Author Topic: Battle of the Heavy Lift Launchers – Monster 200mt vehicle noted  (Read 148555 times)

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3

And no - we don't need 200mt rockets to do Mars. Just need a smart lightweight plan. Send 2 people at a time!


2 persons is not viable to operate a complex mission for that length of time, at this point in our 'infancy'. Zubrin made a good case for 4, but NASA had insisted on 6, which is why the Orion was being designed for 6 to Mars.

Then the mission needs to be simpler. Demonstrate survivability and explore local area. One person is enough if the mission is to send one person and everything is designed for one person to operate.
Too much arbitrary nonsense goes on in mission planning. Try to do too much at once.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106

And no - we don't need 200mt rockets to do Mars. Just need a smart lightweight plan. Send 2 people at a time!


2 persons is not viable to operate a complex mission for that length of time, at this point in our 'infancy'. Zubrin made a good case for 4, but NASA had insisted on 6, which is why the Orion was being designed for 6 to Mars.

For Mars Missions, I'd hedge my bets and say 5 people: 5 crew uses about 16-to-18% percent less consumables than 6 and gives you, er, 25% percent more personnel redundancy in the case of a crewmember getting ill or dying -- the mission could still be fulfilled quite well with four folks. Because with a crew of four; if you lost one person the workload would be pretty high. Also, I've read that many psychologists reckon having uneven crew numbers means that during conflicts and arguments, its much harder for warring crewmembers to takes sides on very long, stressful missions.

Yes, but with 6 you can send 3 couples.  :D

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
It main problem is that its reliance on a sidemounted vehicle, this limits is expansion options and causes needless risk with the escape tower.   

If the sidemounted carrier were simply stretched above the level of the ET, it would actually be a safer configuration than an inline vehicle (DIRECT) since the Orion-CEV would neither sit directly above the ET (as would be the case in the DIRECT configuration) nor beside the external tank. This would also significantly increase the payload length and volume. 

Marcel F. Williams

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Cσrdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
I feel that if the SD HLLV is designed to carry both crew and cargo, it will loose efficiency (kg to LEO). That's why I insist on separating crew and cargo. And separation gives more mission flexibility, as you can launch several cargo carriers and only one crewed capsule for a mission.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
It actually doesn't when you do the analysis and examine all of the trades.

The real key is not to compromise the design of the crew spacecraft in order to accommodate payload mass.

As long as the spacecraft is not compromised in any way -- and especially the abort capabilities -- there is no danger from carrying secondary payloads.

Where the line ought to be drawn is when contemplating launching unmanned satellites with a crew which really doesn't require any human participation.

That is where the planning for Shuttle went wrong back in the 1970's -- they wanted it to do everything -- including launching with large stages filled with dangerously explosive fuels inside the crew re-entry vehicle!

In hindsight, that was a pretty bad compromise to have included in the design :(

In the case of Lunar and NEO missions, having the capability to launch the crew and their Lander/Hab Module together can actually increase overall safety as the crew immediately gains access to a safe haven upon reaching orbit.   Ask the crew of Apollo 13 if having a Safe Haven was useful or not...


1) Do not compromise the Crew Spacecraft design.

2) Never compromise the Crew Abort capabilities.

3) Only launch Secondary Payloads with a Crew if the Crew needs that Payload.


Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2010 06:11 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
I feel that if the SD HLLV is designed to carry both crew and cargo, it will loose efficiency (kg to LEO). That's why I insist on separating crew and cargo. And separation gives more mission flexibility, as you can launch several cargo carriers and only one crewed capsule for a mission.

However, since the SD-HLV will be able of transporting 70 to 100 tonnes to LEO and up to 48 tonnes to lunar orbit, it would be a considerable waste only to use it only to launch a 22 tonne Orion into orbit. While I'm strongly in favor of developing the Altair as a cargo vehicle for transporting unmanned payloads (lunar base modules, solar power plants, etc.), I think it might make for sense to develop a small 25 tonne single stage lunar shuttle to transport humans to the lunar surface and back into lunar orbit instead of developing an ascent stage for the Altair. 

Even though such a vehicle would weigh more than the 16 tonne lunar module of the Apollo era, there should still be enough room in a longer payload carrier for it to fit below the Orion. Therefore, just a single launch could take astronauts too the Moon and back-- reducing the cost of manned flights to the moon. 

For longer exploratory missions, a habitat module could be placed on the lunar surface via an Altair cargo vehicle launch followed by the single launch of an Orion plus lunar lander. However, I strongly believe that NASA's focus should be on building a permanent base on the lunar surface.

Marcel F. Williams

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
To avoid having to build a 200mt launcher NASA should focus on stimulating industry by buying fuel from them via a propellant depot. This will drop the cost of launches thru commercial means.

NASA can work on reusable EDS stages in the future as block upgrades.

They need to start spending the money wisely.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline MP99

However, since the SD-HLV will be able of transporting 70 to 100 tonnes to LEO and up to 48 tonnes to lunar orbit, it would be a considerable waste only to use it only to launch a 22 tonne Orion into orbit.

I don't think the Heavy variant of Ares V can deliver 48mT to LLO, so there's no chance that SD-HLV could do this.

I don't remember the exact figures for side-mount, but with 100mT (inc EDS?) to LEO, you'll push about 48mT through TLI including the EDS. Something under 40mT excluding the EDS.

And don't forget that that 40mT then needs to include a stage which will brake itself & Orion through LOI. Presuming that you retain the EDS for this, that gives you something in the mid-20's mT payload, which is just going to be an Orion and not much else. Add in some manoeuvring to rendezvous with a lander and you'll be carrying the bare Orion and nothing else at all.


Quote
While I'm strongly in favor of developing the Altair as a cargo vehicle for transporting unmanned payloads (lunar base modules, solar power plants, etc.), I think it might make for sense to develop a small 25 tonne single stage lunar shuttle to transport humans to the lunar surface and back into lunar orbit instead of developing an ascent stage for the Altair. 

Even though such a vehicle would weigh more than the 16 tonne lunar module of the Apollo era, there should still be enough room in a longer payload carrier for it to fit below the Orion. Therefore, just a single launch could take astronauts too the Moon and back-- reducing the cost of manned flights to the moon.

Quick reminder here - Altair is the lightest vehicle that NASA could come up with to perform LOI for itself and Orion, land on the surface and then return a tiny Ascent Module back to LLO.

This requires both an Ares V Heavy launch for the Altair and a separate Ares I launch for Orion. Requires 70mT+ through TLI (including MR but excluding the EDS).

If you now want to create a heavier lander (so that the whole lander can return to LLO instead of a 4mT AM) then you're gonna need to push a lot more mass through TLI.

Also, since the lander is cryogenic, all of your prop will boiloff over a six month mission, so your lander will need to use storable propellants. If that's hypergolic, then the mass will go up substantially again.

My guess is you would need at least 3x SD-HLV launches to perform the mission you've described, or maybe 2x Ares V Heavy (300mT+ to LEO).

cheers, Martin

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
"My guess is you would need at least 3x SD-HLV launches to perform the mission you've described, or maybe 2x Ares V Heavy (300mT+ to LEO)."

Or a '2.5 launch' scenario: 2x 70+ton HLVs +plus Orion on a Delta IV-Heavy. *FIRST: send Altair directly to lunar orbit or L-1.

**THEN: launch HLV with an EDS capable of ALL outbound delta-vee manoeuvres: Earth Departure and LOI, once Orion has launched on Delta IV-H and docked with EDS.

If they don't use the 5-Segment SRBS, particularly with the Side-Mount HLV, they'll find it hard to send a big enough Altair to lunar orbit, especially with a 2x launch architecture. The 5-Segment SRBs -- already tested/about to be tested (some more) gives them another 7 tons payload, which is nothing to sneeze at. Whenever I've read of them wanting to use inert 'spacer' segments for a stretched corestage, I cringe at the many tons of mostly useless, deadweight the vehicle would have to haul 30-odd miles into the sky!!
« Last Edit: 01/03/2010 11:09 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline dad2059

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • Dad2059's Webzine of Science-Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
After reading this I can only conclude that this is just a bunch of political boondoggle, much ado about nothing simply because there is no money for it. Just a Santa Claus wish-list.

I'm glad I was corrected about the shuttle being canceled, it looks like some congress-critters are aware of ISS supply logistics, and the problems associated with it that only the shuttle can answer in the short-term.

Shuttle supply launches, one per year until 2012? It could happen if Shannon's side-mount HLV design is chosen, then a Direct rocket built later.

This HLV issue has had everyone in a tizzy for months now and the 200 mT generic HLV monster just adds fuel to the fire.

Could this be the purpose of the leak?
NASA needs some good ol' fashioned 'singularity tech'

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
With reference to the 200t launcher meme (because I think that is all it is right now): Could the underlying idea be a tri-stage design? One of the problems with using RL-10, as I understand it, is that its thrust is releatively low so it has poor performance against gravity losses.  However, if you had a mid-stage, say with a cluster of NK-33s or a US clone of the same, then you get the RL-10 stage high enough that gravity losses aren't so significant anymore.

Someone up-thread suggested that the motive is not to build super-giant LVs but to design them, something that looks good on a resumι without actually requiring building a real product.  Maybe we need to send these time-servers to engineering Siberia.  The Advanced Concept Envisioning and Development Office (ACEDO) can design uber-spaceships to its heart's content but they will have to make do with only a tiny budget and essentially zero management support.  Its work will be audited every quarter or so to ensure that, if they should come up with something useful (always a possibility when you have that number of blue-sky thinkers in the same project team), it can be transferred over to the real R&D teams so it can be developed for real.
"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 robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7716
It actually doesn't when you do the analysis and examine all of the trades.

The real key is not to compromise the design of the crew spacecraft in order to accommodate payload mass.

As long as the spacecraft is not compromised in any way -- and especially the abort capabilities -- there is no danger from carrying secondary payloads.

Where the line ought to be drawn is when contemplating launching unmanned satellites with a crew which really doesn't require any human participation.

That is where the planning for Shuttle went wrong back in the 1970's -- they wanted it to do everything -- including launching with large stages filled with dangerously explosive fuels inside the crew re-entry vehicle!

In hindsight, that was a pretty bad compromise to have included in the design :(

In the case of Lunar and NEO missions, having the capability to launch the crew and their Lander/Hab Module together can actually increase overall safety as the crew immediately gains access to a safe haven upon reaching orbit.   Ask the crew of Apollo 13 if having a Safe Haven was useful or not...


1) Do not compromise the Crew Spacecraft design.

2) Never compromise the Crew Abort capabilities.

3) Only launch Secondary Payloads with a Crew if the Crew needs that Payload.


Ross.

Absolutely spot on.

Offline MP99

"My guess is you would need at least 3x SD-HLV launches to perform the mission you've described, or maybe 2x Ares V Heavy (300mT+ to LEO)."

Or a '2.5 launch' scenario: 2x 70+ton HLVs +plus Orion on a Delta IV-Heavy. *FIRST: send Altair directly to lunar orbit or L-1.


My response was simply to a comment that 1x SD-HLV could send Orion + lander to the Moon's surface and back, with the lander being heavier than Altair.

Quote
Therefore, just a single launch could take astronauts too the Moon and back-- reducing the cost of manned flights to the moon.

I was just pointing out that it could not.

cheers, Martin

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It actually doesn't when you do the analysis and examine all of the trades.

The real key is not to compromise the design of the crew spacecraft in order to accommodate payload mass.

As long as the spacecraft is not compromised in any way -- and especially the abort capabilities -- there is no danger from carrying secondary payloads.

Where the line ought to be drawn is when contemplating launching unmanned satellites with a crew which really doesn't require any human participation.

That is where the planning for Shuttle went wrong back in the 1970's -- they wanted it to do everything -- including launching with large stages filled with dangerously explosive fuels inside the crew re-entry vehicle!

In hindsight, that was a pretty bad compromise to have included in the design :(

In the case of Lunar and NEO missions, having the capability to launch the crew and their Lander/Hab Module together can actually increase overall safety as the crew immediately gains access to a safe haven upon reaching orbit.   Ask the crew of Apollo 13 if having a Safe Haven was useful or not...


1) Do not compromise the Crew Spacecraft design.

2) Never compromise the Crew Abort capabilities.

3) Only launch Secondary Payloads with a Crew if the Crew needs that Payload.


Ross.

Absolutely spot on.

Yes it is spot on, crew on interplanetary missions or say planetary orbital flexible path missions will need an in-route abort capability.

Two crew capsules two hab modules? This would be a expense enough to kill any such missions? Do you trade risk for expense then?


As for the lunar mission I am in with the MATTBLAK post above except I would use the ULA ACES derived Altair lander and ACES EDS on the side mount.side mount might allow for something larger then a ACES-71?

Yep Orion on Delta but per the Augustine commission any cargo vehicle should be human rated as a back up to the EELV or for any future follow on heavy lifter.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2010 03:12 pm by Chris Bergin »
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
As for the lunar mission I am in with the MATTBLAK post above except I would use the ULA ACES derived Altair lander and ACES EDS on the side mount.side mount might allow for something larger then a ACES-71?

Yep Orion on Delta but per the Augustine commission any cargo vehicle should be human rated as a back up to the EELV or for any future follow on heavy lifter.

Would you like some Denver ice to plop in your ULA Kool-Aid? (Made with Tennessee River water, of course) :)

The Centaur-derived horizontal lander is an interesting concept, and has some merits. But it is/was just a concept, and not a rigorously engineered design. To consider it as somehow comparable (let alone demonstrably better) to even the DAC-1 Altair does a great insult to the difference between the two levels. For example, I cannot imagine an independent review keeping the inflatable airlock as proposed, and moving to a rigid airlock could have a sufficient mass penalty to negate many of the horizontal lander's advantages...

Also, Orion is the Exploration Crew Vehicle, and should only be sent on Exploration Missions on the Exploration Launch Vehicle (whatever it happens to be). ISS can be serviced by whichever commercial crew service NASA contracts. Rating Delta IV-H+ for Orion is needlessly redundant, expensive, and unnecessary.

In other words, you can't just hand an element of CxP to ULA on a platter. ESAS did that with ATK and the five-seg, and lead to the current mess. Don't repeat the same mistake with ULA...

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
It actually doesn't when you do the analysis and examine all of the trades.

The real key is not to compromise the design of the crew spacecraft in order to accommodate payload mass.

As long as the spacecraft is not compromised in any way -- and especially the abort capabilities -- there is no danger from carrying secondary payloads.

Where the line ought to be drawn is when contemplating launching unmanned satellites with a crew which really doesn't require any human participation.

That is where the planning for Shuttle went wrong back in the 1970's -- they wanted it to do everything -- including launching with large stages filled with dangerously explosive fuels inside the crew re-entry vehicle!

In hindsight, that was a pretty bad compromise to have included in the design :(

In the case of Lunar and NEO missions, having the capability to launch the crew and their Lander/Hab Module together can actually increase overall safety as the crew immediately gains access to a safe haven upon reaching orbit.   Ask the crew of Apollo 13 if having a Safe Haven was useful or not...


1) Do not compromise the Crew Spacecraft design.

2) Never compromise the Crew Abort capabilities.

3) Only launch Secondary Payloads with a Crew if the Crew needs that Payload.


Ross.

Totally agree with you.  Most people cannot afford a truck and car --one to carry cargo and one only to carry passenger.  Rational people get a van.  They can carry cargo when they need to, they can carry people when they need to.  They can also carry a cargo and people.  What people don't do==is carry large amounts of gasoline in the van, when they are carrying people.  That is asking for trouble.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Does anyone really think that NASA is serious about about 200mt launcher?  I don't.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
However, since the SD-HLV will be able of transporting 70 to 100 tonnes to LEO and up to 48 tonnes to lunar orbit, it would be a considerable waste only to use it only to launch a 22 tonne Orion into orbit.

I don't think the Heavy variant of Ares V can deliver 48mT to LLO, so there's no chance that SD-HLV could do this.

I don't remember the exact figures for side-mount, but with 100mT (inc EDS?) to LEO, you'll push about 48mT through TLI including the EDS. Something under 40mT excluding the EDS.

And don't forget that that 40mT then needs to include a stage which will brake itself & Orion through LOI. Presuming that you retain the EDS for this, that gives you something in the mid-20's mT payload, which is just going to be an Orion and not much else. Add in some manoeuvring to rendezvous with a lander and you'll be carrying the bare Orion and nothing else at all.

To further this discussion, a pdf copy of NASA figures on the net payload capability of the Sidemount can be found at:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-alternative-rocket-pdf,0,7079469.htmlpage

But I should note that the Apollo program was able to place over 46 tonnes into lunar orbit (command and service modules plus the lunar module) with a single launch. NASA argues the the SD-HLV with an EDS would have a gross TLI capability of 53 tonnes with a net payload capability of 47.8 tonnes. 

Marcel F. Williams


Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6

[/quote]

Quick reminder here - Altair is the lightest vehicle that NASA could come up with to perform LOI for itself and Orion, land on the surface and then return a tiny Ascent Module back to LLO.

This requires both an Ares V Heavy launch for the Altair and a separate Ares I launch for Orion. Requires 70mT+ through TLI (including MR but excluding the EDS).

If you now want to create a heavier lander (so that the whole lander can return to LLO instead of a 4mT AM) then you're gonna need to push a lot more mass through TLI.

Also, since the lander is cryogenic, all of your prop will boiloff over a six month mission, so your lander will need to use storable propellants. If that's hypergolic, then the mass will go up substantially again.

My guess is you would need at least 3x SD-HLV launches to perform the mission you've described, or maybe 2x Ares V Heavy (300mT+ to LEO).

cheers, Martin
[/quote]

A single stage lunar lander should probably use cryogenic CH4 (liquid methane). This would reduce boil off. Some CH4 could also be manufactured at a lunar base from the pyrolysis (plasma torch incinerator?) of human refuse which is already done right here on Earth. The oxygen needed to fuel the lunar lander's return to orbit could also be supplied through the pyrolysis of lunar regolith. Thus after lunar oxygen is being produced at a lunar base, a single stage lunar shuttle would no longer have to carry oxygen to the lunar surface for later use for ascent back to orbit. And this would allow such a vehicle to carry more non fuel related payload to the lunar surface.

Marcel F. Williams

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7716
Does anyone really think that NASA is serious about about 200mt launcher?  I don't.

JSC wrote it in a presentation...that was what they 'deemed' was required, though what I have seen fails to fully substantiate WHY. It's just insane. I expected better from them.

 

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