Commercial HLV and R&D

[clb22]

However, Lori Garver made it quite clear she wants a sparkly new rocket utilising cutting-edge technology.  So, once again, the EELVs will be starting with a big disadvantage.

Do you have a citation for that?

I was about to ask that too, thanks. I don't remember hearing anything about a new HLV in the future, and in fact the Heavy-lift and Propulsion R&D line item does not mention new launch vehicles, only "heavy-lift systems", which probably doesn't mean a new HLV.

I think Ben's post is partly misleading. Garver said two things relating to HLV development during the Feb 1st teleconference:

a. the new line-item "HLV and in-space propulsion" is for basic research and won't be directed at any current hardware or projects talked about.

and

b. under the PoR no funds would have been allocated to HLV development until 2016 and that this hasn't changed yet. No funds for actual HLV development are in the budget until 2015.

[HMXHMX]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift."  (Beyond the child-like joy we all share at watching large rockets take-off, as I did watching Apollo 17 from the VAB.)

Essentially every building, commodity and apparatus we build or use on this Earth is delivered in shipping containers or trucks with maximum load of around 40,000 pounds mass.  I simply fail to comprehend why we need to launch larger unitary masses, when the billions required for launch vehicle development could be better applied to learning how to live, work and assembly things in space.  We already have this level of payload lift capability and more could be becoming on-line.

After all, we now have a decade's experience doing exactly that from ISS.  We will never become a space-faring civilization if we persist in launching intact structures from the ground.

Time to learn that flight rate is what is important, so that we lower both marginal operating costs, and thus price, plus have flexibility to increase flight rate to obtain whatever masses we may require in orbit for any project.

[Danderman]

I think the top people at NASA understand this completely, but there are a lot of people, especially here, who want HLV because that's the way it always has been done, and we need to repeat history.

[cgrunska]

orbital construction facility here we hopefully come!

[Ben the Space Brit]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift." 

It all boils down to simplicity.  Launch something in one or two chunks = easy (if expensive).  Launch something in 20+ chunks & assemble it in orbit = just as expensive and much, much harder with geometrically more failure points.

To me, at least, as launching 100t to orbit is fairly easy (we do it every time we launch the shuttle), dividing cargos below that level is not really necessary unless there are really overwhelming arguments.

@ cgrunska,

Orbital construction yards? Forget it at least for 50 years.  Hugely expensive with virtually no role except one refurbishment operation every two or three years maximum.

This ain't the Star Trek universe with a new starship rolling off the slips every month or so and a fleet of hundreds of spacecraft to maintain.  Until we need the ability to maintain a space fleet, we'd be better off doing as much as possible from Earth's surface where parts, labour and, most importantly, a firm place to stand are all much more easily available.  Only at high fleet sizes do the problems of taking things to and from the planetary surface make orbital drydocks attractive.

[clb22]

Develop depot technology, develop high isp, reliable advanced in-space propulsion and then launch your inter-planetary spacecraft in 2 launches of your 35mt vehicle. That's the best way to go. Not a 7 launch HLV scenario with chemical rockets, huged fixed costs and an army of ground personnel.

[Ben the Space Brit]

@ clb22,

The big problem, always the big problem, is the word "develop".  I have seen no reason to believe that these things cannot be done but on what timescale? At what cost? Would a government or corporate entity be willing to spend either of these when heavy-lift is a known (if expensive) option?

That is not to say that these things are not ultimately going to potentially be important.  In time, when we are at last looking at permanently settling the Moon and, ultimately, Mars, we will need to have a large number of spacecraft to carry cargo and personnel around the solar system.  It will be cheaper and simpler to service them in space rather than go through the expense of taking them up and down a large fraction of Earth's gravity well. 

The difference between you and I is that I see them being launched in 50t to 100t chunks because less assembly will always be better.

[HMXHMX]

@ clb22,

The big problem, always the big problem, is the word "develop".  I have seen no reason to believe that these things cannot be done but on what timescale? At what cost? Would a government or corporate entity be willing to spend either of these when heavy-lift is a known (if expensive) option?

That is not to say that these things are not ultimately going to potentially be important.  In time, when we are at last looking at permanently settling the Moon and, ultimately, Mars, we will need to have a large number of spacecraft to carry cargo and personnel around the solar system.  It will be cheaper and simpler to service them in space rather than go through the expense of taking them up and down a large fraction of Earth's gravity well. 

The difference between you and I is that I see them being launched in 50t to 100t chunks because less assembly will always be better.

The key word is "better."

Better as in more jobs for more Congressional districts?

Or better as in more economic?  i.e., more bang for one's buck?

The latter rules business, the former, politicians.  This is the core of the problem.  It is no surprise that every entrepreneur or businessman who has considered the issue has ignored "heavy" lift.

[Downix]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift." 

It all boils down to simplicity.  Launch something in one or two chunks = easy (if expensive).  Launch something in 20+ chunks & assemble it in orbit = just as expensive and much, much harder with geometrically more failure points.

To me, at least, as launching 100t to orbit is fairly easy (we do it every time we launch the shuttle), dividing cargos below that level is not really necessary unless there are really overwhelming arguments.

@ cgrunska,

Orbital construction yards? Forget it at least for 50 years.  Hugely expensive with virtually no role except one refurbishment operation every two or three years maximum.

This ain't the Star Trek universe with a new starship rolling off the slips every month or so and a fleet of hundreds of spacecraft to maintain.  Until we need the ability to maintain a space fleet, we'd be better off doing as much as possible from Earth's surface where parts, labour and, most importantly, a firm place to stand are all much more easily available.  Only at high fleet sizes do the problems of taking things to and from the planetary surface make orbital drydocks attractive.

First we'd need in-space mining.  Then in-space processing.  *THEN* we could consider in-space manufacturing.

[neilh]

Orbital construction yards? Forget it at least for 50 years.  Hugely expensive with virtually no role except one refurbishment operation every two or three years maximum.

Do you believe it will take at least 50 years for Bigelow Aerospace to start docking their modules together?

[William Barton]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift." 

It all boils down to simplicity.  Launch something in one or two chunks = easy (if expensive).  Launch something in 20+ chunks & assemble it in orbit = just as expensive and much, much harder with geometrically more failure points.

To me, at least, as launching 100t to orbit is fairly easy (we do it every time we launch the shuttle), dividing cargos below that level is not really necessary unless there are really overwhelming arguments.

@ cgrunska,

Orbital construction yards? Forget it at least for 50 years.  Hugely expensive with virtually no role except one refurbishment operation every two or three years maximum.

This ain't the Star Trek universe with a new starship rolling off the slips every month or so and a fleet of hundreds of spacecraft to maintain.  Until we need the ability to maintain a space fleet, we'd be better off doing as much as possible from Earth's surface where parts, labour and, most importantly, a firm place to stand are all much more easily available.  Only at high fleet sizes do the problems of taking things to and from the planetary surface make orbital drydocks attractive.

There's no reason to think that "orbital assembly yards" will come *or* not come in any timeframe, and "50 years" is neither more nor less likely than any other timeframe that extends beyond the current political horizon. Everything you do in space, and how you do it, is dependent on *what* you plan to do, and why. If you're planning on colonizing Mars because The Avatar of the Age* came back to Earth and told us to, MarsOrBust ship design needs an 800mT reactor, and the Colonial Fleet needs a thousand ships, you'll need heavy lift *and* and orbital assembly yard. If all you're doing is engdless repetitions of Toy Cars on Mars, all you'll "need" is Taurus II. The predictions that people make on these threads strike me as increasingly silly. Especially given the circumstances.

(* Just wondering if anyone here will recognize the reference.)

[Halidon]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift."  (Beyond the child-like joy we all share at watching large rockets take-off, as I did watching Apollo 17 from the VAB.)

Essentially every building, commodity and apparatus we build or use on this Earth is delivered in shipping containers or trucks with maximum load of around 40,000 pounds mass.

On the other hand, look at commercial shipbuilding:


Or modern mass-manufacture homes:


Those could be built on-site from pieces which fit in a shipping container. But it makes more sense from an economic, schedule, and quality-control standpoint to use a factory setting to build modules as large as practical and then assemble them "on site" from as few large blocks as possible. The cranes may be expensive, but they still come out ahead.

[docmordrid]

ala Bigelow, who is also now talking about 2,100 cu/m expandable modules.

[HMXHMX]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift."  (Beyond the child-like joy we all share at watching large rockets take-off, as I did watching Apollo 17 from the VAB.)

Essentially every building, commodity and apparatus we build or use on this Earth is delivered in shipping containers or trucks with maximum load of around 40,000 pounds mass.

On the other hand, look at commercial shipbuilding:


Or modern mass-manufacture homes:


Those could be built on-site from pieces which fit in a shipping container. But it makes more sense from an economic, schedule, and quality-control standpoint to use a factory setting to build modules as large as practical and then assemble them "on site" from as few large blocks as possible. The cranes may be expensive, but they still come out ahead.

I didn't say you couldn't build big structures or vehicles, just that the pieces don't have to be bigger than 40K lbs.  Note all those welds?  And all modular house frames and elements are below this mass, too.

[mmeijeri]

The big problem, always the big problem, is the word "develop".  I have seen no reason to believe that these things cannot be done but on what timescale? At what cost? Would a government or corporate entity be willing to spend either of these when heavy-lift is a known (if expensive) option?

Nothings needs to be developed, though there are plenty of things I'd like to see developed. Propellant transfer and autonomous rendez-vous and docking are enough to make things work with existing ELVs. The vast bulk of IMLEO is propellant and that is nearly perfectly divisible. 20-30mT of dry mass is not a very difficult constraint to live with. Dry-launching is the key. Without it, nothing ever fits comfortably, even if you have an HLV. That's the great irony: with an HLV you're always struggling to make things fit.

Forget about launchers people. To go to the moon we need a lander. We already have launch vehicles.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Orbital construction yards? Forget it at least for 50 years.  Hugely expensive with virtually no role except one refurbishment operation every two or three years maximum.

Do you believe it will take at least 50 years for Bigelow Aerospace to start docking their modules together?

No, but I think it will be at least 50 years before anyone builds up any kind of fleet that needs the sort of orbital infrastructure that you're talking about.

@ mmeijeri,

The point is that trying for a non-HLV archetecture demands propellent transfer and similar technologies.  HLV-based archetectures benefit but do not require.  That takes one major unknown out of the bargin: propellent transfer - lots of theoretical work but nothing approaching a working model yet.  On the other hand, all the questions about HLV have already been answered.

We've had this argument before, IIRC.  Basically, you subscribe to the 'road first, destination later' school whilst I prefer 'destination first, road later'.  Things that you would like would be better developed (because only then would the politicians accept the need) only after the destination is there.  And that needs HLV.

I also disagree with your premise that most flights will be propellent. You still have to launch tanks for the propellent, structural frames to hold it and the crew and cargo modules too.  Okay, we're still looking at about 67% propellent, but that's 67% of a lot.  Additionally, assembling all that stuff would be a high-risk endevour.  Why bother when you can direct launch even better mission capabilities with a few HLVs?

[edit]
FWIW, I don't think that the commercial HLV is what most people think of when they say 'HLV' anyway.  No Ares-V-style giant here.  In all probability, what we're going to see is a 50t to 100t scalable launcher, basically a super-EELV in performance terms.

[mmeijeri]

That takes one major unknown out of the bargin: propellent transfer - lots of theoretical work but nothing approaching a working model yet.

Incorrect. We have thirty years of operational experience with it.

  On the other hand, all the questions about HLV have already been answered.

In particular the question "Is it affordable?". The answer is no.

We've had this argument before, IIRC.  Basically, you subscribe to the 'road first, destination later' school whilst I prefer 'destination first, road later'.

Not at all, that is a misrepresentation of both your own and my position. I say go beyond LEO now with existing launchers. You say build an HLV first.

I also disagree with your premise that most flights will be propellent. You still have to launch tanks for the propellent, structural frames to hold it and the crew and cargo modules too.  Okay, we're still looking at about 67% propellent, but that's 67% of a lot.  Additionally, assembling all that stuff would be a high-risk endevour.  Why bother when you can direct launch even better mission capabilities with a few HLVs?

