April 14, 2010
To Do The Heavy Lifting
To heavy lift or not to heavy lift -- that is the question.
A recent talking points memo by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) seeks to clarify some aspects of the new direction in regards to the cancelled Project Constellation. Touted by some as “compromise,” it asserts that NASA will develop and build a new “Orion lite” crew vehicle whose primary mission will be to serve as an escape pod for the crew of the International Space Station (ISS). And more interestingly, the policy “Begins major work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific heavy-lift rocket that will take us deeper into space.”
I’m confused. If a heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) is not needed for future human missions beyond LEO, why are we spending billions of dollars researching aspects of it in order to make a design decision five years hence? If a heavy lift launch vehicle is needed for such missions, why are we waiting five years to make that decision when we have the parts and workforce needed to make the vehicle now?
Are you confused?
Let’s break this down a bit. What exactly is a heavy lift launch vehicle and what is its significance to spaceflight and more specifically, to sending people beyond low Earth orbit (LEO)? The Space Shuttle orbiter carries a bit more than 24 metric tonnes (mT; 52,800 lbs.) to orbit. That would seem to qualify as heavy lift. But the old Saturn V could launch 118 mT (260,000 lbs.) to low Earth orbit. That capability allowed us to launch the complete Apollo spacecraft (three modules) and its Earth departure stage (S-IVB) in one fell swoop. The cancelled Ares V launch vehicle was to have carried up to 188 mT to LEO (over 400,000 lbs). These indeed are heavy lift launchers.
Why do we need heavy lift? On this topic, thought among space engineers falls into two broad categories – those who think that heavy lift of the Saturn V variety (~100 mT to LEO) is the sine qua non for human missions beyond LEO, and those who think we can develop an incremental approach that uses the smaller vehicles currently available, such as the medium-lift class Atlas V (21 mT to LEO) and Delta IV-Heavy (25.8 mT to LEO) launchers. The basic philosophical difference centers around what can be done in space versus what has to be done on Earth.
The Saturn V was built so that a single, self-contained lunar mission could be launched on one vehicle. This meant that the crew could focus their efforts solely on their lunar voyage and not have to concern themselves with assembling a larger, more complex vehicle in Earth orbit. In modern terms of human flight beyond LEO, the big advantage of heavy lift is that you can use fewer launches to get the same amount of equipment and material in space, thus reducing the chance that a single launch failure might cause a mission abort. Propellant can “boil off” in space, especially the very cold (cryogenic) liquid oxygen and hydrogen that fuel the most powerful chemical rockets. It is also assumed that assembling a few large pieces in space is simpler than assembling many more smaller ones. But now we’ve learned quite a bit about assembly in space from construction of the ISS.
Critics of new heavy lift vehicle development point to the high costs associated with new vehicle development. They also point out that there are new techniques and technologies that can help us venture into the Solar System with existing launch vehicles. One of those ideas are depots where propellant is collected and used to fuel empty vehicles for journeys beyond LEO. A detailed architecture that features propellant depots and that does not require a new heavy lift vehicle has already been published. Many groups strongly advocate this approach.
Which brings us back to the new OSTP document. This new document indicates that work will proceed on development of a heavy lift launch vehicle, with a decision on what vehicle to build coming in 2015 (note well: not building a vehicle, but making a decision on what vehicle to build). How will our decision on heavy lift be more informed in five years than it is now?
In five years, all the Shuttle manufacturing and assembly infrastructure, including tooling dies, assembly jigs, milling facilities and solid-rocket booster production lines will have been disassembled, mothballed or discarded. Some of this shutdown has already begun. The skilled workforce that now builds and operates the Shuttle launch system will dissipate (people have families to support and cannot stand around waiting for a decision five years – maybe never – down the road). There will be no experience base to build, assemble and launch a heavy-lift vehicle within NASA or industry.
I have written previously that a Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle can be built now, with existing piece parts and minimal changes to the assembly and launch infrastructure at Michoud and the Cape. Such a vehicle can launch 80 mT to LEO; two launches can send a human mission to the Moon. And it is completely affordable, fitting into the existing run-out budget and available for use within a few years. Currently, robotic missions are discovering and analyzing the vast resources of the Moon. More robotic missions are needed to begin the processing of lunar resources in preparation for human return and expansion beyond LEO. These are all things NASA can afford to do now.
This re-invention of NASA, as trickled out by the administration, has been eagerly seized upon by many in the “New Space” community, as their long sought, free-market (but government funded – for now) opening at building a commercial rocket industry. Some of us (who also believe in free markets) see different motives for this new direction and are particularly concerned that the new “flexible path (FP)” doesn’t have any specified destination or mission.
The fundamental fecklessness of the new direction is exposed in this new OSTP document; we will build a Crew Return Vehicle for ISS that is not needed (if we can get there on the Soyuz, we can certainly return on it) and we will conduct “research” on heavy lift technologies that are already well understood.
