Author Topic: What would a better government launcher look like?  (Read 19545 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.

Offline 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: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • 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 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #20 on: 11/02/2012 04:40 pm »
"What would a better government launcher look like?" - cheaper, with well identified purpose and only doable if there is no private, cheaper alternative.

Again, go look at my thread statement.  I'm not saying a better "government built" launcher necessarily.  In fact, sounds like USAF can't build something if there is a commercial option available.  So for both NASA and USAF to use it, it'd likely be a commercial LV.  Just looking for a single system flexible enough for all government agencies to use, rather than all the different ones we have now, and have had historically.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #21 on: 11/02/2012 04:51 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)

That is the Atlas V Phase 2 and Phase 3a/3b concepts.   I think they are good options.  My concept sorta tweaked this to use new F-1 engines rather than RD-180's like these (as they are Russian built engines and maybe not a great political choice for the single system that will be used by NASA and DoD/USAF) and has two upper stages with a common engine.  So it can be a 3-stage for heavy BLEO with a 3-core parallel first stage, or single cores with the smaller upper stage, or stumpy with single F-1 with smaller upper stages for small payloads. 

But the ATlas V Phse 2/3a could be a more politically palatable if RS-84 were developed and used instead. 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #22 on: 11/02/2012 04:53 pm »
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?

I don't know, you'll have to ask Baldusi.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #23 on: 11/02/2012 05:22 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.

Yes, for the purposes of this excercise, you can assume anything.  Like I said, we are rewinding back to the time the EELV's were being developed by Boeing and LM, but hadn't actually been produced.  Add in a much more cost-efficiency minded NASA looking to replace the Shuttle in around a decade, and thus the RFQ goes out for a system capable of X and Y, as defined by us here on this thread, for both NASA and USAF/DoD.  (so it’s a hypothetical obviously)

My concept would be basically the winning EELV system.  100% commercial is assumed as the base.  Commercial customers can buy the launch service from say Boeing (or whoever), so can USAF/DoD as they do with ULA and SpaceX.  NASA would probably want to launch the heavier configurations from KSC, where commercial and USAF/DoD probably don't need/want to.  So as Jim says, they can buy the components and assembly them themselves in the VAB under the contractors supervision.  In my concept, NASA would probably be the only customer interested in the 3-core heavy configurations with three stages.  So they’d probably be the only customer for the large upper stage. 

For everyone else besides NASA, the contractor would just operate a pad like ULA does for LC-41 and LC-37, or SpaceX does for LC-40.   

Again, by “government launcher” I mean a system that all government entities would use across the board, not necessarily government built.  Commercial customers could use it too, as hopefully it’d get enough volume to be cost competitive enough with the Russians and Araine to get US commercial business rather than them.  If not, then the door would be open for an upstart outfit like SpaceX, but the cost to the government for this system should still be vastly less than it is not to split their launches between 3 completely different LV’s.   

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #24 on: 11/02/2012 05:24 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.

Wouldn't shuttle side mount be too big/expensive for many USAF/DoD payloads that are currently launching on smaller Atlas and Delta configurations?

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 #25 on: 11/02/2012 07:22 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.

Wouldn't shuttle side mount be too big/expensive for many USAF/DoD payloads that are currently launching on smaller Atlas and Delta configurations?

It's a bit like the situation with Ariane-5 - there would have to be dual- or multiple-manifest launches for lighter payloads.  Not, ideal, I know.  However, if The Powers That Be insisted on fast and shuttle derived, the side-mount (basically the old Shuttle-Z concept) would be it.
"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 edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #26 on: 11/03/2012 04:59 am »
Yes, for the purposes of this excercise, you can assume anything.  Like I said, we are rewinding back to the time the EELV's were being developed by Boeing and LM, but hadn't actually been produced.  Add in a much more cost-efficiency minded NASA looking to replace the Shuttle in around a decade, and thus the RFQ goes out for a system capable of X and Y, as defined by us here on this thread, for both NASA and USAF/DoD.  (so it’s a hypothetical obviously)

Like you, I would start with one of the two EELVs, the winning bidder, and cast the other aside.  That was, after all, the original plan for the EELV program.  The Pentagon would be left with a more cost effective launch service.

