Kistler resurrected (again)

wvbraun · Feb 22, 2005

NASA ups the space-ride ante With the K-1 vehicle 75 percent completed and financing lined up to emerge from bankruptcy within a month or two, Kistler has a new business plan, which while not dependent on NASA, is positioning the firm to ride the waves of change that have been pummeling the space agency since the 2003 shuttle Columbia accident and President George W. Bush's redirection of the agency's priorities from the shuttle fleet and the space station to human exploration of the moon, Mars and beyond. [...] K-1's debut flight is expected in early 2007, Brinkley said, adding that the company is looking at alternative U.S. launch sites, particularly at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, to serve NASA and a variety of commercial customers. This sounds good: Thus, in reviving its call for "alternative access to the space station" and budgeting $160 million for such services in 2006 -- and a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years -- NASA now is adding an option for commercial companies to ferry not just cargo, but also crewmembers to space. If it comes to fruition, NASA itself will provide a huge incentive for the nascent sub-orbital commercial spaceflight industry to aim for higher ground.

nacnud · Feb 22, 2005

I like the bit too With the K-1 vehicle 75 percent completed and financing lined up to emerge from bankruptcy within a month or two, Kistler has a new business plan, which while not dependent on NASA, is positioning the firm to ride the waves of change that have been pummeling the space agency since the 2003 shuttle Columbia accident...

mikejz · Feb 22, 2005

Best of luck to them, but lets hope this doe not become the goverment subsidized waste that i think it might become. Btw, it seems far better from a business standpoint to push the development of a reusable 2nd stage. All things said, from what I hear there deveoplement costs are near what the Delta 4 cost ($500 Million) So I am willing to bet the it will not be reducing launch costs anytime soon. Also, from everything that I can tell they are only building ONE, it that first launch blows up there goes the entire company!

wvbraun · Feb 22, 2005

"Btw, it seems far better from a business standpoint to push the development of a reusable 2nd stage." Why? The first stage is much more massive and more expensive to build.

mrmorris · Feb 22, 2005

"...a reusable 2nd stage." The 2nd stage is much harder (more expensive) to recover because of re-entry concerns. In addition to being harder to recover -- it must have heat shielding, which you must pay to lift to orbit on every launch. It also requires more complex avionics and more propellant to be able to effect a controlled re-entry (again paid for by reducing mass to orbit). Every additional pound required for recovery on the second stage is one less pound of mass to orbit. By contrast -- every pound of mass on the first stage required for recovery is about 1/7th (at least for the Falcon I) of a pound less to orbit. I think the SpaceX model is much more plausible. Build the first stage for recovery. Build the second stage to minimize waste mass to orbit.

grooble · Feb 22, 2005

Yeah, what hope would kistler have if spacex pulls off the Falcons ? They'll be the best value for money there is, hell, i can forsee the possibility in future of ME affording a falcon 1 launch.

yurkin · Feb 22, 2005

I thought this was interesting, looks like they are fairly well along. But remember the Falcon’s engine had to be completely redesigned. These guys are 75% along assume there will be no difficulties. http://www.kistleraerospace.com/newsinfo/publications/vehiclestatus083104.pdf I think somebody bailed Kistler out, somebody with money. I guess its in vogue for internet tycoons to build their own launch vehicles.

nacnud · Feb 22, 2005

They have been 75% complete for about five years now... They built that much of the hard wear and then went bust, very badly bust. I don't know how much of the hard wear is actually theirs and how much was retained by the contractors and creditors. I think that Kistler is several 100s of millions of dollars short of a launch capability, which is a shame because their design is what the X-33/34/38/OSP should have been.

scottb50 · Feb 22, 2005

Or use the second stage in orbit. The propellant tanks for structures and the engines for maneuverability. You can always return engines as cargo for overhaul or major repair. An engine like the Rl-10 could probably be used at least 50 times before needing overhaul, the same as the SSME. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mikejz · Feb 22, 2005

The fact that a reusable 2nd stage is hard is the point! By developing the 2nd stage first, theyhave the option of using it on top of another booster (ie Falcon, etc). It could also give them technology that they could sell.

mrmorris · Feb 23, 2005

"The fact that a reusable 2nd stage is hard is the point! ..." Yes -- it's my point too. However -- the point of my point is that a reusable second stage is likely to be pointless. Let's compare the K1 to the Falcon-V to make some guesses at what the reusability costs: K-1 vehicle gross liftoff weight: 841,000 lbm (382,300 kg) First stage: 551,000 lbm (250,500 kg) Second stage: 290,000 lbm (131,800 kg) The Falcon-V unfortunately is not broken out by stage. However -- let's assume the same proportions of first to second stage (66%-34%). The second stage of F-V should actually be a smaller fraction, as it has no recovery features, but it's a start... Mass: 400,000 lb (181,400 kg) Projected 1st stage mass: 264,000 lb Projected 2nd stage mass: 136,000 lb My first question would be why in the world does the K-1 weigh over twice what the Falcon-V is projected to?!?! However -- setting that aside, the Falcon V's second stage then would weigh about 154,000 pounds less than the K1 (which incidently eliminates any thought of using the K1 second stage as the Falcon-V's second stage). Let's assume that making the K-1 second-stage reusable adds only 5000 pounds to the mass (at less than 2% of the 2nd stage mass, this is probably very conservative). At ~$2,700/lb to orbit (K-1 $25M for ~9000 lbs to 200 km), the SS reusability costs Kistler $13,500,000 per flight just to get it into space and back. You then have to add recovery, refurbishment, and recertification expenses which will add a couple million more to that figure. If an expendable second stage could have been built for less (one assumes that the Falcon V second stage will be built for *much* less) -- then the reusability is not economically viable. In addition, making the second stage reusable seriously cuts down on the max payload of the craft (potentially 14,000 pounds to 2

spacester · Feb 23, 2005

On the other hand, if we expand our common conception of reusability, the point would be on point. A spent second stage can be treated either as a liability and a hazard, or as an exploitable asset. A spent second stage has rocket engines and empty tanks. Re-fueling (er, re-propellanting <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) provides a propulsion module. The empty tanks provide habitable volume, or at least a storage room. Of course, the stage needs to be engineered to serve these additional purposes, and the needed on-orbit capabilities developed. This is what I would like to see with any new second stages under development. Presumably the payload penalty would be minimal as compared to re-entry needs. Re-used second stages could be the secret to affordable flights to Mars! Not to mention an asset for Lunar settlement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · Feb 23, 2005

"On the other hand, if we expand our common conception of reusability, the point would be on point. " No, not really -- because that's not what he was referring to as is obvious from the context. In any event -- such a modified second stage would be better termed a 'multi-purpose' or 'dual-role' second stage rather than a re-usable second stage. After all -- 're-usable' implies that something can be used more than a single time for a given purpose rather than being usable for multiple purposes.

no_way · Feb 23, 2005

"A spent second stage has rocket engines and empty tanks. Re-fueling (er, re-propellanting ) provides a propulsion module. " Huh .. and the fuel is launched on ... another second stage , so you will want to refuel this one again and ... "Re-used second stages could be the secret to affordable flights to Mars!" The secret to affordable flights to mars has been long ago discovered: low LEO launch costs + LEO docking. The most critical parameter of all the launch vehicle equations is this : dollars per kg launched to LEO, and i dont think at this day and age second stage reusability would significantly contribute to lower this parameter. It would only make sense if we were talking about very high flight rates and per-flight costs that are a small multiple of propellant costs but i dont think Kistler is quite there yet.

scottb50 · Feb 23, 2005

Which has been my point. Re-use the upper stages as Tugs or as building Modules for Stations and vehicles. Engines can be removed and exchanged and returned for maintenance as cargo, the propellant tanks can be re-used for any number of purposes rather than disposed of. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Feb 23, 2005

. . . so you will want to refuel this one again and ... Yeah, that's it - I want to do it in the stupidest way possible. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> You and your high flight rates dogma . . . there's wisdom there to be sure, but . . . is it the be-all and end-all of achieving CATS? We all want CATS but some of us are willing to listen to new ideas to make that happen. Others reject any idea which might seem to conflict with their narrow conclusions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

no_way · Feb 23, 2005

"You and your high flight rates dogma . . . there's wisdom there to be sure, but . . . is it the be-all and end-all of achieving CATS? " It isnt a dogma. Look around you, every product and service that is abundant tends to be cheap and the other way around, everything rare tends to be expensive. I wonder why that is ? No matter how you put it or the technology involved, as long as spaceflight remains rare it will remain expensive, in the sense that dont expect several orders of magnitude of price difference.