Maybe it’s not so confusing after all.
52 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joe Williams, txflygirl. txflygirl said: RT @rikerjoe: Latest from Paul Spudis: "To Do the Heavy Lifting" examines puzzling announcement of heavy lift vehicle. http://bit.ly/a4Wk1B #HSF #NASA [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention To do the heavy lifting | The Once and Future Moon -- Topsy.com — April 14, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
I agree that both decisions (use Orion as a return vehicle only and wait 5 years to decide what kind of HLV to build) make no sense (at least without more information). If the Orion is used as an emergency return vehicle only, then it cannot be cycled through every 6 months as is done now with the Soyuz. If it cannot be cycled, how long could one be left in place before being disposed of and without even using it for a crew descent! This is a very poor direction for a jobs program. Instead, put the same people to work designing lunar and Mars habs, depots, space tugs, etc. right away.
I agree that the minimum throw weight for a “true” HLV is about 75 tons. The question is, right now – how soon do we need an HLV? If we wanted to continue using part of the shuttle technology (as a jobs program) it would make sense to develop and use a true shuttle-derived (side-mount) HLV as soon as possible to maintain the work force.
Unfortunately, it has cost about 5 billion a year to maintain the ability to launch shuttles, but without the orbiters to maintain, the annual cost would be much less. However, if we want to be able to afford to support real, functioning lunar and Mars bases, a shuttle derived HLV would still be far too expensive for the launch rate needed. For that we need a re-usable HLV (first stage at least), and that is why we might open a design competition for 1 year to create at least 2 designs for such a vehicle. Within another year, we could choose 1 or the other, thus advancing the HLV decision date by 3 years.
It is also not a HLV versus a propellant depot situation. It is both and we need both. For certain scientific payloads, we need the total mass and volume of a true HLV.
For real space base operations, we need the low cost and high payload capacity of an HLV (combined with the propellant depots to allow payloads and stages to be launched dry). We also need the depot to allow launches of station-bound payloads with a space tug to deliver them to the station as a replacement for the shuttles capacity.
John Strickland
Comment by John K. Strickland Jr. — April 14, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
.
about the “new” new-plan…
.
“Begins major work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific heavy-lift rocket that will take us deeper into space.”
.
develop the hadware for lunar missions needs 8-10 years, so, “decide [the HLV] in 2015″ means NO lunar landings before 2023-2025
.
“Restructures Constellation and directs NASA to develop the Orion crew capsule effort in order to provide stand-by emergency escape capabilities for the Space Station – thereby reducing our reliance on foreign providers.”
.
an Orion built ONLY to serve as ISS “rescue capsule” is very expensive and useless… it’s much cheaper to (just) dock a third Soyuz to the ISS
.
more discussions and proposals on the Space Summit Facebook Group:
.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=356261201268
.
Comment by one — April 14, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Well said, Paul. Spending money on a space program just to keep people employed is hardly frontier-enabling.
Comment by James Pura — April 14, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
This “new and improved” human spaceflight policy has nothing to do with spaceflight, and has everything to do with politics. Go to Florida (a swing state in recent elections), promise money and jobs, and get your party reelected. And while you’re there make sure you spend more time raising money for your party than you do talking about space. There was as much ink used in the OSTP announcement on the amount of money that would be sent to Florida, and the amount of jobs it would “create” in Florida as there was about human spaceflight. So placate the Florida delegation with jobs and money, placate the Alabama delegation with heavy-lift technology and four program offices, placate the Texas delegation with an ‘Orion-lite’, extended ISS operations, and flag-ship technologies, and placate the Colorado delegation with jobs to design and build the Orion-lite, and move on. When mild-mannered Neil Armstrong signs on to a letter of disapproval for the President’s new direction for human spaceflight, you know something is terribly wrong. Why waste money building an Orion life boat that will never get used? I know, I know, the jobs. Why not just build a ‘real’ Orion that can carry crew to ISS on an EELV, as an insurance policy to the ill-advised gamble on commercial carriers. Why not build a ‘real’ Shuttle-C starting in 2011, not 2015. This new recipe for human spaceflight was made with rotten eggs. It stinks.
Comment by JohnG — April 14, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
The current Constellation program was not going to be a very good jobs program, since it was only a trickle of work, and did not really build anything substantial for heavy lift until the end of this decade. Except for design engineers, there wasn’t going to be a lot of real hardware to test or process.
I think the decision in 2015 will based on which of the two camps (HLLV or current lifter) is able to win their argument. As of now, there are no payloads planned that cannot be launched by our current Atlas/Delta/Falcon Heavy families, so I think the onus will be on the HLLV community to identify specific programs, products and needs that can only be satisfied by such a vehicle.
