Author Topic: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander  (Read 6414 times)

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« on: 11/09/2015 09:36 pm »
This topic is the exploration of what would be possible from a lander based from the Vulcan ACES version of the same proposed horizontal lander by Masten using the Centaur.

The attached spreadsheet shows 3 categories of operational regimes of where prop is sourced to the vehicle at (1) L2, (2) Lunar surface, or (3) both. There are also multiple configurations examined of Tanker, Cargo, Crew, All combined, and a dual Cargo/Tanker. The ISP of the engines for calculating the deltaV of each of the configurations is 445. This is a conservative value for the case where RL-10's are not used and a more modern but lower ISP engine with many reuse is used. ACES tech takes care of the multistart and low boil-off required same as in the Centaur Lander case.

There are some advantages of this vehicle over that of the Centaur based one in that this vehicle is fully reusable SSTO. This is because there is an significant increase in the propellant factor of this vehicle vs the Centaur one. Propellant increased by 7.5 X but the dry weight of the vehicle and landing systems increased only by 5.1 X.

This vehicle is not small but actually very large. Payload can be as much as 150mt+ for Cargo/Tanker.

Initially a combined Crew/Cargo/Tanker may prove all that is required for many years. Crew of 5, 28mt of down cargo and 28mt of up cargo or prop. The calculations do not include gravity losses but gravity losses are on the order of 200m/s or less. This can reduce payload capability some but this vehicle has lots of capability to pare.

The vehicle would consist of the stainless steel ACES tank and systems but with 4 - 20klbf engines side mounted for horizontal liftoff and landing. An additional axial engine is not necessary since the 4 side engines are of RL-10 class with similar ISP's.

I will work on a concept drawing but it will look very much like the Masten Centaur vehicle only much larger (>5X larger). Passenger count could be from 5 to 60 depending on operation regime and configuration. This vehicle would truly be a Lunar Base transport workhorse.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #1 on: 11/09/2015 11:43 pm »
So assume got this Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander and want to ship 800 tons of LOX from lunar surface to L-2.
How much rocket fuel in addition to the 800 tons of LOX being shipped is needed at lunar surface, assuming
Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander starts at lunar surface and is empty?

And in comparison how much rocket fuel is required if instead one ship 800 metric tons of LOX to Low lunar orbit?

I tend to think shipping rocket fuel to Low lunar orbit is better. One reason is one could use SEP or chemical/SEP as tug between LLO and L-2. And another reason [or if just using chemical rockets rather than involving SEP] then one does not need lunar landing capability as part of mass of the tug which goes from low lunar orbit to L-2.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #2 on: 11/10/2015 01:29 am »
So assume got this Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander and want to ship 800 tons of LOX from lunar surface to L-2.
How much rocket fuel in addition to the 800 tons of LOX being shipped is needed at lunar surface, assuming
Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander starts at lunar surface and is empty?

And in comparison how much rocket fuel is required if instead one ship 800 metric tons of LOX to Low lunar orbit?

I tend to think shipping rocket fuel to Low lunar orbit is better. One reason is one could use SEP or chemical/SEP as tug between LLO and L-2. And another reason [or if just using chemical rockets rather than involving SEP] then one does not need lunar landing capability as part of mass of the tug which goes from low lunar orbit to L-2.
I've always worked on Lander going from surface to EML1. Switching to SEP at LLO has merit especially if it uses lunar hydrogen for fuel instead of earth sourced Xenon.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #3 on: 11/10/2015 04:19 am »
The answer to how much prop at Lunar surface is needed is full tank of 150mt of prop for delivery of 118mt of cargo/lox/water/etc which also is enough prop to be able to return the vehicle empty back to Lunar surface requiring no refueling at L2. So If you want 800mt of something delivered from Lunar surface to L2 say, it would take 7/8 trips.

Number of trips brings up total burn duration capability for the engines. A round trip involves about 500 seconds of burn time. So 10 round trips may be the max number of trips per engine before major overhaul/replacement. It is a matter of how robust are the engines used.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #4 on: 11/10/2015 06:13 am »
The answer to how much prop at Lunar surface is needed is full tank of 150mt of prop for delivery of 118mt of cargo/lox/water/etc which also is enough prop to be able to return the vehicle empty back to Lunar surface requiring no refueling at L2. So If you want 800mt of something delivered from Lunar surface to L2 say, it would take 7/8 trips.

