Author Topic: What would a better government launcher look like?  (Read 19554 times)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
A discussion with Baldusi over on this thread go me thinking about a new hypothetical intellectual exercise. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27714.120

This is NOT to be an anti-SLS thread, so please keep it off of that.  For the sake of this thread, I’m curious if there’s a “one arrow quiver” option that could meet USAF/DoD’s needs which are currently met by EELV, but also be used by NASA for it’s BLEO goals/needs.  I suppose technically, we’d have to rewind time back to ESAS, and maybe even earlier before Atlas V and Delta IV were developed, so the late 90’s maybe.  Assume NASA wanted to retire STS within a decade before being prompted to by the Columbia accident, but they were in close discussions with USAF to collaborate on issuing competitive RFQ’s for a single system that would then basically get all of their launch business.  If NASA wasn’t fixated on super heavy lift, but wanted to go back to the moon (as in the VSE) as cheaply and safely as possible, so probably not a whole bunch of little launches with a lot of in space construction..  More a system that can be scaled up and down to fit both needs.  Although since NASA did green light CxP with a two launch architecture, we can assume that a two launch solution would be acceptable…but perhaps not any more. 

And assume they wouldn’t be expecting this system to go to Mars, that a new program would be needed for that down the road.

Baldusi has explained to me (as I didn’t understand it at all), that USAF/DoD cannot build their own LV if there’s a commercial option available.  And that NASA cannot build a rocket less than 50mt to LEO.  (I didn’t know that!) .
So this would be a commercial provider, and not built at MAF.  NASA and USAF/DoD would buy all of their LV’s from this provider, although NASA would launch them from KSC.  Preferably there wouldn’t be Russian purchased or heavily derived engines for this common government launcher. 

I think AVP2/AVP3a or 7-core Delta would be interesting options, although I suppose this would be back before ULA was formed so Boeing would be the one to bid on a 5+m wide kerolox booster.  But probably without the RD-180 for the reasons I mentioned above.
The Dynetics proposal has gotten me thinking.   US-built Kerolox engine with with famous heritage.  5-5.4m if Boeing was proposing it, but perhaps even up to 6m.
Two F-1A’s on the normal first stage, but a shortened “stumpy” version with one F-1 for smaller payloads.  Two hydrolox upper stages using a common engine, probably a upgraded RL-10 like the RL-60, or other similar engine (powerful enough so a cluster works as a large 2nd stage, but efficient enough for use on a 3rd stage)   A larger upper stage to use for Heavy lift, with the smaller upper stage on top used as a 3rd stage. 
Heavy lift version has 3 cores (perhaps with crossfeed) with the 2nd and 3rd stage. 
Medium lift version has 1 full core with smaller upper stage on it.
Light lift version has the shorter stumpy version with one F-1, and the smaller upper stage on it. 

I’d think the 3-core heavy lift 3-stage version could top the Saturn V, as there’s 6XF-1A’s on it, although it’s a little less mass efficient with 3 cores.  But at least get right in that ballpark.
The medium lift one should get 30+ mt up.
The light lift should probably get maybe 15mt up?

That’s my initial offering to kick around.
What else would be good?

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #1 on: 11/01/2012 11:31 pm »
If you're going for a government launcher, I'd say something like the 70mt modified existing ELV from Lockheed Martin's pre-ESAS VSE study would be a decent way to go:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Lockheed_Martin.pdf

(see page 39 and 40)
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #2 on: 11/02/2012 01:39 am »
"What would a better government launcher look like?" - cheaper, with well identified purpose and only doable if there is no private, cheaper alternative.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2012 01:40 am by IRobot »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #3 on: 11/02/2012 02:45 am »
IMO the goal of a government launcher should be to push the envelop of technology where private companies cannot risk going. Prototypes not workhorses.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #4 on: 11/02/2012 02:47 am »
If you are an Orbiter spaceflight simulator user, check out the Jarvis series: some of them have configurations very close to what you are describing!  ;D
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #5 on: 11/02/2012 04:51 am »
IMO the goal of a government launcher should be to push the envelop of technology where private companies cannot risk going. Prototypes not workhorses.

