Author Topic: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap  (Read 50096 times)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #40 on: 11/10/2015 05:56 AM »

What would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path?

Cheers, Martin

Edit/Lar: De Embed.
GEO Satellite servicing from EML1 station. I'm guessing Phase 4 will be building solar powered satellites at EML1 using lunar/asteroid materials and then delivered to GEO
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 12:07 PM by Lar »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7486
  • Likes Given: 5249
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #41 on: 11/10/2015 12:08 PM »
Please consider editing posts to attach rather than embed images, it breaks viewing. I did some delinking but it was quick and dirty. For better results, attach. Thanks!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #42 on: 11/10/2015 12:47 PM »

What would be the use for the GEO to EML1 path?

Cheers, Martin

Edit/Lar: De Embed.
GEO Satellite servicing from EML1 station. I'm guessing Phase 4 will be building solar powered satellites at EML1 using lunar/asteroid materials and then delivered to GEO
75% of satellite profits come from military contracts...Is someone being charged too much or still GEO based?
So is the military going to spend about a trillion on satellites now?
'commercial' has permission to stage at L1--good luck! 

NASA, OTOH, will stage at L2 for several major reasons.
1) L2 Safe haven and long term data gathering in the proper environment (ug and GCR)
2) L2 saves 700 m/s of dV vs L1 per trip
3) Depots staged at LEO, L2, and near Mars is near optimal for short duration crew transport and lowest budget
4) L1 staging eliminates all LVs other than 'heavies' - increases costs
5) L2 to near Mars cyclers, 3 or more provide contingency, and the most costly one is the first
6) LEO sats provide highest global coverage at lowest total cost
7) "a large asteroid can deliver more water to the lunar surface than the cumulative fall of comets over a billion year period"
8 ) Most of the asteroids are between Mars and Jupiter for 'insitu' resource utilization
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 01:04 PM by muomega0 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #43 on: 11/10/2015 02:28 PM »
75% of satellite profits come from military contracts...Is someone being charged too much or still GEO based?
Can you provide a citation ? Because this is contradicting what the industry analysts are saying about the size of the military sat revenues. Or, are you saying that even though mil sat revenues are 38% of the industry total, they are insanely more profitable than anything else ?



Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Steam Chaser

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #44 on: 11/11/2015 01:37 AM »
Most of that diagram is about better ways to deliver services for NASA-like organizations, and NASA won't get anything close to a $600B budget unless a large asteroid is discovered on a collision course with Earth. The only part of that diagram with potential for significant new money is LEO tourism. It seems beyond implausible that LEO tourism would in 15 years be bigger than the GDP of Sweden and almost as big as the GDP of the state of Florida.

It looks like they are first proposing that existing markets like comsats and imaging sats will have modest growth year after year, which after 15 years could account for a nice chunk of that $600B growth. 

Then by 5 years they're proposing that some new categories will be added with their own year after year growth like LEO tourism (along the lines of Bigelow, etc, and enabled by commercial crew/cargo vehicles like the ones NASA and Bezos are funding), lunar and asteroid prospecting (along the lines of Planetary Resources, Moon Express, Astrobotic, etc), and space manufacturing.  They are proposing 20 people in space by this time, or a pretty significant amount of growth.  So, that could count for another chunk of the $600B. 

By 15 years, they're proposing 300 people in space, with propellant depots, multiple LEO stations, EML1 station or ability to move stations between EML1 and LEO/GEO, and lunar propellant mining with ability to fill up assets at EML1.  From the diagram it looks like the depots/mining/EML station are to support satellite servicing for GEO and LEO satellites, not NASA-like organizations (although I'm sure those customers would be welcome).  This additional activity would account for another chunk of that $600B.  Presumably the ability to have propellant depots, lunar mining, multiple habitats, reusable lunar landers like a Masten/ULA Xeus collaboration, and satellite servicing capabilities helped by all all of this would add up to new types or scales of LEO/GEO satellites, too.

Anyway, that's how I interpret the slides.  The growth would use ULA Vulcan capabilities like ACES, distributed lift, etc.  Personally I don't see things happening quite as fast or on the scale that they propose, although the general direction seems reasonable.  ULA (and its parents) needs to have a response to SpaceX in case many of the SpaceX plans like FH, reuse, crewed Dragon, and the SpaceX satellite constellation come to fruition.  A reusable SpaceX rocket with a built-in market of 4000 satellites could be tough competition.  ULA needs its own mass-launch answer to the SpaceX satellite constellation or it could be overshadowed in 15 years (which could also hurt its parents in areas like CST-100, Jupiter-Exoliner, SLS/Orion, and maybe even satellite-related business if SpaceX tries to expand satellite business beyond the 4000-sat constellation to Boeing/LM turf).  This seems to be ULA's answer to that threat. 

I'm not sure if the intended audience of the slides is the same as it is for SpaceX.  It could be the ULA parents.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28468
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8333
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #45 on: 11/11/2015 02:47 AM »
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

 - Ed Kyle
False. Of the 5 Falcon Heavy payloads which list a customer, only 1 is US govt. 4 are commercial satellites. The 1 launch which doesn't list a customer is "Falcon Heavy Demo," probably SpaceX internally funded.

SpaceX is not ULA.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 02:51 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

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12876
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3932
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #46 on: 11/11/2015 04:33 AM »
FH and Raptor are happening without gov funding, so is BE-4.
You do realize where the money comes from, right?  Vulcan is being developed to launch government payloads, primarily.  So is Falcon Heavy, which is SpaceX's design to compete for EELV Medium-Plus and Heavy payloads.

 - Ed Kyle
False. Of the 5 Falcon Heavy payloads which list a customer, only 1 is US govt. 4 are commercial satellites. The 1 launch which doesn't list a customer is "Falcon Heavy Demo," probably SpaceX internally funded.
That's because SpaceX hasn't yet won any EELV Heavy class missions.  Check back in five to ten years.

Meanwhile look at Falcon 9.  Of its 19 launch attempts only 7 were for "commercial" customers.  Four of those were performed for satellite operators that are either partially or wholly owned by governments or that do a sizable percentage of their business for governments.

- Ed Kyle

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28468
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8333
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #47 on: 11/11/2015 03:12 PM »
In the context of this discussion, the difference between a foreign government and a fully private entity is clearly irrelevant, since a foreign government isn't going to be paying for ULA or SpaceX's developments.
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: 28468
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8333
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #48 on: 11/11/2015 03:13 PM »
In 5 years, I expect most SpaceX launches to be commercial (in this context meaning non-US-govt), as it nearly is now (out of the last 10 launches, 5 are for commercial customers). I hope ULA starts doing more, as well. We've definitely seen evidence of ULA moving in that direction, though I sincerly doubt they'll be doing most of their launches for commercial.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 03:16 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 jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #49 on: 11/11/2015 03:20 PM »
In 5 years, I expect most SpaceX launches to be commercial (in this context meaning non-US-govt), as it nearly is now (out of the last 10 launches, 5 are for commercial customers). I hope ULA starts doing more, as well. We've definitely seen evidence of ULA moving in that direction, though I sincerly doubt they'll be doing most of their launches for commercial.

Thanks for bringing things back to ULA. I thought I had wondered into one of the quarter-bajillion SpaceX threads for a second there. :-)

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #50 on: 11/12/2015 08:19 AM »
Here are all four parts.


Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 549
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #51 on: 11/12/2015 01:48 PM »
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #52 on: 11/13/2015 07:35 AM »
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?

Don't you think they're going to show some sort of logarithmic growth curve? It's a Malthusian thing: there's only a finite amount of space, and all that....

;)
« Last Edit: 11/13/2015 07:35 AM by sdsds »
-- sdsds --

Offline MP99

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #53 on: 11/13/2015 08:21 PM »
Population of space increases 60x in the first 15 years, then only 3x in the next 15 years?

Don't you think they're going to show some sort of logarithmic growth curve? It's a Malthusian thing: there's only a finite amount of space, and all that....

;)
That's an interesting variant on the "final frontier".

"Sorry, we're full".

Cheers, Martin

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 61

Offline GWH

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #55 on: 03/09/2016 09:41 PM »
Tory Bruno guest appearance on Pixel Perfect - Kerbal Space Program.
Being a show based around Kerbal the interview is of course pretty light on technical depth, but is pretty amusing to hear the CEO of a major launch provider have a discussion with a young video gamer:

https://www.twitch.tv/dasvaldez/v/53283711

Some interesting notes:
- Discussion of using ACES stages to take payloads from LEO to destination orbit, in an effort to minimize the launcher requirements.  (I assume this is utilizing lunar derived propellant)
- Mention of lunar mined resources and additive manufacturing for in space architecture
- Plans for ACES and anticipated early missions for space clean up.  Modifications to Centaur to allow for debris mitigation, details to be announced soon (33:00 mark)
- Lots of talk about opening up ease of co-manifesting cubesats (45:00ish)
- Mention of existing parts on Atlas/Delta being built of composites rather than metallic materials soon (51:00), increased use of additive manufacturing
- Payload fairing logos are actually hand painted by an artist (not relevant to ULA future infrastructure but a very interesting tidbit I didn't know!)
« Last Edit: 03/09/2016 09:54 PM by GWH »

Offline GWH

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #56 on: 03/15/2016 03:13 PM »
Over on Reddit Tory Bruno has been quite active posting on ACES capabilities and utilization of excess capacity (of which a ACES upper stage Vulcan will have a LOT of for the majority of lifts).  Over in the reuse business case thread this has been a recurring point, that excess capabilities can allow for reuse - here ULA is looking to use excess capabilities to store propellant in orbit for more demanding missions.


https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4a3ubs/i_have_a_final_draft_for_my_reusable_spacecraft/d0zclz7
Quote
I envision 3 distinct phases.
First, fuel will be brought up from earth as primary and secondary payloads which will be transferred directly to an ACES.
Second, fuel will be brought up in the same way, but collected in depots for later transfer to ACES vehicles.
Finally, Fuel will be produced on the moon and on NEOs (asteroids) and stored in depots at EML1. ACES vehicles will travel there and tank-up."

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/491633/rspacex_ask_anything_thread_for_march_2016_ask/d0xqaxv?context=3
Quote
Because ACES will have orders of magnitude longer operation time, even without refueling, distributed lift becomes possible. By taking a payload only as far as LEO, then following with a fully fueled ACES, you can take a payload to a final destination that is around 3X heavier than anything possible today with even the Delta Heavy and other heavies to come. (although not be confused with SLS which will be in a class of its own).
That same ultra-long duration allows the lifting of huge structures and spacecraft in pieces to be assembled in space.
This alone, without refueling, will shatter the one spacecraft - one lift paradigm that has set a limit of what is possible for humanity to accomplish beyond our planet.
Refueling:
Many rockets go to space with excess capability. Which is to say, the specific spacecraft on a given mission is often less than the maximum capability of that rocket's configuration. That is what allows one to recover a booster. Otherwise, you would not be able to add the extra weight of hardware and unused propellant to fly back with.
Initially, we will use that excess capability to bring up propellant in order to refuel previously used ACES. Later, we will produce LOX/LH2 from water mined on the moon and asteroids. At that point, we'll not even need to use our excess capability to lift fuel.
Over time, a fleet os ACES "space trucks" will accumulate in orbit, operating indefinitely. This will change what we can do in CisLunar space and how we get to space from earth.
We will no longer fly from the surface of the earth to destination orbits. EELVs will only go as far as LEO. ACES will swoop down, pick up the payload, and ferry it to its final destination. For some missions, fully reusable SSTOs will become practical for that first leg to space.
There will also be a fleet of ACES able to journey within hours to any other orbit to support activities like satellite servicing.
This will allow the construction of enormous structures in space, establishing the infrastructure needed to enable a self-sustaining CisLunar economy and a permanent presence of thousands of men and women living and working off of our planet
« Last Edit: 03/15/2016 03:14 PM by GWH »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #57 on: 04/24/2016 08:50 PM »
Meanwhile, thanks to Parabolic Arc, forecast on the currently existing cislunar economy

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/3675115/satellites-to-be-built-and-launched-by-2024.pdf

Quote
60% more satellites to be launched by 2024 vs. past decade
Mass to orbit due to increase by 34% between the two decades
Industry revenues to grow by 21% in the decade
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #58 on: 08/14/2016 10:16 AM »
Bernard Kutter from ULA talking at NEAF talks about ULA CISLunar plan. Lots of interesting stuff on Vulcan, ACES and cislunar transport.



Plan to fly gas hydrogen oxygen thrusts on Centuar next year. These will replace Hydrazine thrusts in IVF system.

26:30. Distributed launch using 2 launches can deliver 3 times payload to lunar surface compared to single launch.

30:00 Describes a lunar mission. 1) Launch tanker to LEO. 2) <3 weeks later launch Xeus with its payload and refuel it. NB I think Xeus is the US ie no ACES.  No mention of payload mass but my guess is about 10t-15t.
As a tanker Xeus can transport 70t from Lunar surface to EML1 and return, using 70t of fuel.

 

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ULA + CISLunar1000 roadmap
« Reply #59 on: 11/29/2016 08:32 AM »
ULA mention paying $500kg for fuel on lunar surface. There are a few issues with delivering fuel instead of water to EML1.
1) Energy and equipment requirements to convert water to LH/LOx are huge. About 6.4MW/hr per ton, plus equipment weight.
2) Water is lot more compact per ton compared to LH/LOx and no insulation required meaning smaller lighter lander.

Based on ULA estimate the Xeus lander can deliver 70t EML1 and return to surface using 70t fuel. If lander uses EML1 fuel for return trip, there no fuel saves, compared to carry fuel from moon. The savings are in cost of converting water to fuel at EML1 than on moon. EML1 as it has access to 24/7 sunlight, plus cost of delivering refinery equipment to EML1 would <1/3 compared to moon.

Using aerobraking about 80% EML fuel could be delivered to LEO using 20% fuel. Fuel delivered to LEO would contain higher LOX to LH ratio but this can be supplement by earth LH.

Every 1000Kg of lunar water would give approx 400kg to LEO. Approx 450kg would be convert to fuel on moon with remaining 550kg at EML1.

Havn't done calculations but transfer water and return fuel in LLO should reduce moon fuel needed.


Tags: