Author Topic: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy  (Read 49789 times)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Using Falcon Heavy for a lunar mission has been talked about before, and I think it'd be a viable LV for a 3-launch architecture.

But I don't hear Delta IV-Heavy talked about much.  And I mean the upgraded version of it.  I've attached a D4H groth chart.  It looks like with a new upper stage, two GEM-60's on each stage, and cross feeding, it can get up about 50mt to LEO.  Now, FH can get that too with crossfeed.  But what I think gets forgotten with D4H, is it can push a very large percentage of it's LEO capacity to GTO or TLI.  I'm not sure of it's TLI capacity, but it can push over half of it's LEO capacity to GTO, where FH is about 22% of it's LEO capacity to GTO.

So, would an upgraded D4H still be able to push half or more of it's LEO capability through GTO?  ANd would it's TLI be similar to it's GTO?

IF so, then by adding ACES (which ULA wants to do anyway), two GEM-60's to each core (which it's designed to mount anyway), and crossfeed (which FH will need to do too), could perhaps get 50mt to LEO and maybe near 25mt to TLI?
If that's accurate, then things get a little interesting.
With FH, you'd for sure need to have LEO assembly, and a new large hydrolox upper stage.  So using FH needs a few new elements too.
And how do you split up the launches?  Three launches?  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.
LEO assembly with D4H has some similar issues.

However, with LOR, and upgraded D4H should be able to push 25mt elements through TLI.  That would be Orion, a reasonable sized single stage lander (like a fully fueled Boeing lander) and then an ACES stage that would do it's own TLI burn with no payload, and get to HLO with [hopefully] enough propellant to do staged descent for the lander and then be crashed just prior to touch down. 
Orion would put itself in HLO and stay there, and do it's own TEI burn from there as EM-2 would have originally done.
Things seem to balance a little better this way...unless I'm getting something very wrong here.

The lander doesn't have to do the LOI burn like Altair, so it can be kept reasonable size and still have good capability.  Seems like this could be accomplished with only minor upgrades to the D4H booster.  ACES would be the real development, but a FH architecture needs a new hydrolox upper stage as well.  It would get a pretty good clip for D4 cores and hopefully bring the costs down (if it didn't, then this would be a pretty expensive architecture, so it assumes some good reduction in D4 prices with this increase in production).  9 cores and 3 ACES stages per mission, with something nearing 75mt through TLI, which was the target for CxP I think?

The launches would have to be done pretty close together.  Using both KSC pads as well as LC-37. 

Any major issues with this architecture?

With an ACES-like stage developed for FH, a similar architecture could be used for that.  However, ULA has already done a lot of design work for ACES, and SpaceX seems to be not doing anything with hyrolox at all.  And I have no idea what a Raptor powered methalox stage on FH would do.
So I think using D4H might actually be a closer thing to be a reality than FH.  But maybe I'm wrong there.

« Last Edit: 07/09/2013 07:08 pm by Lobo »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #1 on: 07/09/2013 09:17 pm »
A lunar lander with big drop tanks can fly itself to LLO.  Fuelled by methane it can stay in orbit for several weeks.  The Orion can join it there.

An Orion with crew has to be launched on a man rated launch vehicle.  The lander can go up on anything including the current Delta IV heavy.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #2 on: 07/09/2013 09:19 pm »
I suspect rendezvous in high lunar orbit I suspect you may have trouble with limited launch windows and phasing probably better to go to l1/l2.

If you separate the lander, from the crew you could use a low energy trajectory or even SEP to position the lander ahead of the crew at either l1/l2 or high lunar orbit. Now you could then use the 50MT to lift Orion and a Stage big enough to push it out to l1/l2 at once in an two launch scenario.


Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #3 on: 07/09/2013 09:32 pm »
  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.


If you are doing assembly in LEO then you don't need to use FH or delta to launch all the pieces. The lander could go up on any rocket capable of lifiting it. Orion could be lifted unmanned to an spacestation or the ISS and pushed from there to l1/l2. If lifted unmaned it might be light enough to use Atlas instead of delta.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #4 on: 07/09/2013 11:59 pm »
Upgrading Delta IVH to ~50mt could add to much cost to the launch vehicle.

We only need the Delta IVH we have with the exception of replacing it's US with an ACES US ( in space refueling ).

1 ) launch DIVH with Lunar lander
2 ) Launch DIVH with Orion ( no crew )
3 ) Launch crew on commercial crew taxi
4 ) fuel ACES ( now in space called the EDS ) and crew now in Orion
5 ) fuel Lunar lander and ACES ( now in space called the EDS ), also Orion's ACES ( EDS )
6 ) both ACES ( one with lander and the other with Orion ) do their TLI burn

Both fly together to EML1/2 or LLO. If there were a problem with Orion crew could transfer to lander by space walk.

Both ACES would need to do the EML1/2 or LLO insertion burn.

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.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #5 on: 07/10/2013 04:46 am »
{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.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #6 on: 07/10/2013 05:20 am »
{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.
The question is using the DIVH or FH.

ACES is in the opener and part of the ACES program is a propellant depot.

The OTV ( look up the t/Space Lunar CEV concept ) does not return to the Earth's surface, that is what the commercial crew taxi is for waiting in LEO. The OTV is stored in LEO for reused on the next mission. And the Lunar lander can be kept at EML1/2, refueled at a depot there supplied by an ACES tanker.

For this thread if we want to use the DIVH and or the FH propellant depots and or propellant tankers are best to use, not launches direct to the moon. Nor is it a good idea to up grade the DIVH with SRB's and cross feed, unless the DoD required such lift capacity ( FH should end up being cheaper than DIVH is now before any upgrades would be put in place ).

It might be possible for FH/Dragon to EML1/2 ( Lunar version of Dragon ).

The DIVH or FH could have taken care of a Lunar program if we had first worked on our foundations for a proper VSE ( Vision for Space Exploration ).

Part of the is-
1 ) reusable LEO crew taxi's
2 ) in space propellant transfer ( tankers and or depots )
3 ) OTV ( Orbital Transfer Vehicles , t/Space CEV concept )
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.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #7 on: 07/10/2013 05:47 am »
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.

I believe an impressive human mission to the lunar surface -- possibly rivaling a Cx lunar sortie -- is possible using a total of four DIV-H launchers, each with the "easiest" upgrade (the addition of solid boosters).

Compared with Apollo the architecture requires one more LOC-critical rendezvous. (But "one more" doubles the number of those!)

The launch missions in order are:

- Pre-deploy a habitat on the lunar surface.
- Pre-deploy a lander at the (cis-lunar) rendezvous point.
- Pre-deploy an Earth-return propulsion module at the rendezvous point.
- Launch the crew in a capsule to the rendezvous point.

The crewed mission steps are:

- Rendezvous with the predeployed assets at the cis-lunar rendezvous point.
- Transfer to the lander and rendezvous on the surface with the hab.
- Transfer to the hab and conduct surface operations.
- Transfer to the lander and return to the cis-lunar rendezvous point.
- Transfer to the capsule and use the Earth-return propulsion module for TEI
- Reenter Earth atmosphere and land.

Notes:

- The capsule, lander, and hab all include ECLSS hardware; the Earth-return module provides additional ECLSS consumables to the capsule.
- Selection of the cis-lunar rendezvous point is TBD, based on balancing the masses of the launch payloads.
- No propellant transfer is required; methane/lox propellant assumed for the lander and Earth-return propulsion module.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 05:49 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #8 on: 07/10/2013 06:06 am »
....
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.



Using L1 or L2 for human Lunar surface missions adds significant mass, engine starts, cost, delta-v, risk, complexity, radiation exposure, and time. Propellant and Lunar Lander storage in a stable LLO should be quite doable and preferable. 


"'There are actually a number of 'frozen orbits' where a spacecraft can stay in a low lunar orbit indefinitely. They occur at four inclinations: 27º, 50º, 76º, and 86º'—the last one being nearly over the lunar poles."

From: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
At: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/ 
  
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #9 on: 07/10/2013 06:44 am »
Delta IV-Heavy with Aluminium/Lithium structures and an uprated upper stage - 'stretched' for more propellant and 2x MB-60 or RL-60 engines should get more than 34 metric tons into L.E.O. Any other modifications than that and the cost for redesign and retooling starts to escalate.

A 3x launch mission with 1x Atlas V-552, 1x uprated Delta IV-H (as above) - these have the spacecraft - and 1x Falcon Heavy with the Earth Departure Stage would give a lot of mission capability for a fraction of the cost of developing a 'Super Heavy Lift' launcher. Plow the money instead into the spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 08:32 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #10 on: 07/10/2013 01:14 pm »
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).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #11 on: 07/10/2013 01:41 pm »
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...

Thanks for that speculative extrapolation.

One key question would be cost.  Do you have some take on that?  The four launches, and all the ancillary hardware. Inquiring billionaires want to know!

I promise not to hold those costs against you!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13982
  • UK
  • Liked: 3968
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #12 on: 07/10/2013 05:25 pm »
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).

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?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #13 on: 07/10/2013 07:10 pm »
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).

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?
Are you talking about what missions could still be done without SLS? The answer is all of them.

Are you talking about what mission concepts that were intentionally /designed/ such that /only/ SLS could launch them (like the work being done with JPL on outer planets missions), then obviously none of them, if the designers were competent.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #14 on: 07/10/2013 11:03 pm »
So 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

« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 11:06 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #15 on: 07/10/2013 11:26 pm »
So 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


Great post  :).

Quotes from above:
"but it wouldn't have to be done in a surge or in a hurry"

"could support a human lunar landing every other year"

"Spend the money on the lander and depot instead."

And we would not have to be committed to a Lunar program. We could exit any time with about one Lunar sortie every other year. With this approach we could afford a Mars program also. Could continue Lunar landings even with a Mars program.

With an ACES based depot this could be affordable.
Latter if needed commercial could bring in a low cost HLV.

I assume for this crew would ride up on a commercial taxi and transfer to Orion ( Orion launch on Delta IVH, not human rated ).


Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #16 on: 07/11/2013 01:45 am »


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?

Most of them most likely. However, cost may end up being only slightly cheaper and the timeline would be longer and operationally more complex.

Let's assume a cost of $150 for a Delta IV-H.

4 Vehicles X $150 million a piece = 600 million + the below.
How much is it going to cost to man rate it?
How much is it going to cost to put the ground systems in place for crewed flight?
How much are the upgrades that people keep mentioning to give it more TLI payload going to cost?
How much is the propellant depot going to cost?
How much is all of the orbital rendezvous and assembly going to cost, both dollar wise and sheer mission time / risk?

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.


2 launches of Block 1 (1 crew, 1 lander) = 1.5 billion   1 orbital rendezvous
1 launch of Block 2 (crew and lander) = 1 billion  no orbital rendezvous

There are other costs involved in both an SLS or alternative scenario including any crew vehicles and landers. That said, the SLS alternatives may be a wash for single use missions.


« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 02:34 am by newpylong »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #17 on: 07/11/2013 03:16 am »
Let'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. 
Quote
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.
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 
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 03:27 am by edkyle99 »

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #18 on: 07/11/2013 03:44 am »
So 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

Well, yeah, this is what we should be doing.  Between the D-IV Heavy and a man rated Atlas we have the LVs we need to do really cool and important stuff. Spend money on landers and other mission equipment, not some huge rocket that we can't even afford to operate if it ever becomes operational.  Spend money on payloads, not developing new launch vehicles. Why can't people see how futile the present course is?  Ok, I'm breathing into a paper bag now now, feeling calmer... :)
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 03:47 am by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #19 on: 07/11/2013 03:49 am »
That is not a fair analogy. Program overhead costs were not factored into my numbers because a proper comparison would have them as their own line item and they would be shared by multiple launches.

It was a comparison of vehicle and launch costs and only that. You can't keep adding $6 Billion dollars to every SLS launch cost in the same way you can't add the EELV infrastructure subsidies or development costs onto each launch. As of a few years ago, the EELV type dual-provider / dual infrastructure is an upwards of $1.2 Billion dollar recurring yearly cost comprised of actual launch effort and, significantly, of simply maintaining the productive infrastructure.





Let'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. 
Quote
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.
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 
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 03:55 am by newpylong »

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #20 on: 07/11/2013 11:36 am »
I think the chart attached below (from the Delta IV Launch Services User‘s Guide, June 2013) is current ...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32324.0;attach=532976

Are there more specific LEO figures available? Last I heard the existing Delta IVH (RS-68A) is capable of 26t LEO to 38t with 6 GEMs and 46t if a J-2X upper is used to 62t with J-2X and 6 GEMs.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #21 on: 07/11/2013 12:15 pm »
Personally, with MHLVs like Delta-IVH and FH, I usually use a three-launch program.

1) Mission vehicle (either a lander or Cygnus-derived LTV);
2) Propulsion module (DEC-derived propulsion unit or ACES)
3) Crew vehicle

You can also use the first two launches for a cargo precursor to either LLO or the lunar surface.

It's a simple enough system and it's quite flexible.  It's definitely something that I would have considered very closely after CxP crashed and burned and the Augustine Commission was so pessimistic about what the budget could support.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 12:15 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #22 on: 07/11/2013 02:20 pm »
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 for NASA Administrator.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #23 on: 07/11/2013 03:05 pm »
That is not a fair analogy. Program overhead costs were not factored into my numbers because a proper comparison would have them as their own line item and they would be shared by multiple launches.

It was a comparison of vehicle and launch costs and only that. You can't keep adding $6 Billion dollars to every SLS launch cost in the same way you can't add the EELV infrastructure subsidies or development costs onto each launch. As of a few years ago, the EELV type dual-provider / dual infrastructure is an upwards of $1.2 Billion dollar recurring yearly cost comprised of actual launch effort and, significantly, of simply maintaining the productive infrastructure.




However if I recall correctly NASA does not pay thoose costs, DOD does. The EELV have the advantage of having uses outside of manned spaceflight which in turn contains costs.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #24 on: 07/11/2013 03:35 pm »
That is not a fair analogy. Program overhead costs were not factored into my numbers because a proper comparison would have them as their own line item and they would be shared by multiple launches.

It was a comparison of vehicle and launch costs and only that. You can't keep adding $6 Billion dollars to every SLS launch cost in the same way you can't add the EELV infrastructure subsidies or development costs onto each launch. As of a few years ago, the EELV type dual-provider / dual infrastructure is an upwards of $1.2 Billion dollar recurring yearly cost comprised of actual launch effort and, significantly, of simply maintaining the productive infrastructure.
Fixed costs seem to represent the majority of costs for these machines these days.  Those are real dollars paid by the government, no matter how they are sliced.  Ignoring those dollars seems illusory and even deceptive.  I believe it is more useful to try to contemplate real, rather than blue sky, costs.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #25 on: 07/11/2013 05:00 pm »
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.

I believe an impressive human mission to the lunar surface -- possibly rivaling a Cx lunar sortie -- is possible using a total of four DIV-H launchers, each with the "easiest" upgrade (the addition of solid boosters).


Thanks for that chart.  I think the "easiest" upgrades would be both the solid boosters, and new upper stage.  Specificaly ACES.  ULA already wants to do it for fleet standardization, and it would be a building block for any depot plan.  That looks like it will get a bit over 40mt to LEO.

I really like those 7m Delta IV upgrades.  Too late for them now, but imagine if that had been looked at way back during ESAS?
 (and ESAS wasn't biased towards Shuttle Derived)

But instead of 7m diameter, it was maybe 6.5m diameter, so that the 3-core heavy could fit through the VAB doors.  Just make them a bit taller to get the right propellant volume.  It would need a new 7m upper stage, but I think that could use a cluster of RL-60's.  They were like 90% finished in the early 2000's and wouldn't have been the brand new development like J2S/J2X.  And they could also then be used on the rest of the EELV fleet, which was the original goal of the RL-60 program as I understand. 
The middle LV could do about 105mt to LEO from the looks of the chart.  You could launch Orion on a single-stick version of that (with some GEM-60 strap-ons if necessary) for the 1.5 launch architecture. 
And EELV upper stage could also be used on top to be a crasher stage for the lander and do the LOI, and staged descent for the lander, so neither the lander nor Orion would do LOI.

Or, if you want even more capable, have a 2 launch scenario with these LV's.  One launches Orion and the lander, and the other launches a large EDS/upper stage with EOR.  That's a 200+mt class mission.

So, as opposed to CxP, this would be only one new CCB development, and one new upper stage development, but using booster and upper stage engines that would be common with the EELV fleet. 
Since the RS-68 would need to be man-rated for this program, A short fueled Orion could be flying to the ISS on a man-rated D4H by the time the shuttle was retired. 

Block 1:  2005-2010:  Man-rate RS-68.  man-rate and finish RL-60 and install on 5m DCSS.  Finish Block 1 Orion CSM.  Have D4H flying Orion to ISS by the time of STS retirement. (As I understand, the RS-68A upgrade contained much of what would be needed to man-rate it?  If so, the "A" upgrade could have included all man-rating requirements as well in conjunction)

Block 2:  2010-2017:  Without STS taking up budget any more, and with RS-68A and RL-60 man-rated and flying  Have ULA develop the 6.5m CCB core and 6.5m upper stage.  And NASA can develop a lunar lander, along with the Block 2 BEO Orion. 

Block 3:  2018:  First lunar mission launches from KSC.  Orion could actually luanch on a D4H for a 1.5 architecture, or a single 7m CCB, or on another 7m tri-core heavy for a 2-launch architecture.

But I digress...  ;-)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #26 on: 07/11/2013 05:02 pm »
That is not a fair analogy. Program overhead costs were not factored into my numbers because a proper comparison would have them as their own line item and they would be shared by multiple launches.

It was a comparison of vehicle and launch costs and only that. You can't keep adding $6 Billion dollars to every SLS launch cost in the same way you can't add the EELV infrastructure subsidies or development costs onto each launch. As of a few years ago, the EELV type dual-provider / dual infrastructure is an upwards of $1.2 Billion dollar recurring yearly cost comprised of actual launch effort and, significantly, of simply maintaining the productive infrastructure.
Fixed costs seem to represent the majority of costs for these machines these days.  Those are real dollars paid by the government, no matter how they are sliced.  Ignoring those dollars seems illusory and even deceptive.  I believe it is more useful to try to contemplate real, rather than blue sky, costs.

 - Ed Kyle
YUS.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #27 on: 07/11/2013 05:11 pm »

For this thread if we want to use the DIVH and or the FH propellant depots and or propellant tankers are best to use, not launches direct to the moon. Nor is it a good idea to up grade the DIVH with SRB's and cross feed, unless the DoD required such lift capacity ( FH should end up being cheaper than DIVH is now before any upgrades would be put in place ).


For this thread, I was more interested in the ability of an upgraded D4H to throw payload through TLI, given it's superios BLEO capability compared to F9/FH.
And doing a LOR architecture.  Most concepts of using EELV-class LV's do a lot of LEO construction and then shoot a stack through TLI.  That can be done, I was just wondering if an evolved D4H could shoot 20-25mt payload through TLI, if that would be a good size for a 3-element mission.  Orion, Lander, crasher stage.  Orion's about 20-21mt, an ACES -41 with no payload should get to lunar orbit with enough propellant left to do a staged descent for a lander, and the lander would be sized for that. A single stage lander like the Boeing lander would be what I'm picturing in my head here.

If you are wanting to stage in LEO, and develop a new large EDS to shoot the whole stack through TLI, then FH is probably the better choice because it will come out of the gate with the LEO capacity of an evolved D4H...and likely be cheaper.  But...it needs a new large hydrolox EDS.  As SpaceX likely won't develop that, NASA would have to and integrate it themselves onto FH at KSC, and launch from there. 

So my main thought was, if you upgraded D4H with ACES and six GEM-60's, can you utilize it's great BLEO throw capacity directly?  ANd would that be better than FH and a new hydrolox EDS staging in LEO?

There's lots of thread about using EELV class LV's for a lunar program, in this I am more asking about the merits of using an upgraded D4H to shoot payloads directly to lunar orbit vs. staging in LEO with FH. 


Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #28 on: 07/11/2013 05:38 pm »

For this thread if we want to use the DIVH and or the FH propellant depots and or propellant tankers are best to use, not launches direct to the moon. Nor is it a good idea to up grade the DIVH with SRB's and cross feed, unless the DoD required such lift capacity ( FH should end up being cheaper than DIVH is now before any upgrades would be put in place ).


For this thread, I was more interested in the ability of an upgraded D4H to throw payload through TLI, given it's superios BLEO capability compared to F9/FH.
And doing a LOR architecture.  Most concepts of using EELV-class LV's do a lot of LEO construction and then shoot a stack through TLI.  That can be done, I was just wondering if an evolved D4H could shoot 20-25mt payload through TLI, if that would be a good size for a 3-element mission.  Orion, Lander, crasher stage.  Orion's about 20-21mt, an ACES -41 with no payload should get to lunar orbit with enough propellant left to do a staged descent for a lander, and the lander would be sized for that. A single stage lander like the Boeing lander would be what I'm picturing in my head here.

If you are wanting to stage in LEO, and develop a new large EDS to shoot the whole stack through TLI, then FH is probably the better choice because it will come out of the gate with the LEO capacity of an evolved D4H...and likely be cheaper.  But...it needs a new large hydrolox EDS.  As SpaceX likely won't develop that, NASA would have to and integrate it themselves onto FH at KSC, and launch from there. 

So my main thought was, if you upgraded D4H with ACES and six GEM-60's, can you utilize it's great BLEO throw capacity directly?  ANd would that be better than FH and a new hydrolox EDS staging in LEO?

There's lots of thread about using EELV class LV's for a lunar program, in this I am more asking about the merits of using an upgraded D4H to shoot payloads directly to lunar orbit vs. staging in LEO with FH. 


ACES is the only upgrade I see practical. Upgrades cost a lot and need enough flights to justify ( pay for ) that cost.

As you know ACES is much more than just a new common US.

So if we get ACES then maybe if it does not interfere with the DoD launches and costs then add in the six solids to send an ACES lander direct to LLO and fill it there for a Lunar landing.

Possible DIVH ( RS-68A ) with ACES US and six solids with ACES/Orion direct to LLO, however would need to be refueled in LLO by tanker.
ACES/Orion in LEO with enough propellant to get to LLO, just might be under the mass to LEO for the upgraded DIVH with an escape tower for Orion.

If we get ACES then there is the possibility of getting an ACES/Orion or using ACES as the propulsion module for an ACES/Dragon. Dragon would get electrical power and some RCS from ACES propulsion module also, but dragon would handle the rest.

That is a maybe, should still consider the LEO depot as crew and craft would already be in orbit for the TLI window ( no launch or weather problems ).

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #29 on: 07/11/2013 05:39 pm »
That is not a fair analogy. Program overhead costs were not factored into my numbers because a proper comparison would have them as their own line item and they would be shared by multiple launches.

It was a comparison of vehicle and launch costs and only that. You can't keep adding $6 Billion dollars to every SLS launch cost in the same way you can't add the EELV infrastructure subsidies or development costs onto each launch. As of a few years ago, the EELV type dual-provider / dual infrastructure is an upwards of $1.2 Billion dollar recurring yearly cost comprised of actual launch effort and, significantly, of simply maintaining the productive infrastructure.
Fixed costs seem to represent the majority of costs for these machines these days.  Those are real dollars paid by the government, no matter how they are sliced.  Ignoring those dollars seems illusory and even deceptive.  I believe it is more useful to try to contemplate real, rather than blue sky, costs.

 - Ed Kyle

You're spinning this how you want. I didn't say ignore the cost - I said different line. You're calculation of launch cost had the SLS vehicle/launch cost + program overhead costs added onto to EACH launch, which is just wrong. Of course it's real money, but it's split among launches. The same can be said about the EELV subsidy (regardless of who pays for it).
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 05:49 pm by newpylong »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #30 on: 07/11/2013 06:38 pm »
I think the chart attached below (from the Delta IV Launch Services User‘s Guide, June 2013) is current ...

Are there more specific LEO figures available?

The User's Guide provides charts showing payload mass versus altitude. But for the RS-68A powered Heavy there is a caveat, "May require pneumatic and structural system modifications." They also hint that vehicle structure modifications would be required along the "Upgrade" path, showing them with a different fairing, etc. Maybe I'm reading too much from those tea leaves, though.

I believe an impressive human mission to the lunar surface -- possibly rivaling a Cx lunar sortie -- is possible using a total of four DIV-H launchers, each with the "easiest" upgrade (the addition of solid boosters).

I think the "easiest" upgrades would be both the solid boosters, and new upper stage.  Specificaly ACES.

Yes, an ACES-like upper stage would be great! But its development will be more costly, and involve more cost and schedule risk,  than slapping flight-proven GEMs onto the flight-proven DIV-H.

Personally, with MHLVs like Delta-IVH and FH, I usually use a three-launch program.

1) Mission vehicle (either a lander or Cygnus-derived LTV);
2) Propulsion module (DEC-derived propulsion unit or ACES)
3) Crew vehicle

I think you imply LEO rendezvous with the propulsion module? I assert that can (and should) be avoided in favor of cis-lunar rendezvous. I speculate DIVH+6SRB could send a crew vehicle to a cis-lunar rendezvous point. Why do I feel this should be done? Because long-term storage of high energy propellant in cis-lunar space seems like it could be achieved with very little cost, very little cost risk, and very little schedule risk. I remain unconvinced the same is true for storing high energy propellants in the (much warmer) environment of LEO.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 06:39 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #31 on: 07/11/2013 07:11 pm »
I believe an impressive human mission to the lunar surface -- possibly rivaling a Cx lunar sortie -- is possible using a total of four DIV-H launchers, each with the "easiest" upgrade (the addition of solid boosters).

I think the "easiest" upgrades would be both the solid boosters, and new upper stage.  Specificaly ACES.

Yes, an ACES-like upper stage would be great! But its development will be more costly, and involve more cost and schedule risk,  than slapping flight-proven GEMs onto the flight-proven DIV-H.
ACES is also being designed for BLEO ( longer duration performance ).

I don't think DIVH can just add GEM's, I think the boosters need attach points added to them plus other thinks to make that work.

We really don't need to upgrade the DIVH for a Lunar program. We need the hardware for the Lunar program that will fit on DIVH and or FH. Forget direct launches to Lunar, that has always been a dead end without shuttle to Lunar ( Star Trek type shuttle ). So till we get to something real that can do that we need to focus on LEO assembly and departure(s) ( cargo and for crew ). That will keep as flexible for the long run for multiple types of BLEO missions and let us use our current global launch fleet.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #32 on: 07/11/2013 07:17 pm »
You're spinning this how you want. I didn't say ignore the cost - I said different line. You're calculation of launch cost had the SLS vehicle/launch cost + program overhead costs added onto to EACH launch, which is just wrong. Of course it's real money, but it's split among launches. The same can be said about the EELV subsidy (regardless of who pays for it).
My numbers were based on a macro view - total estimated program cost divided by total estimated number of launches.  Adding a few launches for a lunar landing isn't going to change that macro per-launch number significantly. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #33 on: 07/11/2013 07:52 pm »
I don't think DIVH can just add GEM's, I think the boosters need attach points added to them plus other thinks to make that work.

Yes, and ULA seems to completely understand the work required. Essentially it's a non-issue, with highly predictable cost and schedule impacts. ACES? It's anybody's guess whether that work could be brought in on time and within budget, were there to be a customer who asked for it.

Quote
We really don't need to upgrade the DIVH for a Lunar program. We need the hardware for the Lunar program that will fit on DIVH and or FH.

With enough LEO assembly, yes that would work.

Quote
we need to focus on LEO assembly and departure(s) ( cargo and for crew ). That will keep as flexible for the long run for multiple types of BLEO missions and let us use our current global launch fleet.

To whom do "we" and "our" refer?

NASA is currently on a path to demonstrate cis-lunar rendezvous capability with SLS and Orion. A reasonable "compromise" would be to use SLS for Orion, and pre-place all other assets with Delta, Atlas, and Falcon.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #34 on: 07/11/2013 09:11 pm »
The attached image is from an old Boeing chart. Of course the details are superseded by newer information, but what's interesting is the implied conversion (for Delta IV) between payload masses sent to LEO and payload masses sent to Earth-escape (C3=0).
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #35 on: 07/12/2013 05:08 am »
I don't think DIVH can just add GEM's, I think the boosters need attach points added to them plus other thinks to make that work.

Yes, and ULA seems to completely understand the work required. Essentially it's a non-issue, with highly predictable cost and schedule impacts. ACES? It's anybody's guess whether that work could be brought in on time and within budget, were there to be a customer who asked for it.

Quote
We really don't need to upgrade the DIVH for a Lunar program. We need the hardware for the Lunar program that will fit on DIVH and or FH.

With enough LEO assembly, yes that would work.

Quote
we need to focus on LEO assembly and departure(s) ( cargo and for crew ). That will keep as flexible for the long run for multiple types of BLEO missions and let us use our current global launch fleet.

To whom do "we" and "our" refer?

NASA is currently on a path to demonstrate cis-lunar rendezvous capability with SLS and Orion. A reasonable "compromise" would be to use SLS for Orion, and pre-place all other assets with Delta, Atlas, and Falcon.
Not assembly but propellant load in LEO.
If Orion rides up on DIVH and crew on Atlas V/CST-100 then crew transfers to Orion after it's EDS ( DIVH US ) is refueled.

The Lunar lander with cargo or crew cabin ascender only need it's EDS and tanks filled before TLI burn.

Edit:
No need to human rate the DIVH for just a couple of crewed Lunar missions.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2013 05:09 am by RocketmanUS »

Online TrevorMonty

I've found this article in the forums on Lunar travel
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/tSpace.pdf
Its the simplest lunar travel architecture I've seen, only relies on 2 reusable vehicles that reside in LEO. 2 x FH launches could refuel them and deliver any cargo, followed by crew in another LV eg dragon on F9. Allow $300-400M for LV costs per mission.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #37 on: 11/08/2013 12:27 pm »
That's a report by our very own HMXHMX. :)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #38 on: 02/19/2014 05:10 pm »
I posted this over on the Bigelow thread, but this might be a better thread for it.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34021.msg1161855#msg1161855

We've been looking at Apollo type landers and missions in this thread, which would be the base to do a mission.  But what if a Bigelow base was preplaced?  Then you just need a taxi serivce.  Maybe a roboic cargo delivery service too. 
Which changes the equation a bit.
I'd think a FH could land unmanned payloads on the surface with a single launch.  Probably need two FH's for any kind of manned mission there, but the lander could be pretty basic, as it's a taxi service, not an exploration module.

SpaceX would seem the obvious choice for Bigelow to partner with.    And I'm sure Elon would be interested enough in the Moon if he had a paying customer.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #39 on: 02/19/2014 07:09 pm »
Yeah, I kind of assumed that if we're going back to the Moon, it doesn't make sense to repeat Apollo at all. The lander should be primarily just a transport. Land bulky cargo in separate trips from the crew. Spend most the time in a pressurized rover or a base or something, not camping out in the taxi. This reduces the requirements for the lander significantly (or allows it to carry a lot more people).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #40 on: 02/19/2014 07:45 pm »
Or if Elon wasn’t interested we could send a lander on Delta IV Heavy and a crew on a BEO CST-100 on an Atlas V...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #41 on: 02/19/2014 07:53 pm »
Or if Elon wasn’t interested we could send a lander on Delta IV Heavy and a crew on a BEO CST-100 on an Atlas V...
An upgraded Delta IV Heavy with ACES and GEMs could lift 45 tons to LEO, that could probably get a BLEO modified CST-100 on TLI in a single launch.

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1192
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #42 on: 02/19/2014 08:04 pm »

Wait a sec--we should question one of the premises of this thread, placing SRMs on a D-IVH.  AIUI, the cores for the D--IV family are all unique, with each of the three cores of the heavy specifically farbicated, and the core for the D-IV M yet another unique core.  And it's taken years and effort to reduce the number of unique cores to this point.  As such, to place SRMs on any of these in a heavy config would require another (three?) unique cores.  The implications for the existing fleet, and the notional new fleet are problematic, and I'm sure the USAF and other govt agencies might have a say.

Having said that, I like the EELV-based architecture, and I think Ed nailed it--just use the existing D-IVH (with upgrades such as RS-68A and other "in family" upgrade paths) so we don't end up with what is effectively yet
a(nother) new launch vehicle.  ACES US might be in the cards...
FH has yet to fly, and with a 27-engine first stage, might be trouble over the long haul...
Raptor may change that equation, but that application is TBD.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #43 on: 02/19/2014 08:08 pm »
Or if Elon wasn’t interested we could send a lander on Delta IV Heavy and a crew on a BEO CST-100 on an Atlas V...
An upgraded Delta IV Heavy with ACES and GEMs could lift 45 tons to LEO, that could probably get a BLEO modified CST-100 on TLI in a single launch.
The reasoning behind this is that the DoD is/was not interested in certifying the Delta IV Heavy and that the Atlas V is being certified for human space flight... Unless they change their mind of course....
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #44 on: 02/19/2014 08:31 pm »

The reasoning behind this is that the DoD is/was not interested in certifying the Delta IV Heavy and that the Atlas V is being certified for human space flight... Unless they change their mind of course....

DOD has no role in certifying either launch vehicle for HSF.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #45 on: 02/19/2014 08:47 pm »

The reasoning behind this is that the DoD is/was not interested in certifying the Delta IV Heavy and that the Atlas V is being certified for human space flight... Unless they change their mind of course....

DOD has no role in certifying either launch vehicle for HSF.
So it was ULA's call to not be interested in it a few years back then?  Good to know, thanks Jim!

Edit to clarify: I know that the DoD does not certify the vehicle, but it was they who did not want modifications made to Delta IV Heavy when it was under consideration for HSF and they wanted it left as is, correct?
« Last Edit: 02/19/2014 09:07 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #46 on: 02/19/2014 09:34 pm »

Wait a sec--we should question one of the premises of this thread, placing SRMs on a D-IVH.  AIUI, the cores for the D--IV family are all unique, with each of the three cores of the heavy specifically farbicated, and the core for the D-IV M yet another unique core.  And it's taken years and effort to reduce the number of unique cores to this point.  As such, to place SRMs on any of these in a heavy config would require another (three?) unique cores.  The implications for the existing fleet, and the notional new fleet are problematic, and I'm sure the USAF and other govt agencies might have a say.
...
ULA has the SRMs on Delta IV Heavy as a growth option in their literature. It's not just fan-wanked.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #47 on: 02/19/2014 10:18 pm »
Or if Elon wasn’t interested we could send a lander on Delta IV Heavy and a crew on a BEO CST-100 on an Atlas V...

D4H could do it too.  But the cost is pretty spendy for a commercial operation, which will need to keep costs very low to hope to put anything together.
The USAF can afford D4H's high costs, but I doubt a Bigelow consortium could.

And I don't think it's a matter of Elon being interested.  If there's a paying customer, he'll be interested.
The unknown would be if he actually wants to get involved with the consortium himself, or just let a consortium buy launches from him.
I think F9 and FH prices coming in as optimistic as Elon has been touting are a must to consider a commercial operation, so SpaceX will likely have to be in the equation to have any discussion/speculation about something like this.

If we are talking about a NASA lunar mission that would involve SLS being cancelled, then D4H could be an option, with NASA footing the bill for any upgrades to it they'd like to fit their mission profile....like D4H cores with GEM-60 mounts, upgraded upper stage, man-rating, etc.
USAF would probably only squak if it threatened to raise the costs they buy them for.




Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #48 on: 02/19/2014 10:27 pm »
Yeah, I kind of assumed that if we're going back to the Moon, it doesn't make sense to repeat Apollo at all. The lander should be primarily just a transport. Land bulky cargo in separate trips from the crew. Spend most the time in a pressurized rover or a base or something, not camping out in the taxi. This reduces the requirements for the lander significantly (or allows it to carry a lot more people).

And...if mining, you have to get tonnage back to Earth!
I think at that point, they'll have to figure out a method of in-situ refueling.  There's probably few ores that will be worth sending back in some form that will require a lot of processing to separate out waste to get to.  Just too expensive propulsively.
Maybe some big chunks of gold or platium that can just be loaded into a cargo carrying ERV, but I think little else would be valuable enough to move without feasible in-situ refueling. 
(imagine finding a crater made by a several mt asteroid with a gold core or something...heheh  Gold rush!)



Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1296
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #49 on: 02/20/2014 02:24 am »
Yeah, I kind of assumed that if we're going back to the Moon, it doesn't make sense to repeat Apollo at all. The lander should be primarily just a transport. Land bulky cargo in separate trips from the crew. Spend most the time in a pressurized rover or a base or something, not camping out in the taxi. This reduces the requirements for the lander significantly (or allows it to carry a lot more people).

And...if mining, you have to get tonnage back to Earth!
I think at that point, they'll have to figure out a method of in-situ refueling.  There's probably few ores that will be worth sending back in some form that will require a lot of processing to separate out waste to get to.  Just too expensive propulsively.
Maybe some big chunks of gold or platium that can just be loaded into a cargo carrying ERV, but I think little else would be valuable enough to move without feasible in-situ refueling. 
(imagine finding a crater made by a several mt asteroid with a gold core or something...heheh  Gold rush!)

I recall someone posted that any type rock sample brought back to Earth could be sold as high value jewelry if they look good after after processing. Just load beer cooler size container with rocks.


Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #50 on: 02/20/2014 05:18 am »
Using Falcon Heavy for a lunar mission has been talked about before, and I think it'd be a viable LV for a 3-launch architecture.

But I don't hear Delta IV-Heavy talked about much.  And I mean the upgraded version of it.  I've attached a D4H groth chart.  It looks like with a new upper stage, two GEM-60's on each stage, and cross feeding, it can get up about 50mt to LEO.  Now, FH can get that too with crossfeed.  But what I think gets forgotten with D4H, is it can push a very large percentage of it's LEO capacity to GTO or TLI.  I'm not sure of it's TLI capacity, but it can push over half of it's LEO capacity to GTO, where FH is about 22% of it's LEO capacity to GTO.

So, would an upgraded D4H still be able to push half or more of it's LEO capability through GTO?  ANd would it's TLI be similar to it's GTO?

No. Current Delta IVH is not "good for high energy orbits", its "bad for low energy orbits".
And the reason why it's bad for low energy orbits is too low thrust of it's second stage. (second stage gravity losses with big payload)

The new upper stage with more engines fixes the "underpowered second stage" problem which makes it viable launcher for also LEO, but it does not help so much the payload for higher energy orbits, as the thrust of the upper stage is not so big bottleneck there. It helps a bit for high energy orbits also as the new upper stage also contains more fuel.

Adding the boosters should help both LEO and higher energy orbit payloads.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #51 on: 02/20/2014 01:06 pm »
Using Falcon Heavy for a lunar mission has been talked about before, and I think it'd be a viable LV for a 3-launch architecture.

But I don't hear Delta IV-Heavy talked about much.  And I mean the upgraded version of it.  I've attached a D4H groth chart.  It looks like with a new upper stage, two GEM-60's on each stage, and cross feeding, it can get up about 50mt to LEO.  Now, FH can get that too with crossfeed.  But what I think gets forgotten with D4H, is it can push a very large percentage of it's LEO capacity to GTO or TLI.  I'm not sure of it's TLI capacity, but it can push over half of it's LEO capacity to GTO, where FH is about 22% of it's LEO capacity to GTO.

So, would an upgraded D4H still be able to push half or more of it's LEO capability through GTO?  ANd would it's TLI be similar to it's GTO?

No. Current Delta IVH is not "good for high energy orbits", its "bad for low energy orbits".
And the reason why it's bad for low energy orbits is too low thrust of it's second stage. (second stage gravity losses with big payload)
In terms of per second, your greatest gravity loss per second is at lift off where rocket has the most mass.
In terms per 60 seconds, the first 60 seconds from lift off is greatest gravity losses per minute of the trajectory. And opposite side of spectrum is when reach orbital speed [or escape velocity] thereafter regardless of mass of rocket you have zero gravity loss.
And before reach orbital [or escape velocity] once attain large portion of the orbital [or escape] velocity their reduction in gravity loss [some kind gradient which coming down to zero].
And in addition, once get significant distance from earth, one simply has less gravity. Though if less 200 km distance from earth surface fairly it's insignificant. So at 200 km escape velocity is 11.009 whereas sea level it's 11.180 km/sec. Or gravity somewhere around 9.7 m/s/s vs 9.8 m/s/s so less than 200 km is less than 10% difference. So needs several hundred of kilometer distance before it becomes much of issue- but it's factor, but generally a much bigger factor would the velocity one would be going by time reach 200 km elevation.
So I am looking at:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/Delta4.pl.guide.pdf
Page number 2-5 or PDF page 52.

From this I would guess by time 50 seconds after lift off the delta-IV Heavy is going 137 m/s and by time it reach max dynamic pressure at the 86 seconds after lift off it would going around 300 m/s.
And considering it's 249 seconds before two side rockets are staged, at 86 second mark rocket still has more than 2/3rd of it's mass. So it's mass starts with 733,400kg and 2/3rds is 491 tonnes.
So since it's velocity is about 1/25th of orbital velocity, one can ignore that velocity, and so it's essentially like hovering about 500 tonnes for 86 seconds. Or in terms velocity, like dropping something in 9.8 m/s/s of gravity for 86 seconds which would gain velocity of 842.8 m/s.
So that gravity lose of about .84 km/sec or around half of gravity loss of it getting to orbit.
And it seems in remaining 163 seconds which gets to the point of "Two strap-ons cutoff" most of other half of gravity loss of the trajectory will occur.
And it seems beyond the 249 seconds to 347 second- or next 98 seconds, you don't as much mass and you going significant fraction of orbital [or escape] vehicle, so gravity loss would less 10% of total gravity loss. So by time of second stage ignition at 349 seconds after lift off to until cutoff at 873 second, there is
524 seconds, but don't think there is much gravity loss during those 524 second because it's already attained high velocity. 
« Last Edit: 02/20/2014 01:15 pm by gbaikie »

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #52 on: 02/21/2014 12:19 pm »
Using Falcon Heavy for a lunar mission has been talked about before, and I think it'd be a viable LV for a 3-launch architecture.

