NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:29:32 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I think they're simply biting the bullet to put an end to the chicken
vs. egg syndrome. "We'd build a big payload if we had a big rocket"
versus "we'd build a big rocket if we had a big payload." They're
assuming funding for an actual payload will come along later. "If you
build it, they will come." In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with
flying an Orion and an MPLM on the same flight... we're still going to
be short on uplift to the ISS, even if Dragon and Cygnus meet their
goals (big if.)

Does this sound a lot like the Shuttle?

No. Shuttle was intended to handle an existing market of payloads
launched on Atlas, Delta and Titan, which would then be phased-out
(Atlas and Delta indeed were, only to be put back into production.)
There was already a market for Shuttle launches (just not enough to
justify the high-cost Shuttle.) This was in the pre-Ariane era,
remember. The US was launching the rest of the free world's payloads,
too.

But the government isn't forcing anyone else to use SD-HLV, which has
the objective of enabling future BEO exploration (whether SD-HLV is
the right way to do so is another matter). However, I wouldn't be at
all surprised if the DoD does express interest in a launch or two once
SD-HLV moves from paper to real world.

Brian

On 09/17/2010 05:44 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:29:32 -0800, Pat
wrote:

I think they're simply biting the bullet to put an end to the chicken
vs. egg syndrome. "We'd build a big payload if we had a big rocket"
versus "we'd build a big rocket if we had a big payload." They're
assuming funding for an actual payload will come along later. "If you
build it, they will come." In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with
flying an Orion and an MPLM on the same flight... we're still going to
be short on uplift to the ISS, even if Dragon and Cygnus meet their
goals (big if.)

Does this sound a lot like the Shuttle?

No. Shuttle was intended to handle an existing market of payloads
launched on Atlas, Delta and Titan, which would then be phased-out
(Atlas and Delta indeed were, only to be put back into production.)
There was already a market for Shuttle launches (just not enough to
justify the high-cost Shuttle.) This was in the pre-Ariane era,
remember. The US was launching the rest of the free world's payloads,
too.

But the government isn't forcing anyone else to use SD-HLV, which has
the objective of enabling future BEO exploration (whether SD-HLV is
the right way to do so is another matter).

Right. Or expressed another way, it's not "If you build it, they will
come", it's "If you build it, you can go."

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
On 09/17/2010 05:44 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
But the government isn't forcing anyone else to use SD-HLV, which has
the objective of enabling future BEO exploration (whether SD-HLV is
the right way to do so is another matter).

Right. Or expressed another way, it's not "If you build it, they will
come", it's "If you build it, you can go."

But without a clear mission, it looks more to me like "We built it and
now it sits and rusts." Just like NERVA, which was another canceled program
that more or less marched along to this same philosophy back in the 60s.

As for commercial payload; if launch costs are not competitive against EELVs
for given payloads I don't see anyone rushing to jump on the Direct bandwagon.
There may be the occasional super heavy DOD payload that could come along, but
DOD like everyone else is also budget driven. If I can get my payload up for a
fraction of what SD-HLV will cost and I don't need HLV, what is to be gained?
In fact if I'm budget constrained I'm going to probably make sure my payload
and payload build out strategy keeps me on the lower cost launcher pathway.

NASA needs to sharpen their pencils a bit and look beyond just the cool idea
that one can build a rocket from shuttle parts. Direct is a cool idea, I've
always believed that. But the devil is in the details and in this case those
details are what the real operational costs are as compared to EELVs. Is
SD-HLV really providing something unique in the market that will have
customers lining up? Or is it just another jobs and pork program that will
have nowhere to go after the metal is bent and a few demonstrators launched?
Where is the compelling mission? Or better yet, where is the compelling
partnership?

Dave

On 09/18/2010 12:17 AM, David Spain wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
On 09/17/2010 05:44 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
But the government isn't forcing anyone else to use SD-HLV, which has
the objective of enabling future BEO exploration (whether SD-HLV is
the right way to do so is another matter).

Right. Or expressed another way, it's not "If you build it, they will
come", it's "If you build it, you can go."

But without a clear mission, it looks more to me like "We built it and
now it sits and rusts." Just like NERVA, which was another canceled
program that more or less marched along to this same philosophy back in
the 60s.

As for commercial payload; if launch costs are not competitive against
EELVs for given payloads I don't see anyone rushing to jump on the
Direct bandwagon. There may be the occasional super heavy DOD payload
that could come along, but DOD like everyone else is also budget driven.

NASA is not seeking commercial payloads for HLV, nor is it seeking DoD
payloads.

NASA needs to sharpen their pencils a bit and look beyond just the cool
idea that one can build a rocket from shuttle parts. Direct is a cool
idea, I've always believed that. But the devil is in the details and in
this case those details are what the real operational costs are as
compared to EELVs. Is SD-HLV really providing something unique in the
market that will have customers lining up?

