50 Years of Progress in Launcher Design

[Skipjack]

NASA does not seem to be too happy with Boeings commitment to this either:

http://www.aviationnow.com/Article.aspx ... 498001.xml

It's the size of the projects. They are too large for any company to take the risk involved. What you don't get is, that no company would take the risks you're assuming they would.

So why was SpaceX able to do it? Why? Why can Sierra Nevada do it? Why can Blue Origin do it? Even Boeing (even though reluctantly) is doing it. And even ATK at least pretended that they could do Liberty which is almost the same as AresI (which was a much more expensive cost plus contract).
Besides, I thought that the SLS was basically almost ready already. So where is the risk?

Not sure how many times you need to be told the same thing. "Cost plus" serves 3 purposes. First, it removes the risk from the contractor thereby making contractors able to participate when otherwise they could not

I have been running a business for 12 years now. This is nonsense!

This is splitting hairs. You can rage all you like, but Shuttle was much more of an RLV than Grasshopper, which is only a testbed for reusable first stage technology.

No it was not. The shuttle was a refurbishable launchvehicle, not a reusable one. There is a big difference.

Yes, it did. This is trivially obvious. They're paying more than one company to do the same thing.

Which oddly enoguh has cost NASA less than Constellation has to date (that never made it anywhere) or the SLS plus Orion will cost.
That is only one launch vehicle plus a rather underwhelming capsule...
Versus 3 spacecraft and a new launch vehicle and an updated existing LV.
Which is the better value for the money?

[djolds1]

scamjets

Har har. Never heard that one before.

And you should never forget it. That one word encapsulates why the knowledgeable public has turned on NASA. Forty two years of over-promising and under-delivering. Ever since Apollo 13.

Every. Single. Time.

Tho no doubt X-30 did good yeoman's work for the cancelled Aurora project.

I appreciate that you're something of a NASA insider, and have institutional buy-in, but that also blinds you. The cynicism towards NASA is tremendous. Five disappointed scifi buffs in Congress could easily push to have it split into the FAA's Spacelaunch Control Division and the National Areospace Laboratory, leaving NSF et al to contract missions and launcher purchases.

I do hope SLS works, but don't plan on anything beyond Block 1 ever being built. And I do hope Block 1 is being built with that in mind. Giving ATK a jobs-program contract for Nova-class SRBs instead of evolved STS SRBs might be a good idea.

[93143]

Besides, I thought that the SLS was basically almost ready already. So where is the risk?

I'm not sure SLS is a great example. It should be relatively low risk technically, and the companies are big enough to soak it - but it's so high priority that risking program failure with a fixed-price contracting setup or even a cost cap isn't an option. So I can see the government being leery of using fixed-price, especially since they're so new at it in this field.

I have been running a business for 12 years now.

Do your contractors have to routinely invent bleeding-edge technology that has to fly into outer space and work perfectly the first time?

Shuttle was much more of an RLV than Grasshopper, which is only a testbed for reusable first stage technology.

No it was not. The shuttle was a refurbishable launchvehicle, not a reusable one. There is a big difference.

No, there isn't. Any RLV will require some nominal refurbishment before reflight, even if it's just checking the TPS for dings and replacing damaged panels. And I personally doubt (not an expert opinion) that SpaceX is going to get to the SSME Block III level of engine reusability right off the bat, though their engines are simpler and lower pressure, so they'll hopefully get there faster.

The Shuttle was a partially reusable launch vehicle (that should have been stepped to a fully reusable one, like Shuttle II or some such). It was thus more of an RLV than anything SpaceX has ever done.

Your whole argument seems predicated on Grasshopper being an RLV, or at least closer than Shuttle. It's not. It's not even close. It's a testbed to mature technology and retire risk so that SpaceX can build a flyback first stage. Which will give them a partially reusable launch vehicle, like Shuttle but with none of the additional capabilities (and hopefully a lot cheaper). After that they still have to figure out how to get the upper stage back intact...

They're paying more than one company to do the same thing.

Which oddly enoguh has cost NASA less than Constellation has to date (that never made it anywhere) or the SLS plus Orion will cost.
That is only one launch vehicle plus a rather underwhelming capsule...
Versus 3 spacecraft and a new launch vehicle and an updated existing LV.
Which is the better value for the money?

You do realize that's an egregious apples-to-pumpkins comparison, right?

Stay on point. The appropriate comparison is with what it would have cost NASA, with fixed-price contracting, to get one of those ISS servicing spacecraft/LV combos. Say, Falcon/Dragon.

[93143]

I appreciate that you're something of a NASA insider, and have institutional buy-in, but that also blinds you.

I'm an aerospace engineering Ph.D. student in Canada, with no institutional connection to NASA whatsoever. (I have been working on CFD modelling of a launch vehicle main propulsion system... but it has nothing to do with NASA.) My knowledge of NASA's current activities comes from the Internet - nasaspaceflight.com really is an amazing site, and you can learn a lot if you hang out there regularly for a long time and pay attention...

