Author Topic: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread  (Read 87673 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« on: 12/23/2010 01:00 PM »
Don't really know if this discussion will go anywhere.

This not about EDS's or manned spacecraft.  This is about the premise that large spacecraft will be cheaper on a HLV.

1.  This is what we want on orbit.  It could be for a comsat, radio astronomy, radarsat, signint or what ever

« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 04:07 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: HLV - Spacecraft Design Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 12/23/2010 01:01 PM »
This is how we currently get it onorbit.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 01:01 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: HLV - Spacecraft Design Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 12/23/2010 01:02 PM »
HLV advocates say it would be cheaper to make it like this
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 01:03 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: HLV - Spacecraft Design Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 12/23/2010 01:05 PM »
Both provide the same capability.

But here is the catch, if designers and users now have the volume and performance available for the "non folding" umbrella, they are going design a larger folding umbrella to use the same resources and it would provide a larger umbrella.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 01:08 PM by Jim »

Offline Gary NASA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • KSC
  • Liked: 1646
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: HLV - Spacecraft Design Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 12/23/2010 02:33 PM »
Hilarious as always Jim, but we have sensible threads on this already.

Moderator, please remove or rename.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #5 on: 12/23/2010 04:08 PM »
Renamed.

Offline markododa

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #6 on: 12/23/2010 04:17 PM »
mine bicycle tire one gravity rotating station is better :P,  a circular truss supported by cable surrounded by an inflatable hub.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #7 on: 12/23/2010 04:20 PM »
Strange thread. 

An umbrella is to be the perfect analogy for potential uses and payloads for an unspecified HLV in as of yet unspecified architecture?  Is that what we are supposed to take from this?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #8 on: 12/23/2010 04:39 PM »
I think the umbrella analogy Jim suggests is a bit of a stretch, so I'm personally going to ignore it and instead, I shall direct my comments more towards actual space-related issues, but I'm willing to give this thread a chance to discuss this topic at the "40,00ft level" -- which I think is Jim's intent.

While I'm sure there will be some people in the industry who will want to push the envelope of high-cost high-complexity satellite designs into HLV capacities (DoD is pretty obvious), that's clearly not the only part of the market.

Commercial satellite customers couldn't afford those sorts of prices, so it seems pretty crazy to assume marketing anything like that to them.

Broadly speaking commercial satellite customers want their various capabilities delivered at the lowest possible cost, preferably without ever having to cough-up to push the technology envelope.

There are going to be companies who could take advantage of any available additional capacity (mass and volume) in order to provide customers with comparable satellite specifications, but built using lower cost components, often those that are heavier, larger and simpler than typically utilized today.

Assuming a competitive market; Company A offers a satellite product that masses 20% more, but costs 20% less than Company B's traditional satellite product.   Everything else being equal (inc. launch costs), Company A is very likely to get the sale.

Even if launch costs are higher, as long as the savings on the satellite out-weigh the added costs for launch, the customer can still benefit from a net saving.   For example, satellite Alpha costs $1 billion normally, but can be built for 20% saving if mass and volume constraints can be effectively removed, that equates to a $200 million saving.   If the HLV flight only costs $100 million more than the MLV, that's a $100m net saving for the customer. This would make for a viable market solution.

The the same basic strategy that has always been employed, in every commercial market there has ever been, in order to secure deals over established rivals.   If you can offer an equivalent product, at a lower price, you can always steal market share.


Of course, I'm personally not convinced that this *is* a truly competitive market, given how much of this business is still influenced by government pork "district funding interests" -- but that's a subject for a different thread.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 04:54 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 221
Re: HLV - Spacecraft Design Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 12/23/2010 04:45 PM »
Both provide the same capability.

But here is the catch, if designers and users now have the volume and performance available for the "non folding" umbrella, they are going design a larger folding umbrella to use the same resources and it would provide a larger umbrella.

so, provided the cost assumptions are true, designers will just buck the system and design an even more complicated and costly payload because they can? 

Just trying to understand where this is going, and Im far from the smartest person in the room
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Earth
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 3073
Re: HLV - Spacecraft Design Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 12/23/2010 04:59 PM »
Both provide the same capability.

