NASA: Do Not Collect $200, Do Not Pass GO

[MKSheppard]

OK. Back in 2010; they passed the new NASA Authorization act of 2010. In it, it had the following section

Code: Select all

Sec 309

Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description....

Well, now here we are:

Preliminary Report Regarding NASA's Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Pursuant to Sect 309 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010

LINK

It's a little 22 page report (sigh); and it makes me wonder if NASA is eating paint chips.

For the SLS, the Agency has decided to use a Reference Vehicle Design that is derived from Ares and Shuttle hardware, given the Congressional direction and that our initial studies have shown that development cost is not a major discriminator in the near-term when it comes to varying heavy-lift configurations.

The current concept vehicles would utilize a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOX/LH2) core with five RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME)-derived engines, five-segment solid rocket boosters, and a J-2X based Upper Stage for the SLS. This would allow for use of existing Shuttle and Ares hardware assets in the near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition downstream for eventual upgrades in designs needed for affordable production.

For the MPCV, the Agency has decided to utilize the Orion as the Reference Vehicle Design. The Orion development effort already has benefited from significant investments and progress to date, and the Orion requirements closely match MPCV requirements as defined in the Authorization Act. Like with the SLS, NASA’s acquisition strategy for the MPCV and plans for utilizing current Agency infrastructure and facilities for both vehicles must still be formalized in the coming months as final FY 2011 appropriations are received, the President’s FY 2012 budget request is released, and as both programs are formally initiated.

So. After a huge interminable delay...we're back to the early proposals for Ares V with SSMEs.

So how long until NASA realizes that throwing away five SSMEs per flight is fucking stupid like before and goes back to RS-68?

Oh, and because we eliminated Ares I "Stick", it means our astronauts will launch once again on a flying sidemount bomb thanks to the location of two blowtorches next to a huge tank of LH2/LOX.

Yes, I know that NASA had the SRB segments redesigned after Challenger, but the threat is always there; which is you know why CONSTELLATION would have put the crew on a separate rocket which would not have had that threat.

Oh; to add insult to injury:

While the Authorization Act sets a goal of 2016, a first flight this early does not realistically appear to be possible based on our current cost estimates for the Reference Vehicles and given the levels proposed in the Authorization Act.

[MKSheppard]

And likewise, some more paintchips from the greatest deliberative body ever:

Link

Senate Commerce Committee Members Respond to NASA Report
Jena Longo - Democratic Press Office (202) 224-8374
Jan 12 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senate Commerce Committee Members, including Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Senator David Vitter (R-La.), today issued a joint statement responding to a NASA report this week in which the space agency says it cannot build a capsule and heavy-lift rocket based on the cost and schedule outlined by Congress:

“We appreciate NASA’s report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently – and, it must be a priority.”

[MKSheppard]

[Chardok]

So, it's the MFT and SRBs from the shuttle, only they slapped the shuttle main engines on the MFT's ass, then they took the top 2/3rds of a different missile and attached it to the nose of the shuttle MFT, glued a CV on the top, and called it a day? Glorious.

[MKSheppard]

Let's take a trip down memory lane to 2005.

Back then, ARES V had an 8.4 meter diameter core, 5 segment SRBs, 5 x SSME for the core stage, and J-2X for the upper stage.

In 2006 NASA decided that throwing away five SSMEs with each launch was god damned stupid and switched to RS-68, a purposely built expendable engine.

In late 2007, NASA switched core diameter from 8.4 meters to 10 meters so the system could grow to support heavier launch weights.

What NASA's just done is basically saying "We want to build the 2005 version of Ares V."

Idiots. What the fuck was all that time from 2005-2010 in defining the tradespace of Ares V then? Wasted time and money?

[ShadowDragon8685]

“We appreciate NASA’s report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently – and, it must be a priority.”

Shep, I'm reasonably certain that's something... Stronger than paint chips. Really. "It's the law."

Are you fucking kidding me - when did this turn into the Democratic People's United States-Republic of America? Those guys with the space know-how have just told them "can't be done, not on this timetable, not on this budget," and instead of asking whether to change the timetable, the budget or both, they say "It's not optional. It's the law."

What are they going to do, have NASA employees arrested for failure to meet "the law" or something? It reminds me of a certain Schlock Mercenary strip, only the release loosed upon a poor, unsuspecting country makes it pretty evidently clear that the people we're sending the congress are the kind of people who take the stupid option.

Seriously, why are we remotely entrusting these assholes with giving NASA dictates?

