-
Could EELV launchers be used to resupply the ISS by bender222 on 09 Dec, 2010 19:30
-
I may have read the answer to this before but I have forgotten it. Couldnt the EELV launchers be used to resupply the ISS? Instead of developing a whole new rocket just to deliver cargo wouldn't it be alot more cost effective to use what we already have? Wouldn't a ULA contract be cheaper then the SpaceX one?
-
#1 by Antares on 09 Dec, 2010 19:54
-
yes no no
-
#2 by edkyle99 on 09 Dec, 2010 20:51
-
I may have read the answer to this before but I have forgotten it. Couldnt the EELV launchers be used to resupply the ISS? Instead of developing a whole new rocket just to deliver cargo wouldn't it be alot more cost effective to use what we already have? Wouldn't a ULA contract be cheaper then the SpaceX one?
It's not just about the rocket. The key part is the cargo carrying spacecraft. ULA builds rockets and provides launch services to the Pentagon, but does not build spacecraft. That would be another contract, which would add overhead compared to the SpaceX and Orbital contracts.
Also, the EELVs are bigger, more expensive rockets than Falcon 9 and Taurus 2. The spacecraft they could carry would also be bigger and more expensive than Dragon or Cygnus.
I think that EELVs most likely ISS application would be crew launch.
- Ed Kyle -
#3 by Robotbeat on 09 Dec, 2010 20:58
-
Or station expansion, if that was required/desired-and-funded.I may have read the answer to this before but I have forgotten it. Couldnt the EELV launchers be used to resupply the ISS? Instead of developing a whole new rocket just to deliver cargo wouldn't it be alot more cost effective to use what we already have? Wouldn't a ULA contract be cheaper then the SpaceX one?
It's not just about the rocket. The key part is the cargo carrying spacecraft. ULA builds rockets and provides launch services to the Pentagon, but does not build spacecraft. That would be another contract, which would add overhead compared to the SpaceX and Orbital contracts.
Also, the EELVs are bigger, more expensive rockets than Falcon 9 and Taurus 2. The spacecraft they could carry would also be bigger and more expensive than Dragon or Cygnus.
I think that EELVs most likely ISS application would be crew launch.
- Ed Kyle -
#4 by bender222 on 09 Dec, 2010 21:29
-
I see I didnt know that the EELVs were more expensive than the falcon 9 + dragon,
-
#5 by Chris Bergin on 10 Dec, 2010 00:23
-
Edited to give the thread an actual title
-
#6 by Robotbeat on 10 Dec, 2010 00:31
-
I see I didnt know that the EELVs were more expensive than the falcon 9 + dragon,
EELVs would work well for big station components that cannot fit on HTV or Dragon's trunk. Node 4 is an example of a proposed station module that would fly on an EELV (most likely). -
#7 by alexw on 10 Dec, 2010 01:44
-
I may have read the answer to this before but I have forgotten it. Couldnt the EELV launchers be used to resupply the ISS? Instead of developing a whole new rocket just to deliver cargo wouldn't it be alot more cost effective to use what we already have? Wouldn't a ULA contract be cheaper then the SpaceX one?
Of course. ULA submitted a proposal:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/ISSCargoRFIFinal09062007.pdf
... in which they pointed out they could fly Progress, ATV, HTV, or Dragon on Delta IV or Atlas V, on anything ranging from a 401 or (4,0) to the Heavies. Also, Dreamchaser, and a SPACEHAB proposed vehicle. Or, obviously, Boeing or LockMart or Orbital could have built a new cargo vehicle for the ULA boosters.
Why did NASA not chose any of this wide gamut of options? Possibly, it was price. The more important reason, I hope, was that NASA wanted to jump-start a new commercial ecosystem, by providing a market for Orbital and SpaceX to grow larger very quickly. That was a gamble, and a controversial one, but so far it's not looking too bad.
