-
#180
by
gospacex
on 11 Nov, 2007 22:25
-
Jim - 11/11/2007 1:21 PM
gospacex - 11/11/2007 2:06 PM
Lots of corrosion after only an hour or two? Can you quantify it?
The engine isn't going to retrieved immediately. The SRB's spend at least a day in the water. Nevertheless, even if it was pulled out after 1 -2 hours, it is going to be disassembled for days or weeks.
I still don't understand. RS-68 is much smaller than SRB, should be easier to retrieve. So, you separate RS-68 from the (remains of) CBC tank, lift it on recovery ship's deck, wash it out with clean water and then with suitable non-water solvent to remove corrosive agents. All while transporting it to land. It should be possible to do it in a few hours, not days.
It is not just the salt water on the engines, it effects the other components also (avoinics, hydraulics, structure, etc) . It is water impact loads on the structure, components, etc
Avionics are tiny and I am not concerned with reusing those, just replace those. I am thinking about big expensive hardware parts. Engine, hydraulics and structure are designed to withstand at least static 5-6 g, and severe vibrations and aerodynamic loads in flight. Why they are so fragile when it comes to water impact? Can some modest parachute make impact less severe?
(I am not saying that you are wrong, just trying to get more info to understand this stuff. This is Q&A thread after all)
-
#181
by
edkyle99
on 11 Nov, 2007 22:30
-
yinzer - 11/11/2007 1:22 PM
edkyle99 - 11/11/2007 9:06 AM
Analyst - 10/11/2007 2:18 PM
Here you can find some very detailed Outer Planets Mission Flagship Study Reports (Cassini class missions to Jupiter/Saturn and their moons). They require a Delta IVH or an Atlas 551. The cost given for the launch service are:
- Delta IVH: $486 million
- Atlas 551: $190 million
The Atlas number is exactly in the New Horizons / Juno range. I am surprised by the Delta IVH, 2.5 times more than Atlas for less than 50% more performance. This is almost the Titan 4B Centaur price class Cassini paid. Any comments.
Analyst
Wow. It takes one's breath away, doesn't it? I knew it had to be a lot more money than everyone thought, but nearly half a billion dollars?
Scaled with payload capability from the 551 cost, Delta 4H should cost $307 million. $486 million is just outrageous, scandalous even, especially considering that Boeing once listed these at $150 million (!) and that EELV Heavy was sold to the taxpayers as a cost savings compared to Titan 4.
First the EELV scandal. Then the FIA disaster. Now this (although I know that Delta 4 now falls within the United Launch Alliance realm, Boeing developed it). Is Boeing working for, or against, the U.S. government?
If the Delta 4H costs almost as much as a Titan 4 Centaur when flying at a much lower flight rate, it is a cost savings of sorts. And you of all people should know that linearly scaling cost with payload weight is completely meaningless. Based strictly on payload weight, the DSP could have flown on an Atlas 521.
Nonlinear scaling should actually work the other way. Delta 4H, since it carries more payload, should cost LESS than Atlas 551 on a dollar per kg payload basis.
- Ed Kyle
-
#182
by
Jim
on 11 Nov, 2007 22:56
-
gospacex - 11/11/2007 6:25 PM
1. I still don't understand. RS-68 is much smaller than SRB, should be easier to retrieve. So, you separate RS-68 from the (remains of) CBC tank, lift it on recovery ship's deck, wash it out with clean water and then with suitable non-water solvent to remove corrosive agents. All while transporting it to land. It should be possible to do it in a few hours, not days.
2. Avionics are tiny and I am not concerned with reusing those, just replace those. I am thinking about big expensive hardware parts. Engine, hydraulics and structure are designed to withstand at least static 5-6 g, and severe vibrations and aerodynamic loads in flight. Why they are so fragile when it comes to water impact? Can some modest parachute make impact less severe?
1. The CBC has to be recovered to get the RS-68. If the CBC parachutes with the nozzle down like the SRB, splash down loads on the nozzle are going to break things. If the CBC is going to land nose down, then there has to be some engineering to make the parachute riser lines avoid the engine.
