Author Topic: Two launch CxP Options  (Read 17551 times)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Two launch CxP Options
« on: 01/15/2009 03:45 pm »
A common thread of criticism about the current baseline Ares vehicles is the "1.5-launch", requiring a smallish Crew LV and a truly gigantic Cargo LV with rendezvous in LEO. So, let's assume NASA is directed to change to a two-TLI, two launch architecture. What are the launch vehicle options?

Before you say it, there's more info about Direct on this forum than you can shake an Ares I at, so this thread is more looking at what competition J-232 would potentially face in a NASA two-launch trade study. Just to get the ball rolling:

* 3 cores of 7-m with 2 RS-68 each (Super Delta IV-H)
* 3 cores of 7-m with 1 RD-170 each (Super Atlas V Heavy)
* ESAS CaLV-like core with 2 Delta IV cores as strap-ons
* ESAS CaLV-like core with 2 Atlas V cores as strap-ons
* Direct-like core with 2 Delta IV cores as strap-ons
* Direct-like core with 2 Atlas V cores as strap-ons
* 2 5-seg SRBs with 4 RD-180 core stage
* 2 5-seg SRBs with 2 RD-170 core stage

and so on and so forth...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 03:47 pm by simonbp »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #1 on: 01/15/2009 04:49 pm »
An Ares-V-lite - 8.4m core, 5 x RS-25 core engines, 5-seg SRBs.  That is pretty close to (or even identical to) the original idea in ESAS.  The big advantage is pre-manrated tech (RS-25 engine and ET-derived core tanks) and off-the-shelf components, except the SRBs.
"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 Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #2 on: 01/15/2009 10:07 pm »
I'm trying to think of ways to make a more expensive rocket than Ares V without any new engine development programs...

10m core, 5 x RS-68.
2 x 7m Atlas V CCBs, 1x RD-170 each.
All-composite EDS.

I don't know. Would this crack it? Maybe the core should be composites too :D And it still wouldn't mean a new crawlerway or tilting the rocket.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #3 on: 01/15/2009 11:10 pm »
An Ares-V-lite - 8.4m core, 5 x RS-25 core engines, 5-seg SRBs.  That is pretty close to (or even identical to) the original idea in ESAS.  The big advantage is pre-manrated tech (RS-25 engine and ET-derived core tanks) and off-the-shelf components, except the SRBs.

If you're doing two launch, you might not need a vehicle that big (ESAS CaLV was ~60 tonnes direct to TLI). Though, if you used L1/L2 rendezvous you might be able to get away with using a Centaur for the Orion's EDS, and then a new-development EDS for the lander.

Also, the much higher per-flight cost of RS-25 (vs RS-68) might be an issue, depending on what it would developmentally cost to bring RS-68/RS-68A to the same level.

(Come on, no EELV-derived HLLV fans? :) )

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 11:11 pm by simonbp »

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #4 on: 01/15/2009 11:27 pm »
One of the obvious contenders would use 5 segment solid boosters, an ET Diameter core with RS-68s and use the additional first stage margin over direct to avoid the production and development cost penalty of a common bulkhead US.

It would be interesting to see how the life cycle cost would trade out.

Offline engstudent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Earth
    • my blog experiment
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #5 on: 02/03/2009 02:49 am »
There is no competing with a J232.    ;D

” …All of this. All of this was for nothing – unless we go to the stars.” - Sinclair

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #6 on: 02/03/2009 05:01 am »
There is no competing with a J232.    ;D

Of course there is; it's just that the groupthink of this forum leans heavily towards Direct. If NASA were to move to two-launch, they'd do a proper trade-off study, which may or may not wind up with Direct...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 02/03/2009 05:03 am by simonbp »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #7 on: 02/03/2009 11:04 am »
There is no competing with a J232.    ;D

Not really true. I'm sure that ULA (LM and Boeing) would be able to throw together some manner of 50-75t payload super-heavy Delta-IV and Atlas-V variants.  Similarly, I can't see MSFC going down without a fight and they would certainly pitch in with Ares-V variants optimised for the dual-launch archetecture.
"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 kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #8 on: 02/03/2009 11:18 am »
8.4m ET derived core with 7 x RD-180 or 6 x RS-84. No SRB's, J-2 EDS.

First stage is SSTO for about 50 tons.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #9 on: 02/03/2009 11:30 am »
8.4m ET derived core with 7 x RD-180 or 6 x RS-84. No SRB's, J-2 EDS.

Emphasis mine.

This would require a re-designingof the pads and assembly area stack supports.  Currently, the Shuttle stack is hung from the forward SRB attachment points, not resting on its base/thurst skirt.

That isn't to say it isn't possible (someone came up with a no-SRB ET-derived CLV that could launch Orion to orbit with just four RS-25 SSMEs).  It is just that it would mean some costly remodelling work.

