|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma August 20, 2014 by Chris Bergin at www.nasaspaceflight.com http://tinyurl.com/mth4nml From above: As has been the case for a number of years now, only two missions are currently manifested, while her projected schedule in the 2020s remains threadbare. The first flight will be an unmanned test flight, with the second being its first manned flight after a gap of *four years*! Oddly enough, the flights that NASA is considering adding to the manifest are for unmanned missions (e.g. Europa mission and Mars Sample Return mission). Manned missions are still to be determined as well since there is still no funding yet for lunar missions which is forcing NASA to look into cheaper alternatives like the proposed mission to an asteroid which would have already been placed into an earth orbit "near" the moon. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:09:06 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma ... Oddly enough, the flights that NASA is considering adding to the manifest are for unmanned missions (e.g. Europa mission and Mars Sample Return mission). SLS to launch a Mars Sample Return toaster? How big is the returning sample going to be? A block of Mars soil the size of a Winnebago? Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
David Spain wrote:
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:09:06 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma ... Oddly enough, the flights that NASA is considering adding to the manifest are for unmanned missions (e.g. Europa mission and Mars Sample Return mission). SLS to launch a Mars Sample Return toaster? How big is the returning sample going to be? A block of Mars soil the size of a Winnebago? I don't recall the ratios, but I seem to recall it took a great many launch pounds to get one pound back from the Moon. I suspect it would be an even greater ratio for Mars - for one thing it has stronger gravity which means more "oomph" (to use a technical term ) to get the sample off the surface. And that I suspect means more fuel. Lather, rinse, repeat. insert usual and expected comments about using multiple launches and making fuel once on Mars here rick jones -- firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
In article ,
says... On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:09:06 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma ... Oddly enough, the flights that NASA is considering adding to the manifest are for unmanned missions (e.g. Europa mission and Mars Sample Return mission). SLS to launch a Mars Sample Return toaster? How big is the returning sample going to be? A block of Mars soil the size of a Winnebago? Due to the rocket equation, I'd expect the samples returned to actually be quite small. The article mentions that the same mission with EELV's would require three EELV launches. For more info, scroll down to "Three-launches architecture" he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return_mission I'd presume that what they're looking into is simply combining the three vehicles from the "Three-launches architecture" and putting them all on a single SLS launch. Since a Delta Heavy launch costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $375 million, the three EELV launches that SLS would replace would total a bit more than $1.1 billion. With SLS launch costs projected to be somewhere between $500 million to $1 billion (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1), whether or not this saves any money depends on whose cost estimates for SLS you believe. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
Le 8/21/14, 10:53 AM, David Spain a écrit :
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:09:06 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote: SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma ... Oddly enough, the flights that NASA is considering adding to the manifest are for unmanned missions (e.g. Europa mission and Mars Sample Return mission). SLS to launch a Mars Sample Return toaster? How big is the returning sample going to be? A block of Mars soil the size of a Winnebago? Well Luna 16 launched on a Proton-K/D, not a small rocket, returned 101 grams of lunar soil. I would expect that because of advances in technology, a similar sized rocket today would return a sample better chosen than simply taking the soil next at landing site but not necessarily a much bigger sample. I wouldn't expect Winnebago sized samples returning from a single rocket launch. For a mission to Mars, the greater gravity well (both solar and Martian) complicates things, but the thin atmosphere helps by giving most of the deceleration for landing. I would think that a similar sized rocket would bring back a smaller sample from Mars but less than an order magnitude smaller. Alain Fournier |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
On 8/21/2014 1:00 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Since a Delta Heavy launch costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $375 million, the three EELV launches that SLS would replace would total a bit more than $1.1 billion. With SLS launch costs projected to be somewhere between $500 million to $1 billion (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1), whether or not this saves any money depends on whose cost estimates for SLS you believe. Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.... You actually aren't planning to *buy* that poke are you? Let's take a closer look shall we? Sure you start with three little pigs, then replace them with a much bigger pig with lipstick, et viola! Savings!!!! Below is a little something I pulled from Wikipedia on the FH. Even if you had to go to 4 missions to launch a full up sample return toaster, you cost out at 4x$135M (using worst-case numbers from Wikipedia) or $540M (worst case), presuming we're going the full expendable route. But at a more realistic 3 launches your even better at 3x$135M = $405M (worst case). At the projected low end of the cost scale (since NASa wants to be sunny side up, so can I) you are at 3x$85M or $255M. You don't really believe SLS is going to come in anywhere near $500M or even $1B per launch (or $1G for you SI folks) do you? Dave From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy ////////////////////////////////// Pricing and development funding At an appearance in May 2004 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Elon Musk testified, "Long term plans call for development of a heavy lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. We expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease in cost per pound to orbit. ... Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound or less is very achievable."[35] This $500 per pound goal stated by Musk in 2011 is 35 percent of the cost of the lowest-cost-per-pound LEO-capable launch system in a circa-2000 study, referenced by spaceref.com in 2001, the Zenit, a medium-lift launch vehicle that can carry 14,000 kilograms (30,000 lb) into LEO.[36] As of March 2013, Falcon Heavy launch prices are below $1,000 per pound ($2,200/kg) to low-Earth orbit when the launch vehicle is transporting its maximum delivered cargo weight.[37] The published prices for Falcon Heavy launches have moved some from year to year, with announced prices for the various versions of Falcon Heavy priced at US$80-125 million in 2011,[13] US$83-128 million in 2012,[14] US$77.1-135 million in 2013,[38] and US$85 million for up to 6,400 kg to GTO (with no published price for heavier GTO or any LEO payload) in 2014.[39] Launch contracts typically reflect launch prices at the time the contract is signed. SpaceX has claimed the cost of reaching low Earth orbit can be as low as US$1,000/lb if an annual rate of four launches can be sustained, and as of 2011 planned to eventually launch 10 Falcon Heavy and 10 Falcon 9 annually.[9] A third launch site, intended exclusively for SpaceX private use, is planned, with locations in Texas, Florida, and Georgia under consideration.[40] A site near Brownsville, Texas was the front runner as of April 2013. SpaceX expects to start construction on the third Falcon Heavy launch facility, after final site selection, no earlier than 2014, with the first launches from the facility no earlier than 2016.[40] In late 2013, SpaceX had projected Falcon Heavy's inaugural flight to be sometime in 2014,[5] but as of March 2014 expects the first launch to be in 2015[41] due to limited manufacturing capacity and the need to deliver on the Falcon 9 launch manifest.[7] The Falcon Heavy is being developed with private capital. No government financing is being provided for its development.[42] SpaceX current prices for space launch are already the lowest in the industry.[43] If SpaceX is able to successfully complete development on its SpaceX reusable rocket technology and return booster stages to the launch pad for reuse, a new economically-driven Space Age could result.[42][44] ////////////////////////////////// Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says... On 8/21/2014 1:00 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: Since a Delta Heavy launch costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $375 million, the three EELV launches that SLS would replace would total a bit more than $1.1 billion. With SLS launch costs projected to be somewhere between $500 million to $1 billion (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1), whether or not this saves any money depends on whose cost estimates for SLS you believe. Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.... You actually aren't planning to *buy* that poke are you? Let's take a closer look shall we? Sure you start with three little pigs, then replace them with a much bigger pig with lipstick, et viola! Savings!!!! Below is a little something I pulled from Wikipedia on the FH. Given the history of the space shuttle program, I don't believe any "rosy" cost numbers which have come out of the Ares/SLS program. Given that they've recently studied just how *infrequently* SLS can be flown "safely" I have no confidence that this program will "save" any money whatsoever. So far, the "optimistic" projected flight rate is about twice per year and I've seen "pessimistic" projected flight rates more like once every other year. Even compared to the space shuttle program's flight rate, SLS is a turkey. It will consume a few billion dollars each year just to keep the standing army in place. I'm guessing that actual launches will require a billion or two minimum per year. But I agree with your point that the current government subsidized EELVs aren't much better. They have not launched much in the way of "commercial" payloads since they're far too expensive compared to other launchers on the global market. Even if you had to go to 4 missions to launch a full up sample return toaster, you cost out at 4x$135M (using worst-case numbers from Wikipedia) or $540M (worst case), presuming we're going the full expendable route. But at a more realistic 3 launches your even better at 3x$135M = $405M (worst case). At the projected low end of the cost scale (since NASa wants to be sunny side up, so can I) you are at 3x$85M or $255M. You don't really believe SLS is going to come in anywhere near $500M or even $1B per launch (or $1G for you SI folks) do you? I know, but Falcon Heavy hasn't even flown yet, so I didn't think it was fair to show numbers which make even the EELVs appear expensive for the occasional unmanned "deep space" mission. If one assumes expendable Falcon Heavy is flying (reliably), then every other launch system in the US, government subsidized or not, looks hideously expensive. Make the core first stage and boosters of Falcon Heavy reusable and any expendable looks hideously expensive. Re-usability is the game changer that the CATS (cheap access to space) supporters have been hoping to attain since the beginning of spaceflight. The fact of the matter is that the "usual suspects" never truly tried to lower launch costs in a meaningful way. Even the name EELV is a dead giveaway. CATS would never truly have come from "evolution" of "expendables" driven by the US Government. It's only been the commercial pursuit of revolutionary change on the path to reusables that has enabled the US to finally make progress on CATS. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
... SLS is a horrible idea unless it's only going to be used for cargo. Haven't we learned yet that putting people on big solid boosters is STUPID? Did you type this with a straight face? Of course we know that some folks still haven't learned that, and probably never will. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
At $500 million per launch and 130 tonnes per launch this is $3,846 per kg launch costs. China's Long March 9 will be flying by 2016, well before NASA's SLS.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/chinese...xceed-saturn-v It will cost $125 million per launch, 1/4 NASA's price, and put the 112 tonnes into LEO. It will have a higher flight rate, and less problems in dealing with NASA politics as well. At least according to some experts. Musk has promised that SpaceX will match or exceed this efficiency with their Falcon Heavy http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy which puts up 53 metric tons for less than $50 million - with quantity purchases, and also promises shorter time to launch, and fewer impediments related to political concerns that NASA sometimes has shown during the Shuttle era. At $15,000 per kg payload cost we have; Launch Payload Type $500 $1950 million - SLS $125 $1680 million - CZ9 $ 50 $795 million - Falcon Heavy Solar Power Satellite - in Sun Synch - Sunrise/Sunset orbit With 37,260 sq meters of solar collector per tonne of payload we have; Tonnes Launch m2 GW Cost $/kW Diam Type 130 $1,950 4844970 3.627 $2,450 $675.54 2484 SLS 112 $1,680 4174128 3.125 $1,805 $577.68 2305 CZ9 53 $ 795 1975257 1.479 $ 845 $571.49 1586 Falcon Heavy Three satellites each 619 m in diameter each producing 493 MW - launched aboard a Falcon Heavy generate $388.9 million per year selling power to ground stations around the planet at $0.03 per kWh. Satellite life time is 20 years. This is worth $4.37 billion the day the satellites are deployed! Six satellites may be launched by the CZ9. Seven satellites may be launched by the SLS. A 700 kW power plant - that is charged twice a day over a 6 hours period by a satellite orbiting at 9,104 km (2.4 hour) orbit -at a rate of 1,400 kW - provides industrial scale power for a wide range of users. Aperture size is 3.04 m (10 ft) on the ground and on orbit. Distance to satellite is as much as 6,503 km and as little as 2,733 km. Each power plant costs $2 million - half of which is paid with the power order, and half is paid at start up, with financing arranged against the first five year's operation. The three satellites in a sunrise sunset orbit of 2.4 hours duration, support 2,112 ground stations. Selling 795 ground stations at $1 million each, pays for the programme. Early adopters get a larger discount than later adopters. So, instead of $300 per MWh, early adopters get $53 per MWh - later adopters pay more as the programme progresses. All pay $1 million deposit. Those after the first 795 - the balance of 1317 units - pay $300 per MWh. Year Risk Return Number $/MWH 1 $ 37.86 $214.15 91 $ 53.03 2 $ 75.71 $302.86 129 $ 75.00 3 $151.43 $428.30 182 $106.07 4 $302.86 $605.71 257 $150.00 5 $227.14 $321.23 136 $212.13 Total $795.00 $1,872.26 795 A project that started with three satellites launched by a SpaceX Falcon Heavy, could expand to 10 satellites with the second series launched by SLS. The revenue earned by the power satellites would then be used to develop other space based infrastructure going forward. The ground station consists of a 10 meter diameter CPV array that's band gap matched to receive the laser energy created by thin disk lasers at the focal point of the inflatable concentrator. The unit charges 400 kg Lithium Ion battery, that permits the unit to discharge at 700 kW over a 6 hour period. The unit charges at a 700 kW rate over the next 6 hour period, while delivering 700 kW to the unit load - when illuminated. How many power satellites and ground stations can we use? Tesla Motors has a Lithium-ion battery powered auto. Boeing has built an electric airplane. NASA has designed an electrically powered VTOL aircraft. Package delivery has been implemented using VTOL drones. Laser power transmission has been demonstrated. So, we can see this process may be used anywhere. At sea, on land, in the air. For stationary or mobile application. Humanity uses energy at a rate of 17.3 trillion watts. At 493 MW per satellite this is provided by 35,000 satellites. In an orbit with a semi-major axis of 9,104 km this is a spacing of 1.63 km (1 mile) between satellites. In a sunrise sunset orbit the satellites face perpendicular to the orbital plane. Dividing this demand among the three launchers allocating 8,750 for SLS, 8,750 for CZ9 and 17,500 for Falcon Heavy, and dividing this by 20 years - we have one launch every 20 hours for the SLS and CZ9. We have one launch every 10 hours for the Falcon Heavy. NASA charging $500 million for one launch of the SLS every 20 hours generates $220 billion per year. 12.5x NASA's annual budget! This amount of money permits NASA to do significant missions. At $15,000 per kg payload cost, and 130 tonnes - NASA could support the launch of 14,666 tonnes per year - at a rate of one NASA launch every 77.7 hours - while preserving the balance of its budget $17.5 billion - for internal uses. This mass flow rate would allow NASA to return to the moon and do a large number of other deep space missions. China would be energized in a similar vein. SpaceX would be capable of colonizing Mars in a big way. Can a space power company really spend $297.25 million per hour for new primary capacity? (of which $73.10 million per hour is paying for launch costs!) Yes! According to IEA, humanity spends $9.2 trillion per year on primary energy sources to generate $83 trillion per year in economic activity. $6.8 trillion per year is spent looking for new sources of energy. This money is raised in the futures market mostly, where speculative sources of energy are listed and discounted based on risk. This translates to $1,049.50 million per hour of which $775.72 million per hour is generated from futures trading. The first launch using a Falcon Heavy, for example, generates over $2.5 billion gross margin. This is enough to plan for the purchase of 3 more systems. With launch rates starting at one per month, we can book 3 more Falcon Heavy Launches. This generates $7.5 billion. This fills an entire year at one per month. We then turn to China, and begin booking satellites. They launch once every two months, and NASA launches once every two months for us - you can see that in a year we can grow to put up 42 satellites SLS (6 launches) 36 satellites CZ9 36 satellites Falcon Heavy 114 satellites - $2.5 billion margin == $285 billion per year This is enough to support an expansion in the launch rate! Over 20 years with 4% growth rate in energy demand we have 38.3 TW total demand. Increasing launch rate slightly to account for this growth is easily supported by this programme. Once all the power satellites are in place the demand for launch capacity will again shrink to a fraction of the demand over the previous 20 years. Other projects are then contemplated. These include; (1) industrialization of the Moon, Mars and Asteroids, (2) Radical expansion in energy capture in space, (3) Diaspora - massive movement of population off-world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0e2FJmXujA |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SLS searching for missions to solve flight rate dilemma
On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 6:24:53 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote: At $500 million per launch and 130 tonnes per launch this is $3,846 per kg launch costs. China's Long March 9 will be flying by 2016, well before NASA's SLS. http://aviationweek.com/awin/chinese...xceed-saturn-v It will cost $125 million per launch, 1/4 NASA's price, and put the 112 tonnes into LEO. It will have a higher flight rate, and less problems in dealing with NASA politics as well. At least according to some experts. Yeah, it's much easier to keep costs down when you have slave labor. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden Clueless as always! http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonch...nt-on-the-u-s/ According to Forbes the US imports $272 billion more from China than the US exports to China. That's old data. Current data, despite the spin by Forbes, shows that in 2013 the US imported more than $440 billion from China against America's $112 billion in exports. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html So, who's benefiting from slave labour? http://uproxx.com/technology/2012/01...e-labor-camps/ It isn't aerospace. Aerospace sales is less than $1 billion according to Forbes http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/24/...logy_7UIR.html Aerospace is growing strongly. They're attracting top talent by offering a great lifestyle. For this reason, most of the folks who work in the aerospace sector are very highly paid by Chinese standards. The average salary in China is less than $5,000 per year. The average aerospace worker gets nearly 20x that $90,000 per year. Its not the labour rates that determine costs of large capital equipment items, like rockets, its the cost of capital and the utilization of those people and that capital that reduce costs. Imagine a worker making $120,000 per year in California, working on a $10 million piece of equipment to create items that support one rocket launch every six months. The company pays 6.25% interest over 7 year term on the equipment. That's $903,650 per launch as payment for the equipment. Maintenance and operating expense is 2% of the equipment price per year - $200,000 - adding another $100,000 per launch. The person's salary is $120,000 per year - $60,000 per launch. In California, there's another $40,000 per launch in legal expenses to comply with all the regulations. So we have CAPEX: $903,650 OPEX: $100,000 Salary: $100,000 $1,103,650 per launch - Total cost of sales. In China you have six launches per year. You are paying your technician $90,000 per year - 20x local wages - which is less than you pay in California, but in terms of buying power, $90,000 buys a helluva lot more in China than $120,000 buys in California for that worker. http://shanghai.lps-china.com/en http://www.china-entrepreneurship.com/ Dividing $90,000 per year by 6 launches per year obtains $15,000 per launch for salary costs. Because of Chinese business friendly attitudes, only $2,500 per year is needed to keep that employee and that operation legal in China. Also, you've got a far better deal from Chinese banks than from US banks. This support by the banking sector is the real reason China kicks ass today.. You can finance the same $10 million piece of equipment at 2% over 20 years in China. (Even from the same bank the terms are different!) This reduces your cost to $101,930 per launch across six launches per year. Because of relaxed environmental and work rule regulation in China relative to California, operating expense of the equipment is reduced $50,000 per year, to $150,000 per year from $200,000 reducing that cost to $25,000 per launch for this employee. CAPEX: $101,930 OPEX: $ 25,000 Salary: $ 15,420 $142,350 per launch - Total cost of sales. About 12.9% of the cost in California. This is due primarily to lower interest rates and longer terms of investment, partly due to a slightly lower labor rate, but a person earning $90,000 per year in China is far richer than a person earning $125,000 per year in California. There are also reduced regulatory costs and increased launch rate because of improved infrastructure and government commitment, also play a role. The interesting fact is that China charging 1/4 the cost of NASA, still makes nearly 100% margin on the sale of the rocket, while NASA barely breaks even! We peak after three years at one launch every 20 hours. That is 438 launches per year. At $125 million per launch that's $54.75 billion per year. Only a small fraction of what America already imports. This puts up 1.38 trillion watts of power satellites per year. China is by far the largest importer of energy in the world and will be the largest buyer of new energy sources. http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ch 1.38 billion kW x 8766 hours per year translate to 12.907 trillion kWh per year of generation. Sold to China at $0.03 per kWh this is $363 billion per year. The first year alone radically reduces US imports, assuming the company selling the power is US based. By year two, trade balance is achieved. By year three, the US dollar begins to rise out of the doldrums, and take the Eurozone with it! Meanwhile, new sources of pollution free low cost energy freely available throughout China, vitalize an already growing economy, and raise wage rates, and help the Chinese government carry out its long term plan of consuming products it makes in China in China, whilst exporting lower wage jobs to places like India and Africa. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Three Body Dilemma | Kevin Barry | Misc | 0 | February 25th 14 01:44 AM |
a first rate, second-rate composer | Mike | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | March 16th 05 11:08 AM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 05:28 PM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Policy | 82 | March 24th 04 05:28 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 04:28 AM |