I used to be a disillusioned, anti-Shuttle sort. It's a popular position to take. The details changed my mind - I'm still disillusioned, but in a different way.

I do hope SLS works, but don't plan on anything beyond Block 1 ever being built. And I do hope Block 1 is being built with that in mind.

It seems that it might be. Block 1B replaces the ICPS with a full-size 8.4 m CPS while keeping the 5-seg boosters and four-engine MPS. And NASA is investigating ACES technology for SLS. If the CPS preliminary design evolves into something like a larger ACES, this is basically DIRECT's "Stretched Heavy" roadmap... but of course without STS to lean on for operational expertise and infrastructure commonality during development...

Giving ATK a jobs-program contract for Nova-class SRBs instead of evolved STS SRBs might be a good idea.

Why?

[Skipjack]

but it's so high priority that risking program failure with a fixed-price contracting setup or even a cost cap isn't an option. So I can see the government being leery of using fixed-price, especially since they're so new at it in this field.

The only thing that has priority about the SLS is to make sure that ATK and Boeing keep getting government money, like they used to for the STS.

Do your contractors have to routinely invent bleeding-edge technology that has to fly into outer space and work perfectly the first time?

You know, bleeding edge technology is not just flying into space. Space technology is just like any other technology development. I dont think that developing an RLV is any more complex than developing a modern state of the art airliner. It certainly is not any cheaper.
And why does it have to work perfectly the first time? This is such a stupid pointless attitude! Ever since the shuttle (again) any prototype or test article that is built by or for NASA is expected to work the first time, or it is made into a big drama and a giant failure. I would much rather see the cost lowered and cuts made and instead some test articles wasted. You can learn a lot, even from a failure, maybe more than from a success.

Any RLV will require some nominal refurbishment before reflight, even if it's just checking the TPS for dings and replacing damaged panels

Difference between reusable within a matter of a couple of weeks and refurbishable within months. The shuttle had a standing army of thousands of workers to refurbish it between flights. It was NOT practical.
The DC-X was meant to be reusable within days. I am not sure what SpaceX is planning, but I am sure it wont be that long.

And I personally doubt (not an expert opinion) that SpaceX is going to get to the SSME Block III level of engine reusability right off the bat, though their engines are simpler and lower pressure, so they'll hopefully get there faster.

Well all their engines already have many hours of full thrust tests behind them, when they are used.

The Shuttle was a partially reusable launch vehicle (that should have been stepped to a fully reusable one, like Shuttle II or some such). It was thus more of an RLV than anything SpaceX has ever done.

As I said, for me reusability means that it does NOT need a standing army of thousands of people to fix it up between flights (one way or the other).
But ok, lets say NASA did have an RLV with the shuttle. Then I can still argue that SpaceX has achieved more in regards to RLVs than NASA has within the past 30 years, which is still quite impressive.

Your whole argument seems predicated on Grasshopper being an RLV, or at least closer than Shuttle. It's not. It's not even close. It's a testbed to mature technology and retire risk so that SpaceX can build a flyback first stage. Which will give them a partially reusable launch vehicle, like Shuttle but with none of the additional capabilities (and hopefully a lot cheaper). After that they still have to figure out how to get the upper stage back intact...

My point is that NASA does not even have a reusable first stage. They never even managed to build a prototype of one, or even a test article like the Grasshopper is.
That was my point.
And Grasshopper will (at least from what I understand) be more reusable, because it will require less maintenance than the shuttle. And I just cant call the shuttle reusable. I think it was and is a big mistake to callt he shuttle reusable, because it brought about this whole wrong stigma that RLVs cant be done. It is always used as an example for why it is impossible and I think that has severely harmed LV development in the past 30 years.

Stay on point. The appropriate comparison is with what it would have cost NASA, with fixed-price contracting, to get one of those ISS servicing spacecraft/LV combos. Say, Falcon/Dragon.

Ares1 plus CEV would be a good comparison.
Or lets take a look at what the OSP would have cost NASA, had it been continued...
Lets look at any NASA LV program in the past 30 years and see how much they got for their money...

[Skipjack]

One big problem with Cost plus is that there is little incentive for the companies bidding to keep on schedule and budget. They get their money, whether they deliver something, or not.
Anywhere else in private industry, you have to deliver something for the money you get, or you are in trouble. Only when you work for the government, it seems, there are no such requirements. I call this BS!

[93143]

And why does it have to work perfectly the first time? This is such a stupid pointless attitude! Ever since the shuttle (again) any prototype or test article that is built by or for NASA is expected to work the first time, or it is made into a big drama and a giant failure. I would much rather see the cost lowered and cuts made and instead some test articles wasted. You can learn a lot, even from a failure, maybe more than from a success.

