS-68's. And a greater number of SSME's are required to produce the same sort of performance as RS-68's in the larger Ares-V/Jupiter-232 configurations which are flying Upper Stages. RS-68's are considerably better value there.This is why DIRECT continues to favor the RS-68. But if there were a technical show-stopper -- like for example if the ablative nozzle could never be utilized with the SRB's -- then we would have to put the SSME's back in the mix again -- along with the development cost for adding a Regen to the RS-68. But there hasn't been a single bit of data to indicate such a problem exists, even with the unpleasant Base Heating effects on Ares-V.Ross.
Quote from: Lobo on 01/17/2009 12:42 amHey,Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.It can boost about 45ton into LEO right? Roughly twice the weight of Orion? Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?Yes, already discussed many times, search "SSPDM".
Hey,Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.It can boost about 45ton into LEO right? Roughly twice the weight of Orion? Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?
Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?
In the area of safety...do SSME's increase the LOM/LOC numbers? Then again, if we have to go with an expendable version of the SSME, the commonality with the Shuttle goes out the window anyway.
Quote from: Will on 01/19/2009 03:17 pmFair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?Off the top of my head, its somewhere under Exploration Systems > Constellation Systems.Gads, that can't be good. I've memorized it. Ross.
The mere presence of an extra engine would constitute a far larger impact to LOM/LOC than the individual engine failure rates do in this particular example.So, to answer the original question, PWR indicates that the SSME would slightly reduce the LOM/LOC, not improve it compared to the RS-68. And the presence of additional engines would reduce it even more significantly.Ross.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2009 02:12 pmQuote from: Lobo on 01/17/2009 12:42 amHey,Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.It can boost about 45ton into LEO right? Roughly twice the weight of Orion? Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload). These include:* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.Ben, I need to correct a few bits there.We propose building a 'cradle' which we refer to as an SSPDM (Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module) which would be designed to carry one of the standard Shuttle/ISS MPLM's to orbit one last time. The SSPDM may or may not have an integral RCS system -- specifically depending on Orion's capabilities. The SSPDM would be a disposable unit for carrying any remaining Shuttle Payloads one last time. Once the payload (MPLM in this case) is finished with, it would be taken away by the accompanying Orion and placed into a safe orbit where it would burn up in the atmosphere. The Orion would safely return home alone.The SSPDM is also planned to be the basis for launching a future Orion-based Hubble Servicing Mission somewhere in the 2014 time-frame too. After that mission the SSPDM would either be disposed of safely, or would be fitted with its own guidance and control systems and would be placed into an orbit compatible with Hubble, but a few hundred miles distant. There it would remain, along with all the tools needed to perform any future servicing missions, ready for an Orion crew to dock with and bring back to the telescope once again.We always liked the idea of the un-crewed Orion being an option for cargo-only deliveries and cargo down-mass capabilities. Theoretically at least, a cargo-only variant of Orion could still be produced -- although neither CxP nor DIRECT have a budget allocation for it in the plans at this time. It remains an option though.And currently our suggestion is to utilize the slightly larger Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage for the Lunar Flyby mission in December 2013 (45th anniversary of Apollo . The reason being that the DIVHUS has a greater propellant load than the Centaur-V1 and therefore a higher total impulse for that mission. A side-effect of this choice to use the Delta hardware is that together with the human-rated RS-68's, the Jupiter would cover more than half the total costs of human-rating the Delta-IV Heavy for human use -- making it a very cost-effective option to consider.Hope that helps clarify the situation a little.Ross.
Quote from: Lobo on 01/17/2009 12:42 amHey,Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.It can boost about 45ton into LEO right? Roughly twice the weight of Orion? Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload). These include:* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.
On this chart, would it be under "Constellation Operations" I don't see either Exploration Systems or Constellation Systems listed.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg352417#msg352417