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/

(Cris Fitch) wrote in message . com...
Not long ago it looked like the Medium lift market was
over-subscribed with Proton, Ariane-5, Sea Launch, Atlas-5
and Delta-IV.

Not to mention Zenit 2, H-IIA, and the planned heavy
lift versions of Angara and Long March 5.

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.

#1 may be needed for reasons other than economics. If
a surge of launches is required to support a single
mission, launches by more than one provider from more
than one launch site may be essential.

Proton, Angara, and land-launch Zenit are out of the
picture unless a fairly high inclination assembly orbit
is used. The mass penalties make this seem unlikely to
occur unless Russian participation is required for
political reasons.

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.

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)?


If this work is contracted out to the lowest bidder, we
could very well see heavier-lift versions of existing
launchers offered by several companies. After all,
most of their rockets are currently optimized for GTO
not LEO, missions. LEO mass per launch would surely
rise if it improved the chances of winning launch
contracts.

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?


The U.S. will lose Michoud and the SRB production
capacity, but that will be offset by the need to
have a continuous production line for mission hardware,
such as CEV, lunar landers, and the like. Shuttle
orbiter production, by comparison, was shut down a
decade ago.

Don't expect the "standing army" to disappear either.
NASA will still have to assemble, test, and integrate
the spacecraft and payloads for each mission. That
will require something on the scale of the current
ISS hardware checkout effort, except with a much
faster flow rate.

- Ed Kyle

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)?

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.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"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.

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

"Dholmes" wrote in
:



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.

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

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

January 26, 2004

Damon Hill wrote in message :

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

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.

Actually, it would be very difficult to get much payload mass
improvement out of the existing Delta IV Heavy at all, without adding
additional CBCs, or drastically modifying the vehicle as you point
out. The CBCs have a fixed thrust to mass ratio. The multiple upper
stages will basically be the payload.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/rocket.htm

Cris Fitch wrote:

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

Option 2 would be a dream come true for whoever gets to build the heavy lift
vehicle. The barrier of entry for such a beast is very large, so you do not
have to fear competition that much. If you had a standard payload size of,
say, 5 metric tons, you would have many competitors from the start, and
even completely new launch methods such as space tethers, space elevators,
TSTO or SSTO space transports could enter the market at comparatively low
cost.

Given that, it would be a mistake to let the provider of the launch vehicle
design the payloads. That way boeing might have just enough "unexpected"
weight growth that their own vehicle is the only possible launch option...

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

(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;'