It will provide beyond-LEO human spaceflight capability for its sole
customer, NASA, per the direction of the Senate bill.

On 9/17/2010 9:17 PM, David Spain wrote:

But without a clear mission, it looks more to me like "We built it and
now it sits and rusts." Just like NERVA, which was another canceled
program that more or less marched along to this same philosophy back in
the 60s.

The only two things you need something that large for is a manned Moon
mission or building a new space station.
I expect this to go the way of all recent NASA projects; they'll spend a
lot of money on it and then cancel it before it flies.

Pat

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:17:54 -0400, David Spain
wrote:

Right. Or expressed another way, it's not "If you build it, they will
come", it's "If you build it, you can go."

But without a clear mission, it looks more to me like "We built it and
now it sits and rusts." Just like NERVA, which was another canceled program
that more or less marched along to this same philosophy back in the 60s.

No, not like NERVA which only had one application (manned flights to
Mars.) SD-HLV in its basic form will launch Orion to the Space
Station, a mission which will exist until at least 2020, and now there
is talk of 2027. The minimum SD-HLV design can easily accomodate an
Orion and an MPLM (or some sort of out-sized cargo carrier) on the
same flight, and I suspect that's what we'll see for the first five
years or so, along with a possible Hubble mission and maybe something
that the DoD wants to launch.

As for commercial payload;

No one is even discussing the possibility of commercial payloads for
SD-HLV. The only thing quasi-commercial being considered at all (and
that's just "what if?") is a Space Solar Power demonstration, and even
that would be NASA/DoE/industry, not a traditional space customer.

NASA needs to sharpen their pencils a bit and look beyond just the cool idea
that one can build a rocket from shuttle parts. Direct is a cool idea, I've
always believed that. But the devil is in the details and in this case those
details are what the real operational costs are as compared to EELVs.

Well, Atlas V anyway. This week, NASA placed a huge order for space
lift with almost every US rocket out there... except Delta IV. Delta
IV-Heavy is probably more expensive per pound than DIRECT would be if
DIRECT flies at least twice a year. Atlas V depends on Russian engines
and is questionable for 'national prestige' missions (DoD gets away
with it, but DoD launches don't make the front pages of newspapers and
don't get angry letters from voters about depending on the 'can't
trust them' Reds.) So we could either build a new American Kerolox
engine (which the President wants to do) or just use what we already
have, SSME and SRB, which the Senate wants to do.

Is SD-HLV really providing something unique in the market that will have
customers lining up?

No, but it makes Moon, Asteroids and Mars more practical. We could do
the same with EELV and Propellant Depots, but that would be more
complicated and might meet resistance from DoD, which doesnt' mind
NASA using an Atlas now and then, but ten Atlases a year is another
matter.

Or is it just another jobs and pork program that will
have nowhere to go after the metal is bent and a few demonstrators launched?
Where is the compelling mission? Or better yet, where is the compelling
partnership?

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. So they're building the launcher first, which does
seem to make sense in a cart/horse sorta way, although it does leave
them vulnerable to cancellation because the payload for it hasn't been
authorized yet. But with the President promoting asteroids in the
2020s and the House still wanting to go back to the Moon, its not
ridiculous for NASA to move forward with the launch vehicle now, while
we already have a successful large launch vehicle infrastructure in
place, instead of waiting until 2015 under the President's plan.

Brian

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:34:32 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:


The only two things you need something that large for is a manned Moon
mission or building a new space station.
I expect this to go the way of all recent NASA projects; they'll spend a
lot of money on it and then cancel it before it flies.

That's a distinct possibility, but remember that the President has
openly called for manned missions to Near Earth Asteroids and that the
Senate and House both still want the Constellation "Moon/Mars/Beyond"
architecture. So I don't think the situation is quite as grim as you
think.

Brian

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.

So they're building the launcher first, which does
seem to make sense in a cart/horse sorta way, although it does leave
them vulnerable to cancellation because the payload for it hasn't been
authorized yet.

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.

Dave

[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. Only if you're defining a mission of ISS
expansion or building a new space station, or a moon base, or Mars space craft
or maybe a crewed interplanetary cycler craft of some type.

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 9/18/2010 8:13 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

No, not like NERVA which only had one application (manned flights to
Mars.) SD-HLV in its basic form will launch Orion to the Space
Station, a mission which will exist until at least 2020, and now there
is talk of 2027. The minimum SD-HLV design can easily accomodate an
Orion and an MPLM (or some sort of out-sized cargo carrier) on the
same flight

That's unnecessary; Dragon can carry crews and cargo to the station, as
well as the ESA's ATV, JAXA's HTV, and Russia's Progress for cargo only.
The need for Shuttle-sized payloads was important while building the
ISS, but not to sustain it.

Pat