Author Topic: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion OR Multiple FH  (Read 27755 times)

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
SpaceX seems to be getting better with every launch. While the CxP 1.5 architecture proved problematic, using FHr for Orion would leave NASA with only one LV of its own to worry about and a cargo only variant would eliminate the need for emergency detection system. Falcon will already be man rated. While DIVH can get Orion to LEOR, FHr could provide more margin to the payload and likely have enough prop left to return the boosters and possibly the core, all for a lower price than DIVH. Mars missions will require most SLS launches to be cargo, so I would think that later in the program only a lower percentage of launches would be manned anyway. Sending Orion on FHr would allow the astronauts to follow a cargo launch quickly because the LVs would depart via separate pads. I realize the launch rate for SLS would possibly go down a little, but the money saved with a partly reusable FH and by not man rating the HLV could then go toward increased production pushing the HLV launch rate right back up. It looks like FH will be ready well before SLS and possibly FHr as well. Skipping emergency detection system (didn't use "EDS" as some might think earth departure stage) might also shorten time to complete SLS, thus making the CLV ready sooner. Thoughts?

2-20-14 Edit. Modifying Thread to allow inclusion of discussion of multiple FH launches with no SLS.  Thread still to be primarily about 1.5 architecture with launch each SLS & FH, but reasonable discussion of FH disposable and multiple FH launches acceptable.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2014 07:19 pm by TomH »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #1 on: 02/14/2014 07:13 am »
Don't call it a 1.5 architecture, that is my only comment. It was always a deceptive label.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #2 on: 02/14/2014 10:50 am »
I think something along these lines would be more sensible that the current approach.  Not human-rating SLS would, however, require Congressional action, since the senator-engineers wrote a requirement that SLS be human-rated into the law.  (Or maybe it would only require Congressional benign neglect, the way that some other parts of the law are being ignored and nobody's complaining.)  Of course, if you started down this path, it might be the camel's nose under the tent for avoiding SLS altogether.  For that reason, I suspect Congress will not be amenable to it in the near future.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2014 10:54 am by Proponent »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #3 on: 02/14/2014 11:33 am »
I think you are being overly optimistic. SpaceX hasn't even launched a FH and the first SLS launch is only about four years away.

Now after EM-1 in 2017 or 2018, we'll see how SpaceX is doing. With EM-2 scheduled for four years later, there will be plenty of time to change plans, assuming NASA has any plans for SLS by then.

If Congress doesn't ramp up the budget by then, NASA will have it's big honking rocket and no payloads. They won't need FH since there won't be any missions.

If NASA does get money for missions and LEO rendezvous is part of the plan, I think launching Orion on FH is a good idea.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2014 11:36 am by RonM »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #4 on: 02/14/2014 01:29 pm »
It is difficult to speculate with any degree of accuracy on what the CONOPS would look like that many years in advance and when the goals and destinations have not even been identified. However it would be extremely unlikely that any human exploration plan (except maybe a simple lunar sortie) would exclusively use SLS. Most of the proposals being talked about use other rockets and vehicles to supplement and enhance the operations where expedient. There was a proposal for a SEP Mars mission posted by Robotbeat a while back which was assembled in LEO by a combinations of rockets including SLS and which used a commercial crew launch to send a crew to commission the vehicle. My apologies I am unable to find it the FISO website seems to be down at the moment.

Anyway in response to the OP I think it is reasonable to say two things. Fist is that should Falcon Heavy become available mission architects will include it in thier evaluations and will likely use it in some fashion. Second, that the ability to launch crews on SLS will be retained. EM-2 is still on the books as being a crewed launch and that is unlikely to change at this point. Furthermore the ability to launch crews on SLS particularly to an L point adds important flexibility when designing mission architectures. I'll add that Orion may or may not ever find its self atop a Falcon but Elon himself recently mentioned sending Dragon around the moon.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #5 on: 02/14/2014 01:55 pm »
I think you are being overly optimistic. SpaceX hasn't even launched a FH and the first SLS launch is only about four years away.

FH is closer to flying than is SLS.  It's likely that FH will fly well before SLS, will have flown several times before SLS flies twice, and will continue to fly much more often than SLS thereafter.  So how am I being optimistic, exactly?

Quote
Now after EM-1 in 2017 or 2018, we'll see how SpaceX is doing. With EM-2 scheduled for four years later, there will be plenty of time to change plans, assuming NASA has any plans for SLS by then.

If Congress doesn't ramp up the budget by then, NASA will have it's big honking rocket and no payloads. They won't need FH since there won't be any missions.

On the basis of 40 years of post-Apollo history, amplified by recent budget cuts, it's very likely that Congress will not ramp up NASA's budget to the levels needed.  The key point is that if NASA were not paying all of the costs SLS, it would be more likely to have enough money to do something interesting with Orion.  Wouldn't you rather have no SLS and BEO exploration than SLS and no BEO exploration?  By EM-1, NASA will have spent another several billion on SLS.  Wouldn't it really make far more sense to make decision sooner rather than later?
 
Quote
If NASA does get money for missions and LEO rendezvous is part of the plan, I think launching Orion on FH is a good idea.

Well, conops doc that NASA produced a couple of years ago featured LEO rendezvous for all but the most basic SLS missions.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2014 01:57 pm by Proponent »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #6 on: 02/14/2014 03:31 pm »
It is an interesting option, but it has it's issues as well.

It is a big assumption that human rating SLS is pushing the schedule out to the right and costing substantially more. I see most of the extra cost in the GSDO, and the majority of the infrastructure has to be added to the ML anyway.

The engine components being used were already used or developed for human rated vehicles to begin with. We aren't talking the effort to human rate something like an RS-68 here.

I think it is also a big assumption that Falcon Heavy will be human rated right away. I can't see any potential missions in the first few years that would require this. And no, it's not as simple as saying it's just 3 Falcon 9s strapped together.

You would need to add on the cost of integrating Orion to the FH, and it wouldn't be as simple as an adapter like the D-IV is using, because that flight is unmanned and does not require the spacecraft to control the DCSS or first stage.

FH would also only be viable for inserting Orion into LEO, nothing beyond - so there would be no single launch near earth missions like the Asteroid Redirect or Lunar Flybys.

In short, I see no advantage of only moving Orion off SLS. You might as well get rid of SLS altogether if you're going to start looking at that.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2014 03:35 pm by newpylong »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #7 on: 02/14/2014 04:56 pm »
newpylong, good feedback.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #8 on: 02/14/2014 08:17 pm »
The Falcon Heavy will inherit the interfaces between the Dragon and the Falcon 9.  These can probably be upgraded to handle the extra first stages.  A second upgrade may permit Orion to intrface with the Falcon Heavy.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #9 on: 02/14/2014 08:24 pm »
Don't call it a 1.5 architecture, that is my only comment. It was always a deceptive label.
I actually disagree. It succinctly explains what the architecture is: 1 HLV launch and 1 sub-HLV launch.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #10 on: 02/14/2014 10:21 pm »
Don't call it a 1.5 architecture, that is my only comment. It was always a deceptive label.
I actually disagree. It succinctly explains what the architecture is: 1 HLV launch and 1 sub-HLV launch.

It is still two launches, no matter how you slice and dice it. Call it 1+1 if you want, but the 0.5 part is always going to be misleading.

Offline MP99

Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #11 on: 02/15/2014 03:17 pm »
Don't call it a 1.5 architecture, that is my only comment. It was always a deceptive label.
I actually disagree. It succinctly explains what the architecture is: 1 HLV launch and 1 sub-HLV launch.

It is still two launches, no matter how you slice and dice it. Call it 1+1 if you want, but the 0.5 part is always going to be misleading.

