Author Topic: What could be done with a 50mt to LEO LV in HSF exploration in the next 10 yrs?  (Read 23784 times)

Offline Warren Platts

Given the state of analysis on the SLS and budgetary constraints, if NASA were to opt for one of the sensible options left - Phase 1 upgrade of Delta IV or Atlas V to 40-50mt to LEO variants, what could NASA potentially do with that vehicle?

Circumlunar flights? Lunar orbital flights? Lagrange point flights? An actual NEO mission?

10 years would be enough time to prove up propellant depots, get a lander going and launch a series of human precursor missions to scout out a likely location for a Lunar base at one of the poles.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Given the state of analysis on the SLS and budgetary constraints, if NASA were to opt for one of the sensible options left - Phase 1 upgrade of Delta IV or Atlas V to 40-50mt to LEO variants, what could NASA potentially do with that vehicle?

The baseline single-launch mission would be an MPLM with an SM-derived propulsion module to LLO.  With a double-launch, you could use a 'Plymouth Rock'-style Duo-MPCV configuration for extended duration and more mission equipment.  A baseline configuration would also enable the deployment, operation and support of an EML-1 space-lab (Bigelow Alpha-derived) with more-or-less existing and under-development crew and cargo transfer technology.

If you allow EOR assembly then the question becomes more like "How long do you want to spend assembling a mission stack?".  Three launches gives you a EOR-LOR-LOR-Direct descent lunar surface excursion architecture (assuming the funding of a lander).  A DRM-5-style Mars architecture is approximately 15 launches per Earth departure stack, maybe less than 50 in all per mission.  As Baddux points out, the less-complex Mars Direct/DRM-3 would probably be fewer than 10 launches per mission in total.


[edit]
Fixed typo
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 12:22 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
You could easily do an Apollo class lunar mission using two 50Mt LVs and EOR-EML1 rendezvous.
For a lander the best bet I say would be the DTAL Centaur derived lander.

With three or four you can do a Constellation class mission or do a long duration NEO mission with a BA330 hab and the SEV.

« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 07:33 am by Patchouli »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
... there is no reason for NASA to build an SLS. Existing heavy lift rockets (Delta IV Heavy and soon Atlas V Heavy and Falcon Heavy) should have sufficient capability for any kind of mission imaginable, if we dock stages in LEO.

That's pretty much one of the conclusions of the Augustine Commission.
Actually the Augustine Commission stated that existing rockets weren't good enough. They did however indicate that an intermediate sized rocket such as Atlas Phase 2 (and probably Falcon Heavy as well) would be sufficient.

From section 5.2.1 of the Augustine Report:

"If there were the capability to fuel propulsion stages in space, the single-largest mass launched would be considerably less than in the absence of in-space refueling.  The mass that must be launched to low-Earth orbit in the current NASA plan, without its fuel on board, is in the range of 25 to 40 mt, setting a notional lower limit on the size of the super heavy-lift launch vehicle if refueling is available."
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline boaorm

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
Folks, one suggestion for this type of thread:

To ensure focus on discussing the theme as posted, may I suggest that use of the word "pork" is replaced by "politically viable" or similar wording? Clearly there are threads where the use of the word pork would be appropriate, so I do not suggest that Chris put the word on his profanity list...
 
(btw, spotted an "Incorrect" in one of Chris' posts the other day - funny)

-Petter

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
... there is no reason for NASA to build an SLS. Existing heavy lift rockets (Delta IV Heavy and soon Atlas V Heavy and Falcon Heavy) should have sufficient capability for any kind of mission imaginable, if we dock stages in LEO.

That's pretty much one of the conclusions of the Augustine Commission.
Actually the Augustine Commission stated that existing rockets weren't good enough. They did however indicate that an intermediate sized rocket such as Atlas Phase 2 (and probably Falcon Heavy as well) would be sufficient.