NASA would still need a separate launch service for its human space flight needs.  It might share engines and/or avionics with EELV, but would not use the exact same rocket and launch facilities to avoid compromise either way. 

I always expected NASA to end up with the losing EELV rocket, as in, for example, the Air Force might get Atlas V and NASA Delta IV, or the other way around.  But, for various reasons, that hasn't panned out.  Yet. 

SLS only makes sense if NASA goes to Mars. 

Falcon 9 and Antares stir the pot, but their long term future is still TBD.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Warren Platts

Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #27 on: 11/03/2012 05:21 am »
NASA would still need a separate launch service for its human space flight needs. 

Why? Commercial launch services can get astronauts into space. If worse comes to worse, there's always the Russians. Right?

The only reason for a government rocket is to do that which commercial providers can't or won't provide on their own. That means super heavy lift. Whether it's really necessary is a separate question, but there is no question that SHLV's would be a super nice-to-have as long as the price is right.[/quote]

Quote
SLS only makes sense if NASA goes to Mars.

I respectfully disagree: SLS would be great, cost effective support for a Lunar base if they can get the flight rate up to 3 to 6 times per year--even with, or rather especially with, the 130 mT Block 2 version.
"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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #28 on: 11/03/2012 09:39 am »

SLS would be great, cost effective support

Mutually exclusive and not possible with current mods to KSC facilities

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #29 on: 11/04/2012 02:45 pm »
NASA would still need a separate launch service for its human space flight needs. 

Why? Commercial launch services can get astronauts into space. If worse comes to worse, there's always the Russians. Right?

The only reason for a government rocket is to do that which commercial providers can't or won't provide on their own. That means super heavy lift. Whether it's really necessary is a separate question, but there is no question that SHLV's would be a super nice-to-have as long as the price is right.

NASA doesn't need to "own" its rocket, it simply needs a differently-specified launch service.  Human launch has different requirements than satellite launch.  Sat launch needs lower cost with high reliability.  Human launch needs safety, safety, and safety, with abort modes for every contingency.  The latter needs, in essence, more thrust - and thrust costs money.   

Trying to put fit a human space launch suit on a rocket designed for satellite launch would drive up costs for satellite launch while forcing compromise on the human launch side.

That's why NASA needs its own launch service.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #30 on: 11/05/2012 05:21 pm »

NASA doesn't need to "own" its rocket, it simply needs a differently-specified launch service.  Human launch has different requirements than satellite launch.  Sat launch needs lower cost with high reliability.  Human launch needs safety, safety, and safety, with abort modes for every contingency.  The latter needs, in essence, more thrust - and thrust costs money.   

Trying to put fit a human space launch suit on a rocket designed for satellite launch would drive up costs for satellite launch while forcing compromise on the human launch side.

That's why NASA needs its own launch service.

 - Ed Kyle

Again, by “government” rocket, I just mean a common rocket system among all government users, not a government built rocket (unless that would be the best and most economical way to do it…but I doubt that).

But Ed, I’ll need a little clarification on some of your comments.
For Sat launches, to a degree, low cost and high reliability are competing forces.  For EELV, high reliability won out, so those launchers are so expensive that they appear not to be able to compete with other launchers for commercial payloads due to the cost of that high reliability.

Now, for as how that crosses over to human launches, I’d have to saw that “safety, safety, safety”, and “high reliability” are the same thing.  Safety for those billion dollar military sats, or safety for those [pricesless] astronauts’ lives both the same goal.  Just that those expensive sats aren’t quite so valuable that they are designed with abort capabilities like human launchers are.  So designing the additional monitoring required for abort capability does add some extra criteria to the equation.
But a capsule abort is a pretty mature and well understood concept, so I don’t think designing a system which has human launching monitoring for abort capability built into it would raise the costs of the sat launching more than does the incredibly low launch rate of government sat launches we have now does.   I think increasing the launch rate substantially will decrease the overall costs in the long run, even though every core/engine/upper stage rolling off the assembly line has some monitoring that aren’t needed for sat launches.
The abort systems themselves are part of the capsule system, and not part of the cost of the core and upper stage.

But, I suppose if I had to summarize my intent of this thread, it would be, “is there an across the board system that would be more economically efficient that would work for both USAF/DoD and NASA that could have been used in place of EELV and Shuttle/CxP/SLS?  That could launch sats class payloads reliable and effectively, but could be arranged in heavy lift configurations for NASA as well. 

If the best solution is what we have now, then that would be the answer to the question posed by this thread. 

“There is no better way to do it than we do now, even politics and cooperations weren’t a consideration”.

But I’m pretty skeptical that that’s the case.  I think there’s a singular rocket system could be used across the board if USAF and NASA had a honest desire to cooperate, and if both had an honest desire to use a system that’s economically more sustainable than they way they’d been doing it with STS for NASA and separately,  multiple ELV’s (Titan, etc) for USAF/DoD. 
My concept might not be that system, but the idea got me with a bunch of questions and not many answers.  So I posed it to the forum.  :-)

As has been said, I think the EELV program had that in mind, at least on the USAF/DoD side.  But the fact they chose to support two EELV’s, when there weren’t enough USAF/DoD payloads to get even any good ecoomics of scale for one EELV, certainly wasn’t a cost efficient decision.  (it was a reliability decision I believe?)
But NASA still had it’s launch system independent of that with zero sharing. And it’s launch rates were certainly so low that STS’s partial reusability never came close to being a savings over expendability.  And that was clearly obviously by the late 90’s time frame I’m looking at here. 
So, by putting all NASA launches together with all other government launches, on a single common launcher system purchased from a commercial supplier, then you might start coming closer to some economics of scale that could start working.  (Perhaps even enough to where this system could compete in the commercial market while still providing the reliability that the government payloads demand).
Non NASA launches could still be done from dedicated pads operated by the supplier as is done currently.  And NASA launches could be done from KSC, with NASA buying the cores and upper stages, and stacking them themselves with supplier supervision, at the VAB (as Jim mentioned earlier in the thread).  NASA would be using multi-core heavy versions that DoD/USAF would not be using.  The existing LC-39 could be used for those large and wide stacking configurations.   Non government launches would take place very much like they do now with Atlas and Delta at different pads. 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #31 on: 11/09/2012 10:19 pm »
Bumping this.

Any other ideas?

It's soundling like something like an Atlas V Phase 2 and 3a but with US-built engines is sort of the common consensus? (I'd think a common rocket for NASA and DoD would probably be preferred to not have a Russian engine.  Even if it's a totally private company I'd think that'd be something that's be preferred in the RFQ?)

My concept uses 2 upper stages, and Atlas V P2/3a seems to just use one upper stage.  That would be more simple, but would it be flexible enough for both light EELV class lit, and heavy lift for NASA?  Maybe they could do two lengths of the same upper stage, like ACES-41 and ACES-71, with variable engine mounts on the MPS for different numbers of engines depending on the mission? 

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8180
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #32 on: 11/10/2012 12:13 am »
For Lunar missions, the dual equal size launch architecture does look attractive in terms in cost. This could be done using payloads in the range of 53 to 70 t in each launch (106 to 140 t all together). If using a triple core, then a single core can be used for crewed missions to Earth orbit and for commercial launchers to GTO using an additional third cryogenic stage. We may already be heading towards this solution with Falcon Heavy (FH).
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline JohnF

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #33 on: 11/10/2012 12:34 am »
Good Lord people, SLS is just fine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #34 on: 11/10/2012 12:45 am »
Six letter word… Starts with a D and ends with a T… ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

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 #35 on: 11/10/2012 02:12 am »
"What would a better government launcher look like?" - cheaper, with well identified purpose and only doable if there is no private, cheaper alternative.

A '93 Ford Explorer?  It's available now, and can get the same payload to LEO as SLS can today, for a lot less.

Best I could come up with since November second.

But seriously, I appreciate the thread.

Six letter word… Starts with a D and ends with a T… ;)

Dee, Eee, Ell, Tee, Vee, Eye, Vee.

No, that's not it.

Aay, Tee, Ell, Aay, Ess, Vee.

Bingo?
« Last Edit: 11/10/2012 02:13 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #36 on: 11/10/2012 06:53 pm »
My concept uses 2 upper stages, and Atlas V P2/3a seems to just use one upper stage.  That would be more simple, but would it be flexible enough for both light EELV class lit, and heavy lift for NASA?  Maybe they could do two lengths of the same upper stage, like ACES-41 and ACES-71, with variable engine mounts on the MPS for different numbers of engines depending on the mission? 

My idea is somewhat similar.  Specifically, one upper stage owes a lot to the ACES system.  The single- and dual-engine versions are dual-mode U/S/EDS whilst the four-engine version is for heavy lift to LEO only (sort of like the difference between the SEC and DEC on Atlas-V).  The four-engine form also acts as an EDS on the super-heavy version.

The other upper stage has the same barrel diameter as the larger PLF and has six U/S engines optimised for lift to LEO.  The HLV/SHLV versions are for either launching components to LEO or launching complete lunar vehicles, including EDS, to LEO - either lunar surface crew/cargo missions or EML crew/cargo missions.

There would also be two distinct versions of the U/S engine - one optimised for thrust in the upper atmosphere to orbit, like J-2X and one optimised for deep space propulsion like J-2XD.  Missions launching cargo to LEO would use the former, missions needing to send payloads to GTO or further would use the latter.

I call it Titan-VI, mostly because of the twin-engine core and single-engine U/S on the LEO-only crew taxi version makes me think of the Titan-II/Gemini.  However, I'm pretty sure that designation would make LM's lawyers hyperventilate.  ;)


[edit]
Just clarified a bit
« Last Edit: 11/10/2012 07:28 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 Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #37 on: 05/08/2013 12:41 am »
After Chatting with Hyperion, I had a new idea on this.

Hyperion and I both liked having methalox as a common booster and upper stage propellant, like SpaceX seems to be looking at for Raptor and MCT, or whatever they decided to do down the road.
LCH4 isn’t hard to handle (no quite as handy as RP-1, but not bad), it’s very close in temp to LOX for common bulkhead, it has pretty good ISP for a longer booster burn and better (than RP-1) upper stage performance.
Hyperion likes a clustered layout like Angara, but I kinda like this:

First, start with a 5m core, that comes in two lengths, we will call it “short” and “medium” lengths.  (from the Astronautix article on Saturn 1 it sounds like changing lengths is pretty easy, but changing diameter is hard).

Then develop a new staged combustion methane engine, based on the RD-170/180/190 family, except that a single chamber will be 250klbs, two chambers at 500klbs, and four chambers at 1Mlbs.  So smaller than RD-190 at the base, but still throttlable down to 30% like the RD family.  That already exists, and has for a long time in Russia, so that shouldn’t be a difficult engine to develop. 

So the base LV will be the “short” core, with a single 4-chamber 1Mlb engine on it, and the upper stage will have a single chamber engine on it tweaked to operate in a vacuum like Merlin 1-vac is.  This will be our basic EELV class launcher, with probably a 10-12mt to LEO payload. Capability.  At 5m, that core will be fairly short actually, maybe a little more than ½ the length of an Atlas Phase 2 core (which is 22-24m long I think?), so maybe 15-17m in length as I believe LCH4 isn’t as dense as RP-1. 
The upper stage is also methalox, so it will use the same tank tooling, the same barrel sections, the same common bulkhead, and a variant of the same engine (throttled down) for maximum commonality.

If you want more, then next step up with the “medium” core.  It’s twice as long, so maybe around 30-35m.  This would mount two 4-chamber engines for 2Mlbs thrust total.  It would use the same upper stage too, just burn more of the propellant and throttle up more.  This should put 22-25mt to LEO, which would give it performance in the D4H/Titan IV class, with no need for tri-core, and no SRB’s.
However, GTO performance probably won’t be as good as D4H because of the lower ISP.  So, if you need D4H’s GTO performance, you add CCB’s.  You can add one short core booster, one medium core booster, or two medium core boosters.  No need to do two short core boosters unless you wanted too, as the single medium outboard booster would give the same booster with just one longer core.  No reason it can’t use a single outboard booster.  It’s been kicked around before.  Just make sure the engines have enough gimbal to compensate when you design it.  With those configurations, you can tailor what you need pretty easily for the mission.  The 3 medium core version should be able to get like 60mt to LEO or better.  And could use a stretched upper stage if desired too, with a 1-chamber vacuum engine running at higher throttle. 

That really covers everything USAF, DoD, and the commercial market would need, and then some.  Not as efficient as using hydrolox upper stages, but the idea is to be as absolute cheap and common as possible, so you upsize a bit more for larger BLEO missions.

Then…when NASA comes calling in 2004 looking for a replacement for STS (as assuming the politics didn’t demand shuttle-derived).  This system can accommodate that too.
NASA pays to have a 3rd core length.  The “Tall” core.  It’d probably be around 60m long, So longer than the Delta IV core, but more similar to what the Aerojet SLS booster would probably be like with four AJ-1E6 engine.  They will be 4-chamber engines instead of 2-chamber engines…for a total of 12Mlbs of thrust on a tri-core heavy cargo launcher in their 1.5 architecture. 
NASA pays for the new MPS as well.

The single core medium core with two 4-chamber engines should be able to loft Orion to LEO, but if not, a “short” outboard booster could be added.
The tall cores are only used for the HLV.

If that ended up being too tall (and it might with the less dense LCH4) A variant of that could be a core that’s about 50m tall, and has three 4-chamber engines on it, for 3Mlbs per core.  Three of those would be 9M lbs thrust of high ISP methalox.  And that’d probably be enough along with a separate crew launcher for Orion. 

Either way, NASA could build their own large Hydrolox upper stage at MAF if they wanted, like a larger Block 1B stage, or original J2S powered Ares V upper stage, but maybe powered with RL-60’s instead of RL-10’s as the methalox booster can’t the burn the SLS hydrolox core can.  Or J2S.

So just an upper stage development, and some upgrades to the CCB’s that would already be in production.  With no more than 2 boosters on any variant, the mass fraction stays pretty good, and you don’t have too many staging events.  Everything (including upper stage) shares a common core diameter/tooling, common common bulkhead, common propellants, and common single engine (with various chamber variants).  And all single, 2-core, or 3-core variants of the short or medium cores could launch from a common LC-37-like Delta IV launch pad.  The tri-core tall super heavy lifter would be launched by NASA and stacked in the VAB, so while it probably could launch from the EELV pad, it probably wouldn’t. 

Just an idea anyway.  All government agencies using this same platform.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #38 on: 05/08/2013 12:58 am »
What would the "best" government launcher look like? Invisible.

NASA should be out of the launch business. They had their innings.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #39 on: 05/08/2013 07:56 pm »
What would the "best" government launcher look like? Invisible.

NASA should be out of the launch business. They had their innings.

Yea, well, by "goverment launcher" in this thread, I mean an ELV or EELV platform that could be singularly used accross the board for all government needs, NASA, DoD, and USAF.

Go back and check out my first post initializing this thead.
I'm not talkign about a launcher built and run by the government, more more a "one arrow quiver" launch platform that could handle all, or the vast majority of USAF/DoD and NASA's needs. 

There could be a competition for it just like there was for CELV in the 80's and EELV in the 90's and 2000's.  And then the economics of scale could come into play as much as possible for rockets.  That single provider could also compete for commercial contracts, or other commercial providers could compete for them if they were cheaper. 

I think in the real world, the Atlas V Phase 2 would probably be about the closest one arrow quiver platform that's been proposed.  It also has two core lengths (normal with two RD-180's, and a stumpy version with just one for 10mt class payloads).  A two launch architecture of AVP2-Heavy tri-cores could put 140mt into LEO, very similar to J-130. 
Or a 1.5 NASA architecture of Orion on one AVP2, and the AVP3a cargo launcher, although it was a little short on compacity from what NASA wanted in ESAS, it had 4 boosters (no problem really, but NASA didn't like it), and it might need a new pad due to it's 15m dimension in width and depth.  However, you could get around that by mounting the four boosters in two booster pairs on each side, and then it should fit on ML's at KSC, rather than each at 90 degrees to each other as in the ULA concept.

My concept is sort of like AVP2, but able to be scaled up more so that you can get the 125mt out of a tri-core heavy.
But actually, AVP2 would work too, if there was a stretched AVP2 5m core to accomodate say a 3rd RD-180 engine on each core.  Or a bit longer with four RD-180's on each core, depending on if that might be too long, and if 3 on each would be enough.  And the 5m AVP2 core with three engines on each would actually probably only be about the same height of the Delta IV cores, give or take a little bit.  So this LV might only be dimensionally the same as D4H.

So, the boosters of my new concept, and AVP2 are pretty similar, except mine is stage combustion methane, with 4-chamber engines instead of two chamber engines.  And the upper stage would use the exact same materials as the core, but just shorter tank wall lenghts, and a single chamber methalox engine for the upper stage for better commonality. 
This LV platform could be made by a private company like "Lobo Rocket Industries, LLC", and could have some cool name like the "Lobo-tomizer"
Heheheh...

Actually, it'd probably have some more tradition genre name like Hercules, Zeus, etc.  But whatever.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #40 on: 05/08/2013 08:58 pm »
All non-NASA human exploration spaceflight demand is in the medium lift class.  Military payloads, commercial payloads, science payloads, and now ISS payloads.  Many concepts have been presented where human exploration spaceflight can be effectively accomplished using the medium lift class launchers, and this path has its own advantages versus the heavy lift alternative.  Ergo, the answer to this thread is that NASA's exploration program should be undertaken with launchers in the medium lift class.  As to what launcher, the answer to that is through competitive procurement of launch services.   

Rather than a specific launcher, a payload envelope, and the most fit vehicle servicing that envelope.

Quote
" 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."

Yes, the EELV type vehicles themselves, because they can meet NASA's BEO needs just as well or better than the heavy lift vehicles.  NASA going to the mountain, rather than the mountain coming to NASA.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #41 on: 05/08/2013 09:16 pm »
What would the "best" government launcher look like? Invisible.

NASA should be out of the launch business. They had their innings.
So it comes down to commercial launchers. If they could stay in business long enough to do the needed missions without government subsidies to keep them in business. Or NASA to have a high enough flight rate to keep them in business. They would need a least twp launchers from two different companies as a back up to the other.

Is any single piece for Lunar, NEA, or Mars over 50,000lb without propellants? If so then there is a way for wide body launches with the launch vehicles we have today if needed ( 8.4m wide fairings ). The 1st and 2nd stages we have could be configured to lift a 8.4m fairing with up to around a 50,000lb payload.

With most of the payloads fitting the existing fairings and up mass what is needed is the RLV in the 50klb 5.4m fairing class.

So for NASA I think having a commercial launch vehicle but having it launch from NASA's VAB and launch pad's away from other customer launches to meet it's requirements might be the way to go.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #42 on: 05/08/2013 09:29 pm »
Skystalk.

Enough said.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #43 on: 05/08/2013 09:45 pm »
A better launcher for government payloads eh?  I'm going to take inspiration from Downix and Lobo and propose a modular LV family based on a possible AJ-500 rocket engine family.  Just think of it as Aerojet's competitor to the RD-170/180/191 family.  IF you could sell it abroad to Japan, Brazil or Europe it might make NPO Energomash think twice if it were priced right.  Here's the whole engine family you could create from the AJ-500:   

AJ-500 (550 klbf/249.5 tf)
LV: Antares

AJ-1-E6: (1100 klbf/499 tf)
LV: Atlas VI, SLS

AJ-2X "Hydra": 2200 klbf/998 tf)
LV: SLS, King Atlas


The launcher family I'd propose would be based on a basic LV we'll call the Atlas VI.  It's a bit heavier and considerably wider than the Atlas V, and it'll feature a bigger CCB lightened by lighter lithium-aluminum alloy construction and a common bulkhead.  The upper stage would be a carry-over 5 m DCSS (possibly with a next-gen USAF upper stage engine). 

Atlas VI
400 mt 5 m diameter 2-stage kerolox/hydrolox rocket
SI gross mass: 366,300 kg
SI propellant mass: 353,479 kg
SI dry mass: 12,821 kg
SI engine: single AJ-1-E6
SII gross mass: 30,710 kg
SII propellant mass: 27,220 kg
SII dry mass: 3,490 kg
SII engine: single RL-10B-2 (initially)
PLF diameter: 5 m
PLF mass: 3,000 kg
PLF length: 15 m

My rough estimate is the Atlas VI would launch somewhere around 13,000 kg to orbit, or nearly on par with a Falcon 9 v1.1.  You then replace the Delta IV Heavy with the Atlas VI Heavy, which should if anything be even more capable to both LEO & GTO. 

Atlas VI Heavy (tri-core Atlas VI)

Then you get to the interesting later versions.  I'll assume that these will use higher-pressure next-gen US engines that are narrower than the RL-10B-2. 

Atlas VI Super Heavy (5-core Atlas VI with XL US)
XL SII: 120,000 kg
XL SII engine(s): four next-gen hydrolox US engines
XL SII features lighter alloy construction & common bulkhead

Now, if somehow launching Energia-sized payloads to orbit with the Super Heavy was not enough, you quad-chamber the AJ-500.  The result I call the AJ-2X "Hydra", which would come complete with a logo featuring four fire-breathing Hydra heads.  Steven Pietrobon inspired the name.   ;D

Beyond the Atlas VI Super Heavy you create a new, twice as potent and twice as heavy CCB for a "King Atlas" rocket. A King Atlas is basically an Atlas VI Super Heavy with the new core at its center powered by the Hydra.  To ramp it up to ridiculous levels, you then replace the regular boosters with XL CCBs powered by Hydra engines.  Payload should top out somewhere around 200 mt, at which point you're really better off using an SLS-sized core.  You'd probably also need a J-2X up top and an even bigger hydrolox US anyways. 
« Last Edit: 05/08/2013 09:52 pm by Hyperion5 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better government launcher look like?
« Reply #44 on: 05/08/2013 11:17 pm »
All non-NASA human exploration spaceflight demand is in the medium lift class.  Military payloads, commercial payloads, science payloads, and now ISS payloads.  Many concepts have been presented where human exploration spaceflight can be effectively accomplished using the medium lift class launchers, and this path has its own advantages versus the heavy lift alternative.  Ergo, the answer to this thread is that NASA's exploration program should be undertaken with launchers in the medium lift class.  As to what launcher, the answer to that is through competitive procurement of launch services.   

Rather than a specific launcher, a payload envelope, and the most fit vehicle servicing that envelope.


Define "medium" lift.

Do you mean 50-70mt lift? Which is medium lift when talking about heavy lift being over 100mt (like SAturn V and SLS) and "light" lift at 10-20mt.

OR do you mean EELV-class medium lift?  As in 10-20mt?  Where D4H and Titan IV are considered "heavy" lifters?

There's a pretty big difference depending on the frame of reference.

I agree a medium lifter is fine in the first sense.  something around 30-50 mt for a single stick.  Which i what I advocated here.

I think something that's a like a Delta 4-medium is pretty light for doing any kind of rasonable NASA HSF, other than a taxi to a space station.
Any kind of exploration should have something larger as it's building block, I would think.

Tags:
 

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