But I don't hear Delta IV-Heavy talked about much.  And I mean the upgraded version of it.  I've attached a D4H groth chart.  It looks like with a new upper stage, two GEM-60's on each stage, and cross feeding, it can get up about 50mt to LEO.  Now, FH can get that too with crossfeed.  But what I think gets forgotten with D4H, is it can push a very large percentage of it's LEO capacity to GTO or TLI.  I'm not sure of it's TLI capacity, but it can push over half of it's LEO capacity to GTO, where FH is about 22% of it's LEO capacity to GTO.

So, would an upgraded D4H still be able to push half or more of it's LEO capability through GTO?  ANd would it's TLI be similar to it's GTO?

No. Current Delta IVH is not "good for high energy orbits", its "bad for low energy orbits".
And the reason why it's bad for low energy orbits is too low thrust of it's second stage. (second stage gravity losses with big payload)
In terms of per second, your greatest gravity loss per second is at lift off where rocket has the most mass.
In terms per 60 seconds, the first 60 seconds from lift off is greatest gravity losses per minute of the trajectory. And opposite side of spectrum is when reach orbital speed [or escape velocity] thereafter regardless of mass of rocket you have zero gravity loss.
And before reach orbital [or escape velocity] once attain large portion of the orbital [or escape] velocity their reduction in gravity loss [some kind gradient which coming down to zero].
And in addition, once get significant distance from earth, one simply has less gravity. Though if less 200 km distance from earth surface fairly it's insignificant. So at 200 km escape velocity is 11.009 whereas sea level it's 11.180 km/sec. Or gravity somewhere around 9.7 m/s/s vs 9.8 m/s/s so less than 200 km is less than 10% difference. So needs several hundred of kilometer distance before it becomes much of issue- but it's factor, but generally a much bigger factor would the velocity one would be going by time reach 200 km elevation.
So I am looking at:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/Delta4.pl.guide.pdf
Page number 2-5 or PDF page 52.

From this I would guess by time 50 seconds after lift off the delta-IV Heavy is going 137 m/s and by time it reach max dynamic pressure at the 86 seconds after lift off it would going around 300 m/s.
And considering it's 249 seconds before two side rockets are staged, at 86 second mark rocket still has more than 2/3rd of it's mass. So it's mass starts with 733,400kg and 2/3rds is 491 tonnes.
So since it's velocity is about 1/25th of orbital velocity, one can ignore that velocity, and so it's essentially like hovering about 500 tonnes for 86 seconds. Or in terms velocity, like dropping something in 9.8 m/s/s of gravity for 86 seconds which would gain velocity of 842.8 m/s.
So that gravity lose of about .84 km/sec or around half of gravity loss of it getting to orbit.
And it seems in remaining 163 seconds which gets to the point of "Two strap-ons cutoff" most of other half of gravity loss of the trajectory will occur.
And it seems beyond the 249 seconds to 347 second- or next 98 seconds, you don't as much mass and you going significant fraction of orbital [or escape] vehicle, so gravity loss would less 10% of total gravity loss. So by time of second stage ignition at 349 seconds after lift off to until cutoff at 873 second, there is
524 seconds, but don't think there is much gravity loss during those 524 second because it's already attained high velocity.

5m DCSS burn time is 1125s, not 524 seconds.
For LEO mission, practically all of that is needed to reach orbit.

5m DCSS has 3 km/s delta-V for 25t payload (there is no official info how much the new RS68A-version lifts)

So it's accelerating from 4.5km/s to 7.5km/s, so in average the velocity will be less than 6km/s (due acceleration being slower when it it more full). 6km/s velocity means gravity loss is about 20% of the gravity loss when stationary.

So total gravity loss during the second stage is close to 9.81 * 0.2 * 1125 = 2.2 km/s

2.2 km/s is really considerable loss, compared to falcon heavy:

Falcon heavy second stage has burn time of only 375, while giving estimated 3.1 km/s delta v to 53 tonne payload.
This means the gravity loss for f-h during the second stage is about one third of the gravity loss the delta iv-h is experiencing.

From these numbers it's very clear why increasing the number of engines n delta iv-h second stage gives huge increase to the payload capasity. It just takes too long to reach orbital velocity with big payload with just single rl-10


Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #53 on: 02/23/2014 07:06 am »
Using Falcon Heavy for a lunar mission has been talked about before, and I think it'd be a viable LV for a 3-launch architecture.

But I don't hear Delta IV-Heavy talked about much.  And I mean the upgraded version of it.  I've attached a D4H groth chart.  It looks like with a new upper stage, two GEM-60's on each stage, and cross feeding, it can get up about 50mt to LEO.  Now, FH can get that too with crossfeed.  But what I think gets forgotten with D4H, is it can push a very large percentage of it's LEO capacity to GTO or TLI.  I'm not sure of it's TLI capacity, but it can push over half of it's LEO capacity to GTO, where FH is about 22% of it's LEO capacity to GTO.

So, would an upgraded D4H still be able to push half or more of it's LEO capability through GTO?  ANd would it's TLI be similar to it's GTO?

No. Current Delta IVH is not "good for high energy orbits", its "bad for low energy orbits".
And the reason why it's bad for low energy orbits is too low thrust of it's second stage. (second stage gravity losses with big payload)
In terms of per second, your greatest gravity loss per second is at lift off where rocket has the most mass.
In terms per 60 seconds, the first 60 seconds from lift off is greatest gravity losses per minute of the trajectory. And opposite side of spectrum is when reach orbital speed [or escape velocity] thereafter regardless of mass of rocket you have zero gravity loss.
And before reach orbital [or escape velocity] once attain large portion of the orbital [or escape] velocity their reduction in gravity loss [some kind gradient which coming down to zero].
And in addition, once get significant distance from earth, one simply has less gravity. Though if less 200 km distance from earth surface fairly it's insignificant. So at 200 km escape velocity is 11.009 whereas sea level it's 11.180 km/sec. Or gravity somewhere around 9.7 m/s/s vs 9.8 m/s/s so less than 200 km is less than 10% difference. So needs several hundred of kilometer distance before it becomes much of issue- but it's factor, but generally a much bigger factor would the velocity one would be going by time reach 200 km elevation.
So I am looking at:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/Delta4.pl.guide.pdf
Page number 2-5 or PDF page 52.

From this I would guess by time 50 seconds after lift off the delta-IV Heavy is going 137 m/s and by time it reach max dynamic pressure at the 86 seconds after lift off it would going around 300 m/s.
And considering it's 249 seconds before two side rockets are staged, at 86 second mark rocket still has more than 2/3rd of it's mass. So it's mass starts with 733,400kg and 2/3rds is 491 tonnes.
So since it's velocity is about 1/25th of orbital velocity, one can ignore that velocity, and so it's essentially like hovering about 500 tonnes for 86 seconds. Or in terms velocity, like dropping something in 9.8 m/s/s of gravity for 86 seconds which would gain velocity of 842.8 m/s.
So that gravity lose of about .84 km/sec or around half of gravity loss of it getting to orbit.
And it seems in remaining 163 seconds which gets to the point of "Two strap-ons cutoff" most of other half of gravity loss of the trajectory will occur.
And it seems beyond the 249 seconds to 347 second- or next 98 seconds, you don't as much mass and you going significant fraction of orbital [or escape] vehicle, so gravity loss would less 10% of total gravity loss. So by time of second stage ignition at 349 seconds after lift off to until cutoff at 873 second, there is
524 seconds, but don't think there is much gravity loss during those 524 second because it's already attained high velocity.

5m DCSS burn time is 1125s, not 524 seconds.
For LEO mission, practically all of that is needed to reach orbit.
I was referring to pg 52 of above PDF where there is chart which says:
"349 time (secs)  129 altitude (km)  0.23 Acceleration (g) Stage II ignition
873  time (secs) 198 altitude (km) 0.35 Acceleration (g) Second-stage engine cutoff "
So 873 minus 349 is 524 second duration of the second stage's first burn.
After firing engine stage, it's at 198 altitude and then orbit goes down to 152 km
and the stage fires again and burns for 559 second and shut off at 401 km.

The way I looked at it, after the first burn of second stage the spacecraft was in orbit, and once
in orbit, you don't have gravity losses.

Quote
5m DCSS has 3 km/s delta-V for 25t payload (there is no official info how much the new RS68A-version lifts)

So it's accelerating from 4.5km/s to 7.5km/s, so in average the velocity will be less than 6km/s (due acceleration being slower when it it more full). 6km/s velocity means gravity loss is about 20% of the gravity loss when stationary.

So total gravity loss during the second stage is close to 9.81 * 0.2 * 1125 = 2.2 km/s
It couldn't be.
If you assuming second stage has 3 km/sec you saying that 2.2 of that 3 km/sec is gravity loss.
As I said it's mostly the first stage which has most gravity loss. It's possible the entire delta-IV rocket has
around 2.2 km/sec [or more of gravity loss].
So, entire rocket with all stage gives about 10 km/sec of delta-v. 10 km/sec minus 2.2 km/sec
is 7.8 km/sec, which around what is needed to get into orbit.
I would guess stages before second stage starts have a delta-v of about 7 km/sec and have
gravity loss of around 2 km/sec, resulting actual velocity of 5  km/sec and second stage
adds about 3 km/sec.
Quote
2.2 km/s is really considerable loss, compared to falcon heavy:
2.2 km/sec of gravity loss would be a lot.
Wiki:
"For example, to reach a speed of 7.8 km/s in low Earth orbit requires a delta-v of between 9 and 10 km/s. The additional 1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v is due to gravity losses and atmospheric drag"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_drag
I believe Shuttle had about 2.0 to 2.5 km/sec of gravity loss.

« Last Edit: 02/23/2014 07:30 am by gbaikie »

Offline Warren Platts

(imagine finding a crater made by a several mt asteroid with a gold core or something...heheh  Gold rush!)

Check out our paper over here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31377.msg1160141#msg1160141
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #55 on: 02/24/2014 05:27 pm »
I know this is slightly off topic but I'd like to know how Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9 split overall delta-v between first and second stages.
Is the rule of thumb 4.5 km/s for the first stage and 3 km/s for second stage ?
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #56 on: 02/24/2014 06:05 pm »
Almost always the upper stage takes care of most of the delta-v. (This is because the upper stage can get by with a lower T/W than the first stage and because the vacuum Isp is much higher than the first stage and often a hydrogen upper stage is used, since you get more bang for the buck with a highly refined upper stage than first stage, since the upper stage is smaller.... there are exceptions to this... the first Antares versions use a rather small solid rocket motor as the upper stage, which I'm pretty sure is actually lower vacuum Isp than the first stage which uses a staged-combustion kerolox engine.)
« Last Edit: 02/24/2014 07:02 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #57 on: 02/24/2014 07:00 pm »
I know this is slightly off topic but I'd like to know how Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9 split overall delta-v between first and second stages.
Is the rule of thumb 4.5 km/s for the first stage and 3 km/s for second stage ?
For GTO missions, which probably need something like 11,700-12,000 m/s total delta-v from the rocket, these two-stage rockets roughly divide the delta-v work (discounting the gravity and drag losses experienced mostly during first stage flight) evenly between the two stages, with a slight bias toward the second stage.  The numbers can shift a bit for LEO missions, when second stage propellant is offloaded for some rockets to get the needed 9,200-9,600 m/s (range depends on inclination of orbit).  Real numbers can all be plus or minus from these examples, of course.