We're not talking about RLVs. The subject was JWST and other unmanned probes. Or did you forget?

But ok, lets say NASA did have an RLV with the shuttle. Then I can still argue that SpaceX has achieved more in regards to RLVs than NASA has within the past 30 years, which is still quite impressive.

Not really. If the government were funding SpaceX's RLV program it would have been defunded after parachute recovery became an abject failure. NASA has never performed as badly as that on an RLV program, though they have sunk considerably more money...

I'd rather NASA tried more things rather than doing mostly paper studies. But for that they'd need funding well above their structural cost. A billion dollars really isn't all that much in aerospace - the Boeing 787 cost roughly as much to develop as the Shuttle did in modern dollars.

And I just cant call the shuttle reusable. I think it was and is a big mistake to callt he shuttle reusable, because it brought about this whole wrong stigma that RLVs cant be done. It is always used as an example for why it is impossible and I think that has severely harmed LV development in the past 30 years.

Or maybe making an RLV really is a lot harder that you think it is. There have been numerous efforts since Shuttle, none of them successful.

NASA could easily have implemented flyback liquid boosters on Shuttle. Several configurations were studied, but of course they were never funded... Flyback boosters are the easy part. The upper stage is the hard part.

Stay on point. The appropriate comparison is with what it would have cost NASA, with fixed-price contracting, to get one of those ISS servicing spacecraft/LV combos. Say, Falcon/Dragon.

Ares1 plus CEV would be a good comparison.
Or lets take a look at what the OSP would have cost NASA, had it been continued...
Lets look at any NASA LV program in the past 30 years and see how much they got for their money...

Stay on point. I said that funding multiple contractors, all else being equal, multiplies the cost by the number of contractors. This was parallel to the argument about cost plus vs. fixed-price, not a part of it.

[Skipjack]

We're not talking about RLVs. The subject was JWST and other unmanned probes. Or did you forget?

It was both... Anyway, same applies there.

Not really.

Yes, really

If the government were funding SpaceX's RLV program it would have been defunded after parachute recovery became an abject failure.

Yes, which is part of the cultural issue that I have a problem with.

NASA has never performed as badly as that on an RLV program, though they have sunk considerably more money...

Yeah, they have never performed AT ALL on an RLV program. With the exception of the shuttle none ever flew!

I'd rather NASA tried more things rather than doing mostly paper studies. But for that they'd need funding well above their structural cost.

Again, a cultural problem. It is very clear that things can be done for considerably less money.

billion dollars really isn't all that much in aerospace

Well it is not that much if you are Boeing, Lockmart or ATK and use Cost Plus contracts. It is worth a lot more at companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada and the use of fixed cost contracts with milestones, as we are seeing right now.

the Boeing 787 cost roughly as much to develop as the Shuttle did in modern dollars.

Strangely enough they didnt need a government cost plus contract to do that...

Or maybe making an RLV really is a lot harder that you think it is. There have been numerous efforts since Shuttle, none of them successful.

Wrong, there have been numerous efforts that failed mainly because of NASA screwing up one way or the other.

NASA could easily have implemented flyback liquid boosters on Shuttle. Several configurations were studied, but of course they were never funded... Flyback boosters are the easy part.

Yeah, because they would not have saved that much money. Refurbishing the Orbiter was the most expensive part of the shuttle. The 50 million USD tank certainly did not help either though. Either way, the liquid fly back boosters were not funded because they would not have reduced the overall cost of the STS that much. It would have still been too expensive.

The upper stage is the hard part.

The upper stage of the F9 will not make the largest part of the cost though. So it really is not that big of a problem. Plus SpaceX wants to reuse the upper stage too, eventually. They are just increasing their envelope incrementally. You know the kind of program that NASA should be doing...

I said that funding multiple contractors, all else being equal, multiplies the cost by the number of contractors.

Which does not matter if the cost of all combined is lower than the cost of a single sole source cost plus contract. Plus you get not just one, but several results. It is a win, win. With CCDev, having multiple very different selections is a big plus. It ensures that US astronauts wont be grounded for years again because of a defect in one of them, like it was the case with the STS.
They can simply use the other(s) meanwhile until the problem is fixed.

[djolds1]

Giving ATK a jobs-program contract for Nova-class SRBs instead of evolved STS SRBs might be a good idea.

Why?

A way to up-gun the throw-weight of SLS Block 1 without a very noticeable redesign of the core liquid-fueled stages. Call it... oh... the STS SRB Safety Upgrade Program. The same game the Navy plays by calling Heavy Missile Cruisers "Destroyers" - which are supposed to be light & cheap escort vessels. The fact that the "Safety Upgraded STS SRBs" are 3x as wide and 2x as tall as the "Pre-Upgrade STS SRBs," and have hellacious thrust, is just a fortunate byproduct of "responsible stewardship" by NASA and ATK, yes?

