A by Mr. Bolden: I had a discussion with representatives from DoD this morning to make sure I did not overstep or overspeak. And so while I would not say that they have definitive plans for SLS, what they are most impressed with and what they are encouraging us to press on and make a decision soon is because of its importance to the nation's space industrial base. That is not trivial. You know, we are seeing our space industrial base erode, sometimes slowly sometimes more rapidly. And that is important for me and for DoD and for the entire national security establishment.Maybe this needs a new thread, but I'm finding it hard to think of where the potential and presumed SLS-related space industrial base intersects DoD interests. Anybody want to give it a shot?
In these forms I've seen a veteran poster (I forget who) repeatedly claim to have knowledge of some large (> 53 ton), top secret, DoD payloads that have been waiting around on the order of decades for a launcher... Apparently FH as announced isn't large enough for these payloads, so they need HLV/SLS.
Over on Space Policy, I posted,http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26218.msg791124#msg791124Quote A by Mr. Bolden: I had a discussion with representatives from DoD this morning to make sure I did not overstep or overspeak. And so while I would not say that they have definitive plans for SLS, what they are most impressed with and what they are encouraging us to press on and make a decision soon is because of its importance to the nation's space industrial base. That is not trivial. You know, we are seeing our space industrial base erode, sometimes slowly sometimes more rapidly. And that is important for me and for DoD Maybe this needs a new thread, but I'm finding it hard to think of where the potential and presumed SLS-related space industrial base intersects DoD interests. Anybody want to give it a shot?Which leads to this new and, hopefully, fascinating thread: What does SLS provide or maintain that other people need?Think in terms of capacity of a company/contractor/center - facilities, infrastructrue, key personnel, skill sets etc. not the actual utilization of a 70 to 130 mt rocket. When you have the opportunity to watch first hand and learn from some of the best in the business on what they do right (rather than just focusing on what they do wrong) you can learn a great deal and apply those lessons learned to your projects.And on occassion - you have the opportunity to cherry pick the real winners and have them come work for you when and if the opportunity presents itself.
A by Mr. Bolden: I had a discussion with representatives from DoD this morning to make sure I did not overstep or overspeak. And so while I would not say that they have definitive plans for SLS, what they are most impressed with and what they are encouraging us to press on and make a decision soon is because of its importance to the nation's space industrial base. That is not trivial. You know, we are seeing our space industrial base erode, sometimes slowly sometimes more rapidly. And that is important for me and for DoD Maybe this needs a new thread, but I'm finding it hard to think of where the potential and presumed SLS-related space industrial base intersects DoD interests. Anybody want to give it a shot?
Which leads to this new and, hopefully, fascinating thread: What does SLS provide or maintain that other people need?
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ReportBarring a coherent strategy to evolve the Delta-IV Heavy to meet NASA requirements, there are very few requirements for this system. Therefore, the Committee wishes to understand the potential savings of doing away with a Delta-IV Heavy launch capability. Consistent with language in the classified annex accompanying this bill, the Committee requests that the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office certify expected cost savings to the EELV Launch Capability contract under three scenarios relating to the Delta-IV Heavy: (1) removing launch requirements from Cape Canaveral, (2) removing launch requirements from Vandenberg AFB, and (3) removing all launch requirements.
U.S. Military Space Budget BoostedEven with the boost in funding, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright says that the projects now scheduled are impossible to execute within the current planning figures. [...] “We still can’t afford most of the constellations we have up there . . . At some point you have to come to a position of partnering”
Quote from: LegendCJS on 08/09/2011 10:30 pmIn these forms I've seen a veteran poster (I forget who) repeatedly claim to have knowledge of some large (> 53 ton), top secret, DoD payloads that have been waiting around on the order of decades for a launcher... Apparently FH as announced isn't large enough for these payloads, so they need HLV/SLS.Clongton. Everyone was bashing their heads on their keyboards by the time that was over.
I do not claim that these claims are true. I do think that it is unnecessarily cynical and overly skeptical, not to mention disrespectful to the sources (who are very well-regarded, and for good reason), to dismiss them out of hand just because the NRO or whoever hasn't gone public with anything they may have been hoping to use the Ares V for...
Quote from: Jason1701 on 08/09/2011 10:42 pmQuote from: LegendCJS on 08/09/2011 10:30 pmIn these forms I've seen a veteran poster (I forget who) repeatedly claim to have knowledge of some large (> 53 ton), top secret, DoD payloads that have been waiting around on the order of decades for a launcher... Apparently FH as announced isn't large enough for these payloads, so they need HLV/SLS.Clongton. Everyone was bashing their heads on their keyboards by the time that was over.Ross has said stuff like that too, IIRC. According to him, DIRECT had talked to somebody who wanted a 12 m fairing with as much length as they could get.It's not (just?) mass. It's volume. Even a Delta IV could carry a larger hammerhead fairing than a Falcon Heavy could, but upgrading the EELVs to carry something that big would still be extraordinarily expensive - you'd have to go all the way to Phase 3B, which is way more expensive than Jupiter and takes a lot longer.I do not claim that these claims are true. I do think that it is unnecessarily cynical and overly skeptical, not to mention disrespectful to the sources (who are very well-regarded, and for good reason), to dismiss them out of hand just because the NRO or whoever hasn't gone public with anything they may have been hoping to use the Ares V for...
In these forms I've seen a veteran poster (I forget who) repeatedly claim to have knowledge of some large (> 53 ton), top secret, DoD payloads that have been waiting around on the order of decades for a launcher... Apparently FH as announced isn't large enough for these payloads, so they need HLV/SLS.Any more info on these mystery payloads?
"decision soon is because of its importance to the nation's space industrial base. That is not trivial. You know, we are seeing our space industrial base erode, sometimes slowly sometimes more rapidly. And that is important for me and for DoD and for the entire national security establishment."This has nothing to do with payloads, it is the strategic SRM infrastructure that they are "worried" about.
1. The biggest and most mysterious payload I know of is that of NROL-15, currently scheduled for launch about a year from now. It was apparently a significant factor in getting NRO support for the RS-68A development but, whatever it is, it seems to be a one-off, with no successors in sight.2. The fact that SSCI is questioning DIVH would seem to indicate that the 35-year run of KH-11 successors is likely to come to an end with the launch of the second of the post-FIA gapfillers later this decade.
It seems strange to include that as part of "the nation's space industrial base." If DoD is worried about a continuing supply of Minuteman and Trident motors, wouldn't that be better taken up with ATK directly?
Quote from: ChileVerde on 08/10/2011 12:56 pm1. The biggest and most mysterious payload I know of is that of NROL-15, currently scheduled for launch about a year from now. It was apparently a significant factor in getting NRO support for the RS-68A development but, whatever it is, it seems to be a one-off, with no successors in sight.2. The fact that SSCI is questioning DIVH would seem to indicate that the 35-year run of KH-11 successors is likely to come to an end with the launch of the second of the post-FIA gapfillers later this decade.Quote1. you don't know thatSeeNational Security Space Launch Reportwww.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdfQuote2. The DIVH at VAFB would say otherwiseThen I'm not sure what to make of the SSCI language. I'll say I find it surprising that DIVH wouldn't continue to be used for big GEO SIGINT platforms even if the KH-11 line is coming to an end.
1. you don't know that
2. The DIVH at VAFB would say otherwise
Quote from: ChileVerde on 08/10/2011 01:20 pmIt seems strange to include that as part of "the nation's space industrial base." If DoD is worried about a continuing supply of Minuteman and Trident motors, wouldn't that be better taken up with ATK directly?Why? when NASA can help.
Quote from: Jim on 08/10/2011 01:26 pmQuote from: ChileVerde on 08/10/2011 01:20 pmIt seems strange to include that as part of "the nation's space industrial base." If DoD is worried about a continuing supply of Minuteman and Trident motors, wouldn't that be better taken up with ATK directly?Why? when NASA can help.I hope you are just stating your perception of DoD's point of view, and not advocating that. NASA is in no position to take on the infrastructure requirements of ATK's solids just as a favor to DoD, IMO.
SeeNational Security Space Launch Reportwww.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf
Quote from: Jim on 08/10/2011 12:21 pm"decision soon is because of its importance to the nation's space industrial base. That is not trivial. You know, we are seeing our space industrial base erode, sometimes slowly sometimes more rapidly. And that is important for me and for DoD and for the entire national security establishment."This has nothing to do with payloads, it is the strategic SRM infrastructure that they are "worried" about.It seems strange to include that as part of "the nation's space industrial base." If DoD is worried about a continuing supply of Minuteman and Trident motors, wouldn't that be better taken up with ATK directly?
Since the thread title mentions "other than NASA HSF" specifically, I suggest you track down the study that was conducted about the scientific (non-maned) uses of the Ares V. Interesting conclusion from the study: the most limiting factor for the science missions was volume, not mass.If anyone has a link to this study please post it, I believe it goes with the thread.
Quote from: ChileVerde on 08/10/2011 01:52 pmSeeNational Security Space Launch Reportwww.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdfThat is 5 years old
Quote from: 93143 on 08/10/2011 06:53 amI do not claim that these claims are true. I do think that it is unnecessarily cynical and overly skeptical, not to mention disrespectful to the sources (who are very well-regarded, and for good reason), to dismiss them out of hand just because the NRO or whoever hasn't gone public with anything they may have been hoping to use the Ares V for...If that is directed at me
So who should I believe, Chuck's unsubstantiated intimations, or the here-and-now on-the-record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence statements which point in the opposite direction of an HLV? No disrespect to Chuck, but (sans other evidence), the latter weighs more heavily.
Also, I would expect these to be back-burner projects, considering they're purportedly waiting for a launch vehicle, so a review of what the DoD/NSS expect to launch on the EELVs in the next several years wouldn't necessarily turn anything up...
It could also be that there is confusion as to what constitutes "heavy lift." DoD documents often refer to Delta IV as a heavy lifter, even though that's not generally what we mean by the term in this forum.
1. Department of Energy: Might wish to investigate some of the issues associated with SSP microwave transmission to the ground. Crossover with DoD if the transmitter gets its power from a space-nuke or if the technology could be scaled up to something that can power an overseas base.2. Department of Education: Given the excess mass we're going to see on a lot of SLS launches, we might see a return to the Getaway Package deal. (Unless Falcon9 takes over LEO duties. Depends on how closely SLS is copying Direct.) Perhaps do a deal with DARPA over it.3. Department of Defence: A 6m IR telescope in 500km equatorial orbit can (theoretically) track a 10m+ object at the 45th parallels; especially if it is carrying a pair of F119 engines. Having spent so much money on stealth, the military might want to know how easily other space powers can break it. Or any number of other harebrained schemes none of us are cleared to know about.4. DARPA: There is a very long list of ideas for things you can do in space that NASA has for various excuses never gotten around to doing. Some of those tests might happen quicker under DARPA, who might be willing to chase a larger slice of the budget.5. Alt Space: Traditionally, you spend R&D money on launch, and then reentry, once you've solved the first problem. An HLV would let the AltSpace industry do things the other way round, potentially offering significant risk-reduction savings and boosts in investor confidence.
Since the plan is to launch once each two ears, in average
Quote from: baldusi on 09/27/2011 12:50 pmSince the plan is to launch once each two years, in averageThat's a stupid plan, and won't last.
Since the plan is to launch once each two years, in average
Quote from: baldusi on 09/27/2011 12:50 pmSince the plan is to launch once each two ears, in averageThat's a stupid plan, and won't last.
As it's stand, it's the current plan.
What's left?
Quote from: 93143 on 09/27/2011 06:56 pmQuote from: baldusi on 09/27/2011 12:50 pmSince the plan is to launch once each two ears, in averageThat's a stupid plan, and won't last.Alright, once every toe, then!
1. with what money. DOE has trouble funding terrestrial sources. Also, a microwave transmission experiment doesn't need an HLV2. They have cube sats and ESPA's. HLV doesn't help3. Useless orbit for surveillance. Would need hundreds of spacecraft4. DARPA doesn't have that kind of money nor does it do things that NASA would do. Also, DARPA is not the do-it-all org that people think it is. It has its own problems5. With what money? And there are current vehicles available, no need for HLV
Then again, given that they do give the impression of being a do-it-all organization, and the impression that they get a hell of a lot done on time and under budget, maybe NASA should think about copying some of their problems...
Since it increases the launch manifest, and widens the support base for SLS, which is part of what this exercise is about.
But I can think of a few nations that might be willing to spend that level of money. Practically though you'd have bigger satellites in higher orbits covering much larger areas. Putting such a system up quickly (in relative terms) requires HLV.
SSP can be chivied up into whatever size the booster can handle since on-orbit construction has to be done regardless of booster size.
SSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rate
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/29/2011 06:55 pmSSP can be chivied up into whatever size the booster can handle since on-orbit construction has to be done regardless of booster size.Doesn't follow. You're ignoring the possibility that assembling a few large pieces could be easier than assembling lots of small ones. Not to mention that the docking hardware, etc. required for each piece could jack up the tonnage required for small bits, as well as the total R&D and hardware costs. Also, there may be substructures that need to be single-piece, or benefit greatly by being single-piece, that don't fit on a smaller booster.
