What if they built a HLLV and nobody came?

[spacester]

Nice posts, propforce. I don't doubt that many see me as a hopelessly unrealistic dreamer, but I also suppose that you don't share that same label.<br /><br />I've been preaching the 'build it and they will come' thing for years now. What's amusing to me is that previously the argument went "Space Hotels? What space hotels? There's no such thing as space hotels, and there won't be for several decades!"<br /><br />Now that they are firmly on the horizon, the argument is shifting to "Well, sure, maybe a few space hotels, but not enough of them and it's not like there's any thing else but space hotels and comsats for a HLLV to launch."<br /><br />Soon enough there will be the argument that "Well, sure, space hotels and lunar habitats and lunar power plants and Martian habitats and Martian power plants and ISPP and orbital sports stadiums, but it's not like there's anything <i>else</i> for a HLLV to launch."<br /><br />For me, it is quite easy to forecast 4 very large payloads per year for 5 to 10 years. IMO that's a high enough flight rate to achieve the kind of cost per pound suggested by najaB.<br /><br />Underserved demand does not last forever. Eventually entreprenuers find a way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Public relations certainly are a factor as well. We digress here.<br /><br />People in the early 50's were ready for jets. Turboprops were sweeping the marjket and pure jets were the next stage Dehavilland had large orders for Comets. What set the game back was the unexpected structural failures (unexpected in the sense that the Comet was a heavily tested aircraft but not unpredicted by those who ahd been concerned at its light structure). Despite going bcak to the drawing board and extensively designing, over testing and still getting the Mk 4 in service before the 707, not after, the airlines never regained confidence in the aircraft, although well over 100 were sold in the end and the basic airframe is still flying in the form of the Nimrod.<br /><br />My pint remains valid, 300-400 seater aircraft were technically feasible in the 50's and early 60's. They did not need the large bybass ratio fans, although these ceratinly helped, especially when the fuel prices went up. They could have been built using 6 or 8 engines. In fact the Brabazon did, having (as I recall) 8 coupled turbines driving four propellers. Other options were available, had the market demanded it. The Antonov and Toupolev solution of very large contra rotating propellers, for example.<br /><br />However we digress. History provides parallels, but is a cloudy mirror at times<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>

 

[space_dreamer]

$350M/launch and could put 100 tons into LEO (200 nautical miles, 28.5 degrees inclination).<br /><br />FUEL, people!!!<br /><br />Cost $ 3.5M per ton <br /><br />Sell it on the open market, if we could easily refuel in LEO getting to the moon, mars L1 point asteroids would be easy.<br /><br />As for the cost of developing the “space gas station” why not one to the big Oil companies? They are in the business of supplying fuel after all. They are used to much more expensive multi billon dollar projects than what this would cost. It could even have a massive ESSO / BP etc.. logo painted on the side. <br /><br />After the fuel is sold then the empty fuel stations could either be allowed to burn up or be sold cheaply (recouping some of the cost) and developed in to a massive space station? <br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

I think that there will be a market for HHLV *IF* The proper angle is taken with possible uses. <br /><br />I am thinking about the COM sat issue and being able to lauch X many satellites in one shot. I think this is the wrong approach.<br /><br />Most Satellites lauched today have a VAST MAJORITY of there mass being fuel! If you where to Launch a dry communications satellite, you in all odds could get 4 or 5 on top of a Delta V. The biggest waste in space is that fact that fuel and payload are launched together on the same booster. It truely is wasteful that so much cost is used to launch what basically comes in 55-Gal drums. <br /><br />My take on HHLV is that it should be used to provide to stocking an orbiting gas station. This not can stock COM and MIL birds, but might also come in handy for the M2M program. <br /> <br />Also because you are launching basically 'cheap' stuff, you can cut corners with the launcher.<br /><br /><br />Food for thought: If you mass of the ISS was all fuel, we could go to Mars right now.<br />

 

[scottb50]

That's why I would set up LEO stations in the best possible orbit for a simple, minimum energy launch, from wherever, maybe the French could use the same facility as the U.S., with some penalty, but the Russians would probably need a station of their own. Which is what Tugs are for and Space commerce is all about. The idea is to get the most efficient launch possible.<br /><br />From LEO stations payloads and passengers would go outward, or inward, using Tugs. Return payloads and passengers would come in from other stations, or places, and be sent down to the Surface, using Tugs, which return after releasing the landing Module. <br /><br />Rather than super expensive satellites we need servicable platforms that can be used for any number of purposes. It's not going to get overly cheap, but if you come in and replace things, or change them it is a plus. Which means we have to expect failures and deal with them.<br /><br />One possibility is numerous, high speed communication, platforms in LEO, in constant communication with each other and surface tranceivers they would provide real time communication anywhere, anytime.<br /><br />Take payloads to a Base Station and use Tugs to distribute them. With enough propellant a Tug, or a bigger Tug, could reach Lunar or Martian orbits, or other if you add, or subtract propellant.<br /><br />The key is to make it simpler. Instead of super complex communication satellites in GEO you have multiple satellites in LEO. Each having communication with two others behind or in front of itself. Using Tugs they would be accessable and could be manned for maintenance or operated as hotels. <br /><br />Once at a station any other orbit or destination would be available, depending on scheduling.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

And ship hulls with 1ft of lead.

 

[mikejz]

From my understanding, a lot of the cost of a COM sat is in the solar wings.

 

[najab]

><i>From my understanding, a lot of the cost of a COM sat is in the solar wings.</i><p>Yes and no. The solar panels themselves aren't a major cost, but the mechanisms required to fit panels that may be 40 metres from tip to tip into a payload fairing only 4 metres in diameter, and guarantee that they will be able to unfold correctly, does take a lot of work and money.<p>A comsat which didn't have to fit into such a small space <i>would</i> end up costing a bit less.</p></p>

 

[mikejz]

Okay, but I still hear the solar cells do cost something close to $500/Watt (BOL).<br /><br />On the deloyment side, I guess they could switch over to something like inflatible tubes to deploy the wings.

 

[strandedonearth]

Yes, it is an interesting thread, funny I don't seem to remember it. I especially like mikejz's idea of refueling comsats. It shouldn't take too much dV to move between satellites in GEO, since they'd all be in the same orbital plane. An ion engine would reduce the propellant needed to shift the tank around, as long as you weren't in any hurry.

 

[nacnud]

Check out orbital recoveries CX-OLEV space tug. Very simmilar to that idea.

 

[no_way]

Ok, theres one major misconception here. If NASA will build an HLLV, it will not launch _any_ commercial payloads period.<br />As for spinning it off to a commercial operator, well try to do that with STS or ISS : nobody wants it because of the huge operating costs and major part of that cost is workforce payroll. Same will be the case with HLLV because the major reason for building a shuttle-derived HLLV in the first place is to provide jobs for current STS standing army, which means the annual cost will practically be the same.<br />

 

[chris_in_space]

It's long ago that I abandoned the idea of a space elevator in any near future. There's no way there will be an important enough market for it anytime soon.<br /><br />As (partly) mentioned in the thread's title, the problem is not that our rockets are too expensive but that there are no interesting projects (from an entrepreneur's point of view) to do in space. (see this thread for a little discussions on this point of view http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=businesstech&Number=248691&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= )<br /><br /><br />

 

[john_316]

Okay folks I can think of a dozen reasons for SDHLV or HLV.<br /><br />1. No need for multiple launches on smaller rockets for certain missions.<br /><br />2. You can launch the Nuclear Rocket on one launch.<br /><br />3. You can launch a 100 ton Space Station to LEO.<br /><br />4. You can launch a refuel and supply station to LEO.<br /><br />5. You can launch a Satellite Repair Facility to LEO.<br /><br />6. You can launch a CEV repair and maintenance facility to LEO.<br /><br />7. You can do a Mars sample return. <br /><br />8. You can send larger more robust probes to the outer solar system. Such as JIMO<br /><br />9. You can launch a larger space telescope.<br /><br />10. You can launch the MSL (Mars Surface Landers)<br /><br />11. You can launch a GEO Station or Lagrange which ever you prefer.<br /><br />12. You can launch Fuel to orbit for vehicles that require it.<br /><br />13. You can launch solar arrays for beaming back energy to the planet.<br /><br />14. You can launch larger communications arrays for deep space missions.<br /><br />15. You can launch larger communication satellites or even manned satellites for that matter.<br /><br />16. You can launch more science labs for private concerns including academia and business.<br /><br />17. You can launch the base that can will be used on the moon or even mars habitat modules.<br /><br />18. You can launch an orbital facility for Mars so that Mars can also have a space station for Mars accent and decent.<br /><br />19. You can launch nuclear waste towards the sun.<br /><br />20. You can even launch people if man-rated to whereever.<br /><br />21. You can launch The biggest freaking Nuke ever incase of a potential asteroid or comet hit to earth.<br /><br />22. You can launch space farms in LEO or GEO.<br /><br />23. You can launch medical factories.<br /><br />24. You can launch mining operations.<br /><br /><br />I said a dozen or so. Sorry for the 2 dozen.<br /><br />The list can go on and on.... But yes we do need a HLV for the future or else we are still

 

[skywalker01]

I don't see it as such a black and white issue.<br /><br />Maybe a better question is; will $1750/lb to LEO be low enough to make enough new space markets profitable that are not profitable today due to launch costs?<br /><br />For those of you talking about Space Holels.<br />Assuming 500 lbs per passenger seat to LEO that comes out to $875,000 for a ticket. Is that price low enough to stimulate a large enough space tourism market to make a space hotel pay?<br /><br />For those of you talking about orbiting industries; will $875,000 per person per launch plus a minimum of $5,000 per day per person per day for consumables be low enough for the productivity of that person to justify those costs?<br /><br />I suspect that the primary market for a SDHLV will end up being the MtM program. I would like to be wrong about that, but that is the way it looks to me at this time.<br /><br />But as much as I would like it to be otherwise, just having a MtM program make me very very happy.<br />And hopefully as a result of our having a MtM program, it will lead to the building of some type of even more affordable launch system that will make all these other space dreams possible.<br /><br />Ad Astra everyone.

 

[arconin]

You would not use HLLV for lifiting people up to LEO. <br /><br />At the moment Branson and Virgin Galactic is talking about 25k to sub orbital once things get going. He has already stated that he is not stopping there and his next plans are to offer Orbital trips. The only way he will sustain that is if he gets it done affordably for all.<br /><br />Bigelow has his Americas Space Prize, offereing $50M to the team that creates a ship that can reach LEO and service his stations.<br /><br />These will be the ways to get to the LEO destinations but you need the SDHLV to the the destinations to LEO such as the ideas put forth by John_316. <br /><br />These Entrepreneurs would not be doing this if they didnt think they could make money, and the only way they can make money at it is to bring the cost down to entice the customers.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Okay folks I can think of a dozen reasons for SDHLV or HLV.</font>/i><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">1. No need for multiple launches on smaller rockets for certain missions.</font>/i><br /><br /><b>HLV VS. NO HLV</b><br /><br />I was originally against the development of an HLV and in particular the in-line version of the SDHLV, but a recent article by Zubrin and the problem with Discovery recently have changed my mind.<br /><br />Zubrin's article pointed out that the original NASA Lunar mission plan under O'Keefe and Steidely required 4 launches of a medium lift vehicle (e.g., the EELVs): one for the CEV, one for the Lunar Surface Ascent Module (LSAM), and two for the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) used to move the CEV and LSAM to the Moon (you can google these acronyms to get more details).<br /><br />Discovery's recent delays (probably from a minor glitch) drives home that the probability of successfully launching <b><font color="yellow">four</font>/b> rockets, one after another, in a very <b><font color="yellow">short time period</font>/b> is probably pretty low.<br /><br />So yeah, I have grudgingly (at least for the near term) become an HLV supporter.<br /><br /><br /><b>INLINE VS SIDE-MOUNTED</b><br /><br />Then there was the inline vs. side-mounted SDHLV. I originally preferred the side-mounted because (1) the development costs would be <i>much</i> less, (2) the development time would be much less (both freeing up resources for other development or operations), and (3) it would be easier to launch ISS components that were designed for side-mounted launches.<br /><br />The drawbacks to side-mounted SDHLV are (1) it launches less mass than the inline version, (2) it would suffer from tank shedding problems making it less safe for launching humans on a CEV using the side-mounted SDHLV, and (3) the side-mount makes it hard for a crew escape during launch.<br /><br />But Zubrin's description of using the</b></b></i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I suspect that the primary market for a SDHLV will end up being the MtM program.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />Although if, as NASA shifted away from commercial and DOD satellite launches following Challenger, NASA reduced shuttle flights by the late 1980s and redirected those funds to develop a 100 tonne HLV at that point, the ISS might have looked very differently. A single launch could have delivered a very capable space station.</i>

 

[shoogerbrugge]

just to spoil the fun....<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />What are the odds of a HLLV lifting 100 tonnes to LEO for only 350 million USD???<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Other then that, nice thread. I don't think you can compare the space market to other markets. Just because the company's building the LVs are not the ones in control of the "product chain". They respond to demand, and do not create it. <br /><br />Im just skeptical that Boeing, LM or SpaceX can build a 100tonnes capacity LV for only 350million USD a pop. Somebody remind me again how much the Delta 4H launch costed again?

 

[lunatio_gordin]

For one, they will never let you launch nuclear waste. It's not going to happen. Challenger still rings clear in the collective mind of the public. imagine that scattering contaminated nuclear waste across florida. Not pretty. <br />and Solar Power Stations in orbit will not be profitable in the near future. In order to even make it worth while launch costs have to come down more drastically than $1750/kg. (just finished reading that chapter in Entering Space.) Also, you need a place to mine before you launch mining missions.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What are the odds of a HLLV lifting 100 tonnes to LEO for only 350 million USD???</font>/i><br /><br />Good question, but I don't understand the pricing of launches to begin with. If you are SpaceX you are not billing the customer during the development phase but only for launches, so development costs must be spread across each launch. A recent study (I can't find it -- can someone point to it again?) applied that analysis to the shuttle (all development and operational costs divided by total number of launches), and they arrived at a launch cost of greater than $1 billion per shuttle launch.<br /><br />Given that RTF will cost about $7 billion (and this is for an existing system, expertise, assembly lines, launch facilities, etc.), I cannot imagine anything less than $15 billion for a largely new inline SDHLV. Imagine the following (probably unrealistic) scenario:<br /><br />(1) inline SDHLV costs $15 billion<br />(2) operational launch costs of SDHLV <i>only</i> $250 million<br />(3) 4 launches per year, and no failures<br />(4) spread development costs over 10 years of operations<br />----<br />Total costs per launch is really $625 million per launch!<br />($15 billion + (4 launch/year * 10 years * $250 million/launch)) / 40 launches<br /><br />So do you report the launch cost as $250 million or $650 million?</i>

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Pricing of launchers is quite complicated indeed. Considering that there are two types of launch manifests, one for the commercial market and a complete governement funded launch campaing such as the shuttle<br /><br />Calculation of the cost of a shuttle launch is quite hard because of the mission/infrastructure question and the governement support on certain parts of production and development. <br /><br />I reckon that for launcher geared to the commercial market there is a mixed price setting. First, every company wants a return on investment, so they want their money back from the investments they made in R&D and infrastructure, and off course the marginal cost of a single launch. But you also have to take into account the competion and the market demand. I reckon that company's like Boeing or LM do market research on how many launches a vehicle will make in its lifetime and how high the intial investments will be to get the LV up and running. This will lead to a certain fixed costs per launch the company will demand from its costumer for the system itself, without actually working on the launch in progress. Then there are off course the repetative costs of actually putting the payload in orbit. Add the profit margin and you'll ge the price of a single pop. Then again, sometimes competition will force companies to sell their product for different prices<br /><br />There is a problem with the SpaceX approach of trying the limit the amount that each costumer has to pay for investment in R&D and infrastructure. As I understand it they want to charge their clients only or mainly for the marginal costs of the launch. This means that they either have a real high break even point or that do not want to make a provit. There is also quite a big disadvantage of having a high break even point. All that money invested without a proper return might have resulted in a return when used for other means. They could have at least made a return at the intrest level. <br /><br />T

 

[spacester]

Lots of great posts here since the bump, they call for a mini-recap. (thanx, KadetKen)<br /><br />Nice list, john_316 . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />As noted, $1750 per lb to LEO is not the kind of CATS we need in order to do space hotels on a massive scale. I agree with skywalker on that.<br /><br />Agreed on people on HLLV, that is not on the horizon. Perhaps the central point of this whole discussion IMO is the one Arconin makes: we need destinations in LEO for the taxis and trucks and tankers to get things rolling.<br /><br />Way to go Radar_Redux, having an open mind is a blessing. I have been following your posts closely in order to increase my understanding and I bet I'm not alone in doing so.<br /><br />NASA's HLLV will be doing MtM, yes, but many of us think there is a private HLLV on the horizon to create the LEO destinations.<br /><br />The last two posts in particular are excellent, very informative, Shoogerbrugge.<br />***<br />IMO there are two key pieces of out-of-the-box thinking going on here that can be added to yours and RR's sound analysis to explain what is going on. Both are in regards to development cost. As proponents of low operating costs, many of us have searched for ways to deal with high development costs. I think I'm seeing the two more or less obvious ways to deal with it playing out right now. I'm not sure, but very hopeful that this is what is going on.<br /><br />Firstly, the $15 Billion SDHLV cost is ignored in the <i>government's</i> investment analysis. Outlandish perhaps, but that's what you need to do to make the numbers work. It is a totally sunken cost. If it must be referred to as an investment, it is a very long term investment in our country's future. It works for me.<br /><br />Secondly, Elon has chosen to do sort of the same thing. IMO all he wants back is the principal. Zero return on investment by the principal and founder will change a lot of math as well. His investors will be getting reasonable returns. Elon's p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

najaB,<br /><br />I am going to make the assumption that said Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle has come on line to support the development of a lunar base. This would mean that Mars is still a major area of research. <br /><br />Therefore, I would suggest;<br /><br />One launch to send three Tracking, Data, and Relay satellites to Mars, to be deployed into orbits upon arrival. Each satellite should have sufficient delta-v for reassignment in case of another one failing at a critical juncture, as well as for station keeping for 15 years.<br /><br />One launch to send a supercomputer mothership to Mars orbit. This will be used to co-ordinate and control landing craft, orbiters, and the TDRS network.<br /><br />One launch to send enough Global Positioning Satellites to Mars orbit to allow precision navigation.<br /><br />Three launches to send surface probes, consisting of:<br /><br />A.) Stationary weather stations<br /><br />B.) Semi-autonomous rovers<br /><br />C.) Semi-autonomous biology rovers<br /><br />D.) Semi-autonomous mineralogical rovers, cabable of boring 3 meter deep cores and analyzing<br /><br />One launch for a sample return mission to Mars.<br /><br />One launch for a long-term Jupiter probe<br /><br />One launch for a long-term Saturn probe<br /><br />One launch each for probes to Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto<br /><br />One launch for a probe to the cometary halo<br /><br />Three to five launches to support the construction of a deep-space, extended duration mission vehicle for survey trip to Asteroid Belt, Mars.<br /><br />Of course, these launches would be spread out over a period of years, with the deep space probes probably not launching until after first manned mission to Mars.<br /><br />I would also expect that certain corporations, such as Westinghouse, General Electric, Dow, United States Steel, and others would be looking for launch capacity to build private research space stations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[no_way]

And now when you do the calculation, your bottom line will show : <b>bankrupt</b><br />