NASA Plans to Build Two New Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicles

[yree]

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">The single stick SRB launcher is a very cheap launcher. No one else can come close to it's capabilities for the same price. </font><br /><br />Thanks, SG. Y'know, NASA public affairs should be cutting you a check weekly for all the good work you do here. Seriously. You rock.<br /><br />Considering that the development cost of the single stick is going to be a small fraction of what the same rocket from a clean sheet of paper would cost, I don't doubt for a second you are correct.<br /><br />It just makes sense to me from every angle. Even if Von Braun did say men don't belong on solids.<br /><br />I just can't see it as being a space tourism vehicle, so it's not going to be in competition with them. <br /><br />It will return the astronauts to hero status. Climbing aboard that firecracker will take some kahunas.<br /><br />If NASA can do manned flight cheaper than private flights, but without the same luxury, that will make sense, it will be rational. The public will go for that no problem.<br /><br />If private concerns can do cargo flights cheaper per pound than NASA, that will also make sense, be rational. Market pressures will be allowed to do their thing in that sector. The public will understand that.<br /><br />If NASA's mega SDLV costs a lot more per pound than smaller private cargo flights, that will also make sense. The public will understand that. They'll see the great big single-piece payloads, see the progress being made, see that NASA can do better than ISS.<br /><br />By 'the public', I'm thinking 'Congress'.<br /><br />I still say Congress will increase NASA budget as required to support real, rational, honest progress.<br /><br />Griffin is my new hero. I want to buy him and Elon Musk a beer or two. Cheers, fellas!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Using an SRB to launch crews is not the optimal solution, but it's a quick and dirty way to do it with minimal development cost. I guess I can't argue with that! I still hope to see at least one reusable orbital "space plane" that lands on a runway in the not too distant future, but I guess that'll have to be up to private groups. I hope that Burt Rutan or someone can develop such a vehicle in the next decade or so! One group is trying to design a vehicle based on the X-34 configuration:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/spacedev_dreamchaser_040920.html<br /><br />Will SRB reusability reduce launch costs vs. the EELV's, or does it cost as much to fish the SRB's out of the ocean and rebuild them as it does to built a new rocket?<br /><br />Also, does the SRB choice have any implications for CEV configuration? In other words, does this make a capsule more likely, or would Lockheed's lifting body design just as easily work with the SRB?

 

[starfhury]

Amazing! One launch is going to cost over $2 billion dollars! Is this before or after the payload is added? At those prices Congress and the American public might well balk. That's going to be $2 billion out of maybe a 20 - 25 billions dollar budget for NASA in the coming years. SDLV will probably make as many flights as Apollo did. Fifteen, maybe twenty flights before the thing is cancelled as a successful failure. On top of that NASA wants to launch CEV on Roman candles. Why even Alan Shepherd had a more advanced ride than that at the dawn of the astronaut program. Some one tell me how we are moving forward because I don't see it.<br /><br />How will a Roman candle launched CEV make it to the moon? We are looking at two or more launches right there. An SDLV plus a Roman candle CEV at a cost approaching 2.5 to 3 billion dollars. If we want to land any significant mass on the moon, we will need at least 2 SDLV at a cost of 5 + billion dollars. Just how much mass could 1 SDLV land on the moon? I doubt if it will be much more than Apollo landed. We will need two at minimum. One to launch the payload and the other to launch in space propellant to attach to the payload so that it can be dropped on the moon. There'll be no atmosphere to help us here so we'll have to have prop to land tens of tons of equipment on the moon. At the costs being thrown around on this thread, I see big problems. One of them is the months it will take to prepare and launch any one of these things.<br /><br />There's like a billion and one questions I want to ask about this program. Forgive me for not seeing the cost effectiveness or longer term benefits of the SDLV/CEV/VSE agenda. It's up to people like Musk, Rutan, Bigelow, Branson and Allen to come up with better ideas and the money to fund them. As big of a space and NASA fan as I am, I'm disappointed with this plan. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I have to say I do like the single stick idea. The only thing is It that it does have a bad ‘gut’ feel. After all, can you think of the last catastrophic failure of a liquid rocket?? Also, I worry that the ride might prove so rough that the astronauts might not be able to physically/mentally operate the spacecraft during launch. <br /><br />I really preferred the Shuttle-C concept as opposed to the in-line proposal. I just think there is way too much expensive legacy components in the shuttle, and basing another 20-30 years of launch vehicles on top of just seems way to inefficient to me. I would of preferred the Shuttle-C as a stop-gab measure that would of taken care of our needs up until 2020, at which time we could build a HHLV. <br /><br />I do think the SRBs are the real gems of the shuttle, high power, low cost—a real great rocket all by itself. I would like to see more then 2 on a launcher, 4 or 6 would seem to get a lot more done for lower cost. <br /><br />I also really don’t like LH2 first stages, its just seems like too much engineering vs. just good old fashion more power! <br /><br />While I am not one who puts blind faith in the commercial space biz however, I think it foolish for Nasa to committee to a Long term (the In-line will probably be flying for 30 years+) project instead of waiting a few years and seeing if all this talk of cheaper access to space pans out. <br /><br />Also I really think that given the cost of SSMEs that we are talking about, it might be a better decision to design a new engine. <br />

 

[starfhury]

SG,<br /><br />Thanks for the correction. Even so, it's still potentionally over a billion dollars per launch. No one but NASA will even consider such an expensive beast.<br /><br />With the Roman candle CEV to the moon we are still looking at multiple launches. If NASA had said they would use Prometheus for the TLI stage, it would potentially change so so much. Alas that seems something for the distant future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

Besides, if expendable versions of the SSME (by that time, more like SDME's) were to keep rolling off the production line at a steady rate in quantities to support six (!!!) per launch, they would probably end up cheaper than that original $40mill quote over the long run. Also, going with 4 instead of 6 SDME's or SSME's would shave $80-$100mill per flight (well, less, if the engines are cheaper).<br /><br />Now, if they strapped 2 more SRB's to that tank with 6 SDME's under it, how much more would it lift? And how far away would you feel the ground shake at ignition?<br /><br />I'm getting visions of a MasterCard commercial:<br /><br />SRB's (2): $70mill ea (?)<br />Main Engines (6): $50mill ea<br />Main Tank: $20mill (?)<br />Upper Stage: $40mill (?)<br />"Gas" $1mill<br />The view from the finest hotel off Earth: Priceless! <br /><br /><br />I'm gonna look at this in the morning and think that I really shouldn't post just before going to bed.<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"This is the NASA choice per the rumor mill ! Besides you have to look at the cost to put one pound in LEO. That is the key measure. $5,000 per pound to LEO would be a very good decrease in the current cost. <br /><br />Launching the 120 tons say on EELVs, even heavy lift EELVs, would be more expensive and less effecient due to the packaging and support systems such as automatic flight controls, attitude thrusters etc. all of which would have to be dupilicated on EACH EELV launch."<br /><br />Does your calculation include development costs for the SDHLV? Even assuming it does the SDHLV costs look pretty bad even when compared to the EELV. Recent numbers for the cost of the Delta IV heavy are right around 5,000 per pound to LEO and that's only because the anticipated market for commercial satellite launches collapsed. If Delta IV are used more often then it's cost per flight could drop by a third.<br /><br />The numbers are even worse when comparing the SDHLV to the alt-space rockets. The SpaceX Falcon V rocket is going to sell for a price equal to only $1,000 per pound to LEO.<br /><br />It looks to me that the raw cost of lifting mass to orbit using the SDHLV will be anywhere from 1.5 times up to 5 times higher than by using alternative boosters. Is orbital docking and refueling really so terrible in comparison to the greater expense of the SDHLV?

 

[grooble]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a Saturn 5, seeing as all the plans still exist and its man-rated and proven tech?<br /><br />

 

[krrr]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Six SSMEs and two SRBs I am sure. Six SSME is only 1.4 million pounds of thrust. Add the SRBs and you get a true Saturn V class lift!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's rather 2.4 million pounds (6 times 180000 kgf sea-level thrust).<br /><br />Note that the article doesn't mention SRBs at all. Maybe just an inaccuracy, but it's also possible that it describes a medium-lift vehicle with a mass of around 930 tonnes and a payload capacity of around 40 tons to LEO (with a decent second stage).<br /><br />The "growth version" with 3 RS-68 (where's the growth here btw?) would definitely need some additional kick in order to lift off.<br />

 

[drwayne]

"The only thing is It that it does have a bad ‘gut’ feel. After all, can you think of the last catastrophic failure of a liquid rocket??"<br /><br />When I get some time, I'll come up with a list of failures. Of course, they have been on unmanned flights.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">It's up to people like Musk, Rutan, Bigelow, Branson and Allen to come up with better ideas and the money to fund them.</font><br /><br />Exactly. That's the beauty of this plan IMO. It enables alt.space, it doesn't compete with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

I guess we won't know the final decision until later this month. <br /><br />The things we can be certain of, however, is, that the single-stick SRB launcher will be used. Every article and announcement I have seen includes this vehicle being developed. <br /><br />I'm still not sold on the Inline SDHLV. I beleive there will still be some debating on that, and that Shuttle-C will be looked at again. We have had two announcements in the last two weeks, one pointing towards Shuttle-C and the other point towards the Inline. <br />Personally, I'm thinking Congress will like to follow the timeline shown on Safe, Simple, Soon, which would be to develop Shuttle C first and then look towards the Inline later. If I recall, this is also the plan that Zubrin called for. He didn't just say build Ares right form the start, the plan called for Shuttle C, Shuttle Z, and then finally Ares. <br />I think if Congress finds that they do not need a large Inline lifter for the Moon, and instead find that Shuttle C provides enough lift to get the job done, then they will go with Shuttle C, and look for the Inline SDHLV later for Mars missions. <br />Whether you agree with this or not, (Personally I'd like to see to the Inline SDHLV) this just seems the way Congress will go.

 

[wvbraun]

"If I recall, this is also the plan that Zubrin called for. He didn't just say build Ares right form the start, the plan called for Shuttle C, Shuttle Z, and then finally Ares."<br /><br />Zubrin and others evaluated several designs and came to the conclusion that Ares was best suited for Mars Direct, so they wanted to build this vehicle right away.

 

[gladiator1332]

For me, both plans look attractive. I like the Shuttle C for the very few modifications that will have to be done (compared to the inline). But if we already are doing modifications, we might as well go all out and build the Inline. 120+ is an amazing amount of weight, and we can really launch some good things with that. We're going to need a station in Lunar Orbit or L1 eventually, and we can launch that kind of station in one shot with the Inline.

 

[henryhallam]

Something worth noting here is that because the CEV will be launched separately, and is ~30 tonnes by itself, you end up with a 150 tonne moon-rocket which is quite a bit heavier (and hopefully more capable) than the Apollo configuration.

 

[mikejz]

Esp if they move to Cyro fuels for the decent/landing

 

[scottb50]

SRB recovery does save millions over building a new SRB each time.<br /><br />From what I have read they haven't had that great of a record for re-usability. hen you consider shipping them back to Utah and then back to Florida a lot of the economy disappears. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

well it a certain senator from that state where to leave, maybe someone else could get the contract to make the SRBs right at the Cape....

