Commercial HLV and R&D

[Dave G]

On thing to note here: SpaceX has always had a true heavy lift (100 ton plus) vehicle in mind.  They call it the BFR.  If they had a way to fund it, they'd probably be developing the BFR right now.

Could Mars be done with lots of F9H launches?  Maybe.  And if you were only going to go once or twice, that may make sense.  But if you want to go more often, then I think a BFR makes more sense.  Once you have the launcher, cost per pounds is way less.

[clb22]

On thing to note here: SpaceX has always had a true heavy lift (100 ton plus) vehicle in mind.  They call it the BFR.  If they had a way to fund it, they'd probably be developing the BFR right now.

Could Mars be done with lots of F9H launches?  Maybe.  And if you were only going to go once or twice, that may make sense.  But if you want to go more often, then I think a BFR makes more sense.  Once you have the launcher, cost per pounds is way less.

SpaceX should focus on getting their 9mt MLV to orbit instead of making bold claims about 100mt HLVs.

There are various possibilities to get a commercially developed HLV done. Right now, SpaceX wouldn't be on the short list for contractors for that project. In the future, yes, they might, but not now or in the next few years.

[notsorandom]

SpaceX has the potential to fly well under the EELVs prices. There is some doubt about how low they will be able to price their rockets though. The current list price of the Falcon 9 on the SpaceX website is $49.5 Million thats up from the 2007 price of $35 Million. Thats an increase of over 40%. There is no price listed on the SpaceX website currently for the Falcon 9 Heavy. The $100 Million figure is a bit old from what I can tell. Once they get a handle on the true operating costs of the F9 they will likely have a better grasp on the price of the F9H. Its likely to go up quite a bit.

Another factor beside cost is launch rate. I know that ULA has the facilities to produce a very large number of CCBs and CBCs. There are two launch pads for the Delta IV and one for the Atlas V. This puts a practical limit on the number of flights per year. To increase the flight rate more pads need to be built which makes the fixed cost of the launch system goes up.

We don't know how fast a F9H can be produced and launched. I suspect that it is not fast enough for an all SpaceX approach and that most of the payloads would have to fly on EELVs. F9Hs in the mix would lower the figure somewhat depending on the how the launches were divided up.

Any mission designed to fly on these vehicles needs to limit the number of launches to the maximum flight rate and not crowd out all the other customers like unmanned missions and DOD payloads. For example there will be 10 EELV launches this year. That number may go up in the future as the Delta II is retired. Bigelow Aerospace's lunar habitat would require at least 12 launches fuel and all. Lets say four launches per human landing and two of those a year. 30 launches has got to be near the maximum flight rate per year if not over it.

[Jim]

. There are two launch pads for the Delta IV and one for the Atlas V. This puts a practical limit on the number of flights per year. To increase the flight rate more pads need to be built which makes the fixed cost of the launch system goes up.

Atlas has two

[notsorandom]

I thought that there was only one pad at SLC-41. Am I missing something? I wasn't counting Vandenberg since rockets form there can't do low inclination orbits.

[Jim]

I thought that there was only one pad at SLC-41. Am I missing something? I wasn't counting Vandenberg since rockets form there can't do low inclination orbits.

Each vehicle has one pad on each coast

[clb22]

SpaceX has the potential to fly well under the EELVs prices. There is some doubt about how low they will be able to price their rockets though. The current list price of the Falcon 9 on the SpaceX website is $49.5 Million thats up from the 2007 price of $35 Million. Thats an increase of over 40%. There is no price listed on the SpaceX website currently for the Falcon 9 Heavy. The $100 Million figure is a bit old from what I can tell. Once they get a handle on the true operating costs of the F9 they will likely have a better grasp on the price of the F9H. Its likely to go up quite a bit.

Let's wait until Falcon 9 has a flight record and until Falcon 9H is actually developed. Quoting prices on corporate websites is a fun game, but they aren't the real prices that customers will pay (you need to add integration, special deals, other (higher) prices for the government etc.). Prices for Falcon 9 will change and SpaceX will orientate its price depending on market prices if Falcon 9 turns out to be a reliable MLV. If Falcon 9 turns out to have a sub-par reliability (and sub-par means less than 90% launch successes), comsat customers and NASA science payloads (making up most of the potential launch market for US companies for MLVs)  won't opt for Falcon 9 until it has a reliable track record.

All that being said, of course SpaceX has the potential to undercut EELV prices, but its just "potential" and it's a long way to that point and it's a risky way too that might not succeed. Talking about projected launch prices is thus futile a the moment.

[Dave G]

SpaceX should focus on getting their 9mt MLV to orbit instead of making bold claims about 100mt HLVs.

There are various possibilities to get a commercially developed HLV done. Right now, SpaceX wouldn't be on the short list for contractors for that project. In the future, yes, they might, but not now or in the next few years.

Obviously, SpaceX is focusing on a successful Falcon 9 launch, but as a commercial company, they will always have a few people looking at other things.

To be clear, SpaceX isn't making any bold claims about a 100 ton HLV.  They're just saying that this is the direction they would like to head eventually, and they've done some preliminary design work toward this end,  internally named "BFR". 

Their main concern seems to be how they would fund such a project, given that they are a commercial company, and there are few, if any commercial customers for this.

Here's my point:  It appears that SpaceX acknowledges the need for a 100 ton HLV for eventual Moon/Mars missions, which is why they have done some preliminary design work in this area.

[zaitcev]

Another factor beside cost is launch rate. I know that ULA has the facilities to produce a very large number of CCBs and CBCs. There are two launch pads for the Delta IV and one for the Atlas V. This puts a practical limit on the number of flights per year. To increase the flight rate more pads need to be built which makes the fixed cost of the launch system goes up.

I don't think it's true that having one Atlas V pad (on the Cape -- thanks, Jim) is what throttles the number of launches. The SDO that launched yesterday only spent a day at the pad. If they had enough platforms and bays to stack rockets, they could launch 50 times a year. It may be easier to build a few dual railroad tracks, another launch platform of the same design, and a big shed or two before thinking about whole new pad.
-- Pete

[jongoff]

Congratualtions on knowing exactly what we need.  As far as I can tell, and I'm fairly close to the subject, no one else has determined what we are doing with this new "program".

I never said I "knew exactly what we need".  Especially as you look further out into the future, things necessarily get more uncertain.  But that doesn't mean we don't have any information to go off of.  There have been studies for various exploration options for over half a century, and a lot of analysis of what sort of systems might be needed for various tasks.

For closer destinations such as the Moon, earth-moon and earth-sun lagrange points, and some of the closer NEOs, there have been lots of studies, and unless I'm missing something none of them indicated any pieces that couldn't reasonably be broken down into 50mT chunks or smaller.  Is it possible that there's something for these near-term destinations that absolutely positively has to be shipped in sizes too big to fit on a Phase II EELV?  I'd say it is pretty improbable, but not entirely impossible (just as it is possible that a Jupiter-based system might prove too small for something in Mars exploration).

Looking further out (like say to Mars), it's more likely that with existing technology, we might need something bigger than a Phase II EELV...but when we're talking 10, 20 years into the future, it's really hard to know where the technology is going to be by then.  I've seen several technologies that might possibly completely change calculations on what is needed for a Mars mission between now and when we decide to go.  Do we really want to spend a ton of money on an HLV now, when it really doesn't look like it would be needed for another decade or two? Sure, if we had one, we could do nearer destinations using an HLV--the investment wouldn't be worthless.  But is that really the best approach in the near term?

It's also worth remembering, that if you develop something equivalent to a Phase II EELV, it's not like that wouldn't give you the tools to build a bigger launcher if 20 years down the road it turns out that you really need one.  By having an HLV that's part of a launcher family that's also flying payloads for other commercial and governmental customers, there is a higher probability of those key HLV pieces being there if you actually need to use them--but if it turns out not to be necessary, you haven't wasted $10+B of near-term money on development of a launcher bigger than you actually needed, and several billion per year since then in keeping it around.

Saying that we need to do an SDHLV, just in case we might need it down the road for a Mars mission still seems pretty premature to me.  It's sort of like a teenager going out and buying a 12-seater van just in case he ends up getting married and having too many kids to fit in a four-seater car.  Really, the time to make decisions like that is when you're closer to the point of actually having real knowledge to base the decisions on, and when you're more able to make those decisions. 

~Jon

[mmeijeri]

What's with the EELV Phase 2 plugging? EELV Phase 1 is desirable, but not urgent. EELV Phase 2 is acutely undesirable in the short run and won't be needed for at least twenty to thirty years, if at all. We already have launch vehicles. What we need is a spacecraft. This is more urgent (and more useful) than even an EDS, since an EDS needs payloads. Launch vehicle sizes should be determined by the market. Creating that market should be the top priority.

Commercial development of space (and to a lesser extent government funded exploration) is being held up by high launch costs, not fairing sizes or throw weight. The sooner we have propellant launches up and running, the sooner the countdown to RLVs or cheap expendables begins. Spending money on EELV Phase 2 or even Phase 1 right now means wasting time and in the case of Phase 2, money. Phase 2 also means making EELVs less competitive on the commercial market. Phase 1 might be different (common upper stage reduces costs), but it too isn't urgent. Propellant launches and going (slightly) beyond LEO are all that matters. Everything else can wait. I exaggerate, but only a little. EELV Phase 1 can be delayed, Phases 2 and 3 can be deferred indefinitely, until proven necessary and preferably until after RLVs or cheap expendables are operational.