From section 5.2.1 of the Augustine Report:

"If there were the capability to fuel propulsion stages in space, the single-largest mass launched would be considerably less than in the absence of in-space refueling.  The mass that must be launched to low-Earth orbit in the current NASA plan, without its fuel on board, is in the range of 25 to 40 mt, setting a notional lower limit on the size of the super heavy-lift launch vehicle if refueling is available."
Interesting, so in the current plan (put together with Ares V as the primary launch vehicle) and with the capability for on-orbit refueling, current launch vehicles would be adequate, or evolutionary upgrades aty worse (like strap-ons on a DIVH). Says nothing about if the payloads could be smaller with another plan.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Folks, one suggestion for this type of thread:

To ensure focus on discussing the theme as posted, may I suggest that use of the word "pork" is replaced by "politically viable" or similar wording? Clearly there are threads where the use of the word pork would be appropriate, so I do not suggest that Chris put the word on his profanity list...
 
(btw, spotted an "Incorrect" in one of Chris' posts the other day - funny)

-Petter
Political correctness comes to NASASpaceflight.com ... Wonderful!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
Yeah, let's censor that word ;D

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Folks, one suggestion for this type of thread:

To ensure focus on discussing the theme as posted, may I suggest that use of the word "pork" is replaced by "politically viable" or similar wording? Clearly there are threads where the use of the word pork would be appropriate, so I do not suggest that Chris put the word on his profanity list...
 
(btw, spotted an "Incorrect" in one of Chris' posts the other day - funny)

-Petter
Political correctness comes to NASASpaceflight.com ... Wonderful!

Well, nobody asked me, but I think that "pork" might be considered an odious subset of "politically viable." That is, pork is appropriated for solely political ends and produces nothing or little of other worth, while other politically viable appropriations might well have equal political value, but also are spent on goals judged worthwhile.  JSFC is an example of the latter -- a national goal was proclaimed, and politicians like LBJ saw to it that the goal was fulfilled with money going into their districts. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, though some of the details might not have been pretty to watch.

The problem with SLS is that, lacking any stated goals, it certainly looks to a lot of people like pure pork for FL, AL, TX, UT.  Which is strange, because it would have taken one short paragraph in the legislation to remedy the situation, after which they could have kept the existing performance/design specifications. It wouldn't have kept questions from being asked, but it would have been better than the present language.

Solely exempli gratia, such a paragraph as the following. Many others would serve as well.

The Senate finds that an ambitious program of human spaceflight will be of great political and economic benefit to America. Accordingly, NASA is directed to resume a program of human exploration of the Moon starting with an initial landing not later than January 1, 2021 and continuing with at least two landings per year for the next ten years. Each landing will deliver at least three crew to the lunar surface,  where they will remain for at least one month and conduct scientific studies of the Moon, with an emphasis on locating and characterizing exploitable resources such as water ice.

Edited to add example.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 09:50 pm by ChileVerde »
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
People are coming to this realization that we will not have SLS anytime soon.  So what can we do now?

Depots
Tugs
Moon
L1
L2
Phobos
Assembly of a spaceship at L1

The only thing I have been told we probably couldn't do was a nuclear reactor.  I think we will need a SHLV for that.  Someone prove me wrong.

This all, by the way, goes off the philosophy that you build your spaceships in LEO or at L1.

Just inside the beltway again today.  There is no money for SLS in the very near future. 

What to you want to do Senators?  Fund a space program or fund your states?

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0

What to you want to do Senators?  Fund a space program or fund your states?


Well, both, I'm sure. But given the choice of one or the other, is there any doubt?
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
To respond to the original thread question: What could be done with a 50mt to LEO LV in HSF exploration in the next 10 yrs?

I think the more accurate question is: What CAN'T we do with a 50 mt to LEO laucnher in the next decade?

Since we aren't going to have human missions to Mars withing a decade or two - at least (the only mission that IMO may need a bigger LV), I'd say we can do everything that we could to with a 100+ mt LV.

HSF to L1/L2. And LLO. And lunar landings. And asteroid missions. All of these types of missions can accomplished with a 50 mt LV. This is not a hard problem to solve, if the funding is there.

... And with orbital propellant depots, we could do all of these things with even smaller launchers. But 50 mt is plenty.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 10:18 pm by Lars_J »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
... And with orbital propellant depots, we could do all of these things with even smaller launchers. But 50 mt is plenty.