FWIW, I think that, for a 2-launch archetecture, the minimum payload-to-orbit would need to be >50mt, probably >75mt.
"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 engstudent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Earth
    • my blog experiment
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #10 on: 02/03/2009 11:39 am »
A ET derived core with 6 RS-84s would be SSTO with 50mT?

Oh what would it take to design a ET style tank for RP-1/LOX instead of LH2?  The RS-84s suckup kerosene right?
” …All of this. All of this was for nothing – unless we go to the stars.” - Sinclair

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #11 on: 02/03/2009 12:10 pm »
In terms of fastest, safest, cheapest, I don't think you can beat the Jupiter 232. However a more sustainable launch architecture would be Ed Kyle's "Ares Ib," -- a two engine Delta IV variant, with larger tanks and improved upper stage. A single "Ares Ib" could launch Orion to the ISS, while a cluster of five would give us a 100 mT to LEO HLLV. There wouldn't be any expensive new engine development. The common core design would allow us to build HLLV's only when we need them without the cost of a low production design like the Jupiter 232.

The key to a sustainable launch architecture, from what I've read on this forum, is one that continues to support medium (10-20 mT LEO) launches while being able to scale up to 100 mT when needed. The Ares Ib (aka Delta IV Advanced EELV) does just that.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #12 on: 02/03/2009 02:59 pm »
Don't forget the political requirements.   Without the $$$ from Congress, nothing will happen.   And the politicians who represent the space states are the same ones on the specific committee's who decide how much gets spent where WRT space.   Ignore their needs at your peril.


I've always wondered about the Atlas Phase 3B (140mT to LEO) if it were fitted with a pair of ATK's finest.   160-180mT perhaps?   Of course, a lot of Congress-folk get very prickly when you mention a Russian engine powering "America's New Flagship Exploration Program".   They really don't like that idea one bit.   But I think that could be solved with simple "re-branding" -- seems to be working for Pepsi.   Anyone for building the Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne RS-180?   Its that, or dust off RS-84.


I bet I just shocked a lot of people:   The guy from DIRECT suggesting something *else*? ???   Huh? ???    Wha? ???

Fatal Exception Error in Universe.dll

 ;D

While some people seem determined to portray me otherwise, I've actually always been open to any other alternatives that can meet all the requirements.   For that I'm talking cost, schedule, performance, safety and politics (both "Made in America" and Job Losses).   If you can demonstrate (not just claim so) a way to meet all those objectives, I can get behind it.   To date I haven't found a second proposal which doesn't have to conveniently ignore at least one of those requirements though.   We've managed to nail down every one of those to an acceptable degree in DIRECT.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2009 03:19 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #13 on: 02/27/2009 11:13 pm »
In terms of fastest, safest, cheapest, I don't think you can beat the Jupiter 232. However a more sustainable launch architecture would be Ed Kyle's "Ares Ib," -- a two engine Delta IV variant, with larger tanks and improved upper stage. A single "Ares Ib" could launch Orion to the ISS, while a cluster of five would give us a 100 mT to LEO HLLV. There wouldn't be any expensive new engine development. The common core design would allow us to build HLLV's only when we need them without the cost of a low production design like the Jupiter 232.

The key to a sustainable launch architecture, from what I've read on this forum, is one that continues to support medium (10-20 mT LEO) launches while being able to scale up to 100 mT when needed. The Ares Ib (aka Delta IV Advanced EELV) does just that.

 
I've been suggesting this very thing for the last two years.  It would probably be the most OPTIMIZED solution, but I'd make a slight variation on the theme... I'd size the thing to use a single first stage and second stage for the crew launcher for ISS and light LEO missions, and a three-body booster like Delta IV Heavy for the 100 metric ton-ish launcher.  Use that for a two launch solution.  Five CCB's seem like a lot, but if that's what you need.... well, at least commonality would be working in your favor. 

Of course, this would never pass the smell test as far as the jobs situation is concerned, and so politically the idea is stillborn. 

When you factor in the shuttle jobs that pretty much mandate an SDLV solution, you come up with something very similar to Direct...

JMHO!  OL JR :)
« Last Edit: 02/27/2009 11:15 pm by luke strawwalker »
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #14 on: 02/28/2009 12:18 am »
A ET derived core with 6 RS-84s would be SSTO with 50mT?

Oh what would it take to design a ET style tank for RP-1/LOX instead of LH2?  The RS-84s suckup kerosene right?

It would be very hard to develop a RP-1/LOX SSTO rocket. The RP-1/LOX engines don't have an ISP high enough and require an upper stage to put the payload in LEO.  Even the LH2/LOX rockets (such as Magnum and J-120) require SRBs to be able to put their core tank+payload in LEO.

PaulL

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #15 on: 02/28/2009 03:31 am »
8.4m ET derived core with 7 x RD-180 or 6 x RS-84. No SRB's, J-2 EDS.

Emphasis mine.

