|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
Not long ago it looked like the Medium lift market was
over-subscribed with Proton, Ariane-5, Sea Launch, Atlas-5 and Delta-IV. Now with the retirement of Shuttle and a new plan for manned exploration coming into being, we've got to ask ourselves: 1) Launch lots of medium payloads or 2) Go Heavy I've got to argue in favor of #1, hoping that the economics of all these medium lift launchers will reduce the overall cost of these plans. Standardize the payloads (a la the building of MIR) and assemble what you need for each mission. Pay companies for the results (e.g. fuel delivered to the right orbit). If one feels it necessary to go for heavy lift, can't we at least think in terms of "Delta-IV Super Heavy", such that our flight hardware makes use of the engineering and production already in use (and that will stay around if the politics of heavy lift fails)? Finally, there is the issue of what expertise we lose when we shut down a heavy lift capability (Saturn V, Energia, Shuttle). Certainly we don't mind losing the cost of the standing army, but are we going to lose the facilities for large fuel tanks or recoverable strap-ons? - Cris Fitch San Diego, CA http://www.orbit6.com/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
Finally, there is the issue of what expertise we lose when we
shut down a heavy lift capability (Saturn V, Energia, Shuttle). Certainly we don't mind losing the cost of the standing army, but are we going to lose the facilities for large fuel tanks or recoverable strap-ons? - Cris Fitch San Diego, CA http://www.orbit6.com/ The Shuttle C has about half the lift capability of the Saturn V Rocket. I think we could use a single Shuttle C to launch a Lunar Mission, if it has a nuclear upper stage. Does that count as a medium lift launcher? Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
Joe Strout wrote: In article , (ed kyle) wrote: The problem with this is that Proton has been the driver of launch cost reduction in recent years. With it out of the picture, launch prices would rise from current levels. Since U.S. companies seem incapable of competing in the commercial launch world market, Arianespace would then, by default, get to decide how much NASA would have to pay to launch each lunar mission. So you don't believe SpaceX will be able to deliver at their quoted prices ($6M for Falcon I, $12M for Falcon V)? Just entering the discussion. Proton is a bit bigger than either version of the Falcon. The Falcon competes with Orbital's launchers and if the Falcon I comes in at the $6M quoted it should undercut their fixed base launchers. Aerial launches still have some advantages in orbital flexibility. The Russian launcher nearest to the Falcon class is Rokot and I wonder how things will be if they ever run out of old missile parts. It remains to be seen whether Space-X can deliver consistently at the prices they quote or whether they are quoting "loss leader" prices. Falcon V, I assume, will require a successful Falcon I. SpaceX has shown the ability to provide funding in order to get to its planned launch. Is that the only difference between them and Microcosm? Microcosm has made a few test flights but has not yet provided a vehicle. They have been around for quite a while. SpaceX needs to provide us with a demonstration. If the first flight fails I hope they have the will and resources to continue because many successful vehicles have progressed past early failures. Also, I notice you didn't mention SeaLaunch -- I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but AIUI they're fairly cheap and can launch into pretty much any orbit you want. As far as U.S. companies go we have both ILS and SeaLaunch, and that in both cases is U.S. with an asterisk. Mike Walsh |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
Joe Strout wrote in message ...
In article , (ed kyle) wrote: The problem with this is that Proton has been the driver of launch cost reduction in recent years. With it out of the picture, launch prices would rise from current levels. Since U.S. companies seem incapable of competing in the commercial launch world market, Arianespace would then, by default, get to decide how much NASA would have to pay to launch each lunar mission. So you don't believe SpaceX will be able to deliver at their quoted prices ($6M for Falcon I, $12M for Falcon V)? SpaceX hasn't proposed a heavy lift vehicle, which is required for this application. Also, I notice you didn't mention SeaLaunch -- I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but AIUI they're fairly cheap and can launch into pretty much any orbit you want. The current Sea Launch Zenit 3SL can only loft something like 6.5 tons to LEO due to structural limitations, compared to 20-25 tons for the other launchers. Sea Launch might be able to adapt a two-stage Zenit for use in a LEO mission, but such a vehicle would not use an Energia-built third stage. Energia, a part-owner of Sea Launch, would have to agree to such an effort, which would result in the development of a launcher that does not use any Energia hardware. - Ed Kyle |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
(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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
(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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers
"Cris Fitch" wrote in message om... Not long ago it looked like the Medium lift market was over-subscribed with Proton, Ariane-5, Sea Launch, Atlas-5 and Delta-IV. Now with the retirement of Shuttle and a new plan for manned exploration coming into being, we've got to ask ourselves: Yep the market is about to get a lot bigger. One of the things to remember is all the current rockets are designed for a mix of LEO and GTO not LTO or Lunar orbit. Some changes will naturally be made to better suit this new objective. 1) Launch lots of medium payloads or 2) Go Heavy I've got to argue in favor of #1, hoping that the economics of all these medium lift launchers will reduce the overall cost of these plans. Standardize the payloads (a la the building of MIR) and assemble what you need for each mission. Pay companies for the results (e.g. fuel delivered to the right orbit). I do not see how you can go with medium launch vehicles unless you count a Delta Heavy as a medium class launch vehicle. The Delta 5,4 can only place less then 5 tons into LTO. With launch capacity like this you would need at least 40 launches and maybe as many as 80 launches a year just to maintain a 4 man base. Too much assembly can cause many of the same problems we see now with ISS. If one feels it necessary to go for heavy lift, can't we at least think in terms of "Delta-IV Super Heavy", such that our flight hardware makes use of the engineering and production already in use (and that will stay around if the politics of heavy lift fails)? This has a lot of potential. 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. Increasing the thrust of the second stage with either a MB-60 or RL-60 and adding a third stage is IMO a must. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's X-43A flight results in treasure trove of data | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 7th 04 06:42 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Space Station Crew & Students Are 'Partners In Flight' | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | December 16th 03 09:09 PM |