Quote from: clongton on 07/13/2011 10:29 pmNASA tried that under Administrator O'Keefe. It was called the Spiral Approach. He got fired and replaced by Mike Griffin who promised the Congress to keep the Shuttle infrastructure in place and create a Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift. ... And who then promptly got completely way-laid by "The Stick" and all its subsequent problems, not least of which was effectively DOUBLING the total LV development budget.If Griffin had refrained from tampering with ESAS two weeks before it was released, Doug Stanley has publicly stated that ESAS was on-track to propose a Shuttle-derived LV-24/25 solution that would have been substantially lower in development and operational costs than Ares-I/V turned out to be.I get quite depressed when I think that if not for Griffin's interference (prompted by Scott Horowitz) we would have taken that path and we would already be operationally flying a 70 ton HLV by now -- and the workforce and the politics would NOT be such a complete cluster-f***.Ross.
NASA tried that under Administrator O'Keefe. It was called the Spiral Approach. He got fired and replaced by Mike Griffin who promised the Congress to keep the Shuttle infrastructure in place and create a Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/13/2011 09:32 pmJust as Ed is convinced that a Mars mission could be done on EELV's ....Ross.I am not convinced that existing launchers could handle a human Mars mission. The sheer number of launches, and the additional ground infrastructure needed for production, test, and launch, would cost far more than a super-heavy alternative approach.
Just as Ed is convinced that a Mars mission could be done on EELV's ....Ross.
Quote from: OV-106 on 07/13/2011 09:06 pmQuote from: libs0n on 07/13/2011 08:35 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/13/2011 07:30 pmHence, no EELV HLV.If NASA determines it needs HLV capacity it can compete development funds to create that capability from which it would buy, as a service. NASA's determined needs is the market.Ummm, no. It cannot buy it as a "service" because that "service" is not offered to anyone else, because that is not where the "market" for the "service" exists. It may be an FFP contract for x-number of launches per year once operational but make no mistake about it that FFP contract will be established with profit in mind and reasonable padding for any design changes, etc because it will be the government that owns it because of the lack of a market and therefore the will for any company to invest private funds to build such a rocket to supply said market. There can be a market of one supplier and one consumer. It will be as opaque as they come, but technically, it is a market. The issue of it is is a service or not, is more of how you frame the contract.A FFP for a certain amount of semiannual supplies with a certain minimum volume on the surface of Mars with a CEP of 1km, that would be a service. Supplying a big rocket to NASA for they sending their cargo can controlling it, it won't. Will it be risky, of course. Would it be riskier than if done by NASA, probably. Would that extra risk be offset by the lower cost? I don't know.I can't stress the fact that the secret of Commercial services is NOT to give the chance to NASA of making ANY changes to the contract. If they do, it's worse than cost plus.
Quote from: libs0n on 07/13/2011 08:35 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/13/2011 07:30 pmHence, no EELV HLV.If NASA determines it needs HLV capacity it can compete development funds to create that capability from which it would buy, as a service. NASA's determined needs is the market.Ummm, no. It cannot buy it as a "service" because that "service" is not offered to anyone else, because that is not where the "market" for the "service" exists. It may be an FFP contract for x-number of launches per year once operational but make no mistake about it that FFP contract will be established with profit in mind and reasonable padding for any design changes, etc because it will be the government that owns it because of the lack of a market and therefore the will for any company to invest private funds to build such a rocket to supply said market.
Quote from: clongton on 07/13/2011 07:30 pmHence, no EELV HLV.If NASA determines it needs HLV capacity it can compete development funds to create that capability from which it would buy, as a service. NASA's determined needs is the market.
