Relaunching Space Commerce
Commercial Space Exploration Needs an Obama Relaunch, Robert Walker and Charles Miller, Wall Street Journal (subscription) (Paste the article title into the Google search box and it will give you a link that works)
“NASA, in fact, has not successfully developed a new rocket in over three decades. U.S. private industry successfully developed three brand-new rockets in just the past decade–Boeing with the Delta IV, Lockheed with the Atlas V, and SpaceX with the Falcon 9. Industry succeeded because of a partnership with the government, much like the building of the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century. Industry was responsible for development and was taking large risks, but with government incentives. ,,,, A renewed and refocused NASA is critical to America’s future. So as the country struggles with trillions in debt and deficits, it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?”
Is this the first salvo in a serious attempt to cancel SLS? I don’t know but I worry that it may be a bit premature. I didn’t think the battle would really begin until after the first successful launch of the Falcon Heavy.
There were good points in the article. I guess it’s not too early to start bringing them more into the conversation.
I’m not anti-Heavy Lift. I just think SLS is a really stupid and possibly doomed way to go about achieving it.
“I didn’t think the battle would really begin until after the first successful launch of the Falcon Heavy.”
There’s an advantage to starting the battle a little while before Falcon Heavy launches. Get the debate open, get it on everyone’s minds. Then let Falcon Heavy launch. The news will have more of an impact on the debate if it happens when the debate is in full swing than if it happens sometime before the battle starts.
You don’t want the battle to start too long before Falcon Heavy so that it’s over by then — you want the battle to be at its peak right at the moment Falcon Heavy launches. It’s unclear quite when that will be, and timing is everything.
Of course, if the first Falcon Heavy launch fails, that has the opposite of the intended effect on the debate, and a failure is always a big risk on a new launch system.
Let’s say FH does fail, fantastically. Not even just the first launch, the first three launches (there are only three FH launches on SpaceX’s manifest so far). That’ll still be three launches that occurred up to two years before the first SLS launch. If their fourth and fifth launches occur by 2017 and are a success, and they do absolutely nothing for the following four years (unlikely), they’ll still have an equal or greater number of successful launches as SLS since its first two launches are scheduled for 2017 and 2021.
And after SLS launches twice, its price tag will still come out at a minimum of ten times higher than those five FH launches plus R&D costs.
I realize you’re not actually advocating SLS as a competitive platform (Is anybody?) but I’m curious if there’s any combination of events that anyone can imagine where SLS comes away looking like a worthwhile expenditure.
Overlooked? Nasawatch can provide the links.
The 2000 to 2008 Congress threw out the most cost effective approach, then mandated that the LV would be 130 mT to guarantee the existence of certain shuttle product lines– it certainly was not “missed”, but buried!
The depot centric architecture allows lower launch costs by increasing the flight rate and frees up 2 to 3B/year to develop hardware for missions or technology to reduce the IMLEO mass. No show stoppers exist in the depot centric approach.
So the problem is not a better rocket. The problem is letting the once-thought-to-be-useable heavy-lift rocket components to retire, thereby freeing cash for other, more important product lines, to begin.
$80,000/kg for Unbuilt HLV
$40,000 to $5,000 $/kg: Saturn, Delta, Atlas, Arianne, Titan, Proton,
Falcon, …..
Even if the HLV is completed, it does not provide any spinoffs or commercial
benefits.
Ref: http://www.newspacewatch.co…
http://www.spaceref.com/new…
“I’d love to see Congress tell NASA to go back to Square One and come up
with better rocket designs for use in the 2020-2050 time period.”
I’m with you on that. Then I’d like to see Congress tell NASA to put that rocket up for bid to see if the commercial guys want to bid on the contract. If NASA gets no credible commercial bids then they would have to do it the very expensive way, build it themselves.
But I would definitely want to see it bid out first…
“we’re going to be stuck in earth orbit until such time as Boeing and
Lockheed and SpaceX decide a commercial market exists for larger rockets”
Not true. Exploration can be done with the medium lift rocket range. What those rockets lack in single launch capability they make up for in multi-launch capability. That is, rather than thinking about it as 1 large rocket vs 1 medium lift rocket, think of it as 1 large rocket vs many medium lift rockets that can exceed the mass put up by 1 large rocket. You just need to figure out how to adapt your program to the different methodology of multi-launch medium lift rockets. Luckily, there is a straight-forward means to do this for exploration type missions: most of the mission mass of an exploration mission is fuel, and the unfueled hardware can fit on the payload range of the medium lift rockets, while the fuel can be split apart and sent on other rockets. Then the dry components are filled with either in space refueling, or at a purpose built fuel depot.
