Why develope a HLLV? Orbital Assemblage Facility instead.

[keermalec]

No_way, if you want to go straight up and down you only need a delta-v of about 3 km/s get to 100 km altitude (assuming 1.4 Gs of acceleration).<br /><br />But in order to go into orbit you also need orbital velocity wich is around 8 km/s at that altitude.<br /><br />Altogether you need about 10 km/s to go from the ground to orbit.<br /><br />Using the rocket equation:<br /><br />final mass = inital mass * e^(-final velocity/gas exhaust velocity)<br /><br />So for Armadillo's chemical rocket, assuming an ISP of 455s:<br /><br />final mass = inital mass * e^(-10000/(455*9.81))<br /><br />final mass = 0.106 * inital mass<br /><br />That means your final mass can only be 10.6% of your initial mass. Considering that the structure itself in a rocket is 4-10% of its total mass, it is ivery difficult to build a single stage, chemically-propelled rocket that will put a useful payload into orbit.<br /><br />Armadillo's Pixel can therefore probably only be used to lift payloads up but they will then come down again. However, if it is further developed into a two or three stage rocket then it may get payloads into orbit, but will it be reusable?<br /><br />At the moment the most convincing reusable single stage vehicle I have found is SEI's ARTS Horizontal take Off and Landing Vehicle. It uses existing chemical thrusters on a spaceplane design. Using wings allows you to reduce the 3 km/s needed to get into space as one uses air to lift. <br /><br />This reusable spaceplane has the same lift capacity as the space shuttle and SEI estimates its developement cost at "only" 8.8 billion USD... <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]

Back to the subject of OAF now: qso you seem to have fully ressearched the issue way before me and so I would like to bounce the following thought off you:<br /><br />Ok NASA is concerned with ressearch and not directly with space industrialization. However, no private company is going to develope long term technologies such as space robots and space production if it does not see returns within a few years. And this is precisely where national ressearch has to kick in. National ressearch can and should promote the developement of technologies that will enable private entrepreuneurs to further on make a durable and profitable activity from them.<br /><br />If NASA made it profitable for private companies to go to the Moon or Mars, it would cost NASA much less to piggy back a ride with them and get there as well; so both would win in the long term.<br /><br />NASA has been going in the right direction with the X-prize but in the wrong direction I believe with the ARES I and V project. I believe they have given in to quick returns (an OAF will take longer to get us to the Moon) thus jeopardizing the long term view.<br /><br />I believe it is time to admit that "using existing technology" in the ARES I and V is not as cost effective as it was was first thought to be. It is time to look at the longer-term view and continue with NASA's new tradition of motivating private companies and ressearch groups. <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]

"I believe it is time to admit that "using existing technology" in the ARES I and V is not as cost effective as it was was first thought to be"<br /><br />It was never cost effective, it was never cheaper. It just keeps more people employed.<br /><br />OAF is not needed for decades. <br /><br />How is NASA going to make going to the moon or Mars profitable? Anyways it isn't NASA job to do that. <br /><br />X-prize wasn't NASA. <br /><br />NASA is more concerned with exploration vs research.<br /><br /><br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>it is ivery difficult to build a single stage, chemically-propelled rocket that will put a useful payload into orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Nobody (that i know of ) currently building VTOL suborbitals plans to go to orbit with single stage.<br /><br />Have you actually read any of John Carmacks updates on Armadillo plans and progress ?

 

[keermalec]

Noway: <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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 /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />By "launch vehicle" I mean orbital launch vehicle of course.<br /><br />Pixel and all of Armadillo's projects right now are very far from being launch vehicles, performance-wise.<br /><br />Pixel, Texel and Quad are prototype landers with a delta-v of 1.6 kms. In a modular configuration as shown on Carmack's video, the maximum delta-v will be about 4.8 km/s; enough for a ballistic hop into low space but not enough to put payloads into orbit. Note that the ISP is of Armadillo's LOX/Alcohol engine is only 200s.<br /><br />Black Armadillo is a suborbital flight vehicle. <br /><br />I love Carmack's work and especially his slow-but-sure approach but let it not be said that he is developing a launch vehicle. His two objectives are Lunar Landing and suborbital flight. <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>

 

[killium]

If the raw materials were already in space, OAF would be the no brainer choice. But since you have to launch everything anyway at 10k$/kg (or so), building an OAF would just mean having more stuff to launch....<br /><br />I think an OAF will be practicle when we'll have minors digging on asteroids and easilly pushing the (metal full) containers to earth orbit for processing...<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

Aluminum from the Moon?

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> It was never cost effective, it was never cheaper. It just keeps more people employed. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Instead of advancing into new technologies that could open the way to space industrialization, NASA closes NIAC, and prioritazes VSE above all else<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> How is NASA going to make going to the moon or Mars profitable? Anyways it isn't NASA job to do that. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Going to the moon or Mars, with present technology, will NEVER be cost-effective.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Going to the moon or Mars, with present technology, will NEVER be cost-effective. "<br /><br />Never was the goal

 

[keermalec]

It depends for who. If I was a space entrepreneur I would want my space operation to be cost effective of course.<br /><br />There is, or should be an interrelationship between private entrepreneurship and national ressearch. NASA for example, subcontracts out most of what it needs to private companies who work for a profit. In turn, their expertise, gained partly from the commercial sector, is put to use by NASA. NASA developement contracts allow private entrepreneurs to develope new technologies which in turn allow them to be more competitive on the commercial market.<br /><br />Today it is not cost effective for a private entrepreneur to set up a moon mining operation, for example. However, if NASA were to set up a permanent Moon base and rent out space to private companies, as is planned to be done on the ISS, private Moon operations may just suddenly become cost-effective. For example, mining lunar oxygen and selling it in LEO for fuel. Developing private enterprise on the Moon will create demande for more transport, thus lowering launch costs, and allow the moon base to attain a critical mass which may make it cost-effective for NASA to conduct its ressearch alongside private companies working there.<br /><br />It is not NASA's job to promote private entrepreneurship as someone pointed out, but it is certainly in their interest to do so. <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]

Quick calculation to show what I mean by cost-effectiveness:<br /><br />If we take Proton launch prices, lifting 21 tons of oxygen to LEO will cost about 3'100'000 USD per ton.<br /><br />Assuming you want to sell your lunar oxygen 15% less than that shipped from Earth, you will have to sell at 2'630'000 USD / ton.<br /><br />Mobile Excavator / Refinery 8.114 tons<br />Lunar Lander / Lifter 5.842 tons including Landing and Launch Pad 2.272 tons<br />Orbital Storage Facility 0.278 tons<br />Interplanetary Ion Thruster 4.493 tons including fuel<br /> <br />Total: 21.00 tons <br /> <br />Payload capacity of LLL: 10.43 tons <br />Fuel burned by LLL: 5.39 tons <br />Payload transported by LLL: 10.09 tons <br />Capacity of OSF: 45.65 tons <br /> <br />Production capacity of MER: 22.26 tons/year <br />Production at LLO: 14.51 tons/year <br />Moon to OSF transports per year: 1.44 <br />OSF to LEO transports per year: 0.32 7.23 tons of Xe needed to ship<br /> <br />Development time: 3 years <br />Construction time: 2 years <br />Trip duration: 1.09 years <br />Total preparation time: 6.09 years <br />Payback duration: 15 years <br />Interest: 4% yearly <br />Payback start after: 8 years <br />Development cost: 100'000'000 USD <br />Lift to LEO cost: 65'000'000 USD <br />Construction cost: 76'661'665 USD <br />Provision for operational costs: 100'000'000 USD <br />Total debt: 341'661'665 USD <br />Operational costs: 10'500'000 USD/year <br />Return on investment: 8% per year <br /> <br />Cost of Earth transport to Moon: 8'458'358 USD/ton <br />Cost of Earth transport to LLO: 4'196'679 USD/ton <br />Cost of Earth transport to LEO: 3'095'238 USD/ton <br />Cost of transport LLO- />LEO: 664'581 USD/ton <br />Desired rebate wrt Earth products: 15% <br />Market-defined sell price on Moon: 7'189'604 USD/ton <br />Market-defined sell price at LLO: 3'567'177 USD/ton <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>

 

[thereiwas]

How would a nuclear powered surface-to-LLO mass driver change those economics?<br /><br />What if the ultimate goal was not LEO, but L5, on the way to Mars, the asteroids, or other places Out There?

 

[nyarlathotep]

<i>With the above theoretical scheme, initial investement is 342 million USD, running costs are 10.5 million USD/year and revenues start becoming positive after 19 years, reaching a stable 8% return on investement after 24 years. </i><br /><br />Yeah, and the shuttle costs $10M per flight. What's the ROI if this dubiously costed machine (how did you manage nine significant figures on a technology that doesn't exist?) needs new parts every six weeks?

 

[keermalec]

Interesting suggestion ThereIwas. <br /><br />The LLL (Lunar Lander/Lifter) actually burns up 43% of the fuel it transports simply to go up (2.22 km/s) and down (2.47 km/s). A mass driver would have to accelerate the LLL to 1.19 km/s for insertion into an elliptical orbit with apogee at LLO. The LLL would only have to undertake the final 0.01 km/s burn to circularize its orbit and doing so would reduce its total lift delta-v from 2.22 to 0.01 km/s, thus reducing its total consumption of fuel from 43% to 5% (landing fuel)...<br /><br />Plugging this into my feasibillity calculator makes the ROI go up by an additional 6%!<br /><br />So if initial investement is 342 million, using a mass driver will generate an additional 20.5 million per year. Cost effectiveness now depends on the development, construction, transportation, and running costs of the mass driver. As this is not an existing technology I cannot estimate it.<br /><br />In response to your second question: the closer you sell to your point of production, the larger the profit margin. If one were to sell at LLO, the price could be 3.5 million USD/ton instead of 2.63 (as transport from Earth would be 4.2 at LLO). L5 is very close to LLO in terms of delta-v so I suppose the cost would be very close to 3.5. In this case ROI would go up by the same proportion.<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]

Nyarlathotep, the figures are of course very speculative. Nine significant figures simply come from the results of my Excel worksheet and should be rounded off. I based my cost figures on the Apollo lander (cost indexed to 2007), the NSTAR ion drive for the LEO-LLO transfer, and the Proton launcher for Earth to LEO. The LEO-LLO package was massed at 21 tons for this reason. The Propellant Extraction Unit (MER) is based on SEI's but is smaller and presumed to be remote-controlled from Earth. Cost figures were scaled linearly with mass.<br /><br />I run a general contractor company and used the same estimation methods we use to make an offer in the building industry. The figures are based on that of existing technology,except for the water-extractor. Of course I have made some gratuitous assumptions, such as developement costs being "only" 100'000'000 USD for a small lunar water-extraction unit, and running costs being "only" 3% of total investment... <br /><br />This all comes as the result of a study I did some time ago to determine if a lunar-based operation COULD be cost-effective, considering a best-case scenario: and it is not. However, if NASA sets up a lunar base many premises will change.<br /><br />SEI's study referenced here makes that assumption and concludes that a privately run lunar propellant manufacturing operation CAN be cost-effective if NASA sets up a base and buys propellant from it. <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>

 

[inventorwannabe]

I believe that orbital assembly is the way to go! Nasa, ESO and everyone else of the goveremental players are building oneoffs - and they probably have an reason for this - to keep the knowledge inhouse. An artifact from the cold war I believe. Consider to know how to make the best warheads but the knowledge how to get it on track to the target has been sold out or even worse - forgotten. <br /><br />The market on the other hand needs the posibility to build very large constructions with artificial gravity to let people stay for very long times in space witch makes it even more efficient. <br /><br />We can then shoot up water as an very compressed form of propellant and split it with free power from the Sun. The propellants not needed in orbit can be transported back to Earth with service ships to be sold at spot markets,<br /><br />With human presence we can in a longer run leave most of the construction to robots with humans to supervise and control the quality. If we achieve this we are truly free and are capable to lower prices on tickets to space.<br /><br />Brgds /InventorWannabe

 

[publiusr]

An HLLV multi-module apprach gives you ISS every five flights using one sixth the engines.<br /><br />You can't beat it.

 

[publiusr]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br />Posted by Keermalec</DIV><br />&nbsp;To start with I don't know that it will cost that much (still cheaper than this war.</p><p>&nbsp;Last I heard, 6 RS-68s cost less than 18 per 120 tons to orbit. </p><p>Even if Ares V cost a billion a shot--that is still less than 200 mi per 20 tons--still cheaper than D-IV 'heavy"&nbsp; </p><p>HLLV is cheaper per pound</p>