The reason why we have aimed at this level is so that we can get some reasonable production rates on the even more expensive spacecraft, not just the launchers. If it costs $3bn/year to make landers, but each one then costs only $300m, 1 per year costs $3.3 billion whereas 6 per year cost only $4,800m and each mission only has to pay $800m for its lander.
Scenario A: An Intermediate EELV-class launch vehicle costs $168m to lift a 20mT payload at a flight rate of 20 flights per year @ ~$8,400 per kg to LEO. Mission needs 200mT IMLEO.
So if all of this clears congress, what is next for NASA? Are we going to get an ESAS 2.0?
An example of just some of the issues which he's missing:Scenario A: An Intermediate EELV-class launch vehicle costs $168m to lift a 20mT payload at a flight rate of 20 flights per year @ ~$8,400 per kg to LEO. Mission needs 200mT IMLEO....Net result: 3 flights needed for 50mT of hardware launches, another 9 required for the fuel (not counting launching the depot). At $168m per flight, this single mission for that year costs $2 billion in launch costs alone, not counting any of the additional penalty costs involved in the extra hardware development and production which is required.Scenario B: An SD-HLV like J-246 costs ~$4,100 per kg to LEO at a flight rate of 6 per year, and can lift more than five payloads worth in a single launch, for a per flight cost of $451m. Yes, that's three times the cost of the smaller EELV vehicle, but you only need 2 of them to meet the same 200mT IMLEO requirement for the same mission, not 12.
You can't even dream of doing any of that with the non-HLV's. And Ares-V grew too big to be economical any more, so you have to look in the mid-ground between the 20mT EELV class and the 180mT Ares-V class.Take a guess where Jupiter is...
Maybe NASA could do a study and find that a liquid would have much lower operating costs and use the 11 billion to develop an all liquid heavy lift much sooner.
Not sure if this is the place to mention this, but according to Jeff Foust on twitter:Jeff Foust RT @KenMonroe: The House Science and Technology Cmte will mark up the #NASA Authorization Act of 2010 on Thurs at 10am in 2318 Rayburn HOB. Anyone know if it will be live fed? and what the url would likely be if it is? Anyone have info on what their draft looks like, and if there are any important differences with the Senate bill?Lastly, should this be in a new thread?~Jon
http://science.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=2885That's the highlights...
No sign of STS-135 in this? Did I miss it?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 12:58 amNo sign of STS-135 in this? Did I miss it?Nope, it's not in this draft, and neither is any additional money for operations -- the Senate bill authorizes ~$1.6 billion, this bill authorizes $1 billion (same as in the President's request).Will be interesting to see what it looks like when it goes to the House floor, but if it's anything like this draft, perhaps there's still some negotiating to do in conference.
No sign of STS-135 in this? Did I miss it?And:"Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration ProgramDirects the Administrator to develop a plan to restructure the current exploration program and develop, test, and demonstrate a government-owned crew transportation system and evolvable heavy lift transportation system in a manner that enables a challenging exploration program, minimizes the human space flight “gap”, seeks efficiencies in program management and reductions in fixed and operating costs, requires a high level of crew safety, contains a robust flight and ground test program, facilitates the transition of Shuttle personnel, makes maximum practicable use of the work completed to date on the Orion, Ares I, heavy lift, and ground support and exploration enabling projects and contracts, and is phased in a manner consistent with available and anticipated resources."How are they going to use Ares I for use with HLV? That seems to replace SD from the Senate side?