Author Topic: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?  (Read 23563 times)

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Over on Space Policy, I posted,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26218.msg791124#msg791124

Re: Preliminary NASA plan shows Evolved SLS vehicle is 21 years away
« Reply #1107 on: Today at 09:42 PM »

Quote
    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?


Which leads to this new and, hopefully, fascinating thread: What does SLS provide or maintain that other people need?

This is all kind of tentative, so feel free to formulate the question better.

« Last Edit: 08/09/2011 10:22 pm by Chris Bergin »
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Chris Bergin

Thread title sorted. Good to go.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #2 on: 08/09/2011 10:30 pm »
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? 

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.

« Last Edit: 08/09/2011 10:31 pm by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #3 on: 08/09/2011 10:42 pm »
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.

Clongton. Everyone was bashing their heads on their keyboards by the time that was over.

Offline DARPA-86

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Pig farmer from Ryan, Iowa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Over on Space Policy, I posted,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26218.msg791124#msg791124



Quote
    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.





Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Which leads to this new and, hopefully, fascinating thread: What does SLS provide or maintain that other people need?

I can't think of any.  All I come up with are negatives...

Short version:  In the ring we have National Security Space (NSS=DoD+others), commercial, and NASA.  NSS has no demonstrated interest in or need for SLS/HLV; it is of dubious relevance to the skills and industrial base needed to address NSS's major problems; and they aren't going to contribute any money towards it unless it would help lower their costs (positive ROI), which it won't.  Ding.  Nothing in commercial (except maybe Bigelow's BA-2100, which isn't sufficient).  Ding.  NASA it is.

Long version...

The National Security Space Strategy (unclassified summary, 2011) talks in glittering generalities about "a resilient, flexible, and healthy space industrial base" and fostering "a space industrial base comprised of skilled professionals".  Other than that, it mostly boils down to keeping up with competitors, the need for cheaper-better-faster, and reducing costs by partnering with other countries.

NSS has had serious issues with cost, schedule and sustaining existing missions, and much of the discussion these days is about cheaper (see below).  The overwhelming majority of those cost and schedule issues have been with payloads, although escalating EELV costs are of great concern.  Building an HLV is of questionable relevance to the industrial and skills base needed to solve those problems.  Beyond cheaper-better-faster payloads, NSS wants cheaper launch.  I don't see a NASA SLS/HLV effort contributing much, if anything, in those arenas.

The current economic environment also exacerbates those issues.  It's questionable whether NSS could find the money to contribute to SLS/HLV development unless there was a direct and justifiable benefit (and maybe not even then unless it was a nominal amount with a very short payoff).

Never mind SLS/HLV, Delta IV Heavy is in the cross-hairs.
Quote from: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Aug 2011
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 Report
Barring 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.

We're also now looking to partner and cost-share with other countries for NSS missions that would never have been considered in the past due to cost.
Quote from: Aviation Week, Feb 2011
U.S. Military Space Budget Boosted
Even 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”

Moreover, the DoD's indicated direction is apparently away from fewer big heavy and expensive platforms that towards more and smaller lighter and cheaper (*cough*) networked platforms, in order to allow easier and cheaper (*cough*) incremental replacement and enhancement, and provide greater resilience.

As to mystery payload heavy lift requirements, I'll believe it when I see it.  IIRC the NRO indicated a need additional lift capability some years ago which was subsequently met by Delta IV improvements.  I would expect if there was substantive need, we would see more movement on EELV upgrades.  All the evidence points in the other direction.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2011 05:48 am by joek »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #6 on: 08/10/2011 06:53 am »
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.

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...
« Last Edit: 08/10/2011 07:03 am by 93143 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #7 on: 08/10/2011 08:47 am »
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...

If that is directed at me, I am not "dismissing them out of hand".  I am simply stating that all evidence points to the contrary.  Specifically, that while there may be interest or desire by some in NSS in an HLV, there is no credible need--at least no credible need given NSS's direction--that would justify investment in an HLV.

