Author Topic: Alternative HLV Concepts  (Read 76093 times)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #120 on: 01/09/2014 04:24 am »
Any thoughts on an AJAX core, but instead of AV boosters, use Falcon 9 V1.1, using either 6 or 8 boosters and air starting the core at booster jettison?

I think that'd work fine for AJAX.  In fact I think Downix had run numbers with Atlas, Delta, and Taurus II/Antares CCB's.  The point of AJAX was that it could really use any EELV class booster, although obviously some minor modifications would be needed to the connection points from booster to booster.  But that'd give NASA options to go out for bids to ULA, SpaceX and OSC and switch if they felt it was necessary. 

Some think again that's too many engines with 6-8 F9's, but again, I think you can really consider each booster it's own module, not any different than an Atlas V core, even though there's 9 engines vs. 1.  If there's an engine failure in any of the cores, the other 8 engines will throttle up to compensate.  So it'd actually be more tolerant of an engine failure in any booster.  Which is good because with that many engines, the odds of an engine failure are higher.  Since it can tolerate it, it's not much of an issue though.

I also thought maybe SpaceX's new HLV might be a big diameter core with Raptors on it, but then like AJAX, maybe up to 8 F9v1.1's on it, and they could do their own AJAX.  Then they could bring the F9 cores back to the landing site and land them.  That's a lot of cores all coming back to land, but for a project like MCT, the BFR to launch it, and Mars colonization, I don't think having 8 landing pad in line at SLC-4 or Boca Chica, or Shiloh, or somewhere near LC-39 would be necessarily a big problem.  There's probably room for a concrete strip that could accommodate 8 F9 cores at 39A if they are launching from the cape.

However, we still get back to my same point about the cores.  If designing a new core like AJAX (even though it's "shuttle derived" it's still a new core, like SLS's core...just shorter with a buttress system to mount external boosters), you still have all of the expenses of designing that new core.  The new tooling and manufacturing floor space, etc, as we've seen with SLS.  Then are you saving anything at that point by going with multiple EELV-class boosters when you still have the new core on each launch?  I think it'd be better to design that core to have a tri-core heavy configuration with identical cores (like Atlas V-heavy would have had, where D4H and FH boosters are a little different), and then have a little higher production rate of the cores. 
It might not have been quite as flexible as AJAX, but I think ultimately a more simple design for stacking and pad operations, with more standardization  There's a reason the EELV's and Falcon went with it.  And now Angara, although with more boosters, but still all the same CCB's. 

in fairness to Downix, he imagined keeping all the old, labor intensive Shuttle ET tooling, as did Direct.  If that was to be the plan, then AJAX probably would have had less development costs.  But that new FSW tooling is pretty slick and far more automated and probably makes the annual costs cheaper in the long run.  So if that was going to be install for any Shuttle successor, I think 6.5m CCB's powered by RD-180's, with a 6.5m upper stage powered by RL/MB-60's would have been the way to go.  A cluster of RL-10A's could have been looked at too...I think a large enough cluster could fit under a 6.5m diameter upper stage, although a little ISP would be lost vs. RL-10B or RL-60's.


Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #121 on: 01/09/2014 04:56 am »
Lobo - All this talk of 6.5 meter common cores reminds me of one of my favorite "Saturn-Derived" ideas the the Eyes Turned Skyward thread @ Alternate History Wiki. Its a 6.6 meter core with 1 F-1a and SIV-B upper stage. Granted, your idea of using in production engines makes more sense, but the J-2x is ready to go and Dynetics / AJR is hard at work on the F-1B...

http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/spacecraft_and_launch_vehicle_technical_data
« Last Edit: 01/09/2014 04:57 am by USFdon »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #122 on: 01/09/2014 06:35 am »
Any thoughts on an AJAX core, but instead of AV boosters, use Falcon 9 V1.1, using either 6 or 8 boosters and air starting the core at booster jettison?

Air starting the core is not going to work. (or will be expensive) The problem with air starting the SSME/RS-25 is the initial problem which led to the eventual demise of Ares I.

RS-68 isn't air-startable either.

« Last Edit: 01/09/2014 06:35 am by Lars_J »

Offline davamanra

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #123 on: 01/09/2014 11:08 am »
It's been a while since I've been on this forum, and I've done a cursory search for this subject without success.  This thread SEEMS to be the appropriate for this subject, so here goes! 
 