We don't even need the 50mT, even without depots, 25-30mT is plenty. EELV class launchers and storable propellant transfer for a spacecraft (not a full depot) are enough. We have all the technologies we need and we'd need a spacecraft anyway. For whatever reason people imagine that certain technologies or capabilities (SHLVs, 50mT HLVs, cryogenic depots, NTR) are necessary, when in reality none of them are and only some would be all that important.

I do think there is a role for 50mT launch vehicles, but mainly because of the desire for a larger upper stage as an EDS, not for the launch vehicle per se. And this will remain true even after cryogenic depots become operational.

If we want to explore soon (or open up space soon), then we need a true spacecraft, not new launch vehicles, depots or other infrastructure.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2138
From another thread:
Or one heck of a commercially sourced/purchased space program. Imagine what could be done and explored if ULA, Boeing, SpaceX, SnC, Bigelow all got that money instead of the SLS and MPCV black holes. I know it is an unrealistic dream that it would happen - but I can dream, can't I? :)
This seems like a good thread to answer that question of what exploration could be done using the current exploration budget with 50 mt launchers instead of SLS. MPCV+SLS+exploration R&D have a combined budget of a bit over $3 billion per year this decade. The ISS budget is about $3 billion per year. Let's suppose the ISS is extended until 2026 and exploration gets the majority of the ISS budget afterwords, an extra $2 billion per year. Let's be suppose that these budgets are in year-2011 dollars to simplify our calculations.

The Augustine report says about getting NASA out of the launch vehicle business::
Quote
However, this efficiency of operations would require
significant near-term realignment of NASA. Substantial
reductions in workforce, facilities closures, and mothballing
would be required. When the Committee asked NASA to
assess the cost of this process, the estimates ranged from
$3 billion to $11 billion over five years.
The geometric mean of $3b and $11b is $6 billion, which seems like a good point estimate of those costs. I'll take a wild guess that the $6b would be $1b each of the first 6 years.

So the overall budget for exploration spacecraft is:

YearsBudget ($b)
1-62=3-1
7-153
16-205=3+2

Total: $64b over 20 years.

The following estimates seem reasonable for back of the envelope calculations for costs of NASA beyond low earth orbit spacecraft.
Spacecraft development costs say $300k per (dry) kg. Sustaining the engineers and factory to produce a spacecraft costs $20k per kg per year. Each incremental spacecraft produced costs $20k per kg. Development of relatively simple and heavy spacecraft may cost a bit less, say $100k per dry kg. Development of unusually small or complex spacecraft may cost more. These estimates were inspired in part by the following thread:

For example the recently launched Juno mission is about $300k per kg (although I don't know if the 3,625 kg figure I used to calculate that was wet or dry). This rule would give the roughly 13 mt MPCV a dev cost of $4.0b, sustainment of $270m per year, and $270m increment cost. I don't know the real figures for MPCV, but according to the thread on Orion costs this seems about right.

SpaceX quotes $80m-$125m for a Falcon Heavy launch. Let's conservatively say that SpaceX is the lowest bidder, no progress is made by any US company over the next 20 years to reduce launch costs, the Falcon Heavy underperforms a bit and only gets 50 mt to LEO, and NASA paperwork raises the launch cost to $150m per launch.

For $64b we can get any one of:
210 dry mt of spacecraft designs
320 dry mt-decade of spacecraft design sustainment
3200 dry mt of spacecraft manufactured
21000 wet mt to LEO on over 400 Falcon Heavy launches

So what sorts of exploration might we do with this budget?

Offline AlexCam

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
SpaceX quotes $80m-$125m for a Falcon Heavy launch. Let's conservatively say that SpaceX is the lowest bidder, no progress is made by any US company over the next 20 years to reduce launch costs, the Falcon Heavy underperforms a bit and only gets 50 mt to LEO, and NASA paperwork raises the launch cost to $150m per launch.

I think your analysis was quite realistic until this paragraph.