spacester · Feb 23, 2005

It's a dogma if it prevents you from listening to ideas that don't dovetail with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

no_way · Feb 23, 2005

"It's a dogma if it prevents you from listening to ideas that don't dovetail with " Im listening, but im not hearing any arguments, reasoning or analysis. See your previous post for instance ..

spacester · Feb 23, 2005

OK, we did the dance and now you're listening, good deal. See my previous previous post. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Consider that there are alternative ways of getting to LEO. Consider that it's possible, even likely IMO, that getting propellant to LEO could be substantially cheaper than getting satellites to GTO. Consider that aerobraking can get you most of the way from GTO to LEO. I don't have time right now to go into details, hopefully you get the drift. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tap_sa · Feb 23, 2005

"My first question would be why in the world does the K-1 weigh over twice what the Falcon-V is projected to?!?!" Good question. Don't know the exact reasons but something can be deduced from the K-1 diagrams. It's basic structure is very different from lightweight design like Falcon's monocoque, common bulkhead approach and the exact opposite of early balloontank Atlas. K-1 has composite outer shell and separate ellipsoid tanks, lots of struts and huge intertank sections. I guess the K-1 team didn't want to rely to internal pressure at all so they made structurally very rigid spacecraft. Landing on hard australian desert even with airbags takes it's toll on the design. One more reason for the rigidity might be fact the K-1 re-enters nose-first, so the spacecraft experiences G-forces the opposite direction of launch. I don't like this design because it also complicates doing manned flights. You need some sort of swinging seats or eyeballs start to pop out of sockets <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> Recovery shouldn't cost much since K-1 first stage is designed to do the pop-back maneuver and land about two kilometers from the launch site. Notice how I said 'spacecraft'. It's important to remember that K-1 upper stage is a full blown one. With ISS cargo module it's a kind of Progress, except that it's reusable and, if necessary, can return cargo back to earth. K-1 may never be economically viable of you compare it pound for pound with something like Falcon V, but it can do things that the latter (without additional hardware and costs) simply can't. And certainly it won't be if you include the imaginary losses from re-entry mass. Sooner or probably later (eventually anyway!) a succesful RLV will appear and it will drive LEO prices from $2700/lb to something like $500/lb or less and then expendable launch vehicles of the same capacity will be either extraordinary che

mrmorris · Feb 24, 2005

"And certainly it won't be if you include the imaginary losses from re-entry mass." Why 'imaginary'? If the K-1 could have lifted another 5,000 pounds if the second stage were expendable, and Kistler can charge for that mass to orbit, then they are losing that much revenue each launch. Revenue that you could have had, but don't is not imaginary -- it's just lost. "Sooner or probably later (eventually anyway!) a succesful RLV will appear and it will drive LEO prices from $2700/lb to something like $500/lb or less and then expendable launch vehicles of the same capacity will be either extraordinary cheap or extinct. " To get that low of a launch cost pretty much requires a huge flight rate. Given a huge flight rate, the cost of making expendables drops as well. On what are you basing your assumption that the cost of RLVs will drop faster than the cost of building expendable second stages? Given that right now (keeping in mind that both K-1 and F-5 don't *truly* exist), the costs clearly favor the Falcon. Stating, without corroborating evidence, that RLVs will end up killing expendables is similar to saying: "We're losing money on every sale... but we'll make it up on volume". I think it much more likely that an industry will develop to make use of expendable upper stages than that it will become economical to return and reuse what amounts to 'empty gas tanks and an engine' from orbit for re-use. The mass in orbit is *much* more valuable than it is on the ground because at that point its value is the sum of both the materials it's made of *plus* the energy it represents. Bringing it back from orbit pisses away all of that energy and leaves you with just the materials. "Btw have you noted that American Space Prize is all about transporting people? No mention of cargo capability of anykind. While first customers of CSS