But here is the catch, if designers and users now have the volume and performance available for the "non folding" umbrella, they are going design a larger folding umbrella to use the same resources and it would provide a larger umbrella.

so, provided the cost assumptions are true, designers will just buck the system and design an even more complicated and costly payload because they can? 

That's how I read it too.  But they will also derive better capability (catch or block more rain) with their bigger, yet still complicated giant umbrella.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #11 on: 12/23/2010 05:01 PM »
I propose we just use this

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #12 on: 12/23/2010 05:04 PM »
Working at sea is somewhat like working in space - it's harder than working on land.  According to the lots-of-smaller launches folks, we should build large structures at sea one piece at a time to save on the cost of the vessels used to ship and install them.  In reality, we do this:

http://static.electro-tech-online.com/imgcache/10356-news_shearwater_large.jpg
http://www.connectx.nl/thialf.jpg

That's the Thialf - the largest crane in the world, capable of lifting about 16,000 metric tons in a single lift.  Apparently the oil and gas industry found it cheaper to build multi-hundred million dollar crane vessels like the Thialf and Saipem S7000 for shipping and installing multi-thousand ton structures that were built on-land than to ship, install and assemble smaller pieces at sea.

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #13 on: 12/23/2010 05:09 PM »
Judging from his choice of an umbrella I suspect Jim's start point is the argument over 10 m faring on an HLV and the 5 m farings of EELV. If you fold up the mirror you can launch a pretty large telescope using a 5 m faring whereas a monolithic mirror would require the larger faring of an HLV.  Weight would probably be the same for the two. So I suppose the real question is -- are there any missions/payloads that can't be made to fit inside a 5 m faring?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #14 on: 12/23/2010 05:10 PM »
Lee Jay - So tell us, why didn't they build it even bigger, so it could lift an *entire oil rig* at once, instead of just a big part of one? ;)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #15 on: 12/23/2010 05:15 PM »
beb,
I see the situation differently.  I think the question is really;  Could satellites be made noticeably cheaper, if the current volume and mass constraints could be removed?

The answer is very difficult to get to, because *NOBODY* in the US or Europe has ever even tried to make such a low-cost volume & mass be-damned payload.

Russia, China and Japan have all done so though.   The results have been hardware that is very, very low cost indeed.

So I contend that the answer is "yes" -- but qualified by saying that we're going to have to wait until after an HLV is operating before US producers will start to make any such systems.   Nobody is going to retool their factories until such a system is actually available.

As such, this is a real-world Chicken & Egg situation.   There are no low-cost volume/mass irrelevant satellites because there are no HLV's to fly them.   And there are no HLV's to fly them, because there are no low-cost volume/mass irrelevant satellites in production yet.   Which will come first?   I suspect the HLV.


Another proviso to all of this:   To be commercially viable, it *must* be a low-cost HLV.   None of this $1.5bn per flight nonsense that was Ares-V.   That won't ever work.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 05:27 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #16 on: 12/23/2010 05:21 PM »
Lee Jay - So tell us, why didn't they build it even bigger, so it could lift an *entire oil rig* at once, instead of just a big part of one? ;)

Probably because there was already an existing (different) tool able to do what was required:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9mNHNOMqaqM/TBp1FM1OfCI/AAAAAAAAC_o/8wB9-xignWY/s1600/OilRigThunderhorse3.jpg

But we are off-topic.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 05:22 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #17 on: 12/23/2010 05:32 PM »
Lee Jay - So tell us, why didn't they build it even bigger, so it could lift an *entire oil rig* at once, instead of just a big part of one? ;)

Because TLPs are unstable with the rig on top.  So they install the TLP without the rig so it's stable and then put the rig on top in one piece.

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #18 on: 12/23/2010 05:44 PM »
These two think that a bigger rocket is more better than a smaller one.
Cus' you can do more things with it (and in it).

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Jim's HLV Spacecraft Design Thread
« Reply #19 on: 12/23/2010 05:51 PM »
I actually dug around some.

What I discovered is that the compact umbrellas have an expected operational life of between 12 and 18 months before failure.  The full sized umbrellas, by comparison, have an expected operational life of 3-5 years.  In addition, the cost to manufacture the full sized is actually lower than for the compact, due to the labor difference.

I got this from an umbrella manufacturing friend of mine form the UK. (he imports them, manufactured in Pakistan)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Tags: