NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

On 09/18/2010 03:43 PM, David Spain wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA is stuck with a funding level that will let them either build a
new launcher (like Ares) or a new payload (like Altair), but not both
at the same time.

Again the problem I believe is you're taking too narrow a focus.
It's not just the NRE cost to build a launcher, its cost to build + cost
to operate. Jorge pulled out numbers in an earlier post that said cost
to operate should be in the range of 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of current
shuttle operations.

IIRC the old ballpark figure for a shuttle launch was in the
neighborhood of $600 million per launch. So using Jorge's figures we get
a spread of somewhere between $300-400 million per launch[1].

That's not what I meant. Cost per launch is meaningless. Shuttle is $3
billion per year independent of flight rate. I'm saying SD-HLV will be
$1.5-2 billion per year, independent of flight rate.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:43:25 -0400, David Spain
wrote:

Again the problem I believe is you're taking too narrow a focus.
It's not just the NRE cost to build a launcher, its cost to build + cost to
operate. Jorge pulled out numbers in an earlier post that said cost to operate
should be in the range of 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of current shuttle operations.

That seems reasonable to me. The big cost in the Shuttle program was
the manned orbiter, which is being replaced by a much simpler capsule.
SSME was costly, too, but the plan is to build a simpler, cheaper
version once the stock runs out.

IIRC the old ballpark figure for a shuttle launch was in the neighborhood of
$600 million per launch.

In FY09, it was around $800 million per flight.

So using Jorge's figures we get a spread of somewhere
between $300-400 million per launch[1].

Assuming that's correct, that's about the same as the now-retired
Titan IV and about $100 million less than Delta IV-Heavy (according to
the New Horizons people who looked at using Delta IV-Heavy for their
Pluto launch, and that was seven years ago.)

Now this money is strictly overhead
that has to be factored in when you get to figuring your budget for payload.

Which is the same as with Shuttle for the last 30 years. But the
launch vehicle now is 1/2 to 1/3 the price while offering three times
the cargo capacity.

Assuming you aren't launching without payload, you have to figure it in to the
cost of each payload item (like Altair) you build.

Just like Space Station, which we somehow managed to build while
operating Shuttle.

So it adds onto the tail end cost of any project that wishes to take advantage
of a SD-HLV and is recurring.

This is what we're going round-and-round about on the Space Station.
We almost always hear from critics about the "$100 billion Space
Station." But the Station itself cost around $33 billion (after
blowing $8 billion, $18 billion, and $24 billion cost caps), the rest
was Shuttle launches (projected out to 2015 to reach $100 billion.)

Now we're replacing a Shuttle that costs $800 million per flight with
an SD-HLV that costs $300 million per flight (with three times the
throw-weight), and an Orion that will likely cost somewhere around
$100 million each.

Nor the recurring launch costs. If much of the infrastructure is to be re-used
it seems only natural to assume most of the recurring costs will remain.

No, the OPFs will be gone, along with the great bulk of the Shuttle
workforce.

On the other hand, if we don't use KSC and the Louisiana
infrastructure (i.e., we pick an EELV-derived architecture) then we
have to pay for the decommissioning and EPA cleanup of KSC, which will
be enormous.

And how much will an EELV-based architecture cost? Delta IV is
anything but cheap, and it seems unlikely DoD will let NASA take over
its workhorse Atlas to make manned flight improvements and eat up
limited production capability.

The EELV and SpaceX crowd consistently ignores these problems.

[1] Compare this to what SpaceX is claiming for the price of Falcon-9/Dragon
launches and you'll see what I'm getting at. SD-HLV doesn't make any cost
sense for ISS transport or resupply.

It remains to be seen how cheap Falcon/Dragon are once they actually
go into mass production, versus the small scale manufacturing and test
program they've been in for the last five years. But SpaceX has a $1.6
billion contract to supply the ISS with 12 cargo Dragon flights, which
adds up to $133 million each, for around 5,000 lbs. of cargo each (per
Encyclopedia Astronautica. SpaceX itself claims 13,000 lbs of cargo,
but that simply can't be right.) The manned version will almost
certainly be significantly more expensive. Call it $150 million each,
probably more.

But SD-HLV/Orion/MPLM could well be in the neighborhood of $600
million per flight while delivering a spacecraft capable of serving 6
months as a lifeboat and an MPLM with three to four times the cargo
capacity of Dragon (depending on how much better weigh/balance
restrictions for MPLM get once it no longer has to ride in the
Shuttle's payload bay). That's the equivalent of four or five Falcon
9/Dragon flights, and you still need a lifeboat.

In any event, I'm not advocating cancelling Dragon and Cygnus.
SD-HLV/Orion/MPLM can be an excellent backup to them, filling in the
cargo uplift shortage that we're already looking at, and relieving
Dragon and Cygnus of the cost and payload-eating requirement of
6-month stay times at ISS in the lifeboat role. If we have Orion/MPLM
available for uplift, we can perhaps let Dragon be specialized for
payload downmass, at the expense of uplift.

This could get very interesting when/if Congress and the President
finally make a decision.

Brian

On 9/18/2010 12:43 PM, David Spain wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA is stuck with a funding level that will let them either build a
new launcher (like Ares) or a new payload (like Altair), but not both
at the same time.

Again the problem I believe is you're taking too narrow a focus.
It's not just the NRE cost to build a launcher, its cost to build + cost
to operate. Jorge pulled out numbers in an earlier post that said cost
to operate should be in the range of 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of current
shuttle operations.

IIRC the old ballpark figure for a shuttle launch was in the
neighborhood of $600 million per launch. So using Jorge's figures we get
a spread of somewhere between $300-400 million per launch[1]. Now this
money is strictly overhead that has to be factored in when you get to
figuring your budget for payload. Assuming you aren't launching without
payload, you have to figure it in to the cost of each payload item (like
Altair) you build. So it adds onto the tail end cost of any project that
wishes to take advantage of a SD-HLV and is recurring. That's why I
think this figure is so important. You can defer this cost by spreading
out the builds; in other words you build a few launchers, then you build
a few payloads, then later when the money is available, you assemble and
launch them. But this spreads things so far out on the time-line I have
to wonder if missions are politically even feasible to do this way.

Assuming they go with the side-mount design, you also now have a
expendable cargo pod's price to figure into the cost; and you don't get
the liquid engines back either, so what you've done is make something
like the Shuttle but a lot less reusable, and with no payload return
capability other than what you can stick in the Orion CM...as now the
only thing that's going to get reused are the SRBs and the Orion CM
itself - which will need a new heatshield on it, as they went with an
ablative concept.
I don't see how it somehow gets far cheaper if you throw more of what
you launch away on each flight.
Another problem here; assuming they go with the Orion on the front of
the cargo pod, how exactly is it to lug the payload over to the ISS?
Its SM main engine(s) are pointed straight at the payload, so is it
supposed to detach, rotate 180 degrees, dock with the payload, and then
maneuver it towards the ISS?
That requires a lot of extra fuel in the SM, which will again up costs,
as you don't get the SM back either.
You could also stick maneuvering engines and their fuel supply on the
cargo pod itself, but again those get destroyed on every flight.
One rational is that we will use one or two of these to do a trip to a
near-earth asteroid.
So once that's done, what's it to be used for next? Trips to other
asteroids?
You think the Moon flights got boring fast, wait till they end up
sitting on a little ball of rock, with not even The Little Prince to
shoot the breeze with.

Pat