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
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.
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.
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).
Quote from: newpylong on 07/11/2013 03:49 amThat 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
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 ).
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 07/10/2013 05:20 amFor 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.
Quote from: sdsds on 07/10/2013 05:47 amI 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?
I think the chart attached below (from the Delta IV Launch Services User‘s Guide, June 2013) is current ...
Quote from: sdsds on 07/10/2013 05:47 amI 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.
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).
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
Quote from: Lobo on 07/11/2013 05:00 pmQuote from: sdsds on 07/10/2013 05:47 amI 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.
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 07/11/2013 07:11 pmI 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.QuoteWe 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.Quotewe 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.