SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3: Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html

Bob Clark

So “all” we have to do is get Lunar ISRU re-established as the goal/objective of the HSF program.

Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-next-thursday/

Bob Clark

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

Whichever launch system is used, current vehicles and propellant depots or the SLS, this would allow us to return to the Moon at comparatively low cost and by the 2020 time frame originally envisioned by the VSE.

Bob Clark

A couple of more technical points:
– While the bar charts are so top level they cannot be read for detail, the DDT&E charts appear to have the total for an orbital propellant depot system as only $2 to 3 Billion. That is very low.
– They use a 100 Metric Ton HLLV as there comparison point, but the two iterations of the SLS are 70/130 Metric Tons, thus there is no way to know where any actual cost estimates for this “straw man” booster may have originated.
– On slide 50 (Lunar Reference Mission 33C). It not only lists cost for an orbital propellant depot system for the HLLV configuration, but its costs appear to be some 50% than for the other configurations. A hypothetical 100 Metric Ton Launcher would not need an orbital propellant depot system at all and even if you insist on it having one why would it be significantly more expensive?

OK, that is just a top level review of questions about the study’s methodology. I think supports my basic premise that it would: “emphasize the cost of developing new launchers while implicitly assuming that the Orbital Propellant Depot System can be developed, fielded, and maintained for free.” This one added a new level of “sophistication” by adding the cost of an unneeded depot system to the HLLV column (and saying it costs more than for the other systems – thus even further cooking the books)/

But we have really gotten off topic here. The Subject of these articles was the fact that a specific objective based plan (the VSE) was ended and replaced first with basically nothing, then with an ill thought out plan to visit a series of asteroids (starting some 10 to 15 years in the future and at a rate of no more than one mission every several years), then at some ‘undefined point in the 2030’s transition to an equally low flight rate of missions to Mars orbit that might (or might not) someday lead to a Mars landing. The real point is that you cannot execute a bad objective well no matter what launch architecture you use. SLS, Orbital Propellant Depots, or even “break through Nuclear Fusion Rockets”, it will not matter the objective will still be bad and so will the execution.

When an aerospace company has a netscape moment and delivers a repeatable innovation and suddenly is getting ROI’s three, four, ten times the industry average that is what drives capital. It is not enough that NASA shows that something can be done. It has to show that insane profits are to be had by the early entrants.

SLS can not be utilized as frequently as the space shuttle. They would already have to be funding and building payloads for it to be utilized 6-8 times per year. No one in congress is offering amendments for SLS payloads.

Heavy lift does not make thing simplier or easier to do. If that was the case why not bigger is simplier or easier to do on earth? Do you think trying to get an 33 foot diameter payload to the cape is cheaper and easier to do ? Shutting down roads and interstates is easier to do?

Tell that to LA .. that moving the 100 ton payload .. the old shuttle, was easier to do….

No .. what you seem to have a mental block block admititng is, America found out about a century ago .. doing 20 tons at a time is actually the cheapest and simpilest to do .. not trying to work with 200 ton payloads through america’s heartland isn’t the answer.

treating space as a place and not always attaching the word program to the word would be a great start.

EX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR URGES NASA TO KILL NEXT ROCKET SYSTEM.
Analysis by Amy Shira Teitel
Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM ET
http://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to-kill-sls-120425.html

So it’s probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:

“Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report”
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots. It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it’s interesting they give the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar lander.
On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA) architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

Bob Clark

This assumes one extract lunar water and make rocket fuel, cheaper than you ship rocket fuel from Earth.
So what you really saying is having available rocket fuel at low price at the lunar surface.

In order to have low cost rocket fuel available on the Lunar surface, one must be able to sell a large amount rocket fuel within a short period of time.
With large amount being more than tens of tons of rocket fuel and short time being months to years.
Instead selling rocket fuel, one also used the rocket fuel you make. So for example, you want to spend 100 billion making lunar base, and mining the lunar water lowers the cost
making a lunar base. But it’s same metric as for selling lunar rocket- you need to use a lot of rocket fuel within a short period of time. In order for to get to level being viable, even more rocket fuel is needed use to qualify as “NASA’s number one priority”.

So to me it is not number one priority for NASA to mine lunar water and make rocket fuel,
rather it should be a top priority for NASA to determine if there is minable lunar water.
Or if NASA could do “stuff” that brings about commercial lunar water mining within the shortest period of time- assuming the commercial mining can offer a low price for lunar rocket fuel.
So the ability of commerical lunar ming to be able to offer rocket at low price is dependent on the degree in which lunar water is minable. Or defines whether it’s minable or not.

So first instance IF one mine 1000 tons of lunar water in a year and one needs to sell it for 20 million a ton- that is not minable. If one sell it for 10 million dollars a ton, that also is probably not minable. 5 million per ton could minable. 1 million per ton then maybe it’s has been the most highest priority for NASA.
The more rocket fuel one can sell over say 10 year period, the cheaper one should able to sell the rocket fuel for. And we have the element future market for rocket fuel.
So say you selling 1000 tons of lunar water per year for 10 year. So 10,000 tons at 1 million per ton is 10 billion dollars gross. it is very very unlikely to start lunar operations and sell such high volumes, but perhaps after 10 years of operation you build up to such a high amount [1000 tonnes per year]- so the future growth of demand a major aspect of it.
A typical operation may be tens of tons per year which increase over the years to hundreds or thousands of tonnes. What could critical is after one has work out some problems one could encounter in first year, is having enough demand so one increase production.

What is needed for commercial lunar mining is a existing market for rocket fuel. This can be cheaply done by using fuel depots which shipping rocket from Earth.

So what NASA should do is use fuel depots, and explore the Moon to determine if there is minable lunar water. And if there is minable water, then the private sector can provide the capital to invest the infrastructure to do this.

Compared to NASA deciding it’s going to mine lunar water before, it’s even explored the moon to determine whether it’s minable. So endless viewgraphs of how going to mine something which there is little information about. Adding billions in costs before NASA has explored the Moon. Being committed to project, therefore bias on question of whether there is actually minable lunar. So NASA has all mining stuff ready, explore the Moon and finds good location to mine and starts mining lunar water. How much does it want to mine. The more they want to mine the higher the costs. They probably will mine as much as they need which probably fairly low volume and therefore high unit costs.
And NASA is sort of stuck on the Moon. With probably embarrassing details like a private sector can deliver rocket fuel from Earth to the lunar surface for less cost than NASA’s spending to make it on the Moon. So not being lunar water mining as number one priority.

While I sympathize with (and actually share) director Kraft’s angst at the dismantling of the HSF operational capabilities he was so instrumental in developing, I think the direction of his ire is misplaced. It is not the SLS that is causing the sad situation, it is the fact that no reasonable term mission has been defined. A trip to an undefined asteroid sometime after 2025 (and that is how it is actually defined) just does not place a need to maintain the operational capabilities so budgets get cut. Additionally (if you like conspiracy theories) the JSC vs. MSFC tone of the editorial only plays into a “divide and conquer” strategy that will do neither center any good.

“This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas.”

I have the greatest of respect for Director Kraft, but a question needs to be asked. The “NASA leadership” referred to would have to be Bolden/Garver who work for the White House. The current President wanted no part of the SLS (it was in fact pushed off on him by the Congress). What would be Bolden/Garver’s motive for suppressing such a study? If they have such a study (in which they had any confidence) they would not be suppressing it they would be advertising it.

“It must then use something similar to the Early Lunar Access plan that uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy.”

You are making a big assumption. More likely (by past experience) it would use Orbital Propellant Depots, emphasize the cost of developing new launchers while implicitly assuming that the Orbital Propellant Depot System can be developed, fielded, and maintained for free. In any case absent having the “suppressed” plan to review; it is not possible to tell.

Note to Paul Spudis: We have conversed in the past about my believing that your lunar plan would need direct human intervention sooner than currently allowed. I have never believed I gave you a good enough idea of the level of early support I was trying to describe. The Early Lunar Access study is interesting in that regard. Ignoring the Architecture that allows you to get there, its description of surface capabilities is very close to what I have tried to describe.