This would require a re-designingof the pads and assembly area stack supports.  Currently, the Shuttle stack is hung from the forward SRB attachment points, not resting on its base/thurst skirt.

That isn't to say it isn't possible (someone came up with a no-SRB ET-derived CLV that could launch Orion to orbit with just four RS-25 SSMEs).  It is just that it would mean some costly remodelling work.

FWIW, I think that, for a 2-launch archetecture, the minimum payload-to-orbit would need to be >50mt, probably >75mt.

I wouldn't "remodel" LC 39, I would scrap and replace it with something far less costly to maintain and operate.

I've always liked the no-SRB idea.  It would seem to offer a substantial cost cutting opportunity.  Here was my writeup on a variation of Henry Spencer's 2005 "Brown Bess" idea. 

 http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/blog016.html

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/28/2009 03:49 am by edkyle99 »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #16 on: 02/28/2009 10:52 am »
Hmmm... One possible synthesis of the "Brown Bess" and Ares V-ish concepts could be to have a core with 4 RS-68s, and then the option of either two SRBs (4 or 5-seg, depending on how you scale) or two "pods" with 2xRS-68 apiece (feeding from the core). That gives you the option of using either configuration (probably from the same pad), while simultaniously solving the plume impingement problems of Bess...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 02/28/2009 10:53 am by simonbp »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #17 on: 02/28/2009 12:37 pm »
Actually the original Ares-V was quite good but had three flaws that could be relatively easily overcome in a 2-launch scenario:

1. Insufficient lift capacity of the smaller CLV to make the CaLV a reasonable size
2. Air-started SSME on the upper stage;  WAY to expensive
3. Insufficient flight rate to reduce the cost of the SSME

Problem #1 goes away by switching to a 2-launch architecture.
Problem #2 goes away by switching to either a single J-2X or 6xRL10’s.
Problem #3 goes away by increasing the flight rate to 6 launches (or more) per year (engines are mass produced).

Here’s the Launch vehicle:
Existing 2x4-segment SRB’s
Existing 8.4m Shuttle ET
Existing 4xSSME core power
Develop 1xJ-2X Upper Stage (If needed, use existing 6xRL10's in the interim)

This full stack would still be an Ares-V because there would be 5 engines total.
The CxP min mass thru TLI for lunar missions is just over 71mT.
This Ares-V launch vehicle, in a 2-launch scenario, sends 81mT thru TLI, 10mT MORE than the minimum required by CxP.

This launch vehicle is still upgradable later to use the 5-segment SRB's when they become available, which would add *another* ~7mT of mass thru TLI for a total of ~88mT sent thru TLI!

If an upper stage is needed before the J-2X is ready, then deploy the 6xRL10’s in the interim.
In addition, it could still be flown without the upper stage as an Ares-IV for LEO missions or as a lunar or planetary probe launcher.

This launch vehicle has so much existing heratige that we could actually fly it by 2011 sometime. If Shuttle is extended to 2012, then there could conceivably be a ZERO flight gap.

This is an Ares-V that I think all HLLV supporters could get behind.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2009 09:56 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

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: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #18 on: 02/28/2009 10:59 pm »
8.4m ET derived core with 7 x RD-180 or 6 x RS-84. No SRB's, J-2 EDS.

First stage is SSTO for about 50 tons.

I rather doubt 7x RD-180 would fit on a 8.4m core. See the attached paper on the "Centurion C-2" design that shows 4x RD-180 is a crowded arrangement. 3x RD-180, although less powerful would be lighter 1x engine and equipment and give a longer burntime.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

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: Two launch CxP Options
« Reply #19 on: 02/28/2009 11:37 pm »
The 4x RS-25 8.4m corestage -- "Longfellow" -- which is reasonably close to Jupiter/Direct, always was about the best idea for an inline Shuttle-derived  heavy lifter. And since the 5-segment SRBs are well-along in their development, I'd say use them.

With the prospects for "disposable SSMEs" again in the offing, one could sensibly assume that they'd be using the 109% percent power setting as the new baseline. But before "Challenger" in 1986, NASA was looking at a 120% percent emergency power setting for the SSMEs. With the Block II and beyond upgrades to power heads, turbopumps, combustion chamber throat and nozzle channel walls (copied from the milling process for the Russian RD-120), the engines are far better able to withstand the stresses of long, 109% percent burns. In fact, I'd propose uprating the thrust settings for the disposable versions to 114 or 115% percent with only a little sacrifice to Isp. After all, they're not coming back from the ocean floor.

Incidentally, the Russian RD-120 nozzle channel milling process is not so much for power settings and reliability, but for speed of manufacture. The traditional SSME nozzle manufacturing process could take up to 30 months to produce a unit!! The newer process would slash this time by more than half. These are the kind of innovations that would make a disposable RS-25 more plausible.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2009 11:40 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags:
 

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