Thanks for the calculations. So the eFH is the only vehicle among those evaluated to place 15 mT in NRHO, which is the wet mass of the Descent Element and Transfer Module as identified in NASA BAAs.Of course, the Lander Elements could contribute to TLI, which would widen the cLV options.
It would be useful to have similar calculations for New Glenn given its likely "prominent" role in the BO/LM/NG/D lander achitecture.
Using the existing launchers with docking adapters attached to upper stages could throw more payload to TLI than SLS at a lower price tag. Especially in expendable mode. Two to four launches for existing is still way less expensive than SLS. Thanks for the chart. This opens a new can of worms for NASA.
I would have loved to have included New Glenn,
I estimated the dry mass of Centaur V by subtracting the mass of the RL-10 from the dry mass of the Atlas V Centaur, increasing mass in proportion to fractional surface area, and adding two RL-10s back in.
Quote from: sevenperforce on 10/25/2019 08:07 pmI estimated the dry mass of Centaur V by subtracting the mass of the RL-10 from the dry mass of the Atlas V Centaur, increasing mass in proportion to fractional surface area, and adding two RL-10s back in.Pressurised tank mass is not proportional to surface area. Its proportional to volume!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel
Do we know if that Pluto figure is for a stock FH? SpaceX has proposed a few unique configurations for high-energy missions before, with either a stretched upper stage or a Star kick stage. The 16.8 tons to Mars figure is definitely for an unmodified expendable FH, per statements from when Red Dragon was still a thing