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Folks have intimated that the reduced number of STS flights (15) will fund the SDHLV.</font>/i><br /><br />Can reducing the number of flights reduce the annual cost of the shuttle program, or will the program be terminated before 2010?<br /><br />From everything I have read, the shuttle program pretty much costs the same no matter how many flights are launched per year, so reducing the shuttle to only 3 flights per year, and flying for 5 years will not save money.<br /><br />However, if 5 flights a year are launched and the shuttle is retired after 3 years, then they could save money.<br /><br />[Note: I think 20+ flights are still expected, so substitute "4" for the number "3"].</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Note 6 SSMEs would cost $300,000,000 just for the engines.</font>/i><br /><br />Is that for the reusable engines (as on the orbiter) or the disposable engines? Also, what about bulk orders? <br /><br />EDIT: Already answered by shuttle guy:<br /><i><font color="yellow">Well, the throw away SSME version would only be $240,000,000.</font>/i></i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">All indications are that NASA has settled on a LSR architecture.</font>/i><br /><br />For the initial phase. If the efforts gets continues support (i.e., doesn't suffer Apollo's fate), then other rendezvous architectures will probably be phased in.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If NASA can do manned flight cheaper than private flights, but without the same luxury, that will make sense, it will be rational. The public will go for that no problem.</font>/i><br /><br />Suppose the SDHLV costs $15 billion to develop, $1 billion to launch, and 2 flights a year are planned over a 10 year span. Meanwhile, during the 10 years of operations the stock market averages an 8% return on investment.<br /><br />What is the cost per launch?<br /><ol type="1"><li>$1.00 billion<li>$1.75 billion<li>$2.62+ billion<br /></li></li></li></ol><br /><br />The "true" cost is the $2.62+ billion per launch -- that is, if you had to think as an investor.<br /><br />For starters, you need to amortize your development dollars over the period of launches. Next, you have to look at opportunity costs -- what if that $15 billion was invested in an indexed-based basket instead of developing the rocket.<br /><br />Suppose a commercial company could develop the rocket for half the price ($7.5 billion) and launch at half the cost ($500 million). How much would the cost of launch be? $1.3 billion.<br /><br />So even if a commercial company can develop and launch for only half the costs, it still looks to be 30% more expensive than the government launch system.<br /><br />As long as NASA, Congress, and "the people" essentially see the development costs of any new rocket as free, there is essentially no way a commercial company can compete with the launch costs. Investors will take their money somewhere else.</i>

 

[spacester]

Hmm.. did you quote the wrong statement? I said <i>Manned flight</i> cheaper by NASA but you're talking SDHLV. Um having trouble responding . . .you make good points . . . not sure if you agree or disagree . . . I'm confused . . .<br /><br />Private development of a Saturn V class launcher is a stretch even for this starry eyed optimist. Which is precisely why we need NASA to build it for us to get it all started. Get the whole thing started, who knows what the launch rate will be?<br /><br />I could wave my hands over it and say 6 BDB launches a year, tweak a couple other parameters and come up with a much more favorable result. (edit: in fact I've done so many times here, lol)<br /><br />Bottom line is $7.5B is way too high for a private development effort of anything, as your numbers show. For payback, anything over um $1.5B IIRC starts getting impossible.<br /><br />Maybe you'll want to read what I wrote again? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Three sectors: Manned, Megaloads and Commodities. They need different rockets, NASA builds the first two, works for me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

The flip side of your arguement is this...<br />Let' say that Congress and NASA Cancel the SDHLV and scale back the CXV in favor of private industry taking up the slack.<br /><br />2010 rolls around, the shuttle is retired. The production lines for the ET and SRB's are shut down, and torn apart to make space for another project by their respective makers.<br /><br />Oops... looks like SpaceX isn't going to make it after all... the banks have forclosed (or insert whatever failure scenario you like here...).<br /><br />Now, instead of only being 30 years behind in a heavy lift capability (like we are now), we're five years from now, and we're STILL another 15 years away with virually NO capability to support the ISS or move forward to do ANYTHING in any meaningful way.<br /><br />I'm a cheapskate.. and I want to see SpaceX (etc) suceed VERY badly.. but we FINALLY have an opportunity to develop something useful for our tax dollars.<br />If we let the infrastructure of the components die (the ET and SRB, and the attending VAB and launch facilities), while we bet on some other solution, and that FAILS, we are boned in a big way.<br /><br />We've got a 30 year track record of missed opportunities, pissed away by penny pinching congress-critters...<br />Let's not miss this one.<br />I would much rather have NASA build a SDHLV now, and then have it rendered redundant by private indsutry in 10 years than to put all the eggs into someone elses basket.<br /><br />Just my opinion...<br />Paul F.