One of the most bizarre aspects of contemporary space policy is the degree to which the policy establishment has completely thrown in the towel on reducing the cost of access to orbit, as exemplified by the Senate Launch System. Stewart Money lays out the technical issues on the off chance that the community will come to its senses and decide that this is an important goal.
9 thoughts on “Solving The Real Problem”
Comments are closed.
Rand,
Yahoo! just published an article by me concerning the SLS and the sham behind it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7858828/senators_crippling_nasa.html?cat=9
Can someone point me to a source where I can learn, for myself, the breakdown of where the money goes on a “typical” expendable launch? Say an Atlas or Delta launch of some low earth orbit satellite (i.e. no upper stages to get you to geosynch)?
I have read, for example, that a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of rocket fuel. So the gas costs are not the major factor. Exclude payload costs.
A breakdown of things like:
Costs of the structure and engines you throw away
Costs of the manpower to launch the thing
Any repair costs of the pad after you use it
Fuel costs.
Thanks.
The article does suggest how to do heavy launch cheaply – if it is desired. Use a very large SSTO tank and place small engine modules on the base that can be returned to Earth for reuse by a separate small reusable launch vehicle.
Leave the large tanks of the HLV SSTO in orbit and use them for large habitat modules, propellant depots or whatever. You get a fully reusable HLV for the development cost of an ELV plus small RLV (perhaps same engines for both). And you effectively get a small RLV, and the more sensitive payloads it might deliver, for free.
If the shuttle had been used in conjunction with a HLV in this manner, it would have effectively launched an extra ~5000 ton into LEO and reduced payload launch costs by near a third. As it was, that unused down mass capability (reusability) was all wasted.
The only thing this shows is the NASA Centric focus of space advocates.
Why should NASA lower launch costs? Its need for launch services, even for HSF is minimal and ALWAYS will be. The number of launches needed for science is less than for national defense or commerce and always will be. Yet its all space advocates seem to think about…
Now the USAF on the other DOES need rapid, reliable and inexpensive launch and lots of it. And it is taking the steps to build the systems to provide.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2011/03/22/air-force-launches-250m-reusable.html?ana=yfcpc
Air Force launches $250M reusable booster initiative
Dayton Business Journal
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 12:46pm EDT
Once again, forget about NASA. Its not in the critical path to low cost access to space and never will be.
I would agree that most gave up on NASA a decade or more ago. It is nice to see the space industry and other government departments at last filling the vacuum that NASA left behind. Without anything to show for themselves, and with current fiscal constraints, I suspect the NASA budget will soon be for the chop, and the last NASA shackles that have kept humanity on Earth will be broken once and for all. Many of the highly capable NASA employees (and contractors) may also be released into the private sector to accomplish great things.
Looks like companies are not waiting on NASA to develop mobile fuel depots.
About time given NASA demonstrated this idea on one of the Shuttle missions in the 1980’s.
BTW if any one is wondering when it was done, it was on STS-41G Oct 5-13, 1984.
Once upon a time the idea was that the Shuttle would actually be used to refuel satellites in orbit…
About time given NASA demonstrated this idea on one of the Shuttle missions in the 1980′s.
Actually it was the Soviet Union that demonstrated it with Salyut 6 in 1978. And that was the beginning of a refueling capability that has continued to this day and is crucial for the operation of the ISS. This is far more impressive than a one-off Shuttle experiment. Another example of NASA not leading the way. And another example of advocates of the status quo bending the facts to make NASA look better. NASA has been the biggest obstacle to development of refueling technology in the US and it is totally misleading to suggest they were in any sense leading the way. But please don’t let mere facts get in the way of your advocacy.