Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33730 times)

aero313 · « **Reply #100 on:** 08/02/2006 03:51 pm »

I don't have the answer as to whether ELV or RLV makes more sense financially, but the reality is that in terms of total life cycle cost it isn't clear that RLV is less expensive than ELV. All the paper RLVs (and paper ELVs for that matter) predict orders-of-magnitude lower costs, but the only hard data we have on RLV costs doesn't support these numbers. Why, for example, will a new RLV be any less expensive to operate than the shuttle? Will there be a mythical new thermal protection system that requires less refurb time and effort? Shuttle tiles were supposed to be this (but we're smarter now...). Will there be new, higher performance AND higher reliability propulsion systems? The SSME was supposed to be this (but we're smarter now...). Yes, there have been advances in electronics, actuator systems, GN&C software...but I submit that these are not the cost drivers for the Shuttle. (As an aside, one of the best lines that I ever heard pointed out that while the Shuttle SRBs were supposed to be reused, it's really more like they're recycled.)

More to the point, when was the last time anyone here had an appliance or lawn mower or gas grille or cell phone repaired rather than just throwing it away and buying a new one? Expendable isn't necessarily higher cost. RLV proponents point to the airliner model. The problem is that a) commercial airliners don't need to carry their own oxidizer, b) only need to lift a fraction of their weight, c) don't need to worry about aerodynamic heating, and d) the flight dynamic environment is sufficiently benign to allow graceful aborts. A better analogy might be to compare space launch to a top fuel dragster where the engine, clutch, and driveline only need to live for a few seconds and are rebuilt after every race.

To address the CLV/CaLV cost issue, being Shuttle-derived isn't necessarily a bad thing. The big cost drivers for the shuttle are a) the orbiter and b) the astronauts. Eliminating the cost of refurbing and prepping the (ironically) reusable part of the system will save a large fraction of the cost of launching a shuttle. Eliminating the need to be man-rated (for the CaLV anyway) will similarly save a ton. Reusing infrastructure and trained personnel does have some benefits.

And to get dangerously close to the original subject of this tread, why should COTS be funding the development of a new launch vehicle anyway? When you ship a package through FedEx, do you expect to pay for them to develop a new truck? The alt.space group bleats about commercial services but wants to operate in the same manner as the traditional aerospace contractors. When LockMart and Orbital DID commercially develop launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services, NASA gladly paid the lower commercial prices but expected the same level of service it always received from the cost-plus Delta program. That's why Pegasus costs what is does today. Is there any reason to believe NASA will behave any differently?

Jim · « **Reply #101 on:** 08/02/2006 04:12 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM
When LockMart and Orbital DID commercially develop launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services, NASA gladly paid the lower commercial prices but expected the same level of service it always received from the cost-plus Delta program. That's why Pegasus costs what is does today. Is there any reason to believe NASA will behave any differently?

There is no difference between LM and Boeing contracts. Atlases were bought the same way as Delta's and had similar contracts. Now all 3 (OSC, LM, and Boeing) have the same contract.

aero313 · « **Reply #102 on:** 08/02/2006 06:08 pm »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 11:59 AM

Quote
aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM
When LockMart and Orbital DID commercially develop launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services, NASA gladly paid the lower commercial prices but expected the same level of service it always received from the cost-plus Delta program. That's why Pegasus costs what is does today. Is there any reason to believe NASA will behave any differently?

There is no difference between LM and Boeing contracts. Atlases were bought the same way as Delta's and had similar contracts. Now all 3 (OSC, LM, and Boeing) have the same contract.

Actually, I was refering to the original Pegasus and Athena vehicles, not the current (and much more expensive) contracts. In particular, the original SELVS contract was supposed to be a commercial launch services contract. In the early 1990s NASA had no clue what the difference was between a fixed price launch services contract and a CPFF contract where the gov't takes title to the vehicle hardware prior to launch. There are major differences in liability and SOW. Unfortunately, (and despite what they said) NASA wanted all the oversight, CDRLS, and approvals that they had had on the Delta II for years and got frakked off when they didn't get them.

Space Lizard · « **Reply #103 on:** 08/02/2006 07:41 pm »

Quote

the X-38/CRV is NO different than the CEV. Both are reusable and both need ELV's for launch. Only thing X-38 provided was a little more cross range at a lot more upmass

If I remember well, the X-38/CRV was not reusable, it was refurbishable, and it was planned for launch by the shuttle, not an ELV (although some studies were done on the European side, to fly it atop Ariane 5, Hermes-style).

Space Lizard · « **Reply #104 on:** 08/02/2006 07:49 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 2/8/2006 5:38 PM

I don't have the answer as to whether ELV or RLV makes more sense financially, but the reality is that in terms of total life cycle cost it isn't clear that RLV is less expensive than ELV. All the paper RLVs (and paper ELVs for that matter) predict orders-of-magnitude lower costs, but the only hard data we have on RLV costs doesn't support these numbers.

The key to affordable RLV is a huge number of launches (20+ per year) and there's no market to support that.

Moreover, if you develop a RLV that will be in use for 20 years starting in 5 years from now (this is overoptimistic), you'll have to get a design that is not only competitive with ELVs available in 5 years from now, but also with those that will fly in 25 years from now, with new technologies and a market that has evolved too in terms of requirements.

Remember that huge launch rates also decrease ELV launch costs and that it is always easier to adapt an ELV design to an evolving market than to reshape or upgrade a RLV.

I'd love to see RLVs flying in our skies, but I'm afraid I'll have to wait for reincarnation to enjoy that.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #105 on:** 08/02/2006 08:11 pm »

ESAS concluded that the re-useable CEV was only marginally cheaper than a disposable one - probably at 6 flights/year. They might be proven wrong at 2/year.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #106 on:** 08/02/2006 09:56 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM

Why, for example, will a new RLV be any less expensive to operate than the shuttle? Will there be a mythical new thermal protection system that requires less refurb time and effort?

Well, one of the purposes of X-33 was to test and validate a new metallic TPS.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #107 on:** 08/02/2006 10:08 pm »

Quote

Space Lizard - 2/8/2006 3:36 PM

I'd love to see RLVs flying in our skies, but I'm afraid I'll have to wait for reincarnation to enjoy that.

At the rate we're progessing right now, you'll probably have to wait at least 1000 years to come back if you want to see RLV's in your next life!

aero313 · « **Reply #108 on:** 08/02/2006 10:28 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 2/8/2006 5:43 PM

Quote
aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM

Why, for example, will a new RLV be any less expensive to operate than the shuttle? Will there be a mythical new thermal protection system that requires less refurb time and effort?

Well, one of the purposes of X-33 was to test and validate a new metallic TPS.

Which is exactly my point. All the claims for lower cost RLVs rely on mythical (or at least unproven) technologies and unrealistic flight rates.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santayana

vt_hokie · « **Reply #109 on:** 08/02/2006 10:37 pm »

How will unproven technologies become proven if we are no longer willing to fund research? NASA's current plan seems to be to pour all of its money into operation of vintage launch vehicle systems and have nothing left over for technology development.

Jim · « **Reply #110 on:** 08/03/2006 12:28 am »

There are no magical new technologies

vt_hokie · « **Reply #111 on:** 08/03/2006 12:47 am »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 8:15 PM

There are no magical new technologies

Who said anything about magical? As for new technologies, are you saying we have peaked and have achieved all that can possibly be achieved, and that there's no point in trying to advance any further?

DigitalMan · « **Reply #112 on:** 08/03/2006 02:22 am »

To someone in a third world country the new shear-liquid bulletproof body armor might seem magical. But the reality is significant new technological developments usually happen through persistent research and creativity. I would like to see more significant research happening to develop various technologies while making an effort to simplify testing.

simonbp · « **Reply #113 on:** 08/03/2006 03:09 am »

NASA typically does technology development with small, cheap missions that sometimes work (see Deep Space 1 and DART for both sides of that coin); the X-33 was originally supposed to be like that, but they bit off more than they could chew and ran out of money. Simple as that. As NASA is really no longer interested in LEO (as evidenced by COTS), any future US government RLV technology development/demonstration will probably be funded through DARPA or the Air Force...

Simon

vt_hokie · « **Reply #114 on:** 08/03/2006 03:26 am »

Quote

simonbp - 2/8/2006 10:56 PM

As NASA is really no longer interested in LEO (as evidenced by COTS), any future US government RLV technology development/demonstration will probably be funded through DARPA or the Air Force...

Which unfortunately means it will likely be devoted to finding new and better ways to kill people instead of making life on Earth better, and will likely remain in the black world and suck up taxpayer dollars while providing no benefit to the commercial sector or to the cause of peaceful exploration.

Jim · « **Reply #115 on:** 08/03/2006 04:09 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 2/8/2006 8:34 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/8/2006 8:15 PM

There are no magical new technologies

Who said anything about magical? As for new technologies, are you saying we have peaked and have achieved all that can possibly be achieved, and that there's no point in trying to advance any further?

wrt RLV's

vt_hokie · « **Reply #116 on:** 08/03/2006 04:18 am »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 11:56 PM

wrt RLV's

Surely you jest! Are you actually saying that there will be no more advances in materials, propulsion, or other areas that could be applicable to future RLV's?

Jim · « **Reply #117 on:** 08/03/2006 04:26 am »

none that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept job

DigitalMan · « **Reply #118 on:** 08/03/2006 05:17 am »

There should be a terrific tourist market for frequent flights into space. The only real problem is cost. So the current issue would seem to be that the cost to build/fly an RLV is greater than the price needed for a sustainable market. These are the precise kinds of technologies NASA should be working on. I wouldn't want to see them try to build space planes (yikes!) but if the critical problems receive a reasonable level of consistent research then private industry should be able to afford to build the spaceplanes. It is only a matter of time.

I agree with Jim and I believe a considerable amount of time will be needed to make it happen. If research is halted however it seems to me there will be little use for a flexible VSE since there may not be enough technology advances in the pipeline to upgrade on a reasonable basis. Another reason to have a steady amount of research is so it wouldn't be necessary to cancel programs in other disciplines just because one of them forgot to do their homework. I think the small, focused research projects (like deep space 1) are worthwhile and can provide decent incremental advances.

It would be interesting to know exactly what research is still going on and what has been cancelled. And what is the likelihood that the DOD is actually doing a lot of research? And if so, once they achieve a measure of success how long might it take for critical technologies to be made available to US industry?

I think the (two ?) small free-flying basketball-type probes sent to ISS are a great way to sort out the issues with formation-flying small objects in space.

yinzer · « **Reply #119 on:** 08/03/2006 06:26 am »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 9:13 PM

none that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept job

How much money is NASA planning to spend on the CaLV? What is the dry weight of the single largest component that will fly on it? How much propellant are they going to launch into LEO?

I think that an RLV would be useful in the context of the VSE, especially at higher mission rates. Or rather, it would be useful for exploring the moon.