The advantages of doing it this way are the following. Most of the global and domestic space launch demand is in the medium lift range: commercial satellites, space probes, military missions, ISS resupply missions. Launch vehicle economics are impacted by demand: the more users of a launch system, the cheaper each launch becomes as costs are spread amongst a larger amount of rocket production. Medium lift has many users to help lower costs, while more users will lower costs even more, whereas heavy lift would have but one. Medium lift launchers are also an existing reliable launch solution. By adapting its exploration missions to the medium lift range, NASA can take advantage of this larger non-exploration demand to have a lower cost launch for its exploration payloads, which will allow NASA to accomplish more with its budget. Its exploration demand in turn can help lower the costs for those other users of space launch, and that increased total demand can help spur further innovation in the field.
Just because Apollo did it one way, doesn’t mean that there aren’t other ways to crack that nut, that may even be better. Apollo was a good plan for the specific circumstances of the time, but this is a different era and we need a plan that better fits the circumstances of today, and what we want out of the future. Exploration missions using commercial medium lift rockets can be that approach.
Here is some proposals that use medium lift rockets to undertake exploration missions:
http://www.spaceref.com/new…
http://www.ulalaunch.com/si…
http://www.spacelaunchrepor…
Libs0n,
I think you’ll find that a lot of us will buy into the medium lift argument as a concept. However, there’s one insurmountable roadblock in the way of medium lift — it takes Orion, and possibly CST-100, out of the game.
I’m not saying they should ideally be kept in the game, but with things this far along I don’t see either NASA (Congress) or Boeing saying, OK let’s forget about our capsule that we’ve spent all this money on and is the source of so many jobs because medium lift makes more sense. It’s just not going to happen.
The new costs just to cancel either program would be enormous, on top of what’s already been spent. You can’t cancel SLS without either also canceling Orion, or replacing SLS with another BFR. The “bad” decisions have already been made, years ago, and now we’re stuck with them. And I don’t see any way for NASA to change away from SLS-sized heavy lift at this point without losing all of its remaining credibility (even though SLS was not NASA’s idea).
I’m afraid it’s either cancel everything HSF and start over, or bull our way through SLS /Orion until enough time has passed to start on something new, which I think could easily be 20+ years given current thinking and rate of progress. I’m certainly not happy about that, but I do believe it’s the reality we face.
Steve
The State of Florida paid $35 million just to bring the Lockheed/Martin Orion program to the Ops and Checkout Facility at KSC. Heck, the state even paid over $700K just to clear all the junk and structual steel out of the building (which was used to support SkyLab). There are political considerations that must be considered if you want to shut down Orion. Plus the Euros in all their state socialist glory really want to be part of the Orion program…..thus, more poltical considerations.
I agree with you Ralphy. I can’t see Orion getting canned. The catch still remains, though, that if SLS gets canceled (which is what we were discussing), what will Orion be launched on? There’s nothing currently human rated that can launch it, and to the best of my knowledge, there’s no LV coming available any time soon (except SLS, in theory) that has both the lift capacity and the likelihood of being human rated. Some things can be split into smaller payloads and launched on medium-lift LVs, but an Orion isn’t one of them. Will a human-rated Atlas V lift Orion? Last I heard, the answer was no, not even the Atlas V 500 with 5 solids.
Why couldn’t a modified Falcon Heavy launch it? It is planned to be manned rated. If FH lives up to it’s full potential, a fully fueled/stocked Orion capsule and service module would be somewhere around 70,000 pounds which is only 60% of the mass to LEO.
I know there would be issues with mating a 5 meter capsule and service module to it, but I don’t think it would be impossible (im not sure, not an engineer). Then again the impossible part I think would be convincing Boeing to work with SpaceX in the first place. The thought alone of seeing a Boing craft attached to a SpaceX rocket makes me laugh.
I think Atlas V can get the Orion CEV which weighs just less than 12 tons to LEO. Then possibly it can be launched from LEO by an upper stage of another rocket. Remember, the first two shots of the SLS will use an upper stage of Delta IV. So *if* there is a way to meet another upper stage in LEO I think there is a possiblity that it could be achieved. Also, as previously indicated, there is a possibility of using a Falcon Heavy. One thing is for certain, the Orion CEV is politically flexible and IIRC there a common interface link that is supposed to be in the works for the Orion so that other rockets can launch it. Unlike the fanatics for Space X, I don’t have to see another program destroyed in order to achieve what I think are reasonable goals for NASA.
Replpy to Michael Reynolds and Ralphy:
Gentlemen,
First off, Ralphy, the Orion CEV without the Service Module is useless. The combined (fueled) mass of the Orion (CEV + SM) is supposed to be 21,250 kg (I’m not American, so I’m working in metric units). By comparison, Boeing says the CST-100 will be 13,000 kg (I’m not really sure I believe that). As far as I know, neither of these spacecraft is being designed with any on-orbit refueling capability.
The Atlas V 551, it is claimed, will put 18,810 kg into LEO (at 200 km) at an inclination of 28.5 degrees (the ISS, by the way, is up at 51.6 degrees and a minimum altitude of 330 km, and therefore would require considerably more thrust than this). [All altitudes are assumed to circular.]
The Falcon Heavy, it is claimed, will put 53,000 kg into LEO (at 200 km) at an inclination of 28.5 degrees. Without actually doing the calculations, I would say this is more than enough thrust to cover the extra altitude and greater inclination to get the (complete) Orion spacecraft to the ISS. (Remember: the higher the orbital inclination, the more thrust you need to get there; you can compensate a little bit by changing your launch site longitude.)
However, Orion is not intended to go to the ISS, or anywhere else in LEO. Except as a backup for ISS emergencies, Orion is supposed to be a BEO spacecraft. And to be clear, there are no plans for refueling facilities, tugs, or any other methods of getting the Orion from LEO to a BEO trajectory at escape velocity — and certainly no money is being planned for anything to do so.
To go any further, we’d have to assume a destination for Orion so that we can pick an inclination and injection altitude for our BEO trajectory. Even if we satisfy ourselves with going to the Moon or EM-L2, I don’t see Falcon Heavy (and definitely not Atlas V 551, Ariane 5 ES, Titan IV-B, or Delta IV Heavy if you look up the numbers) getting us to TLI. There just isn’t enough thrust to put a 21,250 kg spacecraft that far up with the necessary velocity.
I haven’t done the math to prove this, just a rough extrapolation, which is certainly not a valid argument on my part. But I’m convinced, so you can calculate it if you think I’m wrong.
So, unfortunately, I have to stick with my original contention: Since I can’t see Orion getting canceled, then neither will SLS, because it’s the only thing, so far, that (in some configuration) will lift Orion to BEO, assuming that they both get finished and perform more or less to spec. I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong, because an alternative would mean that SLS could be canned, which would be great.
Steve
If SLS is cancelled then NASA will have to engineer a multiple medium rocket technique. No other way to do it if they want to do BEO missions. They are not going to throw their hands up in the air and say “we’re whipped, let Werner Von Paypal do it”.
I have to agree with Ralph on this one steve regarding a multiple medium rocket alternative. I would imagine that it would be cheaper and more practical to alter orion slightly to accomadate on-orbit refueling/docking combined with current medium lift rockets, then it would be to continue to build the SLS. Unless somehow adding these capabilities to the orion required more than the $18 billion for the first launch in 2017 (minus what has been spent already).
Also, as I (and others) have pointed out in the past, the Orion as a BEO craft operating for more than a month or two has always been more or less a joke. I believe alot of the NW community has agreed with this sentiment. It has always appeared to merely be a just-BEO craft. I do not foresee it making a trip to Mars as more than a life boat attached to a much larger and more capable craft (something along the lines of NAUTILUS-X)
I think maybe we’re not communicating here, guys. Given my choice, if we could start over, I would argue very strongly for the medium lift approach. I see no need for an SLS-sized LV and no advantages to be gained from building one. However, what decides things is what NASA intends (as mandated by Congress), which is flying Orion on BEO missions.