If there was a credible need, I'd expect the Intelligence Committee to be asking for a capability impact assessment before considering retiring Delta IV Heavy (and implicitly any additional lift requirements) or asking for costs related to an HLV.  But they didn't ask for that and appear to have moved beyond that.

They specifically asked for DoD and NRO to "certify expected cost savings".  That strongly suggests that they've already been apprised of the capability impact, have dismissed that impact as something they can live with, have been told that there are cost savings to be had ("expected") by neutering or eliminating Delta IV Heavy, and now want an official stamp of approval ("certification") before dropping the axe.

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.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2011 08:48 am by joek »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #8 on: 08/10/2011 10:37 am »
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.

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...

My WAG is some sort of proposed SigInt sat with a folding  dish antenna bigger than anything that is in orbit now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
"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.

« Last Edit: 08/10/2011 12:21 pm by Jim »

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #10 on: 08/10/2011 12:56 pm »
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? 


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.

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.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #11 on: 08/10/2011 01:20 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?
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #12 on: 08/10/2011 01:25 pm »

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.


1.  you don't know that

2.  The DIVH at VAFB would say otherwise

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #13 on: 08/10/2011 01:26 pm »

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?

Why? when NASA can help.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #14 on: 08/10/2011 01:52 pm »

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.


Quote
1.  you don't know that

See
National Security Space Launch Report
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf


Quote
2.  The DIVH at VAFB would say otherwise

Then 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.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #15 on: 08/10/2011 01:54 pm »

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?

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.
Scott

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #16 on: 08/10/2011 01:56 pm »

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?

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.

With SLS, it does the DOD the favor.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #17 on: 08/10/2011 01:57 pm »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #18 on: 08/10/2011 02:21 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?
It probably would be, from the point of view of someone who is emperor of both NASA and DoD.
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #19 on: 08/10/2011 02:55 pm »
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?

Previous discussion of DoD payloads here

Quote
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.

I think the study you're thinking of was Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA's Constellation System conducted by the National Research Board and published in 2008.  It's available free of charge on the National Academies' website.

Basically, the conclusion was that there are lots of interesting science missions that could be flown on an Ares V or similar booster, but they would all cost $5 billion (excluding the booster).  That makes them impractical.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #20 on: 08/10/2011 02:57 pm »

See
National Security Space Launch Report
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf


That is 5 years old

And it looks at NSS launch requirements from then until 2020. The interesting part is actually quoted in the Wikipedia article on the Delta IV:

The possibility of an extra-heavy variant was indicated in a 2006 RAND Corporation study of national security launch requirements out to 2020, which noted, "...only the Delta IV Heavy has the performance to lift the ten NSS launch requirements that require a heavy-lift capability... the production capacity for Delta IV, with one possible exception, can satisfy the entire projected NSS launch demand. The exception involves the requirement to increase the Delta IV Heavy lift capability to accommodate a single NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) payload. The best solution to this requirement is currently under study."

If you look at the position of NROL-15 in the launch manifest in Figure A1, its currently scheduled launch date, and the RS-68A history, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that NROL-15 is the "single NRO payload" the RAND document is talking about. (Slippage has occured: IIRC Spaceflight Now was carrying NROL-15 for a late 2010 launch for a while.)
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #21 on: 08/10/2011 06:18 pm »
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...

If that is directed at me

It's not.  It's a general comment; I've gotten the impression over the years that a lot of people around here seem to think it's cool and "scientific" to assume something is false (and ridicule it as such) until ironclad evidence shows up that it isn't.  Suspending judgment, or trusting an authority, or a combination of both, is reserved for completely unremarkable and readily verified claims.  It's bad epistemology, and it gets annoying sometimes...

Quote
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.

There is a gigantic gap between the lift requirement being discussed and what the DIVH can provide, so whether or not they need to upgrade the DIVH doesn't really correlate with whether or not they need an SLS-class HLV with a 12 m fairing.  Completely different tasks.

Also, it's not just Chuck; it's Ross too, on multiple occasions.  In the previously-linked thread, Ross claimed to know of five payloads requiring "serious heavy lift capabilities", three of which require a 12 m fairing.  This is not the first time he's said something like this, either, and it may be one reason why DIRECT was investigating aerodynamics and VAB clearance for long 12 m hammerhead fairings.

I remain somewhat mystified by the argument that a lack of publicly-known data on a project in the U.S. military or intelligence community constitutes significant evidence that it doesn't exist...

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...
« Last Edit: 08/10/2011 06:36 pm by 93143 »

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who needs SLS/HLV other than NASA HSF?
« Reply #22 on: 08/11/2011 01:39 am »

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...

This is true and may indeed be the source of some of the rumors of superbig payloads in the black world.  The NRO, for example, had (and, I'd hope, still does have) many numbered study projects (e.g., Study 81202), very few of which made it all the way to becoming a real operational project with a codeword. For example, there were reportedly a good number of studies in the 1980s aimed at increasing the diameter of spysat mirrors into the > 4 meter range using JWST-like segmented mirror technology. None of those seem to have panned out, but they easily could have caused people hearing about them to believe that a real system was in the offing.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #23 on: 08/11/2011 04:49 am »
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.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #24 on: 08/12/2011 02:45 pm »
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.

Yes. We took a nostalgia tour at JSFC yesterday and the guide said that the Zarya and Zvezda modules had been launched by Proton HLVs.
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #25 on: 09/23/2011 10:01 am »
Once you have a true heavy lifter that has to have defense implications on a planetary level in the long term. It's a bit pointless just sending Astronauts to an Asteroid without them also eventually practicing and then executing both deflecting and then blowing one up. These are essential skills if we don't want to go the way of the Dinosaurs eventually or at least prevent millions being killed by a big impact. 99942 Apophis would be an obvious practice target in 2029 and 2036 and really should be taken out long term and SLS/Orion provides that opportunity. That's one we know about but what about one that would only give a few days/weeks notice ? That implies having one SLS on constant standby with nukes as the first line of immediate defense. So far the human race has been relying on luck and chance to avoid these celestial bombs but one day our luck may run out as it did for the huge land reptiles. We should and need to be ready and fortunately the new flexible path with SLS/MPCV with Asteroids as the first missions provides an opportunity to get that sorted quite early in BEO Phase II.

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #26 on: 09/24/2011 07:32 pm »
  One bit of info I can't get hold of is this:
How much mass would the initial STS be able to deliver to GTO?

I know that plans call for the initial STS to be able to park 70 metric tons of payload in LEO.
Then it stands to reason the the STS can deliver a humongous payload
to either GTO or GEO.
  I will make an assumption that STS can deliver 40 metric tons of mass
to GTO (Jim, or someone else could correct me).

 Such a potential mass to GTO reminds me that back in the early 1980's I saw a TV documentary in which it was claimed that unmanned shuttle derivatives would be able to send massive, high-powered communication satellites into GEO that would make "Dick Tracy" type direct satellite
relayed wireless "wristwatch" telephones possible.
This was during the time that MOTOROLA had just begun to manufacture
those original clunky pencil-box sized "cellphones".

If those journalists, and those they interviewed then, thought it was possible; how much more now?

Offline ANTIcarrot

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #27 on: 09/26/2011 01:28 pm »
Which leads to this new and, hopefully, fascinating thread: What does SLS provide or maintain that other people need?

This was touched on in the Direct Applications Program thread. I don't put these forwards as likely in shirt term, but if SLS is still around in another thirty years (please get on with building that triamise spaceX...) we might see things like these ideas being proposed. By (vaguely appropiet) government department:

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.

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.

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.

Misc: Nukes In Space! has been a popular idea for space visionaries, and an unpopular idea for pretty much everyone else. SLS allows you to launch a nuclear reactor with 60 tons of crash safety gear. This might be a happy middle ground.

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.

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.

ESA: I'm sure they can think of something...

Unfortunately the most likely scenario is NASA claiming the SLS as their very own, on the ground that they use it so little that launching even a kilo for anyone else would cause unspeakable delays in their schedual.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #28 on: 09/26/2011 02:57 pm »

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.


