High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

On 26 Jan 2004 09:00:22 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

SpaceX hasn't proposed a heavy lift vehicle, which is
required for this application.

No, it's not. It's desired, by some, but it's not required.

Damon Hill wrote in message . 132...
"Dholmes" wrote in
:

Increasing the thrust of the second stage with either a MB-60 or RL-60
and adding a third stage is IMO a must.

This appears to be Boeing's thinking, since they are proposing stacking
two upper stages, most likely using single MB-60s. Two MB-60s on a
single stage would probably require increasing tank volume to get full
benefit. The Delta 4 payload guide mentions a Star 48B third stage for
planetary missions, but does not give performance figures.

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8856&release=t


Interesting. Note that a fully fueled Delta IV 5-meter
diameter second stage weighs nearly 31 metric tons (less
than 4 tons empty), several tons in excess of what
Delta IV-Heavy is reported to be capable of boosting to
low earth orbit. The logical approach would be to upgrade
Delta IV-Heavy enough to be able to put 31 tons into LEO
so that these stages could be orbited fully fueled. This
two-stage plus CEV stack, which appears capable of
translunar insertion, would then require three Delta IV-
Heavy launches.

One or two more launches would apparently be needed to
assemble a lunar lander and its insertion stage, perhaps
sent separately from the CEV.

- Ed Kyle




Boeing also appears to be proposing nuclear-thermal propulsion in this
image:

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cfm?image_id=8864

I haven't seen Boeing's proposed solar-thermal stage mentioned, perhaps
its thrust is too low despite excellent Isp.

Getting significantly more out of the Delta 4 Heavy configuration with
existing launch facilities might mean something more radical as
converting the two strap-ons to LOX/kero and using RD-180 or a new
1 megapound kero engine being developed on the latter's technology,
and adapting the core stage to altitude ignition, as with Titan 3/4.

Benefits to unmanned planetary exploration with these improvements, too.
I wonder how much would be needed to launch that long-duration heavy
rover to Mars?

--Damon

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 26 Jan 2004 09:00:22 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

SpaceX hasn't proposed a heavy lift vehicle, which is
required for this application.

No, it's not. It's desired, by some, but it's not required.

To clarify, I'm talking about an EELV-Heavy class vehicle,
not a Saturn V class heavy lift. Falcon V, a Delta II
class rocket, could not reasonably be used to support a
manned lunar mission. Each mission would require assembling
100-150 tons in low earth orbit (25-38 Falcon V launches
versus 5-6 EELV-Heavy launches).

- Ed Kyle

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 26 Jan 2004 09:00:22 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

SpaceX hasn't proposed a heavy lift vehicle, which is
required for this application.

No, it's not. It's desired, by some, but it's not required.

To clarify, I meant heavy lift as in EELV-Heavy class,
not Saturn-V class. I agree that a lunar mission
should be possible using existing, or soon-to-exist,
launch vehicles rather than requiring development of
a big new booster, but Delta II-class Falcon V is just
too small to be useful in a 100-plus-ton-to-LEO type
of mission.

- Ed Kyle

I've only caught this thread at the last minute, so I really don't know if
this has been mentioned yet, it probably has, but why not use the Energia
HLLV or an Americanized derivative, I got a site about it
(www.k26.com/buran/) if ya want to read about it, Energia could easily lift
100t to LEO, sure it would take a bit of work to ramp it up again, but less
than building any new launchers from scratch. How about something along the
lines of what SeaLaunch did with the Zenits, only do it with Energia...

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
(Rand Simberg) wrote in message
. ..
On 26 Jan 2004 09:00:22 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

SpaceX hasn't proposed a heavy lift vehicle, which is
required for this application.

No, it's not. It's desired, by some, but it's not required.

To clarify, I meant heavy lift as in EELV-Heavy class,
not Saturn-V class. I agree that a lunar mission
should be possible using existing, or soon-to-exist,
launch vehicles rather than requiring development of
a big new booster, but Delta II-class Falcon V is just
too small to be useful in a 100-plus-ton-to-LEO type
of mission.

- Ed Kyle

"Dholmes" wrote...
Going from just over a 5 meter diameter rocket to an almost six meter
diameter rocket even if only for the central rocket would allow for a lot
more launch capability in a Delta Heavy.
Dual MB-60 second stage could also increase mass to orbit.

If we do get sucked into the path of building heavier launchers,
then perhaps the question is, how to do so in the most cost-effective
manner. Is it easy to increase the diameter of the Delta IV or
Atlas 5 to a 6 meter diameter (Atlas/Delta 6 anyone)? Or would
it be more efficient to just strap on solids?

It has also been said that the first stage is the cheapest, so
perhaps the real debate should be on how much we incrementally
launch to LEO each time. High-flight rate is important to the
economics, and the assumption is that we want to make this step
on a *permanent* basis this time, vs. the transitory nature of
Apollo.

Seems to me there is still an awful lot of unused capacity in the
medium lift marketplace - and development costs for the EELVs that
haven't been amortized.

"Krzys Kotwicki" writes:

I've only caught this thread at the last minute, so I really don't know
if this has been mentioned yet, it probably has, but why not use the
Energia HLLV or an Americanized derivative,

The "NIH" factor: "Not Invented Here."


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message ...
"Krzys Kotwicki" writes:

I've only caught this thread at the last minute, so I really don't know
if this has been mentioned yet, it probably has, but why not use the
Energia HLLV or an Americanized derivative,

The "NIH" factor: "Not Invented Here."


Plus someone would have to pay big time to get that
system up and running again after all of these years,
especially since the assembly high bay collapsed.
Remember, the thing only flew twice, and the last
launch was 16 years ago (1988).

- Ed Kyle

"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote in message
...
"Krzys Kotwicki" writes:

I've only caught this thread at the last minute, so I really don't know
if this has been mentioned yet, it probably has, but why not use the
Energia HLLV or an Americanized derivative,

Mmmmm, more like the DEA factor - "Doesn't Exist Anymore".

-Kim-

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Interesting. Note that a fully fueled Delta IV 5-meter
diameter second stage weighs nearly 31 metric tons (less
than 4 tons empty), several tons in excess of what
Delta IV-Heavy is reported to be capable of boosting to
low earth orbit. The logical approach would be to upgrade
Delta IV-Heavy enough to be able to put 31 tons into LEO
so that these stages could be orbited fully fueled. This
two-stage plus CEV stack, which appears capable of
translunar insertion, would then require three Delta IV-
Heavy launches.

Trouble is, Delta IV isn't exactly suited to salvo launch operations. For
that matter, neither is Atlas V. Both would require additional facilities to
make such a mission achievable. From the look of budget numbers, there won't
be enough money to take that approach.

Using just existing facilities would lead to some components having to wait
in orbit for quite some time before the mission package is assembled. Now,
that may not be a huge challenge but it does complicate things, particularly
if cryogenic fuels are used.

-Kim-