I would love to see another crack at all-rocket rSSTO.  I'm not at all convinced it's impossible.  They could use technology from the X-33 program combined with a TAN variant of the RS-25, or perhaps the RS-83...

But if NASA is expected to explore beyond Earth orbit, well, that's two steps ahead of private industry.  The spacecraft and bases and surface operations (the "prototypes") are not things private companies will yet do, but neither are the propulsion elements to get them out of Earth's gravity well (the "workhorses").  EELVs plus advanced upper stages plus depots is the minimum necessary, and an HLV is helpful.  In this instance, pushing the envelope is the opposite of what's wanted, since the launcher is just a tool to enable the actual mission.  Once private industry catches up, NASA can leave it to them and move on.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2012 04:58 am by 93143 »

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #6 on: 11/02/2012 06:28 am »

(see page 39 and 40)

Cool slide.  If you presumptively assume that SpaceX can offer a cheaper EELV solution on the backend of the Existing EELV family line, then competitively procured commercial medium lift is the winner.


But if NASA is expected to explore beyond Earth orbit, well, that's two steps ahead of private industry.  The spacecraft and bases and surface operations (the "prototypes") are not things private companies will yet do, but neither are the propulsion elements to get them out of Earth's gravity well (the "workhorses").  EELVs plus advanced upper stages plus depots is the minimum necessary, and an HLV is helpful.  In this instance, pushing the envelope is the opposite of what's wanted, since the launcher is just a tool to enable the actual mission.  Once private industry catches up, NASA can leave it to them and move on.

Pretzel twisting around your fan boy security blanket. 

Shuttle showed that NASA simply doing its own thing doesnt cause private industry to catch up, but only a commercial capability development program will create systems to come online to service specific idiosyncratic needs: EELV, COTS, Comcrew.  That type of commercial utilization uplift for BEO can begin on day 1.  Delaying it serves no purpose other than accommodating a bad HLV for its groupies and beneficiaries.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #7 on: 11/02/2012 06:36 am »
Baldusi has explained to me (as I didn’t understand it at all), that USAF/DoD cannot build their own LV if there’s a commercial option available.  And that NASA cannot build a rocket less than 50mt to LEO. (I didn’t know that!) .

That is extremely dubious... Where in the world was that 50mt figure pulled from?

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #8 on: 11/02/2012 07:16 am »
Shuttle showed that NASA simply doing its own thing doesnt cause private industry to catch up, but only a commercial capability development program will create systems to come online to service specific idiosyncratic needs: EELV, COTS, Comcrew.  That type of commercial utilization uplift for BEO can begin on day 1.  Delaying it serves no purpose other than accommodating a bad HLV for its groupies and beneficiaries.

Your definition of "commercial" seems questionable.

The private sector isn't going to create an HLV just for NASA.  No one's arguing that.  Therefore, if NASA wants an HLV for itself, or any other capability the market won't generate on its own, it has to procure it.  How?  That's really what you're arguing about, and I have no intention of engaging you there.

When the private sector creates a capability for its own purposes, then NASA can just use what the market provides.  Until that time, NASA must either procure or do without.

...

Shuttle was way ahead of its time, and was accompanied by bad national policy to boot.  Kevin Holleran and Alan Bond are working on similar capabilities, more than 30 years later, but in the 1970s or even 1980s?  Forget it.  The Air Force needed the upmass, but little else; hence the Titan IV.  Shuttle was a "prototype" that got used as a "workhorse", which really wasn't the best plan, but eh...

SLS is intended as a pure "workhorse".  There's no risky, cutting-edge technology on board - just existing tech with cost reductions.  It's just a big rocket.  If a private-sector market existed for an HLV in its class, a commercial project could easily supply the capability, but as far as we can tell it doesn't.

(SpaceX may disagree.  We should find out more in one to three years...)
« Last Edit: 11/02/2012 08:38 am by 93143 »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #9 on: 11/02/2012 08:28 am »
In this instance, pushing the envelope is the opposite of what's wanted, since the launcher is just a tool to enable the actual mission.  Once private industry catches up, NASA can leave it to them and move on.
Yes I was a VSE supporter. I still like it. I just need to see a genuine commitment for landers and base etc to be inspired again.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #10 on: 11/02/2012 11:34 am »
I'm on the record as supporting something similar to the Atlas-V Phase-2/3A.  It has many advantages, the most important being flexibility.  You have a fairly simple and no-frills single-stick able to do crew launch to LEO for an Orion-sized CV that scales up to a multi-core launcher able to launch over 100t into LEO to support large BLEO missions.

This scalability (think of it as a next-size-up "dial a rocket") offers many important benefits.  Fixed costs may be reduced by a higher flight-rate and production rate.  As the type would not be restricted to high-payload mass missions, it may fly more often.  Additionally, that means that there are not long idle periods for the ground crews.  Also, a larger-payload single- and three-core LV could be shared with DoD without a separate and costly large launcher program for DoD payloads.  Finally, it means that there will be a high degree of commonality between crew, mixed cargo/crew and heavy cargo-only launches.

In terms of technology, simpler is better as it is quicker to deploy.  However, there are several possible new technologies to look into for block-II, such as Thrust Augmentation Nozzles (a path to an SSTO CLV) and core boost-back for recycling or even full reuse.  I'd like to see the multi-core versions have propellent cross-feed too; this would possibly prove technologies that would ultimately be applicable to TAN (although the details would be different).

In policy terms, the emphasis must be on this being a large government launch vehicle, not just a NASA one.  Whilst NASA and DoD can have their own individual bells and whistles, there must be as much commonality as possible.  Most important is that NASA should seek to use the commercial sector's proven ability in rocket R&D to its advantage.  Simply put the program out to tender and let them do the grunt work.  NASA R&D funds should be spent on bleeding-edge stuff, not building BDRs, which are just an application of existing technology.


[edit]
Just a Quick Capability Summary
Core: Kerolox w. 2 x RS-84 or 4 x AJ-26-500-class engines
Upper Stage: ACES-style Hydrolox w. 1, 2 or 4 RL-60-class engines; dual-mode as basic EDS
PLF - 5m or 8.4m

Single Core - Crew launch to LEO in BEO-capable CV
Singe Core w. 2-6 SRMs or GEMs - DoD heavy sat or NASA outer planets probe launch
Tri-core - Crew & Cargo to LEO or GSO; Crew to EML
Tri-core w. cross-feed - Cargo to EML or outer planets lander probe
Five-core (optional cross-feed) - Cargo to lunar surface or heavy cargo to LEO for BLEO mission vehicle assembly
Five-core with wide-body upper-stage (6 x engines) and cross-feed - Crew to lunar surface
« Last Edit: 11/02/2012 12:04 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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #11 on: 11/02/2012 12:22 pm »
Modular, evolvable Medium/Heavy HLV not dissimilar to Atlas V Phase II.

Launchpad: refitted 39A & B or a new launchpad. All corestage options use the Delta IV-derived 5.1 meter diameter tooling for Aluminium/Lithium and composite structures.

OPTION 1: 'Single Stick' stage with 2x 1 million pound thrust class staged combustion cycle engines fueled by LOX/Kerosene. 5.1 meter diameter Upper stage has LOX/LH2 propellant with 2x RL-10B2, N.G.E. or MB-60 engines.
Uprating Options: 2, 4 or 6x Aerojet Solid Boosters (Atlas V derived). 'Stretched' upper stage with 4x MB-60 or N.G.E.

OPTION 2: 'Medium-Heavy' - triple corestage (as with D4-H and Falcon Heavy) with misc. upper stage options (see above). Uprating Options - Propellant Cross-feed plus 2 or 4x Aerojet Solid Boosters.

Payload fairing: between 5 and 8 meters.

Reusability options: Corestages could be modified to use parachutes for ocean recovery with an aim to refurbish the first stage engines for re-use.


« Last Edit: 11/03/2012 05:12 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #12 on: 11/02/2012 12:39 pm »
A gov't vehicle would not use any EELV hardware.  Any EELV derivatives could be contracted as launch services. 

A gov't launch vehicle is where the gov't buys different conponents and integrates them itself or with help of integrating contractor(s) and launches them from gov't owned pads.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #13 on: 11/02/2012 12:41 pm »
A gov't vehicle would not use any EELV hardware.  Any EELV derivatives could be contracted as launch services. 

A gov't launch vehicle is where the gov't buys different conponents and integrates them itself or with help of integrating contractor(s) and launches them from gov't owned pads.

I get what you're saying, Jim.  I think what me and Matt are saying is that a vehicle for exclusively government use does not have to be built using the old arsenal system or its more modern variations.  The government can be the only customer even if it isn't the prime contractor.

I should also add that I, at least, wasn't talking about an EELV derivative, just the shameless theft adoption of the Phase II concept.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2012 02:38 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 JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #14 on: 11/02/2012 02:00 pm »
To the OP.  Just build a 70 ton SLS and start using it to launch full capacity payloads as soon as is practicable.  There would be no better government launcher than this.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline truth is life

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #15 on: 11/02/2012 02:07 pm »
A gov't vehicle would not use any EELV hardware.  Any EELV derivatives could be contracted as launch services. 

A gov't launch vehicle is where the gov't buys different conponents and integrates them itself or with help of integrating contractor(s) and launches them from gov't owned pads.

The OP does not appear to be using "government launcher" in the sense of "a launcher built and launched by the government" but in the sense of "a launcher designed primarily around government needs and primarily used for government payloads," so EELV derivatives and launch services contracts aren't necessarily out of bounds. In which case EELV upgrades are permissible and, indeed, obvious choices for the OP.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #16 on: 11/02/2012 03:16 pm »
Shuttle side-mount?
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #17 on: 11/02/2012 03:38 pm »
Shuttle side-mount?

Certainly would have been the quickest, although there was some information to suggest that it would have been a cargo-only machine because of problems with aerodynamics around the ET for launch aborts.
"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 simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #18 on: 11/02/2012 04:13 pm »
Maybe quickest, but also most expensive, especially so long after Shuttle retirement.

Going forward, if NASA were suddenly directed to design a clean-sheet 70-tonne to LEO rocket, with no requirement to use existing systems, there are several plausible options. The two main questions are multi-stick versus one big monlithic first stage, and RP-1 versus LH2.

Personally, I would choose a three-core cross-fed booster with 2x AJ-1-E6 per core and a LH2 upper stage using NGEs. But that's just me.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #19 on: 11/02/2012 04:27 pm »
 I'd start with the AJAX design using a 3 or 4 SSME LH2 core with 2 to 6  wide body 5 M Atlas V CCB boosters with the option to eventually replace them with fly back boosters using something like the RS-84 or TR-107.
Flight rate and cost per Kg would outweigh payload size.
The block II might be something more like Aldrin's Star lifter concept with the SSME's being made recoverable if this proves to be more cost effective then an expendable SSME.


But if Spacex can meet their goals for Falcon heavy and ULA deliver the Delta IV upgrades there may not be any need for a government booster.
Instead NASA can then concentrate on payloads and research on advanced concepts.

A 53 mT and and 48 mT payload is enough to do serious exploration if EOR is used for the missions.
You can even breakup a vehicle like Nautilus-X into sub 50 mT pieces.

Of course both ULA and Spacex have put forth Saturn V class designs and probably could build them if needed.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2012 04:35 pm by Patchouli »

Tags:
 

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