Author Topic: Mission to the Moon using Delta IV-Heavy or Falcon Heavy  (Read 49792 times)

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 Of course the details are superseded by newer information, but what's interesting is the implied conversion (for Delta IV) between payload masses sent to LEO and payload masses sent to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: 25225
  • 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."

Tags:
 

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