Author Topic: Boeing Statement on the Need for Immediate Development of a Heavy-lift Vehicle  (Read 55536 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32492
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11261
  • Likes Given: 333

I do believe that Musk's pockets are deep enough to carry SpaceX at least five years,

He has said his pockets aren't deep enough to weather more than 2 failures.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Yeah, I see your point.  It is all about money.  Nothing more.  Thanks again. 
I think these guys are a bit jaded.  I know quite a few inside of Boeing, and they do, actually, have more scruples than just out for a buck.  If the last tanker competition had not changed the rules mid-bid, Boeing likely would not have protested, for example.  They could have thrown a fit over the issues with the first tanker bid as well, but didn't.

I will not write this move up to pure greed, altho making money is definately within Boeings mindset, it is not all that is within their mindset.



Nothing wrong with the profit motive. Just remember that Boeing is going to advocate choices that are to their advantage, and that's going to mean that they are not giving neutral and unbiased advice.

It's the same as Musk explaining all the reasons we should buy his rocket. He's not going to spend a lot of time pointing out the reasons we shouldn't


Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
I do believe that Musk's pockets are deep enough to carry SpaceX at least five years,
He has said his pockets aren't deep enough to weather more than 2 failures.

Actually, he said they can financially handle four Falcon 9 failures:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16elon.html?pagewanted=all

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Five years to research, plus 5-7 years to build, plus no guarantee that the thing will work or be financially sustainable, or be more productive or useful that what is available now.    The Obama plan is not a space program.  Its a way to sweep HSF under the rug.  A Direct Jupiter 130  with an Orion could be launched within five years, uses proven tech and maintains a skilled work force. 

and don't forget is just the entry to a much more extensive family of vehicles that can evolve with the exploration priorities of the nation.

without "reinventing" the wheel as OV mentioned on another thread today.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Five years to research, plus 5-7 years to build, plus no guarantee that the thing will work or be financially sustainable, or be more productive or useful that what is available now.    The Obama plan is not a space program.  Its a way to sweep HSF under the rug.

HLV != HSF
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline MP99

Five years to research, plus 5-7 years to build, plus no guarantee that the thing will work or be financially sustainable, or be more productive or useful that what is available now.    The Obama plan is not a space program.  Its a way to sweep HSF under the rug.

HLV != HSF

HLV => Exploration.

No exploration, no HLV.

No exploration, no long term requirement for HSF.

cheers, Martin

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
HLV != HSF

HLV => Exploration.

It didn't from 1981 - {2010, 2011}.

HLV + money-for-Exploration-payloads => Exploration

-Alex

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
Not surprising that folks here equate HSF with HLVs. The HLV fetish is strong here with the non-experts here, and many of the experts here who work with HSF are using a system that's basically like an HLV (I.e. Shuttle) and think that an HLV, especially a SDHLV, will preserve their jobs (EDIT:I don't blame them, either).

I am with Martijn. We need spacecraft more than we need to sink billions into developing a new launch vehicle that doesn't reduce the fixed costs of the Shuttle architecture by that much. I mean sure, that path makes sense if we already have a lander and transfer vehicle and plenty for a healthy r&d program and unmanned precursor missions. I would advocate such an architecture if NASA had 1% of the federal budget. Otherwise, the fixed infrastructure eats into other stuff. And spending billions more building another EELV-class launch vehicle (I.e. Ares I) for no more reason than "sunk costs" and workforce is not worthwhile (EDIT: IMHO, and the opinion of quite a few others more qualified than I). DSDHLV at least gives us additional capabilities. Ares I does not, and is, in fact, inferior to current EELVs in a number of areas (EDIT: IMHO, and the opinion of quite a few others more qualified than I). EDIT:That's not to reflect on those who are working on it. A poor design requires more ingenuity (and money and time) to actually make work than a good design...
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 11:16 PM by Robotbeat »
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
If I had my druthers, we wouldn't wait 5 years to make an HLV. People who say we don't need to wait to make an HLV are right. We made the Saturn V a long time ago and the Shuttle architecture could make a fine enough HLV. (Note, we don't have a large kerolox engine already being test-fired, like we did when the Saturn V started development... although some elements of the RS-84 were test-fired...)

