A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 5th 12, 04:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.

Note: redacted newsgroups to only sci.space.policy and sci.space.history

Kuznetz later on in the interview says instead of costing us $2
billion a year, their plan could be making a *profit* of $1.4 billion
a year.


Sounds like a fantasy to me.

One summary comment before I get into details. It seems highly unlikely that
the shuttle (even a fully automated Shuttle-C configuration) would ever likely
compete with the current generation of EELVs and esp. the upcoming generation
of "heavy" version of these, include Falcon 9 Heavy when it comes to putting
payload into LEO, regardless if that payload is cargo or fuel.

You can talk $25,000 / kg or $10,000 / kg but the reality is the heavy
versions of ELVs are shooting for $1000 / kg to LEO which is an entire order
of magnitude lower. To move from LEO to GEO is even less costly. There is no
way shuttle is going to compete with that.

The one unique capacity of shuttle, to return objects from space, no one seems
interested in paying for.

I can only think this must be coming from those alternative income
streams he mentioned that he says could be more profitable than
satellite launching. On another forum someone raised the possibility
of satellite servicing.


I like that idea but mostly in regards to refueling satellites,
especially in GEO. Most communication satellites have to be replaced
not because they stop operating or become obsolete, but simply because
they run out of fuel for station-keeping.


Agreed. But recognize that none of the current generation GEO satellites were
designed for that. You can't just simply rendezvous, dock and insert a hose.

The Air Force put out a request for proposals for spacecraft that
could refuel satellites in GEO. And NASA has plans for doing testing
of the satellite refueling process. If you consider that the larger
GEO communication satellites may cost hundreds of millions of dollars
and the cost to launch them may cost in the range of $100 to $200
million, it becomes clear there would be a substantial market for
refueling satellites in GEO.


If they could benefit from it. They can't. You'd have to attach a separate
'maneuver unit' with that capability.

That the Air Force put out an RFP may mean they are considering it for their
birds or more likely a future generation of birds, but its a huge stretch to
go from what *might* transpire in the military sector to that which currently
exists in the commercial sector.

Satellite Refueling in Orbit, Coming Soon?
By Steve Rousseau
October 17, 2011 5:00 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...it-coming-soon

Space Infrastructure Servicing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_I...ture_Servicing

According to the "Satellite Refueling in Orbit, Coming Soon?" article
a satellite may last 10 to 15 years. According to the "Space
Infrastructure Servicing" wikipedia page, 200 kg of fuel may provide
an additional 2 to 4 years of life. So it might take 100 kg per year
for fuel, and over 10 years would require 1,000 kg.
The cost to get anything to GEO, including this fuel, is in the range
of $20,000 to $25,000 per kg. So for 1,000 kg of fuel to get to GEO
for satellite refueling it would cost perhaps $25 million. But this
would double the life of the satellite since it would again have a
full fuel load for 10 years. So for $25 million you saved the
satellite companies from paying, say, $300 - $500 million, to purchase
and launch a new satellite.


It would be cheaper (by far) to launch an ELV with a fuel container.
(See above).

So even if you charged 4 times the usual price to get to GEO for this
fuel, the satellite companies could still consider this a bargain.
You would need a small reusable servicing spacecraft to launch from
the shuttle payload bay to transport the fuel to GEO. If you use LH2/
LOX propellant for this spacecraft like the Centaur upper stages, then
it takes about the same amount of propellant to get to GEO from LEO,
as the mass of the spacecraft + payload, the payload being the
refueling fuel in this case. The dry mass of the spacecraft is only a
small proportion of the propellant as indicated by the Centaur upper
stage, about 1/10th.
So the 25,000 kg cargo capacity of the shuttle could be made up of
half LH2/LOX propellant for the refueling spacecraft and half the fuel
for the satellites.


The volatility of LH2 makes it unsuitable for long-term station-keeping on a
GEO satellite. In fact cryogenics in general aren't seen.

Wikipedia lists 6 manufacturers of large commercial GEO satellites. Below is a
table that lists them, their major product offerings and what I could find for
what those offerings use for station-keeping and maneuvering fuel.

I've included the links to where I got this info. Took about an hour and a
half of Google'ing, etc. An expert in the field ought to be able to do far better.

Company Methods of propulsion Platforms
------- --------------------- ---------
Thales-Alenia Space[1] Ion-Propulsion using inert gas
Mono-propellant Hydrazine / N2 SpaceBus 3000
Bi-propellant Hydrazine / MON3


Boeing[2] Xenon Ion Propulsion XIPS 702(various), 601HP
Bi-propellant MMH / NTO 601

Lockheed-Martin[3] Electro-thermal / Hydrazine A2100
Bi-propellant various

Astrium[4] Monopropellant (Hydrazine) ?
Bi-Propellant (MMH/NTO)
HET and Ion Thrusters

Space Systems Loral[5] Bi-propellant MMH/NTO LS-1300


[1]
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio...?LangType=2057


[2]
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...xips/xips.html
http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/text/GOES-.../section12.pdf


[3]
http://soliton.ae.gatech.edu/people/..._thrusters.pdf


[4]
http://www.astrium.eads.net/node.php?articleid=2873


[5]
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/down...nt_key=-159315


Dave
  #2  
Old January 5th 12, 04:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.

Sorry that table got messed up, I'll try again:

Company Methods of propulsion Platforms
------- --------------------- ---------
Thales-Alenia Space[1] Ion-Propulsion using inert gas
Mono-propellant Hydrazine / N2 SpaceBus 3000
Bi-propellant Hydrazine / MON3

Boeing[2] Xenon Ion Propulsion XIPS 702(various), 601HP
Bi-propellant MMH / NTO 601

Lockheed-Martin[3] Electro-thermal / Hydrazine A2100
Bi-propellant various

Astrium[4] Monopropellant (Hydrazine) ?
Bi-Propellant (MMH/NTO)
HET and Ion Thrusters

Space Systems Loral[5] Bi-propellant MMH/NTO LS-1300


[1]

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio...?LangType=2057

[2]
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...xips/xips.html
http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/text/GOES-.../section12.pdf


[3]

http://soliton.ae.gatech.edu/people/..._thrusters.pdf

[4]
http://www.astrium.eads.net/node.php?articleid=2873


[5]
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/down...nt_key=-159315

  #3  
Old January 5th 12, 05:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.

On Jan 5, 9:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

far better to launch a indenpendent space tug grapple and have it move
sats and provide station keeping too.


very useful when a new sat ends up in the wrong orbit or a newer sat
has a failure.


And that brings us back to that perennial question: Do you have *ANY*
clue how much fuel it takes to change orbital planes?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson


such tug graples could be put in storage orbits waiting for need, or
be launched into whatever orbit needed for use.

its not like they would all be launched from one location and be
unable to go anywhere. strato launcher would be a ideal launcher.

since most sats would either be in geo sync or on their way there
before failure this would minimize orbital plane changes.

it appears fred speciality is claiming everything is impossible
because it hasnt been done before.

if fred were here before the moon landings he would of claimed they
were impossible too.........

no apollo, no moon landings, heck its impossible
  #4  
Old January 6th 12, 06:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.

fred beleves if its always been this way it always will.......

however the only thing in life thats guaranteed is change.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.