 - Ed Kyle   
« Last Edit: 02/24/2014 07:07 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #58 on: 02/25/2014 04:59 am »

5m DCSS burn time is 1125s, not 524 seconds.
For LEO mission, practically all of that is needed to reach orbit.
I was referring to pg 52 of above PDF where there is chart which says:
"349 time (secs)  129 altitude (km)  0.23 Acceleration (g) Stage II ignition
873  time (secs) 198 altitude (km) 0.35 Acceleration (g) Second-stage engine cutoff "
So 873 minus 349 is 524 second duration of the second stage's first burn.
After firing engine stage, it's at 198 altitude and then orbit goes down to 152 km
and the stage fires again and burns for 559 second and shut off at 401 km.

The way I looked at it, after the first burn of second stage the spacecraft was in orbit, and once
in orbit, you don't have gravity losses.

I was talking about LEO payloads (25 tons), you are quoting GTO numbers for ~10 ton payloads.
When going to LEO, the second stage burns only once, using practically all of it's fuel to reach orbit.
So your own numbers just confirms second stage burned for 1083 seconds for that mission, which is quite close to my 1125s number.

Quote
Quote
5m DCSS has 3 km/s delta-V for 25t payload (there is no official info how much the new RS68A-version lifts)

So it's accelerating from 4.5km/s to 7.5km/s, so in average the velocity will be less than 6km/s (due acceleration being slower when it it more full). 6km/s velocity means gravity loss is about 20% of the gravity loss when stationary.

So total gravity loss during the second stage is close to 9.81 * 0.2 * 1125 = 2.2 km/s
It couldn't be.
If you assuming second stage has 3 km/sec you saying that 2.2 of that 3 km/sec is gravity loss.

A lot of that second stage gravity loss is actually won by the FIRST stage which puts the spacecraft onto "lofted trajectory" so that the rocket does not fall down during the second stage burn, FIRST stage burn quite a lot of extra in vertical dimension to make the rocket stay in the air long enough.

Actually the second stage CANNOT fight it's gravity losses alone, due it's terrible thrust to weight ratio, even if it would start burning vertically from 5 km/s velocity using all of it's energy to fight gravity (loss), it would just fall down. (effective gravity at 5km/s is about 0.33*9.81 m/s^2 = 3.2m/s, 3.2m/s^2 * (25t + 30t)  = 176 kN, thrust of DCSS is 110 kN.

So the second stage might actually go maybe something like from 4.8 km/s to 7.5 km/s , burning 2.7 km/s horizontally and something like 1.3 m/s vertically(3km/s total by pythagoras), and first stage burning 0.9km/s extra vertically to keep the second stage in air long enough.

Making the wrong assumption of constant acceleration(to easen up calculations) would then make the average vertical velocity 6.15km/s,
but because i reality the acceleration is worse in the beginning due the craft weighting more because of the weight of the fuel onboard, the average velocity will propably stay under 6km/s, keeping my original numbers reasonable.

Quote
As I said it's mostly the first stage which has most gravity loss. It's possible the entire delta-IV rocket has
around 2.2 km/sec [or more of gravity loss].

But a lot of the gravity loss that is "fought" during the first stage is actually gravity loss that happens because the second stage is so underpowered.

Quote
So, entire rocket with all stage gives about 10 km/sec of delta-v. 10 km/sec minus 2.2 km/sec
is 7.8 km/sec, which around what is needed to get into orbit.

You are just taking your 2.2 km/s number from the hat, or "generic rule" that is just average of most launch vehicles. But those are different for different lauchers, on different trajectories, on different payloads.

Quote
I would guess stages before second stage starts have a delta-v of about 7 km/sec and have
gravity loss of around 2 km/sec, resulting actual velocity of 5  km/sec and second stage
adds about 3 km/sec.

this does not contradict very badly my calculations, just that the time of fighting the gravity losss and that gravity loss happening may not be the same.



On the other hand, When going to GTO , the orbit is reached after your 524 second burn of second stage, AND the staging happened in higher velocity(first stage had to lift lighter payload do it gave it more delta-v) which means the average velocity during the second stage is higher, making "effective gravity" smaller, so for GTO missions the second stage gravity losss is less than one third of the second stage gravity loss of LEO missions. and that <0.8km/s of second stage gravity loss is not bad; It's a good rocket for GTO, bad rocket for LEO.


Somebody with access to good simulators should run the trajectory calculations of delta-ivh.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2014 05:44 am by hkultala »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #59 on: 02/26/2014 12:13 pm »
Quote
I was talking about LEO payloads (25 tons), you are quoting GTO numbers for ~10 ton payloads.
When going to LEO, the second stage burns only once, using practically all of it's fuel to reach orbit.
So your own numbers just confirms second stage burned for 1083 seconds for that mission, which is quite close to my 1125s number.

Yes and it's my assumption is that GTO has as much or more gravity loss than to LEO.
Or a direct escape trajectory should generally have more gravity loss.

And to restate it, your assumption is large payload to LEO using low thrust rocket will
more gravity loss than smaller payload to GTO.

And I didn't find a launch profile for heavier payload to LEO, and suspect this would be
difficult to find because Delta IV lifts heavy classified military satellites to LEO, and Boeing
want to sell commercial payloads for GTO.
Though Boeing also wants to deliver to ISS, so:
Delta IV-HU (RS-68A) is suppose to able to deliver 25.98 ton to ISS orbit:
"LEO Payload (metric tons) 407 km x (1) 51.6 deg: 25.98 t (1)"
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html
And a Delta IV has delivered ~17000 kg to polar orbit:
"08/28/13 Delta 4H     D364  NROL 65            ~17000  VA6   254x999x97.9       LEO/S"
Or that's about 18,000 kg to an ISS orbit.
I generally look at what it's rated for [25.98 ton] and what it's actually done  ~17000 kg
which I am will to translate that into  ~18000 kg to ISS orbit.
What it does and what it could do are different.

So we talking about what Delta IV or Falcon 9 could do, rather what they have done.

I said:     It couldn't be.
    If you assuming second stage has 3 km/sec you saying that 2.2 of that 3 km/sec is gravity loss.

Quote
A lot of that second stage gravity loss is actually won by the FIRST stage which puts the spacecraft onto "lofted trajectory" so that the rocket does not fall down during the second stage burn, FIRST stage burn quite a lot of extra in vertical dimension to make the rocket stay in the air long enough.

I don't like this term of "won or winning". I would say if first stage doesn't achieves enough velocity, the later stages will have gravity loss/won't make to orbit. It depends if the stages before it's second stage achieve enough delta-v [and it's narrow margin in terms of this delta- v needed].
A factor of whether these prior stages achieve this velocity is the mass of second stage plus the payload.
So second stage is about 30.5 tons + 25 ton payload. Engine doing about 11.2 tons of thrust.
So that if stage + payload were at zero velocity at 100 km high it needs about 55.5 tons of thrust to stop
it from falling from gravity.
And it should be noted that even without a payload, if stage were a zero velocity at 100 km the 11.2 tons of thrust could not stop the rocket from falling.

What is missing from this is the rocket has velocity, and it is this velocity that keeps a rocket in orbit
without gravity loss.

One could ask if something is going 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, or 6 km/sec at 100 km elevation, how far does it go.
And it also matter what the vector of this velocity is at. So say, it could be at 10, 20, 30 or 45 degrees relative to Earth surface.

This gets complicated. But let's start with simple non powered ballistic trajectory, if going at 45 degrees you will travel the furthest distance laterally, and as you travel laterally the curvature of spherical earth falls or increases in distance.
So it's both the angle and velocity and one say roughly the more distance traveled laterally the more gravity loss "you have removed".
Orbital velocity removes all of gravity loss, and question is what does say  1/2 orbital velocity "remove".

Or instead "remove" how velocity is added if you launching from world will no atmosphere.

So on airless world you fire a canon at 45 degree angle at 4 km/sec then you hit the ground at 4 km/sec.
And with 6 km/sec hits at 6 km/sec.
And with instantaneous acceleration of cannon there is no gravity loss.
Same thing if you shoot straight up. Gravity loss is the added time it takes you to do what the cannon
is doing- so cannon take 100 second to reach some height and if go to same height but slower you will have gravity loss.

And in terms lateral distance, cannon fires at 45 degree and goes say 3000 km, there is no gravity loss.
And question we dealing with is if the cannon ball has rocket and accelerates so instead 3000 km it falls at distance of 5000 km, how much gravity loss is involved.

Well if  you take a more powerful cannon and fire cannon ball 5000 km, note the delta-v it required.
Compare this to the cannon which fired distance 3000 km. And compare the delta-v of the rocket which caused increase of distance by 2000 km. 
Or the more powerful cannon will have higher velocity impact as compare to less powerful cannon and the delta-v added to it- so that difference of less impact is the gravity loss.

[[Though one could also have what is called steering loses- or I would say, any changing the vector  has steering losses- accelerating in direction other than the vector of the straight line you traveling in- so thrusting in opposite direction of travel would more simple example of this, but also includes any direction but direction of your velocity.]]

Now if have rocket as the cannon ball which will go 3000 km without rocket power, how much more delta-v and over what time period, and what vector should one accelerate, to make go 5000 km?
And how much more to go 10,000 km, and finally to get the infinite distance of being in orbit.
Ah, here what I need, a simple calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html
So for cannon to go 3000 km it needs velocity of about 5.5 km at 45 degree and for 5000 km it needs
7 km/sec. So one need at least 1.5 km/sec from  rocket delta-v to extend 3000 km to 5000 km distance.
Using calculator: the 3000 km distance reaches 772 km elevation and total travel time of 793.6 second.

And at 5.5 km/sec it will not take much time to go from 0 to 100 km or from reentry 100 km to impact.
So say about 20 seconds going to +100 km up and 20 seconds from +100 km to impact or
about 750 seconds in "space environment"

With the 7.0 km/sec travel time is 1010 second- so about 980 seconds in "space environment". And with 7 km/sec it reaches 1225 km elevation.
So with the 3000 km distance cannon and 1.5 delta-v rocket as part of "cannon ball" and burn time of 750 seconds, what happens? So going have your vector at same 45 degrees and engine shut off after 750 second engine firing.
This roughly means you go same distance as the cannon with delta-v of 7 km/sec and you will go higher than the 772 km elevation, but you will not go as high as 1225 km elevation of more powerful cannon.
But If your rocket burn half the 750 seconds so it on had engine shut off before reach peak, you will get real close to this 1225 km elevation.

Though I guess simply way to say this is once you are shot out of the cannon, you are weightless.
Or if in Einstein's elevator you have no perceivable gravity and outside the elevator what the gravity does is effect where you hit the earth.

So with Delta IV rocket if going to LEO will probable not be going at 45 degree- instead it's start off going near vertical and as climbs above most of atmosphere, it then starts to level off so one gets into an orbit, but as wild guess it could possible it's at say 20 to 30 degrees.
If I put 30 degree in calculator and velocity of 5.5 km/sec
I get distance of 2673 km rather than 3000 km, and get travel time of 561 seconds rather than 793.6 second, orbital height of 385.8 km.

And considering we want to go 407 km orbital height [ISS], and will add some to the orbital height, that's not far off.
Now getting back to it:
So second stage is about 30.5 tons + 25 ton payload. Engine doing about 11.2 tons of thrust.
And say it's going at 30 degree angle. And we use the 1125 burn time which gives 11.2 tons of thrust.
Which means 9.8 m/s/s acceleration for 11.2 tons. And it starts at 55.5 tons which is 4.955 times more mass, and does 1.977 m/s/s of acceleration.
So: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#components
says  27.20 tons*** of usable Propellant. But:
"*** Propellant loadings for GTO missions shown. Propellant loadings would be less for LEO missions with heavy payloads.  Stage 2 masses do not include payload attachment fittings, which weigh 0.24 to 0.4 tonnes. "
Now, I don't know how much propellant, well if say 25 tons but then gross mass stage also less by 2 tons. So as guess if it's 25 tons of  propellant and gross mass of 28.5 tons. 53.5 tons which 4.7767 times more mass and we get about 2 m/s/s.
And get 53.5 minus 25 tons of propellent, is 28.5. So max acceleration when near empty being about 2.5 m/s/s. So range of 2 to 2.5 m/s/s.
Plus in above ref says burn time is 1118 s.
Assuming  27200 kg of propellent burned is 1118 seconds it's 24.3 kg per second, or 82 seconds per two tons.  So, since removed 2 tons: 1036 seconds.

So first 518 seconds it's between about 2 to 2.25 m/s/s. And first 259 seconds it's 2 to 2.12 m/s/s.
Or roughly 259 m/s + 272 m/s. Or .53 km/sec in first 259 second
Moving on:
Quote
Actually the second stage CANNOT fight it's gravity losses alone, due it's terrible thrust to weight ratio, even if it would start burning vertically from 5 km/s velocity using all of it's energy to fight gravity (loss), it would just fall down. (effective gravity at 5km/s is about 0.33*9.81 m/s^2 = 3.2m/s, 3.2m/s^2 * (25t + 30t)  = 176 kN, thrust of DCSS is 110 kN.

So the second stage might actually go maybe something like from 4.8 km/s to 7.5 km/s , burning 2.7 km/s horizontally and something like 1.3 m/s vertically(3km/s total by pythagoras), and first stage burning 0.9km/s extra vertically to keep the second stage in air long enough.

That's the problem which matters a lot, is how fast is second stage going and what vector when starts it's engine, and it could be going somewhere around 5 km/sec and could be about 30 degrees

Or it could going 4.5 km if going near vertical, but if tilted over at 30 degree to go to LEO it could going instead around 5.0 km/sec. But let's just pick your 4.8 km/sec number
So about 120 km up, going 30 degrees trajectory and going 4.8 km/sec.

Put 4800 m/s and 30 degrees and get distance traveled of: 2036 km, and time of travel: 489.8 seconds,
and orbital height of 293.8 km. And since at 120 km: 293.8 + 120 which is 413.8 km
But since too high, change it to 25 degrees. So that's 210 + 120 which is 330 km which seems better.
And shorter time of flight of 413.9 seconds. So without any rocket power should reach peak of trajectory in
about 200 second. But according above rocket engine add within 259 seconds .53 km/s
So this before 200 seconds instead it being 4.8 km/sec it's about 5 km/sec.
Put 25 degrees and 5 km in cal:
time flight is 431 seconds and high is 227 + 120 is 347 km. And I want 407 km, need 50 km more,
250 km rather than 227. Plug in 26 degrees and get 245 km and time of flight of 447 second.
which getting close to 259 second giving .53 km/sec. So 4.8 km/sec plus .53 km is 5.33 km/sec.
Plug that is at 26 degrees and that gets too high- 300 km + 120 km
But also gravity bending this trajectory.
So roughly it start at 26 degrees and as rocket climbs over time one could shift
to point where angle is zero.

So lets look at orbital velocity and gravity at 400 km. Velocity is 7.67 km/sec. And gravity is 8.68 m/s/s.
So we have about 494, used 259 second going up. And we close 400 km up we going thrust in vector in direction of orbit.
So at this point in terms ballistic trajectory the rocket traveled about 1/2 the distance 2458 km. Gone 1200 km and without any more rocket power will go another 1200 km.
If had zero lateral velocity, I would not go 1200 km laterally, I would instead fall more or less straight down.
Used .53 km/sec of stage delta-v, giving something like 5.33 km/sec and need 7.67 km to remain in orbit at this height- short 2.34 km, and remaining stage can add about 2.47 km/sec. Or used 1/6 of delta-v
and terms fuel burned 259 second of 1036 seconds: 1/4 of fuel. And acceleration is now: 2.12 m/s/s

Ah, if fall at 45 degrees angle from 100 km, you will travel 100 km and distance of the line traveled is about
141 km. So falling straight down your vertical drop is 1.4 times faster. and lower angle slower fall. So in terms vertical component at 25 degree you rising and falling slower than compared 45  degrees or 90 degrees. And at 5 km/sec a different of 25 degrees to 26 degrees adds 17 km to height.
So if gravity is 8.7 m/s/s and you zero velocity how long does it take to fall 20 km-  about 69 seconds.
So if straight up for 20 km and then fall straight down for 20 km, it take 69 times 2 seconds or
138 second. If go up 20 km. The distance traveled is 28.2. And in total time it's not much difference,
it's 80 second vs 69 seconds. And so total 160 second but larger percentage of time is spend above within couple km  of 20 km height, and the lower the angle the more this is the case..

It seems to me there are losses but changing vector losses- or steering losses, or "normal" steering losses
are something like 150 m/s. I was trying some reference to check to see what typical steering losses were,
but instead found this reference which related in general with this topic
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/LaunchMethodology.pdf
And calculator:
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html
from spaceflight post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19805
Various posters thought it was niffy.

Anyways it seems to me if over shoot the the orbital height by a bit and one going somewhere
around 25 degree and at 4.8 km/sec or more or you be able to get around 25 tons to 400 by
400 km at 51.6 inclination.
The calculator above [I don't know what they mean exactly by Delta IV H nor understand how works
very well] gave:
"Launch Vehicle:      Delta IV Heavy w/long fairing
Launch Site:      Cape Canaveral / KSC
Destination Orbit:     407 x 407 km, 52 deg
Estimated Payload:      24698 kg
95% Confidence Interval:      20229 - 30163 kg"

And falcon 9:
Launch Vehicle:      Falcon 9 Block 1 w/standard fairing
Launch Site:      Cape Canaveral / KSC
Destination Orbit:     407 x 407 km, 52 deg
Estimated Payload:      9286 kg
95% Confidence Interval:      7254 - 11753 kg

Same thing, not sure what version of Falcon 9 that is.



« Last Edit: 02/26/2014 12:56 pm by gbaikie »

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #60 on: 03/09/2014 07:25 pm »
The attached image is from an old Boeing chart. Of course the details are superseded by newer information, but what's interesting is the implied conversion (for Delta IV) between payload masses sent to LEO and payload masses sent to Earth-escape (C3=0).

An upgraded Delta IV Heavy with ACES and GEMs could lift 45 tons to LEO, that could probably get a BLEO modified CST-100 on TLI in a single launch.
Wait a sec--we should question one of the premises of this thread, placing SRMs on a D-IVH. AIUI, the cores for the D--IV family are all unique, with each of the three cores of the heavy specifically farbicated, and the core for the D-IV M yet another unique core. And it's taken years and effort to reduce the number of unique cores to this point. ...
ULA has the SRMs on Delta IV Heavy as a growth option in their literature. It's not just fan-wanked.

Last I heard the existing Delta IVH (RS-68A) is capable of 26t LEO to 38t with 6 GEMs and 46t if a J-2X upper is used to 62t with J-2X and 6 GEMs. M129K has put a 45t cap using ACES. The obvious issue with doubling DIV-H's payload, eluded to by PahTo, is adding strength/mass to a unique center core in addition to design changes just to mount CBCs bearing GEMs.

Is any of this remotely plausible without direction or funding given to NASA? Would that help, or is DIV-H growth just pie in the sky?
« Last Edit: 03/09/2014 07:26 pm by rusty »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #61 on: 03/09/2014 10:28 pm »
is DIV-H growth just pie in the sky?

Yes, right now that seems to be the correct conclusion. DIV-H growth doesn't appear on the current "road map" of any credible organization, including ULA, USAF, and NASA.

That said I love Delta and think there is a way to get a Delta Growth option back into the running. In the medium term it involves consolidating both SLS and Delta on an expendable RS-25E....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #62 on: 03/10/2014 09:12 pm »
That said I love Delta and think there is a way to get a Delta Growth option back into the running. In the medium term it involves consolidating both SLS and Delta on an expendable RS-25E....
That reasoning is quite absurd.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #63 on: 03/10/2014 09:24 pm »
It should be pointed out that continued upgrading of Delta IV is not impossible. They added the higher performance RS-68A engine, for instance, which significantly improves payload to LEO (especially if you're talking about a low inclination, low altitude parking orbit... According to some analysis by Ed, the current upgraded Delta IV Heavy can do over 28 metric tons to 200km, 28.7 degrees inclination).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #64 on: 03/10/2014 09:30 pm »
Is any of this remotely plausible without direction or funding given to NASA? Would that help, or is DIV-H growth just pie in the sky?

We don't need a larger DIV-H to go to the moon, though a larger upper stage could still be useful, and that would give you EELV Phase 1, which is a larger launcher. But the launcher isn't the bottleneck, the lack of a lander is.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #65 on: 03/10/2014 10:39 pm »
1) We don't need a larger DIV-H to go to the moon, though a larger upper stage could still be useful, and that would give you EELV Phase 1, which is a larger launcher.
2) But the launcher isn't the bottleneck, the lack of a lander is.
Re1) Depends on what you mean by "a larger DIV-H" and what you plan to do at the Moon. sdsds pointed out "the implied conversion (for Delta IV) between payload masses sent to LEO and payload masses sent to Earth-escape (C3=0)" but at 26t to 38t w/GEMs to LEO, DeltaIV-H doesn't cut it and needs a new upper.

Re2) I don't consider "the lack of a lander" to be "the bottleneck", but the lack of any agenda or mission that would dictate the lander, staging and supplies.
CxP's Altair was a 45mt one-off behemoth and way outside D4-H's capabilities. In the Altair Alternatives thread I linked a 1988 study http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/LB2-114-LanderConceptualDesign.pdf of a 45mt (wet + downmass) reusable LLO lander requiring 30mt of fuel/trip. Again, still beyond D4-H's capabilities even with new a upper. If this is the mission, building the lander isn't a problem or "bottleneck", but launching it with D4-H absolutely is.

In that same thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19189.msg886940#msg886940 I also outlined (and have since tinkered with) a half-sized, but still 14day 23mt LLO lander requiring 15.5mt fuel/trip. This is at the top end or beyond a D4-H/ACES, but well within a D4-H/J-2X. The necessary LLO staging hab/dock/supply (also worked out) is likewise within an uprated D4-H, but not a fully-fueled Orion with mission equipment. For that, we need an SLS or dual launch D4-H/J-2X which is the crux of the thread.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #66 on: 03/10/2014 10:57 pm »
That said I love Delta and think there is a way to get a Delta Growth option back into the running. In the medium term it involves consolidating both SLS and Delta on an expendable RS-25E....
That reasoning is quite absurd.

You think it absurd because RS-25 liftoff thrust is so much lower than that of RS-68? I agree the main engine switch would eliminate configurations (including the current DIV-H) that have no solid boosters. But (and please check the arithmetic yourself) an RS-25 and two GEM-60 boosters have more thrust than an RS-68.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #67 on: 03/10/2014 11:49 pm »
Or you think it is absurd because RS-25 is "too expensive" for Delta IV?

From the report p.19:
Quote
For example, the EELV Should Cost Review indicates
prices for the RS-68 engine, the main engine used on Delta IV launch
vehicles, are expected to increase four-fold, but is unable to attribute the
rise in prices to specific and identifiable cost increases. Air Force officials
requested a cost breakdown on the RS-68 from the same subcontractor
who provided cost data on the RL-10, but the subcontractor has not yet
provided adequate data, according to Air Force officials.
Is it known, whether this anticipated price increase happened? By now (Report is from Sep 2011) a RS-68 might be more expensive than a new ssme? What could be reasons for such an increase?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #68 on: 03/11/2014 10:46 am »
Re1) Depends on what you mean by "a larger DIV-H" and what you plan to do at the Moon. sdsds pointed out "the implied conversion (for Delta IV) between payload masses sent to LEO and payload masses sent to Earth-escape (C3=0)" but at 26t to 38t w/GEMs to LEO, DeltaIV-H doesn't cut it and needs a new upper.

Not if you use both LEO and L1/L2 rendez-vous, move the capsule and lander separately, and launch the lander to LEO and move it from there to L1/L2 mostly dry. Pre-ESAS there were studies about doing things like that, and OASIS is like that too, only with much more infrastructure.

Quote
Re2) I don't consider "the lack of a lander" to be "the bottleneck", but the lack of any agenda or mission that would dictate the lander, staging and supplies.

What I meant is that you cannot do a moon mission without a lander, while you can do it without launch vehicles larger than current EELVs.

That said, EELV Phase 1 and FH could be very useful for moon missions, just not as useful as an actual lander.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 11:31 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #69 on: 03/11/2014 12:13 pm »
Is any of this remotely plausible without direction or funding given to NASA? Would that help, or is DIV-H growth just pie in the sky?

Annoyingly, yes. The one option for possibility getting HLV-like perfoirmance in the near-term at the time of the Augustine Commission was the 50t IMLEO Delta-IVH-Max (GEMs, cross-feed, new upper stage and possibly propellent densification). I remain profoundly annoyed that this wasn't even considered for nakedly political reasons.

Even the already-scheduled to fly RS-86A version of the regular D-IVH could have been useful in providing extra cargo up-mass to the ISS. It was time to talk about what could be done within the next two Presidential terms, not something that was a decade or more away even in the best case scenario.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #70 on: 03/11/2014 03:26 pm »
... I remain profoundly annoyed that this (uprated DIV-H) wasn't even considered for nakedly political reasons.
... It was time to talk about what could be done within the next two Presidential terms, not something that was a decade or more away even in the best case scenario.
I wouldn't put it as (nakedly political reasons), but a severe strategic shortcoming. As I outlined, DIV-H is capable of starting a lunar program, but really needs HLV (AresV /SLS) to sustain and expand it. One major point isn't just doubling the number of launches, timing them and including LEO ops with DIV-H, but its infrastructure is too small. The lander I designed would need a rework to fit a DIV-H shroud (eliminating key features) and even then is probably too tall for the existing assembly building. Moving forward with the greater fuel requirements of multiple sorties per mission, DIV-H doesn't cut it.

DeltaIV-H is a good choice for near-term capability and getting the ball rolling with availability later of launching periodic cargo/infrastructure, but for ongoing manned ops to the moon HLV would have to be built eventually. That would likely be "a decade or more away even in the best case scenario", thus mandating RS-68s instead of a new, mothballed engine program (RS-25s) and probably a rethink of the boosters (Black Knights) and core (10m) over that time.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 03:28 pm by rusty »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #71 on: 03/11/2014 04:09 pm »
Remember that the Delta-IV core is the somewhat-distant basis of an HLV core (EELV Phase-II) and that this would likely be no more complex or costly than building SLS.

Furthermore, basing your architecture on the DIV payload system gives you multiple decision-point flexibility. You are not locked into developing either the MHLV (Phase-I), HLV (Phase-II) or SHLV (something like Atlas-V Phase-3B) versions from the outset of the program. You can assess on an on-going basis if you need to upgrade your launchers whilst focussing on payloads and mission development.

It's not a panacea by any standards but I have the feeling that NASA would now be a lot closer to fielding Orion and having something useful to do with it if it had gone down this path.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #72 on: 03/11/2014 06:41 pm »
Quote from: rusty
M129K has put a 45t cap using ACES.

Not so much of a "cap". 45 tons is what you'd get with ACES plus 6 GEMs, but you could still add upgrades like regen RS-68 or crossfeed to get even more performance, over 50 tons. Not that it's very useful, because IMO a bigger upper stage is all Delta IV really needs.


Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #73 on: 03/11/2014 07:28 pm »
I don't doubt that a lunar mission could be launched on (some sort of) Delta IV Heavy. I wonder though if a sustained lunar architecture could be built around launches of an RS-68 powered D-IV launch system. That's because I doubt Rocketdyne is still prepared to produce large numbers of RS-68 engines.

Back in 1998, "The RS-68 assembly facility [was to] include approximately 90,000 square feet of assembly, warehouse and office space [...] at the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant at SSC." Since that time I believe there have been other users of at least some of that space. (J-2X, for example?) For those proposing lunar architectures based around (many) D-IVH launches, what provides assurance that the required engine production capacity is available? Or is that ... a guess?
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 07:29 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #74 on: 03/12/2014 11:22 pm »
... basing your architecture on the DIV payload system gives you multiple decision-point flexibility. You are not locked into developing either the MHLV (Phase-I), HLV (Phase-II) or SHLV (something like Atlas-V Phase-3B) versions from the outset of the program. You can assess on an on-going basis if you need to upgrade your launchers whilst focussing on payloads and mission development.

It's not a panacea by any standards but I have the feeling that NASA would now be a lot closer to fielding Orion and having something useful to do with it if it had gone down this path.
I don't think the "DIV architecture" as is, is sufficient for lunar operations even using the existing DIV-H. I know that's the jist of this thread, but I've argued that MHLV or Phase-I, specifically with J-2X and/or GEMs is necessary. That would have "locked in" development for at least this decade until "payloads and mission" dictate an SLS-like system (specifically a stretched 3xRS-68 Jupiter 130/23X).

IMO, DIV-H/J-2X would've been "a panacea" for putting Orion around the Moon and eventually regularly upon it.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2014 11:24 pm by rusty »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #75 on: 03/13/2014 11:51 am »
@rusty,

The point of my post was that Delta-IV offers the same fall-back options that the DIRECT 2.0 and 3.0 concepts offered.

Basically (and unlike SLS), an EELV-based system could be used solely to support an LEO program whilst still retaining the potential to be upgraded for BLEO. Combined with their commercial potential, this would protect the system from de-funding or cancellation and mean you've always got the first step available should funding be available for BEO again.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #76 on: 03/13/2014 11:54 pm »
@rusty, ...
Well said. I'd only veer once something larger than EELV is needed toward Jupiter/AresV/SLS instead of Phase-II/etc. But the point of getting going with what we got, or slight upgrades to it, remains the same.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2014 11:57 pm by rusty »

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #77 on: 03/22/2014 09:55 am »
I'm also attaching an image of the heavy upgrade option, with 6 SRBs, dual RL-10 upper stage, and a 6.5m diameter fairing. (Anything bigger would require significant pad mods) This version should be able to put 40-45 tons in LEO.
Thanks for that.
It's surprising just how many different second stages get mocked up for the DeltaIV-H, most proposed in addition to the 12tons 6xGEMs add. Please make any corrections, but it seems going to these second stages boost IMLEO by;
4xRL10 ~ 10tons(ISS study), 2xRL10 ~ 5tons, RL60 ~ 3.5tons(Boeing study)
J-2X(AresI) ~ 11-12tons(ISS study) to 20-24tons(unmanned trajectory)
« Last Edit: 03/23/2014 06:53 am by rusty »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #78 on: 03/22/2014 03:33 pm »
I've only got one thing to say: Pad 37A.

Set up SLC-37A with a flame trench large enough and tough enough for a 3 x CBC, 8 x GEM (or even 12x if the rocket's structure can take the stress) and cross-feed. Then move all launches to 37A whilst you bring 37B up to the same specifications. A Delta-IVH of the type that would thus exist would give ULA the ability to launch about 110t per launch campaign using Delta-IV alone from the two pads, something more than enough for lunar surface missions. Add to that crew from SLC-41 and they could easily have a viable launch architecture for exploration.


[edit]
Whoops! Typo!
« Last Edit: 03/22/2014 03:40 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #79 on: 03/22/2014 03:34 pm »
Former JSC propulsion engineer Gene Grush discusses a non-SLS return to the moon in a five-article series beginning here.  Probably the most interesting is the third: "Return to the Moon in Four Years."

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy
« Reply #80 on: 04/03/2014 09:39 am »
I have been reading the old Lunar Gemini proposals.
How about 2 Delta IV heavies for flag and footprint with margins?
Or 2 people 30+ days on the Moon with 4 Delta IV Heavies and Aerojet Hall thrusters.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0