   What about using 3 or more boosters on an SLS/HLV?  You could configure the boosters for a lower thrust, longer duration burn, as well as throttling back the main engines until booster burn out.

   The SLS Block II payload of 130mt is nice, but I would like to see a SHLV in the future for much more ambitious projects.


The following thread that I started discussed this concept. For numerous reasons, the short answer is no.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27563.msg840654#msg840654

Thanks for the reference, Tom.  I knew there was NO WAY this idea had not been addressed before, I just didn't know where to look!
Better to have more than you want than less than you need.
All's fair in love, war and engineering.

Offline davamanra

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #124 on: 01/09/2014 12:34 pm »
It's been a while since I've been on this forum, and I've done a cursory search for this subject without success.  This thread SEEMS to be the appropriate for this subject, so here goes! 
 
   What about using 3 or more boosters on an SLS/HLV?  You could configure the boosters for a lower thrust, longer duration burn, as well as throttling back the main engines until booster burn out.

   The SLS Block II payload of 130mt is nice, but I would like to see a SHLV in the future for much more ambitious projects.

That could certainly work, but it would require a complete redesign to SLS.  SLS is designed like STS, with two top-lifting boosters attached to an upper thrust beam.  So you can't add more than just the two.  To add more, you might need an upper thrust cross beam, and two more boosters, or come back to a traditional bottom lift booster system where you can add boosters around the core and attached them into the core's MPS. 

Or you could have two booster pairs on each side attached to a strongback which is then attached to the upper thrust beam.  That's probably the only way to could have more than two boosters without a complete redesign of the core. 

The "AJAX" concept by Downix would have used existing Atlas V CCB's and attached them around a shorter core than SLS, designed to take between 2 and 8 of them, whatever the mission requried.

I think one problem you have with multiple cryo boosters, is on the pad you need to get to them all, as well as the cryo core.  tri-core configurations are the easiest multi-core system, as the three are inline, and you can easily access them all from one side of the LV.  A tower arm or strongback on the one side can get to all three.  If you have a 4 booster system, then you'll have one booster on the opposite side.  So you need some way to tank and detank the propellants over there, and vent cryo gases, which I think complicate things on the pad.  The Soviets managed to do it with Energia, but they needed to towers, one on each side.  The RUssians will manage it with Angara, and that will use a type of dual tower gantry too.  So it's not a deal breaker, but it complicates things on the pad vs. multiple solids like Delta II or Atlas or Delta IV which don't need any service access on the pad.

I'm not sure how AJAX would have worked using the LC-39 hardware.  (Note, I'm a big fan of AJAX).  It might have needed a dual tower gantry built onto the pad that could access all of the boosters as well as the core.  And the LV itself could have rolled out to the pad without a tower like STS. 

However, even AJAX would have needed the design and development of a new core stage, not unlike SLS.  It just would use existing production boosters rather than 1-off big SRB's or new Advanced boosters.
This is where I think the -best- way for NASA to build a new rocket (if NASA -must- build their own rocket...which they probably shouldn't) then go with a narrower core, that can launch by itself, or as a tri-core heavy with identical cores.  A scaled up version of Atlas V-Heavy, Delta IV-Heavy, or Falcon Heavy.
That would allow a simgle tower on the MLP to access all three booster plus the upper stage, and probably be easier to use with the heritage hardware at KSC.

Thanks for the reply, Lobo.  Given the heritage hardware at KSC, there is of course limits to how big a payload can be put into space in a single launch, but I would like to have NASA have a SHLV that could optimize this limit for long term goals.  I think about how ridiculously expensive and dangerous and time consuming it was building the ISS with so many launches, when, with a SHLV, it could be done with maybe four or five launches with Skylab sized modules, and with the goals of going to the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt, I can see the need for large payloads.         
Better to have more than you want than less than you need.
All's fair in love, war and engineering.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #125 on: 01/09/2014 03:24 pm »
RS-68 isn't air-startable either.

Yes, I am aware of that, however modifications to make it air started have been discussed a lot here. The same is true of RS-25, but if I remember correctly Downix' primary design for AJAX used RS-68. I know you could ground start the core. I was thinking of ways to maximize booster thrust then take advantage of all core propellant after staging. Since the thread title involves alternative concepts, I took the liberty to be mildly speculative.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2014 03:26 pm by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #126 on: 01/09/2014 05:23 pm »
Lobo - All this talk of 6.5 meter common cores reminds me of one of my favorite "Saturn-Derived" ideas the the Eyes Turned Skyward thread @ Alternate History Wiki. Its a 6.6 meter core with 1 F-1a and SIV-B upper stage. Granted, your idea of using in production engines makes more sense, but the J-2x is ready to go and Dynetics / AJR is hard at work on the F-1B...

http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/spacecraft_and_launch_vehicle_technical_data

Yup, I've seen that too. good graphics.  They use a 6.6m diameter mainly because they are making a monocore state to replace the S-1B that's the same diameter as the S-IVB, as we've discussed on some historical threads on Saturn and Apollo alternative histories.

I only reference 6.5m or 6.6m dimater cores so that a tri-core heavy can fit through the VAB doors and fit accross the Flame trench.  But yea, it's ironically about the same diameter as these graphics.  So these Saturn variants could have likely actually fit on the existing KSC ML's and through the VAB doors.  Would have mainly just needed the ML flame ports modified, a modified shorter tower to handle tri-core configuration, and redoing the platforms in the VAB high bays.  Much less modification than STS required from the original Saturn hardware.
The ML with the milkstool could actually have been used for the single core version while the other two ML's were modified to launch either a single core or tri-core from down at the actual surface of the ML.  Saturn 1B could have continued launching in support of a Skylab B...whcih was already built and we had the spare Saturn V's to launch left over from the cancelled Apollo missions.  So this all could have been phased in without a gap in NASA HSF.  Launch Skylab B after some modifications making it easier to resupply and to remove waste (lessoned learned form Skylab) on an extra Saturn V from one of the Saturn V ML's.   Support it with Saturn 1B and Apollo launching from Milkestool ML.  Modify the two Saturn V milkstools to launch this new single and tri-core LV while doing that.  Once they are ready and the new Saturn 1B derivatives are being produced, start supporting Skylab B with it.  once Skylab B is due to be retired, Launch a Skylab C on the new tri-core LV, which would be modular and multiple ones could be docked in oribt.  NOw you have a much more affordable system than the Saturn V, with far less development costs than STS, and we could have been operating Space station's continuously in the 70's and 80's.

But I digress.  :-)
We didn't know then what we know now, so history is what it is.

But, my vehicle concept would look very much like this.  But each core would have four RD-180's rather than one F-1A.  And probably be taller (although the SC kerolox means less propellant is needed for the same thrust.  But four RD-180's is about twice the power as one F-1A, so the stage probably need to be about twice as tall.  That's still not all that tall though.)
The upper stage would be similar to the S-IVB, but taller like the stretched S-IVB the tri-core heavies have.  And with options of two or four RL/MB-60's, instead of the single J2S like the S-IVB in these graphics.

The RD-180's with their superior ISP can burn longer and do more ascent than the F-1A, so the upper stage doesnt' need to be as large as with the lower ISP GG engines.  Especially with a crossfed tri-core. 
But where the tri-cores in this graphic are less powerful with less performance than the Saturn V, my concept would be more powerful and have better performance. 


 

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #127 on: 01/09/2014 06:01 pm »
RS-68 isn't air-startable either.

Yes, I am aware of that, however modifications to make it air started have been discussed a lot here. The same is true of RS-25, but if I remember correctly Downix' primary design for AJAX used RS-68. I know you could ground start the core. I was thinking of ways to maximize booster thrust then take advantage of all core propellant after staging. Since the thread title involves alternative concepts, I took the liberty to be mildly speculative.

I have no problem with alternative concepts, I was just pointing out a flaw in the concept. ;)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #128 on: 01/09/2014 08:41 pm »
If I recall correctly, it would have been possible (though not trivial) to modify the RS-25 for air start.  The real showstopper was in-flight restart, which is what disqualified it from use on the Ares V EDS and started the chain reaction.

I don't know about the RS-68.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2014 08:44 pm by 93143 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #129 on: 01/10/2014 05:42 am »
If I recall correctly, it would have been possible (though not trivial) to modify the RS-25 for air start.  The real showstopper was in-flight restart, which is what disqualified it from use on the Ares V EDS and started the chain reaction.

I don't know about the RS-68.

That was my understanding too.  The Ares V would need at least one air restart (after EOR with Orion), and I think that was going to be pretty much impossible for RS-25, so while it would have potentially worked for Ares 1, they wanted a common engine.  Thus the J2X was born, and I think that's when they looked at dumping the RS-25 altogether and going with RS-68 on Ares V....until they figured out the base heating problem.  Then they went back to RS-25.   Then it was cancelled.

But my understanding of it all might not quite be accurate.


Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #130 on: 01/10/2014 06:04 am »
If I recall correctly, it would have been possible (though not trivial) to modify the RS-25 for air start.  The real showstopper was in-flight restart, which is what disqualified it from use on the Ares V EDS and started the chain reaction.

I don't know about the RS-68.

That was my understanding too.  The Ares V would need at least one air restart (after EOR with Orion), and I think that was going to be pretty much impossible for RS-25, so while it would have potentially worked for Ares 1, they wanted a common engine.  Thus the J2X was born, and I think that's when they looked at dumping the RS-25 altogether and going with RS-68 on Ares V....until they figured out the base heating problem.  Then they went back to RS-25.   Then it was cancelled.

But my understanding of it all might not quite be accurate.

FWIW that's essentially the version of history that I believe too. The net result is that we do not know what it would really cost to get an RS-25 or RS-68 variant that started at altitude, without attached ground support equipment. And that's sad for those who would like to speculate on HLV alternatives that might be cost-effective!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #131 on: 01/11/2014 07:02 am »
I think about how ridiculously expensive and dangerous and time consuming it was building the ISS with so many launches, when, with a SHLV, it could be done with maybe four or five launches with Skylab sized modules, and with the goals of going to the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt, I can see the need for large payloads.       

It was only expensive and dangerous because it was done with the shuttle.  Done with a Falcon Heavy, it would be cheap and safe -- much cheaper than with SLS or an SLS derivative.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #132 on: 01/11/2014 07:26 pm »
I think about how ridiculously expensive and dangerous and time consuming it was building the ISS with so many launches, when, with a SHLV, it could be done with maybe four or five launches with Skylab sized modules, and with the goals of going to the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt, I can see the need for large payloads.       

It was only expensive and dangerous because it was done with the shuttle.  Done with a Falcon Heavy, it would be cheap and safe -- much cheaper than with SLS or an SLS derivative.

Dave, at one time I completely agreed with you. As time has passed, I have changed my mind and believe that Chris is right. The two reasons are 1.) realistic expectations of future funding levels  and 2.) production line efficiencies. At one launch per every 12-24 months, the SLS production line is exceptionally inefficient, and then there's no funding left to build hardware. Wishful thinking is not going to engender new money. All the components for FH exist and its about to fly. Production lines are humming and efficiencies of scale are present. FH will get 53-55 mt (55 if no fairing) to LEO, twice the payload of DIVH @ 1/3 the cost, an astounding 6x better cost per mass unit. My guess is that FH cost/mass to LEO will be at least an order of magnitude better than SLS. When I look at this most recent F9 v1.1 launch (on time, no delays, first attempt, no anomalies, and all on the second launch of this vehicle iteration) it is obvious that these people know what they are doing and they are getting better and better at it. If NASA used F9 and FH, there actually would be money left over for payloads. As far as modules, 53-55 mt is nothing to sneeze at. Think of it this way: FH can put almost 3 times as much into orbit as Saturn I and well more than twice as much as the shuttle. Saturn V is the only successful LV to carry more mass, and it was too expensive to sustain. FH really is an HLV and authentic existing commerce is going to cause its components to remain available on an ongoing basis. 

For EDS, Raptor is under development and I think if NASA were buying the hardware, any obstacles could be overcome that might otherwise prohibit ACES from being developed and integrated with FH. After all, the Apollo program integrated components from many unrelated corporations.

Orion is too heavy for any purpose. Even Dragon is actually bigger than needed for a lunar mission. A Gemini sized capsule could do (though you need LAS and beefier TPS). A reusable lander could be docked with a new crasher stage on each mission and the crasher stage would provide 99+% of the descent impulse.

FH could allow an economical two launch architecture for a lunar program. For Mars, 53-55mt multiple LEOR assembly is certainly doable. With an LV production line that already has a robust reason to exist, NASA could devote its attention (as well as actual funding) to developing the payloads it needs to actually go somewhere.

There comes a point at which size is not your friend. Here are some examples. A couple of times male students of mine have had been reading books about submarines. They see that Soviet subs were much larger than ours and assume those subs were far superior. I give the students the reasons for the Soviet sub size. Inefficient warheads must be bigger to work. This requires bigger missiles. This requires a bigger sub. Other components of the sub cannot be miniaturized, also requiring a bigger sub. Now add these facts. The big sub is not built as well and it makes more noise. Now the most important fact of all: the bigger the sub, the slower it goes, the harder to turn, and the bigger the target at which you are shooting! Example 2: my wife and I built the biggest dream house we could afford. What happened? There was more cleaning to do; the insurance was more; the property tax was more; the utility bills were more; rather than the expected appreciation, the market crashed. Example 3: think about NBA player. Sure you may be great at dunking baskets, but by existing as a statistical outlier, you also have to spend your entire life ducking door headers, cramming yourself into undersized seats, and having your bed, clothing, and shoes custom made for many thousands of dollars. You literally just don't fit where everyone else fits. I know these are not direct analogical comparisons to rockets, but the point remains, size is not always your friend. It is important to find the size that is most optimal, and finding that point requires examining every pertinent factor.

Unfortunately, the main obstacle that prevents NASA from going somewhere is the same entity that allows it to exist. Despite their rhetoric calling for accountable spending, the same people use the Manned Space Program as a way to continue funneling cash to former shuttle component manufacturers.

My own prediction is that humanity will reach Mars by 2060 and that SpaceX vehicles will do the heavy lifting. NASA may do it in cooperation with SpaceX, but if not I think Elon Musk will find a way to do it alone.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2014 01:02 am by TomH »

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #133 on: 01/11/2014 07:30 pm »
FH will get 53-55 mt (55 if no fairing) to LEO
That'd work.... If Falcon Heavy really took the fairing all the way to LEO. Not having a fairing probably saves less than a tonne.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #134 on: 01/12/2014 06:04 am »
I think about how ridiculously expensive and dangerous and time consuming it was building the ISS with so many launches, when, with a SHLV, it could be done with maybe four or five launches with Skylab sized modules, and with the goals of going to the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt, I can see the need for large payloads.       

It was only expensive and dangerous because it was done with the shuttle.  Done with a Falcon Heavy, it would be cheap and safe -- much cheaper than with SLS or an SLS derivative.

Dave, at one time I completely agreed with you. As time has passed, I have changed my mind and believe that Chris is right. The two reasons are 1.) realistic expectations of future funding levels  and 2.) production line efficiencies. At one launch per every 12-24 months, the SLS production line is exceptionally inefficient, and then there's no funding left to build hardware. Wishful thinking is not going to engender new money. All the components for FH exist and its about to fly. Production lines are humming and efficiencies of scale are present. FH will get 53-55 mt (55 if no fairing) to LEO, twice the payload of DIVH @ 1/3 the cost, an astounding 6x better cost per mass unit. My guess is that FH cost/mass to LEO will be at least an order of magnitude better than SLS. When I look at this most recent F9 v1.1 launch (on time, no delays, first attempt, no anomalies, and all on the second launch of this vehicle iteration) it is obvious that these people know what they are doing and they are getting better and better at it. If NASA used F9 and FH, there actually would be money left over for payloads. As far as modules, 53-55 mt is nothing to sneeze at. Think of it this way: FH can put almost 3 times as much into orbit as Saturn I and well more than twice as much as the shuttle. Saturn V is the only successful LV to carry more mass, and it was too expensive to sustain. FH really is an HLV and authentic existing commerce is going to cause its components to remain available on an ongoing basis. 

For EDS, Raptor is under development and I think if NASA were buying the hardware, any obstacles could be overcome that might otherwise prohibit ACES from being developed and integrated with FH. After all the Apollo program integrated components from many unrelated corporations.

Orion is too heavy for any purpose. Even Dragon is actually bigger than needed for a lunar mission. A Gemini sized capsule could do (though you need LAS and beefier TPS). A reusable lander could be docked with a new crasher stage on each mission and the crasher stage would provide 99+% of the descent impulse.

FH could allow an economical two launch architecture for a lunar program. For Mars, 53-55mt multiple LEOR assembly is certainly doable. With an LV production line that already has a robust reason to exist, NASA could devote its attention (as well as actual funding) to developing the payloads it needs to actually go somewhere.

There comes a point at which size is not your friend. Here are some examples. A couple of times male students of mine have had been reading books about submarines. They see that Soviet subs were much larger than ours and assume those subs were far superior. I give the students the reasons for the Soviet sub size. Inefficient warheads must be bigger to work. This requires bigger missiles. This requires a bigger sub. Other components of the sub cannot be miniaturized, also requiring a bigger sub. Now add these facts. The big sub is not built as well and it makes more noise. Now the most important fact of all: the bigger the sub, the slower it goes, the harder to turn, and the bigger the target at which you are shooting! Example 2: my wife and I built the biggest dream house we could afford. What happened? There was more cleaning to do; the insurance was more; the utility bills were more; rather than the expected appreciation, the market crashed. Example 3: think about NBA player. Sure you may be great at dunking baskets, but by existing as a statistical outlier, you also have to spend your entire life ducking door headers, cramming yourself into undersized seats, and having your bed, clothing, and shoes custom made for many thousands of dollars. You literally just don't fit where everyone else fits. I know these are not direct analogical comparisons to rockets, but the point remains, size is not always your friend. It is important to find the size that is most optimal, and finding that point requires examining every pertinent factor.

Unfortunately, the main obstacle that prevents NASA from going somewhere is the same entity that allows it to exist. Despite their rhetoric calling for accountable spending, the same people use the Manned Space Program as a way to continue funneling cash to former shuttle component manufacturers.

My own prediction is that humanity will reach Mars by 2060 and that SpaceX vehicles will do the heavy lifting. NASA may do it in cooperation with SpaceX, but if not I think Elon Musk will find a way to do it alone.

A good post.  Although now you've made me nervous about upgrading to a bigger house!

First, it can be cheaper to build a station with more smaller launches, if the LV is appropriately cheaper.  You need to factor in -extra- launches for in-orbit construction.  Especially if a configuration like the ISS which had lots and lots of in-orbit assembly.  Less so if it's something like Mir, where it's mainly just a bunch of modules docked together, with not very much external work.
So that needs to be factored in on top.

However, keep in mind a HLV doesn't necessarily have to be a bank-buster.   You can make one far cheaper than STS, Saturn V, SLS, or Ares V.  Especially if a private company designs and builds it, and just bids for a NASA contract.  And if NASA puts out RFQ's that let bidders be creative in keeping costs down.

My RD-180 powered tri-core heavy would have been much cheaper to design and build than CxP.   Especially if ESAS were more like the EELV competition.  Put together some bid spec's and let companies figure out the best way to do fill it.  Just need one size new core tooling, and finish the development of RL-60 or MB-60.

But ultimately, the best way to keep costs down, is to get production rate and standardization up.  A heavy or medium-heavy LV can be relatively inexpensive if it's dumb and simple and flies a lot. 

Ideally, NASA could have worked with USAF to eventually develop A5P2 and A5P2-heavy (for NASA), and there would have been incentive for USAF to perhaps standardize on just that LV for all of their launches, and have maximum commonality with NASA's needs.  AVP2 with ACES would pretty much take care of all of USAF's needs with that single configuration.  And NASA's needs to get CEV to ISS (Commercial crew would never have been in that case).  Despite it being po-po'd in ESAS, A5P2-Heavy would have been fine for a lunar program.  They just needed to scale their lander down to fly on an A5P2H to LLO for LOR with CEV.  NASA launches a lunar mission with two launches on two A5P2H's on pads 39A and 39B.  Easy peasy.

And while A5P2 -is- a new LV with a new development, the hook there would be USAF gets to streamline their EEV fleet from like 10 to just one (D4M, D4M+, D4H, And all of the Atlas variants).  And that one LV would be shared in costs with NASA.  I think that might have been an attractive option for USAF to transition to in the 2010-2020 era.  they'd obviously need a reason to replace what they had already developed and were flying.
If NASA could have gotten USAF to go for that, you would have had a nice all purpose common core that would cover a maximum of missions with a maximum of production and launches.   
NASA could have used a man-rated A5-552 with 5m upper stage for ISS servicing until USAF was ready to move to a single common A5P2 EELV.

FH coming along later would be applicable to all of this, and be cheaper.  But FH was no where to be found back during the discussion of building the ISS or replacing STS.

If by some chance there were a dumb and simple 100mt HLV that launched several times a year, then that would probably be pretty affordable for NASA too.  Probably hard to make a 100mt LV that flies a lot as cheap as a 20m LV that also flies a lot, so pretty hard to find a way to get a high flight rate out of a true HLV....as most payloads are under 20mt.    So HLV's will always struggle with costs.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2014 06:08 am by Lobo »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #135 on: 01/13/2014 11:03 pm »

But, my vehicle concept would look very much like this.  But each core would have four RD-180's rather than one F-1A.  And probably be taller (although the SC kerolox means less propellant is needed for the same thrust.  But four RD-180's is about twice the power as one F-1A, so the stage probably need to be about twice as tall.  That's still not all that tall though.)
The upper stage would be similar to the S-IVB, but taller like the stretched S-IVB the tri-core heavies have.  And with options of two or four RL/MB-60's, instead of the single J2S like the S-IVB in these graphics.

The RD-180's with their superior ISP can burn longer and do more ascent than the F-1A, so the upper stage doesnt' need to be as large as with the lower ISP GG engines.  Especially with a crossfed tri-core. 
But where the tri-cores in this graphic are less powerful with less performance than the Saturn V, my concept would be more powerful and have better performance.

Rewinding time back to the ESAS study...if this LV had been evaluated and chosen, a single stick might have been able to get the CEV to the ISS without an upper stage.  By shutting down two of it's 4 engines and throttling back the others as necessary to burn through all of it's fuel without pulling too many G's on the crew, and using the CEV service module main engine as the "upper stage", the CEV plus a reasonable pressurized payload (or crew) could probably have gotten to the ISS without a separate upper stage.
The good ISP of the RD-180's would allow for longer burns wouldn't the drop off in performance like GG engines.  It would take a big performnace hit vs. having the upper stage on it, but it's it's only trying to get the CEV plus X cargo to the ISS, then the development program from ESAS to shuttle retirement could actually have differed the upper stage and RL/MD-60 development and only need to fund the 6.5m kerolox core with four RD-180's (already existing), and only needed that one development to fund in addition to the CEV and continuing STS operations.  CxP was developing 5-seg SRB, plus J2X, plus 5.5m upper stage, along with a side development of the Ares V core...in addition to STS operations and the CEV/Orion.  Consequently there was a big budget shortage and everying go pushed out.  If CxP had not been cancelled we -might- have seen Orion fly on Ares 1 by 2015.  More likely later. 

This way there's just that one core development and -no- engine development during the interim until STS is retired.  Once STS is retired and CEV is flying to ISS on this new 6.5m RD-180 powered core, the next development is the upper stage and finishing the RL or MD-60, and the lunar lander.  That could have been the 2011-2017 phase.  Then you are ready to go to the moon.
CEV could fly on the tri-core heavy for a single launch mission.  Or it could fly on the single stick with an upper stage (so it gets to EOR with a full tank fo propellant) for a 1.5 architecture.

An alternative would be to devlop the 6.5m kerolox core along with the 6.5m upper stage, but use RL-10B's shared with Delta IV.  Launch with two RD-180's (and two mounts blocked off) and two RL-10B's on the upper stage (with two mounts blocked off) and partial propellant loads on both stages, and that'd probably get CEV with good cargo to the ISS pretty easily.  This still avoids any engine developments prior to STS being retired, and RL or MB 60's were replacements for RL-10's anyway, so it shouldn't be hard to switch later.  In fact with some luck, NASA could work with USAF to switch out the EELV fleet to RL or MB 60 about the time NASA's planning on going to the moon.  It wwouldn't be needed until a moon mission. 

So there'd be lots ot like about this if it had been the LV to come out of ESAS.  Been great if ESAS had at least LOOKED at it.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #136 on: 04/29/2014 12:01 am »

^

I guess the 4xF1B Block 1 version of yours is hard to beat. Not so sure about Block 2.

Problem is, SLS will be canceled anyway, would you rather end up with a bunch of RS-25E or F1B?  ;)

Quote from: M129K
F1B. I'd rather be stuck with a powerful engine that could be useful both for EELV-class vehicles and SHLVs, than with a niche sustainer engine. It's just too expensive to be mass-produced.

Why? I could see it for a first stage of an ELV, for a reusable TSTO with one engine type, and for SSTO.
It could. But it's an expensive, low thrust engine. It could be useful for Ariane 5-like vehicles, but I don't know if it would be a very good alternative to a more standard EELV design that could much more easily evolved into a SHLV than an Ariane-ish design could.

What's the absolute cheapest an RS-25E could be made I wonder?  It's staged combustion, but so it the RD-180 and Raptor will be too.  If it was made in enough quantity, what could be it's price per unit compared to F-1B?  (It'd take about three RS-25E's to roughly equal and F-1B in overall booster performance I think).
Any way it could be made even "cheaper" than the RS-25E otherwise would be?  Any way to detune it, so to speak, to trade maybe some ISP for simplicity and cost saves, or possibly more SL thrust?

What would an LV using RS-25E's for the booster look like?  Especially a tri-core heavy that gets a really long burn from it's central core. 
Then throw some MB-60's on the upper stage to get some fairly high-thrust, but high ISP performance.

Probably looking at an LV which maybe five RS-25E's (or RS-25E-B...with even more optimization for mass production, simpicity, and possibly, take off thrust).  So perhaps 15 of these used on a tri-core heavy.
6.5m cores so a tri-core could fit in the VAB on accross the 39A/B flame trench.

Could something that have even been feasible?  Or would it just have been as expensive as SLS?
Any potential at all down that road? 

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #137 on: 04/29/2014 02:39 am »
You're chasin' rabbits again. But the ones you're chasin' can fly and kill medieval English knights with a fierce bite to the neck. IOW, what you're chasing only exists in stories created by great comedians.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2014 02:42 am by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #138 on: 04/29/2014 03:29 pm »
You're chasin' rabbits again. But the ones you're chasin' can fly and kill medieval English knights with a fierce bite to the neck. IOW, what you're chasing only exists in stories created by great comedians.

Maybe,

Just wondering if there was any way RS-25 could be made as a viable engine instead of F-1.  Where it's great ISP (even if it was reduced some in the redesign) may give it some interesting capacity.  Other staged combustion engines are viable expendable engines, so seems like it should be possible. 
The problem with RS-68 as a HLV booster is that no one seems very sure if it can be clustered tightly under larger cores.   Even without big SRB's, could it withstand that heating environment?
They could be upgraded to regen nozzles, but it sounds like USAF may not want their relatively "cheap" RS-68 changed and made more expensive for NASA. 
But RS-25 is already NASA's engine, already man rated, and already has a regen nozzle.  It could be clustered tightly under cores.

But, it would need a pretty significant redesign it even have a chance at being a "cheap" booster engine, so F-1 would probably be the best way to go.  Just was curious...

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Pyrios Alternative HLV Concept
« Reply #139 on: 06/16/2014 10:57 pm »
And finally here is an F-1B based core option.  Again I've optimized these for Escape missions and made them with only two stages, EELV style.  A two-stage core can roughly do the SLS Block 1 mission.  Switching to an RP core solves the VAB height constraint.  Adding F-1B boosters gets the machine to Block 2 capability.  As far as I'm concerned, the Block 1 rocket could run any space program.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed,
Rather than a two stage 8.4m core, would there be advatage to basically making a large F9 with a hydrolox 3rd stage?
As in, 4-5 F-1B's on the 1st stage, a single air-startable, vacuum optimized F-1B on the 2nd stage, which would stage in disposable orbit, or close to it, and then something like an RL-10B powered EUS as the 3rd stage.  Where the first two stages would essentially be the same core, just one stretched.  It's adding a 3rd stage into the mix which will add some costs, but with more commonality than having two 5m outboard boosters, and that keeps everything the same diameter, and with only one unique engine to this LV (F-1B).  A common bulkhead for the RP-1/LOX could be used for both stages as well, to keep the overall height lower.  An RP-1/LOX common bulkhead isn't a difficult thing I don't think, SpaceX does it for F9. 

I wouldn't think in a new F-1B development program that making an air startable version of it would be too hard.  SpaceX did it with a kerolox GG engine well enough.  They in fact made it air re-startable.  This would only ever need to be air started once.

As an aside, you might be able to have a "Saturn II" like CLV out of it, by launching the 2nd and 3rd stages only, if it was cleverly designed.  Maybe on a milkstook ML so the umbilicals still lined up.  Would make a decent little launcher to send a short fueled version of Orion to the ISS. 
Unlike Saturn II, this could get itself off the gorund without needing SRB's.

Tags:
 

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