Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat

[mmeijeri]

OK, interesting. What is it that makes you enthusiastic about Ares? Could you support another SDLV?

[yg1968]

It seems to me that Ares V is the most capable rocket. I am no sure why you would want to cancel it. The 5 segement boosters and the J-2X are upgrades. I am not sure why you would be against upgrading technology. 

[mmeijeri]

I suppose it's only fair if I put my own cards on the table as well.

I don't like SDLV because

- I dislike any HLV because we'll never get high flight rates and lower cost to orbit that way
- SDLV has very high fixed costs
- I believe free markets work better than governments

I like ULA because

- they have proven, reliable systems
- they're not NASA, so no conflict of interest
- they're a commercial player

I like SpaceX because

- they're an exciting, dynamic company trying to revolutionise spaceflight
- they're a commercial company

[Analyst]

It seems to me that Ares V is the most capable vehicule. I am no sure why you would want to cancel it. The 5 segement boosters and the J-2X are upgrades. I am not sure why you would be against upgrading technology. 

Well, I can think of an even more capable paper vehicle, just as or even more unaffordable than Ares V. Would you support it too, because capability, e.g. throw mass, is all you are interested in?

Analyst

[yg1968]

An HLV built by ULA would also be expensive.

Besides, as Bo mentionned, is there a huge difference between a rocket made by ATK and others with NASA supervision and one made by ULA without NASA supervision?

[mmeijeri]

I'd be opposed to a ULA HLV too. EELV Phase 1 looks like the smallest HLV possible and it will be the likely result of an ACES depot architecture anyway. Single core versions can support current markets and could perhaps be a bit cheaper.

[Analyst]

Ares V is not built by ATK. But this is not my point.

The real question is, is there really a need for a HLV? Or can we have it a little smaller please.

Contrary to popular mythology the Shuttle (current HLV) is not as expensive as it is because of being reusable, but it is as cheap as it is because of being reuseable. In other words: An expendable HLV in the Shuttle class would be as expensive as the Shuttle, or even more expensive, without having a spacecraft (payload) at all.

Analyst

[mmeijeri]

An expendable HLV in the Shuttle class would be as expensive as the Shuttle, or even more expensive, without having a spacecraft (payload) at all.

That part of the problem could be solved by using depots. However, since that allows use of smaller launchers as well, it gives NASA a reason to avoid depots. And without high flight rates we'll still have to wait a long time before the general march of technological progress makes cost to orbit low enough to allow substantial commercial activity in LEO.

[Jim]

An HLV built by ULA would also be expensive.

Besides, as Bo mentionned, is there a huge difference between a rocket made by ATK with NASA supervision and one made by ULA without NASA supervision?

Yes, the ULA one would be just as effective, reliable and safe but less expensive than an NASA managed one.

[Robotbeat]

AlexSA, thanks for responding!

There are a few things that SpaceX is doing that could decrease their costs:
1)All kerolox. While less efficient for the upper stage, it makes handling far easier. Their whole vehicle can get a better mass-fraction, and they use the same design for the upper stage as the lower stage (and for most LVs, the upper stages tend to be more expensive than the lower stages, even though they are smaller). This decreases costs by increasing commonality (same diameter tooling, same engine with some modifications like a nozzle extension, same fuel, same tubing, same avionics, etc).
2) Manufacturing techniques, like an all-friction-stir-welded tank and other state-of-the-art and automated manufacturing/quality-assurance machines. Also, the tanks don't have to be pressurized except for launch, making a lighter tank than an all-isogrid structure but much easier handling than a tank that relies on pressure-strength to stand under its own weight.
3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice).
4) Lower pressure engines with still enough performance margin ensures a robust design with larger factors of safety than is practical for a higher-pressure design.
5) In the first stage, a large numbers of engines (ridiculously large if you have a high launch rate), without having to rely on any one of them, (potentially) increases reliability yet greatly increases economy of scale at the same launch rate.

The fact that they produce most of their stuff in-house does, in fact, lower their costs. A lot of the parts for the EELVs come from facilities that are built to support much higher production rates than they currently are utilized at, whereas SpaceX can start small and only add more manufacturing machines when their current ones are running full-tilt 24/7.

[Analyst]

And without high flight rates we'll still have to wait a long time before the general march of technological progress makes cost to orbit low enough to allow substantial commercial activity in LEO.

Shuttle did try to reduce cost to orbit, and it actually made some progress. We should built up on this experience. (Unmanned) RLV is the way to go if you want to reduce cost to LEO. Not expendable heavy lift.

Analyst

[Jim]

1)All kerolox. While less efficient for the upper stage, it makes handling far easier. Their whole vehicle can get a better mass-fraction, and they use the same design for the upper stage as the lower stage (and for most LVs, the upper stages tend to be more expensive than the lower stages, even though they are smaller). This decreases costs by increasing commonality (same diameter tooling, same engine with some modifications like a nozzle extension, same fuel, same tubing, same avionics, etc).
2) Manufacturing techniques, like an all-friction-stir-welded tank and other state-of-the-art and automated manufacturing/quality-assurance machines. Also, the tanks don't have to be pressurized except for launch, making a lighter tank than an all-isogrid structure but much easier handling than a tank that relies on pressure-strength to stand under its own weight.
3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice).
4) Lower pressure engines with still enough performance margin ensures a robust design with larger factors of safety than is practical for a higher-pressure design.
5) In the first stage, a large numbers of engines (ridiculously large if you have a high launch rate), without having to rely on any one of them, (potentially) increases reliability yet greatly increases economy of scale at the same launch rate.

1.  It is a wash, Since the higher performing upperstage can lift more.

2.  The EELV's use state of the art.  They were the first with friction-stir-welded.  Also, not all EELV's are pressure stabilized.

3.  Payload driven.  Spacex is not going to get some launches because of this.

4.  That has nothing to do with cost.

5.  That is yet to be seen

[Robotbeat]

1)All kerolox. While less efficient for the upper stage, it makes handling far easier. Their whole vehicle can get a better mass-fraction, and they use the same design for the upper stage as the lower stage (and for most LVs, the upper stages tend to be more expensive than the lower stages, even though they are smaller). This decreases costs by increasing commonality (same diameter tooling, same engine with some modifications like a nozzle extension, same fuel, same tubing, same avionics, etc).
2) Manufacturing techniques, like an all-friction-stir-welded tank and other state-of-the-art and automated manufacturing/quality-assurance machines. Also, the tanks don't have to be pressurized except for launch, making a lighter tank than an all-isogrid structure but much easier handling than a tank that relies on pressure-strength to stand under its own weight.
3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice).
4) Lower pressure engines with still enough performance margin ensures a robust design with larger factors of safety than is practical for a higher-pressure design.
5) In the first stage, a large numbers of engines (ridiculously large if you have a high launch rate), without having to rely on any one of them, (potentially) increases reliability yet greatly increases economy of scale at the same launch rate.

1.  It is a wash, Since the higher performing upperstage can lift more.

2.  The EELV's use state of the art.  They were the first with friction-stir-welded.  Also, not all EELV's are pressure stabilized.

3.  Payload driven.  Spacex is not going to get some launches because of this.

4.  That has nothing to do with cost.

5.  That is yet to be seen

Basically, it's a wait and see, then? Well, fair enough.

[mmeijeri]

Is there less of a need to optimise the mass of the smaller tanks with advanced technology if you use a denser fuel?

[SpacexULA]

It seems to me that Ares V is the most capable vehicule. I am no sure why you would want to cancel it. The 5 segement boosters and the J-2X are upgrades. I am not sure why you would be against upgrading technology. 

Well, I can think of an even more capable paper vehicle, just as or even more unaffordable than Ares V. Would you support it too, because capability, e.g. throw mass, is all you are interested in?
Analyst

There are dozens of paper rockets that have equivalent or greater capacity compared to Ares V.

HLV, whether it's SDLV (Inline or Sidemount), Ares V, or even EELV Phase  1 all are only really NECESSARY and economical for exploration class HSF missions. 

Unless NASA gets a significantly larger budget (Good luck, NASA is already one of the largest non defense, non human service agency of the government), or starts allowing other space agencies into the critical path (Their payload, our launchers), there will be no robust HSF Exploration.

We are trying to solve the chicken vs egg problem by arguing about the hen house. 

[Jim]

HLV, whether it's SDLV (Inline or Sidemount), Ares V, or even EELV Phase  1 all are only really NECESSARY and economical for exploration class HSF missions. 

That is not proven. 

[yg1968]

Can there really be a HLV market if you have one customer (NASA) and one supplier (to be determined)?

[mmeijeri]

Commercial rockets already have other customers.

[yg1968]

I meant HLVs (edited my post to make it clearer).

[mmeijeri]

Missed that, but in the case of EELV Phase 1 there is actually an overlap. The single core versions would have similar payloads to the current heavy versions. The multiple core versions might not ever have to fly if cryogenic propellant transfer happens in time or exploration is delayed by enough.