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

[RGClark]

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.

The price to GEO is about twice that to get to LEO. Since the price to LEO is in the range of $10,000/kg, the price to GEO is about $20,000/kg. Shuttle launch prices are more expensive though so I estimated it as $25,000/kg.
The estimate of a charge of $100,000 per kg of the refueling fuel to be delivered to satellites in GEO is actually less than a price that has been quoted by a company planning on doing such refueling missions. On that "Space Infrastructure Servicing" wikipedia page is given this ref. to an article on satellite servicing:

de Selding, Peter B. (2011-03-14). "Intelsat Signs Up for Satellite Refueling Service". Space News. Retrieved 2011-03-15. "if the MDA spacecraft performs as planned, Intelsat will be paying a total of some $200 million to MDA. This assumes that four or five satellites are given around 200 kilograms each of fuel. ... The maiden flight of the vehicle would be on an International Launch Services Proton rocket, industry officials said. One official said the MDA spacecraft, including its 2,000 kilograms of refueling propellant, is likely to weigh around 6,000 kilograms at launch."
http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/intelsat-signs-for-satellite-refueling-service.html

So for this company they are charging $200,000 per kg of the refueling fuel.
The advantage of the shuttle is that it can carry so much refueling fuel to LEO for the spacecraft that does go to GEO to do the refueling. So potentially you could make so much with each shuttle launch. The shuttle could even leave this refueling fuel in LEO as a propellant depot for the small refueling spacecraft that goes out to GEO. The shuttle itself would not need to go to GEO.
The Ariane 5 with its large payload capacity to LEO could also be used for this role to get large revenue per launch. The advantage of the shuttle though is that it could bring back that GEO-refueling spacecraft for servicing.
It also has the advantage that it could also bring back the satellites themselves for servicing. It would have to be the large expensive satellites for which this would be worthwhile. Some of these GEO satellites cost hundreds of millions of dollars so this is conceivable. Some large defense satellites are also reported to cost over a billion dollars.
Again the shuttle itself would not need to get to GEO. It could use a small spacecraft to go out to GEO to attach to the satellites and use the spacecrafts thrusters and propellant to bring the satellites back to LEO to be captured by the shuttle.

BTW, it might be possible for the shuttle itself to reach GEO if you filled the entire payload bay with propellant, either with LH2/LOX or the hypergolics used with the OMS engines. But I can't see any advantage of doing it that way compared to having a small spacecraft instead go out to GEO and bring the satellite back down to LEO for the shuttle.
If so, then since the delta-V for a trans lunar injection is close to that required to reach GEO, it might be possible for the shuttle to reach the Moon, doing a free return trajectory to get back to Earth.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

Since the price to LEO is in the range of $10,000/kg

Wrong. It depends on the vehicle you use, and the launch rate. Proton does $4300/kg to LEO, Falcon 9 supposedly does around that. Falcon Heavy supposedly does less.

So for this company they are charging $200,000 per kg of the refueling fuel.

Yes, and I wonder why. It is probably because their prices are calculated properly and not plucked out of thin air.

The advantage of the shuttle is that it can carry so much refueling fuel to LEO for the spacecraft that does go to GEO to do the refueling.

You don't need a shuttle for this! You can lift the same amount of mass with any other launcher with the same lift capacity (obviously).

It also has the advantage that it could also bring back the satellites themselves for servicing.

1. That's a whole different ballgame now. The mass ratios and the dV capability of the transit spacecraft, etc, are different.

2. These satellites aren't designed to be recovered and returned to Earth.

BTW, it might be possible for the shuttle itself to reach GEO if you filled the entire payload bay with propellant, either with LH2/LOX or the hypergolics used with the OMS engines. But I can't see any advantage of doing it that way compared to having a small spacecraft instead go out to GEO and bring the satellite back down to LEO for the shuttle.
If so, then since the delta-V for a trans lunar injection is close to that required to reach GEO, it might be possible for the shuttle to reach the Moon, doing a free return trajectory to get back to Earth.

Why don't you do some calculations on the matter?

I doubt that the payload bay would be able to carry sufficient propellant, either with hypergolics or hydrolox.

And the OMS can't run on hydrolox. You'd have to swap the engines out for something else.

 

[orion7]

In my opinion there is currently no real need for a shuttle to launch mass into orbit. But this changes if you add service missions or the possibility to return mass safely to earth.

This is the current advantage of the shuttle . Furthermore if you combine a mission to bring personal into orbit together with satellites the calculation changes.

Remember the current fee for transporting passages.

However I think that a new shuttle with state of the art technology will not pay off but is useful in long term.

 

[SiberianTiger]

BTW, it might be possible for the shuttle itself to reach GEO if you filled the entire payload bay with propellant, either with LH2/LOX or the hypergolics used with the OMS engines. But I can't see any advantage of doing it that way compared to having a small spacecraft instead go out to GEO and bring the satellite back down to LEO for the shuttle.
If so, then since the delta-V for a trans lunar injection is close to that required to reach GEO, it might be possible for the shuttle to reach the Moon, doing a free return trajectory to get back to Earth.


Bob Clark

It won't survive a reentry at a near-parabolic speed, anyway.

 

[RGClark]

You don't need a shuttle for this! You can lift the same amount of mass with any other launcher with the same lift capacity (obviously).

The point is these are few and far between. Currently, for commercial satellites its the Ariane 5 only (the Delta IV Heavy has the capacity but is currently being used only for defense launches).
BTW, if this really is profitable then you can imagine bringing back the Energia with Buran as well.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

The point is these are few and far between. Currently, for commercial satellites its the Ariane 5 only (the Delta IV Heavy has the capacity but is currently being used only for defense launches).

Wrong. There is no special rule against launching commercial payloads with the Delta rockets, they were even created with this in mind. It's just that nobody uses the Delta IV because of the pricetag.

Also as I understand it the GEO satellite market is primarily taken up by Ariane 5 and Proton. This is in terms of a 5-6 ton payload capability (Ariane dual-manifests). The 20-30 ton to LEO capability is pretty useless for anything other than human exploration programs (sadly there aren't that many of these, either), unless I'm mistaken on the orbits military Heavy launches end up in (though these aren't all that common and there are good reasons that the US DoD stopped using STS for this role).

If Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are successful, and even if their prices grow by a large percentage, they'll beat a zombie shuttle market-wise, by far.

BTW, if this really is profitable then you can imagine bringing back the Energia with Buran as well.

It won't be brought back, because it isn't profitable.

There is no need to launch 30 tons on a 100 ton capable LV by strapping on a 70 ton payload fairing...

 

[RGClark]

Wrong. There is no special rule against launching commercial payloads with the Delta rockets, they were even created with this in mind. It's just that nobody uses the Delta IV because of the price tag.
Also as I understand it the GEO satellite market is primarily taken up by Ariane 5 and Proton. This is in terms of a 5-6 ton payload capability (Ariane dual-manifests). The 20-30 ton to LEO capability is pretty useless for anything other than human exploration programs (sadly there aren't that many of these, either), unless I'm mistaken on the orbits military Heavy launches end up in (though these aren't all that common and there are good reasons that the US DoD stopped using STS for this role).

The Delta IV Heavy is currently only being used for defense launches:

21 January 2011 Last updated at 05:10 ET
Huge Delta rocket flies from Vandenberg, California.
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News
"The vehicle is reserved for military and intelligence use, although there has long been discussion about modifying it for a role in human spaceflight."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12249645

Delta IV Heavy.
"The Delta IV Heavy carries only military, not commercial, payloads."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/Delta_IV_Heavy.html

In regards to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy undercutting the privatized shuttle for satellite launches they will, though we have yet to see what the reliability level will be for the Falcon Heavy. For a billion dollar satellite, military or commercial, you might want the reliability of a shuttle launch.
However, in regards to the satellite refueling service a curious fact is that the launch cost can have little effect on the profitability of the venture. For instance if it costs one company $10,000 per kg to get a kilo of refueling fuel to GEO but another $25,000 per kg, then they can both be highly profitable charging $200,000 per kg to the satellite companies to deliver that fuel to the satellites.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

The Delta IV Heavy is currently only being used for defense launches:

:beathead:

Yes, but don't you want to know why? It is not specially reserved for defense launches, its price repulses commercial customers and the US government keeps using it to continue a technological redundancy from the Atlas V.

though we have yet to see what the reliability level will be for the Falcon Heavy.

Are you inferring that FH will be especially unreliable? Assuming this outright is a bit brash, I think. There are two schools on designing for LV reliability, and one is that a large amount of engine redundancy is safer (which school is correct is probably arguable though).

In addition, arguably the most successful launch vehicle in history (Soyuz) flies regularly with 20 nozzles (plus verniers). If nozzle/chamber failure are your concern, Soyuz fares pretty well.

you might want the reliability of a shuttle launch.

Where is the special reliability of a shuttle launch?

If a $140 million Falcon Heavy has too many engines for you, buy a $300 million Atlas Heavy, not a $500+ million space shuttle...

For instance if it costs one company $10,000 per kg to get a kilo of refueling fuel to GEO but another $25,000 per kg, then they can both be highly profitable charging $200,000 per kg to the satellite companies to deliver that fuel to the satellites.

I guess we can forget the fact that the former company would make $30 million more in profits for launching 2000 kg of propellant to GEO?

Business isn't built and broken on how "cool" things are. At least not in this industry.

 

[RGClark]

:beathead:

Yes, but don't you want to know why? It is not specially reserved for defense launches, its price repulses commercial customers and the US government keeps using it to continue a technological redundancy from the Atlas V.

The phrasing in the first article strongly implies it is a policy decision rather than a cost decision. It would have been easy to say costs force the launcher to only be used for defense launches if that were the case.
The reliability of the Falcon Heavy won't be known until it flies a few times.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

The phrasing in the first article strongly implies it is a policy decision rather a cost decision. It would have been easy to say costs force the launcher to only be used for defense launches if that were the case.
The reliability of the Falcon Heavy won't be known until it flies a few times.

Bob Clark

I would say we are already seeing the deep part of the bath tube plot for the Falcon 9, so the Falcon Heavy could at least have a good chance of being a reliable a launcher and the reliability of the Falcon Heavy could be estimated by conservative methods.

The EELV Family has a preference for government payloads and especially defense payloads, but that is no big deal against them, since you can usually afford waiting for a better launch window in a large backlog of planned flights. But they are no cheap launchers at all.

 

[Hlynkacg]

I can't find the link right now but I remember reading about the economics of space-flight and how man-hours are the primary factor in determining launch cost.

The reason the Shuttle was so expensive was that it required thousands of people to put in thousands of hours before and after each launch and NASA doesn't exactly pay minimum wage. :thumbup:

 

[C3PO]

I can't figure out which shuttles you're all talking about.

It can't be the STS because they can't go anywhere else but in-plane with ISS. They need a go-to place if the TPS is no-go for reentry. With only one operational pad there's no way you can get the LON shuttle of the pad in time to save the crew.

And if the customer has to pay for the LON mission, it will be difficult to compete with ELVs. Even if the LON mission doesn't fly, it still needs to be funded.

 

[Urwumpe]

That is the problem - just making a Shuttle 1.1 with modern technology wouldn't do it. You would need a Shuttle 2.0 with serious R&D investment to solve the operational shortcomings of the Shuttle, not improve the already good subsystems of it.

Just take the computer part of it - you can't just replace the computers by new modern ones. You would also need to write new software for it. Likely much more than for the old GPCs, which limitations also meant that it had less functions to perform. A new computer could reduce the ground infrastructure a lot, but wouldn't be cheap. And to ruin some possible hopes: The AP-101S is the last of the IBM Advanced System/4 Pi series. There is no compatible alternative around.

 

[RGClark]

For the next generation shuttle the X-33 might fit the bill. For this purpose you would remove the problematical propellant tanks. The X-33 was about 80% built before the program was cancelled because of problems with the composite tanks. The X-33 weighed 28,600 kg dry:

X-33.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/x33.htm

The X-33's twin liquid hydrogen tanks had a weight of 4,600 pounds each, and the liquid oxygen tank a weight of 6,000 pounds, for total of 15,200 pounds, 6,900 kg, for the tanks:

Marshall Space Flight Center
Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
Sept. 28, 1999
X-33 Program in the Midst of Final Testing and Validation of Key
Components.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/x33.html

Then the X-33 without the tanks might weigh 22,000 kg. This is about 60,000 kg lighter than the original shuttle orbiter, which could go to extra payload. This would bring the payload of the shuttle system to the range of 85,000 kg.
I've seen conflicting reports on how well the X-33 has been preserved. But if needed to build a new one, then according to this article from 1998 a new one could be built for $360 million in 1998 dollars:

Adventure Star.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998 - 3141.html

Note that the aerospike engines and metallic shingle TPS were proceeding well. It was the composite propellant tanks that caused the most difficulty which wouldn't be needed in this application:

Lockheed Secret Projects: Inside the Skunk Works.
By Dennis R. Jenkins
http://books.google.com/books?id=DU... venturestar&lr=&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q=&f=true

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Fine, you just calculated that launching the payload without any orbiter would be perfect. :lol:

 

[T.Neo]

Reality to RGClark:

1. It is not possible to "easily" develop a space vehicle, even though there was work done on the X-33 this was years ago, a lot of it has been thrown out, lost, moved to other programs, etc, by now.

2. You can't just remove the propellant tanks from the vehicle, they're integral to it. If you wanted just an orbiter, without such large propellant tanks, you'd probably be better off just building a whole new orbiter.

3. Nobody needs an 85 ton to orbit shuttle. Also, you'll never fit an 85 ton payload in the payload bay of STS, let alone a smaller vehicle.

4. X-33 and Venture Star are two different things. X-33 was a subscale, suborbital vehicle. It didn't even have a payload bay. Venture Star had a smaller payload capability than STS (11 tons or so).

5. The aerospike engines (the J-2 derived engines for the X-33, and the staged combustion, higher performance engines for the Venture Star) don't exist.

6. It'll probably cost much more to build an X-33/Venture Star than $360 million in 1998 dollars.

7. If I understand correctly, your idea is to marry an X-33 orbiter to a conventional STS stack. Where does the stack come from? Where do the facilities come from? Etc.

8. And probably a whole lot of other reasons why your suggestion makes absolutely no sense, that I have failed to mention here.

 

[Pipcard]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA"]The Space Island Project - YouTube[/ame]
(yeah I know, pipe dream)

 

[RGClark]

The Space Island Project - YouTube
(yeah I know, pipe dream)

Not so far farfetched. A single ET would have two and a half times the habitable volume of the ISS. With a lightweight next-gen shuttle orbiter such as the X-33 you would have high enough payload capability to bring the ET to orbit plus additional internal structures and solar panels.

Some discussions of the idea:

STS External Tank Station
www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm

The External Tank Torus.
A Technical Review by David Buth
http://freemars.org/studies/torus/ettoru2.html

Using the External Tank From the Space Shuttle as a Space Station ...
aeromaster.tripod.com/grp.htm


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

With a lightweight next-gen shuttle orbiter such as the X-33 you would have high enough payload capability to bring the ET to orbit plus additional internal structures and solar panels.

RGClark, the X-33 was not a lightweight next-gen shuttle orbiter, and it can't be a lightweight next-gen shuttle orbiter. This has already been explained.

If you wanted to bring an ET to orbit with other structures/hardware, there are other ways to do it. Ways that are actually possible.

A single ET would have two and a half times the habitable volume of the ISS.

Yes, but volume isn't the problem. The problem is outfitting the tank with the hardware to make that volume habitable and usable. And qualifying any internal hardware for the cryogenic environment inside the tank during launch.

Doing all of this manual labour in a vacuum (and through a small access hatch that was not intended for this purpose originally) is far easier said than done.

Not so far farfetched.

One can be tempted to call the Space Island Project rubbish. They don't understand the economic reality of developing, building, and operating a "fleet of space shuttles". The activities they propose leasing out their stations for won't generate enough revenue to sustain such a gargantuan operation.

Nobody needs stations that can accomodate 25, 150 people, etc. There's nothing for such large numbers of people to do.

A rotating (for artificial gravity) station has even less of a purpose, since a very major point of having a space station in the first place is to perform studies in the microgravity environment.

This is 21st century reality, not 1950s Collier's "Von Braun Wheel Station".

(Also, it is pretty hilarious that the SIG video shows the booster rockets being left in orbit as well, which now means the stack has magically become SSTO and the actual purpose of having boosters is totally defeated.)

And the same common problem exists: where are you going to get the ETs? Where are you going to get the boosters? This sort of stuff does not magically fall out of thin air.

 

[RGClark]

RGClark, the X-33 was not a lightweight next-gen shuttle orbiter, and it can't be a lightweight next-gen shuttle orbiter. This has already been explained.

You can explain that the world is flat and the Sun goes around the Earth that does not mean I am required to believe it.
The most difficult problems for any launch vehicle are creating the engines and the lightweight structures. Once you have those mating them together is trivial in comparison.

Bob Clark