future launch manifest

[no_way]

heres a perspective i would like people to comment on.<br /><br />The official US space policy for foreseeable future after the boring parts ( getting rid of STS and ISS ) would be to soft-land stuff on the moon ( and later, mars, and all the following holds largely true for mars too ). Correct ? Yes there will be some orbiters first, but thats beside the point at the moment.<br /><br />To soft-land a ton of something on the moon, it takes four to seven tonnes of propellant on LEO, depending on whether you wanna use LH2 with ISP~450 but with boiloff problems or some LOX-hydrocarbon combination with ISPs from 300-350. DeltaV required from LEO to lunar surface is about 6500 m/s, correct this far ?<br /><br />So regardless of exact missions flown, mission architectures selected etc etc, the future LEO launch manifest for VSE will look like this, distributed by weight:<br />1 part high-tech space gadgetry, possibly mammals in the mix, exact contents yet TBD <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />4-7 parts low-tech, low-value propellants. <i>This 4-7 value is significantly higher if we speak about returning substantial amount of stuff from the surface but lets ignore that for now.</i><br /><br />Now i want to reiterate, the above is true regardless of what exactly will be done on the moon.<br /><br />I would say there are a lot of unknowns about the first part of that manifest and lets leave that untouched for now, but the second part is much better defined, or could be defined much more easily.<br /><br />First, who thinks that developing yet another launcher to launch all that propellant to orbit is practical, given the current overcapacity on the launch market ? Im speaking about the hypothethical HLV. <br />As propellants per-kg worth is very low compared to traditional launcher payloads ( multimillion dollar space hardware ) i would think there is a lot of price flexibility on market, and practically any launcher with any useful price per payload kg and useful payload size coul

 

[spacester]

Excellent post. IMO we need propellant on orbit before we can get serious about Moon/Mars. I welcome your steely-eyed skepticism (my impression), to help balance out my (somewhat) starry-eyed idealism. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />I think we need to plan for an ultimate infrastructure that has orb-prop in every gravity well if we are serious about exploring / utilizing other orbs. Not only that, we should consider having detaV stations both high and low in each well.<br /><br />When arriving at the moon, you should be able to take on enough dV to get down to the surface and back. Otherwise, you're either staging to get back up or putting an huge design burden on your craft. If you happen to get prop from lunar operations, great, but IMO a lunar vehicle should be able to do significant things, including down and back in one stage.<br /><br />Since I want that capability from my lunar SUV, I need to reduce the propellant fraction somewhere else, thus lunar orbit re-prop.<br /><br />To get serious about Mars, there should be re-prop in either LMO or HEMO, with plans to add the other one as part of the build-out.<br /><br />Of course there should also be filling stations in LEO, which is what you're asking about and what we need to do first. I'm just saying that the architecture should include lunar resupply if we're going to be serious about the moon.<br /><br />Orb-prop in LEO and Lunar orbit would give us two stations at Earth, high and low. I'm thinking in terms of booster stages returning from Mars - barely get captured in Cis-Lunar space, then nudge into lunar orbit using L-points or WSBs. You'd get re-prop from there and have your choice of returning to LEO to pick up crew before heading back to Mars, or leaving from lunar orbit.<br /><br />Taking the right steps early on can help cut that 4-7 parts propellant down over the long run.<br /><br />I think developing another launcher is completely practical if done by the right group. Namely, not NASA, not B-Lock, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

"the HLLV is not for propellant, it's for large one-piece modules such as habitats and nuclear power plants and Big Als. "<br /><br />Just a clarification, do you envision <b>any</b> of those items weighing more than current medium launchers can loft to LEO ? I'd say that any piece of space hardware that weighs over 20 tons <i>sans delivery propellant</i> is pretty horribly designed ...

 

[spacester]

Well, a 80 ton payload is pretty horribly designed if all you've got is 20 ton launchers. <br /><br />Now, if you've got 80 ton launchers, four 20 ton payloads is kind of a silly idea too.<br /><br />My thinking is that the viability of a settlement or outpost or extended expedition is strongly controlled by the size of the habitat. And ISS has shown us what happens when you try to tinker-toy together modules that just ain't big enough to handle enough people to do great things.<br /><br />Ergo, we need large habitats, the larger the better.<br /><br />Ergo, we need large launchers, the larger the better (to a point).<br /><br />It stands to reason that designing a nuclear power plant for Mars / Moon would be substantially more robust if not constrained to 20 tons. It stands to reason that settlement would be much easier and robust with 80 ton habitats. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

How much propellant would the STS get into orbit if you repositioned the engines and left off the obiter?

