OSP requirements

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
With currently planned EELV launch rates averaging only 2
per year per vehicle and with neither EELV agressively
competing for commercial launches, an all-new launch pad
is the last thing NASA needs to pour money into, IMO.

The EELV launch rate will go up. The current doldrums are just an interlude.
Everything - a new pad (actually, two new pads - one Delta , one Atlas),
modified pads, and modifying 39 are all on the table and being traded
vigorously.

When Shuttle is retired, NASA should scrap LC 39 to save
money.

Personally, I don't see 39 coming out on top in this. Making it - and the
integration facility - compatible with two different vehicles is just such a
complex engineering problem.

-Kim-
*my opinions, not my employers'*

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

With currently planned EELV launch rates averaging only 2
per year per vehicle and with neither EELV agressively
competing for commercial launches, an all-new launch pad
is the last thing NASA needs to pour money into, IMO.
When Shuttle is retired, NASA should scrap LC 39 to save
money.


If we use Delta and Atlas for supplying the station along with launching the
OSP you add 10-25 launches a year.
15 rockets a year for each launcher would be a good jump start.

Dholmes wrote:
"Ian Woollard" wrote in message
...

If this is so, it's still a win to make the vehicle smaller and simply
launch more; since that's a 15% decrease in costs per doubling. However,
I'm not as convinced that this 5-10% decrease is real. Do you have a
reference to this scaling law?

No just comparing rockets a different sizes but it appear consistent and
logical.

As I understand it, apart from minimum gauge and atmospheric drag,
there's no definite reason why larger rockets should be cheaper per kg.

However, there is likely to be an *apparent* decrease in cost with large
rockets as they are invariably scaled up version of previous rockets.
It's institutional learning, simply because it was version B; the
organisation has learnt how to build rockets better. For example, that
seems to be the case with Ariane V.

There where actual design studies to create a module for the cargo bay that
would have carried 75 people.

Yes, but what happens if it crashes? It's bad enough when Columbia or
Challenger crashed. If just one person dies, it's sad, but you don't get
the great upswelling to anything like the same degree. 75 people is a
different ballpark entirely.

75 people just isn't practical with the Shuttle; it's just not reliable
enough; and by the time it could have launched enough to be made
reliable, there would be several hundred dead.

With a single person, you can have an escape tower. With 75, there's no
chance of survival if there is a failure just after takeoff. People are
much less concerned about single deaths, although it would be newsworthy.

The market just is not there to support it.

Only Soyuz have seriously tried, and they have found that there is a market.

Interestingly a 6 man OSP would weight about 20 tons and require a heavy
lift vehicle so it would really use three rockets.
Half the number your 1 man plan uses. So even that increases volume of
rockets just not launches.

The OSP itself would be almost twice as expensive per person though.

By way of contrast the cost of developing a small vehicle is
proportionately lower, and you launch it much more often, so the
amortised cost of the development is far lower. Consider that the far
bigger Shuttle costs have never significantly amortised away; because it
has not, and could not be, launched enough.

"Dholmes" wrote in message .. .
"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

With currently planned EELV launch rates averaging only 2
per year per vehicle and with neither EELV agressively
competing for commercial launches, an all-new launch pad
is the last thing NASA needs to pour money into, IMO.

If we use Delta and Atlas for supplying the station along with launching the
OSP you add 10-25 launches a year.
15 rockets a year for each launcher would be a good jump start.

It would be, but I don't think we'll see it. Since 2000,
inclusive, the combined total of all Atlas, Delta, Titan, and
Shuttle launches have averaged 19.7 launches per year. Delta II
will still be a going concern for awhile, apparently, and it
accounted for 5.7 launches per year during the period. If we
assume that STS flights stop and are replaced by EELV/OSP
missions on a one-for-one basis, we are left with 14 launches
per year. Even if you replace STS on a two-for-one basis
(assuming one crew and one payload flight), the total comes to
only 19.3 launches per year. The best case scenario, then, sees
each EELV flying less than 10 times per year. Each rocket will
have a pad on each coast, so the busiest pad will probably see
no more than 7-8 launches per year. Existing Cape Canaveral
EELV pad capacity is probably about 12 per year.

Keep in mind that the Russians perform all of their manned and
unmanned ISS support launches from a single launch pad. That
pad (Baikonur Area 1) has hosted three Progress, one Soyuz,
and the Mars Express mission so far this year. That's a rate
of 7.5 launches per year - which is about what the busiest
EELV pad will see.