Two things to consider. First, revising a spacecraft for in-flight refueling capability is not something you do after the fact. It has to be accommodated almost from day one, and we’re way past the point where an almost complete redesign would be required. Second, even if you launched the Orion completely unfueled, it would still mass 19,543 kg, so we’re not going to gain anything by refueling the Orion after launch. The basic problem here, as I see it, is very simple — the Orion is just too bloody heavy to be of use for anything. This is an insurmountable flaw in its design, but politics is still overruling sanity and will no doubt continue to do so.
I consider it idiotic that the design reviews let this pass. It is not necessary for a spacecraft with the specified capabilities to mass so much. Neither CST-100 nor Dragon, for example, come anywhere near what Orion masses, and current differences in capability are insignificant. There are no work-arounds possible here. Either Orion gets launched on a (yet to be built) super-heavy HLLV, or it’s never getting off the ground.
Let’s not overlook the fact that there is a third option to medium lift and the current SLS design — an SLS-class LV designed and built properly, instead of pasted together from components left over from defunct programs. Actual cost calculations aside, if we’re ever going to get the Orion (existing design), or anything remotely resembling it, into a BEO trajectory, I think this third approach is the ONLY way it’s going to happen. And the longer that the decision makers wait to face up to the obvious, the more it’s going to cost, and the longer it’s going to take (much worse than a simple day-for-day delay). I don’t particularly like this third option, but it does let us recover from the mistakes already made.
I’m sorry to be so negative guys, but there are no short cuts, quick fixes, or viable redesigns in the cards. This whole thing was improperly planned from the beginning in my opinion. First, they should have spec’d ALL of the required vehicles/components for a clearly stated set of goals at the outset, instead of wish-listing a BFR; second, they should have planned it around medium lift, ideally existing medium lift; and third, they should never have been mandated to use left over parts in a situation where it offered no advantages whatsoever.
Had things been done properly, there would be no spacecraft that masses nearly TWICE what it really needed to. Orion is a screw-up, but we’re stuck with it for political reasons. SLS is an even bigger screw-up, but we’re stuck with it because Orion isn’t going to go away.
I see no way out of this where everybody gets to save face. I think it’s just a matter of time before this whole mess gets real ugly. And as usual, it’ll probably be NASA that takes it on the chin. Only my opinion, of course.
Steve
Well, if you say it can’t be done then I guess it can’t be done. I would note however that fueling transfer experiments by NASA are currently ongoing on the ISS. it doesn’t have anything in the least to do with Orion, I’m just saying there are current on going experiments probably for other purposes or programs.
“But if we adopt the Walker-Miller approach, we’re going to be stuck in
earth orbit until such time as Boeing and Lockheed and SpaceX decide a
commercial market exists for larger rockets, and that’s likely to be to
the end of the century.”
No, you completely misunderstand what Walker and Miller are saying.
They’re proposing to use a COTS-style acquisition mechanism to develop heavy lift. That means NASA tells industry what it needs (heavy lift) and requests that industry bid on it. It has absolutely nothing to do with waiting for a commercial market to exist.
Cool 🙂
Chris,
Agreed. But the problem lies with what actually happens. NASA says, we need such-and-such (something new and better) and our budget is $X. And then Boeing and LM reply with, that’s nice, here’s what you can have (last year’s model repainted) and it will cost you $2X. Stalemate.
But, to be totally fair, since nobody is really spending any significant money on R&D any more, there is no “something new and better” in existence, at any price, no matter how badly NASA, or anyone else, wants it.
When President Obama proposed spending time (5 years) and money on R&D for new launcher designs, it seems the majority of interested people dismissed it out of hand. They wanted their new toys now, and were still harboring misconceptions about what’s available and what can be done now.
And as near as I can see it, all of the above has been the status quo for many, many years. Until some very entrenched habits/ideas in the system are laid to rest, I don’t see things changing any for the better. Maybe Iran and North Korea will end up being the spurs that initiate the necessary changes, out of fear.
Steve
“And then Boeing and LM reply with, that’s nice, here’s what you can have (last year’s model repainted) and it will cost you $2X.”
Are they the only vendors? Are they colluding for that to occur? Is that legal? Could an investigation turn something up?
Joe,
I was trying to sum up the result rather than suggest that such a crass conversation actually takes place. It happens in a lot of industries. Just because you want/need something better than before doesn’t mean anyone can deliver it to you.