Of course the elephant in the room regarding an HLLV engine program is what is the fuel? If it’s LOX/LH2, then maybe a Jupiter/Ares is possible, but if it’s RP-1/LOX (like the RD-180), then we’re talking Saturn V redux. Maybe I’m reading too much into this?
Comment by Coastal Ron — April 14, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
We should not simply throw away the successful and reliable technology from the Space Shuttle era. We should use it to immediately build a heavy lift vehicle, either a sidemount or an inline vehicle.
Making a decision to build a particular heavy lift vehicle ‘sometime’ in 2015 would be almost at the end of President Obama’s second term (if he gets a second term). Which pretty much means that any decision on a heavy lift vehicle could be easily canceled by the next administration.
And why spend billions studying global warming and then build a ‘hydrocarbon’ HLV which would increase global warming? A Space Shuttle derived HLV would be a ‘green’ vehicle especially if the hydrogen is derived from the electrolysis of water using either nuclear or hydroelectric power. And nuclear and renewable energy are supposed to be the future energy resources for our country and the rest of the world.
I will not vote for any Senator or member of the House of Representatives that supports this pitiful space policy.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — April 14, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
After reading one of your link: http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
I found it very encouraging and I will make some comments about.
This is exactly the type of competition that lunar water miner and rocket making would face. Though obviously such a plan would enable lunar water mining. The lunar water miner and lunar rocket fuel maker will be able to deliver rocket fuel to L-2 cheaper than from Earth. But such a simplified system of deliver rocket fuel will lower their capital cost and will already establish a market for rocket fuel in space. Not to mention the bonus of having all those empty tanks all over the place.
In one part of paper: “Each LEO to L2 tanker transit delivers 29 mT of propellant to L2 where the propellant is consolidated into a single depot. The spent stages perform a small disposal maneuver leaving L2.”
That’s a business opportunity- sure it makes no sense for them to keep those tanks- but to a different party they are gold. And they are worth more than gold just as scrap- though as tanks for future use they could have more value. So rather then just toss them the rocket companies should sell them cheap to a “space junk dealer”. Of course that space junker dealer is also a potential customer for the launch company.
If the major launch companies actually do this they going to make a killing- it will make Bill Gates will look like a poor boy.
And when they eventually lose the competition to supply rocket fuel to L-2 to the Lunatics, then their main problem will be where to their spend all the money from all the profit they are making.
I seriously doubt these dinosaurs will actually grab this opportunity- they are more likely to drop the bone for it’s reflection in the stream.
And this part in paper:
“The ACES/Altair is loaded or topped from the L2 depot just prior to lunar descent. This includes the
loading of the Ascender propellant tanks which are used during the terminal hover/landing phase. Fully
loaded, it can deliver a combined mass of vehicles (such as the ascender), cargo and unused propellants
greater than 40t to the lunar surface.”
So, that’s 2 or almost 3 times more payload to the lunar surface as compared to what the Saturn V did. All from earth launcher which about 1/5 of Saturn V lift capability. Sweet.
One thing I had a slight problem with was it was envisioning a pretty big NASA lunar operation. And I am slightly worried about NASA getting bogged down on the Moon- as is Zubrin’s worry [or terror]. I think as long as we get commercial lunar mining this won’t be a problem at all- they will be a lot of political pressure from Lunatics for a manned Mars [more profit]. And of course this plan actually makes going to Mars possible- and colonies on Mars, doable.
Now on to reading the other links.
Comment by gbaikie — April 14, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Oh, one more thing, if you start fuel depots now, as in yesterday, you will get the heavier lifts sooner. Simply because what should drive larger boosters is they are built to meet the growing demand [and save in costs due to economy of scale]. Larger booster do not create more demand. You would think that after the Saturn V, people would realize this.
Comment by gbaikie — April 14, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
In response to gbaikie, while I enthusiastically agree with the idea of fuel depots, I disagree with your point that fuel depots get you heavy lift sooner. If anything, fuel depots make the need for heavy lift less, since they allow the current generation of lifters to launch and supply modular spacecraft in orbit.
In response to Marcel F. Williams, the argument for any HLLV would be easier to solve if someone could point to a specific need for HLLV. Can you name a funded program that needs an HLLV? Until Atlas/Delta/Falcon 9 Heavy are keeping us from launching individual pieces because the payload won’t fit on them, then we don’t need HLLV. Atlas/Delta/Falcon can all launch the same mass as the Space Shuttle (if not more), so what is it that you want to launch that needs an HLLV?
Comment by Coastal Ron — April 14, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
“This new document indicates that work will proceed on development of a heavy lift launch vehicle, with a decision on what vehicle to build coming in 2015 … How will our decision on heavy lift be more informed in five years than it is now?”
