High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

(Cris Fitch) writes:

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).

Sadly, I expect the current administration to go for (2.) if re-elected.
IMO, this whole "Based on Moon and Mars" scam is merely a civilian cover
to develop heavy-lift vehicles to implement Rumsfeld's "Vision for 2020"
wet dream, which makes even Reagan's "Star Wars" program look cheap and
impotent by comparison: It calls for the total militarization of space,
denial of access to LEO, and the ability to attack targets on the ground
from orbit. But read the documents, and come to your own conclusions:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1113-03.htm,
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2001/usa-010508zds.htm
http://www.gsinstitute.org/resources/extras/vision_2020.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/space20010111.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/space20010111.pdf


-- Gordon D. Pusch

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

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/


It might be worthwhile to mothball the tooling for the big shuttle tanks. The
case for the big solids is less clear, since one alternative is using Atlas V
cores as boosters.

When the need develops for a very large launcher, one option might be an
in-line launcher with three RS-68 engines beneath a shuttle derived tank, and
Atlas V cores strapped on as needed. Wih six of them, you should be able to get
a pretty impressive payload.

Will McLean

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.

Cris Fitch writes:

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?


Better still, strap on more cores. A modified central core with as many as six
cores as strap ons. This would require some modification of the central core
and to the launch facilities, but you could mostly take advantage of the
existing production lines.

Will McLean

"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;'