New heavy lifter?

In article ,
Robert Kitzmueller wrote:
The best way I see would be to use something which can be used for
commercial applications as well, like super-heavy Delta 4.

The trouble is, this immediately poses the question: *what* commercial
applications? There are no commercial customers -- none, zero -- for even
the existing EELV Heavy configurations.

People did talk optimistically about commercial uses for the Saturn V.
Didn't happen.

There's nothing magic about a Delta IV upgrade that will automatically
give it commercial applications where a similarly-sized vehicle with a
different ancestry wouldn't have any.

... (I am also not
sure how small the crew could become before it becomes to small: Must
every astronaut be able to land on the moon, or should scientists be
ferried by an pilot, making the capsule double the size.)

As a practical matter, unless "flags and footprints" is your only goal,
there is a very high payoff for being able to carry people who are not
experts in the spacecraft technology. That means an absolute minimum crew
size of two, and even that is marginal -- three or four is better.

Bear in mind, also, that a spacecraft design which is squeezed down to fit
on one launch of the smallest possible launcher will have trouble giving
you much more than "flags and footprints". A growth path is needed.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:


MattWriter wrote:


Is there a good place (book, Website, etc.) offering a balanced analysis
of the different approaches to heavy lift (above the EELV Heavy classes)
and the pro and con concerning the need for such a vehicle?\

Not that I know of. I'm working on a long piece for The New Atlantis on
that subject (among others), but I don't know if you'll consider it a
"balanced analysis." Jeff Foust had an article about it at The Space
Review a couple months ago.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/1


I read this article, and Jeff Foust made a good case why a HLV would
be expensive. He did not, however, tell us, how much his proposed
alternative (tank depot and other orbital infrastructure) would
cost. Especially considering the ISS expierience.

I guess I am not that impartial either...

Robert Kitzmueller

EOR, docking (not construction or fuel transfer) and ~20T modules
(propulsion and various payloads) seems a better way. No costly HLV
or orbital infrastructure. It is probably not as efficient from an
initial mass in LEO point of view and has more complex operations
than a single HLV, but it is more flexible and with multiple launcher
types (EELV, A5) is robust to launcher failures.

--
Mike Atkinson
(to reply remove NO SPAM)

Is there a good place (book, Website, etc.) offering a balanced analysis of the
different approaches to heavy lift (above the EELV Heavy classes) and the pro
and con concerning the need for such a vehicle?

Thanks,


Matt Bille

NASA HQ recently issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA 04-01)
soliciting proposals for 6 month contracts to define this. Thay plan
to make multiple awards, and I hope some of them will look at all
viewpoints. It's probably no coincidence that the CEV requirements
will come out about the same time these studies finish. What I don't
know is to what extent the effort and results will be made available
to outsiders.

Certainly, we will need some form of "heavy lift", but that could mean
frequent flights totalling a large mass per year. It is my opinion
that they are doing this the right way around - to define the
architecture needs and traffic model before deciding on what the CEV
looks like, and what is needed to lift it (them).

NASA's BAA is also asking for a safe and robust system for the manned
part with the assumption that lifting fuel and cargo may not be done
with the same vehicle type(s).

Dan DeLong

Rand Simberg wrote:
Dave O'Neill wrote:

Should the US wait until CATS becomes available?

For the human exploration? I'd say so.


That doesn't help space development if we never get CATS.

Yes.

What's your point? Space development will never happen if we can't
afford to get into space. The inability to recognize this, and trying
to pretend it's not an issue, is the biggest problem with current
policy, and it's not a problem that will be solved by nostalgia over
Apollo and Saturn Vs.

no space development doesn't follow from no CATS - only no development
directly involving humans does.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
What's your point? Space development will never happen if we can't
afford to get into space. The inability to recognize this, and trying
to pretend it's not an issue, is the biggest problem with current
policy, and it's not a problem that will be solved by nostalgia over
Apollo and Saturn Vs.

no space development doesn't follow from no CATS - only no development
directly involving humans does.

Not even that. No CATS just makes space development
a lot harder. But it doesn't make it impossible.
Consider, for example, expensive public works projects.
Such as intercontinental highways, or long span
bridges, or even high-rise office buildings. We
currently do not have a "cheap" way to make 1,000 foot
tall office buildings, nor do we have a cheap way to
make 1,000 mile long highways. Yet they still get
made. Because they are needed, and because the use we
get from them outweighs their cost.

Sander Vesik wrote:

no space development doesn't follow from no CATS - only no development
directly involving humans does.

What would be the point of that?

Rand Simberg wrote in message hlink.net...
Dave O'Neill wrote:

Should the US wait until CATS becomes available?

For the human exploration? I'd say so.


That doesn't help space development if we never get CATS.

Yes.

What's your point? Space development will never happen if we can't
afford to get into space.

Space development may well happen even if individuals can't afford to
get into space. I know that doesn't help Rand Simberg get into space,
but actual space related business and commerce is royally screwed if
it is utterly reliant on da reduction in costs to make it worthwhile.



The inability to recognize this, and trying
to pretend it's not an issue, is the biggest problem with current
policy,

I'm not sure that is the case, even if it is, it is irrevelent. You
cannot base business development on future cost reductions. You need
to find methods to make business work without them.

If you can't, then it is possible there isn't ever going to be much of
a business. Except, there is, we know there is, people like Gerry
Webb are making a good living (well, he tells me it's good) launching
satellites at significantly less than standard market rates.

It's still not down to CATS price points but it is enough for him to
run a business.

and it's not a problem that will be solved by nostalgia over
Apollo and Saturn Vs.

No, it's not.

Nor is it a problem that nostalgia over Heinlein and liberatarian
space access will solve.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote in message hlink.net...
Sander Vesik wrote:

no space development doesn't follow from no CATS - only no development
directly involving humans does.

What would be the point of that?

From a business perspective there's enough to create a multi-billion
dollar industry. Imaging, weather, communications and so forth all
seem to be doing rather. MLV seems to be arriving as a consequence of
needing ever larger switches in GEO.

Gerry Webb has no problem running a "low cost" space access business,
but that's only comparatively "low cost", he reckons you can have a
small sat in orbit for $7m if you need it. He's done several deals
with African countries for small imaging and weather sats.

It might be, painful as this sounds, that at the moment and for the
near future there isn't much of a future for manned space related
activities. That might change, but I suspect that if it does it will
happen realtively slowly.

Dave

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Robert Kitzmueller wrote:
The best way I see would be to use something which can be used for
commercial applications as well, like super-heavy Delta 4.

The trouble is, this immediately poses the question: *what* commercial
applications? There are no commercial customers -- none, zero -- for even
the existing EELV Heavy configurations.

People did talk optimistically about commercial uses for the Saturn V.
Didn't happen.

There's nothing magic about a Delta IV upgrade that will automatically
give it commercial applications where a similarly-sized vehicle with a
different ancestry wouldn't have any.

I'm not sure that's quite fair. Based on the industry speculation
I've been seeing, the market for large GEO com sats is increasing
dramatically, and the current limits will not be particularly
acceptable for much longer.

The trouble is, it's not a massive market. It probably will be
enouugh to fund continued development and maybe even a Ariane 6.
There are spin off uses, however, you could always go to the Russians
for some of this capability if it was that important.

... (I am also not
sure how small the crew could become before it becomes to small: Must
every astronaut be able to land on the moon, or should scientists be
ferried by an pilot, making the capsule double the size.)

As a practical matter, unless "flags and footprints" is your only goal,
there is a very high payoff for being able to carry people who are not
experts in the spacecraft technology. That means an absolute minimum crew
size of two, and even that is marginal -- three or four is better.

Bear in mind, also, that a spacecraft design which is squeezed down to fit
on one launch of the smallest possible launcher will have trouble giving
you much more than "flags and footprints". A growth path is needed.

waggles hand

Yes. But we could do quite a lot with existing hardware and only
slight developments. There's plenty of profiles for Proton based
manned moon missions. You could certainly service a small moon base
with a Proton class vehicle.

Expanding that would be tricky, but it could be more than Flags and
Footprints.

Dave

Dave O'Neill wrote:

no space development doesn't follow from no CATS - only no development
directly involving humans does.

What would be the point of that?


From a business perspective there's enough to create a multi-billion
dollar industry. Imaging, weather, communications and so forth all
seem to be doing rather. MLV seems to be arriving as a consequence of
needing ever larger switches in GEO.

That's not what most people consider the "development" of space. And
we're already doing all of them.