“VASIMR is an example where the lack of a practical low-mass nuclear reactor makes it totally impractical for the next few decades, so as cool as it might be, this is something that NASA should not be funding. Maybe they need to fund development of low-mass nuclear powerplants for general space usage.”

Solar power can be used for lunar cargo tugs that can increase the amount delivered to LLO by 65%, mars cargo tugs, manned NEO mission. You really only need nuclear if you are planning a manned mission to mars and you are using it as the primary means of propulsion otherwise nuclear is not needed.

“Actually, your numbers are high. The numbers for 2008-10 were 3.3B, 3.0B, and 3.3B…I am not saying that the Shuttle was a bargain… It was somewhere in between. We did not need to buy a new set of SSMEs and orbiter with each flight, but the labor man-hours for the TPS and engine overhauls was murder”

In 2008 the shuttle program was beginning to shut down hence the lower numbers. In 2009 no new tanks were started as building the ET has a 2 year lead time. Real number were 4-5 billion in 2006 or 2007.
“There will be a very small (20/year) LEO tourism market for the next decade.”

Do you mean 20 flights a year (which would double the US launch rate) or 20 tourist a year(which would be a heck of an improvement over the zero tourist a year that launch from Florida). Heck 20 people who are tourist into space would be great? To put 20 people up would require 3 flights of Dragon, CST100, or Dreamchaser and if they shared flights with ISS crew it would take 5.

“enthuiasts overlook is that either way, you still need to get the needed mass up in oribt. For a real manned Mars mission you need 600mT in LEO. If your $100 M EELV puts up 20 mT you need 30 launches, which comes to a whopping $3B, not to mention the delays, logistical nightmares, and on-orbit assembly associated with those 30 launches. In theory, yes, you could do BEO missions with just 20mT launchers, but in reality, it would be totally impractical.”

What logistics nightmare? If most of that mass is propellant and we seem to be able to deliver propellant to the shuttle and most rockets on time. I have yet to see a launch scrubed due to lack of propellant. We launched 15 flights last year in the US as it stands the Russia launched 31.

Lets say you need 600MT for mars(and that is debateable because there are lots of ways to reduce that with some development). Lets say you need 30 flights. If you mars mission only departs once every 2 years (due to launch windows) then that comes to 15 flights a year or about 1.25 launches a month. The US and Russia in past years have launched more than that and note unlike the ISS and the shuttle the propellant does not need to be on the same system(i.e. Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9) can all launch the propellant.

“The biggest problem with NASA is that we keep re-fighting the same battles, over and over, without anything ever being resolved.”

nope the biggest problem with NASA right now is that it cannot execute a single program on time or on budget or even close. It is a dysfunctional group that is bordering on incompetence.

See the latest space shuttle launch attempt.

Robert G. Oler

I agree with your three numbered points above and I observe they are entirely compatible with my preferred policy and do not require an HLV.

There will not be any major new, booming commercial space markets over the next 20 years. Satellites are and will continue to be stangant.

Probably, but you never know what lower launch prices will do. Then again, the typical payload costs a lot more than the launch, so the effect of lower launch costs even if it did materialise might not be very strong.

There will be a very small (20/year) LEO tourism market for the next decade.

I’ll be thrilled if this happens. I’ll be happy if Bigelow manages to launch that many foreign government funded space tourists, excuse me, I mean astronauts. But with cheap lift we could have hundreds of people going to space each year with their own money.

There will not be any commercial market for BEO space, other than perhaps one or two round-the-moon tourist flights.

With cheap lift I think we would see several. Even without cryogenic depots, although I think it is unlikely there would be a period in which we already had RLVs but no cryogenic depots and certainly not a long period.

The problem that space depo enthuiasts overlook is that either way, you still need to get the needed mass up in oribt. For a real manned Mars mission you need 600mT in LEO.

No, they don’t overlook this at all. 600mT every three years is well within the capacity of existing EELVs. Both were designed for 20-30 launches a year. The reason we don’t have that many launches is not that the launch vehicles are incapable of supporting them, but that there aren’t enough payloads. An exploration program could change all that.

If your $100 M EELV puts up 20 mT you need 30 launches, which comes to a whopping $3B,

So cost/kg is what matters (including amortisation of R&D costs), which is something that is best left to the market. If ULA determines they can offer lower cost/kg with a larger vehicle, gain a larger market share and make enough money doing that to recoup the necessary investment, then they could proceed with EELV Phase 1 and/or 2. If you are wrong about the cost-efficiency of an HLV, then the market would find that out too. And remember that RLVs promise a reduction of launch costs (and with competition also prices) by a factor of 10 or more.

not to mention the delays, logistical nightmares, and on-orbit assembly associated with those 30 launches. In theory, yes, you could do BEO missions with just 20mT launchers, but in reality, it would be totally impractical.

Unsupported rhetoric. Just ISS support (and Salyut/Mir support before that) proves you wrong. But more importantly, terrestrial logistics proves you wrong. Skyscrapers are built out of pieces smaller than 20mT. An EELV fairing is much larger than a standard international shipping container.

Much more knowledgable people like Wayne Hale (who now carries the commercial space banner) also point out that getting the launch windows right for use of LEO fuel depot would be VERY challenging.

1. Wayne Hale isn’t one of the good guys. For decades he and his colleagues obstructed progress. Now that the Shuttle program is ending, now that his pension is safe, now that commercial crew is finally getting funding and might have a need for consultancy or at least the PR advantage of consultancy from old NASA hands, he is jumping ship.
2. He is utterly wrong about the launch windows as I explained at length in a different post. And he cannot plead ignorance since there are NASA studies that prove him wrong.

“For a real manned Mars mission you need 600mT in LEO.”

You keep quoting this number, but do you have any idea where it came from, or what it represents? And how would you assumptions change if this number was only 300mt?

“If your $100 M EELV puts up 20 mT you need 30 launches, which comes to a whopping $3B”

Two points:

1. If you buy 30 launches, you get a BIG discount, not to mention you’ll likely be spreading around the launches to more than one provider.

2. Just to keep things in perspective, “a whopping $3B” is less than the price of finishing the MPCV, and about the cost of two Shuttle flights (only 45mt). Doesn’t sound so big anymore, huh.

“I do not fault your intentions. I do, however, take issue with the accuracy of some of your expectations:”

And yet you drink the kool-aid of those that say HLV’s are necessary for exploration, when many have shown you that they aren’t. You can’t even predict when HLV sized payloads will be funded by Congress, or when they will fly. Who has foolish expectations?

Certainly you can look back in time and see predictions that were not met, but I think if you examine those predictions:

1) They were made by people that were not stakeholders for the events they were predicting, and;

2) They were repeated and believed without being questioned.

As Reagan used to like to say, “trust, but verify”. Or to make it relevant to you, check the kool-aid before you drink it…

My, from all the posts I see, someone must have loaded up on a lot of caffeine…

“My concern is that anything that NASA does, no matter how fiscally responsible…”

Fiscal responsibility, I think, can be determined by looking at what you paid compared to the alternatives, and whether something was truly needed or was a “nice to have”.

“…will be made to appear scandalously overexpensive by dividing the development budget by a tiny number of launches.”

Until you define a need for something, then building a small number is going to incur the full R&D and startup costs. There is no way to get around that Nelson, unless you’re cooking the books. Where else can you assign the costs?

The solution is to either; A) accept that you will have high costs, or B) increase the amount of units you’re going to need.

But if we’re talking about the SLS, then so far it has ZERO defined need. ZERO. When will Congress finally fund a mission or payload for the SLS, and how many will it need? That’s the real problem you’re having, isn’t it?

“Anyway a capsule is perfect for transport esp. deep space. It could be from the earth to a space station or larger space craft.”

I think a capsule is a serviceable way to travel for a few days, but rather limiting. And for exploration, NASA wants to build the Nautilus-X, so crew capsules will be relegated to lifeboat/CRV status.

With the MPCV you’re pretty much limited to out and back, and then the capsule portion could be refurbished for another trip. However each trip is throwing away 10,000 kg of spacecraft (SM & LAS), and the MPCV only carries four people.

I would think a better combination would be commercial crew to LEO, and then transfer to a dedicated shuttle that goes between LEO & L1. Depending on fuel availability issues and technology developments, the shuttle could use either propulsive slowing or aerocapture to re-enter LEO. The shuttle could be a crew cabin along the lines of Tranquility/Node 3 on the ISS, with a service module for power & propulsion, and fueled by tankers from Earth (or later the Moon). Something like this would cost a lot less that the MPCV after just a couple of flights.

Well the exploration needed was not well defined to begin with. Congress basically want something general purpose that can do LEO and deep space exploration. Think the shuttle but for deep space. The problem is capsules really are not general purpose crafts. They are good at transporting people to and from a station or to and from say lunar orbit. They are crew transfer vehicles. Anyway if you look at the HEFT report NASA wishes to build a deep space habitat for those missions as well as an in space craft called a space exploration vehicle that is sorta like the work bee on star trek. Orion, hab, and SEV would do the mission.

Anyway a capsule is perfect for transport esp. deep space. It could be from the earth to a space station or larger space craft.

In theory you could do without a capsule say for the LEO to L1(or other location) leg but having one allows you to abort to earth if needed. Lets say a crew member gets ill. If your spacecraft needs to dock with another spacecraft to send you back to earth there is going to be delay(and possible complications). If your spacecraft has the ability to renter and land you can land somewhere(it just may be a matter of getting a rescue team to the location). Also the Earth or LEO to L1/L2 leg is short enough that being in a capsule is not a huge problem(i.e. 6 days or so).

One way to handle this leg would be a spacecraft like Orion and then evolve from there. Say a mark II that is partially or fully reusable(or replace with dragon) and then if you can get cheap propellant up and get it cheaply out to l1 then evolve again into say an LEO to L1 transfer craft with built in abort capability.

One of Orion’s problems is that lunar/deep space requirements tend to drive the amount of mass the mission needs up while ares 1 was unable to lift much and top it off with trying to create an Apollo 2.0 that was very different in use than Apollo 1.0. I think it is worth saving but yes it is a mess.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/space-architecture/