Return to moon: EELV or HLV? Let the market decide (or at least the buyers).

There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

To summarise the debate (in round numbers), the HLV is typically
mentioned as having a payload to Low Earth Orbit of 75-150 tons, and
could be made from Shuttle derived components. A single launch could
land a 10 cargo on the moon.

The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

Which way should NASA go?

I think NASA should not make the decision. It should lay out it's
launch requirements a few years ahead for two years, for example, in
2012, they would say "our moon programm requires in 2015 and 2016, 4
launches of 18 tons and 4 launches of 24 tons to Lunar orbit". Then
let the bidding commence.

Various groups would then be able to make proposals - so Boeing might
offer salvos of Delta IV-Large launches (28 launches in all), L-M
would offer an Atlas equivelant. Ideally, Arianne and Proton should
also be allowed to bid.

As a further spur to competiton, NASA should sell all Space Shuttle
hardware, production facilities, and IP to the highest bidder. A
bidder could probably buy this for a nominal sum, and develop this
into a Shuttle-C. But a private sector bidder would only do this if
they were sure they could beat Boeing etc on price and performance. If
a bidder miscalculated, they would lose.

NASA would then be out of the launch market, but would be the largest
buyer of tonnage, able to incentivise the market to produce lower cost
launch capability.

The EELV / HLV debate then becomes one of technology and economics (so
it can move to sci.space.tech), and no longer a policy question.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

To summarise the debate (in round numbers), the HLV is typically
mentioned as having a payload to Low Earth Orbit of 75-150 tons, and
could be made from Shuttle derived components. A single launch could
land a 10 cargo on the moon.

The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

Which way should NASA go?

The components of an existing LV could be used. I call my concept Delta V
as it's based on the components of the Delta IV. Four CBC's would be
attached to a new core stage with twice the propellant volume as a CBC but
using two RS-68 engines but the other systems would be the same. The New
Core Booster (NCB) would have the same burn time as the CBC as it has twice
the propellant capacity and twice the thrust.

A new upper stage would be needed. For this, I use two MB-60's instead of
the RL-10's of the Delta IV Heavy upper stage. This stage would also have
twice the propellant capacity, but with twice the thrust, burn time would be
the same.

Rather than developing a completely new LV, existing systems would be used
and only the structures for the NCB and upper stages would be new;
everything else is already in production. Thus, for the (very) modest price
of new structure development/testing/production for the NCB and upper stage,
a new launch vehicle 'family' would be created. Even the payload shroud
from the Delta IV Heavy would be used, but it might need to be lengthened
(remember that the Apollo LM was only about 4.2m wide at it's widest,
folded, point and was the widest module used in Apollo).

Payload would be at _least_ 50 tonnes to LEO.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

I think NASA should not make the decision. It should lay out it's
launch requirements a few years ahead for two years, for example, in
2012, they would say "our moon programm requires in 2015 and 2016, 4
launches of 18 tons and 4 launches of 24 tons to Lunar orbit". Then
let the bidding commence.

I love it.I think the biggest snag would be that the major aerospace
companies (and their lobbiests in DC) wouldn't want this to happen - having
grown fat on decades of 'cost-plus' contracts - so there would be
significant pressure for NASA to continue business as usual.

In my mind - that's the significant thing about DARPA's recent robot race
across the Mojave (in which no one finished) - a major government agency
posted a semi-space-related prize, and opened the competition. Hopefully it
will catch on.

---
Dave Boll
http://www.daveboll.com/

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

To summarise the debate (in round numbers), the HLV is typically
mentioned as having a payload to Low Earth Orbit of 75-150 tons, and
could be made from Shuttle derived components. A single launch could
land a 10 cargo on the moon.

The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

Which way should NASA go?

The components of an existing LV could be used. I call my concept Delta V
as it's based on the components of the Delta IV. Four CBC's would be
attached to a new core stage with twice the propellant volume as a CBC but
using two RS-68 engines but the other systems would be the same. The New
Core Booster (NCB) would have the same burn time as the CBC as it has twice
the propellant capacity and twice the thrust.

A new upper stage would be needed. For this, I use two MB-60's instead of
the RL-10's of the Delta IV Heavy upper stage. This stage would also have
twice the propellant capacity, but with twice the thrust, burn time would be
the same.

Rather than developing a completely new LV, existing systems would be used
and only the structures for the NCB and upper stages would be new;
everything else is already in production. Thus, for the (very) modest price
of new structure development/testing/production for the NCB and upper stage,
a new launch vehicle 'family' would be created. Even the payload shroud
from the Delta IV Heavy would be used, but it might need to be lengthened
(remember that the Apollo LM was only about 4.2m wide at it's widest,
folded, point and was the widest module used in Apollo).

Payload would be at _least_ 50 tonnes to LEO.

Sounds good - though I think about 75 tons is needed to put a
meaningful payload of about 10 tons on the lunar surface, or about 100
tons is needed to land and return a few astronauts.

My main point is that Boeing should do this to meets NASA's launch
requirements, and not to meet NASA's launcher requirements, since NASA
should have no launcher requirements.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

To summarise the debate (in round numbers), the HLV is typically
mentioned as having a payload to Low Earth Orbit of 75-150 tons, and
could be made from Shuttle derived components. A single launch could
land a 10 cargo on the moon.

Most of the proposals I have seen seem to indicate using heavy lift to
launch a Lunar transfer stage which would then EOR with the module lifted by
a Delta or Atlas Heavy.

The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

One major disadvantage you left out is our ISS experience. Too much assembly
can become an end in and of itself.

Which way should NASA go?

I think NASA should not make the decision. It should lay out it's
launch requirements a few years ahead for two years, for example, in
2012, they would say "our moon programm requires in 2015 and 2016, 4
launches of 18 tons and 4 launches of 24 tons to Lunar orbit". Then
let the bidding commence.

I would only make three changes:

1) We first need answers to sever questions about the Moon. The ease and
quantity of usable local resources will make major differences in NASA's
needs. For example NASA says ideally a person should have over 12 tons of
supplies a year but 10 of that is water
2) I would make is to let NASA see if Heavy lift would be useful in the long
term and if it was put aside some funds to encourage the development of the
heavy lift. For example Nasa could for the first 10 launches allow a
slightly higher bid to win if it involved heavy lift or they could provide a
cash award for the first HLV into orbit.

3) I would not allow one company to win all the bidding and would want to
encourage even the smallest companies like SpaceX. A special fund for
startup launchers could even be set up.


Various groups would then be able to make proposals - so Boeing might
offer salvos of Delta IV-Large launches (28 launches in all), L-M
would offer an Atlas equivelant. Ideally, Arianne and Proton should
also be allowed to bid.

I would disagree with this NASA is supposed to be developing National space
capability.
As such I have a hard time allowing even Atlas to bid.
The only two companies I see qualified to bid right now are Boeing and Space
X.
I would place manufacturing the main engine the the U.S. as a condition for
Lockheed to bid.


As a further spur to competiton, NASA should sell all Space Shuttle
hardware, production facilities, and IP to the highest bidder. A
bidder could probably buy this for a nominal sum, and develop this
into a Shuttle-C. But a private sector bidder would only do this if
they were sure they could beat Boeing etc on price and performance. If
a bidder miscalculated, they would lose.

Sounds great the only problem is could they get a bid or would they have to
pay someone to take it off they're hands.
How hard would it be to turn the Shuttle into an X-Prize like vehicle taking
50-70 people over 100km and back again?


NASA would then be out of the launch market, but would be the largest
buyer of tonnage, able to incentivise the market to produce lower cost
launch capability.

I agree. The one thing most people seem to miss though is the scale we are
talking about.
20-40 Delta or Atlas heavy launches a year which is 60-120 rockets. 1-2 a
week that may not qualify as mass production but it is close.


The EELV / HLV debate then becomes one of technology and economics (so
it can move to sci.space.tech), and no longer a policy question.

It will always be a policy issue because it is one of the things that define
both NASA and the type of space program we run.

"Dholmes" writes:

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

One major disadvantage you left out is our ISS experience. Too much assembly
can become an end in and of itself.

If you're assembling a TLI stage in LEO, as long as you can fit all
the equipment in one launch (e.g. engine, power, electronics, etc.)
then "too much assembly" actually degenerates into attaching fuel
tanks to a TLI stage. This should be much easier to do than ISS
assembly, because the connections would be very simple. I don't see
why this would be more complicated than attaching MPLM's to ISS, which
is "routine" on station supply flights.

If your TLI stage uses fuel from one tank at a time (maybe in pairs to
maintain symmetry), and throws away the tanks as they empty, you gain
back some of the performance you loose by the added weight of multiple
tanks (since a single, lighter tank must be carried for the entire TLI
burn). By the time the burn is complete, you're left with just one
(or two for a symmetric pair) empty tank and the engine/power/control
module.

Furthermore, if you launch the tanks full and attach them to the TLI
stage, you don't have to worry about the complexities of transferring
liquids in zero gravity.

In fact, assembling a TLI stage ought to be one of the easiest
assemblies to be done in LEO, as long as you aren't launching pieces
that are unreasonably small.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...

Sounds good - though I think about 75 tons is needed to put a
meaningful payload of about 10 tons on the lunar surface, or about 100
tons is needed to land and return a few astronauts.

My main point is that Boeing should do this to meets NASA's launch
requirements, and not to meet NASA's launcher requirements, since NASA
should have no launcher requirements.

Ok, for a start, why 10 tons? I work with 6.7 tonnes (14,770 lbs) and get
an Accommodation Module on one landing; an Experiment Module (same hull as
the AM but with different outfitting) on another landing; a Power Module
(solar cells for day and fuel cells for night) on another landing; Logistics
Module (payload, food, spares, experiments etc) on another landing and a
crew on a seventh landing. The launcher would cost _less_ than twice that
of the Delta IV Heavy (same components, already in production means more
components produced - economics of scale are factored into this) and that
comes out at less than $340 million for the launcher.

If $5 billion were available each year, with the first four or five for
development (how long did it take Apollo from scratch and 'we' now have
Apollo to base our figures and ideas on; they had nothing - even the
rendezvous technique had to be developed and 'we' use it regularly now -
only the structure/tanks for the NCB and upper stages have to be developed
from scratch so it _won't_ take even five years), then at least seven
missions are possible per year. That's more than enough.

Alex, you want to look at what I've come up with? I need an email addy,
please (email me as I don't 'mung' mine). My idea runs to about 440-450kb
in an email. It's only basic, but it's a start and I _really_ think it's
good enough to look at (lack of modesty noted).

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...

Sounds good - though I think about 75 tons is needed to put a
meaningful payload of about 10 tons on the lunar surface, or about 100
tons is needed to land and return a few astronauts.

My main point is that Boeing should do this to meets NASA's launch
requirements, and not to meet NASA's launcher requirements, since NASA
should have no launcher requirements.

Ok, for a start, why 10 tons? I work with 6.7 tonnes (14,770 lbs) and get
an Accommodation Module on one landing; an Experiment Module (same hull as
the AM but with different outfitting) on another landing; a Power Module
(solar cells for day and fuel cells for night) on another landing; Logistics
Module (payload, food, spares, experiments etc) on another landing and a
crew on a seventh landing.

This makes sense. I look forward to the detail, but for everyone else:
- I couldn't find any mass figures for inflatable hab weights. With
6.7 tons you could do OK given regolith can be used for radiation
shielding. What size do you envision.
- 6.7 tons would also allow a fully fueled crew launcher to be landed.
This could land and take off with a crew of 3 or 4 who would
rendez-vous with a CEV bought up on another 50 ton vehicle.
- Power module - for a polar base I'd go nuclear. Otherwise it's a
close call. ultimately - microwaves and laser power beamed from L1.

More relevant to the policy: Who would decide? I still think it would
be NASA's responsibility to decide the standard "pallet" size. To do
this they would need input from their payload designers ("Oh please
add 30% because then the hab modules can be really nice") and the
procurement team ("If we go with 6.7 tons we estimate tendered prices
of 10% lower per kilo than if we go with 10 tons.") Note: THE ROCKET
SCIENTISTS ARE NO LONGER INVOLVED IN DESIGN.

I think the pallet size would need to fixed over several procurement
rounds. so if 6.7 tons it is, then 6.7 tons it should remain for a
decade. That will give Kistler etc something to aim for.

Note also there would be smaller contracts, e.g. resupply and recrew
of ISS for 2 years, which would provide a stepping stone for newer
suppliers to enter the Medium Lift market. There would also be a
preliminary phase of unmanned exploration, requiring a "pallet" size
of perhaps 2 tons - and hence already achievable by Delta, Atlas,
Arianne and Proton.


If $5 billion were available each year, with the first four or five for
development (how long did it take Apollo from scratch and 'we' now have
Apollo to base our figures and ideas on; they had nothing - even the
rendezvous technique had to be developed and 'we' use it regularly now -
only the structure/tanks for the NCB and upper stages have to be developed
from scratch so it _won't_ take even five years), then at least seven
missions are possible per year. That's more than enough.

Alex, you want to look at what I've come up with? I need an email addy,
please (email me as I don't 'mung' mine). My idea runs to about 440-450kb
in an email. It's only basic, but it's a start and I _really_ think it's
good enough to look at (lack of modesty noted).

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
m...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...

This makes sense. I look forward to the detail, but for everyone else:
- I couldn't find any mass figures for inflatable hab weights. With
6.7 tons you could do OK given regolith can be used for radiation
shielding. What size do you envision.
- 6.7 tons would also allow a fully fueled crew launcher to be landed.
This could land and take off with a crew of 3 or 4 who would
rendez-vous with a CEV bought up on another 50 ton vehicle.
- Power module - for a polar base I'd go nuclear. Otherwise it's a
close call. ultimately - microwaves and laser power beamed from L1.

snipped to reduce confusion
Metal pressure modules about the size of SpaceLab. Lunar Equator - easier
to get to (less propellant during TLI - same problem limited Apollo landing
sites, but once there *permanently*, surface vehicles can go anywhere in
relative safety). Maybe nukes for the poles, but the political climate
negates this.

As for the decision, it would be essentially a federally funded corporation
and would be used in the same way that Airmail was used to get airlines
operating commercially and economically. The Idea is to provide the
infrastructure and the transport facilities in the beginning and then sell
rides on a User-Pays basis. Once the basic infrastructure is set up
(assembly, launch, space transport, operation and Lunar surface facilities),
the operation would be available for everyone who could afford the price -
about $500 million per trip.

I await your email


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

On 15 Mar 2004 14:59:14 -0800, (Alex Terrell)
wrote:

There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

To summarise the debate (in round numbers), the HLV is typically
mentioned as having a payload to Low Earth Orbit of 75-150 tons, and
could be made from Shuttle derived components. A single launch could
land a 10 cargo on the moon.

The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

Which way should NASA go?



Good question. Right now there's a lot of brainstorming going on; who
knows where it will lead.

A shuttle-derived vehicle has the advantage of using existing hardware
and infrastructure, so you don't have to build anything new there.
The bad news is said hardware and infrasturcture is firghfully
expensive. So the Shuttle derived boosters has the plus of being
developed realtively quickly, the minus of being outrageously expnsive
to operate.

Another possiblity is the one raised by the Synthesis group 14 years
ago. Assuming the blueprints are on microfilm somewhere, the F-1
engines that powered the Saturn V's first stage could be put back in
production; the group noted a variant capable of 1.8 million pounds of
thrust -- 300,000 pounds more than what used used on the Saturn V --
and propsed a family of heavy lifters caopable of putting 500,000
pounds in LEO. Before anyone growns, a booster core with two or three
F-1s could be the basis of a family of launchers. A single 1.8
million pound F-1 and two space SRBs also gives you almost 6 million
pounds of thrust at launch, almost the same as the Shuttle. You could
also cluster smaller solids around the base, kind of a "super Delta
2." I've thought about ideas like that for years.

Another thing to remember is that the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V
shared and upper stage, the S-IVB, and the S-IVB's J2 engines were
also used in the Saturn V's second stage. If the EELV is judged too
small, but fills the same niche as the 1B, another avenue would be
just to develop a new, more powerful first stage, or first stages, and
keep the hardware used in the upperstages.

There are plenty of options, IMHO.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---