You don't even need 50mT chunks, current launch vehicles are enough. There are two recent articles in Acta Astronautica and Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets detailing possible architectures, using Lagrange points and propellant transfer. It's not just a "New Space idea".
Has NASA paid prices like that for the launches of uncrewed science missions on EELV?
Quote from: mmeijeri on 04/29/2010 09:01 pmYou don't even need 50mT chunks, current launch vehicles are enough. There are two recent articles in Acta Astronautica and Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets detailing possible architectures, using Lagrange points and propellant transfer. It's not just a "New Space idea".Every time you add a rendezvous or transfer event to the mission plan, you add another possible failure event. It's time that you came to accept that multiple small launchers, though possible, is simply too high a risk for a multi-billion dollar human exploration mission that could have been a decade or more in preparation.
What was the name of the article in Acta Astronautica?
Every time you add a rendezvous or transfer event to the mission plan, you add another possible failure event. It's time that you came to accept that multiple small launchers, though possible, is simply too high a risk for a multi-billion dollar human exploration mission that could have been a decade or more in preparation.
The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets article I meant is this one:Orbital Propellant Depots Enabling Lunar Architectures Without Heavy-Lift Launch VehiclesI don't have a subscription to JSR, so I've only read the first page. I was pleased to see they considered a hypergolic lander optimal, perhaps because they consider using slow trajectories for cargo and propellant. Such trajectories are certainly considered in detail in the first article.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/30/2010 11:28 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 04/29/2010 09:01 pmYou don't even need 50mT chunks, current launch vehicles are enough. There are two recent articles in Acta Astronautica and Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets detailing possible architectures, using Lagrange points and propellant transfer. It's not just a "New Space idea".Every time you add a rendezvous or transfer event to the mission plan, you add another possible failure event. It's time that you came to accept that multiple small launchers, though possible, is simply too high a risk for a multi-billion dollar human exploration mission that could have been a decade or more in preparation.I suppose then having a space station supported by around a dozen spacecreaft dockings a year is stupid and should be cancelled as soon as possible...
That does not apply to propellant supply flights and you know it
Unfortunately the JSR article was based on using Ares-I as the launch vehicle, so I sort of gagged, and haven't sat down to read the thing through in detail yet. Other than the stick fetish, the rest of the article looked promising though.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/30/2010 01:38 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/30/2010 11:28 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 04/29/2010 09:01 pmYou don't even need 50mT chunks, current launch vehicles are enough. There are two recent articles in Acta Astronautica and Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets detailing possible architectures, using Lagrange points and propellant transfer. It's not just a "New Space idea".Every time you add a rendezvous or transfer event to the mission plan, you add another possible failure event. It's time that you came to accept that multiple small launchers, though possible, is simply too high a risk for a multi-billion dollar human exploration mission that could have been a decade or more in preparation.I suppose then having a space station supported by around a dozen spacecreaft dockings a year is stupid and should be cancelled as soon as possible...Strawman noted and rejected. I'm not talking about the ISS, that needs resupply for continuing operations of an indefinate lifespan. I'm talking about an interplanetary spacecraft that needs multiple resupplies because it isn't big enough to carry enough consumables for a mission of finite and known length....
It does apply. A rendezvous and a transfer is a rendezvous and a transfer, no matter what the cargo.
Quote from: sdsds on 04/29/2010 10:08 pmHas NASA paid prices like that for the launches of uncrewed science missions on EELV?http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20506http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Awards_Mars_Science_Lab_Launch_Contract.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_C07051_Juno_Launch_Services.htmlhttp://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/news-archive/news_0104.htmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/mar/HQ_C09-011_Launch_Services.html
At first glance, looks like some of the added payload processing costs make it a little difficult to find the trends in the launcher costs. MUOS-1 looks anomalous. Does the 2009 multiple-buy suggest that recent costs have risen considerably?
Quote from: alexw on 05/01/2010 12:36 am At first glance, looks like some of the added payload processing costs make it a little difficult to find the trends in the launcher costs. MUOS-1 looks anomalous. Does the 2009 multiple-buy suggest that recent costs have risen considerably?Those numbers are not just what ULA receives. They are the total cost to launch the spacecraft. The numbers include payload processing facility costs (Astrotech, SSI, KSC, etc), downrange telemetry receiving, support contractors, spacecraft propellants, comm, and many other costs, like ESC mods for MSL.
Do these numbers account for Launch Capability Contract costs to the government (a USAF contract)?