Author Topic: Alternative HLV Concepts  (Read 20045 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
  • Liked: 532
    • Space Launch Report
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #60 on: 10/17/2013 02:36 PM »
Here is a two stage design optimized for escape payloads that is powered by six RD-180s and four RL-60s.  I'm sizing these to match or beat SLS Block 1.  Notice how much shorter the RD-180 rocket is compared to the F-1B rocket, though I think that a real second stage of this mass would likely end up longer with a smaller LOX tank.  Similar results can be achieved with the proposed "AJ-26-500" engine.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/17/2013 02:39 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Liked: 12
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #61 on: 10/17/2013 04:06 PM »
Here is a two stage design optimized for escape payloads that is powered by six RD-180s and four RL-60s.  I'm sizing these to match or beat SLS Block 1.  Notice how much shorter the RD-180 rocket is compared to the F-1B rocket, though I think that a real second stage of this mass would likely end up longer with a smaller LOX tank.  Similar results can be achieved with the proposed "AJ-26-500" engine.

 - Ed Kyle



Sell SLS type of 8.4m tanks to Russia. They could use them with RD-191s or RD 180s on the 8.4m core of a Super Heavy Angara that could have 2 to 5 MB-60s from Japan on the 8.4m second stage. Seven Angara based boosters with RD-191s could be clustered around the first stage 8.4m core.

The third stage could have 2 or 3 RD-0146s.

Backup HLV transportation to the Lunar surface is a good idea. To quickly get some nifty Alternative HLV Concepts try to also sell the 8.4m SLS tanks to China and India, too!

Note:

"The RD-0146 is a Russian cryogenic rocket engine. It is said to be the Russian version of the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RL10 engine.[1][full citation needed] The RD-0146 engine was developed by KBKhA design bureau in Voronezh, Russia, in cooperation with the American Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne company.

From: RD-0146   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0146



See also:

Angara (rocket family)   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_rocket


Edited.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2013 04:36 PM by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Online M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Liked: 43
  • I don't know what to put here.
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #62 on: 10/17/2013 04:31 PM »
And it's a little off topic I suppose, but I've been wondering what an EELV class core with a single F-1B on it...maybe 5 or 6m wide...and a dual use upper stage with either a single or pair of RL/MB-60's would to to LEO, GTO, and escape.

So if you are ever board and looking for something to do some time, I'd be curious about something like that.

:-)

Well, for an EELV type vehicle, I suppose the easiest way would be stretching the Atlas V core to a similar TWR as the current one. The RD-180 has about 4.2 MN of thrust, the F-1B about 8 MN, so that's almost twice as much, allowing for a core stage that's also twice as big (could be bigger, but we want upgradeability for the upper stage).

A single F1 CCB, with a normal SEC can get an estimated 5.2 tons to GTO, or 12.8 tons to LEO. With a DEC, this is 14.6 tons to LEO. If the upper stage is also scaled up to twice it's mass, doubling total mass (little problem because of F1B's power), the rocket can get 18 tons to LEO, and 7.3 tons to GTO. With dual MB-60 instead of RL-10, the payload to LEO is increased further, to over 22 tons to LEO, without boosters!

When it gets really fun though, is when you create a Heavy variant. A 3x CCB variant with the new upper stage (which has specifications very similar to ACES) would get over 50 tons to LEO, and a 5x CCB variant gets over 75 tons to Low Earth Orbit!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
  • Liked: 202
  • Spokane, WA
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #63 on: 10/17/2013 06:03 PM »
And it's a little off topic I suppose, but I've been wondering what an EELV class core with a single F-1B on it...maybe 5 or 6m wide...and a dual use upper stage with either a single or pair of RL/MB-60's would to to LEO, GTO, and escape.

So if you are ever board and looking for something to do some time, I'd be curious about something like that.

:-)

Well, for an EELV type vehicle, I suppose the easiest way would be stretching the Atlas V core to a similar TWR as the current one. The RD-180 has about 4.2 MN of thrust, the F-1B about 8 MN, so that's almost twice as much, allowing for a core stage that's also twice as big (could be bigger, but we want upgradeability for the upper stage).


How about making it out of a Delta IV core?  I don't know that it would be any more modification than stretching an Atlas V core.  Keep it 5m, and have different tank ratios.  The overall core will probably be shorter, but it'd actually look pretty similar to a Delta IV.
Then replace the RL-10 on the 5m DCSS with an RL/MB-60 (which was the original plan anyway with the 5m DCSS when Boeing-Rocketdyen and MHI developed the MB-60). 


A single F1 CCB, with a normal SEC can get an estimated 5.2 tons to GTO, or 12.8 tons to LEO. With a DEC, this is 14.6 tons to LEO. If the upper stage is also scaled up to twice it's mass, doubling total mass (little problem because of F1B's power), the rocket can get 18 tons to LEO, and 7.3 tons to GTO. With dual MB-60 instead of RL-10, the payload to LEO is increased further, to over 22 tons to LEO, without boosters!


Cool.  Maybe the upper stage can have a single MB-60 configuration for BLEO payloads, and an option for two for LEO optimized.  Kinda like Centaur with two RL-10's.  But, I don't know how many LEO payloads there would need more than 18mt.  Would be fine for ISS support, which is the current major user of BLEO only payloads I think?
Add a few GEM-60's and you'd have D4H capability, but with a single stick and a few SRB's.  Yout get D4H performance out of a D4-Medium+ (5,4) price.  You get Atlas-551 performance out of a single stick with just one engine on each stage.  Nice and simple and pretty.


When it gets really fun though, is when you create a Heavy variant. A 3x CCB variant with the new upper stage (which has specifications very similar to ACES) would get over 50 tons to LEO, and a 5x CCB variant gets over 75 tons to Low Earth Orbit!

That's cool too.  Although the sell point here might be that you have a single stick that covers pretty much the entire EELV line without needed a heavy.  But NASA or a rare DoD paylaod might need/want payloads inexcess of that, so a tri-core heavy could be designed into it.  Jim had said the Atlas V CCB is a true CCB.  The cores for single stick, SRB-augmented, or a tri-core heavy would all be identical.  That's because they are kerolox and don't need the same LH2 vent like the Delta IV CCB's do. 
For Delta IV, they have ot make a different central core, left core, right core, and medium core.  And prior to the recent consolidation, they had two medium cores.  A slick core optimized for best performance with no SRB's and the 4m DCSS.  And a core with SRB mounts for the medium+.

So the nice thing here would be the ability to make a true single common core that -could- mount SRB's or outboard CCB's like Atlas V could have.

And while this slick stick would probably cost more than Atlas V because it'd have a US-build F-1B rather than a cheaper Russian RD-180, it shouldn't cost any more than a Delta IV-Medium, yet more than double it's performance.   Had it been a single EELV chosen (in a different universe where the original intent of the EELV program was realized) it could have replaced the Atlas V-401 and Delta IV Medium payloads for about the same price, but then also been used all the way up to Delta IV Heavy payloads without needing a tri-core.
And of course, a tri-core version would have been an option if any payload did ever come along for it.
Chuck has said a few times that While working with Direct, he got info that the USAF/DoD had some payloads they would have liked to develop if there was an LV that could deliver them like Jupiter, where STS, Atlas, and Delta could not.  So maybe...

Again, the LV would not be any larger than a Delta IV or D4H.

And While some might just point to Atlas Phase 2 as the equal or better of this.  And it would be.   I'm not sure of the EELV requirements, but both EELV's seem to only have one booster engine and one upper stage engine.  So maybe that was desired?  In which case, this alternate EELV would have fit that bill.

Anyway, it was a curiosity of mine.  Would have been cool to see a single common launcher used by the US government that used the famous F-1 again.  :-)



Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
  • Liked: 202
  • Spokane, WA
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #64 on: 10/17/2013 06:21 PM »
Here is a two stage design optimized for escape payloads that is powered by six RD-180s and four RL-60s.  I'm sizing these to match or beat SLS Block 1.  Notice how much shorter the RD-180 rocket is compared to the F-1B rocket, though I think that a real second stage of this mass would likely end up longer with a smaller LOX tank.  Similar results can be achieved with the proposed "AJ-26-500" engine.

 - Ed Kyle

Thanks very much Ed.  Very cool!
I'm impressed by how much propellant mass and booster thrust that SC engine saves!  Didn't realize it was quite that large.

Well, the great thing about this in 2005, would have been that we already had access to the RD-180 engine, where the F-1B would be a new development (although probably not as much as a brand new engine from scatch).  So there would have been a pretty good argument to go this route in an alternate history where NASA/Griffin liked the 2-launch approach and had a more realistic concept of what future budgets would be.

For the upper stage, Pratt & Whitney had already developed the RL-60 to about 90% completion, and Boeing-Rocketdyen/HMI had devleoped the MB-60 to near that level I think.  SO either of those engines would have been FAR easier options than the J2S...which became the J2X.

And even though the RD-180 is a Russian engine and the political optics would be less than desirable for NASA's new flagship rocket, I think there'd be a pretty easy solution to that.  First, develop the new LV with the RD-180, and have what became Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne buy up a bunch of them for the new NASA LV program. 
But since PWR owned the copyrights to them, work out a deal with USAF/DoD for NASA to foot the bill for PWR to tool up and start building a US-made version of it.  That could be deferred until later after the new LV was already flying.  I wouldn't need to even be done while the new LV was in development.  RD-180's could be publicized at "test engines" or "interim engines", with a new US made engine that would be replacing them for the "Block 2" full production LV.  PWR could even call the new American version of the RD-180 something else.  RS-84 or whatever, so noone but real space geeks would even know that it's basically a US copy of a Russian engine.

It would bolt right into NASA's new LV, and it woudl bolt right into Atlas V.  NASA would have to develop a new engine with F-1B anyway, or RS-25E, or with pretty much any new Shuttle Replacement LV unless they just opted to use existing EELV's as is.  So They could have ponied up for that development to get USAF to go along with Atlas V having a US engine that would probably be a little more expensive per unit. 
Then NASA's new LV shares a common engine with USAF. 

And with any luck, NASA working with USAF could get the EELV's to switch from RL-10 to either RL-60 or MB-60 for full engine commonality. 

Assuming NASA wasnted to do it, any reason that wouldn't have worked?  I'd hope that USAF would work with NASA, as long as they got to keep their own LV's and weren't dependant on NASA for their hardware or launches.  (unless they had a payload they wanted to launch on NASA's new LV).



« Last Edit: 10/17/2013 06:23 PM by Lobo »

Online M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Liked: 43
  • I don't know what to put here.
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #65 on: 10/17/2013 06:42 PM »

How about making it out of a Delta IV core?  I don't know that it would be any more modification than stretching an Atlas V core.  Keep it 5m, and have different tank ratios.  The overall core will probably be shorter, but it'd actually look pretty similar to a Delta IV.
Then replace the RL-10 on the 5m DCSS with an RL/MB-60 (which was the original plan anyway with the 5m DCSS when Boeing-Rocketdyen and MHI developed the MB-60). 

Making it out of a Delta IV core would still be limited to the same total mass, because of the thrust limit of the F-1B. However, it would allow for a better propellant mass fraction, because the core is wider. On Atlas, it's a little over 0.93, but 0.94 could easily be attained with a Delta IV core. With the alloys used on Falcon 9 and the STS SLWT, even 0.95 is attainable. Since it's a new vehicle anyway, why not use the better PMF?

With the better PMF, a single CCB+Upgraded DCSS would get about 19 tons into LEO (surprisingly high, to be honest). With GEM solid rocket boosters from Delta, it would go up to 21 tons with 2x GEM, 23 tons with 4x GEM, 25 tons with 6x GEM and 27 tons with 8x GEM. I think the high mass of the Kerolox core waters down the performance increase GEMs provide.

With the ACES-like upper stage I described earlier, payload for the base rocket would go up to 34 tons to LEO, and 11.5 tons BEO. If the mass for a single RL-60 from astronautix.com (500 kg) is accurate, a single engine version of this stage would be able to push 11 tons BEO (the mass savings from an extra engine would likely be bigger though, but I don't know by how much).

A Heavy variant with this dual engine upper stage would be able to push up to 54 tons into LEO, and a Super Heavy variant would be able to bring over 80 metric tons to LEO! I don't know how much GEM's would add up to this though, that will take some more time to calculate. If I can remember it, I'll put it here.

Oh, and a single core with 2x 5-segment SRBs can get almost 50 tons into LEO. But now I'm just playing around.

Online simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6894
  • Liked: 114
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #66 on: 10/17/2013 08:48 PM »
Here is a two stage design optimized for escape payloads that is powered by six RD-180s and four RL-60s.  I'm sizing these to match or beat SLS Block 1.  Notice how much shorter the RD-180 rocket is compared to the F-1B rocket, though I think that a real second stage of this mass would likely end up longer with a smaller LOX tank.  Similar results can be achieved with the proposed "AJ-26-500" engine.

 - Ed Kyle

If you used the ICPS as a third stage, could you replicate Saturn V's escape performance (~45 tonnes IIRC, same as SLS Block 2) with a 4x F-1B first stage?
« Last Edit: 10/17/2013 08:53 PM by simonbp »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
  • Liked: 202
  • Spokane, WA
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #67 on: 10/18/2013 12:16 AM »

With the better PMF, a single CCB+Upgraded DCSS would get about 19 tons into LEO (surprisingly high, to be honest). With GEM solid rocket boosters from Delta, it would go up to 21 tons with 2x GEM, 23 tons with 4x GEM, 25 tons with 6x GEM and 27 tons with 8x GEM. I think the high mass of the Kerolox core waters down the performance increase GEMs provide.


That's probably true.  It might have more to do with the low ISP GG kerolox stage than kerolox in general.  SRB's seem to improve Atlas's performance quite a bit.  Do Atlas SRB's have more power than GEM-60's?  Maybe it'd be worth seeing what 2, 4, 6, or 8 Atlas SRB's would do?
But, the F-1B is a big, high thrust, low ISP, booster like the solids, so it might be that solids just help it less than giving a lift off boost to the higher isp RD-180's does?

Utilimately, if we are looking at this single F-1B ELV to have been a hypothetical single EELV winner back in the late 90's, then it might be better to steer clear of SRB's totally.  Sort of like Falcon 9.  Just have the slick LV.  There's been very few loads that have requireed Atlas 551 or D4H over hte last 10 years or so.  Those are the only two EELV configurations that exceed what this LV will do with the upgraded DCSS you list above.  Maybe those handful of payloads could have then just used the heavy version of this F-1B EELV?  Then SRB's could have been done away with entirely for 90% of the payloads it would see.

As an interesting concept, could it launch with just a single outboard CCB?  I've seen NLS concept art showing just one outboard CCB.  Maybe that's the "medium" version between the slick stick and the tri-core heavy?  The loads are off form center of mass, but so were Energia's and STS's.   Would it be a problem to have enough gimbal in the engine mounts to conpensate for that for a two-core intermediate version?

Seems reasonable but I'm no rocket engineer.  ;-)


With the ACES-like upper stage I described earlier, payload for the base rocket would go up to 34 tons to LEO, and 11.5 tons BEO. If the mass for a single RL-60 from astronautix.com (500 kg) is accurate, a single engine version of this stage would be able to push 11 tons BEO (the mass savings from an extra engine would likely be bigger though, but I don't know by how much).


That's pretty good to LEO!  Obviously most payloads would be going BLEO (is that 11.5 tons you mention metric or standard?  And to what trajectory?  TLI?  GTO?  Escape?)

But again, ditch the SRB's, and just have maybe one outboard CCB for 20-35mt payload range, and then tri-core for larger than that...if there were ever payloads larger than that.

But yea, if we are considering this as an alternative to the Delta IV and Atlas V back in the EELV program, whomever would have proposed it could would have developed a new upper stage that had nothing to do with the 5m DCSS.  And ACES like 5m common bulkhead tank could have been what they came up with.  Or two tanks, but obht are 5m wide.  Or a 5m LH2 tank and a smaller LOX tank like the DCSS.  Any of those would have been an option for this LV concept.  We want to keep costs down, so keep the cheapest upper stage concept in mind too.  Not sure what that would be.


A Heavy variant with this dual engine upper stage would be able to push up to 54 tons into LEO, and a Super Heavy variant would be able to bring over 80 metric tons to LEO! I don't know how much GEM's would add up to this though, that will take some more time to calculate. If I can remember it, I'll put it here.


The super heavy variant would be cool, but when you start making the booster that powerful, don't you need to ugrade the upper stage in order to utilize that booster power?  That's why I'm wondering if maybe a two-launch scenario of a tri-core heavy might have been a good CxP option for NASA if this LV had existing as the winner of the EELV program.  And made CxP a more modest program, and less ambitous.
All you really need to do is get about 2X23mt to LEO to have Apollo scale mission.  You might get that with two tri-core heavies (maybe add crossfeed for better TLI performance?)
So what you shoot for in Orion and a lander, is the ability of Orion to do it's own LOI burn into LLO, and then it's own TEI burn.  It's SM would need to be larger than Orion's but smaller than Apollo's.  Then give the lander the ability to brake itself into LLO as well.  And then have enough to get to the surface and back to LLO.  So maybe a larger version of the LEM.
So let's just say we have a CEV that's 25mt, and a lander that's 25mt.  A scaled down Apollo SM and a scaled up LEM.  The lander launches first and brakes itself into LLO.  The crew launches next on another mobile launcher from KSC's 2nd pad, and does LOR with the lander once the lander is in proper parking lunar orbit. 
IF the tri-core heavy version of this LV can get 25mt through TLI, then we could be in business without needing any new development.  Maybe a stretched version of the upper stage to get a little more performance?  But nothing other than that.
Wold have basically had SAturn V performance with little new development of an LV. 

If you want to play, what would be the TLI capacity of the tri-core heavy version of this with dual MB-60's on the upper stage, and perhaps crossfeed on the CCB's?  What would be the performance with a stretched upper stage optimized for the additional power of the tri-core booster, with perhaps four MB-60's doing the upper stage burn, and two MB-60's doing the TLI burn?  Could the upper stage be carried to lunar oribt and perform the LOI burn like the DUUS can?  That would reduce the size of the storable propellants needed in the CEV and the lander, and use the much better ISP of the hydrolox in the upper stage and the very efficient RL/MB-60's.  I think the more you did with the upper stage, the better.  The CSM could then shrink down to the size needed for only the TEI burn (maybe 15mt with a smaller CEV than Orion.  More like a lunar version of Dragon?)  Then the lander would need less storable propellants.

But, perhaps NASA could have fronted the money to change the CCB so that there was a NASA-only variant that can mount 4 outboard cores, and then have a larger (8.4m) upper stage they made themselves at MAF (given MAF something to do). 
Then do a two-launch scenario with that, one launching Orion to lunar orbit, the other launching the lander to lunar orbit.  Sort of like the dual SLS Block 1B lunar mission concept.  More expensive, but more capable too.


Oh, and a single core with 2x 5-segment SRBs can get almost 50 tons into LEO. But now I'm just playing around.

HA!  Easy there tiger.  ;-)

The idea is to get away from maintaining NASA only hardware.  Besides, wouldn't a tri-core heavy do the same thing, but do it with the same production line and infrastucture as the main core?

« Last Edit: 10/18/2013 12:28 AM by Lobo »

Offline Oli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 79
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #68 on: 10/18/2013 09:28 PM »
That is all nice but the RS-25, RL-10 and SRB already exist (more or less) and the RS-25 is a cool engine that deserves to be preserved (as well as all the hydrolox people working at Aerojet Rocketdyne).

 :)
« Last Edit: 10/18/2013 09:29 PM by Oli »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
  • Liked: 202
  • Spokane, WA
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #69 on: 10/18/2013 10:20 PM »
That is all nice but the RS-25, RL-10 and SRB already exist (more or less) and the RS-25 is a cool engine that deserves to be preserved (as well as all the hydrolox people working at Aerojet Rocketdyne).

 :)

Well, about 16 RS-25's exist.  More RS-25D's either need to be be made expensively by hand after that, or a new development program of the RS-25E needs to be paid for.  (hopefully some money spent on J2X will help in that). 
RL-10's exist, but as I understand, there's a large stockpile that ULA go with the Delta IV merger.  Those will be converted to RL-10C's for use on both Atlas and Delta, but as I understand, AJR isn't going to be building any new ones anytime soon. 
Even without RS-25, wouldnt' those hydrolox people still be building RS-68's for Delta IV?

5-seg SRB's sort of exist.  And sort of don't yet.  But they are a long ways along, true.

But, with all of that said, these hypothetical concepts aren't realistically going to replace SLS now.  That's not what I'm proposing.  This thread spun out of another thread about using Pyrios as a stand along LV with an upper stage.  The answer basically being, yes...but there's no need for it, and it's optimized to be a short burning, powerful booster, rather than a 1st stage of t 2 stage rocket.
I started this thread to discuss other Pyrios options, and then it sorta morphed into other medium and heavy lift options.

The single stick booster with a single F-1B we are talking about above would have no place today.  Not reason to be.  IT's too small to be an SLS booster, and D4H and FH will already cover it's performance.
It could only have existed as a 3rd EELV contestant in the 1990's that was selected singularly by the USAF.  It really could be a singel stick replacement for Titan IV it looks like, and about the size of a single Stick Delta IV.  And perhaps it could have been used by NASA as an ESAS option with a little different NASA leadership.  Very interesting.  But it's a curiosity, not something that there's a need for today.

Now the 8.4m cores we were talking about above, with four F-1B's or six RD-180's, using RL/MB-60's, they would only have existed as ESAS options in 2005.  And I think they would have been very good ones if NASA needed their own LV and didn't want to go with multiple EELV launch architectures (which they didn't seem to...and existing EELV configurations were really pretty small for what NASA was wanting to do). 
Those two stage LV's, either of them, would have been pretty simple, slick, and sexy, and made good 2-launch lunar architecture options.  They should have been pretty cheap to as they would have saved NASA development of the 5-seg booster, the J2X, and the Ares 1 upper stage, as well as a future need for RS-25E.  RL-60 and MB-60's were both mostly develop already by 2005, where J2X was pretty much a brand new from scratch engine.  Essentually NASA would have been developing a booster-less Ares V, but with either updated F-1's on the 1st stage, or existing RD-180's.  And almost fully developed MB-60's or RL-60's on the 2nd stage.  Optimized for BLEO payloads it wouldn't need a 3rd stage.
Given how SLS Block 1 has been proceeding, if NASA hadn't spend all that money on A1US, 5-seg boosters, and J2X, they probably could have developed this LV by the end of the shuttle program in 2011. 
Although in reality, they wouldn't need ot start it until them.  They could have just developed Orion, and human rated D4H, and used that to launch a short-fueled Orion to the ISS by 2011.  Once that was developed and flying, then they could have developed this new 8.4m kerolox LV with a lunar lander, and by the late 2010's, been going to the moon, which was the plan for CxP anyway.  But by developing less than have the new elements.

Heck, these actually could have even been a good way to go instead of SLS.  The RAC-2 study did beat RAC-1 SLS, but RAC-1 won politically.  But their value would have been lessened because by 2011, money had already been spent on J2X, A1US, and 5-seg booster.  SO it's savings potential would have been less at that point.  Although it's overhead would have still been cheaper, assuming RD-180's or F-1B's would be cheaper than RS-25E's to develop and produce, and the overhead of SRB's removed entirely.  And no need for "advanced boosters" in the future.
It wouldn't meet NAA2010, but if the PResident has pushed this LV when he cancelled CxP, and had a real plan he was promoting, there would never have been a NAA2010, and so this LV would have been just fine.  :-)


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
  • Liked: 202
  • Spokane, WA
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #70 on: 10/19/2013 12:00 AM »
Here is a two stage design optimized for escape payloads that is powered by six RD-180s and four RL-60s.  I'm sizing these to match or beat SLS Block 1.  Notice how much shorter the RD-180 rocket is compared to the F-1B rocket, though I think that a real second stage of this mass would likely end up longer with a smaller LOX tank.  Similar results can be achieved with the proposed "AJ-26-500" engine.

 - Ed Kyle

If you used the ICPS as a third stage, could you replicate Saturn V's escape performance (~45 tonnes IIRC, same as SLS Block 2) with a 4x F-1B first stage?

Ed could answer that, but I think ideally, we'd like to stay away from a 3rd stage.  Try to keep it like an EELV on steroids.  A two stage LV optimized for BLEO payloads.  The 5m DCSS would already exist, so no new development (although there is the ICPS project t0 man-rate the DCSS).
Minimize the components and commonize and standardize as much as possible. 

On a similar side note, if there were a DCSS CPS/3rd stage, or if there was a hydrolox lunar lander, that would require a whole extra set of swing arms and umbilicals on the mobile launcher tower, wouldn't it?
If you have just two stages, then you reduce the complexity, umbilicals, arms and such.  And that makes an argument for a lander with storables too.  Looking at old SAturn V tower photos, I don't see any arms or umbilicals going to the LEM fairing adaptor. 

So I've always kind of wondered how much extra cost and hassel is it to have like a 3rd stage and/or a hydrolox lander?  And if it's encapsulated in a PLF, then it needs those umbilicals ran through the PLF.  ULA manages ok with Atlas 5xx, but on the Altas 4xx, and the Delta configurations, the upper stage is exposed for easy access to the feed and vent lines.  So I'm assuming that's desirable?

Although I suppose an interesting alternative would be to put something like an SLS BLock 1 fairing adaptor on this LV's 2nd stage.  An 8.4m to 5m adaptor.  Then set the DCSS on top of that, with the lander in a 5m PLF above that.  All 3 stages have easy access on the pad and the lander can have storable propellants.  Then the DCSS can act as a kick stage to aid in throwing a larger mass through TLI than this LV would otherwise be able to do (for a larger lander) and then it could do the LOI burn and act as a crasher stage.  The lander could be a simple lander like the Boeing one, although perhaps larger.  And wouldn't need to be 2 stage as the DCSS is doing most of the descent.

But...might just be easier to make a two stage lander with storables, and only two stages on the LV.  THat'd be much more simple.  And then lander can do it's LOI (or the upper stage can do it) and then it's own descent. Make it a larger version of the LEM.  And make the SM on the CEV larger so it could do it's own LOI and descent to LLO LOR with the lander, and then get itself home.

Not as efficient as 3 stages or a hydrolox lander, but perhaps more simple and cheaper?

Offline Oli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 79
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #71 on: 10/19/2013 12:52 PM »
Quote from: Lobo
Even without RS-25, wouldnt' those hydrolox people still be building RS-68's for Delta IV?

R&D people need work too.

Quote from: Lobo
RL-60 and MB-60's were both mostly develop already by 2005

What is your definition of "mostly developed"? It was 60% into fabrication of the demo engine, far from certified. See pic below. Or http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rl60.htm.

Quote from: Lobo
assuming RD-180's or F-1B's would be cheaper than RS-25E's to develop and produce

F-1B is a 8MN engine and a redesign from the F-1 which last flew 40 years ago. All the people who worked on it are either dead or retired. How could it possibly be cheaper?
 
Quote from: Lobo
And no need for "advanced boosters" in the future.

There is no need for them anyway.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2013 12:55 PM by Oli »

Online TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
  • Liked: 121
  • CA
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #72 on: 10/19/2013 04:41 PM »
F-1B is a 8MN engine and a redesign from the F-1 which last flew 40 years ago. All the people who worked on it are either dead or retired. How could it possibly be cheaper?

How could it not be cheaper? RS-25 is a complex staged combustion hydrolox engine. F-1B is a simple gas generator kerolox design. Ever since the F-1A program came to an end, Rocketdyne has maintained a very extensive knowledge retention program. Everyone involved with F-1/F-1A was interviewed on videotape with the most minute details catalogued. All original designs and written description were meticulously preserved.  The original F-1 had over 5000 parts; the F-1B will have fewer than 100. Rather than intensive hand made production, most will be automated with much 3D printing utilized. Several times over those 40 years, new teams of engineers have been intensely trained in F-1 technology. Dynetics has studied the F-1 power pack in great detail and has test fired it recently. It is not the size of the engine that matters; it is the degree to which the R & D pushes performance margin, the number of parts, complexity of manufacturing those parts, and complexity of assembling those parts. Sheer size is mostly just a matter of additional metal, the cost of which is negligible. The per engine cost of RS-25d/e is likely much higher than per engine cost of F-1B which has > 3x the thrust of the RS-25.

Don't get me wrong, RS-25 has its place-as a high performance sustainer from launch to disposal orbit. F-1B also has its place-as a high ISP-density, high thrust booster in the lower atmosphere fighting gravity losses. F-1B will work well in tandem with RS-25 for those first 2.5 minutes. I am not enamored with a pre-LEO LUS due to cost of a 2nd stage that's consumed before LEO and must use J-2X.

As for those advanced boosters, the 5 seg. will run out and need to be replaced. Advanced boosters will offer significant improvement to performance.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2013 07:29 PM by TomH »

Offline Oli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 79
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #73 on: 10/19/2013 05:25 PM »
^

What were the estimates for RS-25E? $700m development and $40m a piece? My gut feeling tells me F-1B won't beat either of that, Jim said size matters :).

The 5 seg. will run out but why not start manufacturing them again in 10 years instead of pushing another multi billion dollar booster development program? (let alone a core redesign).
« Last Edit: 10/19/2013 05:26 PM by Oli »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
  • Liked: 532
    • Space Launch Report
Re: Alternative HLV Concepts
« Reply #74 on: 10/19/2013 05:43 PM »

What were the estimates for RS-25E? $700m development and $40m a piece? My gut feeling tells me F-1B won't beat either of that, Jim said size matters :).
There's a multiplier too.  How many RS-25E engines does it take to equal one F-1B?

 - Ed Kyle

Tags: