Author Topic: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2  (Read 61289 times)

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach
« Reply #80 on: 12/25/2007 10:01 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 23/12/2007  1:36 AM

Quote
meiza - 22/12/2007  7:16 PM

Quote
clongton - 21/12/2007  9:02 PM
As for the more “mundane” tasks, your approach appears to leave them to the unaltered Atlas and Delta launch vehicles. DIRECT does exactly the same thing! There are many things in VSE implementation that do not require heavy lift, and we prefer to assign those things to the standard Atlas and Delta families, because those launchers are a much better fit.

Emphasis mine.

It's not a requirement, but a choice.

That's all any "requirement" is though - a choice.   We could "choose" to do a Lunar program or not.   The "requirement" is to do it currently.   We could choose to do such missions in one flight, two flights, 4 flights or 56 flights.   The current choice/requirement is 2 flights.

If it's the requirement then why bother with anything? Why bother with Direct if Ares I and V is the requirement?
Quote
This is the main "requirement" which drives the "need" for Heavy Lift in the equation - because just two 25 ton launchers don't cut sufficient mustard - by anyone's measure.

Everything in the program is about choices.  

No. The laws of physics is not a choice. You a certain amount of need delta vee for example. That is required if one wants to send anything from earth to the moon.
Of course there are lots of 25 t architectures that don't cut the mustard. But not necessarily all are bad.

Heavy lift is not required for manned missions to the moon. It is a choice that has been done by NASA, at least for so far.

But from the rest of you posts, I guess we differ. I'm looking this like an engineer. The ESAS study tried to look it at that way too. Funny they chose that viewpoint as it's not very relevant I guess.

Quote
We "choose" whether to provide contingency safety equipment for crews or not.   Shuttle currently doesn't offer much in the way of such equipment, but Orion is "required" to offer a whole lot more.   This was because CAIB made the official recommendation to not compromise the crew launch vehicle for any reason; cost, performance, schedule or anything.   NASA currently "chose" that this recommendation would form the backbone of the "requirements" for the new program.   That led them (amongst other thing) to the two-stage, two-engine'd Ares-I - although that particular poor technical "choice" appears to have now, 2 years later, come back to bite them on the butt.

There are many other technical, economic, schedule and political "requirements" too.   Many.   It is a political requirement to keep the Shuttle Workforce as intact as possible.   It is a technical requirement to not send the Orion spacecraft to the Lunar surface.   There is a schedule requirement to service ISS as soon as possible after Shuttle retires - with a Presidential directive to do so within 4 years - by the end of 2014, but which NASA is finding technically and economically difficult to comply with.   All of these are requirements, and choices.


There are three main issues at work in favour of all SDLV solutions which are currently keeping EELV out of the equation...

1) Political.   There is a lot of profit (mostly in terms of employment producing local economic benefit) to be made by many states who currently support the Space Shuttle Program.   Also there are weapon system cost benefits to the DoD through the sharing of costs for Solid propellant systems.    Ditching any of that architecture has lots of job repercussions in many districts and the politicians representing these areas are strongly against any options proposing to do that.   Many of these folk are on the appropriate committees too, so their opinions hold quite a bit of power.

2) "Brain Drain".   NASA and the Contractor base lost a most of the talent after Apollo.   They were unable to get the bulk of the talent back again when Shuttle was eventually ready.   It took the agency more than a decade to rebuild a similar level of skill within the program - though to this day there are still gaping holes with regard to Lunar missions.   NASA is 100% firmly against any similar thing happening now during this transition.   The Contractor networks are also bringing significant pressure to bear to make sure they too don't lose their current funding base provided by Shuttle.   They are also strongly against the idea of having to delete whole departments of knowledgeable staff from their ranks.

2b) Re-creating the Internal Skill-base within NASA.   NASA has, since Mike Griffin took the reins, spent a great deal of effort rebuilding internal capabilities like they had during Apollo - instead of always relying upon the contractors.   Go off and examine for yourself any of NASA's Budget documents from the last few years to get a feel for exactly how seriously the agency is about this.   NASA faced decades of criticism for relying upon the contractors for all of its technical skills.   It has decided to change that, and Congress (and I, for what little it is worth) support this.   Like it or not, there is no mistaking that NASA administration is making *vast* efforts to ensure that the skill set for Constellation is not placed entirely in the contractors hands.   NASA wants the field changed and the skills and knowledge to be retained in-house.

3) Technical.   From a purely technical basis, NASA wants to reduce the number of flights required for the missions to the minimum possible.   The additional launches, additional dockings and additional logistics surrounding missions with 3 or more flights are considered "excessive" with current data in-hand.   Agree or not, the ESAS Report argued its case and NOBODY has ever presented a case against this assessment.   There's lots of "talk", but N*O*T*H*I*N*G in writing to indicate this may be wrong.   NASA still stands by those arguments and has no competing justification against it.

3b) Further, I have been able to confirm independently the cost issues surrounding multi-launch options using EELV's.   Given all the data I have been able to uncover, I feel there *are* critical issues with a "many small flights" vs. any 2-launch solutions.   Some don't wish to believe the cost data I've offered, but there really doesn't appear to be any way to discourage that - the Internet has always had folk like that, its just a fact of life.   If the hard accounts are not enough to convince people, I don't think its my place to try to convince them.


EELV's won't get a look-in until their proponents make clear precisely how they intend to address these three issues.   They can't get political support until they resolve issue #1.   They won't get NASA's support until they address both issues #2 and #3.   Without political and agency support the EELV's get no traction at all.   It's up to their proponents to change this or not.   Right now, they haven't actually tried, so it's no surprise to me that they haven't made any ground.   Burying heads in the sand and ignoring this isn't going to change anything either.


As for Heavy Lift reasoning:   If cost isn't enough, I would suggest that spacecraft footprint and landing stability are major issues for a lunar lander and I have yet to see the slightest evidence that an Apollo-LM style solution is in any way "worse" than Lockheed's concepts - which appear to be the only other game in town at present.   Until I see at least one independent analysis of the Lockheed designs I remain unconvinced of there being any 'advantage' at all over an already-proven concept - especially as their own document says it doesn't represent a good final configuration.   Therefore I believe it very sensible for NASA to issue the current "requirement" to duplicate Apollo's proven success - albeit larger.   There's a long way to go before an LM-style concept arrangement is going to be considered "better".   So with a large Apollo-style lander that means a form factor at least 7.4m diameter, maybe 8.7m.   *That* drives the physical size "requirement" for a launcher too.   I have yet to see any Atlas-V or Delta-IV with a 10m shroud proposal.

And another issue which EELV proponents conveniently ignore is Mars.

500 ton missions will never lend themselves to 25 ton lift architectures.   We can't seriously plan to launch another "ISS" sized spacecraft in order to go to Mars!!!   That's just plain stupidity IMHO and I'm not even factoring in the idea of fully automated assembly (yeah, right) or the CLV flights needed for assembly.

Instead, we have some real political will right now - for the first time in 30 years - to build a new Heavy Lifter which we can use for all future Lunar and Mars missions.   We also have a Heavy Lifter right now - Shuttle - which can be modified to suit the new purpose for not a very vast cost if done correctly (Ares-I + Ares-V is *not* cost effective IMHO though).

If we squander this golden opportunity it will be at the very serious risk of *never* making it to Mars while watching other nations make those moves around us.   It is my personal opinion that ignoring or missing this single opportunity would be the worst mistake in the US space program since abandoning Apollo - even including the Challenger and Columbia mistakes.

Ross.

Yeah, I think we differ on a fundamental level.

I want to create a spacefaring civilization with routine launches by many organizations. Reusable launch vehicles evolving to become ever better, big markets and low cost of space transportation. Lots of tries, inevitable setbacks and unexpected successes. Not a designed glorious future, but a future with lots of opportunities. Mankind will become space faring when launch to LEO is cheap, reliable and flexible enough. Apollo was a false start, a great achievement but too unsustainable in the way it was done. It was fundamentally an impatient architecture (the requirement was a recipe for that of course). As was the shuttle, trying to design something so ambitious right off the bat. It has done great things too, but perhaps those could have been possible with much less cost, and then we could be even further along now.

You feel that this is a critical juncture in history when a single launch system will be created that will be in use for many many decades to come. NASA will be the only organization with any serious business in space. There is no hope for much advances except improving NASA's current designs. NASA will have to go it alone. We have to design almost everything now, just leave some upgrade margins for the future. Apollo was great but it used too little money so it was cut, if only they had kept spending... And shuttle, I don't know what you really think about it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach
« Reply #81 on: 12/25/2007 10:46 pm »
Quote
meiza - 25/12/2007  6:01 PM

I want to create a spacefaring civilization with routine launches by many organizations. Reusable launch vehicles evolving to become ever better, big markets and low cost of space transportation. Lots of tries, inevitable setbacks and unexpected successes. Not a designed glorious future, but a future with lots of opportunities. Mankind will become space faring when launch to LEO is cheap, reliable and flexible enough. Apollo was a false start, a great achievement but too unsustainable in the way it was done. It was fundamentally an impatient architecture (the requirement was a recipe for that of course). As was the shuttle, trying to design something so ambitious right off the bat. It has done great things too, but perhaps those could have been possible with much less cost, and then we could be even further along now.

You feel that this is a critical juncture in history when a single launch system will be created that will be in use for many many decades to come. NASA will be the only organization with any serious business in space. There is no hope for much advances except improving NASA's current designs. NASA will have to go it alone. We have to design almost everything now, just leave some upgrade margins for the future. Apollo was great but it used too little money so it was cut, if only they had kept spending... And shuttle, I don't know what you really think about it.
Oh I absolutely agree "almost" 100%. Where we part is that you want to skip that single element that will ultimately enable the spacefaring civilization you speak of; the heavy lift. The heavy lift is the horse-drawn wagon that led to the horseless carriage which led to the automobile and the 18-wheel truck and was then abandoned. Heavy lift is the sailing ship that led to the ocean-going steamer that led to the diesel powered ocean-going cargo ships and tankers and was then abandoned. Heavy lift is the hinge on which the genesis of that new civilization will turn; the hinge that will let the door to that future open. Heavy lift will lift the massive infrastructure for those new cities up out of the gravity well of earth and make it possible for those places to grow to the point that they can begin to grow themselves. Once that is accomplished, heavy lift will have done its job and will pass on. Like the horse-drawn carriage and the sailing ship, heavy lift will pass into history as being inefficient compared to what replaces it, but without that temporary inefficiency, that "history" will not become reality. You forget that at this point in time there is nothing there - nothing of any value what-so-ever because the means to exploit what "is" there does not exist there. You forget that the explorers who venture there will not have natural resources to develop unless the infrastructure to exploit those isru resources is brought there, up out of the earth's very deep gravity well. That is the job of heavy lift. It's number 1 job is to put itself out of business. One day there will not be bases and outposts on the moon and on Mars. There will be cities, very large cities with hundreds of thousands of people living and working there, raising families and going about normal daily lives. It is the heavy lift that will make that possible. Once human civilization is established there to the point of self-sufficiency, heavy lift will be only rarely needed and rarely seen. But without it, that future you (and I) envision will never come to be.

Without heavy lift those human settlements will never become self-sufficient. They will forever remain "settlements" and "outposts" and "bases" and will forever depend on a constant supply train from earth for their very survival because they will never be capable of reaching that point, that "critical mass" if you will, that allows them to break the tie that binds, to become self sufficient and able to live and function on their own. Only heavy lift has the ability to make that possible because everything -everything- that is needed to make it possible exists ONLY at the bottom of a very deep gravity well.  Once accomplished, once the infrastructure on those far away places is in place, heavy lift  will go the way of the horseless carriage and the sailing ship, because like those ancient "marvels of their time", they will no longer be needed and will be replaced by far superior means of transport.

I guess I'm asking you to be patient and live with the horseless carriage and the sailing ship for a while while we put the things in place that will make it possible for us to get beyond them.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #82 on: 12/25/2007 11:41 pm »
I don't think NASA's heavy lifters can provide that critical mass for self sustenance. They will forever be Antarctica style research bases at most, and probably much much less, habitats like ISS perhaps. Why? Since spaceflight costs so much.

And Mars - I don't think there will be a Mars colony living off the land built with Directs or Areses (however the plural is said). Some missions perhaps.

So you say let's build the heavy lifters with billions and billions of dev and fixed costs and lots of work and big standing armies, just to scrap them and then hope to go with lighter cheaper reusable future launchers anyway!

The whole necessity argument of heavy lift is ever dwindling. Now it's an initial base builder for the space settlements that will eventually rely on light launchers anyway. But why couldn't you build the initial bases with light launchers as well? There's been no fundamental reason demonstrated for that. Think logically and you end up to one conclusion - heavy lift just is not necessary. It can be a choice and there can possibly be many good sides to it. But absolutely is not a necessity.

How big LSAM designs have been brandied? I think NASA intends to land only 20 t payloads max to the lunar surface at one time. It costs a lot to design an LSAM too... once you have put in the billions, it makes sense to fly the design quite many times, perhaps do just some reasonable upgrades on the way.

Well, that whole "build a base with an unsustainable architecture so a market for a sustainable architecture is created" is a new kind of justification. I wonder how much NASA has resources to act as customer for these light vehicles if it keeps operating the heavies at the same time.

And simply, NASA could help develop the lightie cheapie flexie reliable launchers now, if it just went with a depot. Then launch a much more massive lunar colonization when it actually could do it sustainably and was not wasting all the budget money on launch.

20 billion per year, one could expect something with it.

Why defer the development of sustainable architectures until there is a base? It can be in the plan from day one. We get it sooner, and if the budget is constant, more exploration, more settlement, more resources.

You like to use colonization analogies. I think they can be used almost any way one wants, and are ultimately pretty darn useless.  Example:
Columbus used regular coastal ships for his exploration, because they were affordable and available. Ships were probably improved a lot in the subseqquent centuries, yet most colonists arrived to the new world with a huge amount of basic no-frills sail ships. They didn't wait for the Great Eastern to be built before they could travel over. Of course, one can live off the land relatively easy since the Americas are just another land mass very similar to the place where the colonists left from, where they had evolved and lived for thousands of years with very little technologies and even skills.
The Moon is very different. You need a lot of supplies, hardware and technology to sustain. I don't think Americas / North American west colonization is a very useful analogy here. Still, even the wagons can be seen as the light independent flexible launchers and the railroad as the one NASA heavy solution, if one wants to somehow make a case, not that the analogies make much sense either way.

Offline SirThoreth

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #83 on: 12/26/2007 12:02 am »
"Light" reusable launchers aren't going to give you a sustainable infrastructure in space, any more than using Cessna 172s and Ford Ranger pickups will allow the kind of infrastructure and transportation that jumbo jets and semi tractor-trailers do.

Throwing away a heavy lift vehicle may not seem to make much sense at first, either, but, then, there's a key difference:  jumbo jets and semi trucks move cargo two ways.  Launch vehicles don't.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #84 on: 12/26/2007 12:11 am »
Quote
SirThoreth - 26/12/2007  1:02 AM

"Light" reusable launchers aren't going to give you a sustainable infrastructure in space, any more than using Cessna 172s and Ford Ranger pickups will allow the kind of infrastructure and transportation that jumbo jets and semi tractor-trailers do.

Throwing away a heavy lift vehicle may not seem to make much sense at first, either, but, then, there's a key difference:  jumbo jets and semi trucks move cargo two ways.  Launch vehicles don't.

We've been through this analogy about ten times, it's plain wrong.

You don't build a custom vehicle for every shipment of goods, you use the existing fleet and either 1) procure transport services 2) lease a vehicle for the transport 3) buy a vehicle from a manufacturer.
Usually in that preferred order, depending on availability.

Also, launch vehicles can be reused economically, if the flight rate is high enough.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #85 on: 12/26/2007 01:32 am »
I have a couple - three observations, that may or may not be relevant.

First is, I have become a sort of convert to Direct Ascent to the moon or mars.  It seems to me that, at least with unmanned vehicles, there could be more mass delivered to the lunar surface than with the other architectures.  Depots and orbital assembly add unnecessary complexity and risk to the mission, given the current technology.  Many of these risks are reduced with direct ascent and robotic landing of their payloads on the moon.  After the precursor payloads are in place, you can follow up with manner spacecraft followiong a variety of mission modes.  We are, after all, sending unmanned probes to every planet without the need for orbital assembly, fuel depots, and direct injection by relatively low capability boosters such as the Delta II.

Second, as Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."  Using a series of launchers to send many payloads to the moon or mars gives us some savings on total program costs.  So, using EELVs to deliver standard payloads to the lunar surface at monthly intervals would give us some economy lf scale - somewhat analgous to the barges and covered wagons of the American West, which were not generally used on two way journeys, but were broken down for other uses once they reached their destinations.  These smaller craft would be supplemented by Heavy lift payloads used to land manned habitats.  The pioneers/colonists had a different environment in that they could live off the land (as opposed to space pioneers - at least initially) and the ships/railroads were the analogies of Heavy Lift able to deliver great quantities of material to the colonists.

Third, I was hopeful that the VSE would help us overcome what I (borrowed from Martin Caidan) call the Viking Syndrome.  This is based on the observation that the Vikings had the technology to send some initial voyages to the New World, but lacked the logistical follow through to ultimately sustain them, there is evidence that the onset of the Little Ice Age caused them to abandon their outposts and perhaps this exagerated the shortcomings of their logistical train.

What we clearly need is a plan that utilizes manned and unmanned systems of various capabilities, delivering sustainable amounts of supplies to the target worlds, until such time that those colonies can become self-sustaining through ISRU.  I believe that HLVs are an integral part of this plan, but they need to be supplemented by the very capable EELV fleet.  Just as the USAF does not rely on a single type of bomber, fighter, or transport, neither should the nation be committed to a course of action that only uses one type of booster and spacecraft.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #86 on: 12/26/2007 02:02 am »
Quote
mike robel - 25/12/2007  9:32 PM

I have a couple - three observations, that may or may not be relevant.

First is, I have become a sort of convert to Direct Ascent to the moon or mars.  It seems to me that, at least with unmanned vehicles, there could be more mass delivered to the lunar surface than with the other architectures.  Depots and orbital assembly add unnecessary complexity and risk to the mission, given the current technology.  Many of these risks are reduced with direct ascent and robotic landing of their payloads on the moon.  After the precursor payloads are in place, you can follow up with manner spacecraft followiong a variety of mission modes.  We are, after all, sending unmanned probes to every planet without the need for orbital assembly, fuel depots, and direct injection by relatively low capability boosters such as the Delta II.

