The Standard Model Imploding?

[Skipjack]

re: economies of scale - its a linear programming problem - exact/optimal solutions will depend on the circumstances prevailing - demand, competition, down-time, fuel, etc, etc. but when you got as many rockets going off the pads as ground facilities can cope with, then you start putting up bigger rockets. or some mixed (payload) strategy. depends what you are hauling, and to where.

The problem is that commercial buyers usually dont need super heavy lift rockets. Satellites are usuallly much smaller so they have no use for a huge an hugely expensive heavy lifter (that costs 20 times as much to launch a pound of payload on).
ISS resupply does not need it either, nor do you need it for bringing crew to the ISS.
You would need it if you were planning a mission beyond earth orbit that does not rely on orbital assembly. But there is no money for that many of those. So you end up with a flight every two years (!) with current NASA budget.
It would have made much more sense to invest the NASA money into the development of a low payload (or 4 or so crew) RLV with ISS docking ability than the SLS. But even that seems to be a bad idea considering the history of failures that NASA has had in the past 40 years when it comes to LV development.
The problem is that usually this sort of development takes longer than 4 years at which point new elections come up and projects get cancelled. But not just that, NASA also keeps overrunning their budgets by a lot.
Cost plus contracts and indiotic decisions (e.g. they chose the most ambitious concept for the X33) dont help either.
No, I think it is best if NASA focuses on the payloads and leaves the resupply to the commercials.
The sole reason why the SLS was decided upon was because the senators from Alabama, Utah and several other states wanted to keep the Space Shuttle contracts in place. For this you need a rocket that is very much like the space shuttle and uses the same components. So they drafted a bill and inserted language into it to force NASA to do this.
Most people at NASA dont even want it. They would much rather have commercial crew fully funded with a fleet of commercial suppliers to choose from that will cost only a fraction of the Shuttle or the SLS and with a competition among them to drive costs down and innovation in the future. But with the idiots in the US government (and both parties were at fault there) it is impossible to do. You see republicans have no shame when it comes to pork either. They just hide it better.

[Giorgio]

NASA still means 'Space'.

It does?

When I was a kid NASA was one of the source of inspiration for my love of science, but look how they transformed themselves since the Saturn V program.
They were the humankind door to space, and now they do not even have the ability to send someone up there.
Today's Nasa is just a big milk cow for the politicians of turn and for the various Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop companies...... and this makes me really really really sad.

[Betruger]

We may get a - maybe not dramatic, but - significant enough shift in public perspective once space is accessible enough. The tipping point (which'll probably be more obtuse than "point" sounds like) will be somewhere between millionaire joyride and top middle class prices.

That astronomical paradigm shift from seeing the planet from up there will pay off big time for real, useful taxpayer support. Along with other side effects like inspiring kids to at least grow up as supporters, ideally to grow up as space industry workers.

[rcain]

re: economies of scale - its a linear programming problem - exact/optimal solutions will depend on the circumstances prevailing - demand, competition, down-time, fuel, etc, etc. but when you got as many rockets going off the pads as ground facilities can cope with, then you start putting up bigger rockets. or some mixed (payload) strategy. depends what you are hauling, and to where.

The problem is that commercial buyers usually dont need super heavy lift rockets. Satellites are usuallly much smaller so they have no use for a huge an hugely expensive heavy lifter (that costs 20 times as much to launch a pound of payload on).
...

'... usually...' - yes. 'increasingly'? we will see. (cost/kg as you say, far too high)

ISS resupply does not need it either, nor do you need it for bringing crew to the ISS.
You would need it if you were planning a mission beyond earth orbit that does not rely on orbital assembly. But there is no money for that many of those. So you end up with a flight every two years (!) with current NASA budget.
It would have made much more sense to invest the NASA money into the development of a low payload (or 4 or so crew) RLV with ISS docking ability than the SLS. But even that seems to be a bad idea considering the history of failures that NASA has had in the past 40 years when it comes to LV development.
The problem is that usually this sort of development takes longer than 4 years at which point new elections come up and projects get cancelled. But not just that, NASA also keeps overrunning their budgets by a lot.
Cost plus contracts and indiotic decisions (e.g. they chose the most ambitious concept for the X33) dont help either.
No, I think it is best if NASA focuses on the payloads and leaves the resupply to the commercials.

perhaps. except space assembly and refueling 'refueling depots' - they would justify heavy haulage.

The sole reason why the SLS was decided upon was because the senators from Alabama, Utah and several other states wanted to keep the Space Shuttle contracts in place. For this you need a rocket that is very much like the space shuttle and uses the same components. So they drafted a bill and inserted language into it to force NASA to do this.

i don't doubt it. jobs, jobs, jobs, gentlemen. and stocks, obviously.

Most people at NASA dont even want it. They would much rather have commercial crew fully funded with a fleet of commercial suppliers to choose from that will cost only a fraction of the Shuttle or the SLS and with a competition among them to drive costs down and innovation in the future. But with the idiots in the US government (and both parties were at fault there) it is impossible to do. You see republicans have no shame when it comes to pork either. They just hide it better.

i can appreciate that, if it is indeed the case.

more important perhaps, than what NASA think then, where do Boeing and the other big 'subies' think the future lies? and are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

[rcain]

NASA still means 'Space'.

It does?

When I was a kid NASA was one of the source of inspiration for my love of science, but look how they transformed themselves since the Saturn V program.
They were the humankind door to space, and now they do not even have the ability to send someone up there.
Today's Nasa is just a big milk cow for the politicians of turn and for the various Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop companies...... and this makes me really really really sad.

it is indeed, very sad, that it makes you sad. but supposedly, it is not a crime to be poor. and America are poor, at the present time. like most of us in the west at present. allegedly.

personally, i am in favor of balloon (and perhaps glider/kite) assisted launches. apparently someone has already recommended that to NASA already - http://space-academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008 ... ch-system/ - here are some more fun attempts here - http://www.jpaerospace.com/ .

visualising it - kevlar tethering cables (2-3km worth?), wound round circular tracks by buggies, feeding though inverted suspension bridge trusses, after which cables go up into sky and disappear.

at the other end of the cables, suspended high in the atmosphere - a complete, docking/launching/capture port. quite big and functional. about the area of a football field.

its held up in the sky, by an of array if 'autonomous' gliders-come-hydrogen-balloons. some sort of 'deflatable'/'reformable' constructions/machines.

suspended underneath which/sat on top of that - a rocket plane, something like Bransom's, only better.

lots of safety features. various landing/crashing zones.

protocols and energy balance, etc, etc all to think through.

any takers?

[rcain]

ps. apologies for the drift.

[Skipjack]

more important perhaps, than what NASA think then, where do Boeing and the other big 'subies' think the future lies? and are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Well Boeing is already knee deep in it with the CST 100 commercial crew capsule that is one of the contenders for commercial crew and will also bring crew to Bigelows inflatable space stations.
Lockheed is behind the AtlasV which would be the launcher for initially 3 of the 4 manned space craft (SNC Dreamchaser, Blue Origin capsule and CST 100). Later B.O.'s capsule will launch using their own reusable booster system.
So the old space companies are already in the game...
As it seems, the Senate is already working again on torpedoing the commercials though and a growing private space industry might get suffocated in its infancy if certain senators (mostly republicans and a couple of democrats) have their way.
First, they are trying to cut the few millions for commercial crew to direct more funding to the many billions for the SLS and to make sure that there is no NASA funded competition for their pet, paper rocket (because that thing wont fly for a looong time if ever, but that is never the plan anyway as long as the funds keep going).
Second, they are manipulating the public and the other lawmakers by rigging commitees and hearings by only inviting those speaking for their cause, AKA the pork for their favorite (defense) lobbyists.
Third, they are currently trying to delay the FAA approval of the new commercial rockets by signifficantly cutting the funding for the FAA (which is only peanuts anyway, but it is a politcal play going on here, nothing else). So even if they make it without NASA funding, they will be held back for many costly years because of a backlog in an underfunded and understaffed FAA.
These politicians are a very shady bunch and IMHO no patriots!

[rcain]

more important perhaps, than what NASA think then, where do Boeing and the other big 'subies' think the future lies? and are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Well Boeing is already knee deep in it with the CST 100 commercial crew capsule that is one of the contenders for commercial crew and will also bring crew to Bigelows inflatable space stations.
Lockheed is behind the AtlasV which would be the launcher for initially 3 of the 4 manned space craft (SNC Dreamchaser, Blue Origin capsule and CST 100). Later B.O.'s capsule will launch using their own reusable booster system.
So the old space companies are already in the game...

that is interesting.

i do not know much about the comparative metrics of all these vehicles, compared to the SLS. do you have any?

it would seem to me, you are saying either:

the SLS already has a competitor that outclasses it. esp. for heavy lifting capability. (max Kg, $/Kg, max $).

or

the SLS is simply at the top of the table for max lift, but the bottom for cost-per-lift (and total cost).

or both.

if it is the former, then they haven't a chance.

if it is the latter, a smart thing to do, to me, would be to sit on it a while. a 'go-slow' /lean-holding pattern).

if/when one of the other big manufacturers shows signs of wanting to venture into that capability region, NASA either
a) sell's off its existing expertise and technology to the highest bidder,
or
b) kicks off its own 'revised' program to market, (hopefully with some of the previous loss written-off and buried - [edit] a'la Concord[/edit]).
or both

[Betruger]

NASA still means 'Space'.

It does?

When I was a kid NASA was one of the source of inspiration for my love of science, but look how they transformed themselves since the Saturn V program.
They were the humankind door to space, and now they do not even have the ability to send someone up there.
Today's Nasa is just a big milk cow for the politicians of turn and for the various Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop companies...... and this makes me really really really sad.

personally, i am in favor of balloon (and perhaps glider/kite) assisted launches. apparently someone has already recommended that to NASA already - http://space-academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008 ... ch-system/ - here are some more fun attempts here - http://www.jpaerospace.com/ .

any takers?

It gets written off quickly by the pros at NSF.

[ladajo]

The navy did this years ago in support of NASA and the moon program down in Antartica. They had a funny name for it, I can't remember off the top of my head. Have to look it up.

[ladajo]

Rockoons

[rcain]

'Rockoons' - kool. seems like a while since we tried them out.

from wiki:

...
TIME magazine reported in 1959: "Van Allen's 'Rockoons' could not be fired in Iowa for fear that the spent rockets would strike an Iowan or his house." So Van Allen convinced the U.S. Coast Guard to let him fire his rockoons from the icebreaker Eastwind that was bound for Greenland. "The first balloon rose properly to 70,000 ft., but the rocket hanging under it did not fire. The second Rockoon behaved in the same maddening way. On the theory that extreme cold at high altitude might have stopped the clockwork supposed to ignite the rockets, Van Allen heated cans of orange juice, snuggled them into the third Rockoon's gondola, and wrapped the whole business in insulation. The rocket fired."
...

@Betruger: do you have a link to anything, re the NSF assessment?

[KitemanSA]

Rockoons

Wrecky Rockoons IIRC.

I kind of prefer the kite launcher method. The KITEMANSA.

[Skipjack]

rcain, SpaceX is planning to launch their Flacon Heavy next year. This has a payload of 55 (and with later improvements even more) metric tons.
The SLS has a payload of 70 tons at first and in later stages is supposd to have 130 tons of payload, though I am not sure whether these are english tons or metric tons (I dont think the senate knows either).
The thing is that even though the SLS has on paper a higher payload capability than the Falcon Heavy a single launch with the thing is going to cost about 1.5 billion USD IIRC.
A launch with the Falcon Heavy only costs 60 million...
You can launch a lot of Falcon Heavies for that 1.5 billion.
Anyway, with the current budget NASA will only be able to do a launch of the SLS once every two years. It is to expensive otherwise. Unfortunately, development and the standing army for manufacturing of new SLS rockets and the launch crews still have to be paid, whether you launch once or many times.
The development cost including the Orion capsule until the first unmanned testflight in 2017 will be 18 billion USD. Then it will cost an ADDITIONAL 23 billion to do yet another unmanned testflight in 2019 and a manned testflight in 2021.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... for%20$18B

Yeah, you hear right 2021 and that only if we dont see cost overruns and time overruins. The senators does not care about that. They dont expect the thing to ever take off. They just want to keep the money flowing to their districts.
The thing is that it is not even in the best interest for their districts. Texas would actually benefit more from the commercial space industry. SpaceX is already employing hudreds of workers in Texas and is planning to expand that. But Hutchinson is for some reason for wasting money on the SLS. I think that there is some heavy lobbying and campaign financing from the usual suspects going on. I really dont have any other explanation for this sort of insanity.
Talking about super heavy lift provided by commercials. SpaceX has plans for future launch vehicles that can do that as well, though I think that the Falcon Heavy is already on the upper end of what you really need. I know that Elon Musk rather wants to try reusability.

[ladajo]

'Rockoons' - kool. seems like a while since we tried them out.

from wiki:

...
TIME magazine reported in 1959: "Van Allen's 'Rockoons' could not be fired in Iowa for fear that the spent rockets would strike an Iowan or his house." So Van Allen convinced the U.S. Coast Guard to let him fire his rockoons from the icebreaker Eastwind that was bound for Greenland. "The first balloon rose properly to 70,000 ft., but the rocket hanging under it did not fire. The second Rockoon behaved in the same maddening way. On the theory that extreme cold at high altitude might have stopped the clockwork supposed to ignite the rockets, Van Allen heated cans of orange juice, snuggled them into the third Rockoon's gondola, and wrapped the whole business in insulation. The rocket fired."
...

@Betruger: do you have a link to anything, re the NSF assessment?

As I recall, they were previously fired from the USS Glacier (AGB-4) circa 1957 in Antarctica.