News Secret plan to privatize shuttle; now, to a next-generation shuttle.

[RGClark]

Next Gen Shuttle-Capable vehicle interest as secret effort to save orbiters ends.
December 19th, 2011 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/next-gen-shuttle-vehicle-secret-effort-save-orbiters-ends/

Atlantis Journal – Epilogue.
by MLD on Dec.19, 2011, under Commercial Space, Space Exploration, Space Policy, Space Shuttle Program
http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/?p=1303

These articles report on a plan to privatize the shuttles for commercial satellite launches only. Considering the costs of shuttle launches it might seem a non-starter. But these articles state those intending to finance the plan believed they could make a business case for profitability.
However, it turned out because the shuttle assets and infrastructure were being re-tasked to be used for the SLS, the plan could not be implemented. So the current plan is use a next generation shuttle based on more up to date technology.
Further background is provided by this interview with Dr. Larry Kuznetz on The Space Show who was part of the plan:

Broadcast 1595 (Special Edition)
Aired on July 19th, 2011
Guest: Dr. Lawrence Kuznetz
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1595

About 58 minutes in he discusses the plan to privatize the shuttle. He says they estimated $2 billion to get the program going again and $500 million per launch which would all be paid for by private funds. The business case to make this profitable would be to launch large satellites to GEO.
Kuznetz stated the trend now is toward large satellites since it is cheaper to put up a single large satellite rather than two smaller ones or send up smaller ones more often to replace a larger one. He says that for commercial large satellites to GEO, the Ariane 5 has a monopoly so the satellite companies have no room to negotiate the price to launch these large satellites. According to Kuznetz it would be possible to undercut the Ariane 5 price point with the privatized shuttle.
Interestingly Kuznetz also mentioned there would be other income streams beyond satellite launches that had not been considered before that he said could even be more profitable than satellite launches.
Anyone have any guess what they might be?


Bob Clark

 

[jedidia]

So the current plan is use a next generation shuttle based on more up to date technology.

That would have been a good plan for the last 20 years, I don't quite see how they're going to make it work now. There were quite a few attempts by other space agencies to come up with an up-to-date shuttle over the years (anyone remember ESA's Hermes? that was already pretty far into development), but all were abandoned for some reason. I don't think developing a new shuttle could beat the head-start of the skylon, it would be a gamble on wheather or not skylon works...

According to Kuznetz it would be possible to undercut the Ariane 5 price point with the privatized shuttle.

Somehow I'm having major trouble to believe that... :shifty: Especially if they have to compensate for huge amounts of R&D.

Anyone have any guess what they might be?

Well, the shuttle was the only spacecraft ever with satelite retrieving or repair capability. I don't know if there's a market niche for that, though.

 

[T.Neo]

- $500 million per launch? Maybe you can compete with the EELVs in that lift range, assuming that their price is something like that with their current low launch rates?

- Only $2 billion for development? What do they want to develop? Endeavour cost $1.7 billion just to build, and she was built using already existing components. Maybe this estimate assumes NuSpace Cost Magic?

- How do they plan to lift large satellites? STS can only go to LEO, you need an upper stage to get to GEO. That is extra cost... and the proper high-energy stages intended for STS were never used (for safety reasons).

- What facilities do they fly out of? Presumably the STS facilities at KSC are going to be demolished to make way for this "21st century spaceport". Where then does this launch from? Sure, they can borrow an old STS MLP for example, but what about the FSS? The RSS? Is this vehicle developed to use different ground equipment? If so, what equipment?

- What are these other income streams potentially more profitable than satellite launches? Wait, I know: Orbital Tourism! Solar Power Satellites! Asteroid Mining! Enacting The Space Fuuuuuuuuuuuchaaaaaaa! No seriously, I have no idea.

- The market for recovering satellites intact from orbit seemingly doesn't exist. If there was more interest in it people would talk about it or present things relating to it more often...

- Where is the actual hardware for this thing going to come from? Assuming that they are using an STS-like arrangement, where do the boosters come from? 4-segment doesn't exist now, only the new 5-seg boosters. Are they going to use those? Are they going to use them with a segment removed? How does that affect the whole reliability issue and the cross between NuSTS and SLS? What about External Tanks then, with tooling and personnel at the MAF being moved over to work on SLS cores? What about main engines? Is there now going to be a different version of the SSME, aside from the SLS version?

Or do they plan on a whole new clean-sheet design? Do they really think they can develop that? For $2 billion?

I somehow doubt that it is an EELV or Falcon launched, Hermes-like minishuttle, such a thing would make no sense on a vehicle that can already launch large satellites to GEO without being sandbagged with an unecessary spaceplane.

- If they are redoing it with modern technology, where is the massive improvement? $500 million is not that dissimilar to the old STS. But at what launch rate is that, anyway?

- Are they going to repeat some of the nonsensical decisions of STS? Such as tying the vehicle into dealing with a crew/crew related hardware/crew related facilities, and suffering the costs of said things?

Sorry, but I think this is nonsense... do we really need so badly a 20-30 ton launch vehicle that costs $500 million every time? It sounds not only unspectacular, but even worse than current vehicles. We have too many launchers, and not enough demand.

Show me the $50 million vehicle that can do 20-30 metric tons to LEO. Or heck, I will downright say that I want the $5-million-a-launch LV with that capability, that'd be awesome. Then you're in business big time.

 

[DaveS]

- What facilities do they fly out of? Presumably the STS facilities at KSC are going to be demolished to make way for this "21st century spaceport". Where then does this launch from? Sure, they can borrow an old STS MLP for example, but what about the FSS? The RSS? Is this vehicle developed to use different ground equipment? If so, what equipment?

The Pad A FSS/RSS remains untouched.

 

[T.Neo]

The Pad A FSS/RSS remains untouched.

Are there any current plans to convert it to the clean pad arrangement at some point?

 

[DaveS]

Are there any current plans to convert it to the clean pad arrangement at some point?

Not that I know of. Only things decommissioned at pad A is the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer storage facilities.

 

[orb]

Are there any current plans to convert it to the clean pad arrangement at some point?

As it was already mentioned on "[News] LC-39B FSS & RSS to be removed in summer (39A stays unchanged)" thread - Spaceflight Now:

Posted: July 24, 2011

{...}

NASA plans to put launch pad 39A into mothballs in the coming months for long-term storage until human expeditions depart for asteroids or Mars, according to agency officials.

 

[MattBaker]

$2 billion for developement and $500 million per launch means 10 launches for $7 billion or $700 million each, enough said?
According to this costs of Ariane 5 are $220 million and Delta IV-Heavy is $370 million. Both have roughly the same capacity to LEO as the shuttles.
So, I could choose between Ariane 5 for $220 million and a shuttle for $500 million, well, let's take the shuttle, because...er...it's the shuttle.
And even if you want an American rocket and not some European stuff, $370 million to $500 million?

To me this thing seems useless/too expensive and if SpaceX could go with the Falcon Heavy, $100 million per launch, 50 metric tons to LEO, this is even more useless, then I could do 5 launches for the same money as a shuttle revival...

 

[Andy44]

Reading the article doesn't really tell who this secretive group was who were going to start the venture and of course the business plan is not laid out. My hunch is that this was a plan hatched by the government to try and keep the shuttle program going for a while.

While I'm sure a private-run organization would optimize for specific missions and operate cheaper, shuttle operations and maintenance, especially ground turn-around, is just too expensive. Remember that before the Challenger accident STS basically had the commercial launch market cornered, and even with a high launch rate and government-subsidized launch prices they couldn't quite break even. The pressure to get the launch rate up led to overworked ground crews and poor decision-making.

Restarting this program involves more than just a couple of intact orbiters; it also means restarting production of ETs and SRBs and assembling a team of people who haven't retired yet, etc. And all this to fly what is essentially an aged, experimental vehicle that was never really ready to be operational.

A better idea is to go find a Burt Rutan type of guy, tell him what you want, and see what he can build you, using the data collected from the STS and other programs. Forward motion, please.

 

[RGClark]

Reading the article doesn't really tell who this secretive group was who were going to start the venture and of course the business plan is not laid out. My hunch is that this was a plan hatched by the government to try and keep the shuttle program going for a while.

The articles say it was led by a British entrepreneur Kevin Holleran. In the interview with Dr. Kuznetz on The Space Show, Kuznetz says there was also a separate effort by the United Space Alliance which had been managing shuttle launches.


Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 09:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------

$2 billion for developement and $500 million per launch means 10 launches for $7 billion or $700 million each, enough said?
According to this costs of Ariane 5 are $220 million and Delta IV-Heavy is $370 million. Both have roughly the same capacity to LEO as the shuttles.
So, I could choose between Ariane 5 for $220 million and a shuttle for $500 million, well, let's take the shuttle, because...er...it's the shuttle.
And even if you want an American rocket and not some European stuff, $370 million to $500 million?
To me this thing seems useless/too expensive and if SpaceX could go with the Falcon Heavy, $100 million per launch, 50 metric tons to LEO, this is even more useless, then I could do 5 launches for the same money as a shuttle revival...

I didn't get that part either in the interview with Dr. Kuznetz. Later on he says that instead of costing $2 billion a year, their plan could generate profit of $1.4 billion a year.
The only thing I could think is that he must be referring to those other revenue streams he mentioned.


Bob Clark

 

[Tommy]

I'm not sure how the legalities work out, perhaps there is an advantage to using a design that's already "man-rated"? Getting that "certification" seems to take years - perhaps they think they can corner the market in the meantime? Until something more modern gets rated, such as the Skylon, or the more traditional Space X rockets?

 

[RGClark]

- $500 million per launch? Maybe you can compete with the EELVs in that lift range, assuming that their price is something like that with their current low launch rates?
- Only $2 billion for development? What do they want to develop? Endeavour cost $1.7 billion just to build, and she was built using already existing components. Maybe this estimate assumes NuSpace Cost Magic?

The interview with Dr. Kuznetz was back in July. I get the impression from the interview that they were still talking about using the original shuttles then for the plan. The $2 billion mentioned was just to restart shuttle operations.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

I'm not sure how the legalities work out, perhaps there is an advantage to using a design that's already "man-rated"?

STS is officially human-rated, and is presumably built to many human-rating standards, but it fails in one glaring aspect: it lacks a LAS.

In terms of all other vehicles, such as CEV/MPCV/Orion and the CCDev vehicles, a proposal lacking a LAS would probably be met extremely badly. Which would probably be an appropriate reaction- and one that this shouldn't be exempted from.

that "certification" seems to take years - perhaps they think they can corner the market in the meantime?

Maybe that is just the bureaucracy of it, but it would take years to re-introduce STS to flight status as well. While other vehicles are either man-ratable and waiting certification, or being man-rated- and waiting for their spacecraft.

While this is occuring, of course, it wouldn't make much sense for NASA to fund an obsolete vehicle that won't really get them anywhere. And if there is any customer for this sort of thing, it is NASA.

Until something more modern gets rated, such as the Skylon, or the more traditional Space X rockets?

Or Atlas V, which is worlds away from Skylon. You don't need to be super-advanced and fancy to be a useful crewed vehicle, of course.

The only thing I could think is that he must be referring to those other revenue streams he mentioned.

:rofl:

A profit of 1.4 billion a year? What would that mean at a profit margin of 10%? 28 launches per year? :lol:

The other revenue streams don't exist. At least not at $500 million a launch...

 

[RGClark]

Well, the shuttle was the only spacecraft ever with satellite retrieving or repair capability. I don't know if there's a market niche for that, though.

I like that idea but mostly in regards to refueling satellites, especially in GEO. Most communication satellites have to be replaced not because they stop operating or become obsolete, but simply because they run out of fuel for station-keeping.
The Air Force put out a request for proposals for spacecraft that could refuel satellites in GEO. And NASA has plans for doing testing of the satellite refueling process. If you consider that the larger GEO communication satellites may cost hundreds of millions of dollars and the cost to launch them may cost in the range of $100 to $200 million, it becomes clear there would be a substantial market for refueling satellites in GEO.

Satellite Refueling in Orbit, Coming Soon?
By Steve Rousseau
October 17, 2011 5:00 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...ites/satellite-refueling-in-orbit-coming-soon

Space Infrastructure Servicing.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Infrastructure_Servicing"]Space Infrastructure Servicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

According to the "Satellite Refueling in Orbit, Coming Soon?" article a satellite may last 10 to 15 years. According to the "Space Infrastructure Servicing" wikipedia page, 200 kg of fuel may provide an additional 2 to 4 years of life. So it might take 100 kg per year for fuel, and over 10 years would require 1,000 kg.
The cost to get anything to GEO, including this fuel, is in the range of $20,000 to $25,000 per kg. So for 1,000 kg of fuel to get to GEO for satellite refueling it would cost perhaps $25 million. But this would double the life of the satellite since it would again have a full fuel load for 10 years. So for $25 million you saved the satellite companies from paying, say, $300 - $500 million, to purchase and launch a new satellite.
So even if you charged 4 times the usual price to get to GEO for this fuel, the satellite companies could still consider this a bargain.
You would need a small reusable servicing spacecraft to launch from the shuttle payload bay to transport the fuel to GEO. If you use LH2/LOX propellant for this spacecraft like the Centaur upper stages, then it takes about the same amount of propellant to get to GEO from LEO, as the mass of the spacecraft + payload, the payload being the refueling fuel in this case. The dry mass of the spacecraft is only a small proportion of the propellant as indicated by the Centaur upper stage, about 1/10th.
So the 25,000 kg cargo capacity of the shuttle could be made up of half LH2/LOX propellant for the transport spacecraft and half the fuel for the satellites. That's 12,500 kg of refueling fuel. If you do charge the satellites companies 4 times the usual rate to GEO to $100,000 per kg for this fuel, then that's potentially $1.25 billion revenue from this one shuttle launch.


Bob Clark

 

[jedidia]

it becomes clear there would be a substantial market for refueling satellites in GEO.

The shuttle can't get to GEO though, so we're back at square one. Also, what kind of fuel are those satellites eating up at such high rates? I had no idea they are that hungry.

 

[Cras]

You know I heard hints and rumblings in some interviews with NASA people about using the Orion capsule to reach GEO and repair, and I guess refuel, satellites up there.

The Shuttle could barely reach the Hubble, let alone up to GEO. It would take some massive retrofitting of the OMS pods to get that thing up there. And you have to consider the crew going that high, and the modifications required there.

Maybe that is something they will consider with their "Shuttle-capable" space plane that they will announce soon.

Either way, I am very interested in what they have come up with.

 

[T.Neo]

You don't need a $500 million-per-launch spaceplane that only goes to LEO to refuel satellites in GEO. You can do that with a conventional launcher.

RGClark's method of calculating prices to GEO is pretty bad, I think it would be better to start with the launch cost and the cost of the refueling bus, rather than an arbitrary number.

Making the shuttle orbiter GEO (and return from GEO!) capable would not require a "retrofit of the OMS pods", it would require a complete re-engineering of the entire vehicle. The result, if it worked at all, would probably be a massive kludge.

Repairing GEO comsats with Orion sounds like something out of a Alice in Wonderland book, for the cost of an Orion (and whatever launches it, if it is tied to an HLV) you might as well just build and launch a new comsat. And GEO comsats are not to my knowledge designed for in-space repairs...

I think that any plan that suggests launching humans on a vehicle without a LAS should be swiftly and vehemently ignored.

Also, what kind of fuel are those satellites eating up at such high rates? I had no idea they are that hungry.

I believe it is hydrazine monopropellant, and/or bipropellant hypergolics. Said satellites can still last for over a decade, but when the propellant is over, it's over...

 

[jedidia]

I believe it is hydrazine monopropellant, and/or bipropellant hypergolics. Said satellites can still last for over a decade, but when the propellant is over, it's over.

Satellites in GEO need propellant??

 

[orb]

Satellites in GEO need propellant??

They drift because of perturbations, so they need station keeping, and as such they require propellant.

 

[Andy44]

Satellites in GEO indeed need propellant for stationkeeping, but based on the expected life of the mission, propellant is budgeted into the mission to provide enough delta-V for maneuvering and eventual disposal in a supersynchronous orbit. Because of high quality control, most satellite hardware outlives the original design life and often the mission ends because of low propellant.

Also, as perturbations build up the satellite's orbit may gain an unacceptably high inclination, which for TV satellites relying on subscribers with fixed rooftop dish antennae, is also a mission-ender, as the satellite's north-south drift every 24-hours makes it hard to get a good signal. Fixing inclination costs way more propellant than east-west drift.

Refueling satellites has long been a dream since the early days, but often it's not cost-effective, because spending millions of dollars to put a few hundred pounds of hydrazine onto an aging vehicle which has old batteries, micrometeorite-pitting all over the solar panels and a few broken parts, and which may suffer a critical failure at any moment usually doesn't add up. Satellites don't just use fuel, they suffer other ill effects from the space environment, too.

And if you really want more fuel, it's cheaper to build the satellite with bigger tanks and launch it all at the beginning of mission life, taking the penalty for the added weight by using a bigger rocket (eg. Atlas vs. Delta II, etc.).