Second, as Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."  Using a series of launchers to send many payloads to the moon or mars gives us some savings on total program costs.  So, using EELVs to deliver standard payloads to the lunar surface at monthly intervals would give us some economy lf scale - somewhat analgous to the barges and covered wagons of the American West, which were not generally used on two way journeys, but were broken down for other uses once they reached their destinations.  These smaller craft would be supplemented by Heavy lift payloads used to land manned habitats.  The pioneers/colonists had a different environment in that they could live off the land (as opposed to space pioneers - at least initially) and the ships/railroads were the analogies of Heavy Lift able to deliver great quantities of material to the colonists.

Third, I was hopeful that the VSE would help us overcome what I (borrowed from Martin Caidan) call the Viking Syndrome.  This is based on the observation that the Vikings had the technology to send some initial voyages to the New World, but lacked the logistical follow through to ultimately sustain them, there is evidence that the onset of the Little Ice Age caused them to abandon their outposts and perhaps this exagerated the shortcomings of their logistical train.

What we clearly need is a plan that utilizes manned and unmanned systems of various capabilities, delivering sustainable amounts of supplies to the target worlds, until such time that those colonies can become self-sustaining through ISRU.  I believe that HLVs are an integral part of this plan, but they need to be supplemented by the very capable EELV fleet.  Just as the USAF does not rely on a single type of bomber, fighter, or transport, neither should the nation be committed to a course of action that only uses one type of booster and spacecraft.
Perfect!
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #87 on: 12/26/2007 12:48 pm »
And more to the point with analogies (that still are prone to wrong use), the USAF doesn't design or build the transports itself. It even uses modified off the shelf hardware when it can fill the needs. KC-10 tankers are based on DC-10 aircraft for example.

Polar bases are probably nowadays mostly supplied by Twin Otter and Hercules aircraft, fitted with skis, not a custom designed solution that can drop off a complete base all at once... And most of these aircraft probably have other duties when not flying to Antarctica. There are also ships that land heavy non-time-critical stuff like construction materials to the shore and a convoy of wide-tracked vehicles moves these inland.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #88 on: 12/26/2007 01:49 pm »
More to Mike Robel's comment:

Perfect. An intelligent mixing and matching of the needs to the capabilities. Heavy lift can but should not do it all. It just doesn't make sense. EELV can but should not do it all. It just doesn't make sense either. To force either to carry the entire burden would cost us time and money in unacceptable quantities. Each has a role to play, carefully matched to what is required on the surface.  Paired together, these 2 capabilities will allow us to get the most bang for the buck. Initially we would see heavy lift doing the lion's share of the work with supplemental flights by EELVs. They would land the largest and/or the heaviest items needed to create the infrastructure. Note that the largest items may or may not always be the heaviest. Some things just require a huge volume aeroshell. But gradually we would see a shift in dynamics as the needs on the surface evolved and changed, so that the EELV class launcher would be doing the lion's share of the work, with the occasional supplemental flight of the heavy lift. In a carefully planned push outward into the solar system you would see this same pattern repeated over and over again as new destinations were contemplated for settlement and/or exploitation. Once self-sustainable infrastructure is established at any given location, the heavy lift would be rarely needed and EELV class launchers would become the transportation mode of choice. This is very much like the small, lightweight truck vs. the 18-wheel tractor trailer. Both can do the job of supplying the American economy all by themselves, but that just doesn't make sense. An intelligent mixing of the 2 capabilities does the job quite nicely. I envision the same complementary rolls for the 2 different class of launchers.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #89 on: 12/26/2007 02:40 pm »
Here's more about the mixing and matching that I believe is sorely missing from Mike Griffin's personal plan for our future in space. I bring this specific example back to the LEO region of space and a more immediate problem for us all.

For example, I believe the Atlas should be the CLV for every mission whose destination is LEO with no other delivery requirement except the spacecraft itself. The only reason the Atlas can't be used as the CLV to LEO in Mike's plan is because of the dumb requirement that there shall exist only one-sized SM - lunar. On an Ares, Orion has to complete the ascent to orbit by itself because Ares-I can't get the fully fueled lunar-capable spacecraft into LEO on its own. That means a lot of additional propellant in the SM, which weighs a lot. Because of the dynamics of an Ares launch, off-loading propellant to lighten the load for a LEO mission is not an option. The whole thing would go away if an Atlas were used instead, but without the need to complete the orbital insertion by itself by flying a LEO-sized SM. We are wasting $billions on a launch vehicle (Ares-I) whose sole purpose is to get us to the heavy lift launcher of Mike's personal choice. I'm not trying to draw anyone into an Ares vs. Jupiter mix here, just pointing out the fallacy of bad decisions based on the desire for heavy lift to do everything.* The Atlas and Delta plus their Heavy versions  compliment the Jupiter-120 perfectly, and together these three launch vehicle families provide total coverage of the non-heavy lift realm, while the Jupiter-232 puts the required heavy lift into NASA’s hands to be used whenever required by just adding the upper stage and center engine to the J-120. That's the kind of thinking I'm talking about. I see the Jupiter-120 as the STS equivalent of the EELV Heavy with slightly more capability, but still an EELV-class launcher, rounding out that capability at the top end and complimenting the Atlas and Delta. It is the most economic link between the medium and heavy lift requirements, because it comes from and lives in both worlds. It puts 50mT into LEO and is the foundation for the heavy lift when needed. I hate the infighting that's going on between the 2 camps because everyone wants the whole pie. That is just so dumb. Orion should be launched on an Atlas for EVERY flight whose destination is LEO, and launched on a Jupiter for lunar flights with a larger, lunar capable SM. The CM is really light and the SM only makes the spacecraft heavier. So size the SM to the mission and select the launcher based on that, instead of the "requirement" that it must be flown by one specific launch vehicle at all times. The Atlas and Delta Heavies are perfect for all manned LEO flights, lunar and interplanetary precursor flights and normal resupply flights to any manned lunar outpost, similar to what Progress does for the ISS today. That would not be a difficult capability to be developed and would keep those 2 launch families very busy, much busier than they are now, as the human population on the lunar surface grew, all while having the heavy lift supply the heaviest and largest items needed for infrastructure creation and expansion. Again - sharing the pie intelligently.

Why can't people follow the logic of that? This is just a single example of how we are hurting ourselves by not being willing to share the pie intelligently with each other. It is the kind of thing that will hamper us all as we move into the cosmos if we aren't willing to make maximum use of all the capabilities at our disposal. That means sharing the launch capabilities between EELVs and Heavy Lift based on the mission requirements, NOT boardroom needs to maximize profit margins for shareholders.  

This kind of infighting and self-serving greediness could very well kill the VSE entirely and doom us all to another 30-40 years in LEO. It has to stop and some people in both camps need to get their heads out of their butts and start thinking about what's best for all of us instead of their respective camps. And btw - that is not a snipe at anyone in particular, rather a general observation of camp polarizing.

Sigh!

*    It would be a similar dynamic if it were EELV doing everything.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #90 on: 12/26/2007 03:09 pm »
Not to put too fine a point on what's been said above, but if heavy lift is the key to expanding human presence into space, then I think finishing the development of and fielding the RS-84 is the key to heavy lift. We need to have our own Big Kero engine, along with the RS-68, so that HL and EELV both benefit. I hope the next NASA administrator sees the necessity for this and can find the funds for it. Maybe a Direct-style campaign pushing for it would grease the skids.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #91 on: 12/26/2007 03:49 pm »
bump

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #92 on: 12/26/2007 04:34 pm »
There can be no realistic technical and enlightened discussion of architectures as long as the heavy lift camp maintains that the heavy lift is absolutely necessary as an axiom and will not discuss technical ways to solve the problem of lunar exploration and infrastructure development.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #93 on: 12/26/2007 04:43 pm »
Quote
meiza - 26/12/2007  12:34 PM

There can be no realistic technical and enlightened discussion of architectures as long as the heavy lift camp maintains that the heavy lift is absolutely necessary as an axiom and will not discuss technical ways to solve the problem of lunar exploration and infrastructure development.
Heavy lift already solves the infrastructure development part of that and does it more economically than any other known - existing - method. There are technical solutions to using less capable launch vehicles, but at the cost of complexity, expense and usable life of the delivered payload. Numbers don't lie, and that's what the numbers tell us.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline sticksux

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #94 on: 12/26/2007 06:27 pm »
Quote
clongton - 26/12/2007  5:43 PM
Quote
meiza - 26/12/2007  12:34 PM
There can be no realistic technical and enlightened discussion of architectures as long as the heavy lift camp maintains that the heavy lift is absolutely necessary as an axiom and will not discuss technical ways to solve the problem of lunar exploration and infrastructure development.
Heavy lift already solves the infrastructure development part of that and does it more economically than any other known - existing - method. There are technical solutions to using less capable launch vehicles, but at the cost of complexity, expense and usable life of the delivered payload. Numbers don't lie, and that's what the numbers tell us.

Unfortunately, in government space program not a lot of people listen to numbers.
Numbers tell me that hydrogen in first stage is somewhat stupid. Numbers tell me that Ares I is mega-stupid. So what? Not only NASA is totally against using kerolox launchers which *we already have* (Atlas), it doesn't even want to build LH stage properly (Direct)!

I like EELVs. If needed, future EELVs *can* be developed into heavy-lift variants (like Atlas growthoptions) which will be economical, unlike NASA contraptions.
History has shown time and again that NASA designed vehicles are not economical. I'm afraid we will witness it again.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #95 on: 12/26/2007 06:44 pm »
Numbers lie all the time. It doesn't make stuff automatically true if one throws a number from the hat.

But thanks for acknowledging that other methods besides heavy lift are possible too. (No sarcasm.)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #96 on: 12/26/2007 08:18 pm »
Quote
meiza - 26/12/2007  2:44 PM

Numbers lie all the time. It doesn't make stuff automatically true if one throws a number from the hat.

But thanks for acknowledging that other methods besides heavy lift are possible too. (No sarcasm.)
First, the numbers aren't drawn from a hat, they are drawn from industry, from LM and Boeing, from inside the EELV organization itself and from the Shuttle program. They have all been completely validated by the financial people inside NASA. This literally took many, many months.

Second, If you will search on my postings, you will see that I have *always* acknowledged that other solutions are possible. My positions are developed, not on absolutes, but on known realities. Most of the time those realities do not reflect what is the absolute best, but what is the best that is possible. The trick is to try to get as much of what is best without leaving the field of the possible. That's how we ended up with DIRECT. After working the numbers for months at a time, we just couldn't get either an all EELV or an all heavy lift solution to close the realm of the possible in any sustainable way. So the STS solution became the model of the next generation launch vehicle because it was adaptable to the existing infrastructure, but we departed from the Ares, which is wasteful in the extreme and tried to bring as much of the EELV technology into the family as we could. We stayed with the STS infrastructure and the ET for the lower stage because that infrastructure was already in place and would need precious little modification; saving tons of money and gobs of time. We brought over the RS-68 from the Delta for the MPS because it was already flying and would eliminate the need for engine development. But we borrowed from the Centaur and created a common thrust structure that would accommodate the heavy lift version, but left out one engine for the initial launcher. From that came the Jupiter-120. In parallel with the main stage development we turned to the Atlas Advanced Systems group to help us design the upper stage. Centaur technology is impressive in the extreme and NASA ignores it at its peril. Several variations of the Wide Body Centaur, or ICES upper stage are easily adaptable to the Jupiter, both RL-10 and even RL-60 powered. The only nod we gave to NASA for the upper stage was to employ the J-2 engine for the lunar missions, but not their super-dooper advanced one. We stayed with the lower performance J-2XD variant, much easier to produce, and more compatible with Centaur technology. In essence we developed the heavy lift J-232 in such a way that by leaving out certain capabilities we create the J-120 as the initial EELV heavy class launcher to bridge the transition from Shuttle to Constellation, and from the EELV to the heavy lift. With the advent of the Jupiter-232, and the basic family was complete. We had found a way to merge as much of EELV technology as we could with the standing STS infrastructure to create a launch system that would bridge the gap between mid and heavy lift with a launch vehicle that could function efficiently in both worlds, and at the same time check off the all-important political boxes.

And so we presented the Jupiter launch vehicle - a launcher that comes from and lives in both worlds. Not the perfect answer, by any means, and not the only answer either. But the only one that closes all the requirements, checks off all the political necessities and will serve the launch needs of the nation "reasonably" efficiently for decades to come. And, most importantly to us, one that did not go out of its way to negate the excellent capability of the EELV fleet, but rather which merges with it intelligently into a coherent capability for the many and varied needs of the VSE. It's not an all-heavy lift solution and neither is it an all-EELV solution, but takes from both worlds and creates a synergy of capability which is better than the sum of its parts. EELV together with Heavy Lift, intelligently - to the benefit of us all and the preservation of the VSE.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #97 on: 12/26/2007 10:13 pm »
So, you looked at propellant depots with EELV:s and found them infeasible?

And you applied the 90% of costs when production rate is doubled paradigm, which surely is just a general rough rule of thumb for some manufacturing industry and could even be just a myth. I don't think you used any insight from inside the EELV organizations, at least according to the EELV people over here on this forum.

And you slapped some 500 million of fixed costs and a few billion of STS infra demolition costs... All the while estimating very low costs for Direct.

And then you pretend as if your numbers are somehow so very exact.

I just don't have the time or even motivation for such efforts of obvious fluff. I'm an engineer, not a sales person drawing pretty pictures and weaving tables with decimals of *very rough estimates*.

In essence, assuming a near constant per-unit price for EELV:s (or any future launcher) no matter the flight rate, and a fabulously low price for Direct (no future changes) of course makes Direct look the best alternative.

The tables and graphs can be useful as drafts and estimates but saying that "look at this, numbers don't lie" is, well, lousy.

Eh, if you are a believer in paper rocket marketing presentations, then use the cheap magical Falcon 9 heavies (was a regular F9 35 million?) and the solar system starts to open up a little better... Add in stage refurbishment at, say, 2 million (from the hat) cost per flight for 10 reuses and you get further big drops. (If anyone is in doubt, I don't really believe in those numbers.)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #98 on: 12/26/2007 11:10 pm »
Quote
meiza - 26/12/2007  6:13 PM

So, you looked at propellant depots with EELV:s and found them infeasible?
We looked at propellant depots and found them very feasible. We love propellant depots. If you had actually read the AIAA paper you would have seen that we very strongly advocated for their use. They are extremely feasible.

But feasibility is not the same as likely. It was made *excruciatingly* clear to us that any architecture of any kind with any launch vehicle what-so-ever that needed propellant depots to work would be dismissed out-of-hand and never see anything but the inside of a trash can. That's a very painful political reality we were forced to accept. Propellant depots will become the order of the day, but not under this administrators watch for sure! It was made totally clear to us that propellant depots are one of those things that "ain't happening" while Mike Griffin is administrator. Again, following the principle of getting the best you can but never loosing sight of what is actually possible. But just to clear the air, we are and always have been ardent supporters of the use of propellant depots. If propellant depots were available, the Jupiters would absolutely kick-butt all over the solar system.

Quote
And you applied the 90% of costs when production rate is doubled paradigm, which surely is just a general rough rule of thumb for some manufacturing industry and could even be just a myth. I don't think you used any insight from inside the EELV organizations, at least according to the EELV people over here on this forum.

And you slapped some 500 million of fixed costs and a few billion of STS infra demolition costs... All the while estimating very low costs for Direct.

And then you pretend as if your numbers are somehow so very exact.

I just don't have the time or even motivation for such efforts of obvious fluff. I'm an engineer, not a sales person drawing pretty pictures and weaving tables with decimals of *very rough estimates*.

In essence, assuming a near constant per-unit price for EELV:s (or any future launcher) no matter the flight rate, and a fabulously low price for Direct (no future changes) of course makes Direct look the best alternative.

The tables and graphs can be useful as drafts and estimates but saying that "look at this, numbers don't lie" is, well, lousy.
We have addressed the issue of the finances before, in extreme detail. We did the work to pull out the real numbers. We actually talked to the real people doing the financing and funding. We looked at and in some cases obtained copies of the actual financial reports in use by LM and Boeing, and we were privileged to be able to get confirmation of all that by some of the same people who were actually involved in generating them. Our financial numbers are beyond reproach, but there is no way for us to prove that to you short of you actually doing for yourself what we did for months at a time. Are you willing to actually do that? We did. Your numbers are faith-based on reports "for public consumption" releases, while ours are based in reality on the actual day to day cost of operations figures and cost projections used by the people who actually pay the bills. It doesn't get any more real that that.

Quote
Eh, if you are a believer in paper rocket marketing presentations, then use the cheap magical Falcon 9 heavies (was a regular F9 35 million?) and the solar system starts to open up a little better... Add in stage refurbishment at, say, 2 million (from the hat) cost per flight for 10 reuses and you get further big drops. (If anyone is in doubt, I don't really believe in those numbers.)

I don't understand your throwing Falcon 9 into this conversation as it makes no sense. It's not related and brings nothing to the conversation. It's like comparing reality to a fiction novel. It is not now, never has been and never will be germain to this conversation. That rocket doesn't exist, and won't exist, if ever, for many years. What possible connection does it have to what we are talking about? As far as I am concerned, Falcon 9 is in the same league as Puff the Magic Dragon. For the record, I expect Falcon 9 to run into a lot of trouble, let alone a Falcon 9 Heavy. Elon is going to be messing with that one for a very long time. Unless I miss my guess, the Falcon 9 won't be operational as a viable and dependable player in the lunar phase until long after the Jupiters, Atlas and Deltas have an absolute lock on the whole program. If he's lucky, he'll get to compete with the smaller EELV's for some commercial work, but I don't see him getting any part of the lunar action. It will be too late. Assuming, of course, that he pulls it off at all, which is why I don't understand you even mentioning him.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #99 on: 12/27/2007 07:34 pm »
Falcon 9 relevance:
If you have an architecture where the launchers are interchangeable, a new low cost launcher changes a lot of stuff. That's why Falcon 9 is potentially relevant. And many other launchers that come after it. And the development of cheaper (as well as more reliable, more operable etc...) launchers is encouraged, strongly, since there is a market.

If you have a NASA heavy lifter then new cheaper launchers won't make that much of a difference and are less likely to even come to existence in the first place.

Finance models and charts: well, the problem is I find them not much based on real world technological choices and they are also fundamentally very uncertain and prone to "tweaking". So I take all of them with a big grain of salt.

Tags:
 

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