Number of trips brings up total burn duration capability for the engines. A round trip involves about 500 seconds of burn time. So 10 round trips may be the max number of trips per engine before major overhaul/replacement. It is a matter of how robust are the engines used.



If lunar surface LOX is $1000 per kg and hydrogen is $4000 per kg [or some fuel
is equal to LH2 in costs]. The 1 to 6 has rocket fuel cost of $1428.57
per kg.
Or $1,428,571.50 per ton
To buy 150 mt of rocket fuel costs $214,285,714
To buy 118 tons of LOX costs 118 million.
215 + 118 is 333 million.
If the 118 tons sells at 400 million at L-2
the LOX is about $3390 per kg.
If assume water is $500 per kg at lunar surface, shipped water to L-2 is
$3390 - $500 which is $2890 per kg
If assume H2 is shipped. It's $3390 + 3000 or $6390 per kg.
[not counting extra tankage needed for LH2]

If launch cost from Earth to L-2 was $4000 per kg, Lunar LOX or lunar water
could be profitable, whereas hydrogen wouldn't be.
Or it would make economic sense [for this Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander] if one can buy Hydrogen at L-2 which shipped from Earth, if one could get for say $5000 per kg [or less].

But it also seems, as a guess, to indicates that buying hydrogen shipped from Earth to Low
lunar orbit would not make economic sense [with above values].
So also allowing 67 million per round trip, if get 10 trips it totals
670 million, so assume cost of vehicle and it's operation and the cost of money, it
would have to cost less than 670 million per unit.

Also if one assume LOX and hydrogen is worth at L-2, $4000 per kg of LOX
and $5000 per kg of hydrogen. And this vehicle when it arrives at L-2
can refuel and land some payload on the Moon from Earth.
Or from Earth the vehicle can go directly to the Moon, and first time it
refuels is on Lunar surface or perhaps it also refuel at LEO [assuming there is
depot in LEO].
Or since lunar price is $4000 for Hydrogen and L-2 is $5000 per kg, perhaps
from earth it brings LH2 to L-2 and then cargo to Lunar surface from
L-2.
Or roughly one pays for the use of vehicle for 100 million for 100 ton from
LEO to L-2 and/or 100 million for 100 tons from L-2 to lunar surface.
Not including rocket fuel costs.

So in terms of cost of vehicle before landing on the Moon it could get
about 200 million for it's use prior to landing on the Moon.

Generally it seems with passengers one would go from Earth to Low
lunar orbit and then to the lunar surface, as getting to L-2 takes too
much time for crew from Earth.
And it seems with lunar water mining one would establish a depot at low
lunar orbit. And L-2 as destination works in terms getting water
and LOX for use for Mars mission or other purposes.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 06:23 am by gbaikie »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #5 on: 12/12/2015 12:37 am »
Going a little OT, there is also another US that could possibly end up being converted into a significant SSTO lander. The BO US from their orbital vehicle. It would be about half or less the capability of ACES but it would still be significant 3-7 crew + 30mt of cargo down with only the crew returning after cargo has been left on surface. It is possible that this systems although not as good a performance vehicle as that of ACES may be more likely to come about since it would be in line with BO's HSF goals. There would be definitely more likelihood of available funds as well to do the development and testing of the system.

The BO US would be generally a ~100mt wet weight stage with ~10mt dry weight using a single or possible even 2 BE-3s. This would give a LV the needed delta-v from its US to orbit to LEO ~15mt which is the upper amount for the use for performing HSF flights. In all the US used as a lander would have the same applicability as that of the ACES for either crew, cargo, or propellant up or down with refueling occurring at either L2 or on the surface or both. The unknowns are what is the proposed schedule for when this LV is to do its first flights and then whether ther will be any effort for on-orbit refueling capabilities made with the stage.

At the moment ULA is in the lead when it comes to the many tech problems that on-orbit and long duration cryo storage of propellants are concerned. But BO is in the lead for landing tech. A merger of the two such that BO and ULA produce together a ACES lander and versatile US usable on both Vulcan and BO's launcher would reduce the US unit costs due to production volume. Sadly that is only speculation fired by the cooperation the two companies have so far made.


Offline Nydoc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #6 on: 12/23/2015 12:55 pm »
The answer to how much prop at Lunar surface is needed is full tank of 150mt of prop for delivery of 118mt of cargo/lox/water/etc which also is enough prop to be able to return the vehicle empty back to Lunar surface requiring no refueling at L2. So If you want 800mt of something delivered from Lunar surface to L2 say, it would take 7/8 trips.