Hence, no EELV HLV.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/13/2011 09:32 pmJust as Ed is convinced that a Mars mission could be done on EELV's ....Ross.I am not convinced that existing launchers could handle a human Mars mission. The sheer number of launches, and the additional ground infrastructure needed for production, test, and launch, would cost far more than a super-heavy alternative approach. Existing launchers could handle LEO/station, lunar, and maybe an asteroid sortie. I believe they could do these missions for less money than a super heavy as long as the mission rates were kept low enough. Since NASA is planning for really, really low mission rates with SLS, that shouldn't be an issue. - Ed Kyle
We'll disagree about the "subsequent problems" of Ares I (Augustine and others said it was a well managed program with no show-stopper technical issues, etc.), but here is something to mull over. Ares I was funded and underway. Its first stage motor had begun testing. It's basic control-ability had been proven in flight test. Its launch platform was structurally completed - and stands by the VAB today waiting for a rocket that's been canceled. Its launch pad has new lightning towers and is still being flat-pad prepped today. Its second stage motor is in a test stand right this minute. Ares I would have flown Orion years before SLS - in an entirely different decade. Yes, it would have cost a lot of money - but SLS will make everyone pine for the days of Ares I costs as billions are spent for a rocket that won't really perform a mission for 15 years or more.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/13/2011 10:57 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/13/2011 10:29 pmNASA tried that under Administrator O'Keefe. It was called the Spiral Approach. He got fired and replaced by Mike Griffin who promised the Congress to keep the Shuttle infrastructure in place and create a Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift. ... And who then promptly got completely way-laid by "The Stick" and all its subsequent problems, not least of which was effectively DOUBLING the total LV development budget.If Griffin had refrained from tampering with ESAS two weeks before it was released, Doug Stanley has publicly stated that ESAS was on-track to propose a Shuttle-derived LV-24/25 solution that would have been substantially lower in development and operational costs than Ares-I/V turned out to be.I get quite depressed when I think that if not for Griffin's interference (prompted by Scott Horowitz) we would have taken that path and we would already be operationally flying a 70 ton HLV by now -- and the workforce and the politics would NOT be such a complete cluster-f***.Ross.We'll disagree about the "subsequent problems" of Ares I (Augustine and others said it was a well managed program with no show-stopper technical issues, etc.), but here is something to mull over. Ares I was funded and underway. Its first stage motor had begun testing. It's basic control-ability had been proven in flight test. Its launch platform was structurally completed - and stands by the VAB today waiting for a rocket that's been canceled. Its launch pad has new lightning towers and is still being flat-pad prepped today. Its second stage motor is in a test stand right this minute. Ares I would have flown Orion years before SLS - in an entirely different decade. Yes, it would have cost a lot of money - but SLS will make everyone pine for the days of Ares I costs as billions are spent for a rocket that won't really perform a mission for 15 years or more. - Ed Kyle
I happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/13/2011 09:32 pmI happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.Ross.You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.
Quote from: beb on 07/14/2011 02:07 amQuote from: kraisee on 07/13/2011 09:32 pmI happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.Ross.You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.Sorry, no.I've never found it to be a bad thing to continue to speak the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable by it.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/14/2011 02:15 amQuote from: beb on 07/14/2011 02:07 amQuote from: kraisee on 07/13/2011 09:32 pmI happen to know of specific HLV payload plans outside of NASA, that are simply waiting to proceed when an HLV comes.Ross.You've said this before. Since you, obviously, can't talk about it perhaps the best thing to do is for to stop hinting about things you can't talk about.Sorry, no.I've never found it to be a bad thing to continue to speak the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable by it.Ross.Who's uncomfortable? We'd love to hear more about this non-NASA HLV payload that you're tantalizingly dangling in front of us.Would you be able to say any more in a PM?
Quote from: libs0n on 07/13/2011 06:12 pmEELV capability is expandable through investment the same as the capability to launch SLS does not exist and requires investment to create. And you only make that investment should and when you actually require it. And EELV competitors can bring their own capability to the table.Re: Investment. The difference between a government owned launch system and one owned by a commercial concern is that one has to make a profit and the other one doesn't. The government doesn't have to make a profit. It only has to spend everything the treasury gives it. But for the commercial companies there would first need to be a solid business case that showed there is a ROI to be had for the billions of dollars of investment money it would take to bring the EELV HLV online. So far that business case has not been made. Therefore no member of the board in his right mind is going to invest the stockholders money on any project, including an EELV HLV, that all analysis shows will loose money. Hence, no EELV HLV.
EELV capability is expandable through investment the same as the capability to launch SLS does not exist and requires investment to create. And you only make that investment should and when you actually require it. And EELV competitors can bring their own capability to the table.