Do we want commercial development of space or what?

[clb22]

To be clear, SpaceX isn't making any bold claims about a 100 ton HLV.  They're just saying that this is the direction they would like to head eventually, and they've done some preliminary design work toward this end,  internally named "BFR". 

Yes, and then they said they are looking into a Super-HLV. That's a bold claim for a company that has just launched 2 out of 5 small sat launchers successfully as of today.

Here's my point:  It appears that SpaceX acknowledges the need for a 100 ton HLV for eventual Moon/Mars missions, which is why they have done some preliminary design work in this area.

I doubt SpaceX is acknowledging anything with their claim of wanting to build a S-HLV down the road. SpaceX isn't going to the Mars and the Moon, the US taxpayer might be funding this at some point in the future and the US taxpayer's designated space agency will be doing the analysis of whether a 100 ton S-HLV is required. Interestingly enough, the conventional wisdom until 2005 was that a 100 ton S-HLV isn't required for a Moon mission or a Mars mission. Under O'Keefe/Steidle the industry approach was using a combination of existing 20-25 ton rockets and 50-80 ton rockets with some companies only using up to 40-50 ton rockets in their design proposals. Only the madness that was Ares V in the last 4 years has led people to believe 100mt is a somewhat moderate HLV to build an exploration architecture around.

[Dappa]

(...)
Do we really want to spend a ton of money on an HLV now, when it really doesn't look like it would be needed for another decade or two?
(...)

Yes we do. Obama's current plan calls for R&D on a HLV for the next five years or so. Just R&D. This probably means that we won't see a flight qualified HLV for almost 10 years.

By that time there will be a greater need for an HLV vehicle, either to give ISS a major overhaul, or to launch a new ISS.

[clb22]

By that time there will be a greater need for an HLV vehicle, either to give ISS a major overhaul, or to launch a new ISS.

Why would you need an HLV (we are talking about a 100 ton Super-HLV right?) to do a "major overhaul" of the ISS? If any major modifications of the ISS will be made, I am certain it won't require a 100 ton vehicle, we will do just fine by use of current launch vehicles available.

And launching a new ISS or any other space station? Ain't going to happen. You do realize the ISS program's precursor in the US started planning and being funded in the early 1980s? If you want a new space station flying in 2025, you better start planning and funding development of it now... and there are no plans to do so.

[mmeijeri]

If you want a new space station flying in 2025, you better start planning and funding development of it now... and there are no plans to do so.

To the degree there is such planning, it appears to be to buy or lease Bigelow modules. And those can be launched on current EELVs. If you want to make sure the ISS survives or is replaced by a new station, you had better not put an HLV on the critical path.

[marsavian]

If you want a new space station flying in 2025, you better start planning and funding development of it now... and there are no plans to do so.

To the degree there is such planning, it appears to be to buy or lease Bigelow modules. And those can be launched on current EELVs. If you want to make sure the ISS survives or is replaced by a new station, you had better not put an HLV on the critical path.

Didn't he choose to use Russian LVs instead ? That's how real non-subsidized 'commercial' business works.   

[notsorandom]

What's with the EELV Phase 2 plugging? EELV Phase 1 is desirable, but not urgent. EELV Phase 2 is acutely undesirable in the short run and won't be needed for at least twenty to thirty years, if at all.

The title of this thread is "Commercial HLV and R&D". The original question that started this topic was "What would be examples of R&D on an HLV project? How would a R&D project be selected?" EELV growth options are being "plugged" here because they directly pertain to the topic. It is the same reason why SDHLVs and the mythical SpaceX BFR have also been mentioned. Under no one's definition are the current EELVs considered heavy lift.

Launch vehicle sizes should be determined by the market. Creating that market should be the top priority. Commercial development of space (and to a lesser extent government funded exploration) is being held up by high launch costs, not fairing sizes or throw weight.

The market gives preference to using HLVs for human exploration. This is true even with in the Atlas V growth options. You have previously stated that increasing the flight rate lowers prices. This is true. However,there is also another way to lower prices. It turns out that increasing the LV size lowers the price per kg more effectively then increasing flight rate. There have bee some good posts in this forum over the last week proving this. But here is a chart anyway. http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/LV_Cost_per_kg_to_LEO.gif Take a look at the EELVs, even at twice the flight rate the larger versions still beat the cost per kg of the smaller versions. This is true for other rocket families as well. The Falcon 9 Heavy lifts about 3x the payload of the F9 but cost about 2x as much. The Falcon 9 costs about 5x as much as the Falcon 1e but lifts 10x more.