Shouldn't there be three numbers here?

A = mass of propellant expended for ACES to deliver its cargo from the lunar surface to EML2
B = mass of cargo delivered to EML2
C = mass of propellant expended for ACES with no cargo to return from EML2 to the lunar surface
« Last Edit: 12/23/2015 10:39 pm by Nydoc »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #7 on: 12/27/2015 04:43 pm »
The answer to how much prop at Lunar surface is needed is full tank of 150mt of prop for delivery of 118mt of cargo/lox/water/etc which also is enough prop to be able to return the vehicle empty back to Lunar surface requiring no refueling at L2. So If you want 800mt of something delivered from Lunar surface to L2 say, it would take 7/8 trips.

Shouldn't there be three numbers here?

A = mass of propellant expended for ACES to deliver its cargo from the lunar surface to EML2
B = mass of cargo delivered to EML2
C = mass of propellant expended for ACES with no cargo to return from EML2 to the lunar surface
Here is the spreadsheet with the three prop sources cases and the various cargo crew combo's. In the early days of Lunar base building a combined Crew/Cargo/Tanker could transport from prop sourced at EML2 (prior to having the mining and prop manufacturing capability running on the surface) a crew of 5 up and down, 28mt of cargo down and 28mt of water or regolith to be dropped off at EML2.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #8 on: 02/18/2016 06:24 pm »
Most lunar architectures have crew returning from cislunar space direct earth using a capsule. With lunar fuel it is poosible for a 27mt Xeus lander (7mt dry+20mt fuel) to deliver crew direct from LEO to lunar surface, refuel on moon and return to LEO using propulsive braking. Crew return to earth via capsule while Lander stays in LEO where it refuels and waits for next crew.

With only earth fuel available then it switches back to lander operating out of Cislunar gateway eg DSH at Lunar DRO.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #9 on: 02/19/2016 05:06 am »
Propulsive braking into LEO is such a silly waste compared to aerocapture/braking. Especially if something like Magnetoshell Aerocapture works out. Earth has this wonderful atmosphere that can be used as free reaction mass for slowing down. Why waste precious fuel you just dragged up the gravity well from the Earth of the Moon instead of taking advantage of that?

~Jon

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #10 on: 02/19/2016 07:37 am »
Why waste precious fuel you just dragged up the gravity well from the Earth of the Moon instead of taking advantage of that?

Because a vehicle capable of aerocapture will be more expensive, heavier and difficult to reuse?

There are obviously good arguments for direct return as well.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #11 on: 02/19/2016 05:43 pm »
Propulsive braking into LEO is such a silly waste compared to aerocapture/braking. Especially if something like Magnetoshell Aerocapture works out. Earth has this wonderful atmosphere that can be used as free reaction mass for slowing down. Why waste precious fuel you just dragged up the gravity well from the Earth of the Moon instead of taking advantage of that?

~Jon
If the lander is carrying crew propulsive is safest and quickest option. Without crew it can use aerobraking and do multiple passes over days/weeks.

I'm not discounting Magneto shell but still an unknown technology.

Inflatable heatshields are another option but they are more of a one time use item. If reused how does Xeus land horizontally with a large inflated shield.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #12 on: 02/19/2016 06:25 pm »
Propulsive braking into LEO is such a silly waste compared to aerocapture/braking. Especially if something like Magnetoshell Aerocapture works out. Earth has this wonderful atmosphere that can be used as free reaction mass for slowing down. Why waste precious fuel you just dragged up the gravity well from the Earth of the Moon instead of taking advantage of that?

~Jon

For aerocapture/breaking of a reusable transfer vehicle we will need a low maintenance reusable heat shield. I hope the DreamChaser manages to get it to work. Then we can devise ways of covering the whole of the upper stage.

Since Xeus has lunar landing thrusters a joint thruster and heat shield reentry system may be possible. Reducing the reentry velocity by 1kW/s or so will reduce the maximum temperature the heat shield experiences.

edit:grammar
« Last Edit: 02/20/2016 04:15 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #13 on: 02/19/2016 07:59 pm »
Propulsive braking into LEO is such a silly waste compared to aerocapture/braking. Especially if something like Magnetoshell Aerocapture works out. Earth has this wonderful atmosphere that can be used as free reaction mass for slowing down. Why waste precious fuel you just dragged up the gravity well from the Earth of the Moon instead of taking advantage of that?

~Jon

If, as always is the biggest two letter word in the world :)

The main point I suppose is we're not talking about an OTV but a Lunar Lander (initially and in general) and what amounts to a LEO to Lunar Surface and return vehicle in specific. That complicates things. Having to tuck everything behind/inside a heat shield set up was always an issue with Aerocapture/braking in OTV design.
(See: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870011585.pdf)

Now making a lander increases the design issue even more.

And having "abundant chemical" propellant from various sources (Moon, Earth, and in LEO, etc) pretty much means you don't have to in any case. Which in turn reduces the design issues albeit at the expense of using more propellant but that's assumed to be a lot less of an issue. It's really only a "silly waste" if you're limited on propellant in the first place, if you're not then design considerations are a heavier weighting factor than propellant.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #14 on: 03/24/2016 03:18 pm »
Propulsive return to LEO is expensive on fuel but that is a know cost and is likely to get cheaper with RLV.
Of the 12km/s round trip from LEO- moon- LEO, 9km/s has to be done with propulsion.  Only the last 3km/s would benefit from an expensive and heavy BLEO capsule.

Any reusable lander operating from  EML1 would need to be able support a crew in deep space environment so it is more than capable of keeping crew safe for LEO-EML1-LEO trip. A reduced weight OTV version could be used for LEO-EML1 section.

For commercial/tourism operations the development costs of this capsule would easily cover the EML1 - LEO fuel costs of quite a few missions.

A 7t OTV would require 9t fuel for EML1-LEO trip. Using Vulcan only for fuel launches this should be <$150m, RLV fuel tankers should bring this well under $100m.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2016 03:31 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #15 on: 03/24/2016 04:41 pm »
Propulsive return to LEO is expensive on fuel but that is a know cost and is likely to get cheaper with RLV.
Of the 12km/s round trip from LEO- moon- LEO, 9km/s has to be done with propulsion.  Only the last 3km/s would benefit from an expensive and heavy BLEO capsule.

Any reusable lander operating from  EML1 would need to be able support a crew in deep space environment so it is more than capable of keeping crew safe for LEO-EML1-LEO trip. A reduced weight OTV version could be used for LEO-EML1 section.

For commercial/tourism operations the development costs of this capsule would easily cover the EML1 - LEO fuel costs of quite a few missions.

A 7t OTV would require 9t fuel for EML1-LEO trip. Using Vulcan only for fuel launches this should be <$150m, RLV fuel tankers should bring this well under $100m.


A simple LEO-EML1-LEO OTV is to stick a reusable 2 * 3.77 = 7.54 km/s propulsion module on the back of a Bigelow BA-330. It may need two engines for safety.

There are other possible cabins such as a small Deep Space Habitat (DSH).

The propulsion module would not need legs but in space refuelling and replacement of the payload area by a Common Berthing Module (CBM) or international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS).

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vulcan ACES as Horizontal Lander
« Reply #16 on: 03/24/2016 09:06 pm »
ULA and its parents have makings of a complete lunar transport system.
Boeing Starliner for  earth -LEO stage.
 ULA and Masten provide propulsion section of lander. LM can provide lander crew section, just repackage the Orion systems.
ULA the fuel tankers/depots and Vulcan LV.

Initial launches. (Vulcan launches)
(x1) Lander2 to EML1.
(X1) Lander1 to LEO fully fueled
(X4) 2 tankers to EML1 , one for each lander. One tanker is for rescue lander and is never used but maybe cycled

(X1) starliner with Crew to Lander1 in LEO.

Crew transfer to Lander1 which takes them to EML1.
Transfer to fueled Lander2 which takes to surface and back to EML1.
Transfer to Lander1 and return to LEO or refuel Lander2 use it to return to LEO. This allows for servicing of Lander2 in LEO.

The spare lander at EML1 allows crew to be rescued from anywhere in the journey.

On going lunar Mission would be.
(X2) tanker to EML1.
(X1) tanker to LEO to refuel lander in LEO.
(x1) Crew starliner launch to  lander in LEO

Landers can be rotated as required. An OTV for LEO - EML1- LEO run reduces fuel requirements but adds an extra vehicle plus Landers have to be serviced at EML1.

For delivery launches there is possibility of using landers as US on Vulcan saving cost of ACES.

Replacing Landers doesn't require additional launches as it would save/replace a tanker launch.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2016 09:12 pm by TrevorMonty »

Tags:
 

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