If you look at the history of Launch Vehicles, it’s ongoing small-scale evolution, incremental improvements, never major changes or revolution. That’s what I meant by “last year’s model repainted.” And no matter what you end up getting, it costs more than it did before and more than you were in a position to pay.
I’m not implying anything illegal, just disappointingly unsatisfying. It’s also why the hardball marketing people always seem to come out on top. All of this is just my observation, of course, and I’ve been wrong before.
Steve
Not wrong
Mr Whitfield
This is a very thoughtful and sensible article! Let’s see if anyone in Washington listens.
Every space staffer received this op ed if they sit on the SST, EC, or Appropriations, Democrat or Republican.
I personally guarantee it.
After all, the TEA Party in Space is non-partisan. We work with both sides of the aisle.
I don’t think that there is any argument (or market) for ‘commercial space exploration’. However, I think that there is a large market for space exploration supported by commercial launch capabilities. For example, Falcon Heavy and the EELV Phase 1 upgrades could launch CRS-type cargo vehicles to the EML points to support missions on the Moon. Commercial space launch could also support the assembly of long-haul spacecraft either in LEO or at the EML points.
An architecture exclusively based on SLS risks creating a bottleneck where everything must wait on SLS availability. FWIW, ask whether we might have had ISS sooner if there was a fall-back option of launching some of the US, Japanese and European modules with ELVs.
As matters stand, only the desire for single-launch exploration missions is supporting the technical argument for SLS at the moment. However, Boeing’s recent proposals have shown that even SLS will require multiple launches, rendezvous and maybe even propellent transfer for early exploration missions. This weakens the SLS argument considerably.
Ultimately, it depends on what you want to spend your money and why you want it spent. Some will have to be spent but where would it be spent most effectively?
“However, I think that there is a large market for space exploration supported by commercial launch capabilities.“
Ben,
You make a very important point. In fact, this is the only scenario that makes any sense, both in terms of effectiveness and cost. It’s how things were in the beginning of the space exploration era (the alleged “good old days”), and it’s the only method that hasn’t been thoroughly plagued with regular failures and constantly escalating costs.
Look at how simple and successful Project Mercury and Project Gemini were by comparison to the NASA programs of the last 30 years. In the beginning, NASA did what they did well and the contractors were brought in to do everything else, according to their expertise (and the winning bids). They operated as one big team during design reviews and during actual missions, but otherwise they didn’t jostle one another’s elbows. Contractors often worked occupying NASA facilities, when it made sense to do so, but they didn’t become part of NASA or find themselves facing continuous, ineffectual NASA oversight.
Personally, I don’t yearn for the Good Old Days because I think it’s a fallacy; there were no Good Old Days. The “hardest” times are always the ones you’re facing at the moment. The present is always the challenge that we face, while the past is just a memory. However, having said that, when past experience shows us a better way to do something but we don’t use that better way, it means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
SLS, in my opinion, is wrong in several different ways. But the most destructive “wrongness” is the fact that every “contributor” is trying to do somebody else’s job, instead of sticking to what they’re good at. The various groups within NASA, Congress, other government agencies, and even the White House are all guilty of trying to be what they’re not and do what they don’t know how to do when it comes to NASA programs and policies. The contractors are just doing what they’ve always done, which is get whatever they can out of whatever programs come along.
And who can blame them?
It wasn’t always like this; instead the system used to work. How did things get this way? Bigger question: how do we get them back to a way that works? It’s not like any of this is secret. People have been saying what I’ve just said for many years, a lot of them in far more detail than I have access to. And yet the “bad old days” continue. I have to assume that there are people who, for some reason, want things to be this way and are taking on-going actions to ensure that they stay this way. If this is the case, then I say these people need to be identified and stopped. Given what’s at stake, I don’t think charging them with sedition, as a minimum, is out of line. Based on the money they’ve wasted alone they should be entitled to a nice long stay in a prison cell.
Government-sponsored space exploration, supported by commercial launch capabilities and commercial spacecraft design, is the only arrangement that makes sense; the only arrangement that yields reliable positive results. The same applies for any space development activities, now and in the near future. Governments can not design and build space vehicles and infrastructures, and commercial entities can not make a profit undertaking any space activities independent of government involvement (read money) at this point in time. Somewhere down the road commercial companies will be able to go it alone and make profits, but first the space industries, and the new processes they require, must be born and sufficiently matured (through government investment and with government R&D by NASA, among others). We need to have everybody involved doing their own jobs, and only their own jobs, instead of each trying to take control of more and more of the whole system.
This concludes my grumbling for today.
Steve
And for this to happen????
Someone Mr. Musk must design an exploration plan. That makes government exploration look so expensive and foolish that they actually do something.
When is Spacex going release their Mars plan again????
Dear Mr. Shupp,
There is only so much you can say within the ~800 limit of an op-ed. You can’t address every issue in a satisfactory manner.
For those who want the more extended version or have other questions, read my essay at The Space Review from last November 5th titled “How the US can become a next generation space industrial power”.
http://www.thespacereview.c…
Or you can watch my speech on the exact same subject that I gave to the Marshall Institute here:
http://www.marshall.org/art…
Onwards and upwards,
– Charles
Charles E. Miller
NexGenSpace
I read the essay and I have a question. You mention leading a NASA team in 2011 which concluded building a two stage reusable vehicle is technically feasible. Where can I get greater detail about that?
Congress micro-managed SLS into existence, against NASA HQ’s an Obama’s wishes.
SLS’s goal is not to be a good rocket, but to have work for companies like ATK and Michoud, each of which has a guardian lawmaker on its side. In some ways even individual NASA centers have more political clout than NASA HQ.
Even if SLS dies after 6 years, it will still have accomplished it mission for these 6 years, and so for its originators, it would not have been a failure.
This is why we’re still stuck here.
SpaceX, even though it is a commercial company, is controlled by someone who cares about space exploration, which is why it is the only entity that is actually making progress towards it.
SLS is doomed no matter which way you look at it.The original concept was to use existing hardware to develop the vehicle but NASA’s taking a “build a better mousetrap” idea towards it.Sorry to say,it’ll not get off the ground.
I agree
Musk will beat NASA to heavy lift too.
Disagree with the assesment and premise. Witness the test out and use of Apollo heritage hardware to glean info for a “super” lift vehicle. In that regard NASA is far ahead of the private sector. It makes sense to save millions to develop the next generation propulsion systems using existant technology albeit old. Improvements are in work and will improve cost, performance, and reliability. Starting from scratch would be folly and a waste of time, money, and resources. Sorry but Falcon heavy will cut the mustard only to a certain point. The space community has been screaming for a true heavy lift for large upmass for decades ever since the final Saturn V launch for Skylab. A reasonable combination of both paths is just what the Doctor ordered. Remember, we currently find ourselves in the wild west of access to LEO and beyond. Given time it will become much more clear as to who will win and who will be the also ran. To surmise, with the plethora of competing programs in work, we will find a way to open our new chapter of affordable access to destinations beyond earth. Simply my 2 cents and I would appreciate a bit of respect for my views without the internet habit of being piled up on for my views. It is an opinion only. The sane and logical path has been mapped and is a logical approach. Free enterprise and the government will find harmony for noble goals. Thanks for reading.
“Free enterprise and the government will find harmony for noble goals.”
I whole heartedly agree with you on this. I think the libertarians and Spacex fanatics are making a big mistake in calling for destruction or defunding……or even wishing for a budget cut for NASA manned development programs not based on the cheapest bidder (Space X). I think there is room for both types of programs.
I think the main problem is that a specific manned BEO mission has not yet been determined. Whether you like Obama or not (and I do), the failure of this lays on his watch. I get the peculiar feeling that his reasoning is “I’ve got more pressing problems and any BEO mission I pick will occur after my administration and will probably be changed by succeeding adminisrtatons anyway so why go out on a limb (and more budget requests)?”
I think a number of people posting here do not take into consideration that a balance must be achieved between congress and the administration and that takes some political capital and will power. One thing is for sure, the US government will be the chief customer of any BEO mission for years to come.
the libertarians and Spacex fanatics are making a big mistake in calling for destruction or defunding……or even wishing for a budget cut for NASA manned development programs not based on the cheapest bidder (Space X).
