Human Rated Atlas V for Bigelow Space Station details emerge

[JIS]

jongoff - 1/2/2007  4:33 PM

JIS,

That is less than the Orion's crew module alone (21,000 lbs). Actually use 18,200 lbs instead of 20,000 (10% margin ;-) )  

And LM wasn't trying to fly Orion on its Human Rated Atlas V 401, so I don't see what your point is.

The point is that any ship launched on Atlas V can't be an equivalent to Orion.

 However that's also 100% beside the point in my opinion.  If you can fly the crew up on a commercial vehicle, you no longer need a "World's Most Reliable Rocket Evar!!" CLV to put the CEV into orbit.  It could be launched either on an existing EELV heavy (without needing to closeout black zones because it's unmanned on the way up), or possibly on the CaLV itself, and eliminate the CLV entirely.

You propose

1) to launch unmaned Orion on top of heavy EELV and than dock it with the new commercial ship for crew transfer and than redock to LSAM/EDS stack?

2) to launch unmanned Orion/LSAM/EDS stack and than dock with new comm. ship and transfer the crew?

In case 1) the two EELV launches would ruin LOM numbers, somebody (NASA?) would have to pay to manrate EELV and for an extra space ship.

In case 2) the LSAM would have to be smaller to acommodate extra weight (CEV) on Ares V and there is a need for extra space ship.

There's no reason you have to do things exactly like ESAS claimed.  

This has been selected by NASA and congress approved.

Of course, this new ship would compete with Soujuz or Dragon not Orion. (Forget toilet - wear nappy. Sorry, no changing facilities on board).

Actually they've been looking at courting SpaceX into flying their Dragon on Atlas V. The "Human Rated" Atlas V is just the booster half of the equation. They're still looking for a partner for the capsule side.

~Jon

Only when Falcon 9 is disaster. In this case Space X doesn't have much in their hands. Dragon powerpoint presentation and some mockup. They claimed Falcon 1 is ready for start in 2004 (and shown 100% of hardware in January of 2004) an still not flying in 2007.

[jongoff]

JIS,

The point is that any ship launched on Atlas V can't be an equivalent to Orion.

Depends entirely.  Yes, a ship that can do absolutely everything that Orion does can't be launch on a single launch of a stock Atlas V 401, but who cares?  There are other existing versions of Atlas V, and there are much better ways to handle transporting crew to/from the moon than the whole Orion approach anyway.  

You propose

1) to launch unmaned Orion on top of heavy EELV and than dock it with the new commercial ship for crew transfer and than redock to LSAM/EDS stack?

2) to launch unmanned Orion/LSAM/EDS stack and than dock with new comm. ship and transfer the crew?

Those are two definite options.

In case 1) the two EELV launches would ruin LOM numbers, somebody (NASA?) would have to pay to manrate EELV and for an extra space ship.

Not really.  AIUI, LOM numbers are and were dominated by the CEV's TEI burn, not by launches, even with EELVs.  More importantly, the whole concept of Loss of Mission is inherently flawed.  If you have the capability of transfering propellant on orbit, the only way to "lose" a mission due to launch is if your launcher that sends up the lunar lander crashes (or if you lose the crew in an accident).  The way ESAS treated LOM was overly simplistic and IMO rather unrealistic.  

In case 2) the LSAM would have to be smaller to acommodate extra weight (CEV) on Ares V and there is a need for extra space ship.

Or you just top up propellants in orbit.  The whole idea of trying to always build boosters big enough to launch things fully fueled is getting rather anachronistic.  If NASA insists on doing things that way, that's ok.  Their loss.

This has been selected by NASA and congress approved.

Which still doesn't mean it's set in stone.  How many NASA programs that have been "selected by NASA" and "approved" by Congress have ended up being changed dramatically or eventually canceled.

Just because one Congress and one NASA Administration thought that an idea was workable doesn't mean we're locked in forever by that decision.

Only when Falcon 9 is disaster. In this case Space X doesn't have much in their hands. Dragon powerpoint presentation and some mockup. They claimed Falcon 1 is ready for start in 2004 (and shown 100% of hardware in January of 2004) an still not flying in 2007.

And they're looking at others as well.  In case you didn't notice, CEV, CLV, CaLV, LSAM, etc are also all just powerpoint presentations and mockups at this point as well.

~Jon

[braddock]

Jon,
Have you read this Lockheed paper from Space2006?  I had mentioned it in my original Bigelow deal article in September.
"Commercial Launch Services: an Enabler for Launch Vehicle"
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13346.pdf

I thought it made the case for commercial launch involvement in VSE using on-orbit propellant transfer very well.
(as do you, lately)  

-braddock

[meiza]

braddock - 1/2/2007  9:31 PM

Jon,
Have you read this Lockheed paper from Space2006?  I had mentioned it in my original Bigelow deal article in September.
"Commercial Launch Services: an Enabler for Launch Vehicle"
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13346.pdf

I thought it made the case for commercial launch involvement in VSE using on-orbit propellant transfer very well.
(as do you, lately)  

-braddock

Yes, this has been talked about. Nasa could quadruple the mass to orbit of the US launch market if it wanted. I attached a picture from the Lockheed Martin study by Bernard F. Kutter. That shows what kind of markets NASA controls.