1.  with what money.   DOE has trouble funding terrestrial sources.  Also,  a microwave transmission experiment doesn't need an HLV

2.  They have cube sats and ESPA's.  HLV doesn't help

3.  Useless orbit for surveillance. Would need hundreds of spacecraft

4.  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 problems

5.  With what money?  And there are current vehicles available, no need for HLV

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #29 on: 09/26/2011 04:39 pm »
I think the key words here are "need" and "want".

There's likely very little need for anything over an Atlas 5 or something that can launch small communication or surveillence satellites.  That's about all we really "need" to be honest.  In on modern world, we are very dependant on things like GPS, satellite TV, and satellite communications.  Commerce and modern wester lifestyles would have to radically chance if we weren't putting up new and replacement satellites on a regular basis.  The modern military needs obviously those instant communications too any where in the world, as well as fast surveillence anywhere too.  So they too need to put up new and replacement satellites on a regular basis.
That's all we "need".  And that can all be done with LLV's we currently have.

But then again, we didn't "need" the Saturn V, we didn't "need" the shuttle.  WE "wanted" them to go to the Moon, and to have a reusable orbital spaceplane (subosedly to lower costs), and build a large US space station, etc.
That's where we draw the line. 

And, if I had to hazard a guess, that's where Chuck, Ross, and others whom have alluded to knowing about DoD mission for HLV class vehicles have been coming from.
I think it's perfectly plausible that the DoD, and other agencies and other governments would "want" a HLV for missions they'd "like" to do.  Now, maybe there's not sufficient funding for such large scale missions currently, but then again if there's no HLV to fly them, obviously they won't get funded.  Chicken and the egg argument.  Can't justify a billion or two in funds for a project and doesn't have a LV that can fly it.  With a HLV, it's plausible some of them could get funded, and others would still never see the light of day because after some initial development studies, they'd just be too expensive to get approved.

Since I seriously doubt guys like Chuck and Ross are just pulling stuff our of their rear ends (as they both have seemed like honorable and knowledgable guys from the conversations I've had with them over the years), that would be my guess to what they are referring to. 
Whether a HLV would prompt some or any of them to get funded and developed is probably a matter of speculation until we had a HLV. 

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #30 on: 09/26/2011 05:48 pm »
Yes, definitly a chicken and egg problem. Even FH existence and performance is not assured. Once it flies and some real performance values from an actual flight exist, there may be some modest ~40MT projects that show up even if the FH costs twice the current stated price. A price of $250M would be probably 1/10 the total project cost of such a large weight item. It would be very politically difficult for government or commercial to invest in these projects without a way to launch it.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #31 on: 09/26/2011 09:40 pm »
Is there any calculation of projects costs based on weight and volume. For example, a space science mission costs 140k/kg, a telecommunications satellite costs 125k/kg, etc (I'm just making numbers up). Same for volume.
Apparently there's almost no infrastructure for payloads bigger than what Shuttle Payload Bay could fit (4.65m x 18m). Most LV are way smaller than that. So a bigger fairing without infrastructure to support it is basically useless.
But the other side of the equation is what worries me. If we can say that the cost of development of a space payload is around 100k/kg (please tell if I'm way off target). And assuming that 75% of the SLS payload will be fuel (so I don't count it), that still 25% of 130mT, or 32.5mT of development hardware. At 100k/kg that's 3.25B per launch. Even free the SLS would be too expensive unless the cost is closer to 10k/kg. BTW, the JWST is about 1M/kg if it costs 6.5B.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #32 on: 09/27/2011 06:45 am »
There's a difference between a bleeding-edge one-off like JWST and a technologically comfortable production vehicle like Orion (or Altair).  Orion is supposed to be ~$150M a pop, not counting the initial cost to develop it or the fixed costs to keep it around.  (The latter have been quoted at ~$1B/year or a bit less, but the number in the HEFT report was way less, so I'm not sure...)

Also remember that if you're launching beyond LEO, the payload mass comes down quite a bit.  The J-130 with stretched DHCUS can barely duplicate Apollo 8 with Orion...
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 07:51 am by 93143 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #33 on: 09/27/2011 12:50 pm »
I'm assuming that for risk reasons that means LEO assembly of a stack. And that's also why I assumed at least 75% of fuel, or 32.5tonnes per launch. Since the plan is to launch once each two years, in average, that's 2B in fixed costs for the Orion alone. Which given it's dry weight (13tonnes) gives close to 150k/kg. And unless you do a Plymouth Rock mission (which I'm not sure is feasible), only one of those 3 launches to a NEO will be the Orion.
And you still have to develop something with a 1B/yr of Orion fixed costs and 1.5B/yr (guesstimate) of SLS. But let's assume just 2B/yr of fixed costs, that leaves what, 1B/yr for development? And whatever you develop afterwards will keep it's own fixed costs.
I based my numbers on a low 100k/kg. But NASA is going to do anything beyond Apollo 8, they will need to develop some serious hardware. Landing modules, space habitats, EDS, SEP tugs, etc. Look at the concepts even for a NEO mission, all require at least 3 SLS launches. Again, nothing of that is developed, that means a lot of expenses. How much was the cost of the Orion per dry kg? How much do you expect a space habitat to cost? And an EDS? A Marsian Landing Module? If you consider that Orion costs 4B to develop, that's 300k/kg. Assume a Mars mission of 450tonnes, assume 80% is fuel, that's 90tonnes. Let's say 13tonnes are an Orion. That leaves you with 77tonnes. That's 23B in development money. At 2B/yr that would take 11 years. May be the trade that needs to be made is development cost vs fixed cost. May be doing a dumb chemical mission that requires 6 SLS launches would be so much cheaper to develop as to make it economically sensible. I'm still bumbfolded that there never is a present value calculation of costs.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 07:40 pm by baldusi »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #34 on: 09/27/2011 06:56 pm »
Since the plan is to launch once each two ears, in average

That's a stupid plan, and won't last.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #35 on: 09/27/2011 07:25 pm »
Since the plan is to launch once each two years, in average

That's a stupid plan, and won't last.
The point of the thread is to find more launches for the SLS. As it's stand, it's the current plan. Some might call it cancellation fodder. That's beyond what I can speak of.
I've already said what I thought were the main problems for HSE for the SLS. Namely, the huge cost of mission development, plus it's associated fixed costs.
But we should find other uses. Please remember that we are talking about development cost. Not operations nor construction cost. Let's say NRO. The Misty series is said to have cost 11B in 2011 dollars (let's say 8B dev and 3B craft+ops), since it was launch in the Shuttle, I'm assuming it weighted some 20tn. That's 400k/kg (if a higher percentage would be fuel, the cost goes up, so let's consider this a lower bound). And let's say that those payload go to a GSO orbit. I don't really know what the GSO of the 130tn version would be, but let's assume 27% (close Ariane 5 and Delta IV Heavy). That would be 37tn. And this is GSO, not GTO (should be close to 60tn). I'm not using the 70tn version because it lacks an US. And I don't think the DIVUS has enough thrust or fuel to handle a significant load.
So, let's say that of those 37tn, 7tn is fuel. At 400k/kg, that's a 12B in development money. Seems within margin of what the NRO is used. So you might get a launch each two years or so from the NRO. GPS is handled by EELV, the comm DoD needs are more going to hosted commercial than big custom sats. The most expensive commercial sat I've read about where 1.2B. An those were something like 6tn dry mass. At 30tn would be a 6B program :o What's left? I sincerely don't know.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 07:40 pm by baldusi »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #36 on: 09/27/2011 07:35 pm »
Since the plan is to launch once each two ears, in average

That's a stupid plan, and won't last.
Alright, once every toe, then!
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 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #37 on: 09/27/2011 08:22 pm »
As it's stand, it's the current plan.

Not really.  It's a rather pessimistic projection; part of the reason it's so pessimistic is that there is no plan.  This is being remedied as we speak.

Quote
What's left?

More NASA missions.  If we've already paid development costs, and we're already paying fixed costs, all you need to do another mission is the incremental costs.  $600M for two boosters, $150M for Orion, $???M for the lander, and you've got yourself a Constellation-class moon mission.

Since the plan is to launch once each two ears, in average

That's a stupid plan, and won't last.
Alright, once every toe, then!

I don't see how that's a...  wait...

Offline ANTIcarrot

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #38 on: 09/29/2011 04:10 pm »
1.  with what money.   DOE has trouble funding terrestrial sources.  Also,  a microwave transmission experiment doesn't need an HLV

2.  They have cube sats and ESPA's.  HLV doesn't help

3.  Useless orbit for surveillance. Would need hundreds of spacecraft

4.  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 problems

5.  With what money?  And there are current vehicles available, no need for HLV
I did say 'the next thirty years'.  ::) I know funding is tight now, but that won't be true forever. And the topic is about finding other uses, not finding other practical uses. After all, planting a flag on Mars isn't a terrible practical exercise either.

1. If you want to test a 1watt signal, then yes, you can do that with a com sat. But no one will agree that test can be scaled to a GW signal from an SSP. A 100kW or 1MW signal will require a heavy powersource, and heavy cooling system.

1a. An SSP 'Ikea' flatpak could test all sorts of space construction techniques. (You know, all the ones the shuttle was supposed to test in the 80s...)  For example, putting together the 1MW PV power system for the above. You might get that on a FH for mass, but I'm not sure about volume. Robonaut type systems would also get a workout from this; and frankly they will also need large scale testing at some point. If it can't be done in Earth orbit, then a *lot* of plans for Luna and Mars go out the window.

2. Again, the point was to find other uses for HLVs. There's no practical reason why you can't launch cube sats on the HLV as excess payload. (Though I agree there are very pragmatic reason why NASA won't want to.) Since it increases the launch manifest, and widens the support base for SLS, which is part of what this exercise is about.

3. Prototype. How much would this weight? 10tons? If FH pans out as advertised, then launching that costs $10M. Launching a thousand costs $10B. IIRC, no one has ever ordered a batch of 1000+ satallites, so I'm no idea how much they'd individually cost... 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.

4. I believe I said this clearly: DARPA doesn't have the money or interest now, but they could develop the interest if it meant they would then be given the money. As to DRAPA having problem? Why yes they do! They are in fact regularly given problems to solve! So they have a lot of them lying around. ;D I'm sure they also have problems in a wider sense - but so does everyone.

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... :-\

5. You would have trouble mounting a StarClipper size ship on a regular launch system. Some things don't scale well. Investor confidence springs to mind.

Not that I think these are exactly good ideas, but this is a brainstorming session. Those do have rules.

If you mean to criticise SLS in a larger context (that it it not needed at all, not just for the above) then yes I agree with that. Something like jupiter-120 would have been great back around 2004 - but with F1 and F9 working, Dragon approaching a ISS flyby test, and FH just a few years away - it doesn't make a lot of practical or financial sense today.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #39 on: 09/29/2011 04:44 pm »

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... :-\


false impression and unsubstantiated.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2011 04:45 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #40 on: 09/29/2011 04:46 pm »
Since it increases the launch manifest, and widens the support base for SLS, which is part of what this exercise is about.


It does nothing of the sort.  They only fly if there is excess performance.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #41 on: 09/29/2011 04:50 pm »
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.


There are none, and the idea is impractical.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #42 on: 09/29/2011 06:55 pm »
Of all the probable large payloads other than what would be used for a BEO missions, SSP is probably the only one that is larger than 20MT that has any viability because it could be either a government or possibly a commercial endeavor or combined for a concept demonstrator. There are some others that are large volume low weight which is a different problem that could be solved with just a much larger PLF and accepting a lower performance from the booster. The problem in SSP is that it would use the cheapest $/kg rate booster possible not the biggest. SSP can be chivied up into whatever size the booster can handle since on-orbit construction has to be done regardless of booster size. FH is the lowest foreseeable $/kg booster that fits that payload, so SSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rate vs FH’s $2000+/kg LEO rate.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #43 on: 09/29/2011 09:22 pm »
SSP 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.

Or do you have access to a detailed study that supports your assertion?

Quote
SSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rate

Logical 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.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2011 09:42 pm by 93143 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #44 on: 09/29/2011 10:12 pm »
SSP 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. 


ISS is good example

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #45 on: 09/30/2011 01:08 am »
SSP 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.

I'm not ignoring anything.  I didn't say it would be better to use an HLV.  I did say that he skipped a step in his reasoning when he stated that it wouldn't.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #46 on: 09/30/2011 01:13 am »
SSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rate

Logical 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 $.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #47 on: 09/30/2011 01:38 am »
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?

Nothing.  That's the starting point they assumed when they set their prices.

Quote
Your using whishfull thinking economics.

Assuming I haven't misremembered the above, there may be someone using wishful-thinking economics, but it ain't me...

Quote
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.

There are more factors to take into account than that.  Range clearance, for one.  Also, you assume too much.  SpaceX hasn't exactly demonstrated rapid launch responsiveness to date...  plus LC-39 is being upgraded as a "21st Century Spaceport"; we'll see what that, plus the reduced set of launch constraints vs. Shuttle, plus maybe liquid boosters, does to the "cumbersome" nature of the infrastructure...

All else being equal, I'd probably tentatively agree, but all else is not equal; the flight rate for Falcon Heavy would have to be more than twice as high.  This sort of subtractive problem doesn't lend itself to handwaving solutions.

Quote
if SLS unit price could drop by a 1/3 then FH's  would too so that FH would still be 5 times cheaper.

Doesn't work like that.  For a smaller launcher (especially an infrastructure-lean one like Falcon), incremental costs are a larger proportion of the total, so its per-launch costs decline more slowly.  This is why there's a crossover point (around 300-400 mT/year) where Jupiter-246 would be cheaper than Atlas V Heavy at the same upmass rate.

Also, the starting numbers you got the factor of 5 from are apples to oranges.  FH has started much further down the cost reduction curve (again, unless I've misremembered that point).

Quote
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 $.

True.  Perhaps this is one reason large-scale SBSP keeps getting brought up by space fans even in the face of evidence that it's a bad idea - it's the one "killer app" they can think of that could thoroughly annihilate the chicken-and-egg problem that keeps launch costs high...
« Last Edit: 09/30/2011 02:16 am by 93143 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #48 on: 09/30/2011 03:18 am »
Range clearance is not a constraint

Don't quote "Jupiter"  cost numbers, they are bogus.  The cross over is at a much higher mass. 
Also, it is not just Atlas, there are other vehicles.

For anything planned, current vehicles are adequate



Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #49 on: 09/30/2011 03:18 am »
SSP as a payload for SLS is not reasonable because of SLS’s $10000+/kg LEO rate

Logical 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 $.

I guess that's part of the mindset behind Falcon X and XX.

Still I don't think an SSP is really all the crazy the government wastes money on far more ludicrous things.
 An SSP no matter how ever far fetch would be a better investment then another oil war.

At least you'll probably end up learning something useful and would be working towards a renewable energy source.

In my book even making a lunar colony just for sake of doing it is a better investment then the entire budget blown on the war on drugs  esp soft ones such as marijuana.

I'd still keep anti drug use education as that is the only thing that works see the example with smoking.

Still at very high flight rates an RLV really starts making sense.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2011 03:30 am by Patchouli »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SLS/HLV roles other than with NASA HSF - such as with DOD?
« Reply #50 on: 09/30/2011 03:45 am »
Don't quote "Jupiter"  cost numbers, they are bogus.

I may have missed something, but I believe this is the first time I've heard that accusation from anyone worth listening to.  Can you back that up?

The charts I used for reference are here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622582;topicseen#msg622582

Quote
For anything planned, current vehicles are adequate

We're talking about large-scale SBSP.  Which is so far from "anything planned" it isn't funny...
« Last Edit: 09/30/2011 03:57 am by 93143 »

Tags:
 

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