Another reason was that ULA was always going to be a fall-back option. If Orbital and SpaceX all failed (as Rocketplane Kistler did), then ULA would still be around. And NASA was looking longer-term at COTS-D, which would be a new round of competition, for which ULA is also well-positioned.
-Alex
edit: whoops, t/Space -> Rocketplane Kistler -
#8 by Robotbeat on 10 Dec, 2010 01:50
-
Did t/Space fail, or was it simply not chosen? HMXHMX (or something like that) is somewhat active on this forum and he was part of t/Space.
I think you were thinking of Kistler, which really did fail (and their money was given to Orbital).
I really like t/Space's approach, personally. EDIT:It was the Quickreach II rocket that I liked, actually, which I suppose was part of Airlaunch LLC, not t/Space. -
#9 by Ben the Space Brit on 10 Dec, 2010 13:08
-
There was a plan (ULA-originated, I suspect) to modify both EELVs 5m PLFs so they could carry shuttle-style payloads to the ISS. Nothing came of it but it shows that people have been thinking along these lines.
Ultmately, as Ed pointed out, this is all about the spacecraft. You need the following:
1) Orbital manoeuvring, both avionics and thrusters;
2) Sensors so that the vehicle can either dock or get close enough for the Canadarm-2 can grapple it;
3) Some kind of cargo container;
4) Power supply for vehicle systems during the flight.
Consequently, it is a lot more complex than just bolting a surplus MPLM on top of an EELV. -
#10 by Robotbeat on 10 Dec, 2010 15:36
-
There was a plan (ULA-originated, I suspect) to modify both EELVs 5m PLFs so they could carry shuttle-style payloads to the ISS. Nothing came of it but it shows that people have been thinking along these lines.
That's not exactly how it would work. The plan was to have another spacecraft dock with it, then tug it over to the ISS. ATV could do this multiple times with a full propellant load. Other spacecraft could do it, too. Payload Bay Fairing.
Ultmately, as Ed pointed out, this is all about the spacecraft. You need the following:
1) Orbital manoeuvring, both avionics and thrusters;
2) Sensors so that the vehicle can either dock or get close enough for the Canadarm-2 can grapple it;
3) Some kind of cargo container;
4) Power supply for vehicle systems during the flight.
Consequently, it is a lot more complex than just bolting a surplus MPLM on top of an EELV. -
#11 by Antares on 10 Dec, 2010 16:42
-
Why did NASA not chose any of this wide gamut of options?
Because it would have competed with Ares 1. -
#12 by Danny Dot on 11 Dec, 2010 00:02
-
Because it would have competed with Ares 1.
I agree that this is the real reason.
Danny Deger -
#13 by Danderman on 11 Dec, 2010 15:04
-
I see I didnt know that the EELVs were more expensive than the falcon 9 + dragon,
EELVs would work well for big station components that cannot fit on HTV or Dragon's trunk. Node 4 is an example of a proposed station module that would fly on an EELV (most likely).
This begs the question as to what requirements lead Node 4 to be too large to be handled by Falcon 9. If I were interested in saving the taxpayer money, and I were in charge, I would consider tasking SpaceX with development, construction and delivery of a node with a CBM and multiple LIDS. Of course, it might be a 3 meter diameter structure, but I am not sure of the requirements for a larger diameter structure.
-
#14 by Jim on 11 Dec, 2010 15:37
-
No.
This begs the question as to what requirements lead Node 4 to be too large to be handled by Falcon 9. If I were interested in saving the taxpayer money, and I were in charge, I would consider tasking SpaceX with development, construction and delivery of a node with a CBM and multiple LIDS. Of course, it might be a 3 meter diameter structure, but I am not sure of the requirements for a larger diameter structure.
a. The point is to use the existing node structure.
b. Spacex is not certified to launch NASA spacecraft
c. Where is the proof that Spacex can design station hardware.
Again, Spacex is not a do everything company nor the end all space company.
A 3 meter structure can not handle station racks. -
#15 by Xplor on 18 Dec, 2010 13:10