Propellant launches and going (slightly) beyond LEO are all that matters.
Everything else can wait. I exaggerate, but only a little. EELV Phase 1 can be delayed, Phases 2 and 3 can be deferred indefinitely, until proven necessary and preferably until after RLVs or cheap expendables are operational.

Do we want commercial development of space or what?

Yes, I want commercial development of space. I don't see how propellant depots are the only way to promote it. I see companies like SpaceX, Masten, Xcor, Scaled Composites, ect making inspiring progress in all sorts of space flight and rocketry problems.

[mmeijeri]

Yes, I want commercial development of space. I don't see how propellant depots are the only way to promote it.

They certainly aren't. Obama's plans for multiple commercial crew taxi's on multiple man-rated launchers will have a major impact. Any use of Bigelow modules as an addition to and perhaps even an eventual replacement of the ISS would be another. Neither of those requires depots. But the biggest remaining obstacle is high launch costs and that's where depots come in.

Launch costs will have to go down by at least an order of magnitude before we can start to see real commercial development of space, which is something that HLVs will not provide. Achieving that may take ten to twenty years of R&D, funded from sales of launch services, supported by fundamental research funded by NASA and partially done by NASA.

Where will that demand come from? Even there depots are not the only answer. Suborbital flights are another source.

The reason suborbital spaceflight will likely be an important source of money is that it has the potential to be profitable really soon. Most of it will be commercial. This is a crucial development, a new source of funding for R&D is being tapped and it has the potential to grow until it is much bigger than what NASA could ever provide.

Exploration using propellant transfer can be another enormous source of demand, this time from the government. Exploration would provide the excitement that gets it funded, scientific returns would provide the justification. This is a great source of funding for R&D and it would come at no extra cost to NASA. This dual use of the same funds is too good an opportunity to miss.

There is nothing wrong with HLVs in the long run, it's just that RLVs or cheap expendables are much more important. EELVs are not going away and upgrading to Phases 1 through 3 will remain an option. There's also nothing wrong with HLV research. Research can afford to take a long term view, and HLV research can certainly be part of that, just like NTR, ISRU or hypersonic airbreathers. RLV research and cryogenic depots seem much more urgent however. TAN research certainly looks like a good idea and it could apply both to RLVs and HLVs.

But the problem goes deeper than that. It's not just that HLVs aren't needed soon (or even ever), their absence is crucial in the short to medium term. HLVs would get in the way of the high flight rates that would be needed to make RLV R&D profitable. And since I believe it will take ten to twenty years of R&D and ten to twenty years of propellant launches before we have the RLVs we need, I'm opposed to HLVs in the next ten to twenty years. EELV Phase 1 would be the exception. And fortunately, since we won't be needing HLVs for at least twenty to thirty years, if ever, waiting for RLVs would not be a problem.

My preferred route to HLV would be as follows:

Start with a refuelable spacecraft as soon as possible and invent plausible missions between LEO and GEO for it, then go on to Lagrange points. Make sure they 1) provide real returns and 2) consume lots of propellant. Buy propellant in LEO and at Lagrange points and buy transportation services between the two. I believe that this by itself will lead ULA to develop EELV Phase 1 and cryogenic depots on its own dime.

This would give you HLV and cryogenic depots soon and would make RLV R&D by the private sector profitable soon.

I see companies like SpaceX, Masten, Xcor, Scaled Composites, ect making inspiring progress in all sorts of space flight and rocketry problems.

Imagine how much more they could do if NASA provided a steady demand of hundreds of tons of propellant each year. Imagine the funding they could attract on the capital markets.

Propellant transfer offers enormous and strategically important benefits soon. HLV offers much less important benefits much later and inhibits the really important things in the short term. HLV research is fine, HLV development is not.

[MP99]

However,there is also another way to lower prices. It turns out that increasing the LV size lowers the price per kg more effectively then increasing flight rate. There have bee some good posts in this forum over the last week proving this. But here is a chart anyway. http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/charts/LV_Cost_per_kg_to_LEO.gif Take a look at the EELVs, even at twice the flight rate the larger versions still beat the cost per kg of the smaller versions.

I'd really like to see that chart with the X axis re-based to "Kg launched per year" rather than "number of launches per year".

Martin

[notsorandom]

I'd really like to see that chart with the X axis re-based to "Kg launched per year" rather than "number of launches per year".

It would be interesting to set it up so that the y axis was cost and the x axis was total kg to LEO per year. I was looking at the chart again keeping the lift capacity of each rocket in mind and there appears to be a sweet spot of around 70mt to LEO in each class of vehicle. That looks to be true in the EELVs, In-line SDHLVs, and side mount SDHLVs. Anything lower or higher at a kg to LEO is more expensive. Perhaps with present technology that represents the most economical lift capacity for any HLV system.