There was a thread about VSE with orbital refueling in the fall of 2006 termed
Another Alternative Exploration Architecture. Many commenters were quite afraid of orbital refueling (this was before the whole Direct concept), and had comments like "heavy lift is absolutely necessary", but many saw it quite feasible.

[JIS]

jongoff - 1/2/2007  8:35 PM

AIUI, LOM numbers are and were dominated by the CEV's TEI burn, not by launches, even with EELVs.  More importantly, the whole concept of Loss of Mission is inherently flawed.  If you have the capability of transfering propellant on orbit, the only way to "lose" a mission due to launch is if your launcher that sends up the lunar lander crashes (or if you lose the crew in an accident).

And what about unsuccesful docking/refueling? It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier. ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

Sorry beeing off topic

[jongoff]

JIS,

And what about unsuccesful docking/refueling?

You try again?  Seriously, the best way to handle this would be at a small station (like Sundancer), where the Lunar Stack only has to dock once, and all the tanker ops dock to the station itself, which allows for more robust, simpler systems, the use of man-in-the-loop docking (instead of autonomous), etc.  Sundancer and Nautilus are both likely to be up before Ares I flies its first manned flight.  If you really lose a tanker in a way that's 100% unsalveageable (extraordinarily unlikely--the real odds for a unsuccesful docking event are probably 1:10,000 if you set things up wisely), you just deorbit it, and wait for the next one.  With the number of existing and proposed launchers, even if half the families had to be shut down at some point or another due to failures, there'd still be plenty of propellant to be had.  And in fact you can wait to launch the lunar stack until the tanks at the station are above a certain percentage...

Basically, there are plenty of ways to make this work, and the first commercial propellant depot will figure them out.

It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier.

Doug Stanley and Mike Griffin are both big fans or orbital refueling, and are trying to make sure that the number of modifications necessary to allow for that are minimized.  More complex and heavier? And this is as opposed to adding cryocoolers and radiators to the EDS?

ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

No it actually doesn't.  First off, while many of the technologies may be low *development* risk, there are operational risks that come with them.  If the EDS/LSAM don't have cryocoolers, then you could lose the whole mission if Ares I is delayed, or suffers an in-flight abort.  Billions of dollars of hardware 100% dependent on the timing of the second booster.  A refueling system may very well have *lower* LOM numbers because if you have any sort of delay, you can always just ship up another tanker to accomodate.

The logic in that particular section of ESAS was horribly flawed.

~Jon

[nacnud]

[JIS]

jongoff - 2/2/2007  4:17 PM

JIS,

And what about unsuccesful docking/refueling?

You try again?  ...

Basically, there are plenty of ways to make this work, and the first commercial propellant depot will figure them out.

Freedom 2?

It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier.

Doug Stanley and Mike Griffin are both big fans or orbital refueling, and are trying to make sure that the number of modifications necessary to allow for that are minimized.  More complex and heavier? And this is as opposed to adding cryocoolers and radiators to the EDS?

cryocoolers and radiators on EDS? I'm hearing this for the first time.
However, it would be certainly needed on Freedom No 2.

ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

If the EDS/LSAM don't have cryocoolers, then you could lose the whole mission if Ares I is delayed, or suffers an in-flight abort.  Billions of dollars of hardware 100% dependent on the timing of the second booster.  

What about sending LSAM to the moon base unmanned or perform some kind of lower dV backup mission?

A refueling system may very well have *lower* LOM numbers because if you have any sort of delay, you can always just ship up another tanker to accomodate.

And housekeep low cost Freedom 2 with low cost tankers?

The logic in that particular section of ESAS was horribly flawed.

~Jon

So the LEO depot with "shuttle" flights.
The difference is that the current approach is anchored in Apollo but depod idea is anchored in the failed Freedom and anemic ISS and STS.

[Jim]

JIS - 2/2/2007  1:24 PM

So the LEO depot with "shuttle" flights.
The difference is that the current approach is anchored in Apollo but depod idea is anchored in the failed Freedom and anemic ISS and STS.

ESAS is not Apollo.  Actually the 1.5 launch approach is more like the depot.

[jongoff]

JIS,

Basically, there are plenty of ways to make this work, and the first commercial propellant depot will figure them out.