- Ed Kyle

On 29 Aug 2003 12:45:58 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote:

If we use Delta and Atlas for supplying the station along with launching the
OSP you add 10-25 launches a year.
15 rockets a year for each launcher would be a good jump start.

It would be, but I don't think we'll see it. Since 2000,
inclusive, the combined total of all Atlas, Delta, Titan, and
Shuttle launches have averaged 19.7 launches per year.

True, but we are in a space launch doldrums of major proportions right
now. Both the commercial comsat market and the military satellite
launch pace have been markedly slower in the last four or five years,
as ever-longer-lived satellites haven't needed to be replaced. But
that won't be true too much longer. On the military horizon are Block
IIF Navstars (33 satellites) currently scheduled for about one launch
per year beginning in late 2005, that pace will quicken considerably
around the end of the decade as earlier GPS satellites begin needing
replacing. Meanwhile, Block III should begin to join the fleet around
2011. All this means that even without any commercial contracts, EELVs
will start having to really demonstrate rapid pace launches (at least,
a lot quicker than they're flying now) beginning around 2009. Add to
that the prospects of commercial contracts from the inevitable next
wave of major satellite orders in the second half of this decade,
(Atlas V, in particular seems likely to win quite a few, courtesy of
ILS, but its risky to write Boeing off as a lost cause, they've
rebounded from worse times than this before) and the EELV pads can
realistically expect to be quite busy.

And then there is NASA. OSP or US ATV are likely prospects to come
online at precisely the time GPS IIF/III and the comsat surge hits.

At the very least, an additional will be needed for whoever wins
NASA's contracts.

Existing Cape Canaveral
EELV pad capacity is probably about 12 per year.

But OSP and/or US ATV operations will likely monopolize pads too much
for the military and commercial EELV sectors taste.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 29 Aug 2003 12:45:58 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote:

It would be, but I don't think we'll see it. Since 2000,
inclusive, the combined total of all Atlas, Delta, Titan, and
Shuttle launches have averaged 19.7 launches per year.

True, but we are in a space launch doldrums of major proportions right
now. Both the commercial comsat market and the military satellite
launch pace have been markedly slower in the last four or five years,
as ever-longer-lived satellites haven't needed to be replaced. But
that won't be true too much longer. On the military horizon are Block
IIF Navstars (33 satellites) currently scheduled for about one launch

Navstar IIF and later DMSP 5D are manifested on Atlas V 401's and
Delta IVM's. Navstar IIR and earlier DMSP 5D and TIROS-N have about
the same mass as the later s/c and had Delta II or Titan II LV's. I
saw a price quote of $75 million (on spaceflightnow.com) for the Delta
IVM launnch of DSCS B6. IIRC, even a Delta II 7925 isn't price at $75
million. So, are we (the taxpayers) paying more for putting the later
Navstar and DMSP on EELV's than on a Delta II? Or did the Air Force
get a special deal with Boeing and LM on launches with lower mass s/c?

If the latter is the case, then why isn't NASA getting the same deal
for payloads like Phoenix, using an EELV, and ease design constraints
on payload mass growth? Was the Delta IIH for Phoenix already bought
and paid for?

If Delta IVM and Atlas V 401 are really priced the same as a Delta II
7925, then Delta II s/b ending soon. Ok, there are the lower end 7320
launches, but the high end Taurus or Athena gets close to that
capability and I would hazard a guess that they're also cheaper than a
7320.

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
OSP you add 10-25 launches a year.
15 rockets a year for each launcher would be a good jump start.

It would be, but I don't think we'll see it. Since 2000,
inclusive, the combined total of all Atlas, Delta, Titan, and
Shuttle launches have averaged 19.7 launches per year. Delta II
will still be a going concern for awhile, apparently, and it
accounted for 5.7 launches per year during the period. If we
assume that STS flights stop and are replaced by EELV/OSP
missions on a one-for-one basis, we are left with 14 launches
per year. Even if you replace STS on a two-for-one basis
(assuming one crew and one payload flight), the total comes to
only 19.3 launches per year. The best case scenario, then, sees
each EELV flying less than 10 times per year. Each rocket will
have a pad on each coast, so the busiest pad will probably see
no more than 7-8 launches per year. Existing Cape Canaveral
EELV pad capacity is probably about 12 per year.

Delta II seems booked solid for the next several years.
It has no direct competitor in its weight class the closest are 1/2 or twice
its size. The only rocket that is even close is the Delta 4 Lite if it ever
flies.
It has been flying for years so all most of its costs have already been
amortized.
Of all the American rockets right now it seems the safest.