tap_sa · Feb 24, 2005

"Revenue that you could have had, but don't is not imaginary -- it's just lost." The loss is imaginary if said revenue doesn't produce any income. With your modifications revenue of additional 13,5M$ might be generated but at the expense of loosing the stage. So, you have to build a new one and in Kistler's case it probably costs a lot more. "To get that low of a launch cost pretty much requires a huge flight rate. Given a huge flight rate, the cost of making expendables drops as well. I agree on both accounts. The definition of 'huge flight rate' is a bit open, I'd put the baseline to something like once a month, 50 flight lifetime. Falling prices on expendables benefit RLVs as well. As a RLV maker I'd pay 15,8M$ just for the six Merlin engines of Falcon V, a real bargain <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> On what are you basing your assumption that the cost of RLVs will drop faster than the cost of building expendable second stages?" To the simple fact that the cost of building RLV can be amortized to several flights. As the flight rate get higher the per flight price gets closer to just fuel + refurbishing. And as the rate of refurbishing get higher the more streamlined and cheaper it becomes. So, the cheaper things get and flight rates goes up, RLV flight cost approaches price of fuel while expendable's is always fuel + vehicle. Not saying that the K-1 pulls this off and begins to offer cheaper $/lb prices than, say, Falcon. Definetly not if that 2700$/lb is their initial offer! Where did you get it? But firm believer that some future RLV will eventually offer prices that are impossible using expendable. Still not saying that all expendables will disappear. Very big and rare payloads like spacestation modules, ELVs will rule in that arena for a long long time.

mrmorris · Feb 25, 2005

"With your modifications revenue of additional 13,5M$ might be generated but at the expense of loosing the stage. You have some really strange ideas in accounting methods. If making the SS reusable requires that it be 5,000 pounds heavier than an equivalent expendable SS, then there is a net loss in profitability on the flight. If the 5,000 pounds is payload, then the customer would be paying to put that mass in orbit. If the 5,000 pounds is in equipment to make the stage reusable, then Kistler is eating the costs to put it into orbit. This cost must be added to the manufacturing expense for creating the stage in the first place to determine the 'true cost' of the second stage being reusable. "...RLV flight cost approaches price of fuel while expendable's is always fuel + vehicle." Recovery and refurbishment costs will never approach zero, so that in itself is misleading. In addition, your equation indicates fuel costs are equal. It is missing a couple of variables to make the two equations comparable: Reusable SS flight cost = Pv + Pr + Pd + Vr + Vd Expendable SS flight cost = Pv + Vc Pv = Propellant to launch Vehicle to Orbit Pr = Propellant to launch Recovery-specific mass to orbit. Pd = Propellant to perform a controlled de-orbit Vr = Costs to recover and refurb second stage. Vd - Depreciation costs of SS (it won't fly forever) Vc = Costs to build a new expendable second stage. So Pr + Pd + Vr + Vd has to be less than Vc for the re-usable second stage to be cheaper than an expendable one. While propellant is cheap in one sense, it takes a *lot* of propellant to get mass to orbit, and a reusable second stage will always use more than an expendable one. "Definetly not if that 2700$/lb is their initial offer! Where did you get it?" I've seen the fig

no_way · Feb 25, 2005

two points: recovery and refurbishment costs of a reuseable _could_ approach zero if i´t would land on the very same pad it took off from, preferrably already on top of the first stage

But i dont see this coming any time soon. Another: as for hoping that unknown advances in future technology will make RLVs easier and cheaper. Well, its IMO more likely that future advances in technology will first make manufacturing and automated testing processes cheaper, thus making mass-produced expendable second stages possible and still cheaper than RLVs. It is also entirely possible that while RLV flight cost will approach the cost of the fuel, that ELV flight costs will approach the cost of the fuel+cost of the basic materials used to manufacture them. Which, all things considered, could work out to be cheaper than RLV flights because of the smaller fuel requirements per kilogram of _payload_. Both approaches have their merits, and i wish we were anywhere even close to just basically paying the fuel/energy costs for launches.

Kistler resurrected (again)

wvbraun

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mikejz

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

grooble

Guest

yurkin

Guest

nacnud

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mikejz

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

spacester

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

no_way

Guest

scottb50

Guest

spacester

Guest

no_way

Guest

spacester

Guest

no_way

Guest

spacester

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

no_way

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page