Freedom 2?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Bigelow's Sundancer/Nautilus station.  They don't exist yet, but neither do any of the ESAS vehicles.  A government owned and operated station would be a bad idea.  A commercially owned, developed, and operated station can be a lot more reasonable.  They can buy propellants from whoever can launch them (ie they aren't limited to only wholy US launchers), they can serve multiple markets, and NASA only has to pay for the propellant.

It is clear that the ships would have to be more complex and heavier.

Doug Stanley and Mike Griffin are both big fans or orbital refueling, and are trying to make sure that the number of modifications necessary to allow for that are minimized.  More complex and heavier? And this is as opposed to adding cryocoolers and radiators to the EDS?

cryocoolers and radiators on EDS? I'm hearing this for the first time.
However, it would be certainly needed on Freedom No 2. [/quote]

I can't remember if I heard this from Doug, but I think that's what they're looking at.  Either that or you only have a 15 day window to get Ares I up there before you start cutting into mission margins something fierce.  And no cryocoolers aren't 100% necessary for a first generation commercial propellant depot.  The Centaur guys think they know how to get boiloff down to .01-.02% per day without any active cooling systems, and that would be more than adequate.  For a commercial system cryocoolers are a "nice to have" but not 100% necessary feature.  For an EDS to last more than 15 days on orbit waiting for Ares I it's close to a neccessity.

ESAS approach uses low risk proved technology.

If the EDS/LSAM don't have cryocoolers, then you could lose the whole mission if Ares I is delayed, or suffers an in-flight abort.  Billions of dollars of hardware 100% dependent on the timing of the second booster.  

What about sending LSAM to the moon base unmanned or perform some kind of lower dV backup mission?[/quote]

It's still a lost mission.  Yeah, you can salvage something from it possibly, but now one of your two yearly missions has
been wasted.  Trying to avoid developing the technologies and infrastructure needed for robust and safe cislunar travel
is stupid.  Sure you can often salvage something from the loss, but why?  Why not just do it right?

A refueling system may very well have *lower* LOM numbers because if you have any sort of delay, you can always just ship up another tanker to accomodate.

And housekeep low cost Freedom 2 with low cost tankers?

NASA wouldn't be owning it or operating it.  They just have to pay the marginal cost for propellant like anyone else.  The cost of maintaining a commercial station is likely going to be substantially lower than ISS.  Especially if you're servicing it with commercial vehicles, as opposed to bloated welfare-for-nerds projects like the Shuttle.

So the LEO depot with "shuttle" flights.
The difference is that the current approach is anchored in Apollo but depod idea is anchored in the failed Freedom and anemic ISS and STS.

Wow, gotta love the false analogies.  The key differences as I see it are: profit motive provides incentives to do things as efficiently as possible, using existing vehicles for the tankers keeps the prices way down compared to shuttle (especially as the flight rates go up), not trying to run the thing as an engineering welfare project will make it work better, etc, etc.

~Jon

[josh_simonson]

Using the EDS as a second stage, leaving it half empty in LEO prior to TLI, really cries for it to be topped off while in LEO.  That would nearly double the mass flown to the moon, or allow for much bigger probes (or faster ones!) to destinations beyond the Earth-Moon system.

ESAS also spent considerable paper examining how long the EDS could remain in orbit without undue boil-off while waiting for weather and hardware to align to allow the CEV to launch.  This requires intricate and expensive insulation, ect.  If someone from the industry were to go up to NASA and say "We can increase your TLI mass by 80%, reduce the cost of the EDS, and also allow the EDS to remain on standby in orbit indefinitely."  NASA would be unable to resist looking into it.  Such capabilities are mandatory for assembling a mars craft in orbit, even with HLVs, so developing such capabilities during the lunar missions is in keeping with the "prepare for mars" portion of lunar exploration.

[jongoff]

Josh,

Using the EDS as a second stage, leaving it half empty in LEO prior to TLI, really cries for it to be topped off while in LEO.  That would nearly double the mass flown to the moon, or allow for much bigger probes (or faster ones!) to destinations beyond the Earth-Moon system.

ESAS also spent considerable paper examining how long the EDS could remain in orbit without undue boil-off while waiting for weather and hardware to align to allow the CEV to launch.  This requires intricate and expensive insulation, ect.  If someone from the industry were to go up to NASA and say "We can increase your TLI mass by 80%, reduce the cost of the EDS, and also allow the EDS to remain on standby in orbit indefinitely."  NASA would be unable to resist looking into it.  Such capabilities are mandatory for assembling a mars craft in orbit, even with HLVs, so developing such capabilities during the lunar missions is in keeping with the "prepare for mars" portion of lunar exploration.

I think you put it much better than I have so far.  It's a technology we really need to master, that makes the exploration system cheaper, more robust, allows for greater capabilities, and is needed at some point anyway.  The sooner that orbital refueling is brought on-line, the better.  One of the other things it opens up is eventually reusing the EDS.  

It makes sense.  It saves money.  It enhances capabilities.  It's just the right thing to do.  

~Jon

[Bill White]

As I recall both Mike Griffin and Doug Stanley said that if the private sector built a LEO fuel depot and if the costs were favorable NASA would buy fuel.

I agree with Jon Goff that NASA should not own this facility. Therefore, NASA cannot pay the deployment costs either.

[jongoff]

Bill White - 2/2/2007  2:02 PM

As I recall both Mike Griffin and Doug Stanley said that if the private sector built a LEO fuel depot and if the costs were favorable NASA would buy fuel.

I agree with Jon Goff that NASA should not own this facility. Therefore, NASA cannot pay the deployment costs either.

Ever heard of COTS?  Seriously, there are several things that NASA could do to increase the odds of a commercial propellant depot becoming a reality.
The big problem standing in the way of commercial propellant depots is a proven, stable market.  The technology isn't that tough, most of it is off-the-shelf
or nearly so.  The problem is that their single biggest potential customer (who would need hundreds of thousands of pounds of propellant per year), is not
willing to put any skin in the game.  Even if NASA could set aside in escrow a bit of money in the form of a prize or a performance based contract (say
$500M for enough propellant to top off an EDS), that would be huge.  But just saying in a 100% non-binding sort of way that "yeah we'd buy if someone
can sell" is next to useless.  If investors knew that somehow NASA could sign some form of contingency contract, I think a propellant depot would be on
orbit before the Shuttle is even retired.  The problem is that since NASA isn't commited to actually follow through on Mike and Doug's promise, no investor
is going to trust that.  I'm trying to find other markets that by themselves could justify building such a propellant depot, but it's challenging, because most
of them are of the sort that they can't exist without a propellant depot either, so both have to be developed in parallel.

If NASA did something for propellant storage and transfer similar to what they're doing with SpaceX and RpK (which btw will be allowed to operate their
own vehicles, and to use them commercially, just like EELVs are used commercially even though the AF paid some of the development costs), it would
make a huge difference.

~Jon

[meiza]

Why are people focusing on it definitely having to be a private thing? If the depot was NASA:s and even the tankers were NASA:s, but they bought launches, it could achieve a lot. Like they currently do for space probes, they buy launches. (Not of course in a similar way, because these would be massive flight rates.) It doesn't need to get any more complicated than ESAS, we don't need to attach all libertarian / private good government bad things there (I'm not saying they're bad, just that they're not necessary).

The depot just makes everything more _flexible_, that's the key advantage in my mind. You aren't tied to one size launcher and one size payload and one time make or break launch window etc etc. It's also potentially cost effective.

[JIS]

So essentially NASA would pay to develop ESAS stuff (except for compilation of Ares 1 from building blocks for Ares V) and more over would pay for LEO depot (dedicated to VSE) and development/operation of private tankers.
I think it's much worse idea than COTS. NASA have many other means to get to ISS if COTS fails, there is no other mean to get to the Moon if depot or new private tanker industry fail.
I'm not sure that this would be the safest, fastes and cheapest way to the Moon.
Let's built depot when there is true capability to do that (Bigelow on orbit facility with private servicing) and clear demand from more costumers (VSE plus other potential gov or private users).
These are big tasks for the small private space industry of today. And it will take many years to get there. Bigelow took over his technology from NASA and still doing his first baby steps. Space X has hard time to launch it's test rocket and RpK will spend at least billion before their first test launch. Others are starting tech demonstration at the best.
Even suborbital private flights haven't materialised yet.

[braddock]

What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be filled/refilled in LEO?
What would be the increase in payload to lunar surface if the EDS could be REUSED as a tug, and hang out at the fuel station?

[meiza]

JIS/braddock: you keep missing the point! You DON'T NEED HEAVY LIFT if you launch using a depot. Orbital refuelling could be demonstrated in, what, a year? Two thirds of the lunar stack is propellants. You don't develop an Ares V, since you don't need to launch that huge 90 tons of liquid oxygen to orbit in one go anymore. You can divide it indefinitely if you want.
Just refueling the EDS is going halfway, in a way it's the worst of both worlds as there are still the hugely expensive Ares vehicles with their standing armies and capabilities that have to be maintained around the country, that only fly a few times a year and are not used or really usable for anything else as they are too big.

[meiza]

I meant to say, orbital propellant transfer could be demonstrated in a short time.

[braddock]

meiza - 5/2/2007  9:20 AM
JIS/braddock: you keep missing the point! You DON'T NEED HEAVY LIFT if you launch using a depot.

I certainly understand that, and personally lean towards it.

But I was wondering if a plausible case to NASA could still be made for a refueling depot after they've already invested in Ares V.  If Ares V + LEO refueling is still attractive enough, it could become the centerpiece of an extended NASA roadmap to permanent moon bases and Mars.  It could help take the place of in-situ fuel generation.