Removing an engine is not an easy thing and can't be done in the water. Both the engine and CBC have to be supported to allow the connections to be undone, in a unloaded condition. "suitable non-water solvent" on a ship? This would have to be done on land to keep the EPA happy. Days not hours.
Also it wasn't designed for reused. It has smaller margins.
2. Static loads are not the same as shock loads or splash down loads. Water impact is the same as the ground. One shuttle flight's SRB parachutes did not deploy. The casings shattered on impact. The bottom segments of the SRB's have reinforcing bands to prevent them from crushing when the splashdown "hole"* in the water collapses
*cannonball effect
-
#183
by
gospacex
on 12 Nov, 2007 00:12
-
Jim - 11/11/2007 5:56 PM
1. The CBC has to be recovered to get the RS-68. If the CBC parachutes with the nozzle down like the SRB, splash down loads on the nozzle are going to break things. If the CBC is going to land nose down, then there has to be some engineering to make the parachute riser lines avoid the engine.
Removing an engine is not an easy thing and can't be done in the water. Both the engine and CBC have to be supported to allow the connections to be undone, in a unloaded condition.
Why CBC's bottom with attached RS-68 cannot be severed by small explosive charges? CBC has those charges anyway as part of range safety system, why not place them near the bottom of CBC? Detonate those, and slow down the aft part with parachutes. RS-68 weight is ~6.5 tonnes. There you are - no need to detach RS-68 from CBC, just fish it out from the ocean, Still won't work?
-
#184
by
Jim
on 12 Nov, 2007 00:41
-
gospacex - 11/11/2007 8:12 PM
Why CBC's bottom with attached RS-68 cannot be severed by small explosive charges? CBC has those charges anyway as part of range safety system, why not place them near the bottom of CBC? Detonate those, and slow down the aft part with parachutes. RS-68 weight is ~6.5 tonnes. There you are - no need to detach RS-68 from CBC, just fish it out from the ocean, Still won't work?
Nope. Range safety charges are longitudinal to split the tanks to allow mixing of the propellants, not to sever them. The linear shaped charges are placed in the system tunnels running the length of the tanks.
Range safety systems can't be used for other purposes.
Splitting/severing the tanks would also destroy the buoyancy "system" and the engine sinks
Changes for re usability makes the system more complicated (which is less reliable) and more expensive
Re usability doesn't pay off until higher flight rates, >20 or so flights per year
40-60 for an RLV
40
-
#185
by
Thorny
on 12 Nov, 2007 01:47
-
edkyle99 - 11/11/2007 11:06 AM
First the EELV scandal. Then the FIA disaster. Now this (although I know that Delta 4 now falls within the United Launch Alliance realm, Boeing developed it). Is Boeing working for, or against, the U.S. government?
And you forgot the KC-767 Lease scandal and the CH-47 CSAR helicopter fiasco. It does seem on the surface that Boeing is working diligently against the US taxpayer.
But wasn't Boeing's pricing that you cite actually based on them winning the EELV contract in its entirety? In other words, they didn't so the prices are no longer valid. Still, nearly half a million dollars for a D-IVH is ridiculous.
-
#186
by
Analyst
on 12 Nov, 2007 07:16
-
yinzer - 11/11/2007 8:22 PM
If the Delta 4H costs almost as much as a Titan 4 Centaur when flying at a much lower flight rate, it is a cost savings of sorts.
Together with the other Delta IV variants, the CBC flies as often or even more than Titan 4 did. This is the whole concept of the CBC: Add two boosters to the core and you get a Heavy. So to classify Delta IVH as an independent vehicle (with no connection to the other variants) is wrong. Because of this the flight rate is higher. And because of this § 486 million is extreme, imho.
Analyst
-
#187
by
Jim
on 12 Nov, 2007 11:33
-
Analyst - 12/11/2007 3:16 AM
So to classify Delta IVH as an independent vehicle (with no connection to the other variants) is wrong.
It is an as an independent vehicle, unfortunately. The all three CBC's of a D-IV heavy are unique and can't be used in any other configuration. In total, there are 5 or 6 unique, CBC's with the Medium, and Medium Plus 4/5 as the others. This all due to the vehicle unable to meet performance goals.
Unlike, Atlas V which only has one core and could do its heavy with the same 3 cores. Which would make only 2 variations and I believe the heavy config CCB can be converted back to STD
-
#188
by
bigdog
on 12 Nov, 2007 13:00
-
What's the deal with this $486M figure? I could not find the details at that link provided earlier but it's got to be way off the mark. It was probably based on what Boeing had to pay before the Buy 3 contracts were put in place. The COTS RFI ULA put out shows the DIVH costs less per Kg than the Atlas 551 18K/Kg vs 20K/Kg. Using that chart the DSP launch would have been 108M. Now I know there's other costs on top of that but 300M+? Please provide a more direct link or something that backs up that number.
-
#189
by
edkyle99
on 12 Nov, 2007 15:06
-
bigdog - 12/11/2007 8:00 AM
What's the deal with this $486M figure? I could not find the details at that link provided earlier but it's got to be way off the mark. It was probably based on what Boeing had to pay before the Buy 3 contracts were put in place. The COTS RFI ULA put out shows the DIVH costs less per Kg than the Atlas 551 18K/Kg vs 20K/Kg. Using that chart the DSP launch would have been 108M. Now I know there's other costs on top of that but 300M+? Please provide a more direct link or something that backs up that number.
It is here
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/announcements.htmland more specifically here, in the cost section of the Jupiter System Observer Mission Study report.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdfA shame too. They really want to use Delta 4H, but apparently can't afford it.
- Ed Kyle
-
#190
by
Analyst
on 12 Nov, 2007 15:19
-
bigdog - 12/11/2007 3:00 PM
What's the deal with this $486M figure? I could not find the details at that link provided earlier but it's got to be way off the mark. It was probably based on what Boeing had to pay before the Buy 3 contracts were put in place. The COTS RFI ULA put out shows the DIVH costs less per Kg than the Atlas 551 18K/Kg vs 20K/Kg. Using that chart the DSP launch would have been 108M. Now I know there's other costs on top of that but 300M+? Please provide a more direct link or something that backs up that number.
Open
this document, and go to pdf page 116 for Delta IV and 122 for Atlas 551 and you will find the numbers (Atlas is actual §191 million). Or take the Enceladus Study linked above via the OPAG site. The numbers in the document you used are for LEO missions, Delta IVH takes ~ 25.000kg to LEO, which gives ~$450 million taking the 18k/kg number. Quite close to $486 million. And quite expensive.
Analyst
-
#191
by
HIPAR
on 12 Nov, 2007 16:25
-
With these prices, I think we need to consider outsourcing the launch of all but the most sensitive spacecraft. Looking at the projected launch schedule the 'Heavy' is only scheduled to fly a few NRO launches .. perhaps at a rate of one per year. At that usage, costs will only continue to escalate.
If I were managing that 2017 Jupiter bound spacecraft, I'd have to size it to ride out of here on Ariane or engage in creative back room politicking to get the government to subsidize a domestic launcher.
I have the utmost respect for the intellect required to finally get the 'Heavy' working and am not trying affront those who worked diligently. BUT the entire project, from a business viewpoint, will be a failure if no one can afford to use it.
--- CHAS
-
#192
by
Jim
on 12 Nov, 2007 16:36
-
One can not quote the prices in NASA announcements of opportunity as launch vehicle costs. There are other costs in the numbers that are in addition to the vehicle price. Among the costs are payload processing facility, telemetery, nuclear approval, mission unique mods, NASA overhead, etc. Those can amount to 20% of the vehicle cost. NASA missions never use "stock" vehicles. Commercial prices would be cheaper
-
#193
by
kevin-rf
on 12 Nov, 2007 16:54
-
Who was the last commercial customer to book a Delta IV Heavy?
