Author Topic: Man rating EELVs  (Read 52057 times)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #100 on: 04/30/2010 11:28 AM »
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".

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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!


Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #102 on: 04/30/2010 12:37 PM »
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".

I found "An Overview of Advanced Concepts for Space Access" from the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA484431

What was the name of the article in Acta Astronautica?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28468
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8333
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #103 on: 04/30/2010 01:38 PM »
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".

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...
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 mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #104 on: 04/30/2010 01:41 PM »
What was the name of the article in Acta Astronautica?

Exploration missions in the Sun–Earth–Moon system: A detailed view on selected transfer problems

The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets article I meant is this one:
Orbital Propellant Depots Enabling Lunar Architectures Without Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicles

I 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.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2010 01:51 PM by mmeijeri »
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #105 on: 04/30/2010 02:07 PM »
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.

That does not apply to propellant supply flights and you know it, please stop spreading misinformation. As you must know DIRECT phase two (or is it three) relies on the same principle. The only high stakes dockings are between the capsule and its EDS, between the lander and its EDS, and twice between capsule and lander. With the reusable architecture I have in mind that's three such dockings, the same number as DIRECT or Constellation. And the first of these is even lower risk than with DIRECT or Constellation since there is no risk of losing the lander at that stage.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2010 02:17 PM by mmeijeri »
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #106 on: 04/30/2010 02:11 PM »
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".

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.

Or find ways to improve the reliability of rendezvous and transfer.  If those two are really so risky that adding some extra events greatly increases the hazards of a mission...they're already too risky.  Personally, I would prefer the approach of making rendezvous and transfer such a non-event that nobody in their right mind wants to use vehicles much bigger than 1000lb to orbit for launching propellants.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #107 on: 04/30/2010 02:17 PM »
The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets article I meant is this one:
Orbital Propellant Depots Enabling Lunar Architectures Without Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicles

I 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.

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.

~Jon

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #108 on: 04/30/2010 02:21 PM »
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".

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.

That does not apply to propellant supply flights and you know it

It does apply.  A rendezvous and a transfer is a rendezvous and a transfer, no matter what the cargo.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2010 02:24 PM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #109 on: 04/30/2010 02:25 PM »
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.

Heheh, glad I missed that part. Maybe that's just to make the thing politically acceptable. Still, if you're looking at it purely from the perspective of exploration using Ares I wouldn't be a bad idea. An EELV sized launcher is more than enough and once they got it to work Ares I would be as good as any launcher, at least for propellant. From the point of commercial development of space it would be bad of course, since you want both competition and RLVs or some other way to cheap and reliable access to space as soon as possible. And commercial development of space of course is my own main concern.

Anyway, good discussion, wrong thread...
« Last Edit: 04/30/2010 02:31 PM by mmeijeri »
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28468
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8333
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #110 on: 04/30/2010 02:47 PM »
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".

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....

How is it a strawman? The whole point is that docking and rendezvous is safe and common, far more than it was in 1962 (which caused, at first, the selection of a direct ascent architecture). Doesn't mean you get to be careless, but it seems really silly to me to argue that a finite number of dockings is unsafe, but an unlimited number of dockings is fine...
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 mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #111 on: 04/30/2010 02:47 PM »
It does apply.  A rendezvous and a transfer is a rendezvous and a transfer, no matter what the cargo.

Replied in a more appropriate thread.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #112 on: 04/30/2010 02:49 PM »
This thread is about man-rating EELVs, not use of EELVs for manned spaceflight and exploration in general. Good discussion about propellant transfer, what would be needed to support it and what good things could come of it, all subjects near and dear to my heart. But let's stay on topic. Thanks!
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #113 on: 05/01/2010 12:36 AM »
Has NASA paid prices like that for the launches of uncrewed science missions on EELV?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20506
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_Awards_Mars_Science_Lab_Launch_Contract.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_C07051_Juno_Launch_Services.html
http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/news-archive/news_0104.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/mar/HQ_C09-011_Launch_Services.html

This is great; gives some window into real Atlas V marginal prices. I extract the numbers here:

ModelPricePayload Awarded
AV 551$190 million Juno 2007
AV 551$124 millionMUOS-1 2008
AV 541$195MSL 2006
multiple$600 million total 2009
    AV 421Magnetospheric Multiscale
    AV 401TDRS-K
    AV 401TDRS-L
    AV 401Radiation Belt Storm Probes
AV 401$136 millionLRO 2006
AV 401$124 millionLandsat Data Continuity 2007

 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?
-Alex

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28468
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8333
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #114 on: 05/01/2010 01:26 AM »
If you compare the multi-buy of $150 million per 4x1 to the Atlas V 401 in 2007 at $136 million, that's only a 10% increase, or 5% a year, not much above inflation (and consistent with the "aerospace inflation" which is just the same thing as saying prices go up slowly for the aerospace same goods... This trend must reverse or we're staying on this rock). It doesn't seem too dramatic to me, especially since one of those had two extra solids.
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11158
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #115 on: 05/01/2010 02:17 PM »

 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.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2010 02:18 PM by Jim »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12876
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3932
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #116 on: 05/01/2010 02:54 PM »

 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)?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11158
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #117 on: 05/01/2010 03:00 PM »

Do these numbers account for Launch Capability Contract costs to the government (a USAF contract)?


there is some accounting, exchanging of money or reduction.  I don't know exactly what is done.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #118 on: 05/04/2010 12:41 PM »
Says to me at the current launch rate, and through any launch rates that don't require additional pads, we're looking at a baseline of ~$125 Million for an Atlas V 401/ I would guesstimate $140 M for a 402.

Tags: