Let's say you had a country sized budget to play with

[Usquanigo]

..... and you wanted to set up your own space program, what would be the most cost effective existing tech to launch cargo into orbit?

In fact, let's narrow the question down some - of existing Orbiter addons, IF we assume that construction can/will be handled (meaning ignore that - focusing purely on operational costs), which would be cheapest? Energia? Jupiter/DIRECT? Shuttle C? Delta series? Arianne? Saturn V (upgraded modern builds)? Something else?

I don't really know enough to say, but I get the impression that LH2 would be rather expensive to obtain, and use (due to it's volume and tiny molecule size). I would guess something more dense would be cheaper. (The Russians seem to be excellent at being cost efficient in much of what they do, so I would think Energia would be high on the list of prospective purchases)

What about solid fuel? Those SRBs are monsters, that while not without potential danger, seem to provide incredible lift while being inert until lit, so should be easy to handle and maintain. And if one were to develop a sort of "speed loader" for the fuel, kind of like a clip from a semi-auto hand-gun, drop the empty one out, slide the new one in, done! But then, I don't know what kinds of costs are involved with producing that fuel.


I'm sure I'm asking something that is obvious to most of you guys, but I'm new to this whole field, so be gentle. lol

 

[jinglesassy]

What country-sized budget are you talking about like the USA or China or north Korean?

 

[Usquanigo]

Oil Shiek? Any of the above? It doesn't really matter, as it's a virtual pursuit.

Even if I had the USA's finances, I'd try to do it with in North Korean budgetary constraints.

 

[Usquanigo]

Bump.... anyone?

I don't even know where to begin looking into costs for the various real-world and projected (both those that were considered in real life, and those that are realistic/possible with current tech) launchers we have at O-H, so I asked here. I'm sure someone out there has the answer.

 

[River Crab]

Actually, I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure Energia was not that cheap. Although it is one of my favourite boosters and Orbiter addons, cryogenic liquid fuels are very expensive, and Energia was one monster of a Kerosene/LOX heavy-lifter. Russain/Soviet rockets tend to be Kerosene/LOX fueled BTW. On the other hand, SRBs are not that safe and are very expensive to recover, clean, and rebuild.

Plus, a lot of the "low-cost" booster concepts are named such as they would be easy to begin using, without huge changes in infrastructure, and use existing technology. Thus the whole storm about SDHLVs and such. And many orbital rockets evolved from ballistic missiles. So the cost ends up really being about what you have, not what it takes to build one rocket. I guess what you're really asking is, "What type of technology would you steal?"

That brings up another point. The budget really does matter in what hardware you're going to end up with. For example, a 60's-70's NASA-sized budget would yield much more technologically ambitious designs, as they had a lot of money for R&D of revolutionary new tech, such as winged vehicles and lifting bodies.
On the other hand, a JAXA-sized budget (0.1xNASA's current budget, I think) would lead to designs based on what we know works, thus the conventional H-II rocket family (which is excellent IMO). And I really don't know what ISRO was thinking with AVATAR.

Finally, you'd have to consider weight class. The H-IIB can loft roughly 25 tons from Tanegashima to LEO. That's pretty heavy today, but it's another world compared to the 100-ton Buran-carrying Energia. When you say, "launch cargo", it could be anything. Be more specific.
I'm guessing that, regardless, you'd want to have a very versatile booster to start with, like how Soyuz was envisioned. I think a big rocket family with interchangeable parts would be best.

Honestly I can't really answer you directly here, since I'm new to this field as well, but I can tell you, it's complicated!

 

[Alexw95]

i think your best bet would be to design your own rocket

 

[River Crab]

i think your best bet would be to design your own rocket

Actually I don't think so. R&D is a big cost, so if you have the option to steal something, by all means, do. There is probably something that vaguely suits your needs, and someone else already has it. It's a question of what you need to do, then find a solution adapting it. I'm sure someone could put that much better than me.

And yes, I'm a total thief. :lol:

 

[Usquanigo]

I never saw this in the new threads list at the top so I thought it had died. lol

Very much agree that what would be cheap for NASA these days would not be cheap (necessarily) for someone else, because, like you said, it's about utilizing existing infrastructure.

However, NASA is also a bad example because they over-complicate things, over-pay, then spread the work around just to involve different companies, even if it costs more. In short, they are a government organization.

One thing I always liked about the old Soviet space program was how cavalier they were about it all. And also how practical as well. It is with a certain amount of (American) pride I can think about the story of the space pen, but at the same time, I have to give props to the Soviet answer to the problem - use a pencil. :lol:

This ultra practical mind-set combined with a somewhat cavalier attitude means they could "just do it" and do it for less. And... well, they HAD to do it for less anyway.

Now take it to today, the dollar is much higher than the ruble, and things generally seem cheaper over there (for a great example look at Third Wire Productions (PC Game company - Strike Fighters, First Eagles, etc) compared to say... 1C:Maddox (IL2) or EagleDynamics (LOMAC)... it's just cheaper to develop code in Russia than it is here).

So anyway... let's take a step back for a minute.

What I'm looking for/thinking of, is a highly plausible near future what if. Think of it as sort of like another Scaled Composits/Virgin Atlantic venture. With the right "donations" and right "friends" you can bypass all the red tape. With enough partners and investors you can come up with the money. Let's just assume all that has been done (I've written a way for it, but it's not important here).

So now we're at the stage of needing to build or buy rockets and toss "cargo" up into LEO. "Cargo" is anything - satellites, space stations pieces, O2, fuel, food, etc, etc.

With the thought of building a space station or even other bases, large size with heavy lift capacity is key. Also, there seems to be something to the idea of a single 100 ton launch vs 4 25 ton launches. However, sometimes economy of scale... doesn't, so it can in some cases be cheaper to do the more numerous smaller launches.

I want to use the Burchismo Space Station Building Blocks. Those things look monstrous though, that's a bit scary.

This is also why I specified stuff availanle on O-H, because I want to do it in Orbiter, and I am not an add-on dev.

The other thing to keep in mind, for me, the "role playing" aspect means, doing it as if it were actually being done. There's always going to be some fudging of things, perhaps even in ways that might not happen, but certainly *could* happen if the conditions were right. However, something like, using the STS is a no-go, because there is no plausibility in that in this scenario at ALL.

Ok, so, on that note, back the the realistic/plausible side of "what if" or "how" -

Again, agree that using something known to work is better than designing from scratch. However, that isn't to say that BUILDING something won't be cheap. Meaning, take an existing design, something known and proven to work, and just make more. With new construction techniques and machines it could very concievably lower cost, especially if you don't mind doing it a bit Soviet/Cavalier style, and cut out the NASA/US Government bloat from the project.

Also, along those lines, one thing I had thought was... composites. Take a Proton or Energia or Saturn or whatever and use lots of composites in the construction, make it lighter, make it more quickly than you could otherwise, and likely make it stronger. It will be unmanned cargo launches and so won't need to re-enter, so that relieves a lot of design burden. And since you already know it works as designed, with some good computer time and some quality engineers... I don't see why not. :shrug:

So... turning to fuel. SRBs are expensive to re-claim and re-use because it's NASA that does it. Either making them cheap enough to toss, or, using some system more like the Energia, or even just doing it in a more practical, less "pork barrell" way, should bring that cost down. Using some sort of "clip" system (think of a Colt 1911 (or any semi-auto handgun), drop the empty clip (spent fuel cartridge) and slap a new loaded one in it's place), should help speed things up and cut costs.

Infrastructure.... well again, just cowboy it. Bare essentials. Not funding a whole economy and unions and all that with over-testing and 10x as many people as are actually needed. "Just do it". Make the pieces, bolt it together, fill it up, strap it to the tower, and at the appropriate launch window, light it off. So I'm not too worried about all that (another fudge point).

So like I was saying, fuel - LOX/Kero seems to work well. Apparently LOX isn't all that hard to make, but no matter what it's almost certainly going to be necessary or useful. LH2 is so damned bulky and hard to keep, that it just strikes me as being too difficult and expensive. Which, I am guessing, is why the Sovs didn't use it. Something more energy dense is what I'd be after - UNLESS, LH2 just turned out to be the cheapest way to go afterall.

The "ESA DG Launcher" that was recently made is bad ass. It's all LOX/LH2 though. The US DG Launcher looks shuttle derived, so it's the same thing with SRBs (smaller ones by the look of it). Both are promising in the way of addons though.

The Jarvis doesn't seem to carry enough, but is a cool addon.

Energia... well, as far as quality addons go, it just doesn't get much better. And there is a top mount fairing downloadable as well. And it has the capacity too.

Proton... MUST be cheaper than Energia given the respective usage history of the 2 of them, and it's a known capable launcher. I don't know what the addon is like though, nor how large (not heavy) a module I could lift with it.

Then there is DIRECT or Jupiter. Looks like some great stuff there, but just seems expensive.

Delta.... dunno

Saturn V Mk2... haven't used the addon, but great in theory, but, cheaper than taking advantage of currency exchange rates? (or hell, even building Energia in-house with cheaper materials and automation)

Or maybe just velcro a bunch of SRBs together and light them in sequence? Recover some, let others burn up, and there ya go - no need to build huge super tight containers for LH2, no need to worry about crude oil prices (kero), no need to worry about keeping gasses cryo'd, etc.

And then there is always the possiblity that I just missed something that is out there too.

 

[River Crab]

An intriguing possibility for Orbiter...a futuristic start-up space economy?

Keep in mind, though, Greg Burch's SSBB are very large for their weight, because they are intended for a futuristic setting with advanced nanotechnology. Like his other future addons, they're made with the imagination that the technology has become cheap enough to allow some luxury. For example, more windows or pressurized work pods.

Personally I think inflatable hab modules, unmanned vertical rockets for cargo, and spaceplanes for passengers, is the future. Although it seems that spaceplanes have fallen out of favour, as demonstrated by ESA's unwillingness to help with Kliper and instead go make their own Orion capsule. Anyway that's beside the point.

Two major heavy rockets I think you missed are Atlas V, and Falcon 9.
Atlas V Heavy uses Kerosene/LOX in the boosters and first stage, and LH2/LOX in the second stage. It has an excellent track record with only partial failure in the second stage, which was tracked down, I think.

Falcon 9H (how could you leave out F9, BTW?) uses Kerosene/LOX in boosters and both stages and seems cheap enough in terms of infrastructure. In addition, it's planned to be reusable, although I'm not sure about the cost of the refurbishing after the stages are fished out. But I think this might be what you want, and F9 is already an addon (but not F9H).

Also, what about the Russian DG launcher? That's planned to have a possible cargo variant, and uses Kerosene/LOX fuel, though I'm not sure how economical those 10 boosters will be.

And also, this is still a dream, but if you like Energia, there was a concept for a completely reusable flyback Energia, which is just awesome. Of course it never got close to production, and I don't think Kulchitsky will be making it anytime soon. But just imagine how much better Buran could have been, had they not run out of funding! It would beat the STS by a long shot.

 

[Usquanigo]

I looked at the Falcon 9 too. However I forgot about it because for some reason I was under the impression it wasn't nearly as developed as DG Launcher, Energia, et al. (For that matter, I haven't even tried DIRECT or Saturn V Mk2 at all, just assuming they would be cool)

I'll have to give that one a try and see what it's like.

One potential pit-fall here is - FAA. Anything that goes in the air costs 10x as much as a ground-based equivalent part just because of testing, regulation, insurance, etc. It's a total scam. MIGHT be able to bribe (hehe) some of that away if it was made in-house, or just ignore it if the cargo is shipped to Baikonur.

Atlas V.... any idea how that stacks up to Delta IV in terms of real life cost?

Hmmm.... :hmm:

Regarding SSBB, I don't beleive there is another option out there, is there? At one point I saw his Wheel, and read that "this was made of modules that fit entirely within my Big Space Plane", and for some reason I assumed that it was something I could lift and assemble in orbit, and that I could also connect a rotating section to a non-rotating one - EXACTLY what I want/need to do. But later I find that is not possible. However, SSBB seemed to have the most options as far as parts, so....

I'm always open to other SS kits as well. Even mixing and matching, if that's possible.

As for their weight, For something that only needs to stay up there, I don't think we need nano-tech to do it. Not even carbon nano-tubes (though they are easy enough to grow). C/F, aluminum, titanium, etc (HEAVY [so to speak] on the C/F) should make something that large nice and light. Most of them are just hab modules anyway with some docking ports or maybe trusses. The Nuke mass is something to consider, but later.

And I was under the impression that due to their size, I might have to simply let them stick out of the fairings and 'pretend' that they are actually packed down and will self-unpack once released in orbit. Then'll I'll just DF them together.

....I wish the DF-Lite worked in O-2010, I just can't get it going at all, no matter what I try.

 

[River Crab]

Ugh, I wanted to try the DF-lite! Don't know if it's still updated. I think an RMS is more efficient than a small manned vehicle, although admittedly not as fun.

Anyway Burch himself said that, not me. They really are supposed to be made of nano-stuff. As for them being big, what about the SVTU? It can apparently hold the entire ISS.

One other source of fictional modules is Orbiter Francophone, although the common use of spacecraft3 dooms you to only having one of something, and they have given me some problems. A lot of them are also too big for anything but Space Shuttles. Most of those are current-tech, like something ESA would make.

I don't know too much about existing rockets like Atlas V though, so don't ask me. And you're right, Glider's F9 isn't really complete yet. :shrug:

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:52 ----------

Oh yeah, you just gave me an idea: since the Federation wants to move its spaceflight operations east, what if they sold/transferred parts of (or all of) Baikonur to a private company? Like how Mir was sold (although that didn't work out well).
That might take care of your "everything is taken care of" thing for launch infrastructure. Don't know how realistic that is. Is it plausible that they would do that? :idk:

 

[Usquanigo]

The DF Lite was awesome, but it just doesn't work in O-2010. Not for me at least. I have SC3 (and patch), MS2 (and patch), VC Redists, and nothing.

But after reading the manual for the stock DF, I'm inclined to just go with it. I do appreciate the complexity, although, I also see it as an outdated relic of the Apollo era of design. Anything like that made real would not be made even in 2010, and so should have a much lower work-load for the pilot - more automation, more reliability.

Mostly I like the DF-lite for it's smaller size.


I thought I heard that the plan for the new Cosmodrome was coming up short for cash? I dunno, I don't really follow all that. If they really have a desire to do it, I can certainly see them leasing/renting, perhaps even selling, Baikonur to the right bidder. Especially if their economy remains on hard times.

I figure it this way, I plan to make my own base (am blindly stumbling my way through it right now), and will launchwhatever I can from there, but would also send certain things over to Baikonur. Not really sure how I'd split it. Depends on what I end up using for a launcher I guess.


What is the SVTU?

 

[River Crab]

SVTU
Basically a fairing/can to hold any vessel, made by Bj for OFMM. It doesn't care how big the vessel actually is, since it only spawns it when opened. Thus it can hold the entire ISS, which was the test vessel used during development. :rofl:

 

[jholley309]

One potential pit-fall here is - FAA. Anything that goes in the air costs 10x as much as a ground-based equivalent part just because of testing, regulation, insurance, etc. It's a total scam. MIGHT be able to bribe (hehe) some of that away if it was made in-house, or just ignore it if the cargo is shipped to Baikonur.

Well, it's not so much a matter of government regulation as it is survivability: remember, these big boosters have a lot of high-frequency vibration when lit. That vibration tends to shake things apart unless they are specifically designed to withstand those forces. For instance: if you strapped a commercially-available laptop (even a Toughbook, probably) to just one SRB that the Shuttle uses, the laptop isn't going to survive the launch; it's not designed to tolerate that much vibration, acceleration, and temperature changes from ground level to orbit. It's going to have to be beefed up a bit, much like the custom-built (and very sturdy) computers used on the Shuttle and ISS. That's why NASA has a tendency to over-build things: they're after reliability under extreme conditions, so they specify tolerances accordingly. That gets expensive, both in materials and development; NASA won't just take a supplier's word for it, they want to see test results. Lots of test results. Lots of realistic test results.

Companies like SpaceX and Scaled Composites are much better suited to developing spacecraft that are just good enough to survive the trip, protect the cargo/occupants, and do so without killing anyone. The design-build-test process is more streamlined (mainly because it happens under the same roof, either literally or figuratively) and they are not constrained by federal contracting guidelines like NASA is; i.e. SpaceX and SC can get parts from anywhere they please, or opt to build them in-house if that's more cost effective. Like you said, NASA is a government entity; SpaceX and SC are businesses. Whole different procurement model, there.

So, the real question is: are you a government agency or a private enterprise with investors who want results as cost-effectively as possible? The rules are much different between the two, and that's the main cost driver. And why SC was able to launch a manned spacecraft into suborbital space twice for merely $40M. NASA couldn't manage to keep all the lights on for a month in all their facilities for $40M.

Cheers!

 

[Usquanigo]

In this hypothetical, I would be a buisness, more concerned with being able to operate than with the share-holder's opinions. I know that's not generally good for buisness, but I look to the Ferrari model - they generate sales purely to race. So the hyper expensive Formula 1 operation and developtment is their reason for being a company, and NOT profit.

Well... under Enzo at least. How they are today is another matter entirely.

Either way... what I was referring to in the quoted portion isn't needed levels of engineering and testing, it's the associated costs that go with it. I have a buddy who works for Sikorsky. And I have dated a nurse, had a step mother who was a nurse, and worked/hung out with a guy who was a nurse/emt. In both industries, it's the same thing - an item you might buy for your own private use will cost 10x more (or more than that) if it's going in the air (or in a hospital). And it's actually NOT a different product. It's the same bloody thing (say a switch or a electrical outlet cover or something stupid like that), it just costs more in either of those industries because of regulation, insurance, and so on. The OEMs have to spend a lot more to make it accepted by the powers that be for those uses.

On the surface, it would seem to make sense, like you said, there are conditions that need to be met. But given that in so many cases it's actually identical to a much lower cost part, you begin to see where the scam comes in to play, because it's really NOT about how the part/item can perform, it's about the regulating body(s) overseeing the are in which said part will be used.