[93143]

I dunno... I'd prefer to see Dynetics/PWR resurrect the F-1A and use two of them on each booster. Make the boosters as wide and tall as will fit in the VAB and through the doors (your described solids wouldn't), and you should be able to get 130 tonnes without an upper stage. Aerojet's AJ-1000 would be cool too, and higher Isp (if more expensive and less powerful).

Further, you don't have the toxicity problems of the solids, or the explosion hazard at the VAB, or the flight safety issues, or the rest of the logistical issues - boosters in the class you describe would require outright replacement of the crawlers/crawlerways and VAB floor and serious upgrading of the flame trenches, and the propellant would probably have to be cast on site. Also, high thrust is only good to a point; they're already noting acceleration issues with the notional Block 1A (advanced boosters). Furthermore, Nova-class solids tend to exhibit hellacious thrust oscillation, which liquids don't have to deal with...

But if we're actually going to use this thing, I think a full-size EDS is higher priority, followed by (or developed in parallel with) actual spacecraft hardware. The 5-segs are nearly ready and will do well enough for now.

[Skipjack]

Kinda relevant in the discussion:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/docs/IAC-1 ... AStudy.pdf

[djolds1]

I dunno... I'd prefer to see Dynetics/PWR resurrect the F-1A and use two of them on each booster. Make the boosters as wide and tall as will fit in the VAB and through the doors (your described solids wouldn't), and you should be able to get 130 tonnes without an upper stage. Aerojet's AJ-1000 would be cool too, and higher Isp (if more expensive and less powerful).

I'd rather replace the SRBs with liquid strap-ons as well. I simply assume that it will be politically impossible absent significant political pressure from the executive - pressure that simply isn't there. But a "corporate welfare jobs program" to established-contractor (and established politician funder) ATK twisted into a quiet redesign? That can be done. And my description was notional. But the Nova studies of the early '60s had some very impressive SRBs, well beyond what STS ever used, maxing at the 260 inch solid, IIRC.

Further, you don't have the toxicity problems of the solids, or the explosion hazard at the VAB, or the flight safety issues, or the rest of the logistical issues - boosters in the class you describe would require outright replacement of the crawlers/crawlerways and VAB floor and serious upgrading of the flame trenches, and the propellant would probably have to be cast on site. Also, high thrust is only good to a point; they're already noting acceleration issues with the notional Block 1A (advanced boosters). Furthermore, Nova-class solids tend to exhibit hellacious thrust oscillation, which liquids don't have to deal with...

I'm thinking political tactics here, not optimum hardware. I am assuming that the SLS liquid-fueled core will be "locked" at Block 1, with Block 2 never developed or built. Given that judgment, the only pathway to boost the capacity of Block 1 is a way that is less likely for the politicians to notice. Beefing up the SRBs seems a likely "low visibility" pathway to that end. But to snow the beancounters and keep the contractors quiet, the new design needs to remain a solid with the current manufacturer. There is a reason I called it the "SRB Safety Upgrade Program" upthread - sort of as if the early USAF called the B-52 program the "B-17f program" to get it past Congress.

At that point you present Congress with a fait accompli, you name the first year's heavy missions after the politicians most likely to sabotage the new SRBs, and you dare those pols to NOT put their names in space while smiling at them and praising them.

[GIThruster]

I'm thinking political tactics here, not optimum hardware.

The trouble is, what we need is someone who thinks like a businessman and is committed to the human spaceflight endeavor in general. That would necessarily yield a move to a propellant depot and much higher flight rate of much more and cheaper rockets. I was not exaggerating when I said SLS is slated to spend $40B in 12 years just to launch 4 70T rockets. In 12 years with $40B, SpaceX could launch 1,000 rockets.

Doing what we're doing is stupid and irresponsible.

[Skipjack]

The trouble is, what we need is someone who thinks like a businessman and is committed to the human spaceflight endeavor in general. That would necessarily yield a move to a propellant depot and much higher flight rate of much more and cheaper rockets. I was not exaggerating when I said SLS is slated to spend $40B in 12 years just to launch 4 70T rockets. In 12 years with $40B, SpaceX could launch 1,000 rockets.

Doing what we're doing is stupid and irresponsible.

Quoted for 100% agreement!

[kunkmiester]

Part of the depot thing is orbital replenishment in general. Any kind of sustained effort beyond LEO can't be killing a launcher stack on a one way ship like Apollo did. If you're gonna reuse a ship of any kind eventually, you'll eventually need to develop the technologies and techniques for transferring fuel and supplies to ships permanently in orbit.

Considering that sustained effort will require depots, how long do you wait before investing in them? Start now and you end up with a fairly mature technology when you really get busy with it.