Orion gets to LEO using about half of a FH capacity.A lander would be similar on a 2nd launch. Then on a 3rd launch, the hydrolox EDS is put into LEO. It can't be much more than 50mt fully fueled, and the lander can't be too large or it won't be able to push Orion plus the lander through TLI.
{snip}Note:Propellants to fill both ACES and the Lunar lander already in LEO.For a better Lunar program use an OTV ( commercial designed and made ) instead of Orion.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 07/09/2013 11:59 pm{snip}Note:Propellants to fill both ACES and the Lunar lander already in LEO.For a better Lunar program use an OTV ( commercial designed and made ) instead of Orion.We do not have a propellant depot so launching the fuel (and possibly the depot) needs including in the plan.An Orion is needed to re-enter to the Earth's surface from EML-1/2 or low lunar orbit. An OTV able to do this would be a significant extra expense - although a Dragon may be able to do it.
....And the Lunar lander can be kept at EML1/2, refueled at a depot there supplied by an ACES tanker.....4 ) EML1/2 way station ( helps test out long and deep space radiation protection testing ), used to store propellants, OTV, and Lunar lander(s)5 ) ect.What we need in the launchers is cheaper ( reusable ) and wide body fairing when needed.
I think the chart attached below (from the Delta IV Launch Services User‘s Guide, June 2013) is current, and the one upon which you would want to base speculation...
D4H could definitely be upgraded, but at great cost. It may have better TLI performance than Falcon Heavy when upgraded.It'd be expensive, but it's a good backup to a lunar architecture that relies on Falcon Heavy. Having both possibilities allows you to reduce technical risk while also being able to use the cheaper option if it works out. For instance, upgrading D4H shouldn't take as long as, say, developing a new lunar lander, so if you started now and SpaceX canceled Falcon Heavy in three years, it'd cost you more, but it wouldn't otherwise have to impact schedule too much (presuming you have a flexible architecture).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/10/2013 01:14 pmD4H could definitely be upgraded, but at great cost. It may have better TLI performance than Falcon Heavy when upgraded.It'd be expensive, but it's a good backup to a lunar architecture that relies on Falcon Heavy. Having both possibilities allows you to reduce technical risk while also being able to use the cheaper option if it works out. For instance, upgrading D4H shouldn't take as long as, say, developing a new lunar lander, so if you started now and SpaceX canceled Falcon Heavy in three years, it'd cost you more, but it wouldn't otherwise have to impact schedule too much (presuming you have a flexible architecture).If SLS went belly up how many of the potential missions in visioned for it could be performed by evolved versions of the D4H for example?
So I think using D4H might actually be a closer thing to be a reality than FH. But maybe I'm wrong there.
Quote from: Lobo on 07/09/2013 07:08 pmSo I think using D4H might actually be a closer thing to be a reality than FH. But maybe I'm wrong there. Delta IV Heavy could support a lunar mission, but it wouldn't have to be done in a surge or in a hurry. With a propellant depot, either a low-loss depot or a space-storable propellant depot, one Delta IV Heavy launch every three months - using only the existing launch pad - could support a human lunar landing every other year. This using the already-developed rocket with minimal changes. It is already the world's most capable rocket, why spend big bucks changing it? Why not use it? Spend the money on the lander and depot instead. - Ed Kyle
If SLS went belly up how many of the potential missions in visioned for it could be performed by evolved versions of the D4H for example?
Let's assume a cost of $150 for a Delta IV-H.
Since we have no real idea what SLS is going to cost per launch, we will have to speculate on this even further. NASA says $500 million per launch. Let's go with $750 million for a Block 1 and $1 billion for a Block 2 in case they botched the estimate.
Quote from: newpylong on 07/11/2013 01:45 amLet's assume a cost of $150 for a Delta IV-H.The average cost of an EELV launch, all costs included, was recently reported to be something like nearly $470 million. Since Delta IV Heavy is the largest variant, we can guess that it must cost a lot more than $470 million. QuoteSince we have no real idea what SLS is going to cost per launch, we will have to speculate on this even further. NASA says $500 million per launch. Let's go with $750 million for a Block 1 and $1 billion for a Block 2 in case they botched the estimate.At NASA's projected rate of one launch every two years, and given the proposed annual budgets of the program, it is possible to figure that an SLS mission, all costs included, is going to cost something like $6 billion, or maybe more, and that doesn't get astronauts onto the lunar surface.The advantages of a Delta IV Heavy include cost leveraging via. shared overhead and an ability to more easily meter the costs by spreading out the missions. No matter what, a lunar mission is going to cost a mountain of money. Each lunar landing might cost as much as two or three of the data centers the NSA is building to spy on its own citizens, for example. Or as much as 1/10th of an ISS. Etc. (Wild guesses both, but ballpark.) Or we could just keep spending billions each year on NASA like we currently are with no indigenous human program to show for it except for ISS Soyuz hitchhiking. - Ed Kyle