It would be better to assume launch prices per mt are what they are now (or are only cut a bit). And while Atlas V and Delta IV are existing heavy launch vehicles, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy only exists on paper.

Having said that, for any strategy planning I think it would be very unreasonably to assume costs below 300-400million per launch of a 50mt LV.


To add to what posters have said above, the "10 year limitation" on this thread was supposed to limit the amount of speculation we can do. Can we really pull off a NEO mission within 10 years given NASA's calculations for its costs and complexity? I would say that even LLO might be too challenging within 10 years in the current space flight climate. What I can see happening is circumlunar and a Lagrange point test mission.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2138
It would be better to assume launch prices per mt are what they are now (or are only cut a bit). And while Atlas V and Delta IV are existing heavy launch vehicles, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy only exists on paper.

Having said that, for any strategy planning I think it would be very unreasonably to assume costs below 300-400million per launch of a 50mt LV.
Falcon Heavy is a bit beyond the pure paper stage: its engine Merlin 1D has apparently been test fired and the construction of its Vandenberg pad has begun. On the other hand it still a few years from flight. No Falcon Heavy launches except for the test flight appear on SpaceX's manifest, which suggests that payload owners share your skepticism.

A Proton M can lift 22 mt to LEO and costs $100M (Appendix A of http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/10998.pdf). Extrapolating gives $230M for 50 mt. A Zenit costs $60M and lifts 13 mt (admittedly for different versions); extrapolating coincidentally also gives $230M for 50 mt.

An Ariane 5 can lift 21 mt and costs $220M (different versions), for an extrapolated 50 mt cost of $520M. The Delta IV Medium-Plus (5,4) is $170M and lifts 13 mt. That extrapolates to $650M for 50 mt. (I couldn't easily find a recent price for Delta Heavy.)

After some more thought I agree with you that my $150M figure is optimistic. A reasonable range might be $100M-$700M, where the lower endpoint is the price if someone can deliver on SpaceX's promises and the latter is if NASA has to pay ULA's current price per mt plus a little development and fixed costs. A value of $300M seems like a good point estimate. This is over twice SpaceX's listed price and somewhat worse per mt than current former USSR heavy launchers.

Quote
To add to what posters have said above, the "10 year limitation" on this thread was supposed to limit the amount of speculation we can do. Can we really pull off a NEO mission within 10 years given NASA's calculations for its costs and complexity? I would say that even LLO might be too challenging within 10 years in the current space flight climate. What I can see happening is circumlunar and a Lagrange point test mission.
Oops I'm afraid I somehow missed that 10 year mention in the thread title. I guess my post is therefore a bit off topic for this thread.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0

 No Falcon Heavy launches except for the test flight appear on SpaceX's manifest, which suggests that payload owners share your skepticism.


Slightly random question, but is there any indication that SpaceX is developing multiple-payload adapters for F9/FH like Ariane 5 has?
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Falcon Heavy is a bit beyond the pure paper stage: its engine Merlin 1D has apparently been test fired and the construction of its Vandenberg pad has begun. On the other hand it still a few years from flight. No Falcon Heavy launches except for the test flight appear on SpaceX's manifest, which suggests that payload owners share your skepticism.

It's worth noting though that Falcon Heavy was announced 4 months ago. How long does it take for a payload to go from concept to the point that they're ready to book a flight?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Quite alot could be done, actually, although will entail building things in somewhat smaller pieces for deep space mission (l1,2 ect). For example instead of the hab module (or mission module) being one piece it might consist of two and then the command/service combo and propulsion. (3 fh launches)
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline AlexCam

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quite alot could be done, actually, although will entail building things in somewhat smaller pieces for deep space mission (l1,2 ect). For example instead of the hab module (or mission module) being one piece it might consist of two and then the command/service combo and propulsion. (3 fh launches)

The other scenario would be to start thinking differently. Instead of building infrastructure for missions for 4-6 people, early missions are built with the absolute minimum. 2 people a mission, smallest capsule they can come up with, lightweight habitation module. Then the question becomes what can be done with single launch missions with a 50mt+ LV (25mt to GTO).

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1