High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers

(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-

"Kim Keller" wrote in message .com...
"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.


If the money isn't there, then the U.S. is not going to the
Moon. Any lunar mission is going to require new launch
facilities, whether it be via EELV or not. The most efficient
way to salvo launch is to assemble vehicles (ideally with
payloads) off-pad in an assembly building, then scoot 'em and
shoot 'em off of one or two pads. An extra one or two VIF
bays could turn SLC 41 into a salvo launcher. NASA, of course,
will have an unused assembly building with a pair of launch
pads after 2010. The old Air Force Titan ITL complex and
Pad 40 will be available after this year or next, as will
SLC 36A and B. If NASA doesn't build a new pad somewhere,
Cape Canaveral/KSC will be left with only four or so active
launch pads in a few years, less than half of today's number.

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.


A lunar surface rendezvous approach could offer some relief.
Sending some mass directly to the lunar landing site ahead
of the manned mission would reduce the LEO-rendezvous mass
requirements and reduce launch window restraints.

- Ed Kyle

"Kim Keller" wrote in message .com...
"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-

Any idea how much time?

I was thinking that the current "Heavies" can lift about 25 tons to
LEO. Two of these could put about 10 tons on the moon. One would put
up an upper stage (20-25 tons) which would dock with the Lander (10
tons) plus cargo(10 tons).

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.

Apart from higher energy upper stages, which seem to be part of the
Delta IVs future at least, isn't there a way to tweak the specific
impulse of the RS-68 even a little bit? I believe the H-1 and the F-1
were both incrementally upgraded over the course of their lives with
considerable payoffs in lofting capacity.

Any ideas, insights?

Phil

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
If the money isn't there, then the U.S. is not going to the
Moon.

You may very well be right. Bush did what makes himself look good, not what
insures the project will survive future administrations.

Any lunar mission is going to require new launch
facilities, whether it be via EELV or not.

More than likely.

The most efficient
way to salvo launch is to assemble vehicles (ideally with
payloads) off-pad in an assembly building, then scoot 'em and
shoot 'em off of one or two pads. An extra one or two VIF
bays could turn SLC 41 into a salvo launcher.

We priced that option this past summer. Even that ain't cheap.

NASA, of course,
will have an unused assembly building with a pair of launch
pads after 2010.

Yeah. That's why I think there'll be a push to develop Shuttle-C or
something similar.

The old Air Force Titan ITL complex and
Pad 40 will be available after this year or next, as will
SLC 36A and B.

We looked at modifying SLC-40, too - there are a lot of "landmines" that
would drive up the cost and stretch out construction schedules. Bottom line
was it would cost a lot of money to turn -40 into something usable.

As for -36, a line was drawn on the CCAFS map with the words, "No Heavy
Rockets South Of This Line" above it. That line was a bit north of -36.

If NASA doesn't build a new pad somewhere,
Cape Canaveral/KSC will be left with only four or so active
launch pads in a few years, less than half of today's number.

Just how many do we need?

-Kim-

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
Any idea how much time?

Probably a month, given no expansion of today's facilities.

-Kim-

Phil Paisley wrote:

Apart from higher energy upper stages, which seem to be part of the
Delta IVs future at least, isn't there a way to tweak the specific
impulse of the RS-68 even a little bit? I believe the H-1 and the F-1
were both incrementally upgraded over the course of their lives with
considerable payoffs in lofting capacity.

You could use FLOX . But I doubt that works well in a hot-oxidizer
staged combustion cycle.

Maybe gelled metalized RP-1 for the fuel? Adds about 5% to the Isp.

Paul

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 06:28:15 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"ed kyle" wrote in message
. com...
If the money isn't there, then the U.S. is not going to the
Moon.

You may very well be right. Bush did what makes himself look good, not what
insures the project will survive future administrations.

Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though
there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done
instead?