What if they built a HLLV and nobody came?

[najab]

One of the most commonly heard arguments against building a HLLV (Shuttle-derived or not) is that we don't have the payloads for it. So here's my question: Other than the obvious - support of a Moon/Mars base - what would you do with a HLLV if it existed? Let's assume, for a common point of reference, that it cost $350M/launch and could put 100 tons into LEO (200 nautical miles, 28.5 degrees inclination).

 

[nacnud]

10 communication satellites to GTO in one launch for the price of four on the competition, instant communications network.<br /><br />The thing is how much is a communication satellite to build and how cheap could one be built if it could built 2.5 times the weight of current satellites.<br /><br />Edit: bad maths

 

[najab]

And yes, before anyone asks, I'm not including the development costs in the $350M figure. I'm just considering hardware and propellants.

 

[thalion]

I could think of a lot of things:<br /><br />1.) A direct to Uranus, Neptune, or KBO probe (Sedna?).<br />2.) A Martian sample return mission.<br />3.) A Venus sample return (or other heavy lander/orbiter combo, etc.).<br />4.) A solar sail for an interstellar probe (use the delta V to launch it in toward the Sun, and deploy its sails well within Earth's orbit).<br />5.) A Titan lander/orbiter.<br />6.) The mother of all space telescopes (MOAST). <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />7.) A Europa orbiter/lander.<br /><br />and on and on...

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"25 communication satellites to GTO in one launch"</font><br /><br />Apparently, your glass is not only half full -- but you're assuming that the waitress is coming to the table right this second to drop off a pitcher in case you run low... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I see two problems immediately. <br /><br />One -- each satellite is such a huge investment that companies launch them as they can afford them. Launching 25 at once means getting financing to build all 25 *and* pay for the launcher.<br /><br />Two -- Insurance. It was noted recently on an upcoming comm sat launch (dont recall which one) that is going up (I <b>believe</b> on a Long March) that the company couldn't afford to pay the insurance for the complete satellite. Now envision paying the insurance on 25 satellites... on a launcher with very few launches to show reliability...

 

[nacnud]

I just edited my post for bad maths, see above, forgot to assume a 50% lost of payload for GTO insertion.<br /><br />I think you will have to see whether the reduce cost of building heavier satellite is worth the insurance and investment to launch many at once.<br />

 

[propforce]

Payload capacity is like CPU speed, you can never have too much of it. If you build it, they will come.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"... like CPU speed...If you build it, they will come.... "</font><br /> <br />Actually -- CPUs are already faster than the vast majority of applications can make use of. For this reason, Intel allocates a significant amount of cash each year to providing funding for companies developing CPU-intensive software applications. So the adage would go more like:<br /><br />"If you build it, and then give someone money to make 'it' more attractive, they will come."<br /><br />...or something like that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[paleo]

'Payload capacity is like CPU speed, you can never have too much of it. If you build it, they will come.... '<br /><br /> Not at all. 'They'...who are 'they'? Population won't double on the West Coast because of another Oregon Trail and similarly there is only so much demand for satelite launches.<br /><br />mrmorris is absolutely correct. There aren't 25 satelites needing launching at any time. No demand for it. The existing technology for puting satelites into space is already goes through dry times.<br /><br /> China India...etc. will not develop their own satelite delivery systems if we developed a HLLV? Of course they still will. <br /><br />The initial question is an excellent one. The Shuttle and ISS should be wake up calls.

 

[propforce]

Well... I disagree...<br /><br />$350M per launch is relatively inexpensive considering the 220,000 lbm payload capability. You've just lower the cost of access to space to $1,600 per lbm. How does that affect a business case? <br /><br />Space is not just another West Coast or the Oregon Trail.....<br /><br />Who will come? <br /><br />Satellite builders can afford to design bigger satellites that stays up there longer. <br /><br />Military planners can design bigger satellites that can do more things. A space 'depot' that small sats can go get 'refueled' (at lower orbits). A space based system would just become that much more feasible. <br /><br />Commercially, launching 10 comm. sats for $350M just make a whole new business case, instead of paying $60M ~ $100M for each satellite launch. Not all 10 satellites need to come from the same customer, btw.<br /><br />Then there are upstart space tourism companies that you've just make their business case that much more realistic. <br /><br />It would be a fundamental business and paradigm shift, that would be an equivalent of the de-regulation of US airlines, the low cost access of internet, and the availability of low-cost cell phones. Like it or not, it empowers the people and people find ways to develop various business cases to take advantage of that empowerment.<br /><br />What can you do with a relatively inexpensive mean of access to space? You're only limited by your own imagination.<br /><br />If you build them.... they will come....<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spayss]

Good grief. <br /> There was one (yes only one) commercial launch this year from Cape Canaveral. Demand is down despite more capacity. The United States has priced itself out of the commercial satelite market and this will exacerbate as new launch players build their rockets. Hopefully American entrepreneurs and not the government building zillion dollar HLLV will turn the tide.<br /> Some type of Soyuz-like assembly-line tincans are going to be necessary for any type of Moon mission beyond a rock gathering expedition.

 

[JonClarke]

A parallel with commerical aircraft might be appropros. The 747 was not the first giant aircraft built but, along with the slightly earlier ANT 22 were the first that was a commerical success. All previous giants (Do-X, Spruce Goose, Brabazon were failures because the market was not there. Until launch services are over subscribed there will be no HLV. Pity, but there it is.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Good grief. <br />There was one (yes only one) commercial launch this year from Cape Canaveral. Demand is down despite more capacity. The United States has priced itself out of the commercial satelite market and this will exacerbate as new launch players build their rockets. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You obvious have failed to read the first assumption of this scenario.<br /><br />A 100 ton payload launch for $350M....<br /><br />What part of that "pricing" don't you understand ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spayss]

What point don't YOU understand about supply and demand? What 10 satellites? Are they hiding under your bed? are you building them secretly in your garage?<br /><br /> What is going to be launched?

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Assuming the MtM program does go ahead, you are very likely to have a serious governmental customer to absorb a good portion of the capacity. Therefore, any satellite business you might garner would be the cream on the cake for the HLLV manufacturer.<br /><br />However, that said, a LockMart/Boeing-type manufacturer might benefit from a more holistic view of the market. As MrM mentioned, Intel stimulate their market at both ends by providing the architecture and underwriting the applications to utilise it. Perhaps in conjunction with a new launch product, the manufacturer could offer a range of new satellite platforms optimised for the HLLV. Discounting for those taking up both payload and launch options from the manufacturer.<br /><br />I guess these kinds of incentives are already offered on existing products, but it seems to me this would likely give a HLLV manufacturer the best chances of success. It is all dependent on the MtM vision though, and that is somewhat outside the framework of najaB's original question. Good arguments either way, but you have to believe that long-term the space launch business is going to be a growth industry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[arobie]

Spayss,<br /><br />Ever heard of Bigelow Aerospace and their inflatable space habitats? One weighs 25 tons. These habitats are planned to be able to hook up to form bigger space stations. You could launch 3 along with the trusses and hubs to connect the habs, and supplies for them also. I also happen to know that Bigelow is looking to do this. <br /><br />It would be alot cheaper for them to do it this method than sending up a hab at a time, then all the supplies.<br /><br />There is one source of demand for the HLLV right there. Bigelow also won't just send up a few for one space station. They want to create hotels and even sell a few to the government. They would be quite a source of demand for an HLLV like this.<br /><br />These inflatable space habs are already designed and build. They are sitting in Bigelows garage right now. (And he did build them secretly in his garage...so LoL.) They are planning to send a few small test habs up, then they will send the real things.

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">The real key is getting humans to LEO very cheap, once that happens everything changes drastically. </font><br /><br />That's why I'm looking forward to SpaceX's Falcon V. I'm also looking forward to spaceX's rumored BFR. The BFR would be a HLLV, and probably even cheaper than the example price in this thread.

 

[spayss]

Ever heard of Bigelow Aerospace and their inflatable space habitats?"<br /><br /> Yes. and you base HLLV demands on this? what decades are you speaking of. Where are these Bigelow space habitats currently being built?<br /><br /> One doesn't invest tens of billions on the whim of some theoretic 'Bigelow' space habitat into a HLLV. and certainly not the taxpayers' dollars.<br /><br /> If we should have learned one thing about the ISS it was don't assume that 'if you build it' the purpose for building it will generate itself. The cost and decades of missed opportunity will mean that nobody is going to step on Mars in any of our lifetimes.

 

[spayss]

They are cheaper and also because the 'cheaper' launch systems are not going to get more expensive. China will be the Walmart of satellite launches. There is no market for puting up 10 or 25 satellites on a HLLV at a time. <br /><br /> The television industry in the USA isn't going to regenerate when one can walk into a store and by a $75 color TV. The same will be true of launch systems that are U.S. based. A communication company in Belgium or Canada or South Afric,a etc. will shop around for service (they are now).

 

[henryhallam]

I'm inclined to agree that there isn't a huge commercial market for a HLLV, with the possible exception of Bigelow's projects. However, if they could be produced and launched along with spacecraft / moonbase components at a rate comparable to shuttle launches, with careful planning perhaps the cost could be comparable to the existing shuttle programme.<br /><br />The key idea is that it's a terrible waste to go to the enormous expense of designing a HLLV, then only build 13 of them (a la Saturn V). If the US is going to commit to a return to the moon, it must be for the long haul. A continuous programme of 5+ launches per year for a decade or more is the way to get the best return on the huge investment that will be required.

 

[gofer]

Okay, seriously, how many *space stations* does Bigelow plan to launch per year? We're yet to see one reach solvency. Btw, last time I checked Bigelow was shopping for Dnepr rides (5 tons to leo or something) , and Protons (21 tons?) Comsats, DOD/NRO stuff - forget it. The 'birds' themselves cost so much that the launcher costs have long been not a dominating consideration, rather reliability (insurance), the operator, and others. They also hate having their sats share rides with competitors. <br /><br />The risks multiply, as the number of sats goes up. Imagine an HLV with 20 $100+ mil each sats blowing up (the chances of that are high since the vehicle is new). The insurance alone will be in the gigabucks region. Enormous damages to all parties involved and bankruptcy. Currently, often they like to ‘spread’ their sats between launchers to minimize risks. The telecom market is already stagnating (it turns out pulling cables is now cheaper in many cases than launching sats) The logistics are a problem too. No telecom will stand for the rocket sitting on the ground with its $100+ mil satellite having to wait for the dispenser to fill up with the competitors' rides. Also, the only way telecoms will use the extra mass is put more transponders on it, still it won't come anywhere near close to the HLV class payloads. DOD/NRO/..., of course will never put their classified birds on a shared ride. <br /><br />I can only see one potential application: bulk consumables for government programs (like the VSE) or as has been mentioned in this thread for nuclear based interplanetary science missions, the reactors alone are what in the 30 tonn range?… IF the budget is increased by at least an order of magnitude which looks unlikely at this point. Compare, for example the costs of the MER rovers with their rides, the launch cost is -- peanuts in terms of money -- to see that you need much more money to build the payloads than the rocket. And wherefrom will this payloa

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">Yes. and you base HLLV demands on this?</font><br /><br />If you look hard enough at my post, you might see the following line:<br /><br />"There is one source of demand for the HLLV right there."<br /><br />If you read that, you might see that it implies that Bigelow is not the only source.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Where are these Bigelow space habitats currently being built?</font><br /><br />IIRC, Las Vegas, Nevada. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">One doesn't invest tens of billions on the whim of some theoretic 'Bigelow' space habitat into a HLLV. and certainly not the taxpayers' dollars.</font><br /><br />Why does it have to be tens of billions, and why is it the taxpayers' dollers? It strongly looks like a private company, SpaceX, might just build one...they like to call it the BFR, or the Big F'n Rocket.<br /><br />The vibe that I get from your post is that you are really getting worked up about this. It sounds like you are frustrated that we don't see it your way. Don't get so worked up. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[arobie]

gofer,<br /><br />Good post, and nice points.<br /><br />Your right, bigelow will not be launching alot of space stations, but it was just an example. It seemed that spayss believed that there wasnot any demand for an HLLV, and Bigelow was just an example to show there actually is, well will be soon, some demand.<br /><br />Right now, Bigelow is looking for smaller rockets to get their test habs up. These are smaller, hence the smaller rocket, and there is a series of them. A really small one, a medium one, then finally a full sized one. The fullsized is approximately 25 tons.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What we need is not a rocket genius but a business one, one who creates *applications*, stuff to do in space, a sort of space Bill Gates (lol, I know, I know, but he did bring a lot of new commercial applications to the attention of the general populace)</font><br /><br />I agree with you.

 

[JonClarke]

exactly, the market for such giant transport aircraft (both military and civil )arrived long after they were technically feasible. <br /><br />Political factors also need to be considered. Concorde was screwed because planning did not factor in fuel rises, plus US protectionism and prejudice prevented from it from entering the lucrative domestic US market and delayed it for years from entering the transatlantic routes. Again an example of how if you build something people won't neccessarily use it. A space example would be the difficulty experienced in getting US satellite launched on Russian rockets.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What point don't YOU understand about supply and demand? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Apparently you don't <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Demand rises when there's a sharp decrease of purchasing price (remember the supply-demand curve?). When the U.S. launch cost drops below $2,000 per lbm, which the 100 ton/ $350M price tag will, it will be below the price that France, China and Russia can offer. Even if they match the price, we're not fighting over the percentage of market, the market will just get bigger. <br /><br />What is going to be launched? What 10 satellites?<br /><br />I don't know if you're online back before the day of internet becomes popular, there were "internet" but it was more of university TELNET type connections, many asked back then "so what?" "what can we do with internet?" "WHO's going to use this and PAY for this if we build these backbones?" Where is the demand?<br /><br />We have more examples, PC, cell phones, the railroads, Fed Ex, Paypal, E-bay, etc., if you are a student of business.<br /><br />When you provide an affordable access, people will come up with vary ways to take advantage of that affordable mean of access, business cases will develop, investment will follow, ideas become reality.<br /><br />It's not happening now because the business case is not there (profit = revenue - cost).<br /><br />What satellites? What's going to be launched? You are only limited by your own imagination.<br /><br />If you build them (and priced attractively)... they will come... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>