Commercial Super Heavy Lift Launchers?

[bulkmail]

We have "commercial" small, medium and heavy lift launchers - by Orbital and ULA. DoD, NRO, NOAA, NASA and other government and academia customers are happy to use these on a service contract basis. And actually the majority of the flights of these launchers are for such government customers (most of the commercial payloads go to foreign launchers).

Next year SpaceX will have its first commercial (non-NASA) flights for their medium lift launcher. They already accomplished a couple of NASA flights and have plenty of commercial payloads booked.

DoD, NASA seem comfortable placing their major military and science payloads on commercial launchers. NASA seems comfortable placing their ISS cargo and crew (after 2017) on commercial launchers utilizing commercial spacecrafts.

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

SpaceX 50t commercial launcher debut is expected next year (and already has at least 2 customers) and both SpaceX and ULA have shown powerpoint rockets around 130t (like SLS). Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? If there is, then NASA can do a COTS/CCDev-like "commercial super heavy lift" instead of SLS - ULA, SpaceX and a "beyond-SLS" team (leveraging shuttle/constellation heritage - following some arrangement for payment to NASA) can compete for that. It will definetely result in lower cost than the current SLS (since cost will be shared with other customers).

IMHO NASA should boldly embrace the commercial sector, both newspace and oldspace. Super Heavy launches should be brought just like current EELV/Falcon9/Antares launches. If non-NASA crewed LEO flights become reality, then there will be a business case for non-NASA Moon flights - thus allowing for commercialization of Beyond LEO spacecrafts and Moon landers. Propellant depots, if required for those flights, can also be commercialized. NASA should invest their current SLS/Orion money into actual scientific stations, telescopes, observatories, lunar infrastructure, deep space habitats and NEO/Mars enablers.

[docmordrid]

I think the problem is not NASA failing to embrace the notion of commercial heavy lift but Congress. Gotta have those big projects steered to their districts and NASA centers, not some outfits in the wrong states or in the middle of tumbleweeds & tarantulas.

[pathfinder_01]

SpaceX 50t commercial launcher debut is expected next year (and already has at least 2 customers) and both SpaceX and ULA have shown powerpoint rockets around 130t (like SLS). Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? If there is, then NASA can do a COTS/CCDev-like "commercial super heavy lift" instead of SLS - ULA, SpaceX and a "beyond-SLS" team (leveraging shuttle/constellation heritage - following some arrangement for payment to NASA) can compete for that. It will definetely result in lower cost than the current SLS (since cost will be shared with other customers).

FH and the ULA proposals make much more sense because they are not monolithic launchers. So long as Space X can sell Falcon 9, it has the capacity to produce a  FH. The EELV phase II would lift anything from 10MT to 130MT.  This would be heavy lift that is not totally dependent on NASA as a customer(i.e.  they only modify the rocket to handle the heavy stuff when needed).

[Jim]

Just a point, only 3 gov't buyers, USAF, NRO and NASA.  NOAA does not buy launch services.

[Downix]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?
</quote>
Not a large enough market to support the costs needed to develop, and support such a vehicle.
<quote>
SpaceX 50t commercial launcher debut is expected next year (and already has at least 2 customers) and both SpaceX and ULA have shown powerpoint rockets around 130t (like SLS). Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? If there is, then NASA can do a COTS/CCDev-like "commercial super heavy lift" instead of SLS - ULA, SpaceX and a "beyond-SLS" team (leveraging shuttle/constellation heritage - following some arrangement for payment to NASA) can compete for that. It will definetely result in lower cost than the current SLS (since cost will be shared with other customers).
</quote>
No, their ~35 metric ton launcher enters service next year. The 50 metric ton eventual goal design requires a significant investment in new technologies, and that means you need a large up-front development cost. Refer to point #1 above.

SpaceX admits it would cost billions to develop a superheavy launch vehicle. This vehicle would require a huge ground support and manufacturing base just to allow them to theoretically build it. The cost to support it would drive the per-launch costs at the anticipated once every other year cost into the billions per launch, no cheaper than NASA developed craft but costing NASA control it currently has. And unlike the current situation, if SpaceX were to fold, encounter funding issues, or become a victim of a court order freezing launches, NASA would be up the creek. Alternatively, keeping their heavy lift in-house, should their subcontractor for, say, the solid boosters fail to deliver, they hand the contract over to an alternative vendor (in the case of solids, from ATK to Aerojet). All pieces of the puzzle here work in this manner. If PWR fails to deliver SSME's, they hand the SSME contract to Northrop or Aerojet. If Boeing fails to deliver the core, the core contract gets handed to Lockheed, Chrysler, Dynetics, or some other firm. NASA owns the rights, they can do this. The flexibility comes at a cost, of course, in overhead demands which adds costs to both R&D as well as launch, but that is the price you pay for independence.