-
#194
by
Antares
on 12 Nov, 2007 16:59
-
HIPAR - 12/11/2007 11:25 AM
If I were managing that 2017 Jupiter bound spacecraft, I'd have to size it to ride out of here on Ariane or engage in creative back room politicking to get the government to subsidize a domestic launcher.
The taxpayers would already be BUYING the launch. Exactly how would SUBSIDIZING the launch be different? Neither NASA or DoD can buy a foreign ride, though they can be gotten for free like JWST. Don't ask me what the out-clause is for Soyuz.
But in general, the Heavy launch rate doesn't really determine the price. Rather the overall launch rate of Delta IV. The components are basically the same, as is the engineering staff. The standing army costs have to be spread over the number of vehicles in a year, not to mention the fact that the parent companies are still trying to recover their investments, especially Boeing since it developed a new engine.
-
#195
by
Antares
on 12 Nov, 2007 17:04
-
Avionics are tiny and I am not concerned with reusing those, just replace those. I am thinking about big expensive hardware parts.
Um, a flight computer costs about as much as an upper stage engine. Many avionics boxes are not tiny, though they may be tinny.
Why CBC's bottom with attached RS-68 cannot be severed by small explosive charges?
That adds a few more failure modes and a heavy structural joint. Granted, MA-5 had that, but that was accounted for in the performance and reliability allocations.
-
#196
by
Thorny
on 12 Nov, 2007 17:34
-
HIPAR - 12/11/2007 11:25 AM
With these prices, I think we need to consider outsourcing the launch of all but the most sensitive spacecraft.
That would end up making the "most sensitive" launches outrageously expensive. Your cost savings would vanish. The EELV concept was the right way to go. The mistake was the DoD's hare-brained decision to fund two of them.
-
#197
by
EE Scott
on 12 Nov, 2007 18:40
-
Jim - 12/11/2007 7:33 AM
...snip... there are 5 or 6 unique, CBC's with the Medium, and Medium Plus 4/5 as the others. This all due to the vehicle unable to meet performance goals.
...more snip
Can you be more specific about DIV's underperformance? I have read that: 1) tanks sized smaller than optimal, 2) dry weight of CBC turned out to be heavier than anticipated. Am I missing anything?
-
#198
by
McDew
on 12 Nov, 2007 18:40
-
Thorny - 12/11/2007 1:34 PM
HIPAR - 12/11/2007 11:25 AM
With these prices, I think we need to consider outsourcing the launch of all but the most sensitive spacecraft.
That would end up making the "most sensitive" launches outrageously expensive. Your cost savings would vanish. The EELV concept was the right way to go. The mistake was the DoD's hare-brained decision to fund two of them.
The mistake was that they started with funding for only half the NRE of a single contractor(ie. $1B). After the contractors were committed, they compounded this mistake by then splitting it between two contractors in an attempt to force recurring price competition.
-
#199
by
HIPAR
on 12 Nov, 2007 18:51
-
Thorny - 12/11/2007 12:34 PM
That would end up making the "most sensitive" launches outrageously expensive. Your cost savings would vanish. The EELV concept was the right way to go. The mistake was the DoD's hare-brained decision to fund two of them.
I like your analysis.
I worked with the DoD for 35 years; a major portion of the cold war. The one thing about outrageously expensive national security funding that I noticed was they always paid the price. Somewhere they always found money that 'wasn't there'. I never asked how because I knew they wouldn't tell so I just worked the programs. Only really special sensitive programs enjoy that big ticket luxury. NASA science missions do not.
What ULA needs is some good old Yankee entrepreneurial spirit. Work the books .. let's somehow entice the likes of Echostar, DirecTV or whoever to buy in for Heavy launches. Even if they go for a per launch net loss, there is some income to defray taxpayers costs. You also keep that expensive rocket factory in Alabama working.
--- CHAS