Ralphy, you didn’t understand what they are proposing. They are proposing that the government doesn’t design/build/own/operate launch vehicles well – at all – and should get out of directly doing that, just as they don’t design/build/own/operate airliners. The money instead needs to go to things like R&D for advanced launchers, for RLVs, for X-vehicles, etc. that build the foundation on which the private sector can then build their efficient vehicles. By doing SLS, the NASA I work for is doing the wrong thing, and even doing it in the wrong way.
Folks:
Delta Heavy flies a three core first stage so Falcon heavy is should be doable. Falcon Heavy’s side mounted core boosters may be the first to be fully recoverable as they’ll be going much slower than a single core launch. That could help bring the price of heavy launch down close to Falcon 9 prices. Anybody could launch on that: Dream Chaser, Orion, Boeing… and bring up a fairly large secondary payload to help cover the freight charges.
Look, folks haven’t figured out what sort payloads we could use fifty tonnes lift for, let alone SLS’s so-called ‘heavy lift’ of 130 tonnes.
How about this? Not even fifty tonnes, but a thirty tonne payload that’s already laying around somewhere. Isn’t there a Space Shuttle External Tank that’s not going to become a museum piece sitting on a factory floor down in New Orleans? I want it!
See, what we does is, (DTARS, I need a reliable contractor here), is take that tank and outfit it on the inside with mountings for floors, walls and services so they can simply be bolted on, cover the outside with some of Bigelow’s meteor shield fabric and foam (after we’ve stripped the Shuttle era foam off), carve and install windows (with cover plates for launch). Other things like a connecting hatch between the two tanks and a hatch at each end (for expansion and access) are a must. So, you’d have a 150 foot long station module 27 feet in diameter.
Since the tank was designed to launch with strap-on boosters, that’s how we get it to orbit. Instead of ATK’s solid boosters, we’ll put two Falcon 9 first stages where they were. Instead of having the second stages on top of the first stages like usual, we’ll mount them 90° from the first stage boosters at the bottom of the tank and air light them. Falcon Heavy nose cones go on all four stages. So. light the first stages and jettison when empty. Air light the two second stages and carry the tank to orbit. Outfit with medium class ferries.
I use this as an example of a payload that can’t be launched any other way but (somewhat) heavy lift boosters because it’s a single module (two tanks aside). It’s always assumed that an SLS/Constellation class booster would be a mission launcher, an ‘all up’ affair carrying a number of components needed for said mission. Why not think of your heavy lift capacity as the upper limit for a single module. If you consider that anything that can fit in a smaller spacecraft can and should be shipped to space that way, it changes everything. We’re talking structure here, and large ones, like my example above.
The whole point of this rant is cost versus success. In my example above, the repurposed External Tank might cost a hundred million to build and about the same to launch. So, even though it’s the hard part of the ‘mission’, getting this large structure to orbit, it’s not a total loss if the first one or two fail. If you can afford the launch, you can afford the risk.
The real value of this structure will be installed once it’s on orbit by a number of medium class launchers (hopefully reusable) where no single launch failure represents total ‘mission’ failure either.
DTARS:
This might be considered a proto-SpaceScraper™ using existing hardware. The original External tanks were worth about thirty million dollars apiece ‘off the self’ as it were, so my outfitting costs above were very conservative. By ‘SpaceXing’ that kind and size of structure, I’m sure the cost could be brought way down. Since it’ll never hold cryogenic liquids the design will be much more forgiving. So, what if it ended up that an External Tank sized structure could be made for a ten million or even less. Launch costs would be worth a magnitude more than the payload. But hey, it’s the price of doing business and it wouldn’t take long to recoup that launch cost. In fact, maybe we could cut the launch company in on the deal, give them shares or revenue sharing. This would almost put the startup costs into the realm of a killer KickStarter campaign… 😉
tinker
Mike, I think you misunderstand their point. They don’t want the government in the launcher designing/owning/operating business. any more than they want the government in the airliner design/own/ operate business. We in NASA don’t do that stuff well. As with other modes of transportation we need to develop the capability and services needed on a partnership basis, and have the government focus on what it does best, such as spurring, researching, etc. new launcher capabilities and technologies (again, in partnership with industry).
I lose track of various pros/cons for heavy lift but one statement that stands above the rest in my mind is when Dennis Wingo said for 40 years space advocates have been screaming for HLV but nothing has been proposed or built. Perhaps need a different approach than trying to argue to resurrect a Saturn V capability.