[Go4TLI]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

Yawn.  It's none of the internet's favorites rants.

Here's an idea. 

1.  Come up with a business case for the super heavy lift launcher. 
2.  Raise the money for the initial design and testing. 
3.  Refine the design as necessary, complete design reviews and milestones. 
4.  Keep the funding coming for this work and future work.
5.  Refine your business case as necessary to attract that funding.
6.  Get customers
7.  Keep customers and continue to get new customers to validate your business model.
8.  Finish design and test.
9.  Make sure your business case supports initial customers
10.  Go operational.
11.  Sustain your business in order to be profitable by gaining more customers

So if you can do the above, NASA gets out of the way.  There's nothing stopping you except maybe the business case and funding. 

[spectre9]

SLS is a commercial launcher.

The problem is that there is no money to develop new rocket engines and shuttle derived is now bloated to a point where it looks unaffordable.

Direct Jupiter WAS a good idea.

The way NASA wants to implement it by pushing it bigger and bigger doesn't fill me with confidence.

I guess we can just hope that everything they build for it is cheap as chips. The one part that I'm most concerned about is RS-25E. I thought cryogenic hyrdogen was incredibly expensive to use. Seems like costs are projected to fall quite sharply though if this rocket is ever to be useful.

[pathfinder_01]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

Yawn.  It's none of the internet's favorites rants.

Here's an idea. 

1.  Come up with a business case for the super heavy lift launcher. 
2.  Raise the money for the initial design and testing. 
3.  Refine the design as necessary, complete design reviews and milestones. 
4.  Keep the funding coming for this work and future work.
5.  Refine your business case as necessary to attract that funding.
6.  Get customers
7.  Keep customers and continue to get new customers to validate your business model.
8.  Finish design and test.
9.  Make sure your business case supports initial customers
10.  Go operational.
11.  Sustain your business in order to be profitable by gaining more customers

So if you can do the above, NASA gets out of the way.  There's nothing stopping you except maybe the business case and funding. 

Well if all you consider is an Saturn V type vehicle (monolithic, incapable of much else besides lunar program, don't use prop depots, don't use SEP or on orbit assembly) then you run into those problems. If not.

1.   ULA did. Atlas phase II would lift from 10MT to over 130MT. In that way you don’t need NASA to fund 100% of the capability(i.e. DOD and others could use the smaller vechiles).

2.   Space X seems to be able to make the FH on it’s own…

3.   I don’t think NASA is an expert at this esp. after CXP…but Lockhead Martin, Boeing, and Space X have all done recent work on orbital vechiles.

4.   ULA, Orbital, and Space X don’t seem to have that problem…but that is because they built rockets that are commercially viable to begin with.

5.   ULA offered to build Atlas Phase II for far less than SLS. Likewise Space X

6.   They already have those already.

7.   ULA and Orbital both seem to have this solved.

8-11 not much of a show stopper.

[Go4TLI]

1.  SLS is a commercial launcher.

2.  The problem is that there is no money to develop new rocket engines and shuttle derived is now bloated to a point where it looks unaffordable.

3.  The way NASA wants to implement it by pushing it bigger and bigger doesn't fill me with confidence.

4.  I guess we can just hope that everything they build for it is cheap as chips. The one part that I'm most concerned about is RS-25E. I thought cryogenic hyrdogen was incredibly expensive to use.

1.  This is true as long as we define commercial in the way every NASA project, including commercial crew to a large extent, has been designed and operated by a commercial company.

2.  Can you provide specifics?

3.  Again, specifics?

4.  So the cost and use of hydrogen is what has driven you to assume SLS is unaffordable?

[Go4TLI]

So, besides the political issues (change resistance, pork/jobs/incentives), is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher?

Yawn.  It's none of the internet's favorites rants.

Here's an idea. 

1.  Come up with a business case for the super heavy lift launcher. 
2.  Raise the money for the initial design and testing. 
3.  Refine the design as necessary, complete design reviews and milestones. 
4.  Keep the funding coming for this work and future work.
5.  Refine your business case as necessary to attract that funding.
6.  Get customers
7.  Keep customers and continue to get new customers to validate your business model.
8.  Finish design and test.
9.  Make sure your business case supports initial customers
10.  Go operational.
11.  Sustain your business in order to be profitable by gaining more customers

So if you can do the above, NASA gets out of the way.  There's nothing stopping you except maybe the business case and funding. 

Well if all you consider is an Saturn V type vehicle (monolithic, incapable of much else besides lunar program, don't use prop depots, don't use SEP or on orbit assembly) then you run into those problems. If not.

1.   ULA did. Atlas phase II would lift from 10MT to over 130MT. In that way you don’t need NASA to fund 100% of the capability(i.e. DOD and others could use the smaller vechiles).

2.   Space X seems to be able to make the FH on it’s own…

3.   I don’t think NASA is an expert at this esp. after CXP…but Lockhead Martin, Boeing, and Space X have all done recent work on orbital vechiles.

4.   ULA, Orbital, and Space X don’t seem to have that problem…but that is because they built rockets that are commercially viable to begin with.

5.   ULA offered to build Atlas Phase II for far less than SLS. Likewise Space X

6.   They already have those already.

7.   ULA and Orbital both seem to have this solved.

8-11 not much of a show stopper.

If it is not much of a show stopper, I look forward to the Pathfinder 01 Super Heavy Launch Vehicle in the near futre. 

More to the point.

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?
2.  FH is not a "super heavy" launch vehicle and tops out at maybe 53 mT to LEO.
3.  This has nothing to do with anything I said.
4.  Because they see a potential market for their class of vehicle and a business case.
5.  "Offered to build" is not the same as providing the funding and doing it. 
6.  Not for a "super heavy" launch vehicle
7.  Do it for the "super heavy" launch vehicle in order to become and remain profitable where the ROI is within reason

[pathfinder_01]

SLS is a commercial launcher.

err...not quite. If I wanted to lift a feather using a FH becuase I wanted to burn lots of money, and I had the money I could buy it. NASA does not sell launch capacity on the market. In theory you might be able to workout an arrangement, but trust me if I showed with cash and feather, ULA, Orbital, and Space X would be happy to launch it.

[neilh]

Threads like this would be a lot more productive if people actually used the same definitions for terms like "commercial."

[spectre9]

1. Yes NASA designed, commercial built. I think Marshall tests stuff before Boeing builds it at MAF.

2. Direct Jupter-130 was a quick to build, affordable rocket. SLS is way beyond that design now. Extra segs on solids, extra engine, tank stretch.

3. Personal opinion based on scaremongering from many sources. The reason for the extra size of the rocket can't even be justified as there is no payload or mission.

4. If Hydrogen was cheap why don't the most popular/cheap launchers use it? Soyuz and Falcon 9 looking good right now (NASA crew & cargo) and Atlas V is used for everything else with it's one RL-10 Centaur upper stage.

SSME was good because you could take the engine back down and use it again. Using man power to refurbish things is better than building new expendable as it keeps people working. Money spent on jobs is not bemoaned as much as money spent on new hardware. Sorry if that last bit is slightly political.

[Go4TLI]

1. Yes NASA designed, commercial built. I think Marshall tests stuff before Boeing builds it at MAF.

2. Direct Jupter-130 was a quick to build, affordable rocket. SLS is way beyond that design now. Extra segs on solids, extra engine, tank stretch.

3. Personal opinion based on scaremongering from many sources. The reason for the extra size of the rocket can't even be justified as there is no payload or mission.

4. If Hydrogen was cheap why don't the most popular/cheap launchers use it? Soyuz and Falcon 9 looking good right now (NASA crew & cargo) and Atlas V is used for everything else with it's one RL-10 Centaur upper stage.

SSME was good because you could take the engine back down and use it again. Using man power to refurbish things is better than building new expendable as it keeps people working. Money spent on jobs is not bemoaned as much as money spent on new hardware. Sorry if that last bit is slightly political.

1.  NASA does not do 100% percent of the design by any means.  In fact they do little.  Generally what they do design is then provided in what is known as GFE or Government Furnished Equipment, if they then build it. 

As for testing, it is rather common to use government facilities to test if it makes sense since they are there and available and can be used for little additional money.

2.  That says nothing and your proof is based on conjecture. 

3.  "Scaremongering from sources".  Translation:  "I have nothing and am just ranting"

4.  This is just confusing.  Your justification for your fear of hydrogen seems to be that refurbishment keeps people working but new production does not. 

[pathfinder_01]

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?

Why should they? It can be done at a profit(Say NASA's 2 flights a year), but there is no immediate return on investment.

2.  FH is not a "super heavy" launch vehicle and tops out at maybe 53 mT to LEO.

It is heavy enough that you could do a lunar landing with about 2 flights. If you lift a stage and your lunar eqiument.

4.  Because they see a potential market for their class of vehicle and a business case.

There is no law that states that a vehicle that can lift 100MT or more must have no other users than NASA. It is a matter of design. Design the vehicle to have as much commonality with other launchers and you can lower your costs for the SHLV. That is the idea behind the Atlas Phase II and the FH.
They lift commmercailly viabable amounts in their smaller forms.

5.  "Offered to build" is not the same as providing the funding and doing it.
 

Generally if you are a customer of a service provided by a contractor, you provide the funding. i.e. You want  a new roof for your house, you provide the funding.

[Go4TLI]

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?

Why should they? It can be done at a profit(Say NASA's 2 flights a year), but there is no immediate return on investment.

Then you have answered your own question and the rest of your supposed argument is invalid. 

This thread is stupid anyway.  So again, if nothing is really a "showstoper", I look forward to your own super heavy launch vehicle and the discussion on all the above you will offer here at NSF.com

[spectre9]

1.  NASA does not do 100% percent of the design by any means.  In fact they do little.  Generally what they do design is then provided in what is known as GFE or Government Furnished Equipment, if they then build it. 

As for testing, it is rather common to use government facilities to test if it makes sense since they are there and available and can be used for little additional money.

2.  That says nothing and your proof is based on conjecture. 

3.  "Scaremongering from sources".  Translation:  "I have nothing and am just ranting"

4.  This is just confusing.  Your justification for your fear of hydrogen seems to be that refurbishment keeps people working but new production does not. 

1. Good to know.

2. Can build the bigger version for the same price in the same time frame now? I don't understand how you're attacking this point.

3. Yes, exactly.

4. No my justification is price.

The point about SSME was that the refurbishments were an acceptable trade off because the workforces that removed, stripped down, rebuilt and replaced those engines into the orbiters were seen as vital NASA jobs. Some fat engine contract is an entirely different beast.

[Go4TLI]

2. Can build the bigger version for the same price in the same time frame now? I don't understand how you're attacking this point.

3. Yes, exactly.

4. No my justification is price.

The point about SSME was that the refurbishments were an acceptable trade off because the workforces that removed, stripped down, rebuilt and replaced those engines into the orbiters were seen as vital NASA jobs. Some fat engine contract is an entirely different beast.

2.  Bigger version than what?  The Jupiter proposal had many larger rockets in the line-up as well.  Compare them, if a comparison is valid, to the SLS versions.

3.  Weird.

4.  How about if you provide the SSME refurbishment actuals versus the projected cost of RS-25E production.  Differntiate why one is a vital NASA job and the other is a fat engine contract. 

[pathfinder_01]

1.  Then why is ULA not funding it and building it?

Why should they? It can be done at a profit(Say NASA's 2 flights a year), but there is no immediate return on investment.

Then you have answered your own question and the rest of your supposed argument is invalid. 

This thread is stupid anyway.  So again, if nothing is really a "showstoper", I look forward to your own super heavy launch vehicle and the discussion on all the above you will offer here at NSF.com

The show stopper is political (must keep certain jobs in certain states), not technical or even financial.  DOD didn’t design the EELV but got two for the price of three billion.  NASA spent ten billion on CXP before the axe fell.  A good example would be cargo planes. If you had to maintain an entire separate supply to produce something like airbus beluga or the Dream lifter it would cost far more to keep them going. Both of them are modified standard aircraft.  Even standard cargo plans are derived from passenger ones. Only military cargo planes do not and only due to their very special requirement (plus the military tries to use commercial transport as much as possible too).

With shuttle derived (like the Saturn V), you maintain an entire separate supply chain for that one vehicle that makes those vehicles extra costly because no one else besides NASA uses them in anyway shape or form.  If on the other hand you do something like Atlas phase II then others could use it. 

[spectre9]

2. Jupiter-130, not Jupiter-130 Heavy. See attach.

3. Yeah, so I rant sometimes, the sane stuff in spaceflight is going nowhere because it's all to based on who works for who and politics get involved. I only rant what I feel is right and leads to a better future.

4. How about no? I don't really care too much for looking up shuttle info. This engine contract isn't even being discussed right now for good reason. It's going to be mammoth.