After 5 years, they will have results from the propellant depot and autonomous rendezvous and docking flagship technology demonstration missions, as well as the EVA assembly and servicing technology demonstrations. Success in those demonstrations would tend to reduce our need for a really big HLV.
They will also have results from more robotic precursor missions to guide decisions.
By 2015 NASA will also have a better idea how commercial crew works out. NASA will have Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, Taurus II, and perhaps other choices for their HLV “starting point”, all with track records to inform their decisions. NASA will also have had time to work our commercial and international partnerships.
They don’t have any missions for the HLV yet, so they aren’t in a hurry to make one.
“In five years, all the Shuttle … infrastructure … will have been disassembled, mothballed or discarded. … There will be no experience base to build, assemble and launch a heavy-lift vehicle within NASA or industry.”
The type of heavy lift work that’s described in the 2011 budget document sounds like it’s for heavy lift based on EELVs or something similar. It doesn’t look like Shuttle infrastructure is needed for the sort of heavy lift they have in mind. If they go with something like the Phase I EELV HLV to start with, and maybe move on to Phase II at some point, they should be able to share costs with the EELV infrastructure that’s going to be there anyway. The same would be true if it’s based on other rockets that are already used for other reasons. NASA would have to pay for all costs of a Shuttle-based HLV.
Some of the HLV work looks like it’s for making a U.S. RD-180 class engine. They probably don’t want an HLV with lots of Russian engines. That may be another reason why they don’t just start working on EELV Phase I or II. If they decide they don’t need an HLV at all, the U.S. engine may be useful for other rockets like Atlas V anyway (if they succeed in making it cheap like the RD-180).
“we will build a Crew Return Vehicle for ISS that is not needed (if we can get there on the Soyuz, we can certainly return on it)”
They may be looking ahead for the time when U.S. commercial crew ISS transportation is ready. If they can support crew return with Orion Lite, they don’t need to burden the commercial crew transport vendors with emergency crew return requirements for the astronauts brought to the ISS by commercial crew. This could make it easier for commercial crew to succeed technically, and could also make it easier for commercial crew business to succeed (if they have a reusable system that doesn’t need to sit at the ISS for months).
Comment by red — April 14, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
red,
After 5 years, they will have results from the propellant depot and autonomous rendezvous and docking flagship technology demonstration missions
Sorry — I’m just not buying any of this. Five years is barely enough time for them to complete the preliminary studies for all that, let alone the actual flying of those missions. My evidence for this? The last six years of the agency’s implementation of the Vision.
You’ve nicely summarized their storyline, though. Thanks.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 15, 2010 @ 3:10 am
@Coastal Ron
So what would I use an HLV for? Well, let’s use the SD-HLV (Sidemount Shuttle) as an example.
With a single SD-HLV launch with an EDS stage, we should be able to land at least 10 tonnes of payloads that can be at least 5 meters diameters to the lunar surface. So you can start telerobotically assembling the habitat modules for your lunar base right away. Just three launches a year could place two large habitat modules plus one node module on the lunar surface for a continuously growing lunar base. You’d probably need at least another cargo launch every year for lunar transport vehicles, LOX processing machines, power plants, etc. plus supplies to the lunar surface.
It would probably require two SD-HLV launches per manned mission to the lunar surface. If there are two manned missions per year, that would be 4 SD-HLV launches. So that would require about 8 SD-HLV per year. So the SD-HLV under a lunar base program would be heavily used with only two SD-HLV launches actually having humans in them.
You can also instantly launch huge space stations weighing nearly 100 tonnes into Earth orbit. Skylab weighed about 77 tonnes. Such, instant, space stations could be used as way stations for manned beyond LEO missions. Companies like Bigelow have talked about using HLVs to launch super large inflatable space stations for tourist.
Such heavy lift capability might also allow us to finally launch the first large artificial gravity space stations into orbit with perhaps just three or four launches to assemble it.
I’d also like to use a SD-HLV to deploy a couple of light sails at a Lagrange point that I would utilize to grab small 50 to 100 tonne NEO asteroids (the Asterant concept) and transport them back to a Lagrange point for oxygen and water extraction and space station mass shielding.
So an SD-HLV could be heavily used, IMO, while making things a lot easier.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — April 15, 2010 @ 5:03 am
First, the Augustine commission concluded that a launcher capable of lifting more than 25 tons but less than 75 tons would be needed. The range reflects the uncertainty of the weight and volume of the biggest piece of the transportation architecture chosen.
The first stage requires a large hydrocarbon engine. The United States does not know how to build a cost-effective large LOX hydrocarbon engine. The lead time for developing the engine, before the launcher design is chosen is three years at a minimum.
United Launch Alliance now purchases high-performance Russian engines. It does so because US industry cannot produce engines with competitive performance at their price. And the reason for the new development program is to give America that capability again.
Comment by Lee Valentine — April 15, 2010 @ 5:04 am
Lee,
the Augustine commission concluded that a launcher capable of lifting more than 25 tons but less than 75 tons would be needed……The first stage requires a large hydrocarbon engine.
Just because that report makes an assertion does not mean that the assertion is either true or required. Their cost estimates are inflated and completely unbelievable. The “Flexible Path” architecture is a plan to do nothing for 20 years while we pretend we are going to Mars.
There is no reason to suppose any particular launch mass to LEO is “needed” — it all depends on what your mission is and what architecture you choose to implement it. My point is that if we need a heavy lift vehicle, we have the capability to make one right now. Yet the “new path” chooses to “study” the issue for five years and then (maybe) make a decision. To me, it sounds like the usual agency Brownian motion.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 15, 2010 @ 5:44 am
In general, you are correct about the nonsense that this Administration is putting forward.
One correction, however, the payload that the Orbiter carries is between 35000 and 60000 lb, depending on the orbit. But the Orbiter itself is most of the payload which goes into orbit on every Shuttle launch. That is about 250000 lb which goes into orbit carrying astronauts, their life support, robotic arms, fuel and engines for orbital maneuvering, and wings and a thermal protection system for the ride home. So, swap the Orbiter out and replace it with a 200000 lb payload. With other improvements the existing Shuttle system could carry nearly the same as the Saturn V.
But you are 100% correct, this nation is about to flush away the Shuttle system, just as we did 40 years ago with Saturn. Absolute stupidity. You could shut down Orbiter and save most of the cost of the Shuttle rocket system and for minimal cost, and before 2015, you would have a HLV.
What would it launch ? Besides fuel and depots, BTW people have been talking since before the Shuttles first flew about flying the Shuttle ETs into orbit to scavenge their leftover fuel, the ISS modules and systems are designed for long duration spaceflight. You can easily produce what Aldrin calls the XM vehicle, which can be used to carry people to lunar orbit, onto Mars trajectories, or to asteroids, and it is done with vehicles, modules and systems that we already have. This is a logical follow on, at minimal cost because you continue to use the existing people, to the ISS that is flying today. With these systems, the only totally new vehicle that needs to be invested in are the lunar or planetary landers.
The wastefulness, sheer stupidity and political wrecklessness of the latest Obama plan, if it proceeds, is treasonous.
Comment by BAL — April 15, 2010 @ 7:51 am
Dear Dr. Spudis: I think what you see as a bug is intended to be a feature.
You wrote:
“In five years, all the Shuttle manufacturing and assembly infrastructure… will have been disassembled, mothballed or discarded… The skilled workforce that now builds and operates the Shuttle launch system will dissipate… There will be no experience base to build, assemble and launch a heavy-lift vehicle within NASA or industry.”
Well, we didn’t have that experience base when we built the Saturn V, now did we?
I think this is a political decision, but one made for technical reasons. One of the major causes of the collapse of Constellation was the jobs/contracts issue — that not only did the systems have to be designed to preserve jobs in the traditional space industry states, but they had to be designed to preserve the very, very specific jobs embodied in the current assembly plants, design shops, refurbishment centers, etc., etc. built for Shuttle. Re-use of these facilities was initially proposed as saving money but quickly became a shackle on NASA’s legs.
The HLV delay is designed to do a single thing: burn away the detritus of the accumulated thicket of NASA contracts, organizations, bureaucracy, etc. associated with Shuttle component procurement. If Shuttle parts are really, truly useful for our HLV plans, then five years is not too long a time to de-mothball equipment and knowledge (unlike, say, Saturn Vs, which are completely irrecoverable). But enforcing this pause — and this budgetary starvation plan — will remove the incentive to build inefficient vehicles with inefficient procurement simply because it is the path of least institutional resistance.
A final thought: if 2015 is too late to start work on an HLV, what of the plans to start Ares V work in 2017?
Comment by Catfish N. Cod — April 15, 2010 @ 9:18 am
Cat,
I think what you see as a bug is intended to be a feature.
Did I say it was a “bug”? I am well aware that this is being done deliberately.
In contrast to your assessment, re-establishing a new HLLV manufacturing capability is not enabled or even facilitated by destroying the existing Shuttle-derived capability. We will simply spend more and take longer to accomplish less.
A final thought: if 2015 is too late to start work on an HLV, what of the plans to start Ares V work in 2017?
If you had read any of the posts I’ve made here over the last year or so, you would see that I’ve always had issues with the current Program of Record. That does not mean the Vision should be abandoned, as the new path does.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 15, 2010 @ 9:44 am
Well Paul….just heard the President abandoned the Moon, given that we’ve already been there! I don’t understand why he thinks like that: such an ignorant, particular statement deeply challenges the purported integrity of his other general statements. You, and others, have such a sound plan for developing our space infrastructure, a plan that seems obviously to support the President’s concerns that we need to do things differently. I simply do not accept that Mars is in our future if the Moon is not.
Thank you for all your hard work, and I’m still hopeful your voice will eventually rise above the noise.
Philip Backman
Comment by Phil Backman — April 15, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
Well the president just said that we’ve already been to the Moon so there’s no reason to go back:-) Unbelievable!
Hopefully, Congress will have a different opinion on the value of our closest neighbor in space!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — April 15, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
“In response to gbaikie, while I enthusiastically agree with the idea of fuel depots, I disagree with your point that fuel depots get you heavy lift sooner.”
Oh, I guess I should have said heavier lifters which are sustainable, sooner.
In others words it’s one of those “everyone knows” that if increase the amount rocket launches one will get lower cost per lb. that is given in free markets [even in highly restrained free markets]. And much of reason given for really big launchers is the idea that it “should be” cheaper. As it is cheaper to make a super tanker or it’s cheaper to make a high rise building- in terms of amount crude oil delivered somewhere or the unit cost of renting/leasing sq ft of office space. But of course this assumes there is enough of a market for it- people needing enough crude oil and people needing enough office space.
And some think that big booster would generate a market- cheaper unit cost will mean more demand. And of course they have the notion that you NEED these booster for going to the Moon or Mars. And of course if you had colonies on Moon or Mars that would increase the need for more rocket launches.
Building a large rocket is sort of like building a bridge to nowhere- any merit of such idea, is it would generate commerce to that area [that the bridge was going to]. Though the obvious question is how much commerce would it generate [assuming Time is also considered] and what does it actually cost to build.
Rather than merely being cheaper, fuel depots are actually more important because the create a market in space.
Having market will drive down the cost further [and almost as important bring money "into the area"- or bring people in- involve the world, so to speak.
Fuel depots will start mining water in space- and other things. Fuel depot will *start* vast amounts of money to be spent in space. Which is not saying NASA budget will increase [though it will] but rather is talking about real and large quantities of money.
[If you want space to be the exclusive domain of government, the last thing you should want to do is encourage markets in space.]
So, if have say doubling or tripling of the current space industry- say instead a hundred or so billion a year to say 300 billion per year, then Hvy lift [when one is considering potential future growth] could become desirable- it could actually save money in terms of costs.
Comment by gbaikie — April 15, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
I agree with Marcel, especially with what LCROSS uncovered at the lunar south pole. Canceling the return-to-the-moon-first is just plain dumb. Write your representatives and senators!
Comment by Robin Chew — April 15, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
Instead of funding an HLV, we would be better off spending the money developing a lunar lander.
Comment by Warren Platts — April 16, 2010 @ 1:18 am
After the Presidents speech yesterday, I think we need to rename this blog to ‘The Once and Future Mars’
Comment by Darth Vader — April 16, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Darth,
After the Presidents speech yesterday, I think we need to rename this blog to ‘The Once and Future Mars’
If you actually think that the new policy will result in a human mission to Mars — in 2035 or ever — you haven’t been paying attention to the history of NASA .
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 16, 2010 @ 9:12 am
“Sorry — I’m just not buying any of this. Five years is barely enough time for them to complete the preliminary studies for all that, let alone the actual flying of those missions. My evidence for this? The last six years of the agency’s implementation of the Vision.”
That may very well be true. If, after 5 years, we don’t have enough information from robotic precursors, technology demonstrations, commercial development, and partner agreements to tell us what sort of HLV we actually need, then the HLV decision might get delayed by a corresponding amount. However, I imagine that whatever approach NASA takes, it will be subject to similar potential delays.
Comment by red — April 16, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
Note to Darth – … Could also rename the blog “The Once and Future Asteroid”. (Note to Paul Spudis – as well as some people who have stated they are “confused” by the new direction.) This is a paradigm shift. Comparing what we want to do in the future to the history of NASA’s getting us there in the past… just doesn’t make as much sense as it used to, if we all realize the players are going to be comprised of so many MORE corporations and cultures than the one(albeit, exemplary) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It would be like saying “That’s not how the Army Air Corps does things.”
Comment by Claudia — April 17, 2010 @ 12:32 am
P.S. My Daddy was an inventor who worked in the *private sector*, so I guess that colors my perspective — literally, I had the pleasure of seeing color T.V. before most of my peers in the early days, thanks to his inventiveness. And I saw men walk on the moon, realtime.
Comment by Claudia — April 17, 2010 @ 12:35 am
Claudia,
This is a paradigm shift.
Really? Let’s see — we’re canceling the Constellation contracts but we will let new contracts with New Space corporations to provide transport to ISS. We’re going to Mars (in 30 years) because it is a “first” that will “excite and engage the public.” Presumably, that includes live TV of the first steps and flag planting. Oh, and all this is to be accompanied by huge amounts of consensus management, extensive paper study, and bureaucratic overhead.
Yeah — as Rick Tumlinson would say, “Welcome to the Revolution!!”
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 17, 2010 @ 5:53 am
A small nitpik, the President did not say IN 2015. I see about 7 out of 10 reports on the President’s speech make this exact same mistake.
The President said a design decision would be make NO LATER than 2015, not IN 2015. That is a huge distinction. If people can not see this and make that distinction they are being disingenuous.
Just like he said he had to have that employment plan on his desk no later than august 15th, he did not say it had to on his desk ON the 15th.
For me that that means they will have to settle on materials, composite tanks? et cetera .. and how the new engine will shape up, will it be a knock off of the 180 with a simplier turbo pump, or something closer to the F1 of Saturn V fame? Elon Musk has talked about a bigger upgrade to the merlin pushing it closer to the F1, has he found an ear in the President to help fund development of such an engine?
Even if Santa Claus dropped a HLV on a pad tomorrow, we would not have anything to launch. Five years to test systems and turn the ISS into a development park, find out what works, and finalize a launch vehicle, if we need it, starting sometime approaching 2015.
Comment by Vladislaw — April 17, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
Vlad,
A small nitpik, the President did not say IN 2015….. The President said a design decision would be make NO LATER than 2015, not IN 2015. That is a huge distinction.
How does a “small nitpick” equal a “huge distinction”?
Anyway, I do not agree that it is a distinction at all. Give NASA a direction like “make a decision by 2015″ and on December 31, 2014, you will still have one hundred senior managers in a meeting, showing Powerpoint slides to each other, arguing whether the deadline begins at midnight that evening or COB the first federal work day after January 1st.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 17, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
I thought I was nitpiking because I was not argueing the premise of your arguements, either for or against. Only that there is a distintion in WHEN, theorically a decision could be made and construction start.
Although NASA could, through some mircle come out next week and say, “we are going to brush the dust off the 1984 SD side mount plans and start building in 2011″, I highly doubt it will happen. The President said “And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it”
It is just a question of how serious the Nation and NASA is for a HLV.
Comment by Vladislaw — April 18, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
“Give NASA a direction like “make a decision by 2015″ and on December 31, 2014, you will still have one hundred senior managers in a meeting, showing Powerpoint slides to each other, arguing whether the deadline begins at midnight that evening or COB the first federal work day after January 1st”
Is it honestly that bad at NASA? No matter who is President, no matter who is Administrator, no matter the congressional mandate? They truely are that frozen? If so .. I am glad we are moving to commercial.
Comment by Vladislaw — April 18, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Vlad,
Although NASA could, through some mircle come out next week and say, “we are going to brush the dust off the 1984 SD side mount plans and start building in 2011″, I highly doubt it will happen.
People within the agency have been looking at side-mount HLLV plans for the last six years. One could be built and flown by 2014. And completely within the run-out budget envelope.
I am glad we are moving to commercial.
We’re not “moving” to commercial — we’re only talking about moving to commercial. In the same manner as we’re “going” to Mars.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 18, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Just a nit. I’m burned out trying to explain that no ones proposing a big move to commercial — if anything the same commercial firms will now get far less then they do now with shuttle and station.
Ignoring that.
Folks often talk about the importance of researching and developing on orbit fuel transfer systems, and doing demonstration missions.
Am I missing something, or do people not know we’ve been using such systems for decades? I mean the Russian Progress has been doing automated docking and refueling of space stations since ’78, and currently still is the prime tanker refueling the ISS.
Does 30 years of operational experence not count as enough demonstration for this technology?
Comment by Kelly Starks — April 19, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Paul, I am sure you saw this, would this be something farely easy to mitagate against or would this pose any serious problems?
“Craters Around Lunar Poles Could Be Electrified”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1611/1
Can static charges be harnessed in any form as some kind of supplentary power for a base or powering equipment/experiments?
That is another whole area for examination. The moon gives up her mysteries slowly but has so many to offer as you have written about so often.
Comment by Vladislaw — April 19, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Ok, I’m dense. It just occurred to me the central theme of Obamas space plans. Cut out the Russians.
Commercial Crew transport, really is just to get Boeing and L/M to field a space taxi, so they don’t have to depend on the ‘60’s era Russian Soyuz.
HLV technology research. Boiled down to develop a new US LOx/Kero rocket engine to compete with the ‘70’s era Russian RD-180’s.
On orbit fuel transfer demonstration missions, means show folks we could refuel the ISS without the ‘70’s era Russian progress freighter/tankers that do it now.
Comment by Kelly Starks — April 19, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
Vlad,
Can static charges be harnessed in any form as some kind of supplentary power for a base or powering equipment/experiments?
I think that you may have linked me to the wrong reference; the one you give is about the new space policy, not about electrical charging of the Moon.
Nonetheless, to answer your question, we don’t really know very much about static charging of the lunar surface, but the seven-year survival of all the ALSEP experiment packages and a couple of the Surveyor spacecraft indicate that the surface charging, if it exists at all, is very weak. It is not a good source for power. However, the near-permanent sunlit areas near both poles are potential candidate for solar arrays to provide electricity for surface operations.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Kelly,
the Russian Progress has been doing automated docking and refueling of space stations since ‘78, and currently still is the prime tanker refueling the ISS.
I think that the technical issues people are concerned about with in-space fueling revolves around cryogenic propellant transfer and management. The Soyuz spacecraft uses storables.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Sorry about the link mix up.
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Craters_Around_Lunar_Poles_Could_Be_Electrified_999.html
I have a map of Shakleton that I had photocopied and marked in a base a long time ago showing the different light densities. Always thought it would happen before this.
Did you ever hear about the proposal that Stoneareo space put out. The one where you have to make your fuel there for the return trip. You don’t take it with you.
http://www.stoneaerospace.com/news-/pictures/ShackletonCraterExpeditionV32.pdf
He was talking about a real daring plan, wonder how far off something like that is.
Comment by Vladislaw — April 19, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
> Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
>
> I think that the technical issues people are concerned
> about with in-space fueling revolves around cryogenic
> propellant transfer and management. The Soyuz spacecraft
> uses storables.
Thats a pretty trivial issue to be concerned about? Moving fluids around in zeroG adn auto docking the fueling connector are issues (long known, but at least chalenging.) the cryo part just means more insulation.
Comment by Kelly Starks — April 20, 2010 @ 8:29 am
Thats a pretty trivial issue to be concerned about?
Tell them, not me.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2010 @ 9:13 am
>>Thats a pretty trivial issue to be concerned about?
> Tell them, not me.
Sounds like a excuse to go back and study non issues for a few years, rather then do anything productive.
Comment by Kelly Starks — April 20, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Sounds like a excuse to go back and study non issues for a few years, rather then do anything productive.
You have just described the essence of the “new direction”!
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
Sadly agree.
More sadly – or stunned/disgusted – that so many space advocates don’t see this as the trap it is.
Comment by Kelly Starks — April 20, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
stunned/disgusted – that so many space advocates don’t see this as the trap it is.
Agreed. Denial and delusion.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Flexible Path stinks!! This whole Obama-space plan reeks!! We would’ve been well on the way to building & cargo-rating the Aries 5 rocket—were it not for the anemic funding, that Constellation got since the 2004 inception. The Moon SHOULD be dealt with first, ahead & before any asteroid. It is a FAR better destination, for base-building & resource-utilization. The Aries 5 should be properly funded, and made into America’s next heavy-lift work-horse. We DO NOT need to waste & squander another five years, just on researching a possible new new design.
Comment by Chris Castro — May 4, 2010 @ 12:18 am
[...] on a Saturn V-class (100+ ton to LEO) heavy lift vehicle for human expansion into the cosmos is questioned by some on cost, schedule, and private enterprise [...]
Pingback by 21st Century Waves » John Glenn Shuttles Toward an Eclipse of the Moon — June 26, 2010 @ 11:57 am
Actually a 4 x F-1A, 2 x J-2X configuration would satisfy the HLV 75-100mt requirements. You want to minimize hardware requirements, maintain reliability and control any unnecessary costs and weight to the pad. Restarting the F-1A would get the most flak from ULA who believe their hardware could be modified for both crew as well as HLV. That would come at a very high price. The only argument for a Shuttle derived is just to keep ATK in the game.
Comment by John — July 18, 2010 @ 11:57 pm
John,
The only argument for a Shuttle derived is just to keep ATK in the game.
Not the “only” argument — another one is to use the existing industrial base, workforce and infrastructure before they are dismantled and irretrievably lost. Building a new vehicle around a new engine involves not only a design and test, but all of the necessary tooling, production lines, and Cape supporting equipment. That’s where the real billions would be spent.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 19, 2010 @ 4:21 am
Paul,
That would not be a new design Paul, just modernized. Nor would it be a new engine but one that has been tested and proven and retooling that would not cost “billions”. The workforce would not be irretrievably “lost” (how dramatic) but reassigned and the equipment at the cape would actually be used. Bringing back the F-1A actually makes sense for a change.
Comment by Jerry — November 29, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
The workforce would not be irretrievably “lost” (how dramatic)
Yeah, it’s dramatic all right — and it’s already happening. And if you think this can be done cheaply, then you haven’t been paying attention to the last 30 years of experience at NASA.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 30, 2010 @ 4:29 am