Nasawatch rumor on CEV costs.

[josh_simonson]

The Atlas 401 doesn't go to LEO, the 402 does. Anyway, a better bet would be the Atlas V 552 with Falcon 9S9 and Delta IV heavy as backups (don't forget Aries V being man-rated and available eventually too). That allows about 20t for the ISS CEV/SM, which is do-able with minimal modifications to the current design. For lunar missions the CEV SM could be launched mostly empty and refuel from the HLV stack before TLI.<br /><br />Here's an interesting blurb from astronautix:<br /><br /> The Block 1A would be used to rotate three to six crew members and cargo to the ISS and from the ISS. The spacecraft would require minimal modifications compared to the Block 2 baseline for this task. The Block 1A would have a total mass of 22,900 kg, including three crew, 400 kg of cargo, 8,300 kg of propellant, and 1,544 m/s of delta-V capability. However 6300 kg of the propellant is excess to the space station resupply mission. NASA vaguely says this unused propellant could be used for ISS reboost or in emergencies. In fact, this version could be flown on the ISS mission with a total mass as low as 16 tonnes, allowing it to be boosted on another booster (Atlas V, Delta 4, Ariane 5).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Alternately, the CEV could just be launched on the HLV. From the ESAS report, the incremental cost (cost to launch one more rocket) difference between Aries V and Aries I is only $68M, and the Aries I program costs $855M/year + the incremental for each flight. They'd have to fly Aries I more than 12 times a year before that $855M/launches is less than the $68M difference in just using the HLV. Pigs could be flying over the frozen plains of hell and we still wouldn't launch 13 Aries I/year. Is the difference between 0.1% LOC and 0.05% LOC worth the lions share of a billioin dollars a year? <br /><br />Each shuttle accident cost about $10bln in direct costs and the cost of not flying, but according to the safety numbers in ESAS, at (liberal) 6 flights/year there will be a LOC inci

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">"seems that there is a lot of hallway chatter at MSFC - and elsewhere - about the advisability of switching from RS-68 engines to RD-180s for the CaLV - the prime issue being performance and the smaller booster diameter you could get (back to 27 feet) by going with RD-180s. There is also hallway chatter about the notion of dumping the CLV alltogether and considering an EELV such as the Atlas V. Seems that the current CLV has some difficulties (as designed) in getting the current CEV (as designed) into space." </font><br /><br />Ok, so why don't we just lose the solid boosters completely and go with Atlas growth phase 2? As I understand it we don't need to make a whole lot of pad changes to go with the larger wide body CCB's.

 

[j05h]

> The Atlas 401 doesn't go to LEO, the 402 does. Anyway, a better bet would be the Atlas V 552 with Falcon 9S9 and Delta IV heavy<br /><br />However you want to build the roster. My concern is creating a light, universal capsule that can transport 3-5 people to LEO. The goal of my (very fast) analysis was to find existing, reasonably priced rockets. I don't buy in any way, shape or form, the need for a 25ton juggernaut capsule to move 3 people to the space station. Soyuz is only 5 tons, Americans don't weigh that much more than others. <br /><br />What we need are rockets that fly often, this is a route to it.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Cost estimates are squirrily things; there has never been a rocket that didn't cost a lot more in hardware than it did on paper. The Delta IV is operational so its cost estimates are far more accurate than those for the planned CLV. I've had the chance to tour the Delta IV pad several times, and the Shuttle facilities for many years. The difference in complexity of operations is dramatic. The Shuttle SRBs require tedious and hazardous crane operations to stack the segments. The Mobile Launcher Platform is built like a ship and carried on the immense crawler. The Delta IV has no mobile pad. It is integrated horizontally in a building that doesn't even have a crane, and despite its size the "heavy" is actually so light unfueled that it can be carried to the pad on a rubber-tired Kamag transporter that runs on ordinary roads; like the Soyuz it is rotated to vertical at the pad by an erector arm; a much faster and less hazardous procedure than crane rotation. In the long run the cost of operations is proportional to the number of people and hours it takes to do the job, and the Delta IV is assembled and launched at Cape Canveral by a total workforce of less than 300.<br /><br />The LSAS claimed an entirely new pad costing billions would be needed if an EELV were used for manned launch; despite vague statements about "man-rating" the pad, the only reason actually given was that "we frankly don't think the EELV programs want us interfering with their operations". I actually heard this in an address by a NASA manager. Obviously they never asked the EELV programs, since both are operating well below capacity. CX-37 has a massive FUT (fixed umbilical tower) that already has three swingarms; adding a fourth for crew access would be a minor mod. <br /><br />The cost estimate for Delta IV launch was further inflated by requiring a redesigned second stage to meet a design load factor of 1.4 (used for Shuttle) vs the 1.25 DoD spec. However design load factor is a function of the

 

[mattblack]

Very thought-provoking, vulture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

vulture- great post, thanks for some thoughtful analysis. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

""seems that there is a lot of hallway chatter at MSFC - and elsewhere - about the advisability of switching from RS-68 engines to RD-180s for the CaLV - the prime issue being performance and the smaller booster diameter you could get (back to 27 feet) by going with RD-180s. There is also hallway chatter about the notion of dumping the CLV alltogether and considering an EELV such as the Atlas V. Seems that the current CLV has some difficulties (as designed) in getting the current CEV (as designed) into space."<br /><br />Ok, so why don't we just lose the solid boosters completely and go with Atlas growth phase 2? As I understand it we don't need to make a whole lot of pad changes to go with the larger wide body CCB's."<br /><br /><br />Why not go with Delta IV Heavy, which is already flying and woud not present the solid motor safety concerns? Even if it needs to be modified to handle CEV, the mods could be limited to the upper stage, which is still a lot less development effort than either Ares I or the Fat Atlas.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[vulture2]

My thanks for the kind words from Josh, Matt, and Ed. Regrettably I must remain anonymous.<br /><br />I did not mean to disparage the Atlas V, which is also a fine design, but with the upcoming merger of the EELV programs the plan seems to be to use the less expensive Atlas for smaller payloads and put the really big ones on the Delta, rather than developing a competing heavy version of the Atlas. Also the Atlas umbilical tower is a thinner design that uses flexible lines rather than swingarms, so crew access would require more mods. <br /><br />Unfortunately we should not look for the EELV contractors to complain about their boosters being passed over for the human flight program; they are both competing for the CEV integration contract, and the customer is always right. If there is to be any voice for rethinking our course it will have to come from outside.

 

[steve82]

"The politics of Russian boosters? Whatev. The media doesn't care enough about the space program to make an issue out of it..."<br /><br />But Federal law does. It's not politics, it's ITAR regulations and they, along with export controls, have been one of the biggest hindrences to working with Internatinal Partners on the ISS program. The costs of man-rating any EELV will be staggering and man-rating a Russian engine would probably require changing the law if we wanted to fly the thing sometime in the next 20 years.

 

[mattblack]

If the RS-68s have to be uprated and man-rated anyway, then the Delta IV would be the most logical, as you'd naturally have that engine commonality for the Aries V. I'd also suggest using the J-2X for a Delta IV upper stage for even more commonality.<br /><br />I've been a champion for the SRB-CLV vehicle in the past, but if the costs have escalated so dramatically and its' performance has been so downgraded, then CHANGE before it's too late and billions more are wasted!!<br /><br />If CLV-SRB is changed, then I'd say revert to 'standard' 4-Segment SRBs for the Aries V: This would save tons of money by using geniune, off-the-shelf components, truly surplus from the end of the Shuttle program.<br /><br />By uprating the RS-68s in thrust, Isp & safety, plus reverting to 2x J-2X on the EDS, we should get back most if not all of the lost payload from going back to the 4-Segment config. If ATK moans about losing the SRB-CLV and the 5-Segment project: tell them half a loaf is better than none and at least most of the jobs & infrastructure would be preserved with the existing boosters... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"My concern is creating a light, universal capsule that can transport 3-5 people to LEO. The goal of my (very fast) analysis was to find existing, reasonably priced rockets. I don't buy in any way, shape or form, the need for a 25ton juggernaut capsule to move 3 people to the space station. Soyuz is only 5 tons, Americans don't weigh that much more than others."<br /><br />The entire Soyuz spacecraft is bigger than 5 tonnes (more like 7) but your larger message is correct. The CEV is bigger than it needs to be and the CEV should properly mass within the payload limits of existing launch vehicles.<br /><br />The 5.5m diameter 9.5 tonne CEV capsule (since reduced to 5m) is larger than neccessary for 3 to 6 man missions NASA wants it for. Published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 42, 1989, is the story of the Multi-Role Capsule (MRC). The MRC was the subject of a feasibility study within British Aerospace for multiple LEO missions including manned access to the ISS. The differences between the NASA CEV capsule and the MRC are instructive of the wasteful size of the CEV.<br /><br />The basic job of the MRC was to send 4 men to the ISS. In a lifeboat role two extra seats permit the MRC to accomodate 6 people. This is very like the job of the CEV which has to accomodate 4 people for lunar missions and 6 people for transfer to a Mars mission ship. Yet the MRC manages similar accomodations to the CEV within a conical capsule only 4m in diameter and with a mass less than 5 tonnes.<br /><br />There's no reason why NASA couldn't scale down the CEV.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"If CLV-SRB is changed, then I'd say revert to 'standard' 4-Segment SRBs for the Aries V: This would save tons of money by using geniune, off-the-shelf components, truly surplus from the end of the Shuttle program." <br /><br />"By uprating the RS-68s in thrust, Isp & safety, plus reverting to 2x J-2X on the EDS, we should get back most if not all of the lost payload from going back to the 4-Segment config."<br /><br />From what I understand the current configuration of the Ares V with 5-segment SRBs and a 10m diameter liquid tank will have MORE payload than the original SSME configuration. I've heard numbers ranging from an increase =5 to an increase of 12+ tonnes payload to LEO over the original Ares V configuration which supposedly would place 125 tonnes into LEO.<br /><br />I believe the Ares V would fall back to a payload very like the original 125 tonnes of the original SSME version should the Ares V switch from 5-segment SRBs to 4-segment SRBs.<br /><br />The cost of those 5-segment SRBs whether it's for the Ares I or the Ares V is too high for the small payload gain provided. So I agree with you, dump the 5-segment boosters and just use the 4-segment SRB.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">From what I understand the current configuration of the Ares V with 5-segment SRBs and a 10m diameter liquid tank will have MORE payload than the original SSME configuration. I've heard numbers ranging from an increase =5 to an increase of 12+ tonnes payload to LEO over the original Ares V configuration which supposedly would place 125 tonnes into LEO.</font><br /><br />I was asking around recently (in these parts) about the Ares V's payload to low earth orbit. NASA officially says "about" 130 metric tons.<br /><br />It absolutely astounds me that folks haven't made more of a to-do about this, as it puts the Ares V clearly ahead of the old Saturn V in capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

"I was asking around recently (in these parts) about the Ares V's payload to low earth orbit. NASA officially says "about" 130 metric tons.<br /><br />It absolutely astounds me that folks haven't made more of a to-do about this, as it puts the Ares V clearly ahead of the old Saturn V in capability."<br /><br /><br />Perhaps the fact that Ares V is so far out there in the future, along with the fact that its design still seems to be in flux, that has kept interest low. Maybe people will only be impressed if NASA really starts to build it.<br /><br />BTW, if Ares V outlifts Saturn V, then one cost-reduction method is glaringly apparent - drop the Ares I crew launcher and fly slimmed-down CEV and LSAMs on just one Ares V, Apollo-style. That's probably a three-quarter billion dollar reduction per mission right there.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[gunsandrockets]

"BTW, if Ares V outlifts Saturn V, then one cost-reduction method is glaringly apparent - drop the Ares I crew launcher and fly slimmed-down CEV and LSAMs on just one Ares V, Apollo-style. That's probably a three-quarter billion dollar reduction per mission right there."<br /><br />There's two problems with your suggestion. The larger problem is flying support missions to the ISS. You don't want to throw away an enormous Ares V just for a piddly little ISS mission.<br /><br />The secondary problem is the current NASA lunar plan is based on the combined payload of the Ares V and the Ares I, a total payload to LEO of about 150 tonnes. Even with a slimmed down CEV, the mass budget is seriously compromised without the Ares I. The large 4 man missions that stay for two weeks at a time on the lunar surface wouldn't be possible anymore.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

I too, originally supported the solid booster design just to get things going, but this was before both the cancelling of the SSME upgrade, and the five segment booster fiancial fiasco.<br /><br />I have since switched over to using the Delta IV Heavy for the crew modules of the CEV system. There is an inherent safety factor in using all liquid engines that would make man-rating far easier than most realize.<br /><br />That is that in the case of a liquid engine the very engine that you test is then used as your flight engine. So every liquid engine is given a "Green run" that tests the actual engine, whereas with solids you must totally depend on the use of statistical process control to make sure that the solids that you test (which are then used up in the testing) are EXACTLY the same as your flight solids. Now ATK has indeed done an admirable job in doing this, but it can't possibly match the safety of using the actually tested engines themselves. This is one of the reasons that Wherner Von Braun insisted on only liquid engines for placing human beings into space and onto the moon. <br /><br />With commercial payloads it does not matter so much, as a failure will not be killing human beings! <br /><br />Not only can either current or upgraded RS68 engines be tested in this manner, but even the entire common booster core + the RS68's also be tested in this manner. Heck, like the testing of the booster of the original Staturn V's the entire booster section of three (or more) for the Delta IV's could so be tested. So what then becomes of the difficulty of man-rating the booster cores?<br /><br />With congress now in a cost cutting mood, I am certain that this far less expensive method for at least the CEV human rocket portion is a far better way to go than to have to pay ATK's exorbitant prices!<br /><br />As for the much larger CALV, I would think that as this is going to be an entirely new rocket anyway I would think that the new Boeing/LM Space consortium would be q

 

[edkyle98]

""BTW, if Ares V outlifts Saturn V, then one cost-reduction method is glaringly apparent - drop the Ares I crew launcher and fly slimmed-down CEV and LSAMs on just one Ares V, Apollo-style. That's probably a three-quarter billion dollar reduction per mission right there.""<br /><br />"There's two problems with your suggestion. The larger problem is flying support missions to the ISS. You don't want to throw away an enormous Ares V just for a piddly little ISS mission.<br /><br />The secondary problem is the current NASA lunar plan is based on the combined payload of the Ares V and the Ares I, a total payload to LEO of about 150 tonnes. Even with a slimmed down CEV, the mass budget is seriously compromised without the Ares I. The large 4 man missions that stay for two weeks at a time on the lunar surface wouldn't be possible anymore."<br /><br /><br />I agree that it would be better to go bigger per ESAS, but I'm afraid that the public, and Congress, won't support a program long-term that costs as much as these rumors suggest. <br /><br />The alternative to no program is a slimmed-down program. ESAS itself found that the 1.5 launcher mission was not the most cost-effective approach. The 2-launch mission using two smaller-than-Ares V launchers actually was more cost-effective. A single Ares V launch of a slimmed-down mission would probably cost less than that.<br /><br />As for ISS, there are alternatives. One would be to use the already-developed EELV as a temporary crew launcher to support ISS missions. Another would be to keep shuttle flying longer. The third, cheapest option would be to simply buy more Soyuz seats and Progress flights.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[josh_simonson]

The incremental price (to launch one more HLV) was only calculated at $179M in ESAS, expending 5 SSME at that. Even if used to launch CEV to ISS with no additional modules or cargo, the HLV would be cheaper to use for this than spending the money to design CLV and maintain the CLV infrastructure ($855M/year).<br /><br />The HLV core stage without SRBs would be capable of launching CEV to an ISS mission. NASA could simply design half an HLV now and have a CLV, then add the SRBs and second stage for the full HLV. Compared to Delta IV, this would be the same number of engines (5 RS-68 vs 3 RS-68 + 2 RL-10) with only 1 tank instead of 4. One separation event would be eliminated, and it would launch from the same pad structure as the HLV. The 10m HLV core + 25t CEV has a first stage fuel fraction of 90% - so it'd effectively be a disposable SSTO.

 

[nacnud]

I like that idea, but how would a luna bound CEV get to orbit with its full propelant load? Is the use of the CEV SM as a kick motor a trival amount of delta-v or not?

 

[vulture2]

>>I'd also suggest using the J-2X for a Delta IV upper stage for even more commonality. <br /><br />While "man-rating" is a vague and moving target, it might be more practical to "man-rate" the current Delta upper stage, which uses the P&W RL10B-2 engine, which has been in continuous use with some evolution for over 30 years, and has powered everything from the Centaur to the DC-X. It has an extendable nozzle which shortens the "beer can" interstage and saves weight, and has proven quite dependable. <br /><br /> />>The HLV core stage without SRBs would be capable of launching CEV to an ISS mission. NASA could simply design half an HLV now and have a CLV, then add the SRBs and second stage for the full HLV. Compared to Delta IV, this would be the same number of engines (5 RS-68 vs 3 RS-68 + 2 RL-10) with only 1 tank instead of 4<br /><br />However the common booster stage is already in production, the GSE and launch pad is available, and comonality with single-core EELV launches of smaller payloads would lower costs. Also, the second stage provides multiple burn capability for trajectory changes, both apogee-perigee and inclination.

 

[josh_simonson]

>I like that idea, but how would a luna bound CEV get to orbit with its full propelant load? Is the use of the CEV SM as a kick motor a trival amount of delta-v or not?<br /><br />It's less than 1.5km/s, and possibly as low as the insertion burn planned with the current CLV (so that the 2nd stage re-enters). It really depends on the final fuel fraction, engine ISP and weight. <br /><br />Lunar sorties will require the full HLV, so each mission could use 2 HLVs and come out cheaper than using two different launch vehicles. The SM fuel tank could be enlarged slightly if they decided to keep using the booster core without SRBs for crew launch. A slight extension (<10%) of the booster stage tanks could also ensure full SSTO capability and increase the HLV payload a bit as well. <br /><br />After liftoff the RS-68's would have to throttle down and drop out to limit G forces, which would give the rocket engine-out capability. Since all engines can be confirmed to be functioning on the pad before liftoff, it is engine out capable and there is no stage separation; this rocket could be incredibly reliable. The core stage would also have a 20 launch track record before launching time-critical and extremely expensive lunar missions.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It's [CEV SM deltaV is] less than 1.5km/s, and possibly as low as the insertion burn planned with the current CLV (so that the 2nd stage re-enters). It really depends on the final fuel fraction, engine ISP and weight."<br /><br />I just had a d'oh(!) moment. It's generally recognized that the CEV has too much propellent for ISS missions. Yet the CLV is designed for propelling the entire 23+ tonne mass of the CEV into orbit (fitting the CLV role for lunar missions). At the same time the EELV are criticized for not having enough payload capacity for sending the whole CEV to orbit. So what about that big Service Module on the CEV?<br /><br />If a fully loaded CEV were launched via an EELV, than the SM could serve as a third stage placing the remaining mass of the CEV into orbit. That would more than suffice for typical ISS access missions! <br /><br /><br />"After liftoff the RS-68's would have to throttle down and drop out to limit G forces, which would give the rocket engine-out capability. Since all engines can be confirmed to be functioning on the pad before liftoff, it is engine out capable and there is no stage separation; this rocket could be incredibly reliable. The core stage would also have a 20 launch track record before launching time-critical and extremely expensive lunar missions."<br /><br />Using an SRB-less Ares V for a CLV launcher is intriguing. But I see two problems. First off a CLV launcher is quickly needed to narrow the manned spaceflight gap created by Space Shuttle retirement. The Ares V development program will stretch out first availability too far into the future. The second problem is the 'man-rating' bugaboo (something I don't put much stock in myself). Man-rating the Ares V may slow down development and increase the projected operational costs of the Ares V which for now is planned as a cargo only launcher.<br /><br />But how about this. Since the Atlas V heavy isn't developed yet, use the Delta IV heavy for a near term CLV launcher fo

 

[josh_simonson]

>First off a CLV launcher is quickly needed to narrow the manned spaceflight gap created by Space Shuttle retirement. The Ares V development program will stretch out first availability too far into the future.<br /><br />CLV is currently waiting on the 5 seg SRB, which doesn't exist, and the J-2X, which doesn't exist and needs to be qualified as 'man-rated'. <br /><br />Aries V booster core uses modified ET, which more or less exists, and RS-68, which also currently exists. Man-rating the RS-68 should be less work than the combined J-2X and 5 seg SRB projects. If an air starting CLV J-2X fails, it's LOM. But if an RS-68 fails on the HLV core, the mission can continue unless it goes from green to red in the first handful of seconds after liftoff. <br /><br />Using the Delta would be an okay temporary solution, but I'd like to see work done on HLV as soon as possible to cement the future of the program. <br /><br />Using an estimated delta-v of 8607m/s to ISS including losses, and an average ISP of RS-68 of 387, about 500m/s of SM fuel would be needed for the 8m tank, and none would be needed for the planned 10m tank. <br /><br />The RS-68 has a low expansion ratio, optimized for sea level performance as a first stage. It's likely that the expansion ratio will be increased for the HLV since it flies all the way to orbit when not using a second stage. Average ISP could rise by 10-15 in that case.

 

[gofer]

I think NASA should just re-do the ESAS study. With gusto this time. The current one appears useless.

 

[no_way]

yeehaw for more studies (y) .. as long as the money is ticking, who cares if anything ever gets beyond powerpoint slides and flashy websites ?