Ed, I just re-read the Augustine report. Augustine had pegged the first operational flight as no sooner than 2020 at the current development rate and budget, and that was only if the ISS was splashed in 2015.so, unless you are claiming SLS will not be ready until 2030, the Augustine report directly contradicts you. While, yes, it did say that it worked on a technical merit basis, the timeline had it that Constellation would not be ready to begin full operation until 2025 or later.They did state that if the NASA budget was increased by $14 billion over 5 years, then Ares I could reach launch status by 2017.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/13/2011 09:38 pmThe whole point, is that the missions usually cost by the kilogram. If you make a 300tn to LEO rocket, and Warren Buffet decides to donate five launches, even then, NASA couldn't afford to develop the payloads. The concept of going to EELV's is having small pieces that you can start, develop, test and launch withing an administration.That simply isn't the case though.The debate here, has been about whether to fly *specific missions* using a large number of smaller boosters or just a few larger ones.Firstly, more than half the IMLEO for any BEO mission will be propellant, and propellant costs only pennies per kilogram, so the $ per kg to LEO becomes the only important metric here (well, plus Depot overheads if that's on the critical path). Even so, this still represents a fairly small portion of the mission costs though.Spacecraft that must be assembled in lego-brick fashion, from lots of small modules, will be *BY FAR* the more expensive one, compared to the single-module spacecraft that can be fully integrated and tested on the ground prior to flight.ISS's massive costs show us more clearly than anything else, the folly of trying to do large integration missions a bit-at-a-time over dozens of flights. A SkyLab approach would have saved ISS Program an enormous amount of spacecraft cost and we would have had the full station operational many years sooner, too.The spacecraft, not the launchers, are the most expensive parts of any mission. Anything you can do to lower the costs of the spacecraft are worthwhile. Adding extra mass, extra hatches, extra docking adapters, extra equipment interfaces and extra structure is going to drive up the spacecraft costs by a massive amount, far more than *ANY* savings we might get from choosing different launchers.Ross.
The whole point, is that the missions usually cost by the kilogram. If you make a 300tn to LEO rocket, and Warren Buffet decides to donate five launches, even then, NASA couldn't afford to develop the payloads. The concept of going to EELV's is having small pieces that you can start, develop, test and launch withing an administration.
Not to mention the extra extensive labor cost of spending longer to launch and integrate the same tonnage. The much vaunted 'cheap' MLV way of doing serious BEO exploration is a myth. The Skylab/ISS comparison is perfect to illustrate this.
Spacecraft that must be assembled in lego-brick fashion, from lots of small modules, will be *BY FAR* the more expensive one, compared to the single-module spacecraft that can be fully integrated and tested on the ground prior to flight.ISS's massive costs show us more clearly than anything else, the folly of trying to do large integration missions a bit-at-a-time over dozens of flights. A SkyLab approach would have saved ISS Program an enormous amount of spacecraft cost and we would have had the full station operational many years sooner, too.The spacecraft, not the launchers, are the most expensive parts of any mission. Anything you can do to lower the costs of the spacecraft are worthwhile. Adding extra mass, extra hatches, extra docking adapters, extra equipment interfaces and extra structure is going to drive up the spacecraft costs by a massive amount, far more than *ANY* savings we might get from choosing different launchers.Ross.
Quote from: clongton on 07/13/2011 07:30 pmQuote from: libs0n on 07/13/2011 06:12 pmEELV capability is expandable through investment the same as the capability to launch SLS does not exist and requires investment to create. And you only make that investment should and when you actually require it. And EELV competitors can bring their own capability to the table.Re: Investment. The difference between a government owned launch system and one owned by a commercial concern is that one has to make a profit and the other one doesn't. The government doesn't have to make a profit. It only has to spend everything the treasury gives it. But for the commercial companies there would first need to be a solid business case that showed there is a ROI to be had for the billions of dollars of investment money it would take to bring the EELV HLV online. So far that business case has not been made. Therefore no member of the board in his right mind is going to invest the stockholders money on any project, including an EELV HLV, that all analysis shows will loose money. Hence, no EELV HLV.Hmm, someone should probably tell SpaceX to stop spending money on the Falcon Heavy.