I always thought of it as I.V architecture - one Ares I + one Ares V.

However, I also agree with RB that the 1.5 moniker is quite descriptive & apt.

cheers, Martin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #12 on: 02/15/2014 05:38 pm »
Don't call it a 1.5 architecture, that is my only comment. It was always a deceptive label.
I actually disagree. It succinctly explains what the architecture is: 1 HLV launch and 1 sub-HLV launch.

It is still two launches, no matter how you slice and dice it. Call it 1+1 if you want, but the 0.5 part is always going to be misleading.

Not if you understand the terms as defined instead of just assuming their definition.
Robotbeat is correct. It is one HLV and one non-HLV. A two-launch scenario was always defined to be two launches of the same vehicle.
Don't feel bad. I struggled with the definition in the beginning as well.
But Robotbeat is correct.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #13 on: 02/15/2014 08:01 pm »
I'd like to steer this back toward my original questions. Reasonable difficulties have been pointed out. I do wonder, though, if FHr would have enough margin to get Orion CSM to LEOR and have enough propellant to provide the boosters, and possibly the core also, with RTLS.

Offline John B

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • ULA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #14 on: 02/15/2014 08:22 pm »
I'd like to steer this back toward my original questions. Reasonable difficulties have been pointed out. I do wonder, though, if FHr would have enough margin to get Orion CSM to LEOR and have enough propellant to provide the boosters, and possibly the core also, with RTLS.

Not even close. It's the internet that's fabricating these options.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #15 on: 02/16/2014 01:56 am »
I'd like to steer this back toward my original questions. Reasonable difficulties have been pointed out. I do wonder, though, if FHr would have enough margin to get Orion CSM to LEOR and have enough propellant to provide the boosters, and possibly the core also, with RTLS.

Not even close. It's the internet that's fabricating these options.

The internet; hmmm. I'm curious. Have you read Chris's articles on this site regarding reusability? Are you familiar with grasshopper? Have you seen the illustrations of FHr with landing legs? When people post broad statements with no supporting details, I tend to take that as nothing but one's personal opinion and wishful thinking. If one makes a statement like yours, it needs to be supported with some degree of citable empirical data. I would appreciate reading any if you have some to offer.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #16 on: 02/16/2014 02:08 am »
I think something along these lines would be more sensible that the current approach.  Not human-rating SLS would, however, require Congressional action, since the senator-engineers wrote a requirement that SLS be human-rated into the law.  (Or maybe it would only require Congressional benign neglect, the way that some other parts of the law are being ignored and nobody's complaining.)  Of course, if you started down this path, it might be the camel's nose under the tent for avoiding SLS altogether.  For that reason, I suspect Congress will not be amenable to it in the near future.

Did they say "when" it had to be man-rated?  If not, it could just be perpetually differed.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #17 on: 02/16/2014 02:12 am »
Don't call it a 1.5 architecture, that is my only comment. It was always a deceptive label.

Agreed.  However, when you use that term, people know pretty much exactly what you mean.  A two launch architecture with a small crew launch LV and a large cargo launch LV.
If you just say a "2-launch" architecture, I tend to think of something more like Direct, of two equal or similar sized LV's. 

Two FH's doing a small Apollo scale lunar mission to me is a "2-launch" architecture. 
An FH and an SLS launch to do a CxP scale lunar mission to me is more of a "1.5-launch" architecture...even it's it's obviously still two launches.

So I dunno.... tomay-toe, to-mat-o.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #18 on: 02/16/2014 02:22 am »
SpaceX seems to be getting better with every launch. While the CxP 1.5 architecture proved problematic, using FHr for Orion would leave NASA with only one LV of its own to worry about and a cargo only variant would eliminate the need for emergency detection system. Falcon will already be man rated. While DIVH can get Orion to LEOR, FHr could provide more margin to the payload and likely have enough prop left to return the boosters and possibly the core, all for a lower price than DIVH.
That's a lot of assumptions, beginning with the biggest assumption - that a reusable Falcon Heavy would even be able to lift that much mass to orbit. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #19 on: 02/16/2014 02:33 am »
SpaceX seems to be getting better with every launch. While the CxP 1.5 architecture proved problematic, using FHr for Orion would leave NASA with only one LV of its own to worry about and a cargo only variant would eliminate the need for emergency detection system. Falcon will already be man rated. While DIVH can get Orion to LEOR, FHr could provide more margin to the payload and likely have enough prop left to return the boosters and possibly the core, all for a lower price than DIVH. Mars missions will require most SLS launches to be cargo, so I would think that later in the program only a lower percentage of launches would be manned anyway. Sending Orion on FHr would allow the astronauts to follow a cargo launch quickly because the LVs would depart via separate pads. I realize the launch rate for SLS would possibly go down a little, but the money saved with a partly reusable FH and by not man rating the HLV could then go toward increased production pushing the HLV launch rate right back up. It looks like FH will be ready well before SLS and possibly FHr as well. Skipping emergency detection system (didn't use "EDS" as some might think earth departure stage) might also shorten time to complete SLS, thus making the CLV ready sooner. Thoughts?

I've actually advocated this on other threads.  The fact FH will be launching from pad 39A makes a "1.5" architecture (sorry Lars) hard NOT to envision for various reasons.  Including there's powers at NASA who probably still favor it despite CxP's cancellation.  They like crews launching on a small, "safer" LV, and then the cargo on the BFR.
And I think of Pete Conrad's words when he was launched on Saturn 1B on Skylab 2.  When he mentioned how much smoother the ascent was [vs. the Saturn V]
I would assume a shorter LV like FH would be smoother than SLS, more similar to the Saturn 1B.

And then just the fact NASA could have the two launches for their mission both launching in quick succession from both of KSC's pads. 

A fully expendable FH could probably put Orion into HLO directly.  SLS Block 1B could put a lander and the DUUS into a HLO rendezvous orbit.  The crew could transfer, then descend down in the lander using the DUUS as a crasher stage.  Then ascend back up to Orion's orbit, and the crew transfers back and goes home.

By relieving SLS (Block 1B or larger) of needing to launch Orion and take it all the way to the moon, a more robust lander becomes feasible.  And it removes the crew from the BFR.

Make one really lament what "could have been" had ESAS chosen to go with an upgraded EELV architecture for CXP.  Say D4H's with the RS-68A upgrade, MB-60's on the upper stage, and GEM-60 boosters.
Could have been in business for very little investment in the mid 2000's, so most of the development money could have been for the CEV and lander.
With a 3 launch upgraded D4H architecture, they could have had a CxP scale mission for only one more launch.
First the lander directly to HLO.  Then a 5m DCSS with no payload and a loiter kit as a crasher stage.  Then the crew on CEV.  Once the CEV/Lander/DCSS stack is assembled in HLO, the crew takes the lander down to the surface and back up after.
NASA only pays for a couple of upgrades to D4H, CEV and the lander.  And configures the MLP's to launch D4H's.  39A, 39B, along with LC-37 could launch three D4H's in rapid succession for such a mission.

But that was then and this is now...and FH will already be launching from KSC...so it seems it might be part of the NASA HSF equation.


Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #20 on: 02/16/2014 02:37 am »
SpaceX seems to be getting better with every launch. While the CxP 1.5 architecture proved problematic, using FHr for Orion would leave NASA with only one LV of its own to worry about and a cargo only variant would eliminate the need for emergency detection system. Falcon will already be man rated. While DIVH can get Orion to LEOR, FHr could provide more margin to the payload and likely have enough prop left to return the boosters and possibly the core, all for a lower price than DIVH.
That's a lot of assumptions, beginning with the biggest assumption - that a reusable Falcon Heavy would even be able to lift that much mass to orbit. 

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not assuming that at all. I am asking for knowledgable and informed feedback regarding whether it might be possible. I welcome any empirical thoughts.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2014 02:40 am by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #21 on: 02/16/2014 02:45 am »
SpaceX seems to be getting better with every launch. While the CxP 1.5 architecture proved problematic, using FHr for Orion would leave NASA with only one LV of its own to worry about and a cargo only variant would eliminate the need for emergency detection system. Falcon will already be man rated. While DIVH can get Orion to LEOR, FHr could provide more margin to the payload and likely have enough prop left to return the boosters and possibly the core, all for a lower price than DIVH.
That's a lot of assumptions, beginning with the biggest assumption - that a reusable Falcon Heavy would even be able to lift that much mass to orbit. 

 - Ed Kyle

I think the 53mt to LEO number as assuming a fully expendable FH with crossfeed?

But I wouldn't be too surprised if a FH with reusable outboard boosters, and expendable central core and 2nd stage, could at least match Ares 1's design point of about 25mt to LEO.

And if SpaceX's numbers are correct for a fully expendable FH sending over 21mt to GTO, then I think it could send Orion around the Moon.  Orion could either be short fueled as it doesn't need to do LOI, or it could do part of it's TEI burn as a 3rd stage.

I know Elon's goals are for reusability, but remember, by NASA/government standards, a fully expendable crossfed FH would like be considered fairly "cheap".

« Last Edit: 02/16/2014 02:56 am by Lobo »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #22 on: 02/16/2014 03:34 am »
...if SpaceX's numbers are correct for a fully expendable FH sending over 21mt to GTO, then I think it could send Orion around the Moon.  Orion could either be short fueled as it doesn't need to do LOI, or it could do part of it's TEI burn as a 3rd stage.

The reason I only specified LEO with FHr and did not suggest BEO with disposable FH is the capability of the current US. Would it be too underpowered to achieve TLI? And then there is the question of LOI as you mention. Now if that methalox research they are currently doing is for a substantial EDS to more closely match the total impulse of FH's CCB, that could be an exciting development!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #23 on: 02/16/2014 06:14 am »
...if SpaceX's numbers are correct for a fully expendable FH sending over 21mt to GTO, then I think it could send Orion around the Moon.  Orion could either be short fueled as it doesn't need to do LOI, or it could do part of it's TEI burn as a 3rd stage.

The reason I only specified LEO with FHr and did not suggest BEO with disposable FH is the capability of the current US. Would it be too underpowered to achieve TLI? And then there is the question of LOI as you mention. Now if that methalox research they are currently doing is for a substantial EDS to more closely match the total impulse of FH's CCB, that could be an exciting development!

SpaceX's site says a bit over 21mt to GTO (Assuming fully expendable and crossfed).  I don't think TLI requires much more dV than GTO.  So if Orion CSM is about 20mt or a bit less, then it should be real close.  But the Orion CSM carries about 8mt of propellant.  So some of that could be offloaded in needed but it should be about to do it full. 
If it could send a full Orion CSM through TLI, then it could actually do it's own LOI, and basically do the same mission as the first crewed SLS launch is probably going to do.  SLS block 1 can only put about 24mt through TLI, so it isn't much more than FH.  (That's mainly due to it's undersized upper stage)

So the current FH upper stage should be able to get Orion at least around the Moon, and maybe into some sort of HLO, unless SpaceX's numbers are way off.

If reusable or not crossfed, then it probably wouldn't.  I'd think a FH with reusable outer boosters should be able to get Orion to LEO.

Offline metaphor

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #24 on: 02/16/2014 06:56 am »
TLI takes about 0.7 km/s more delta-v than GTO, and TMI takes about 0.5 km/s more delta-v than TLI.  So if the Falcon Heavy can take 21 tons to GTO and 13 tons to TMI, it would probably be able to push about 15-16 tons through TLI.

Offline MP99

Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #25 on: 02/16/2014 10:16 am »
SpaceX's site says a bit over 21mt to GTO (Assuming fully expendable and crossfed).  I don't think TLI requires much more dV than GTO.  So if Orion CSM is about 20mt or a bit less, then it should be real close.

Don't forget that Orion has a LAS which will consume some of the payload to LEO.

I could also easily see higher margins on an Orion (any crewed) launch.



But the Orion CSM carries about 8mt of propellant.  So some of that could be offloaded in needed but it should be about to do it full. 
If it could send a full Orion CSM through TLI, then it could actually do it's own LOI, and basically do the same mission as the first crewed SLS launch is probably going to do.  SLS block 1 can only put about 24mt through TLI, so it isn't much more than FH.  (That's mainly due to it's undersized upper stage)

The point of Orion's prop in a 1.5 Lunar architecture is to be able to use it for later elements of the mission - plane change for rendezvous with ascender, and TEI.

The only way I could see FH-does-TLI is if Orion rendezvous' with SLS's stack during the Lunar transit - and that's an architecture that I'm pretty dubious about. At minimum, Orion would need to be able to make a fairly rapid abort back to Earth if the rendezvous fails. I'm not sure how much Orion's dV could chop off the transit's Apogee / orbital duration?

However, I think the point is moot - FH doesn't quite have the oomph for this, even at the quoted 53t-to-LEO.

Cheers, Martin

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #26 on: 02/16/2014 10:14 pm »
Use a FHr to send Orion to a LEO propellant depot.  Take on propellant there so the Orion can fly itself to low lunar orbit and back.  The CSM will have to be stretched.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #27 on: 02/16/2014 11:24 pm »
I think the 53mt to LEO number as assuming a fully expendable FH with crossfeed?
I think it has to be that, and more. 

I expect that the first Falcon Heavy variant will not be capable of anything close to 53 tonnes.  I'm frankly not sure how SpaceX expects to eventually get to 53 tonnes.  I don't think that the company has revealed the key details of its plan for 53 tonnes yet.  I'm sure it has a plan.

An early reusable Falcon Heavy would likely lift much, much less than 53 tonnes.  Maybe not even enough to lift an Orion, though I don't know for sure. 

All of this is, of course, very much TBD.  We need to actually see this machine.  Then we'll start trying to understand how it works.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/16/2014 11:26 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #28 on: 02/17/2014 12:06 am »
I think the 53mt to LEO number as assuming a fully expendable FH with crossfeed?
I think it has to be that, and more. 

I expect that the first Falcon Heavy variant will not be capable of anything close to 53 tonnes.  I'm frankly not sure how SpaceX expects to eventually get to 53 tonnes.  I don't think that the company has revealed the key details of its plan for 53 tonnes yet.  I'm sure it has a plan.

An early reusable Falcon Heavy would likely lift much, much less than 53 tonnes.  Maybe not even enough to lift an Orion, though I don't know for sure. 

All of this is, of course, very much TBD.  We need to actually see this machine.  Then we'll start trying to understand how it works.

 - Ed Kyle

Currently the engines are only operating at 85% throttle setting. It is likely that the Falcon Heavy will need to lift off at 100% (plus) and then throttle back to 100%. That will add about 165,000 lbs of thrust overall to the launch profile and flight regime. That could be part of the solution.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 12:08 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #29 on: 02/17/2014 02:06 am »

Don't forget that Orion has a LAS which will consume some of the payload to LEO.


how much?


The point of Orion's prop in a 1.5 Lunar architecture is to be able to use it for later elements of the mission - plane change for rendezvous with ascender, and TEI.

The only way I could see FH-does-TLI is if Orion rendezvous' with SLS's stack during the Lunar transit - and that's an architecture that I'm pretty dubious about. At minimum, Orion would need to be able to make a fairly rapid abort back to Earth if the rendezvous fails. I'm not sure how much Orion's dV could chop off the transit's Apogee / orbital duration?

However, I think the point is moot - FH doesn't quite have the oomph for this, even at the quoted 53t-to-LEO.

Cheers, Martin

I was only referencing it as a method of perhaps sending Orion to the moon, at perhaps a HLO capture, or EMLP rendezvous, where Orion doesn't need to use much fuel to capture, or to get back to Earth.  So that it could have a partial propellant load or use some of it's propellant to help with the TLI burn.
That way an SLS cargo launch with the DUUS wouldn't have to lug Orion all the way to the moon and do LOI with it.  Which then opens possibilities if the DUUS having enough fuel to act as a crasher stage so that the lander could be just single stage, like the Boeing lander concept.
To entertain it, there'd need to be some changes to how Orion is used.  And as the SM is even designed or developed yet, they might be able to change it accordingly from the CxP scale mission to a new scale.
Lighter, less propellant.  Not taking it down to LLO with the big Ares V EDS so it doesn't need as much to do the TEI burn.  etc. etc.

Just speculating some possible avenues to explore to get back to a larger scale lunar program.

If you want to do Apollo redux, just launch two FH's with a BLEO dragon with service module and small 2-stage lander with LLO-rendezvous.  But even with modern materials and tech, you might just get an Apollo J-class mission if you are lucky.
FH plus SLS could do more towards the CxP scale, if you modify the Orion CSM spec's in order to allow a fully expendable 53mt FH to get the Orion CSM to EMLP, or HLO, etc.  But, the DUUS will be less powerful than than the Ares 5 US would have been.  So you need to try to supplement your overall TLI tonnage with FH.
So....if the crew launcher could get Orion to some sort of rendezvous orbit, that'd be helpful.
And if it can't as is...then how could it be made to? 
That's where some outside the box thinking comes into play.

« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 02:11 am by Lobo »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #30 on: 02/17/2014 02:28 am »
The only way I could see FH-does-TLI is if Orion rendezvous' with SLS's stack during the Lunar transit - and that's an architecture that I'm pretty dubious about.

That's a very risky architecture, virtually no margin for error. The only way I see FH put anything significant through TLI is with a new appropriately sized earth departure stage. In my opening post, I was assuming LEOR with the EDS having been lofted on SLS.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #31 on: 02/17/2014 02:47 am »
In my opening post, I was assuming LEOR with the EDS having been lofted on SLS.

And you deserve credit for thinking about that (very reasonable) mission architecture!

But Ed deserves credit too for his point about FH and the 53 ton payload assertion:

We need to actually see this machine.  Then we'll start trying to understand how it works.

Taking a moment to quote from an early source of the 53 ton number, first released April 5, 2011:
Quote
Falcon Heavy will arrive at our Vandenberg, California, launch complex by the end of next year, with liftoff to follow soon thereafter.
[...] Musk added that with the ability to carry satellites or interplanetary spacecraft weighing over 53 metric tons or 117,000 pounds to orbit, Falcon Heavy will have more than twice the performance of the Delta IV Heavy

http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-announces-launch-date-worlds-most-powerful-rocket

So. Regarding that FH vehicle, the one that arrived at VAFB at the end of 2012 and lifted off soon thereafter. What payload did it carry? Sorry if that sounds snippy, but it's meant to underscore how much uncertainty surrounds the question of when FH will actually provide its full potential.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #32 on: 02/17/2014 04:25 am »
So. Regarding that FH vehicle, the one that arrived at VAFB at the end of 2012 and lifted off soon thereafter.

?????? That FH?? FH hasn't yet flown. It's due to fly late this year. Maybe you meant F9 v1.1? Launching to the south rather than to the east eats into payload mass.

BTW, nothing sounded snippy, just sounded like a question to me.

Even if FH doesn't make 53 mt to LEO, Orion CSM mass is so far below that amount that there would have to be plenty of margin. The question in my mind is whether the margin might be great enough for FHr to achieve at least partial RTLS.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 04:32 am by TomH »

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #33 on: 02/17/2014 10:26 am »

SpaceX's site says a bit over 21mt to GTO (Assuming fully expendable and crossfed).  I don't think TLI requires much more dV than GTO.  So if Orion CSM is about 20mt or a bit less, then it should be real close.  But the Orion CSM carries about 8mt of propellant.  So some of that could be offloaded in needed but it should be about to do it full. 
If it could send a full Orion CSM through TLI, then it could actually do it's own LOI, and basically do the same mission as the first crewed SLS launch is probably going to do.  SLS block 1 can only put about 24mt through TLI, so it isn't much more than FH.  (That's mainly due to it's undersized upper stage)

So the current FH upper stage should be able to get Orion at least around the Moon, and maybe into some sort of HLO, unless SpaceX's numbers are way off.

If reusable or not crossfed, then it probably wouldn't.  I'd think a FH with reusable outer boosters should be able to get Orion to LEO.
GTO requires 2460m/s, TLI requires 3200 m/s. Falcon Heavy TLI capacity is only 16 tons at best. Even a fully fueled MPCV does not have the delta V to reach LLO and return.

An MPCV offloaded to 16 tons doesn't even have enough to brake at L2 and return, in fact. A third stage would be necessary, but even then, one could expect about 20 tons TLI at best, with significantly more complicated infrastructure. It would be enough for L2, but you'd still be a lot short of LLO. Orion weighs about 22 tons full, depending on where you get your figures from. I've seen as low as 21.2 tons or as high as 24.2 tons.

Orion on FH requires two launches to reach LLO and return, no matter how you spin it.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 10:36 am by M129K »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #34 on: 02/17/2014 04:05 pm »
Currently the engines are only operating at 85% throttle setting. It is likely that the Falcon Heavy will need to lift off at 100% (plus) and then throttle back to 100%. That will add about 165,000 lbs of thrust overall to the launch profile and flight regime. That could be part of the solution.
More thrust seems a likely upgrade path.  I wonder if deeper throttling might also be needed.  If the Heavy core can only throttle down to 70%, it will have only a short burn after the boosters depart, which is less than ideal.  RS-68A can throttle to 58%, and it does deeply throttle on the center core during Delta 4 Heavy launches.  Of course SpaceX might shut engines down in lieu of throttling.

At any rate, when I played with my model of Falcon Heavy and assumed reusable boosters that were identical to the core and no cross feed (a guess for an early variant) I only came up with 22 tonnes to LEO.  I got more than 30 tonnes for an expendable version.  That's why I think SpaceX probably has upgrade plans to get to 53 tonnes. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 04:06 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #35 on: 02/17/2014 04:37 pm »
Currently the engines are only operating at 85% throttle setting. It is likely that the Falcon Heavy will need to lift off at 100% (plus) and then throttle back to 100%. That will add about 165,000 lbs of thrust overall to the launch profile and flight regime. That could be part of the solution.
More thrust seems a likely upgrade path.  I wonder if deeper throttling might also be needed.  If the Heavy core can only throttle down to 70%, it will have only a short burn after the boosters depart, which is less than ideal.  RS-68A can throttle to 58%, and it does deeply throttle on the center core during Delta 4 Heavy launches.  Of course SpaceX might shut engines down in lieu of throttling.

At any rate, when I played with my model of Falcon Heavy and assumed reusable boosters that were identical to the core and no cross feed (a guess for an early variant) I only came up with 22 tonnes to LEO.  I got more than 30 tonnes for an expendable version.  That's why I think SpaceX probably has upgrade plans to get to 53 tonnes. 

 - Ed Kyle
Try with boosters that are longer than the core, i.e. stretch them until Falcon Heavy has the same T/W at lift-off as Falcon 9 v1.1.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #36 on: 02/17/2014 04:53 pm »
Currently the engines are only operating at 85% throttle setting. It is likely that the Falcon Heavy will need to lift off at 100% (plus) and then throttle back to 100%. That will add about 165,000 lbs of thrust overall to the launch profile and flight regime. That could be part of the solution.
More thrust seems a likely upgrade path.  I wonder if deeper throttling might also be needed.  If the Heavy core can only throttle down to 70%, it will have only a short burn after the boosters depart, which is less than ideal.  RS-68A can throttle to 58%, and it does deeply throttle on the center core during Delta 4 Heavy launches.  Of course SpaceX might shut engines down in lieu of throttling.

At any rate, when I played with my model of Falcon Heavy and assumed reusable boosters that were identical to the core and no cross feed (a guess for an early variant) I only came up with 22 tonnes to LEO.  I got more than 30 tonnes for an expendable version.  That's why I think SpaceX probably has upgrade plans to get to 53 tonnes. 

 - Ed Kyle
Try with boosters that are longer than the core, i.e. stretch them until Falcon Heavy has the same T/W at lift-off as Falcon 9 v1.1.

Something I have never thought of:

Falcon 1.1 has the ability to restart 3 of it's engines in flight.  Could they not launch the Falcon Heavy with 3 engines on the middle stage off, then light them right before the side boosters release? 

So at launch the side boosters would be at 100%, the core stage would be at 70% on 6 engines.  Just before staging the 3 restartable engines start up, and go to 70%.  At staging the core would go to 100% and then staging of the side boosters.  This would give the core an effective throttle down of 46% on the center stage.

« Last Edit: 02/17/2014 04:54 pm by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #37 on: 02/17/2014 11:46 pm »
Currently the engines are only operating at 85% throttle setting. It is likely that the Falcon Heavy will need to lift off at 100% (plus) and then throttle back to 100%. That will add about 165,000 lbs of thrust overall to the launch profile and flight regime. That could be part of the solution.
More thrust seems a likely upgrade path.  I wonder if deeper throttling might also be needed.  If the Heavy core can only throttle down to 70%, it will have only a short burn after the boosters depart, which is less than ideal.  RS-68A can throttle to 58%, and it does deeply throttle on the center core during Delta 4 Heavy launches.  Of course SpaceX might shut engines down in lieu of throttling.

At any rate, when I played with my model of Falcon Heavy and assumed reusable boosters that were identical to the core and no cross feed (a guess for an early variant) I only came up with 22 tonnes to LEO.  I got more than 30 tonnes for an expendable version.  That's why I think SpaceX probably has upgrade plans to get to 53 tonnes. 

 - Ed Kyle

That's a reasonable possibility.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #38 on: 02/18/2014 01:18 pm »
Currently the engines are only operating at 85% throttle setting. It is likely that the Falcon Heavy will need to lift off at 100% (plus) and then throttle back to 100%. That will add about 165,000 lbs of thrust overall to the launch profile and flight regime. That could be part of the solution.
More thrust seems a likely upgrade path.  I wonder if deeper throttling might also be needed.  If the Heavy core can only throttle down to 70%, it will have only a short burn after the boosters depart, which is less than ideal.  RS-68A can throttle to 58%, and it does deeply throttle on the center core during Delta 4 Heavy launches.  Of course SpaceX might shut engines down in lieu of throttling.

At any rate, when I played with my model of Falcon Heavy and assumed reusable boosters that were identical to the core and no cross feed (a guess for an early variant) I only came up with 22 tonnes to LEO.  I got more than 30 tonnes for an expendable version.  That's why I think SpaceX probably has upgrade plans to get to 53 tonnes. 

 - Ed Kyle
Try with boosters that are longer than the core, i.e. stretch them until Falcon Heavy has the same T/W at lift-off as Falcon 9 v1.1.

Something I have never thought of:

Falcon 1.1 has the ability to restart 3 of it's engines in flight.  Could they not launch the Falcon Heavy with 3 engines on the middle stage off, then light them right before the side boosters release? 

So at launch the side boosters would be at 100%, the core stage would be at 70% on 6 engines.  Just before staging the 3 restartable engines start up, and go to 70%.  At staging the core would go to 100% and then staging of the side boosters.  This would give the core an effective throttle down of 46% on the center stage.
No, you definitely want all the engines on for launch. You /could/ shut them down before Max-Q, though, then reignite after booster sep.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #39 on: 02/18/2014 06:42 pm »
GTO requires 2460m/s, TLI requires 3200 m/s. Falcon Heavy TLI capacity is only 16 tons at best. Even a fully fueled MPCV does not have the delta V to reach LLO and return.


Which is why I proposed seeing if there was a say it could get high lunar orbit (less dV than LLO) and then rendezvous with a lander/DUUS stack from SLS there.  The crew transfers to the lander, and the DUUS acts as a crasher stage to get the lander down to the surface using it's very efficient hydrolox RL-10 or MB-60 engines.  Then lander is than essentially a more simple single stage lander like Boeing's concept, and it goes back up to HLO to rendezvous with Orion.  Orion would then perform a lower dV TEI burn than Apollo needed to as it's in HLO and not LLO.

I don't know if even that could be made to work, just saying that if FH can somehow get Orion through TLI without needing the SLS DUUS to do it, it helps increase the lander size that can be taken.


An MPCV offloaded to 16 tons doesn't even have enough to brake at L2 and return, in fact. A third stage would be necessary, but even then, one could expect about 20 tons TLI at best, with significantly more complicated infrastructure. It would be enough for L2, but you'd still be a lot short of LLO. Orion weighs about 22 tons full, depending on where you get your figures from. I've seen as low as 21.2 tons or as high as 24.2 tons.


I've seen a shade under 20mt (without LAS) form the Boeing SLS/Gateway proposals, so I'm assuming that's relatively accurate.

So, what if you went the other way?  Instead of a 3rd stage, the Orion SM already -is- a 3rd stage.
Put a larger SM on it, and have it do more of the TLI burn.  Maybe something more like the Apoll SM propellant capacity?  It's isn't developed or built yet, and I don't know how much design work has been done on it.  Stretch it and increase the propellant tank size and just use it in a different way than Apollo did.
Apollo used the SM to brake Apollo and the LEM into LLO.  And then to get Apollo out of LLO and through TEI.
Instead Orion's SM does part of the TLI burn, and then a HLO insertion burn where it meets up with the SLS DUUS with lander.


Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #40 on: 02/18/2014 06:57 pm »
Which is why I proposed seeing if there was a say it could get high lunar orbit (less dV than LLO) and then rendezvous with a lander/DUUS stack from SLS there.  The crew transfers to the lander, and the DUUS acts as a crasher stage to get the lander down to the surface using it's very efficient hydrolox RL-10 or MB-60 engines.  Then lander is than essentially a more simple single stage lander like Boeing's concept, and it goes back up to HLO to rendezvous with Orion.  Orion would then perform a lower dV TEI burn than Apollo needed to as it's in HLO and not LLO.

I don't know if even that could be made to work, just saying that if FH can somehow get Orion through TLI without needing the SLS DUUS to do it, it helps increase the lander size that can be taken.
Okay, apologies for coming across as a bit annoyed, I'm really stressed lately.

Anyway, to the point, that same gateway presentation you mentioned puts the empty mass of Orion at 14.6 tons, not including crew and consumables, and total maximum mass at 25.1 tons. The slightly below 20 ton figure refers to an already offloaded SM, only performing braking at L2 and returning.

Quote
So, what if you went the other way?  Instead of a 3rd stage, the Orion SM already -is- a 3rd stage.
Put a larger SM on it, and have it do more of the TLI burn.  Maybe something more like the Apoll SM propellant capacity?  It's isn't developed or built yet, and I don't know how much design work has been done on it.  Stretch it and increase the propellant tank size and just use it in a different way than Apollo did.
Apollo used the SM to brake Apollo and the LEM into LLO.  And then to get Apollo out of LLO and through TEI.
Instead Orion's SM does part of the TLI burn, and then a HLO insertion burn where it meets up with the SLS DUUS with lander.

Hmm... Interesting, actually. Say we use DRO as a reference point. According to a NASA document I have on my harddrive, entering DRO requires about 300 m/s, and returning in the worst case requires 370 m/s. So that totals at 670 m/s. As Orion is required to perform 1500 m/s, that leaves a total of 830 m/s of delta V. From GTO to TLI is  about 700m/s, so it should work, assuming Orion can get down to the advertised 21.2 ton mass, and leaves some margin. No extra big SM required. In any case, a storable third stage based on the Orion SM might be an easy option should the extra performance be required.

The lander will obviously require quite some delta V though, as DRO is a pretty darn high orbit.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #41 on: 02/18/2014 11:29 pm »
Okay, apologies for coming across as a bit annoyed, I'm really stressed lately.


No worries.  You didnt' sound annoyed to me (although I have that effect on people occasionally.  :-)  )


Anyway, to the point, that same gateway presentation you mentioned puts the empty mass of Orion at 14.6 tons, not including crew and consumables, and total maximum mass at 25.1 tons. The slightly below 20 ton figure refers to an already offloaded SM, only performing braking at L2 and returning.


Ahhh, ok, I was no aware of that.  Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough and just looked at the masses listed in the tables.


Hmm... Interesting, actually. Say we use DRO as a reference point. According to a NASA document I have on my harddrive, entering DRO requires about 300 m/s, and returning in the worst case requires 370 m/s. So that totals at 670 m/s. As Orion is required to perform 1500 m/s, that leaves a total of 830 m/s of delta V. From GTO to TLI is  about 700m/s, so it should work, assuming Orion can get down to the advertised 21.2 ton mass, and leaves some margin. No extra big SM required. In any case, a storable third stage based on the Orion SM might be an easy option should the extra performance be required.

The lander will obviously require quite some delta V though, as DRO is a pretty darn high orbit.

Now that's interesting.  Thanks for the numbers.

The nice thing about using Orion's SM as a defacto 3rd stage is it's already there for any type of FH launch, so there's no extra stage needed.  Just make it bigger if it needs to be bigger, since it's not developed yet.  Could even be somethign like the Apollo SM where they just removed some fuel tanks if it was only going to LEO as for Apollo 7 and the Skylab missions, vs. the Lunar missions where it needed more.  Other than that (and a few other small differences) it was the same SM.
Maybe the design that does finally come out could have some extra room for additional propellant tanks, in case needed?  It doesn't really need to be as small and compact as the design reference on was prior to the ESA's involvement.  Early CEV SM concepts were physically larger.  So just allow some extra room for extra propellant if future missions require it. 

But regardless of that, that's pretty interesting.

Yea, the lander would need to do extra work to get from the surface to a DRO orbit.  I think Boeing's lander was sized to get all the back up to EML2 using a crasher stage to get to the surface, and I think that massed about 16mt.  So it should be able to get to DRO just fine.  So that's probably a good reference point to start with.  The nice thing about using the DUUS as the crasher stage, is there's not an extra stage needed.  The Block 1B modificaiton to the MLP tower will already have arms built it for the DUUS.  A 3rd "in space stage" as Boeing proposed would need extra arms and umbilicals for that hydrolox stage.
The next question would be could the DUUS get the lander to DRO for rendezvous with Orion, and then down to the surface?  SLS Block 1B is supposed to get 39.1mt through TLI with four RL-10's.  So if it's pushing only 16mt insteado fo 39mt, that should leave a good deal of residual propellant in the DUUS at rendezvous in DRO orbit.  It would need to be enough to get the lander down to the surface, then that 16mt lander can get back to DRO (that assumes methalox.  Storables could be used too with a bit of a performance hit).   So the lander mass would have to be whatever the DUUS could get from LEO to DRO, and then to the surface.  That's going to be the constraining parameter.
As a single stage lander it's a more simple layout, with just one set of fuel tanks rather than two, etc.

If your lander could be about 16mt or so, then you could basically get a mission of a scale that Boeing proposed, but without the Gateway.  Adding FH could allow for that if there's no money for a Gateway.
Instead of Orion access arms on the SLS MLP, they would be lander/payload umbilical arms.  SLS doesn't need to launch Orion in this scenario, so those arms could be changed for lander/cargo service/access.

As the first manned SLS/Orion flight isn't scheduled until 2021 at present, there actually would probably be time to have a shift in PoR somewhere along the way, so that even though unmanned Orion may fly in 2017 as a qualificaiton flight, the emergency egress system and crew access arm wouldn't be needed in 2017, and then may not need to be added if Orion is offloaded to FH.   A new NASA architecture that involves DUUS development, and a lander development.  (my wishful thinking here).
« Last Edit: 02/18/2014 11:45 pm by Lobo »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #42 on: 02/18/2014 11:56 pm »
Perhaps SpaceX' methalox research is for a new higher energy US, but we don't know for sure. So depending on what dia. DUUS might wind up having, I wonder what the possibilities might be for using that as an upper stage on both SLS and FH. I know there would be a lot of integration and adapter issues, and SpaceX isn't fond of H2, but still, if it had about the correct total impulse, and if NASA and SpaceX decided they could do this two launch architecture, could it be an existing US that might work?

Were that too big, I wonder about ACES, or possibilities mentioned below:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37757nasa-mulls-common-upper-stage-for-launch-services-catalog

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38159as-nasa-eyes-common-upper-stage-solar-probe-mission-building-its-own

Personally, I have no idea whether any of these could work at all, but I am of the opinion that if you do already have something that does work, it usually is not worthwhile to build something new instead.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2014 12:09 am by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #43 on: 02/19/2014 06:38 am »
Perhaps SpaceX' methalox research is for a new higher energy US, but we don't know for sure. So depending on what dia. DUUS might wind up having, I wonder what the possibilities might be for using that as an upper stage on both SLS and FH. I know there would be a lot of integration and adapter issues, and SpaceX isn't fond of H2, but still, if it had about the correct total impulse, and if NASA and SpaceX decided they could do this two launch architecture, could it be an existing US that might work?

Were that too big, I wonder about ACES, or possibilities mentioned below:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37757nasa-mulls-common-upper-stage-for-launch-services-catalog


I think the DUUS will be 8.4m and I think that would be too difficult to try to adapt to the 3.6m central core of FH.  Something like that new common upper stage would help, but it sounds more like that's being mulled as a possibility as a NASA-sponsored Common Centaur or ACES type stage for the Delta and Atlas LV's.  Not sure why NASA would be looking to pay for that though.  Maybe USAF is working with them for joint funding?
The article doesn't really say what NASA is planning to do with it.  Just could it be ready for a hypothetical 2018 mission?  Would they maybe use it instead of the DCSS/ICPS?  Seems unlikely as they seem to be putting a lot of time and money to prepare Block 1 SLS and associated infrastructure for DCSS/ICPS.   
But who knows?  Maybe it's looking at it to bolster the BLEO capacity of FH in a possible 1.5 launch scenario actually?, and then make it available to ULA for Atlas and Delta?  That'd probably get a full Orion through TLI.
Maybe it's a study for a hypothetical situation where SLS were cancelled?  In such a case it's pretty unlikely NASA would be in the rocket building business any more, and to move any new HSF program forward, they'd need to look towards a SpaceX BFR, or existing LV's like FH and the EELV fleet.  In which case they'd likely want to be squeezing every ounce of performance they could out of them.  A new ACES-like common stage they'd pay to develop, but make it a payload on launch services they'd buy.

Dunno....it's kind of strange.


http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38159as-nasa-eyes-common-upper-stage-solar-probe-mission-building-its-own

Personally, I have no idea whether any of these could work at all, but I am of the opinion that if you do already have something that does work, it usually is not worthwhile to build something new instead.

That 2nd link looks to just be an upgraded kick stage for a payload (Solar Probe) that's outgrown the existing kick stage performance.  I wouldn't expect much else out of that.  If NASA wants some extra performance out of FH to help throw Orion CSM through TLI, they could just make the SM have more propellant and save the development costs.  I'm -guessing- that this is mainly just a development for Solar Probe, and maybe a couple of other high-dollar payloads that NASA has slated for the proven EELV's and won't start risking those spendy payloads on FH until FH is more proven.  An upgraded ATK solid kick motor is probably a pretty cheap development relatively.


Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #44 on: 02/20/2014 03:02 pm »
Yea, the lander would need to do extra work to get from the surface to a DRO orbit.  I think Boeing's lander was sized to get all the back up to EML2 using a crasher stage to get to the surface, and I think that massed about 16mt.  So it should be able to get to DRO just fine.  So that's probably a good reference point to start with.  The nice thing about using the DUUS as the crasher stage, is there's not an extra stage needed.  The Block 1B modificaiton to the MLP tower will already have arms built it for the DUUS.  A 3rd "in space stage" as Boeing proposed would need extra arms and umbilicals for that hydrolox stage.
The next question would be could the DUUS get the lander to DRO for rendezvous with Orion, and then down to the surface?  SLS Block 1B is supposed to get 39.1mt through TLI with four RL-10's.  So if it's pushing only 16mt insteado fo 39mt, that should leave a good deal of residual propellant in the DUUS at rendezvous in DRO orbit.  It would need to be enough to get the lander down to the surface, then that 16mt lander can get back to DRO (that assumes methalox.  Storables could be used too with a bit of a performance hit).   So the lander mass would have to be whatever the DUUS could get from LEO to DRO, and then to the surface.  That's going to be the constraining parameter.
As a single stage lander it's a more simple layout, with just one set of fuel tanks rather than two, etc.

If your lander could be about 16mt or so, then you could basically get a mission of a scale that Boeing proposed, but without the Gateway.  Adding FH could allow for that if there's no money for a Gateway.
Instead of Orion access arms on the SLS MLP, they would be lander/payload umbilical arms.  SLS doesn't need to launch Orion in this scenario, so those arms could be changed for lander/cargo service/access.

Alright, I try to do some math here... The delta V to go from DRO to LLO is about ~850 m/s if I didn't goof up my math. Add in about 1600 m/s for descent, assuming the lander does the last 500 m/s. On top of that is the 300 m/s for DRO insertion, and the 3200 m/s for TLI. That all gives a delta V of 5950 m/s.

If that is translated to the equivalent C3, that becomes a C3 of 68 km^2/s^2. The Boeing paper on large upper stages puts the payload of the Block 1B with J-2X LUS at about 12-13 tons, following the C3 graph in the paper. The RL-10 DUUS would get about one tonne of extra payload with the same trajectory. In conclusion, it should be possible to have a lander of about 14 tons, without the need for refueling in DRO, to send a crew to the lunar surface. That's only slightly less than the Boeing lander, and by reducing the crew to two, it should be possible to land on the moon in a single SLS launch via this scheme.

I'd personally prefer to go the more "conventional" route, using a Block 1A with in-space CPS and no upper stage. You'd have better performance if the CPS doesn't have to do a large part of the LEO insertion burn. I'll do a little math on that idea later though.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #45 on: 02/20/2014 03:15 pm »
There are better ways, M129K. Did you see the Boeing architecture which does a single-launch SLS lunar lander mission?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #46 on: 02/20/2014 03:21 pm »
There are better ways, M129K. Did you see the Boeing architecture which does a single-launch SLS lunar lander mission?
I've certainly seen that one. But this is mostly speculating about a way to do things in a "1.5" launch architecture without a space station or extensive SLS upgrades. The Boeing architecture required a Block 2 130 ton SLS with a third stage, both are things which make stuff more complicated because of long development, complicated pad infrastructure, etc.

Not that I'm saying this plan is better than the Boeing plan, because I obviously don't have the credentials. It's just an idea I had.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #47 on: 02/20/2014 05:39 pm »
There are better ways, M129K. Did you see the Boeing architecture which does a single-launch SLS lunar lander mission?
I've certainly seen that one. But this is mostly speculating about a way to do things in a "1.5" launch architecture without a space station or extensive SLS upgrades. The Boeing architecture required a Block 2 130 ton SLS with a third stage, both are things which make stuff more complicated because of long development, complicated pad infrastructure, etc.

Not that I'm saying this plan is better than the Boeing plan, because I obviously don't have the credentials. It's just an idea I had.

Yea, this thread is supposing a 1.5 architecture with not gateway station, vs. Boeing's plan which necessitates an EMLP station along with the lander and a brand new in-space stage (which looks like the ICPS in the graphics, but if you read the spec's, it's about twice the size of the ICPS, so it's a brand new stage.), as well as the 2X J2X 2nd stage.

I'm not sure if that version of SLS is still being looked at given the more recent Boeing SLS paper form last fall, although I think per Chris's article awhile back, they are still officially looking at two versions of SLS with Advanced boosters, J2X upper stage, and a 5m CPS of some sort, as wel as give RS-25's on the core, along with the Block 1B/2B path with the DUUS as the only upper stage.
Personally I expect those two to go away, and for the Block 1B/2B path with DUUS to win out.  It's probably the only shot SLS has at being "affordable".  Fewer elements and much faster large BLEO capability.

This 1.5 architecture we are speculating on here would actually be much more affordable than Boeing plan anyway, although I'm sure Boeing likes there plan because they get a much larger part of the pie.
Although Boeing's plan is 1-launch:
1) 238mt 2X J2X upper stage development
2) 75mt in-space CPS development
3) Lander
4) Science/Power module for Gateway station development/construction.
5) Node & Utility Module for gateway station development/construction.
6) One 3-stage SLS stack expended per mission.
7)  One lander expended every X number of missions (reusable, but won't last forever)

Our hypothetical station.
1)  120mt 4XRL-10 DUUS development
2)  Lander.
3)  One 2-stage SLS stack, one lander,  and one FH expended every mission (assume we'll use every ounce of expendable FH's capability)
4)  NASA doesn't pay for FH's development.

I think the amount of money spent on the J2X engine on the 2nd stage, and the in-space stage would won't be much more than the DUUS using RL-10's (shared with EELV's) the lander and the FH (which won't be very expensive even if fully expendable...$100-150M per statement's Elon's made?).
Boeing's plan will require far more initial investment, so I think it'd have a pretty long payback best case.





Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #48 on: 02/20/2014 05:59 pm »

Alright, I try to do some math here... The delta V to go from DRO to LLO is about ~850 m/s if I didn't goof up my math. Add in about 1600 m/s for descent, assuming the lander does the last 500 m/s. On top of that is the 300 m/s for DRO insertion, and the 3200 m/s for TLI. That all gives a delta V of 5950 m/s.

If that is translated to the equivalent C3, that becomes a C3 of 68 km^2/s^2. The Boeing paper on large upper stages puts the payload of the Block 1B with J-2X LUS at about 12-13 tons, following the C3 graph in the paper. The RL-10 DUUS would get about one tonne of extra payload with the same trajectory. In conclusion, it should be possible to have a lander of about 14 tons, without the need for refueling in DRO, to send a crew to the lunar surface. That's only slightly less than the Boeing lander, and by reducing the crew to two, it should be possible to land on the moon in a single SLS launch via this scheme.

I'd personally prefer to go the more "conventional" route, using a Block 1A with in-space CPS and no upper stage. You'd have better performance if the CPS doesn't have to do a large part of the LEO insertion burn. I'll do a little math on that idea later though.

Thanks for the calculations.  That's pretty interesting. 

As far as your more "conventional" route, basically Block 2B SLS will be that.  It's the block 1 core, with the DUUS and then adding advanced boosters.  If you go the block 1A route, then you are stuck with the ICPS, which even if delivered to LEO fully fuelled will not have the BLEO capability of Block 1B and the DUUS I don't think becuse it will still have just a fraction of the fuel the DUUS will have in LEO even after doing some of the LEO insertion.
Add advanced boosters later, then you get the DUUS closer to LEO without needing it to do as much.  That increases the dV available and the amount of mass it can send through TLI and then down to the surface.  (so design a lander which can hold several mt more of cargo in it's cargo stoawage area for later than it will initially.  Empty cargo area if you will.    It will still be the same mass when unloaded on the surface and lifting back off for HLOR with Orion, it will just be able to land more mass on the surface for those latter "Block 2" lunar missions.)

I also think the large dry mass of the core is a detriment to having it go farther up with less burn from the upper stage.  By going larger and heavier with the core vs. the ET, instead of going smaller and lighter (like AJAX), they've created a bit problem with taking the core too far up as I understand.  I think they should have made a smaller 8.4m core than the ET, have maybe 3 RS-25's on it, and kept it made from AL2195 so it would have been much less of a mass penalty to send it all the way to disposal orbit like the Shuttle ET.  Even if using 5-seg boosters initially, they could have put the upper thrust beam accross the top of the LOX tank rather than through the intertank area.  And Advanced boosters could come later.

But...I'm getting off topic.  :-)


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #49 on: 02/20/2014 06:21 pm »

If that is translated to the equivalent C3, that becomes a C3 of 68 km^2/s^2. The Boeing paper on large upper stages puts the payload of the Block 1B with J-2X LUS at about 12-13 tons, following the C3 graph in the paper. The RL-10 DUUS would get about one tonne of extra payload with the same trajectory. In conclusion, it should be possible to have a lander of about 14 tons, without the need for refueling in DRO, to send a crew to the lunar surface. That's only slightly less than the Boeing lander, and by reducing the crew to two, it should be possible to land on the moon in a single SLS launch via this scheme.

At the risk of going OT, Could that same mission be done with three FH launches and no SLS? (assumed fully expendable and crossfeed, maximum performance.)

1)  1st Launch.  A 14mt-ish Lander is send to DRO.  It does is own DRO insertion burn.
2)  2nd launch.  A FH 2nd stage is sent with no payload to DRO, doing it's own insertion burn for DRO rendezvous.
3) 3rd launch. Orion launches to DRO doing some of it's own TLI burn and DRO insertion burn.

The FH 2nd stage mates to the bottom fo the lander, and Orion to the top to transfer crew.

The lander with FH 2nd stage descends to the surface with the 2nd stage acting as a crasher stage.
A 2-person crew does a surface mission and returns to DRO to transfer crew back to Orion, and then return to Earth.

If FH can get 16mt through TLI, with 3 FH launch, that's 48mt through TLI total, about 3mt more than the Saturn V did.  So you should be able to do an Apollo Redux mission with that.

Three FH launches isn't really cheap.  Assuming $150M per launch, that's $450M.  But...if relieved from the overhead of SLS, it might be worth it.  Two FH's can launch from KSC in rapid succession, as well as a 3rd launch from LC-40 to make the 3-launch architecture.

FH isn't a good way to go to Mars...but then again, down the road, there'll likely be a SpaceX BFR available so...


Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #50 on: 02/20/2014 07:26 pm »
At the risk of going OT, Could that same mission be done with three FH launches and no SLS?

Fixed that for ya: modified thread title and opening post to allow discussion of disposable FH as well as multiple FH launches without SLS. However, primary focus still is on 1 SLS launch and 1 FH launch, but with some discussion vectored this way acceptable.

Actually, I have been wondering if FH had a new high energy US, if this could be done in two launches. Their existing US is not well matched as an EDS for FH. You're right about Mars: multiple SLS launches required, but I'd still like sending crew/Orion up on FH.

Interesting also that Chris' latest article announces soft landing on water on legs for the next F9 1.1 launch.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2014 07:32 pm by TomH »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #51 on: 02/20/2014 07:42 pm »
At the risk of going OT, Could that same mission be done with three FH launches and no SLS?

Fixed that for ya: modified thread title and opening post to allow discussion of disposable FH as well as multiple FH launches without SLS. However, primary focus still is on 1 SLS launch and 1 FH launch, but with some discussion vectored this way acceptable.

Actually, I have been wondering if FH had a new high energy US, if this could be done in two launches. Their existing US is not well matched as an EDS for FH. You're right about Mars: multiple SLS launches required, but I'd still like sending crew/Orion up on FH.

Interesting also that Chris' latest article announces soft landing on water on legs for the next F9 1.1 launch.

Not to mention the articles last fall about NASA commissioning Aerojet (and Orbital I think) to study a new common upper stage.  Presumably for the EELV fleet to get a little more performance than the existing upper stages, and maybe USAF supports too to standardized the EELV upper stages, which has been talked about for a long time.  If NASA were to develop that upper stage...which could be based on the A1US development and tooling at MAF even...then it could have it used on FH as well as the EELV's.  That would give FH additional performance.  So maybe that's not such a crazy idea.
It would of course add a lot of cost to a FH flight, as it would probably not be a cheap upper stage.  But who knows.


Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: 1.5 Architecture SLS-CLV FHr-Orion
« Reply #52 on: 02/20/2014 08:03 pm »
Thanks for the calculations.  That's pretty interesting. 

As far as your more "conventional" route, basically Block 2B SLS will be that.  It's the block 1 core, with the DUUS and then adding advanced boosters.  If you go the block 1A route, then you are stuck with the ICPS, which even if delivered to LEO fully fuelled will not have the BLEO capability of Block 1B and the DUUS I don't think becuse it will still have just a fraction of the fuel the DUUS will have in LEO even after doing some of the LEO insertion.
Add advanced boosters later, then you get the DUUS closer to LEO without needing it to do as much.  That increases the dV available and the amount of mass it can send through TLI and then down to the surface.  (so design a lander which can hold several mt more of cargo in it's cargo stoawage area for later than it will initially.  Empty cargo area if you will.    It will still be the same mass when unloaded on the surface and lifting back off for HLOR with Orion, it will just be able to land more mass on the surface for those latter "Block 2" lunar missions.)
The more "conventional" approach would have the advantage that the CPS wouldn't have to perform large amounts of thrust with big, 100+ ton payloads, meaning you can make it slimmer and have it share tooling with Delta IV. Also, ICPS on a 1A, wouldn't that have a reasonable TLI payload of 30-35 tons? Not too shabby, and could be good enough for "initial lunar exploration" using two launches (because you'd need a decent flight rate for SLS anyway, and dual launch of a Block 1A could help with that). Also, a separate CPS would get about 19 tons to the orbit I described, compared to the ~14 tons for Block 1B.

That was my reasoning anyway, though I don't want to go too far off topic, so I'll keep it at that.

Tags:
 

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