A lot will depend on what method is chosen for shuttle replacement. One for
one is not possible the shuttle carries seven people and 12.5 tons of cargo
to ISS and 25 tons to LEO.

The largest OSP I have seen is 5 people and less the 2 tons of cargo.
On the small size is 3 people and less then 1 ton of cargo.
You also need an ATV to send cargo, experiments and supplies.
In total for 4 shuttle flights, less then the average number you need
almost 6 of the large and 9+ of the small just for people.
There would be some experiments that would need OSP launches as well about 1
large or 3 small.
With an ATV you need to replace about 40 tons based on the lower figures.
Basing this on the Eurpoean design you need a rocket capable of twice the
cargo you want to deliver. You could get by with as few as 4 heavy launches
or as many as 10 smaller ones. If as some have suggested you want to
encourage the growth of the Delta 4 Lite to replace the Delta 2 then you
could add as many as 10 additional flights.

In reality you are talking about just under 3 to as many as 7 flights to
replace a shuttle launch with 4 being the most likely.

There are also 10 medium to heavy American rockets planned over the next
year.

So you have a minimum of 21 launches and a max of 32 while still flying
one to two shuttle mission and absolutly no growth in the market. I could
see 40 by 2010-2020.

"Dholmes" wrote in message news:

Delta II seems booked solid for the next several years.
It has no direct competitor in its weight class the closest are 1/2 or twice
its size. The only rocket that is even close is the Delta 4 Lite if it ever
flies.

The currently available Delta II series itself covers a 2X payload
mass range, i.e., a 7920H has twice the capability of a 7320.

The proposed LM Athena 3 was close to 7320 capability, but it's only a
paper rocket now. There were some posts recently about refurbishing
additional Titan 2 ICBM's which would also cover the 7320 capability.
So there *could* be more than one bidder for new NASA Med-Lite launch
services. Tsyklon, Russian ex-ICBM's, and Vega (which is just paper
at this point) also fit in the range, but they're outside of the US.

I am not sure about this, but it appears to me that Navstar IIF and
DMSP 5D could have used 7925 for launch. Instead, they are using
EELV's. An EELV program goal was to reduce launch cost to less than
50% of heritage LV's, so maybe they have reached that goal and a Delta
4M or Atlas V 401 is as cheap to buy as a 7925. That would allow
phasing out the Delta II 7900 LV's.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:56:17 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

Interestingly a 6 man OSP would weight about 20 tons and require a heavy
lift vehicle so it would really use three rockets.

I think you're over by a factor of two. the Apollo capsule (13,000
lbs) was rated for five crew (SkyLab rescue) six was easily possible,
and nine was an option if they really worked hard at reconfiguring the
cabin. A Service Module for ISS transport will weigh much less than
30,000 lbs. I don't see a capsule OSP variant for six crew being
anywhere near 20 tons.

Brian

Dholmes wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?

I am kind of torn between large and small.

A simple capsule would require over a dozen launches a year giving some
needed volume.

A larger space plane would need only 3 or 4 launches a year but help to
develop heavy lift.

A capsule should be both cheap and quick to develop.

A large space plane while more expensive to develop has better follow on
when a reusable first stage is developed.


Most of those questions are the same ones we asked at the beginning
of shuttle development.

We ended up settling for a system that was (allegedly) cheaper to
develop, but more expensive to operate. Not that NASA didn't want the
TSTO all flyback stage designs that would have been the reverse, but it
soon became clear that Congress wouldn't pony up the higher up-front
costs, and there was much controversy over what the expected traffic
models were most realistic. The more traffic to orbit you expect, the
more a vehicle with lower operating costs (in spite of higher
development costs) make sense.

However, one of the opposing arguments was that a Mars mission would
be one of the projects for which this shuttle would be used for (NASA
would still be only user, after all), and this was a way of pulling the
rug from beneath the idea.

Similarly, you have to ask what an OSP will be used for. Mostly ISS
servicing? Do you dare suggest it might have the capacity of also
supporting another large manned project? (Moon/Mars/Near Earth Asteroid,
take your pick) Some people still don't want to hear that....

And are its payload capacity (volume and weight) and operating costs
such that there might be a commercial interest? NASA has long said it
wants a vehicle that is a convergence of the two. Others say (and I'm
strongly inclined to agree) that the needs are so different that such a
one-size-fits-all convergence may not be possible.