Quote from: 93143 on 09/29/2011 09:22 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/29/2011 06:55 pmSSP can be chivied up into whatever size the booster can handle since on-orbit construction has to be done regardless of booster size.Doesn't follow. You're ignoring the possibility that assembling a few large pieces could be easier than assembling lots of small ones. Not to mention that the docking hardware, etc. required for each piece could jack up the tonnage required for small bits, as well as the total R&D and hardware costs. Also, there may be substructures that need to be single-piece, or benefit greatly by being single-piece, that don't fit on a smaller booster.No, not true. Your ignoring that there is no infrastructure on the ground for large payloads.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/29/2011 06:55 pmSSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rateLogical disconnect. If SLS is used for SSP (a very high-rate activity) at more than the one-off demonstrator level, it will not cost $10,000+/kg. Even at the upmass rate assumed to support the Falcon Heavy's advertised price (10 per year of both F9 and FH, wasn't it? Fully upgraded, that's 690 mT/year), SLS should be able to pull somewhere between half and two-thirds your number, and with higher volume than that the gap between SLS and Falcon Heavy should continue to narrow.If you decide that the U.S. Government is going to own SLS anyway as a matter of policy, and just charge incremental costs to whoever wants to use it, the per-kg costs paid by customers start looking quite good - getting down near SpaceX's advertised numbers, if the per-launch and per-component numbers thrown around during DIRECT are any guide. And I believe those numbers were based on historical data, which NASA is trying to improve on.
If 5 flights a year for SLS would lower the per launch costs for SLS what would 10 FH flights per year do for FH?
Your using whishfull thinking economics.
I would believe that FH could handle that launch rate easier than SLS because FH has a slimlined infrastructure requirement compared to SLS's very cumbersome infrastructure.
if SLS unit price could drop by a 1/3 then FH's would too so that FH would still be 5 times cheaper.
Anyway by the time you get to launch rates like those, commercial HLV's with capabilities of 200+MT would be comming out of the woodwork for a chance at a market that could be well over 100's of billions of $.
Quote from: 93143 on 09/29/2011 09:22 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/29/2011 06:55 pmSSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rateLogical disconnect. If SLS is used for SSP (a very high-rate activity) at more than the one-off demonstrator level, it will not cost $10,000+/kg. Even at the upmass rate assumed to support the Falcon Heavy's advertised price (10 per year of both F9 and FH, wasn't it? Fully upgraded, that's 690 mT/year), SLS should be able to pull somewhere between half and two-thirds your number, and with higher volume than that the gap between SLS and Falcon Heavy should continue to narrow.If you decide that the U.S. Government is going to own SLS anyway as a matter of policy, and just charge incremental costs to whoever wants to use it, the per-kg costs paid by customers start looking quite good - getting down near SpaceX's advertised numbers, if the per-launch and per-component numbers thrown around during DIRECT are any guide. And I believe those numbers were based on historical data, which NASA is trying to improve on.If SLS's starting point for $/kg to LEO was closer to that of FH's I would say you have a point, but with a 5 to 1 difference SLS will never be able to actually compete price wise with FH. If 5 flights a year for SLS would lower the per launch costs for SLS what would 10 FH flights per year do for FH? Your using whishfull thinking economics. We already see that price in the commercial world is the number 1 selection criteria for a booster, which is why EELV's have very very few commercial customers. Subsidies haven't helped them be more competitive either.It would take about 20MT for each 1 MWatt and to build an SSP of 1GW (the minimum size considered for commercial viability) that would be 20,000MT. For SLS to build that in 5 years it would take 31 launches a year! For FH it would be 76 a year or at the FH current price a $9.5B per year. I would believe that FH could handle that launch rate easier than SLS because FH has a slimlined infrastructure requirement compared to SLS's very cumbersome infrastructure. At launch rates like these SLS and FH look almost alike from an economies of scale perspective, if SLS unit price could drop by a 1/3 then FH's would too so that FH would still be 5 times cheaper. Anyway by the time you get to launch rates like those, commercial HLV's with capabilities of 200+MT would be comming out of the woodwork for a chance at a market that could be well over 100's of billions of $.
Don't quote "Jupiter" cost numbers, they are bogus.
For anything planned, current vehicles are adequate