Why develope a HLLV? Orbital Assemblage Facility instead.

[keermalec]

I've been looking around for the planned developement cost of the Ares I and V and have found only this link setting it at 40 billion USD.<br /><br />That seems pretty steep to me, especially considering that the Ares I has the same lift capability of the existing Ariane V, Proton, Atlas V 551, or Delta IV, ie 21 tons to LEO, with fairing diameters varying from 4.1 to 5.5 meters.<br /><br />According to Boeing, the delta-IV can be upgraded with developement of a new booster and other modifications to lift 85 tons to LEO, with a fairing diameter of 6.5 meters.<br /><br />The Energiya launcher can lift 88 tons to LEO with a 7.5 m fairing diameter.<br /><br />To me, neither the lunar nor the mars mission require anything more than what is currently availlable. If NASA really requires larger space structures with larger fairings, why not invest those 40 billion USD in developing an Orbital Assemblage Facility, ie a spaceshipyard, where elements launched on conventional rockets are assembled into larger structures, mostly by tele-operated robots. I believe to date this has not been done because of quality concern issues with in-space manufacturing. However it does seem to me that with 40 billion USD a whole new science of in-space production can be successfully developed.<br /><br />This would give a much bigger boost to future interplanetary travel than developing a mamoth launcher which may just disappear once funding for the lunar or mars missions dries up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Probably because more launches means more points of failure. After the failure of the USSR's N1 HLLV their lunar program was canceled, even though they had plenty of reliable medium lift launch vehicles. I suppose if the US had not already gotten to the moon they might have tried for a landing with multiple launches and on orbit assembly and fueling, but at the time is wasn't worth the risk and expense to them I suppose. <br /><br />I have no inside information but I think NASA wants to develop the largest launch vehicle they can reasonably build given the economic, thechnological and political realities before they go back to thinking about on orbit assembly and infrastructure--A launch vehicle that can do most of the exploration missions they have on the table (moon, mars, near earth asteroids) without having to build a complex space infrastructure. Kind of like Lewis And Clark not waiting around for a highway department to build roads into the wilderness before exploring. <br /><br />I'm sure we will have a complex space infrastructure but NASA has seemed to have made it clear that they are out of the space trucking business and back in the exploration business.

 

[nexium]

Orbital assembly may not be less costly than lifting a project with a sigle rocket. The design cost of the project is higher and takes longer. The project may not perform as well built modular.<br />A gigawatt solar power satelite would require perhaps a million separate trips to GEO altitude with presently available medium lift rockets. Neil

 

[jimfromnsf]

"but NASA has seemed to have made it clear that they are out of the space trucking business"<br /><br />Then explain Ares I and Ares V. If they were out the business, then the CLV would have been competed and it would be a contractor run show. Manrating is not an excuse, a nuke payload is just as or even more important than a few crewmembers, since an incident with a nuke payload affects more people. NASA trused a commercial contractor to launch New Horizons with a nuke

 

[tomnackid]

Why are you asking me to explain? Why don't you ask NASA??? Duh!

 

[gunsandrockets]

Very interesting, and very depressing. For 40 billion dollars you could lift 4,000 tons into LEO using existing EELV rockets, about 10 times the mass of a completed ISS space station. <br /><br />And even that huge mass assumes an EELV lift cost of $5,000/lb to LEO! Imagine how lift costs would plunge with that magnitude of launch effort. At a more realistic lift cost of $1,000/lb, now we are talking about 20,000 tons in LEO.

 

[keermalec]

Tomnakid you are right: multiple launches means multiple points of failure. But with high reliability, practice-proven launchers such as those in use today for commercial satellite launches, failures are very much reduced: you know the figures.<br /><br />Concerning the moon race, the US was more concerned with getting to the moon FAST than getting there CHEAP, or DURABLY. It was the Cold War after all. What I am saying is today we should be more concerned with establishing a permanent presence in space than getting there fast. Developing an Orbital Assemblage Facility may delay our getting to the Moon or Mars but in the long run our presence in space will be much more durable and less dependent on political whims back on Earth.<br /><br />The Ares V will not launch until 2018 and then must continue to exist for the lunar base to exist. What if the new president in 2021 slashes NASA's budget and decides no more HLLV: we may have to say good-bye to the Moon and Mars for another 30 years...<br /><br />An OAF on the other hand does not need HLLV's to continue existing. And some day the materials being shipped there will no longer come from earth but from the Moon or the asteroids and there my friends is your permanent presence in Space.<br /><br />This idea was first instigated by Mark Wade's excellent article on the absurdity of developing launchers for NASA when similar services already exist in the commercial market, and on the recent impressive advances in tele-operated robot technology. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[keermalec]

<br />Nexium, why should developing an OAF cost more than 40 billion USD? And why should modular building in space be less effective than launching complete systems? At the moment it is so because we have no in-space facility but the point is to develope one of course. I am in the construction industry and we routinely pre-fabricate elements in the plant and transport them by road to be assembled on site. The size of the transported elements are determined by the truck container dimmensions, exactly like space payloads are determined by rocket fairing size. The only difference is we don't (at the moment) have workers, tools or expertise for assembling in space, and this is what must change imho.<br /><br />On the running costs issue: taking your Gigawatt Solar Power Satellite example above, whould you prefer 1 million Proton launches at 60 million USD each or 160'000 HHLV launches at 1 billion USD each? Do the math...<br /><br />Developing an HLLV will not guarantee your cost per ton to orbit is less than the proven, existing launchers'. note that Energiya, the largest existing launcher, costs about 9 million USD per ton to LEO and there is little reason to think the upcoming Ares V will cost less...<br /><br />To make it short, spending 40 billion to develope an HLLV is throwing away money that could be used for something new and better, and using a HLLV may simply drive costs up instead of down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Why develope a HLLV? Orbital Assemblage Facility instead.<br /><br />To answer that specific question, NASA has proposed the most practical use for accomplishing its goal at this time of returning humans to the moon. That is, utilize a proven technological capability to get humans to the moon.<br /><br />In the long run however, orbital facilities will very likely have to be a part of any long term lunar base facility. The problem right now is that there are no clearly defined specifications as to what such a facility would be primarily used for. Would it be more economical than simply lofting packages or payloads by HLLV? Will the currently planned return to the moon last long enough to justify OAF development?<br /><br />tomnackid pretty well covered that aspect.<br /><br />I would only add that NASA has looked at certain types of concepts in the past. One of the most noteable was a device called a beam builder which was not an all out OAF but it could have been the percussor had it been developed. The problem is that no hard requirement exists for one at this time and some of the technology is still "Cutting edge".<br /><br />Privatization of space, if it occurs in a reasonable timeframe, may well bring about OAF capability. I always saw orbital assembly as a second phase. Phase one being get the heavy elements of such a facility or facility elements into space via HLLV. Once that is done, the OAFs, or what I call CMFs, have enough automated capability to begin replicating in a sense. At some practicality/economic point...orbital assembly takes over from simply sending packaged payloads into orbit via HLLV.<br /><br />The costs you mentioned are generally due to limited usage of HLLVs. For example, if an OAF required say, 35 HLLVs to get it to orbit, and the only operational HLLV was a Delta IV, the launch rate of a Delta IV and the available launch facilities limit the Delta IV to only so many launches per year.<br /><br />Energia is no longer a viable option unless the Russi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[keermalec]

Well qso u pretty much answered my query. I did suppose NASA has studied the pros and cons of developing an OAF and decided against it, and you confirmed it. I suppose your sources are reliable.<br /><br />What strikes me still is the phenomenal developement cost of "using existing technology" (Ares I and V)). Apparently existing technology takes almost as much, if not AS much, to adapt as to develope from scratch.<br /><br />If the OAF is not for today, I would suggest NASA and others help develope the technology for it for example by launching X-prize type competitions for space robot developement or funding University ressearch on the subject.<br /><br />One of the first facilities to be put in space should be I think a plant for producing sheet metal from metal shipped from Earth or the Moon, and processing it into beams, wafers or tubes. This will finally allow us to build large pressurized structures in space which is one of the keys to space industrialization. All the equipement inside can be shipped from Earth in the short run. <br /><br />If one looks back on the different Mars Reference Missions one is struck by the "necessity" of developing an HLLV simply because the fairings of existing rockets are insufficient for such a large ship. If it were assembled in space one would not only save the developement cost of the HLLV (to be used for developing the OAF) but would also be able to design and build a ship no longer constrained by the weight and size limitations of the HLLV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If it were assembled in space one would not only save the developement cost of the HLLV (to be used for developing the OAF) but would also be able to design and build a ship no longer constrained by the weight and size limitations of the HLLV."<br /><br />Instead you are spending your money on EVA time, crew time on orbit, facilities for crew, logistics for the OAF.and many more 10's of billions on the OAF etc.<br /><br />Building a spacecraft onorbit at time is still not needed. Spending money on the ground is cheaper than in space, so an HLLV is more efficent than any OAF for the near term. <br /><br />Fairing size has little to do with HLLV, it is the weight to orbit. <br /><br />An OAF would still need a HLLV to support it.

 

[tomnackid]

Looks like we agree! Imagine that! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />But seriously orbital assembly is one of the most expensive and dangerous ways to build a spacecraft until you need a size that is beyond the capabilities of a reasonable HLLV. The upper limit for a HLLV is probably more a factor of polotics and economy--just look at what could be done with an Orion. If we really had a dire need to put something the size of a skyskraper into orbit in one shot it is technically feasable.<br /><br />Von Braun and A. C. Clarke and their contemporaries all assummed that to have ANY kind of space program you would need people permanently on call on orbit. Even weather adn spay sattelites where assumed to have to be manned. As Clarke once said back then it was easier for engineers to imagine a rocket that could reach the moon than it was to imagine a radio set that could operate for several days without needing someting replaced. If you got to have all those people up there anyway you might as well save the money on HLLV development and assemble on orbit. But on the other hand most of them didn't see landing on the moon much before the turn of the last century.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But seriously orbital assembly is one of the most expensive and dangerous ways to build a spacecraft<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Docking, dry launching and propellant transfer are perfectly valid substitutes for "orbital assembly".<br />None of it is particularly dangerous and practically all bits of required technologies have been tested and demonstrated.<br /><br />Medium lift launch vehicles are there, and will remain so due to ( small but still ) existing commercial launch market. They will not go away. Some launchers may go out of business, new ones will appear and take its place.<br /><br />Basing a manned lunar program off of this existing launch capability and capacity, and orbital docking and propellant transfers would have no big programmatic risks.<br /><br />Basing the program on two launchers yet to materialize, which have no reason to exist on its own IS politically and technically risky, turns out more expensive and probably will never get anybody to the moon.<br /><br />As of 2007, docking and medium lift vehicles are much more "proven technology" than any HLLV, because both exist in flying hardware.

 

[tomnackid]

Then I would ask the logical question. If its all so easy, safe, economical and "proven" why hasn't Russia even been to the moon much less mars? Why hasn't the US been to mars or a near earth asteroid?

 

[no_way]

in other news, Russian hardware probably IS soon going around the moon, in a similarly docked-together configuration.<br />Why US hasnt been much anywhere ? Ask the good people that brought you the STS ...

 

[tomnackid]

They aren't even atempting a landing. In effect they are doing what the US did over 40 years ago. At least the US's lunar orbital mission was a prelude to a landing. Again if it is so easy and economical why did the Russians wait 40 years?<br /><br />The US hasn't been much anywhere? Who has been farther???? And that goes for both manned and unmanned mission. I'll tell you who...NO ONE. Duh!<br /><br />To be fair the Russians (USSR back then) did land unmanned rovers on the moon. But not having to return humans lowered the bar by orders of magnitude. It was an incredible achievment, but to suggest taht NASA has lagged behind the rest of the worl is simply ludicrous. And that's not just chauvanism speaking. <br /><br />

 

[keermalec]

Right No_way, that is what I mean by Orbital Assembly: assembling wholes, built on Earth, to obtain a finished product that is larger than what existing launchers can launch.<br /><br />In a second phase, I mean fabricating construction elements in space from Earth, Lunar, or NEO raw materials.<br /><br />I also rely on robots, Jimfrost, tele-operated from Earth in order to reduce the number of humans actually in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Keermalec:<br />Well qso u pretty much answered my query. I did suppose NASA has studied the pros and cons of developing an OAF and decided against it, and you confirmed it. I suppose your sources are reliable.<br /><br />Me:<br />I don't think NASA decided against a full blown OAF in the form I think your mentioning. But enough was gleaned from projects that logically should ultimately lead to an OAF for them to stick with HLLVs for awhile longer, especially since they have no requirement for a full blown OAF.<br /><br />Keermalec:<br />What strikes me still is the phenomenal developement cost of "using existing technology" (Ares I and V)). Apparently existing technology takes almost as much, if not AS much, to adapt as to develope from scratch.<br /><br />Me:<br />I suspect some of that is resulting from a little in house reliance on huge established contractors who jack up costs. Even the cost of existing technologies can be inflated when integrating them with the newer elements. The government does little to discourage such practices which is why we see $600 dollar hammers in the news from time to time.<br /><br />keermalec:<br />If the OAF is not for today, I would suggest NASA and others help develope the technology for it for example by launching X-prize type competitions for space robot developement or funding University ressearch on the subject.<br /><br />Me;<br />I agree. Hopefully, private industry/enterprise will move along those lines. I would think they have an actual need for OAF type facilities. My own research into books I write has led me to believe that OAFs are best suited for industrialization of LEO or the moon. NASA is not really that well suited for developing a frontier beyond scientific use once initially explored.<br /><br />keermalec:<br />One of the first facilities to be put in space should be I think a plant for producing sheet metal from metal shipped from Earth or the Moon, and processing it into beams, wafers or tubes. This will finally allow us to b <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>to suggest taht NASA has lagged behind the rest of the worl<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I did not suggest anything like that, dont get all worked up. You asked, "why US hasnt been to roids, Mars and so on". I gave you your answer, the STS.<br />Its unique and irreplaceable capability was to tie the US government-conducted manned spaceflight to low earth orbit for several decades, and its heritage lives on after it dies.<br />Its other great service to aerospace field is deeply entrenched belief that reuseable space vehicles are technically impractical and in conjunction with ISS the other belief that any type of orbital docking and assembly is costly and impractical too.<br />Learning the wrong lessons, as always.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Its other great service to aerospace field is deeply entrenched belief that reuseable space vehicles are technically impractical and in conjunction with ISS the other belief that any type of orbital docking and assembly is costly and impractical too.<br />Learning the wrong lessons, as always."<br /><br /><br />That is not a "wrong" lesson. RLV's are impractical for the near term (at least ten years or more). There won't be flight rates that support such a system

 

[no_way]

Except that, Armadillo is already regularly flying a Reuseable Launch Vehicle at the moment. The only problem with it is that its not yet going fast enough and high enough, which means that you cant launch much stuff on useable trajectories.<br />Either they, or any of the competitors, will expand their flight envelope in coming years so that the trajectories and payloads will become much more useful. Its an ongoing process.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Somewhat to his surprise, three major aerospace companies are talking to Armadillo Aerospace about flying sensor systems on Armadillo vehicles, using them as high-altitude platforms, Carmack said. Those flights are expected to begin in 2008. While not identifying the customers, he said one of those companies is not a domestic U.S.company.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Except that, Armadillo is already regularly flying a Reuseable Launch Vehicle at the moment. "<br /><br />It may have rocket engines but it isn't a launch vehicle,<br /><br />

 

[no_way]

Word games. Pixel in its current configuration can definitely launch a small payload on a low ballistic trajectory.<br /><br />Are you saying that Black Brandt aint a launch vehicle either ?

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Word games. Pixel in its current configuration can definitely launch a small payload on a low ballistic trajectory.<br /><br />Are you saying that Black Brandt aint a launch vehicle either ?"<br /><br />Not word games. I can throw a ball in a low ballistic trajectory. and so can model rockets<br /><br />A few hundred feet altitude doesn't make it anything. Pixel is a lander demo vehicle.<br /><br />Black Brandt is not a launch vehicle, it is a sounding rocket. And pixel is not a sounding rocket either.<br /><br />

 

[no_way]

Launch vehicle is commonly defined as a "rocket used to carry payloads and spacecraft into outer space"<br /><br />Space begins at 100km boundary, so Black Brandt definitely is a launch vehicle.<br />Pixel ( and probably all craft performing LLC 2 flight profile ) has nearly enough performance to make it to this boundary.<br />So as its configured right now, it aint a launch vehicle, but its not far from it, performance-wise. And Armadillo definitely currently has the expertise to put one together.<br /><br />I'tll be a few years before they put someting to orbit, but considering how many groups are building similar craft currently, its a safe bet to that one of them will do so.