Of course, if I had my druthers, we also wouldn't be waiting to make a reusable lander, transfer vehicle, large solar-electric-propulsion, ISRU on the Moon/Phobos/Mars, pre-landed infrastructure for bases on the Moon and Mars, etc.

I'd rather the money go to make spacecraft instead of launch vehicles, since we already have pretty good launch vehicles (and are within a year of getting two more).

What's the fixed cost of the infrastructure needed to support an SDHLV from now until needed for exploration? How many billion a year? For ten years? Is the launch vehicle the long pole? Apparently not. It's the spacecraft (Orion can be launched on EELVs). Therefore, let's put the money into spacecraft, like inflatable habs, propellant depots, etc.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
If I had my way we'd start on the J130 or NSC ASAP as the first HLV vs research it for another five years only to come to a similar design.

Unless Spacex makes BFR I don't see anything cheaper and faster over all then a directly derived SDLV.

Ares was not a true SDLV in that it reused very little from STS.

The EELVs  probably would be cheaper for anything under 54T but they start looking clumsy once you get to Shuttle-C block II class payloads.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 11:49 PM by Patchouli »

Offline MP99

Quote
HLV != HSF

HLV => Exploration.

It didn't from 1981 - {2010, 2011}.

HLV + money-for-Exploration-payloads => Exploration

OK then, to re-state in words, HLV's major requirement is created by exploration.

No vision for human exploration = no requirement for HLV.

cheers, Martin

PS that's Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Heavy Vehicle!)


Edit: "implied" > "required". Vision.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2010 12:28 AM by MP99 »

Offline MP99

Not surprising that folks here equate HSF with HLVs. The HLV fetish is strong here with the non-experts here, and many of the experts here who work with HSF are using a system that's basically like an HLV (I.e. Shuttle) and think that an HLV, especially a SDHLV, will preserve their jobs (EDIT:I don't blame them, either).

I am with Martijn. We need spacecraft more than we need to sink billions into developing a new launch vehicle that doesn't reduce the fixed costs of the Shuttle architecture by that much. I mean sure, that path makes sense if we already have a lander and transfer vehicle and plenty for a healthy r&d program and unmanned precursor missions. I would advocate such an architecture if NASA had 1% of the federal budget. Otherwise, the fixed infrastructure eats into other stuff. And spending billions more building another EELV-class launch vehicle (I.e. Ares I) for no more reason than "sunk costs" and workforce is not worthwhile (EDIT: IMHO, and the opinion of quite a few others more qualified than I). DSDHLV at least gives us additional capabilities. Ares I does not, and is, in fact, inferior to current EELVs in a number of areas (EDIT: IMHO, and the opinion of quite a few others more qualified than I). EDIT:That's not to reflect on those who are working on it. A poor design requires more ingenuity (and money and time) to actually make work than a good design...

We need support from Congress.

I don't mean for pork, but sparking of more general interest by NASA delivering meaningful exploration missions starting this decade (or at least to begin in 2021 as ISS is splashed).

This implies that early missions need to deliver to the simplest possible model, eg short Lunar sorties using ISS-style life support, whether closed- or open-loop.

HLV allows these early "brute force" missions to be launched without worrying or even caring about some extra mass.

The vision would then be that research would allow longer stays through more sustainable Life Support and technologies touted in FY2011. Delivery of early results would encourage Congress to keep funding for ever more sophisticated missions.

The intermediate HLV would have ~20 years of workhorse status before Boldens "hope it's ready by the early 2030's" HLV takes over for the moons-of-Mars missions.

cheers, Martin

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382


We need support from Congress.