That's simply wrong. You need only two non-propellant flights: a crew vehicle and a lander. If the lander is reusable, you need only one non-propellant flight. All the rest is propellant. Also, no assembly would be required, just docking. You are either misinformed or spreading misinformation.

[Robotbeat]

...That takes one major unknown out of the bargin: propellent transfer - lots of theoretical work but nothing approaching a working model yet.  On the other hand, all the questions about HLV have already been answered.
...

All the questions about hypergolic prop-transfer have been answered... before I was born.

[dcbecker]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift."  (Beyond the child-like joy we all share at watching large rockets take-off, as I did watching Apollo 17 from the VAB.)

Essentially every building, commodity and apparatus we build or use on this Earth is delivered in shipping containers or trucks with maximum load of around 40,000 pounds mass.

On the other hand, look at commercial shipbuilding:


Or modern mass-manufacture homes:


Those could be built on-site from pieces which fit in a shipping container. But it makes more sense from an economic, schedule, and quality-control standpoint to use a factory setting to build modules as large as practical and then assemble them "on site" from as few large blocks as possible. The cranes may be expensive, but they still come out ahead.

I didn't say you couldn't build big structures or vehicles, just that the pieces don't have to be bigger than 40K lbs.  Note all those welds?  And all modular house frames and elements are below this mass, too.

The only reason they build things in 40K lbs pieces is that they are constrained by max size and load limits of roadways. Shipping something bigger is sometimes possible, but a large effort. If that was not a constraint, it would be far cheaper to build bigger modules (ie the entire house) in the "factory" and ship it as one piece. Same for HLV. If you have a way to get it there, it is cheaper and safer to build it in one place and ship it intact. If you have constraints on size, you accept the higher build costs and risks.

[robertross]

I have never understood the desire for "heavy lift."  (Beyond the child-like joy we all share at watching large rockets take-off, as I did watching Apollo 17 from the VAB.)

Essentially every building, commodity and apparatus we build or use on this Earth is delivered in shipping containers or trucks with maximum load of around 40,000 pounds mass.

On the other hand, look at commercial shipbuilding:


Or modern mass-manufacture homes:


Those could be built on-site from pieces which fit in a shipping container. But it makes more sense from an economic, schedule, and quality-control standpoint to use a factory setting to build modules as large as practical and then assemble them "on site" from as few large blocks as possible. The cranes may be expensive, but they still come out ahead.

I didn't say you couldn't build big structures or vehicles, just that the pieces don't have to be bigger than 40K lbs.  Note all those welds?  And all modular house frames and elements are below this mass, too.

The only reason they build things in 40K lbs pieces is that they are constrained by max size and load limits of roadways. Shipping something bigger is sometimes possible, but a large effort. If that was not a constraint, it would be far cheaper to build bigger modules (ie the entire house) in the "factory" and ship it as one piece. Same for HLV. If you have a way to get it there, it is cheaper and safer to build it in one place and ship it intact. If you have constraints on size, you accept the higher build costs and risks.

Good points made all around, but yours is correct. They WOULD build bigger if they could, but because of the limitations in the infrastructure, you have to work around it.

Halifax recently got in a new container crane. It 'just' fit under the bridge here (had to wait for low tide, no vehicles on the bridge, light breeze only). It had 6 inches to spare. All in one piece.

Much easier to do all the integration in a controlled environment if you can, minimizing ISSUES during assembly. If we have assembly issues in space, we would most likely need a crew there to fix it, once the problem is documented, a work-around found (if possible), and the tools/hardware is ready to make the fix. It could make use of a robotic vehicle to photograph any issues, and possibly a similar robot to fix it, or you send up replacement module(s).

Oh, and that means you STOP your whole assembly sequence until root cause is found AND you can ensure it is not systemic and just localized.

And another point: depending on the attachment method, each joint could become a failure point. Seals, fasteners, fluid & electrical connections. ISS is a great example of this. Sure it has the other facets of ease of R&R, but those are meant for ORUs, NOT major assembly elements.