 

[crix]

What about inflatables? Even the Falcon V will be able to launch one of bigalowes big inflatable... an EELV could launch an even larger one.<br /><br />This goes back to my thread a long time ago "What will we do on the Moon?" The bottom line is that NASA can't expect to colonize the solar system. Humans will expand to live and work in the rest of the volume surrounding our star when there is (most likely) economic incentive to do so. NASA will always be a divisioni of our government that is essentially buying information about the universe. With no fiscal returns I can't see how we can justify creating manned Mars missions unless a lot of international money is thrown in the pot. <br /><br />Hm, I'm probably going a little tangent here...

 

[nacnud]

I wasn't trying to turn the STS into a HLLV but to turn the STS into a propellant delivery system. The ET is a gas tank already, with no payload how much propellant would make it to orbit?<br /><br />It might be a cheep way of refuelling a CEV/Constellation stack that had been launched on multiple EELVs, sort of a halfway house towards a true HLLV.<br /><br />I realise that there is no way to transfer propellant from the unmodified ET once in LEO due to the weightless condition etc but it would be interesting to know. <br />

 

[nacnud]

So (very) roughly the same as 4-5 delta 4 heavy launches, thanks.

 

[mikejz]

Of course if the idea is to take modify the ET to make it an on-orbit gas tank, why not while in the process you take it from 2 to 4 SRBs. That would make things intresting

 

[nacnud]

No reason really, just was curious as to what could be achived with the minimum modifications.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Even the Falcon V will be able to launch one of bigalowes big inflatable..."</font><br /><br />No. The FalconV will be able to launch one of Bigelow's <b>small</b> inflatables. It's only able to launch the Genesis. The Genesis is a 1/3 scale model for the Nautilus. Genesis weighs in at about 3,000 pounds. The Nautilus is supposed to be up to 50,000 pounds. I might note that there is also a 45% scale model called the Guardian that's also planned to launch. As another side note -- the article I Googled up to remind myself of the mass figures isn't new, but is interesting nonetheless. It talks about Bigelow having talks with China.

 

[crix]

Ahh, you are correct. Thanks.

 

[nacnud]

?Super heavy has three CCB/CBCs? <br /><br />?heavy is a singe CCB/CBC plus solids?

 

[frodo1008]

The Delta IV Heavy has three Common Booster Cores with three RS-68 Engines. It is capable of putting up to 50,000 lbs into LEO. I don't know about the Atlas V Heavy, but I presume it to have at least the same capabiities as the Delsta IV Heavy.<br /><br />I have not heard of the Super Heavy Delta IV or Atlas V, but I can guess the Delta IV would at least have more CBC,s for such a vehicle, perhaps as it was mentioned by the very knowledgeable and helpful shuttle_guy he could inform us of the Super Heavy configurations.

 

[duke_the_nuke]

No man, Rutan can do it all with his shuttlecock, haven't you heard? Misslile-based launches were just a gubment scam! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I thought that might be the case, thanks. <br /><br />So ~250,000lb prop to orbit would need roughly<br /><br />1 STS launch minus the obiter and a highly modified ET at ??? <br />2 Super Heavy EELV launches (14 cores total) at ???<br />5 Heavy EELV launches (15 cores total) at $254M each, total $1,270M<br />9 Medium EELV launches (9 cores total) at $160M each, total $1,440M<br /><br />Note: IIRC a shuttle launch costs $1.3B if summed over the program lifetime, I think an orbiter-less STS might cost half that per launch.<br /><br />Now does anyone have a use for 250,000lb of slowly boiling propellant in LEO? Yours for $3,000 per lb.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

Once again, I will try to throw some reality into the NASA Bashers, and the Rah! Rah! Private industry types on these boards. <br /><br />First let it be known that I am indeed for BOTH efforts, and I am Not in any way discouraging the excellent efforts of people like Rutan.<br /><br />However, those people who seem to think that NASA itself (because it is a government effort ) is so very inefficient should stop using emotions and start to learn some actual history as well as a little space science. <br /><br />From a historical perspective it should be known that NASA like other large government projects in the past does not make its own hardware. It uses the private aerospace industry to do this. This is the same as such projects in the past as the intercontinental railroad, where the government paid both the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific to actually build the railroad itself, the greatest engineering feat of the 19th century. What was/is the value of the opening up of the American West (including California)?? A whole lot more than the governments’ original investment!! Then there was/is the great dam projects of the 20th century most of the large reservoirs created by the greatest dams in the USA were originally funded by the government. Grand Coolee in Washington, Boulder Dam on the Nevada/Arizona border were funded by the government. Both of these projects have also returned many times their investment. Then their was/is the TVA, the Federal Highway System, etc, etc.<br /><br />I have even noted that many on these boards have called NASA just another jobs program like the WPA of the FDR era. What is funny to me is that while not every project that the Work Projects Administration (WPA) came up with was totally worthwhile, many of the projects were. In Los Angeles, both the LA Coliseum and the LA Planetarium were both WPA Projects, projects that have paid for themselves many, many times over in the 60 or more years since they were originally built.

 

[dan_casale]

well put.

 

[najab]

Frodo, you don't post often, but almost every time it's a gem.<p>Well said!

 

[orzek]

Very well said! At last someone with sense who has his feet grounded in reality and not have their head up in the sky like quite a lot of people round here.

 

[gofer]

The current NASA funding at 16B/year is about 75% of THE WORLD's spending on space, AFAIK. Even the next down -- ESA, spends less. 16B/year is actually *a lot* of money. More to the point, that's what NASA will have to work with, like it or not. (unless all the politicians/taxpayers get the 'space bug' == unlikely)<br /><br />Now, the STS+ISS is apparently a self-admitted *deliberate waste*, i.e. NASA knows it's not gonna get much in return from these 2 programs, but (significant) monies are allocated as far as 2010. (at least it seems that way....: "darn, how can we get out of this pointless thing...") Understandably..., to satisfy its international commitments. Aye? Now, given all this, what is the feeling of "the man in the street" ?

 

[frodo1008]

Thank you all for your very kind remarks. I am sorry that I am not able to post as often as I would like. What I usually do is to write a post on Word so that I can use a Spell Check. I do not believe that most of the subjects discussed here can usually be done in short posts. I am not against such posts understand, but I find it difficult to discuss such important topics in short posts.<br /><br />gofer: You bring up some good points. However, is it that the USA is spending too much, or that the rest of the world is spending too little? If you were to take NASA's budget and compare it to the other functions of government using any kind of reasonable chart that you could develop, and then print it. NASA's budget would almost totally disappear in comparison. With this money NASA not only supports the manned program, but runs a very robust robotic exploration program as well. Then there is the research in aerodynamics that helps the aerospace industry of the US to stay competitive. <br /><br />As to the space shuttle and the ISS, I know that many on these boards think these are a waste. Neither is!! When the ISS is completed it is my hope that it will be recognized that we will need more than 3 people on board to not only keep up with maintenance, but be able to do the scientific work that some 5 different international labs will require. Not only will this then become a great tool for the study of how to actually live and work in such an environment (and such knowledge will be absolutely necessary for the further manned exploration of space), but who even can conceive of the possibilities for scientific research such a station will eventually be able to do. Finally, and I personally think most important of all as my area of work was manufacturing and quality, I believe that the ISS will eventually become the main research center for learning how to use the raw material of the moon and other bodies in space to manufacture the finished space infrastructure t

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"So ~250,000lb prop to orbit would need roughly"</font><br /><br />20 FalconV launches at $15.8M each, total $316M, $1264/lb<br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"How about it is projected to cost $15.8 M each."</font><br /><br />That's the price listed on www.spacex.com and apparently one contract with Bigelow has been made.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"20 Falcon V could put, what 160,000 pounds in LEO?"</font><br /><br />6020 <b>kg</b> to 200km/28deg orbit, that times 20 times 2.2 pounds per kg gives us almost 265000 pounds.

 

[frodo1008]

Tap_Sa: It is very easy to project costs and such on a computer. However, as the people behind the Falcon are now discovering, when you actually have to cut metal, and then harness the vast power that it takes to actually launch something into space your cost can quite suddenly make junk of your computer projections. Please don't take this to mean that I am being negative, just using my own experience to be realistic!<br /><br />Do you remember a terrific film that was released some time ago called "The Right Stuff"? The film was about the early efforts of the space program and NASA. There was a rather large sequence in the film that showed one spectacular destructive launch after another. Those film clips were NOT special effects, they were actual films of the extreme early costs of the learning curve for such rockets as the Delta and Atlas. A cost the government was quite willing to pay, as these were for the most part military launches to develop ICBM's for the defense of this country. <br /><br />So as you can see there are dues to be paid for learning how to use such complex systems, and harnessing such enormous power. Now I am not saying that space-x (I am not sure I got that right, but you know who I mean) will have to pay all of those dues, after all they can use the knowledge obtained by others to hopefully be more successful. But there is always the possibility of everything not going as well as the plans of men can make them go.<br /><br />Then there is the economy of scale to be used. The new delta IV Heavy is an example. If such an EELV was to be launched some 20 times a year, the cost per launch would go down to less then 100 million to launch 50,000 lbs into LEO, this works out to $2,000 per pound, a very respectable figure. But at only 3 or 4 launches per year the per pound cost will increase greatly for the very same vehicle!! Right now the biggest problem with the rocket launch industry is far to few launches per year to take advantage of