[Simon_Jester]

There are times to demand that people deliver the desired product on budget in the desired timeframe, no matter what they say about it being 'impossible,' insisting that they find a way even if they thought they could never do it.

Designing moon rockets isn't one of those times.

[Sarevok]

For years and years NASA's post space shuttle plans have been nothing but so much paperwork and deliberation and committees. I hope they actually build something and see how it works out rather then spend an eternity arguing minute details.

[Block]

There are times to demand that people deliver the desired product on budget in the desired timeframe, no matter what they say about it being 'impossible,' insisting that they find a way even if they thought they could never do it.

Designing moon rockets isn't one of those times.

Be that as it may, sometimes giant bureaucracies sometimes need a big kick in the ass. Nasa hasn't produced a single significant and tangible advance in new launch technology in years.

[Uraniun235]

If various Congressmen are so desperate to keep the old Shuttle contractors (in their districts) employed by mandating the use of "Shuttle-derived" components, I'm surprised they haven't tried to just float a "Shuttle II" idea. I guess the special paint they huff isn't quite special enough for that one, though.

[Sarevok]

Can you imagine if the US military employed same type of thinking as the shuttle derived idea ?

Just think about a B-52 derived bomber for the 21st century... with the stipulation that it has over half the parts common including using the same engines.

[phongn]

Be that as it may, sometimes giant bureaucracies sometimes need a big kick in the ass. Nasa hasn't produced a single significant and tangible advance in new launch technology in years.

NASA's had a large number of R&D projects over the years that either get cancelled or die without funding. There's a laundry list of engines and designs that all died for want of money.

[Simon_Jester]

Be that as it may, sometimes giant bureaucracies sometimes need a big kick in the ass. Nasa hasn't produced a single significant and tangible advance in new launch technology in years.

NASA's had a large number of R&D projects over the years that either get cancelled or die without funding. There's a laundry list of engines and designs that all died for want of money.

This.

It takes several years to design a moon rocket, just like it takes several years to design a fighter jet. Or any other advanced piece of hardware that involves integrating a lot of systems that have to work just so. There's not a lot of margin of error, and that means taking your time to get stuff right on the first go. You can't half-ass it.

But by the same token, that means that actually building rockets is hugely expensive, while paper studies are cheap. NASA gets funding for paper studies all the time, but getting funding for a major new rocket program is much more difficult.

Incremental advances on hardware already developed is much easier (witness the steady progression of the Atlas, Titan, and Delta families). Building something completely new is much harder... but totally necessary if we want to break out of the existing throw weight class and build a proper heavy-lift moon rocket. And it cannot be done on a shoestring: Congress must be willing to allot large amounts of money if they want the rocket, especially if they want it quickly (5 years instead of 10).

NASA would be failing its duties, and harming itself in the long run, by promising Congress something it can't deliver because of the challenges of rocket science. And if they pretended to be able to design a heavy lift booster in five years on a limited budget, inevitably they would fail to deliver- or wind up with cost overruns that doomed the program, as happened to Constellation when it turned out that some things were going to be more expensive than the initial estimate.

[Skgoa]

Um, I know what you want to say, but building the actual hardware is only a minor part of the cost. Lets assume we need a subsystem that 20 engineers take 2 years to build. Thats 40 man-years. Lets assume a highly qualified rocket engineer costs $100k a year in the US. Thats $4 Million right there for a small part, only to get the blueprints.
Thats why this is not a bad idea, actually. Modifications to available technology are minor in comparison to designing everything from scratch. And lets not forget that the SSME is one of the best rocket engines there are. (And very near the theoretical threshold for this kind of engine.) The SRBs aren't bad, either. The weak point in the overall proposal might be the capsule. Also, there will be only 12 SSMEs (or 14, depending on how you count them) in existence when the last one is finished next year. Thats just two launches, production would have to be resumed/ramped up during the next years. Then again, Rocketdyne may surprise us with the RS-68B, although at the moment its still worse than SSME and would only reduce the cost per engine by 50%, while probably requiring a massive investment up front to man-rate it.

[MKSheppard]

Thats why this is not a bad idea, actually. Modifications to available technology are minor in comparison to designing everything from scratch.

By your logic, we should have used Mercury or Gemini to send a man to the Moon since the costs were already sunk (and yes there were proposals for this -- the Mercury one was to send a man on a one way trip and keep sending him food and oxygen, while Gemini would have used a slightly modified capsule in a direct ascent mode).

And lets not forget that the SSME is one of the best rocket engines there are.

It also costs $80 million per copy. RS-68 costs only $20 million. And it has much greater thrust than SSME; making it more ideal for use as a first stage engine.

To put it in simple words, if we assume a 30 year life for the heavy launcher and an average of five launches a year, we're going to use 750 first stage engines.

That's $60 billion if we use SSME; $15 billion if we use RS-68.

As a bonus; since the original Constellation Concept split crew/cargo from one another; we don't have to manrate anything on our superheavy lift launcher, saving costs.

That's dead now; we're back to combined crew/cargo.

The SRBs aren't bad, either.

They've also killed astronauts back in 1986. Yes, I know they were redesigned; but the danger's always there with segmented SRBs. Which is why NASA intended it's astronauts to fly into orbit on a non-strap on vehicle.

Oh; and guess what? Segmented SRBs are hideously uneconomic if you have a flight rate of only 6-8 times a year.

The only way Segmented SRBs make sense economically are if you use them like 50> times a year; like the original projections for shuttle launch rates.

And since Segmented SRBs are going to be used only by this rocket....

At least with Constellation, you could use SRBs on Ares I which would fly much more often to put crew into space.

[Simon_Jester]

Um, I know what you want to say, but building the actual hardware is only a minor part of the cost. Lets assume we need a subsystem that 20 engineers take 2 years to build. Thats 40 man-years. Lets assume a highly qualified rocket engineer costs $100k a year in the US. Thats $4 Million right there for a small part, only to get the blueprints.

Thats why this is not a bad idea, actually. Modifications to available technology are minor in comparison to designing everything from scratch...

But looking at the numbers, *yes* the manpower is expensive, but the preliminary studies aren't because it doesn't take a lot of rocket scientists to say whether a design is essentially possible. The details may need to be tweaked while hundreds of engineers are converting a design study into a viable design, but those first steps still only cost a pittance compared to the overall cost of the program.

I said that actually building rockets is hugely expensive- that includes a full blueprint process, not just a few guys fiddling around with the numbers. You can come up with ideas for how to build a rocket on the cheap, and present them to Congress on the cheap... but you can't build anything on the cheap. And rocket programs in the US tend to die in that phase- after the basic design has been settled and we know what it's going to look like (the cheap phase), but during the detailed design phase.

Because at that point, after you've hired the engineers to do a proper job of the design but before you cut metal, Congress suddenly remembers that the program will (gasp!) cost real money, maybe more money than people expected at the start when they didn't know what all the problems they'd run into were. This happens in the defense industry all the time and no one bats an eye, but when NASA does it it usually gets their funding yanked (witness what happened to Constellation).

Ideally, reuse of existing hardware would be nice, but a lot depends on the details there too- as Shep points out, a highly expensive engine developed in the '60s and '70s for the Shuttle, and made to be reuseable, may not be a better choice for an expendable rocket than a modern engine designed in the '90s and '00s for expendable rocketry.

[MKSheppard]

Know what's funny? Over at NASA Spaceflight, they absolutely absolutely hate the RS-68; and keep saying it'll melt in the intense thermal flux from the center core lighting off and then the two SRBs (the final Ares V design) because it's not regeneratively cooled.

Of course, they leave out the fact that even mighty F-1 had to be covered with 2,000 pounds of insulation on each Saturn V that flew; for a total of 10,000 lbs wasted on abestos blankets on the S-IC in order to prevent mighty regeneratively cooled F-1 from melting.

[phongn]

Know what's funny? Over at NASA Spaceflight, they absolutely absolutely hate the RS-68; and keep saying it'll melt in the intense thermal flux from the center core lighting off and then the two SRBs (the final Ares V design) because it's not regeneratively cooled.

Isn't there a regen RS-68 proposal anyways?

[MKSheppard]

Isn't there a regen RS-68 proposal anyways?

Well yes. And they keep saying that RS-68 Regen MUST BE DONE!!!eoneoneoen to survive the thermal flux of the launch. They also then use the additional development cost of RS-68 Regen to damn Ares V.

[Skgoa]

Ideally, reuse of existing hardware would be nice, but a lot depends on the details there too- as Shep points out, a highly expensive engine developed in the '60s and '70s for the Shuttle, and made to be reuseable, may not be a better choice for an expendable rocket than a modern engine designed in the '90s and '00s for expendable rocketry.

While this is absolutely true, its also so devoid of actual substance that it a meaningless tautology.
(But I agree with the rest of your post.)

Thats why this is not a bad idea, actually. Modifications to available technology are minor in comparison to designing everything from scratch.

By your logic, we should have used Mercury or Gemini to send a man to the Moon since the costs were already sunk (and yes there were proposals for this -- the Mercury one was to send a man on a one way trip and keep sending him food and oxygen, while Gemini would have used a slightly modified capsule in a direct ascent mode).

Ah, the old "by your logic"-strawman. You don't expect an answer to that, do you?

And lets not forget that the SSME is one of the best rocket engines there are.

It also costs $80 million per copy. RS-68 costs only $20 million.

Even if we ignore the fact that there are surplus SSMEs lying around right now, a new RS-25D costs only $38 million and thats for an engine that can be used 6.7 times on everage. The RS-25E might actually cost not that much more than the RS-68B. And we haven't even seen that one's performance, yet.

And it has much greater thrust than SSME; making it more ideal for use as a first stage engine

But it has a laughably inferiour Isp, thus its not really an option. Anyways, for high thrust there are boosters, the main engines should be as fuel efficient as possible.

To put it in simple words, if we assume a 30 year life for the heavy launcher and an average of five launches a year, we're going to use 750 first stage engines.

Somehow I doubt that launch schedule, but I can't figure out why.

That's $60 billion if we use SSME; $15 billion if we use RS-68.

As a bonus; since the original Constellation Concept split crew/cargo from one another; we don't have to manrate anything on our superheavy lift launcher, saving costs.

That's dead now; we're back to combined crew/cargo.

And now NASA designs 50% less rockets and has to do 50% less launches. Don't you think thats going to save money?

The SRBs aren't bad, either.

They've also killed astronauts back in 1986. Yes, I know they were redesigned; but the danger's always there with segmented SRBs. Which is why NASA intended it's astronauts to fly into orbit on a non-strap on vehicle.

They had one fatality due to being used under weather conditions their were not designed for. The flaw had been known, but businesspeople and administrators decided to launch despite the warnings. What is your point, that spaceflight is dangerous? By your logic, Apollo should have been trashed after Apollo 1.

Oh; and guess what? Segmented SRBs are hideously uneconomic if you have a flight rate of only 6-8 times a year.

The only way Segmented SRBs make sense economically are if you use them like 50> times a year; like the original projections for shuttle launch rates.

And since Segmented SRBs are going to be used only by this rocket....

At least with Constellation, you could use SRBs on Ares I which would fly much more often to put crew into space.

So, does NASA have other boosters lying around I am not aware of?

[MKSheppard]

Skoga, from 1992 to 1997, NASA launched seven shuttle missions a year on average; from 1999 to 2003, NASA was doing four a year.

Considering that launching the entire shuttle stack is equivalent to launching a heavy launch vehicle thanks to how much the orbiter weighs...

[MKSheppard]

Ah, the old "by your logic"-strawman. You don't expect an answer to that, do you?

I'm pointing out that by your logic of "lets use the cheapest option of evolving existing designs!" we would have flown to the moon with McDonnell's Gemini, instead of spending an enormous amount of time and money to let North American redesign the wheel with Apollo.

Even if we ignore the fact that there are surplus SSMEs lying around right now

For two flights, sure.

a new RS-25D costs only $38 million

In what fantasy world? SSME production was shut down in 2006 when engine F2060 was delivered.

If you're going to go to the trouble of restarting a production line, you might as well go full retard and give a contract to PWR to restart the F-1A production line.

The RS-25E might actually cost not that much more than the RS-68B. And we haven't even seen that one's performance, yet.

We already have an expendable SSME (RS-25). It's called the RS-68.

Back in the 1990s, NASA proposed to take the SSME and cheap it out to turn it into the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME).

A lot of what STME was proposed for was never built, but the engine kept evolving until it eventually entered production as....the RS-68.

But it has a laughably inferiour Isp, thus its not really an option.

And you can buy five of them for the price of one SSME.

Anyways, for high thrust there are boosters, the main engines should be as fuel efficient as possible.

Boosters which make no economical sense at projected flight rates. The SRBs only make sense economically if you're launching 50 flights a year.

Somehow I doubt that launch schedule, but I can't figure out why.

Answered this in my quick post above.

And now NASA designs 50% less rockets and has to do 50% less launches. Don't you think thats going to save money?

The more missions you fly with SRBs, the cheaper your costs are for the SRBs.

Since Ares I used a SRB for it's first stage, it meant that every day missions to support the ISS and other LEO missions would be able to reduce the overall costs of the Ares V superbooster missions by lowering the annual cost of the SRBs via a higher flight rate.

What is your point, that spaceflight is dangerous?

My point is that with the cancellation of Ares I, crews will continue to fly into orbit on a rocket that if there is a failure in one of the boosters, the whole stack is likely to explode, thanks to the nice positioning of a giant LH2/LOX bomb between the boosters.

The danger to the Astros be significantly reduced thanks to the fact that a functional Launch Abort System exists for Orion; but it will always be there.

[Simon_Jester]

Ideally, reuse of existing hardware would be nice, but a lot depends on the details there too- as Shep points out, a highly expensive engine developed in the '60s and '70s for the Shuttle, and made to be reuseable, may not be a better choice for an expendable rocket than a modern engine designed in the '90s and '00s for expendable rocketry.

While this is absolutely true, its also so devoid of actual substance that it a meaningless tautology.
(But I agree with the rest of your post.)

...Ah, how is that devoid of substance?

Starting from the assumption that the Space Shuttle main engines are the right engine for a new heavy lift booster is necessary if we're going to talk about designing the new booster using recycled Space Shuttle technology.

I'd think it substantial to point out that while the Space Shuttle main engine is a fine piece of technology, it may not be the piece of technology we'd be well advised to use.

Thats why this is not a bad idea, actually. Modifications to available technology are minor in comparison to designing everything from scratch.

By your logic, we should have used Mercury or Gemini to send a man to the Moon since the costs were already sunk (and yes there were proposals for this -- the Mercury one was to send a man on a one way trip and keep sending him food and oxygen, while Gemini would have used a slightly modified capsule in a direct ascent mode).

Ah, the old "by your logic"-strawman. You don't expect an answer to that, do you?

I think he has a right to, Skgoa. Your argument revolves around the idea that NASA can design a cheap heavy lift booster by recycling old technology for the new mission, without the need to do lots of expensive design and integration of new systems.

Historically, people haven't done that for the heavy lift niche, or for manned space flight above LEO; the challenges are difficult enough that they merit something a bit more sophisticated than "hammer something together from whatever we were using last decade."

To put it in simple words, if we assume a 30 year life for the heavy launcher and an average of five launches a year, we're going to use 750 first stage engines.

Somehow I doubt that launch schedule, but I can't figure out why.

If we're looking for an ambitious enough program to justify developing the rocket in the first place, we'd damn well better hope for something like that. Building an Ares/Saturn equivalent rocket is too expensive to be worthwhile if we're only going to launch a dozen of the things.

And now NASA designs 50% less rockets and has to do 50% less launches. Don't you think thats going to save money?

That depends. Which is cheaper, a man-rated rocket that throws 100 tons, or a man-rated rocket that throws 10 tons and an unrated rocket that throws 100 tons? This is not a trivial question, in my opinion.

They [the SRBs] have also killed astronauts back in 1986. Yes, I know they were redesigned; but the danger's always there with segmented SRBs. Which is why NASA intended it's astronauts to fly into orbit on a non-strap on vehicle.

They had one fatality due to being used under weather conditions their were not designed for. The flaw had been known, but businesspeople and administrators decided to launch despite the warnings. What is your point, that spaceflight is dangerous? By your logic, Apollo should have been trashed after Apollo 1.

No, I think Shep has a point here too: segmented SRBs do raise legitimate cost and safety issues, which you have chosen not to address in any depth.

[someone_else]

“We appreciate NASA’s report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently – and, it must be a priority.”

If NASA was a private contractor, they'd laugh in their face and call them stupid for the bolded part.

Being them NASA, it will probably lead to a simple thing: more waste of time and money in paper castles just to give the impression they are doing something on a budget clearly too small to do anything serious, and when needed they will use whatever SpaceX can offer (like the three Falcons glued together to make a single heavy-lift rokkit), or maybe something from the russians (Protons or whatever new they can make up in the next decade).

That said, I'm guessing you Shep are harshly against the other (so far completely ignored) proposal that some NASA engineers like Jupiter family rockets since:
-it uses space shuttle SRBs
-it uses space shuttle SSMEs

[MKSheppard]

That said, I'm guessing you Shep are harshly against the other (so far completely ignored) proposal that some NASA engineers like Jupiter family rockets since:
-it uses space shuttle SRBs
-it uses space shuttle SSMEs

You mean DIRECT?

Those people live in a fantasy world of thier own -- they seem to think that ET Diameter tooling, SSMEs, and 4 segment SRBs are the greatest things since sliced bread. They continually badmouthed Ares I/V; completely ignoring the fact that Ares V in 2005 was basically a Jupiter; and it evolved away from that for very sensible reasons.