I don't mean for pork, but sparking of more general interest by NASA delivering meaningful exploration missions starting this decade (or at least to begin in 2021 as ISS is splashed).

This implies that early missions need to deliver to the simplest possible model, eg short Lunar sorties using ISS-style life support, whether closed- or open-loop.

HLV allows these early "brute force" missions to be launched without worrying or even caring about some extra mass.

The vision would then be that research would allow longer stays through more sustainable Life Support and technologies touted in FY2011. Delivery of early results would encourage Congress to keep funding for ever more sophisticated missions.

The intermediate HLV would have ~20 years of workhorse status before Boldens "hope it's ready by the early 2030's" HLV takes over for the moons-of-Mars missions.

cheers, Martin

The unmanned side also could benefit from a HLV as it could help ease issues with launch windows and allow larger masses.

If the payload was not such an issue you could do things such as use Sr90 RTGs and solar panels on missions they normally would be too heavy.

More payload also means  more delta V which means you could send stuff directly to the outer solar system vs waiting for opportunities to use slingshot maneuvers to reach the outer solar system.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2010 12:54 AM by Patchouli »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
If HLV is really needed, SDHLV (inline) is probably the best path forward. Certainly it has the closest IOC date. EELV scale up might be slower, plus it requires a bit of new hardware. SDHLV uses stuff we already have. LOL you might even call it a "lego rocket" seeing as how it sticks stuff together...... :D
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
MP99: Au contraire! Spending more money now on the HLV means less money for the spacecraft. We really don't NEED an HLV to launch exploration mission and spacecraft.

EELV Phase I is fine with LLO/EML1/2 rendezvous of the capsule and lander and refueling the ACES upper stage in LEO before each side embarks to the Moon.

It's really the advanced EDS/upper stage that is needed, not the rest of the HLV (as long as we have orbital refueling, which is good for other reasons besides just avoiding an HLV for merely one mission type). Orbital refueling is the key to RLVs, flexible missions, and also to taking advantage of high-Isp solar-electric-propulsion when it becomes available and ISRU (especially on Phobos) when that becomes available.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2010 12:44 AM by Robotbeat »
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

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 185
EELV Phase I is fine with LLO/EML1/2 rendezvous of the capsule and lander and refueling the ACES upper stage in LEO before each side embarks to the Moon.

EELV Phase 1 is an HLV and the upper stage doesn't even have to be refueled, although you would want that eventually.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
EELV Phase I is fine with LLO/EML1/2 rendezvous of the capsule and lander and refueling the ACES upper stage in LEO before each side embarks to the Moon.

EELV Phase 1 is an HLV and the upper stage doesn't even have to be refueled, although you would want that eventually.
I guess I was thinking of just the Common Upper Stage, not necessarily anything else. It's ULA's Common Upper Stage (or a more advanced one-like ACES), if modified to be refillable and long-duration, which enables exploration. Or some other big EDS/ upper stage.
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

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 185
There is no need for it to be refuelable. You can do exploration without a refuelable upper stage, even without any kind of propellant transfer. You don't even need a bigger upper stage. You do need it to be able to rendez-vous and dock, and to loiter a bit. A common upper stage would be the logical starting point and you'd optimise it for maximum payload with current first stages. That gives you an HLV as a side-effect.

EDIT: at 50mT payload Delta IV Phase 1 could perhaps even do a single-launch to L1/L2, without even the need for docking, rendez-vous and loitering.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2010 12:56 AM by mmeijeri »
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
The inline SDLV gives a minimum 70MT payload right away with easy options to 101MT.

Reuse the J2X and 5segemnt RSRM you get a 118MT payload vehicle which is pretty much getting the Saturn V back but for a lot lower cost.

Other benefits you get a 10M fairing and it should satisfy certain political interests.

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 58

I do believe that Musk's pockets are deep enough to carry SpaceX at least five years,

He has said his pockets aren't deep enough to weather more than 2 failures.
   
He will need some very fortunate luck, indeed !!
Here's hoping !

Tags: