Author Topic: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy  (Read 49790 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.

Online 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 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1