NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: kfsorensen on 04/08/2006 02:11 am
-
Does anyone have any of the pictures or performance numbers that Boeing was showing last year for evolved versions of Delta IV--the ones specifically modified to support exploration objectives? I saw the numbers and concepts many times last year but can't find them anymore on either Boeing or NASA websites...
Someone must have them somewhere, even if it's not politically correct to show them anymore.
-
vanilla - 7/4/2006 10:11 PMDoes anyone have any of the pictures or performance numbers that Boeing was showing last year for evolved versions of Delta IV--the ones specifically modified to support exploration objectives? I saw the numbers and concepts many times last year but can't find them anymore on either Boeing or NASA websites...Someone must have them somewhere, even if it's not politically correct to show them anymore.
It's at work and I will have to scan it. I have an Atlas one also.
I am going TDY to Huntington Beach and won't be back at work until Thurs.
-
I've seen at least one, open sourced chart (last year) which had the proposed expansions of the Delta IV - IIRC, the largest was a ~120 Mton to LEO seven core with new engines (not RS-68; I forget what exactly)...
Simon ;)
-
Wasn't that chart in the ESAS report? What I'm most interested in are the O'Keefe plans from mid-2004 that had 4+ launches per moon shot.
If anyone has a nifty link to those (or knows if they're even out there), you'll receive my personal thumbs up.
-
I believe this is the one you're referring to:
Sorr for the size!
[img=http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1558/deltaivgrowth1zi.gif]
-
Still want the Atlas ones?
-
That is the older version. They found out that solids could not be attached to the side of the vehicle facing the MST. So there are different variations with solids attached to one side only
-
Yeah, it will also be nice if somebody post the current prices of the rockets. Not only the US but also the Russian and European and others.
-
Is there any talk going around of getting rid of the SDLV plan and going with the EELVs? We're making so many changes to the CaLV (RS-68 engines instead of SSME's) that it makes sense to just derive the whole thing from an EELV. The SRBs are the only thing keeping the SDLV plan alive, as they are needed on both SDLV's. But if they are replaced with EELV CCB's on the CaLV then it no longer makes sense to keep the SRB on the CLV.
So I wonder what is keeping the SDLV alive. I mean we are at the point that NASA is considering landing only two crew members on the Moon in a smaller "Walmart" LSAM, because it has been found that the CaLV and CLV can't do the job. Why throw away a more exciting mission profile just to save two launch vehicle concepts.
-
EELVs are a bad deal for lift. You will face pad delays, ISS assembly woes, 15-18 RS-68s per 100 tons, and still be in no better shape. And that doesn't include the unsurvivable aborts. For CLV duties, maybe you can get away with it. To replace CaLV? Forget it. VSE is to be modular for some commonality for Moon and Mars missions.
1 or 2 CaLVs for the moon, and five or so for Mars missions once you get HLLV flying. You use assembly for Mars. Anyone who thinks EELV will do for Mars missions needs his head examined.
-
Jim, you said in the Walmart lander thread that the Lockheed EELV roadmap was on this thread along with the Delta one. I see the Delta one but I dont see the Lockheed one. If I'm in the wrong spot hows about a direct link?
-
publiusr - 13/4/2006 1:42 PM
EELVs are a bad deal for lift. You will face pad delays, ISS assembly woes, 15-18 RS-68s per 100 tons, and still be in no better shape. And that doesn't include the unsurvivable aborts. For CLV duties, maybe you can get away with it. To replace CaLV? Forget it. VSE is to be modular for some commonality for Moon and Mars missions.
1 or 2 CaLVs for the moon, and five or so for Mars missions once you get HLLV flying. You use assembly for Mars. Anyone who thinks EELV will do for Mars missions needs his head examined.
Where did you get 15-18 RS-68s? NASA has all but decided to use the RS-68 for CaLV because of cost and nothing I've read indicates they would use more than 5 of them.
Just looking at the charts for DIV evolution the basic Heavy gets around 48 metric tons to LEO and can go even higher with just a little tuning of that engine. The version with 4 GEMs gets roughly 10 tons more but as Jim noted earlier the extra 2 GEMS on the back side doesn't work so figure 5 tons more. Now it’s over 50 tons and with what are really minor upgrades to regen RS-68 + 2 solids and you're close to 80 tons. Given the NASA track record for Shuttle and Station when it comes to size of what gets launched the 100 ton CaLV will be way under utilized, I'll bet it ends up with 20 tons or more lift than required.
The reality is that both Delta IV and Atlas V EELV evolutions can do the CaLV job but then it's not a NASA vehicle and doesn't need the thousands of jobs that keep the political support in Washington.
-
It appears that it is all because of politics. It is clearly much easier to add CCB's to a Delta IV when compared to redesigning a Shuttle ET to be a first stage powered by the same engines that would power an EELV.
The CLV and CaLV are quickly turning into "Clean Sheet" designs as with the addition of the RS-68, they are turning into EELV's. Why spend the time and money to turn the SDLV into an EELV when we already have EELV's readily available.
I would like to see Lockheed and Boeing to use their position with NASA to get an EELV for the VSE.
-
Someone posted the Lockheed road map in another thread, rather interesting looking...
-
On the first picture isn't that an Atlas 5 with 3 common core boosters? I have never seen or heard of such a configuration.
-
That is the "Atlas V Heavy", basically their answer to the Delta IV Heavy config. I know it was developed, however, I don't think they ever cut any metal on it, as Lockheed stated around the time of the D4H launch that there was no market for it. If the market were to appear, I believe Lockheed is ready to put it into production.
-
Both the D-IV and A-V Heavies were part of the EELV contract. Boeing won some missions for theirs, So the USAF told LM to only to go to CDR with their version. SLC-41 is setup to take an Atlas-V Heavy. LM has stated that they can have one ready in two years
-
publiusr - 12/4/2006 3:42 PMEELVs are a bad deal for lift. You will face pad delays, ISS assembly woes, 15-18 RS-68s per 100 tons, and still be in no better shape. And that doesn't include the unsurvivable aborts. For CLV duties, maybe you can get away with it. To replace CaLV? Forget it. VSE is to be modular for some commonality for Moon and Mars missions.1 or 2 CaLVs for the moon, and five or so for Mars missions once you get HLLV flying. You use assembly for Mars. Anyone who thinks EELV will do for Mars missions needs his head examined.
Pad delays? What is the shuttle going thru? the Shuttle has had two long stand downs and some short ones also (SRB's issues, H2 leaks, etc). All launch vehicles present and future will have issues that will keep them grounded, even a CaLV. Just because it is big, doesn't mean it is not going to have problems.
-
gladiator1332 - 13/4/2006 12:04 AMIt appears that it is all because of politics. It is clearly much easier to add CCB's to a Delta IV when compared to redesigning a Shuttle ET to be a first stage powered by the same engines that would power an EELV. The CLV and CaLV are quickly turning into "Clean Sheet" designs as with the addition of the RS-68, they are turning into EELV's. Why spend the time and money to turn the SDLV into an EELV when we already have EELV's readily available. I would like to see Lockheed and Boeing to use their position with NASA to get an EELV for the VSE.
They have no "position". They were already shut out. It is in the ESAS
-
Jim - 13/4/2006 12:01 PM
gladiator1332 - 13/4/2006 12:04 AM I would like to see Lockheed and Boeing to use their position with NASA to get an EELV for the VSE.
They have no "position". They were already shut out. It is in the ESAS
Now that we see that the ESAS has a few shortcommings... its time to revisit updating the EELV for this new mission... I would be most amazed if there is not some action at congressional level for this to happen.
Jim, I know that you cannot give absolute numbers of anything in the world of precurement (internal restrictions), but maybe you can have a 'guess' at what it will take time and money wise to move to EELV for CEV.
-
We were ready to do it for OSP. The ESAS has the Atlas X (5.4m dia) numbers and the stick timeframe.
-
The ESAS cost and schedule numbers for EELV (Atlas and Delta) evolution were grossly overstated. For more realistic cost, divide ESAS by 3 to 4. ESAS used a parametric model developed from Shuttle and Apollo to estimate costs and then added all kinds of unnecessary scope. Recent actual costs from Atlas V and Delta IV programs were ignored.
For example, the performance for an Atlas V HLV was quoted in ESAS to be 19mT to LEO. The Atlas mission planners guide gives 28mT (available at www.ilslaunch.com). The ESAS "requirement" was 25mT so the cost to use Atlas V HLV was increased assuming a new upper stage engine would have to be developed to meet the "requirement". The schedule risk was also stated to be high because of the engine development.
How ironic that the new baseline for CLV now has a new upper stage engine development and the performance is well below 25mT. While the Atlas V HLV easily meets 25mT with existing RL-10 engines.
-
quark - 14/4/2006 1:01 AMThe ESAS cost and schedule numbers for EELV (Atlas and Delta) evolution were grossly overstated. For more realistic cost, divide ESAS by 3 to 4. ESAS used a parametric model developed from Shuttle and Apollo to estimate costs and then added all kinds of unnecessary scope. Recent actual costs from Atlas V and Delta IV programs were ignored.For example, the performance for an Atlas V HLV was quoted in ESAS to be 19mT to LEO. The Atlas mission planners guide gives 28mT (available at www.ilslaunch.com). The ESAS "requirement" was 25mT so the cost to use Atlas V HLV was increased assuming a new upper stage engine would have to be developed to meet the "requirement". The schedule risk was also stated to be high because of the engine development.How ironic that the new baseline for CLV now has a new upper stage engine development and the performance is well below 25mT. While the Atlas V HLV easily meets 25mT with existing RL-10 engines.
Can't use planner's guide numbers for manned trajectories. The Atlas required either a structurally stable Centaur or a fairing that suspended the Centaur to take it out of the load path.
-
During OSP the intent was to have the loads bypass the Centaur by using the existing 5.4m payload fairing base module. Since this base module is jettisoned along with the booster, the performance hit is minimal, ~1 mT. Thus Quark is correct that the Atlas HLV performance, satisfying black zones and perceived structure requirements is in excess of 25 mT to orbit. This compares very favorably to CLV’s continually eroding performance, down to ~19 mT based on recent NASA releases.
-
gladiator1332 - 13/4/2006 10:03 AM
That is the "Atlas V Heavy", basically their answer to the Delta IV Heavy config. I know it was designed, however, I don't think they ever cut any metal on it, as Lockheed stated around the time of the D4H launch that there was no market for it. If the market were to appear, I believe Lockheed is ready to put it into production.
The Atlas V HLV was in the original plans till Boeing won the lions share of first award package and it wasn't worth LM's investment for only a few HLV launches that were way down the road. Also the Atlas V 551 and 552 configurations can loft something like 80% or more of the weight of an HLV. So there weren't many launches that a 551 or 552 couldn't do. The Atlas V so far has been a very slick, clean & reliable vehicle.
This happened early enough in construction that decisions with the MLP were made that would make it hard to modify the current MLP for HLV. But the rest of the facility is sized and capable to handle the HLV. So they may need a new MLP for an HLV but that would be it. Probably a 2 year project.
But if you were going to put the CEV on an EELV you would need a crew access tower and LM & NASA probably wouldn't want to share their human rocket with a lowly unmanned vehicle. So you would likely see a new pad for both the Delta 4 and Atlas V, so probably 1 to 1.5 billion and 3 to 4 years (possibly 5) to complete the pad from time of award. If you could cram it onto the existing SLC41 of SLC37 facility it would save you a good pile of change and a few years.
-
The Atlas V MLP and VIF was made with the HLV in mind. The MLP is scarred for the HLV to make installations easy. It only needs to be outfitted. OSP studies determined pad mods for crew access to be $500-750M and two years
-
wannamoonbase - 17/4/2006 1:57 PM
So you would likely see a new pad for both the Delta 4 and Atlas V, so probably 1 to 1.5 billion and 3 to 4 years (possibly 5) to complete the pad from time of award. If you could cram it onto the existing SLC41 of SLC37 facility it would save you a good pile of change and a few years.
Boeing had a really cool design for a new Pad that had a Clam Shell MST that would remain closed until after Crew ingress. 3 to 4 years for either company to build is not a low ball estimate in fact it's probably large considering how much they learned building what they have now, a lot of redesign along the way (at least for DIV).
-
At some point NASA needs to decide if they want affordable access to space. Having a dedicated NASA crew only rocket flying a few times a year is an extremely expensive venture. Hence the expected $10B or more non-recurring cost. The RLEP program was told that flying the RLEP2 mission on the CLV would cost $476M. What a bargain.
This makes an EELV HLV (Atlas or Delta) look like a bargain at $200M a launch. Beyond the incredible cost savings, the Atlas and Delta rockets will have built up dozens of launches by the time the CEV is ready to fly, demonstrating their reliability. I personally am tired of paper studies on reliability, shuttle was supposed to have only 1 failure in 10,000. Actually demonstrated reliability is much more meaningful. Atlas is currently at 78 successful launches in a row, including Atlas II, III and now V.
-
Jim - 17/4/2006 2:41 PM
The Atlas V MLP and VIF was made with the HLV in mind. The MLP is scarred for the HLV to make installations easy. It only needs to be outfitted. OSP studies determined pad mods for crew access to be $500-750M and two years
Under ULA I doubt the Atalas V Heavy will ever be built because of the cost and time to first flight. I'd expect to see one of the larger Atlas versions to replace what NASA has planned now become reality. Unfortunately that would need a new Pad but like I've said before NASA could put that vehicle on one of the existing Shuttle MLP's (greatly modified of course) and keep that army going over at LC-39.
-
R&R - 16/4/2006 7:59 PMJim - 17/4/2006 2:41 PMThe Atlas V MLP and VIF was made with the HLV in mind. The MLP is scarred for the HLV to make installations easy. It only needs to be outfitted. OSP studies determined pad mods for crew access to be $500-750M and two years
Under ULA I doubt the Atalas V Heavy will ever be built because of the cost and time to first flight. I'd expect to see one of the larger Atlas versions to replace what NASA has planned now become reality. Unfortunately that would need a new Pad but like I've said before NASA could put that vehicle on one of the existing Shuttle MLP's (greatly modified of course) and keep that army going over at LC-39.
No, the 5.4m Atlas can work off of SLC-41. Atlas won't work on LC-39 and it is LM vehicle, they would work on it.
-
Bump
Delta IV questions
Watched my first live Delta IV GPS IIF-2
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
-
"solid fame design"?
cant say anything about cost
-
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
That seems pretty high. What's your source?
-
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
The solids are GEM-60's. Delta IV is designed to use solids of this size, up to four of them, without causing harm to the RS-68 nozzle. (Put differently, the RS-68 is rated to tolerate the level of abuse these solids subject it to.) The RS-68 (apparently) is not rated to tolerate the abuse that would come from much larger strap-on solids.
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
Because of the way EELV contracts work, allocating Delta IV costs to particular launches is difficult. Are you asking what it might cost USAF if they wanted one more launch just like this one? Or what NASA would pay for a launch like this one? Or what a commercial customer might pay for a launch like this one? Maybe you asking what each launch like this might cost a customer who was buying launch services for an entire constellation of satellites? It would be astonishing if the answers to any of the above were the same!
-
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
The solids are GEM-60's. Delta IV is designed to use solids of this size, up to four of them, without causing harm to the RS-68 nozzle. (Put differently, the RS-68 is rated to tolerate the level of abuse these solids subject it to.) The RS-68 (apparently) is not rated to tolerate the abuse that would come from much larger strap-on solids.
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
Because of the way EELV contracts work, allocating Delta IV costs to particular launches is difficult. Are you asking what it might cost USAF if they wanted one more launch just like this one? Or what NASA would pay for a launch like this one? Or what a commercial customer might pay for a launch like this one? Maybe you asking what each launch like this might cost a customer who was buying launch services for an entire constellation of satellites? It would be astonishing if the answers to any of the above were the same!
I recall one news item SpaceX put out comparing the FalconHeavy to the Delta IV. If memory serves it was 85-130 million. They then said this price was 1/3 the cost of a delta IV launch. Also looked up some threads and found it about right.
-
I recall one news item SpaceX put out comparing the FalconHeavy to the Delta IV. If memory serves it was 85-130 million. They then said this price was 1/3 the cost of a delta IV launch. Also looked up some threads and found it about right.
Okay, for starters I would not use one rocket vehicle company as a source for what another company's rocket vehicle costs.
However, I also suspect that they were quoting the Delta IV Heavy version, with three cores.
Delta IV is not a cheap rocket, but I suspect that the basic vehicle is in the $150-$180 million range. Of course, these costs are also spiraling upwards.
-
Flight rates really effect cost.
Either EELV would be cheaper if they were used for exploration simply because the flight rates would be increased.
-
Flight rates really effect cost.
Either EELV would be cheaper if they were used for exploration simply because the flight rates would be increased.
I suspect there is less elasticity there than we would hope. Put another way, buying a couple of extra rockets a year is not going to have much effect upon costs. The number would probably have to go up substantially before the costs come down even moderately. There's a lot of USAF money pumped into infrastructure support.
This is not a free market.
-
Had some questions.
1) This Delta uses the RS-68 with solids. They can do this because of the way the solids flame around the engine in this design?
The solids are GEM-60's. Delta IV is designed to use solids of this size, up to four of them, without causing harm to the RS-68 nozzle. (Put differently, the RS-68 is rated to tolerate the level of abuse these solids subject it to.) The RS-68 (apparently) is not rated to tolerate the abuse that would come from much larger strap-on solids.
2) From what I have read of the costs this launch it cost 250 million or more, is that correct?
Because of the way EELV contracts work, allocating Delta IV costs to particular launches is difficult. Are you asking what it might cost USAF if they wanted one more launch just like this one? Or what NASA would pay for a launch like this one? Or what a commercial customer might pay for a launch like this one? Maybe you asking what each launch like this might cost a customer who was buying launch services for an entire constellation of satellites? It would be astonishing if the answers to any of the above were the same!
I recall one news item SpaceX put out comparing the FalconHeavy to the Delta IV. If memory serves it was 85-130 million. They then said this price was 1/3 the cost of a delta IV launch. Also looked up some threads and found it about right.
He was against the Delta IV Heavy, and yes, about that. but that is with one DIVH every two years against 24 Falcon launches, so judge for yourself.
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
Anything is possible given enough money.
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
Anything is possible given enough money.
Money also needs a reason to be spent. Without derailing this thread, I would remind everyone that there is currently an exploration launcher in development and I strongly suspect that there is no appetite to develop another, no matter how reasonable and potentially advantageous it is.
-
I suspect there is less elasticity there than we would hope. Put another way, buying a couple of extra rockets a year is not going to have much effect upon costs. The number would probably have to go up substantially before the costs come down even moderately. There's a lot of USAF money pumped into infrastructure support.
Total costs will likely only increase with launch rates for the foreseeable future, but prices and costs per launch may come down, though only if the higher launch rates are combined with free, open, and ongoing multi-source competition. Currently ULA has to repay a percentage of the fixed costs that the DoD pays for whenever it sells a commercial EELV launch. Dividing those fixed costs over a higher number of launches will have an immediate and significant effect, precisely because the infrastructure spending is so high.
This is not a free market.
Competitive procurement is not inhibited by having a launch capability contract. You can open up the market without getting rid of the ELC, though in the long term it would be nice if it could be abolished because it was no longer necessary.
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
Anything is possible given enough money.
And a new pad.
-
Can't use planner's guide numbers for manned trajectories. The Atlas required either a structurally stable Centaur or a fairing that suspended the Centaur to take it out of the load path.
Is there a real technical objection, or does it just make people nervous? As I recall the Atlas the Mercury used was not structurally stable, but it sustained 8-9 G accelerations.
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
The better way to ask this question is: what are the requirements if you are crazy enough to want to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV and get into orbit?
The best way is to ask: What is the optimal way to launch XX tons into orbit?
Jim is correct, asking if something is possible cannot be answered by "no".
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
The better way to ask this question is: what are the requirements if you are crazy enough to want to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV and get into orbit?
The best way is to ask: What is the optimal way to launch XX tons into orbit?
Jim is correct, asking if something is possible cannot be answered by "no".
Then need to read between the lines.
The goal with this would be heavy lift.
If I'm not mistaken the Altas cores would be better boosters and the Delta core a better core stage.
So for evolving the Delta IV for greater mass to LEO.
4 Atlas cores around a Delta core with payload on top ( with or with out an US ). This would not be human rated.
-
Is there a real technical objection, or does it just make people nervous? As I recall the Atlas the Mercury used was not structurally stable, but it sustained 8-9 G accelerations.
That was for large manned spacecraft, and those managed by managed by NASA.
-
The better way to ask this question is: what are the requirements if you are crazy enough to want to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV and get into orbit?
Nasa would be the only customer for such a configuration, but I bet it would be a pretty capable medium-heavy lifter. The only need for it would be in the absence of SLS. I wonder what its capabilities would be with the addition of an adequately sized 5m common centaur upper stage?
-
Would it be possible to attach 4 Atlas V cores to a Delta IV core with some modifications?
Anything is possible given enough money.
And a new pad.
And a couple of tanker trucks full of whiskey.
Seriously though, 4x Atlas boosters on a Delta core wouldn't have all that much better performance than 2x boosters, if they are all lit on the ground. If the Delta is air lit, it gets better, but RS-68 is not really air-lightable. So, replace it with a J-2X. That might be able to do 70-80 tonnes to LEO with the DCSS. But, it would be an almost entirely new vehicle.
-
How far could the Delta IV's mass to LEO be improved for around $500 million of development costs? Could e.g. Delta IV Heavy + solids + crossfeed be developed for that amount? The ULA phase 2 paper (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf) gives an (outdated) estimate of $2.3 billion for phase 2, but no estimate for phase 1.
-
@ deltaV,
I don't know if it would cost $500M or less but my shopping list for Delta-IV is:
* Common Centaur upper stage (up to 4 x RL-10B-2);
* Propellent cross-feed between cores;
* GEM solid rockets on Heavy tri-core variant (maximum of 8, four on central, two each on outboards).
This is my interpretation of the EELV Phase 1 and it would be the Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) to the Atlas-V Heavy's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV).
Optional Extras:
* Propellent Densification
* 5 x core configuration with crossfeed and/or thrust augmentation on outboards
I figure these latter options would push past the spending limit and that Phase-2 (2 x RD-180 replacement core) would be cheaper.
-
Ben: do you mean Common Centaur or ACES? They are distinct proposals; the former is an adaptation of the existing two-engine Centaur stage and the latter is a new four-engine stage. See page 4 of the EELV Phase 2 paper.
-
Ben: do you mean Common Centaur or ACES? They are distinct proposals; the former is an adaptation of the existing two-engine Centaur stage and the latter is a new four-engine stage. See page 4 of the EELV Phase 2 paper.
I'm wary about saying 'ACES' - It's virtually a spacecraft in its own right with ZBO technology and a long-duration on-board power generation.
I'm thinking specifically of a 5.1m (Delta-IV core diameter) upper stage using Centaur technology and suitable for 1, 2 or 4 RL-10B-2 engines, which is what I thought was the Common Centaur. It would be cheaper than ACES and quicker to deploy. ACES can come later when it's needed for longer-duration missions (basically, this system's equivalent of aCPS). As an EDS or an ETO upper stage, Common Centaur does fine.
-
How far could the Delta IV's mass to LEO be improved for around $500 million of development costs? Could e.g. Delta IV Heavy + solids + crossfeed be developed for that amount? The ULA phase 2 paper (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf) gives an (outdated) estimate of $2.3 billion for phase 2, but no estimate for phase 1.
Cross feeding is unknown, has not been done yet to my knowledge.
So not sure just how much that could cost.
It would be best if they just developed the phase II Atlas with a 5m US ( 1 to 4 engine capable ). And as stated above add the ACES ( what ever it will end up being ) US later when it is available. From what I was reading on that PDF it doesn't look like there is cross feeding for the 70mt version.
An US for phase II would be cheaper than trying to make it for Atlas V and Delta IV also. That might fit the estimated $2.3B cost for an Atlas phase II.
Phase II with the stumpy version would give them plenty of options. There are some hint out there that there could be work already being done for phase II. There would need to be a commercial business case for this to happen. There just is to much uncertainty what NASA will end up needing in the future ( authorized to do ).
-
I wonder what performance a first stage with Delta CBC-derived tanks and an F-1B would have? Not as much as Phase II, but not bad.
-
I wonder what performance a first stage with Delta CBC-derived tanks and an F-1B would have? Not as much as Phase II, but not bad.
Might give around 150 second of burn time.
Cluster of 5 cores would most likely have a little more dry mass than a Saturn V 1st stage. However it could shed mass by dropping cores and using cross feed. US with (4) J-2X's should be around an INT-21. Don't know if this configuration could be done. A three core might be able to be done with a RL-10 or NGE upper stage, similar to the Atlas phase II. I don't know how that with a single core would work with lite payloads.
Would Boeing want to go with an RP-1/LOX 1st stage?
-
The D4H is three cores combined, how many more cores could be combined before it became unworkable?
-
The D4H is three cores combined, how many more cores could be combined before it became unworkable?
More than three and you need a new launch pad.
-
The D4H is three cores combined, how many more cores could be combined before it became unworkable?
More than three and you need a new launch pad.
Wouldn't that be par for the course with the development of this kind of launch vehicle?
-
The D4H is three cores combined, how many more cores could be combined before it became unworkable?
More than three and you need a new launch pad.
Actually no you don't. You need a new launch platform at SLC-6, but not a new launch pad itself.
Boeing studied a 7-core design (not a core w/ 6 boosters, 7 cores all bolted together, a la Saturn-IB style) and had SLC-6 w/ a new platform as the least expensive method to bring a system up to speed should a 90 metric ton payload be needed quickly.
-
@ deltaV,
I don't know if it would cost $500M or less but my shopping list for Delta-IV is:
* Common Centaur upper stage (up to 4 x RL-10B-2);
* Propellent cross-feed between cores;
* GEM solid rockets on Heavy tri-core variant (maximum of 8, four on central, two each on outboards).
This is my interpretation of the EELV Phase 1 and it would be the Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) to the Atlas-V Heavy's Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV).
Optional Extras:
* Propellent Densification
* 5 x core configuration with crossfeed and/or thrust augmentation on outboards
I figure these latter options would push past the spending limit and that Phase-2 (2 x RD-180 replacement core) would be cheaper.
Anyway know what the BLEO performance of an upgraded D4H would be per the chart below that shows LEO performance upgrades? Current D4H can get over 1/2 of it's LEO capacity to GTO, would this 50+mt upgraded D4H put 25mt or better to GTO?
What about TLI?
And they show a new upper stage with RL-60. But would ACES with 2 or 4 RL-10's also get the performance there, with booster crossfeed and six GEM-60's?
-
Wouldn't that be par for the course with the development of this kind of launch vehicle?
What does that mean? They should have planned a pad that accommodates a >3 core vehicle? How much would that have cost? Why would a cogent manager do that when there's no business case for it? No one in their right mind would spend that money.
-
Antares, Don't forget to mention they would also have to come up with a completely different system to hoist the rocket from Horizontal to Vertical. Three cores and you can lay them flat, other than really large flat packs, you would have to have some sort of cradle to support more than three cores for a market that did not exist when EELV's where designed.
-
Wouldn't that be par for the course with the development of this kind of launch vehicle?
What does that mean? They should have planned a pad that accommodates a >3 core vehicle? How much would that have cost? Why would a cogent manager do that when there's no business case for it? No one in their right mind would spend that money.
It appears to have been considered?
Possible future upgrades for the Delta IV include adding extra strap-on solid motors to boost capacity, higher-thrust main engines, lighter materials, higher-thrust second stages, more (up to six) strap-on CBCs, and a cryogenic propellant cross feed from strap on boosters to the common core. These modifications could potentially increase the mass of the payload delivered to LEO to 100 tonnes.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV#Future_variants
-
That dates to a pre-ULA document on possible DeltaIV upgrades, I believe it was a wide (greater than 5m) Al-Li CBC that required an entirely new pad and someone to pay for it. The original .pdf is somewhere in the nsf threads. Maybe one of NSF's digital packrats could dig it up for you.
It never got beyond the power point stage.
-
This is the space business. Everything has been considered. And then the real world intervenes. I choose not to waste processor cycles on the technically or financially impossible - though small scale R&D should be attacking both.
-
That dates to a pre-ULA document on possible DeltaIV upgrades, I believe it was a wide (greater than 5m) Al-Li CBC that required an entirely new pad and someone to pay for it. The original .pdf is somewhere in the nsf threads. Maybe one of NSF's digital packrats could dig it up for you.
It never got beyond the power point stage.
Thanks for the clarification, makes me wonder then if it should still be in the page?
-
The thing is the historical section is littered with proposed vehicles... Some no more than studies, some that built hardware that never flew.
Many of the proposed Delta IV growth options are like the many Saturn derivatives that where never built. They have a place, but are not viable options. No payload can afford, or currently needs the improvements you get with: Al-Li tanks, cross feed, sub-cooled LH, or a larger than 5m core. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Delta IV (and Atlas V) papers on growth options really came out as a counter to the Ares family of rockets. Kinda a yes we can.
-
Actually page 51 in this 2004 document has the slide with all the options.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/kits/d310_d4heavy_demo.PDF
Notice the 7m core not only requires a new pad, but also a 'modified factory'. It also shows the proposed regenerative RS-68. They opted for the improved RS-68a with ablative nozzle instead.
Sorry I don't have a better link, but am on an obsolete HP webOS tablet that has limited capabilities. I just like it better than IOS, Android, Win 8, and OSX 8)
-
Notice the 7m core not only requires a new pad, but also a 'modified factory'. It also shows the proposed regenerative RS-68. They opted for the improved RS-68a with ablative nozzle instead.
I'd guess the 5m tooling at Decatur can't be modified to go as wide as 7m, and a new 7m tooling production line would be needed?
-
They do some mysterious things in rocket factories! I think the factory in Decatur includes some giant chemical vats into which (I hypothesize) they dip barrel sections after they have been welded together. This hypothesis is based on some circumstantial evidence presented in an EPA report somewhere.... YMMV. But if true, then the size of the vat determines the maximum size of a barrel section. You wouldn't think building a bigger vat to accommodate 7m cores would be all that much of a challenge, but then there's that pesky EPA to deal with! ;)
-
Wouldn't that be par for the course with the development of this kind of launch vehicle?
What does that mean? They should have planned a pad that accommodates a >3 core vehicle? How much would that have cost? Why would a cogent manager do that when there's no business case for it? No one in their right mind would spend that money.
They already did. That was part of how SLC-6 at VAFB was set up, if you checked the NTRS papers on it. Instead of modifying the pad structure, the decision was to use the existing pad structure (capable of handling a much larger vehicle than the Delta IV Heavy) and using a pad mount which could be replaced should a >3 core vehicle be approved. The anticipation being that should such a vehicle be needed, either a) it would be for polar use or b) should a more normal orbit be needed, they would use LC-39 and be assembled at the VAB.
Although this was part of an early proposal, one I still find fascinating to study from time to time.
-
Notice the 7m core not only requires a new pad, but also a 'modified factory'. It also shows the proposed regenerative RS-68. They opted for the improved RS-68a with ablative nozzle instead.
I'd guess the 5m tooling at Decatur can't be modified to go as wide as 7m, and a new 7m tooling production line would be needed?
I wish people would stop going on about cores greater than 5 meters diameter. The reason for 5 m is that it is the biggest that is easily road transportable. NASA can use wider cores because the built the rocket factory on the coast so no road transport .
-
What are you talking about? 3.7m is the road limit. ULA builds them in Decantur with river access and a custom built vessel. I think I heatd that the current bridges on the river limit maximum diameter to 6m and something. But that's at current factory. Also, the Atlas V core is 3.9m, which is designed to be transportable on an AN-124 (so is the Antares core). And Michoud is open to rent for zones, were you could do 8.4 to 10m depending on construction method.
-
I wish people would stop going on about cores greater than 5 meters diameter. The reason for 5 m is that it is the biggest that is easily road transportable. NASA can use wider cores because the built the rocket factory on the coast so no road transport .
Delta IV stages move the same way that SLS core will move - by river, canal, and/or sea. It only travels by road at Decatur and at its launch sites during transport to and from the Delta Mariner transport ship.
- Ed Kyle
-
What are you talking about? 3.7m is the road limit. ULA builds them in Decantur with river access and a custom built vessel. I think I heatd that the current bridges on the river limit maximum diameter to 6m and something. But that's at current factory. Also, the Atlas V core is 3.9m, which is designed to be transportable on an AN-124 (so is the Antares core). And Michoud is open to rent for zones, were you could do 8.4 to 10m depending on construction method.
I know that road limit is 3.9 but you can push it to 5m wide without too much trouble after that you have to start modifying bridges etc.Who ever picked the site for Michoud was a very clever man indeed.
-
I know that road limit is 3.9 but you can push it to 5m wide without too much trouble after that you have to start modifying bridges etc.Who ever picked the site for Michoud was a very clever man indeed.
It was a originally a Liberty ship building facility
-
I know that road limit is 3.9 but you can push it to 5m wide without too much trouble after that you have to start modifying bridges etc.Who ever picked the site for Michoud was a very clever man indeed.
It was a originally a Liberty ship building facility
Class I wish I had access to the history of us space centers .
-
What are you talking about? 3.7m is the road limit. ULA builds them in Decantur with river access and a custom built vessel. I think I heatd that the current bridges on the river limit maximum diameter to 6m and something. But that's at current factory. Also, the Atlas V core is 3.9m, which is designed to be transportable on an AN-124 (so is the Antares core). And Michoud is open to rent for zones, were you could do 8.4 to 10m depending on construction method.
I know that road limit is 3.9 but you can push it to 5m wide without too much trouble after that you have to start modifying bridges etc.Who ever picked the site for Michoud was a very clever man indeed.
I can't recall exactly what the total height limit is, but I guess it's close to 4.2m. But that's the top dynamic height for the whole transport. Once you take into consideration the support structure, the environmental protection, the clearance to the road plus the possible vertical curvature of the road and all such you arrive to an effective maximum height for your delicate cargo of around 3.7m (plus or minus a bit). You can do wider reasonably easy, but rocket cores are cylinders.
You can go a bit higher if you study the road, but ten you have to get a permit per each state you cross. And if you go higher you have to get a permit per county! Thus, 3.7m is sort of the maximum width that you could transport easily. Let's say that you want to transport a fairing that's 7m wide, but each half is 3.5m, you might do it cheaply. Or just look at the drawing of the Rocketdyne's F-1 transport rig.
Yet, water or even road transport are not always the cheapest way. Say, for example, that you do have a port, but it's on a shallow water way, or is very far from major traffic lanes, then it might cost you more than do a straight airlift. Ditto for very far places. Sometimes train is cheaper.
For some reason LM decided that 3.9m air lifted was better than 3.7m road transported. Now that they are unified on ULA, they ship it by water if they can consolidate it with some extra cargo, but if they only have to ship a single Atlas V core, they still send it by An-124. The US is a great place to move things around, all the logistics are reasonably optimized. Thus, airlift can be cheaper than even road transport for certain cases.
The reason MD/Boeing chose the wider core for Delta IV was because they chose H2 as core fuel. And because they expected to make tens of launches per year. At that rate, having a ship that can transport 3 cores per trip might well be cost effective vis-a-vis even road transport. Currently it's not. But they don't have that option.
Now, let's say that ULA can transport the wide cores and even a 10m fairing, if so they chose (which they can). Never forget that rockets are a mean to transport payloads, not an end in themselves. What there's a total scarcity, is of all the support structure for bigger than 4.6m payloads. Think about transporting those, about anechoic chambers, environmental testing chambers, shakers, clean rooms, etc. I would recommend that you look up videos about the ATV's processing. They clearance above and on the sides when entering a clean room is around 10cm. And all the things I've mentioned are cubically more expensive with scale. Thus, if you have a clean room that could fit a 6m payload, you would have to charge about twice for your services than a 4.6m one. How many clients would you expect?
-
What are you talking about? 3.7m is the road limit. ULA builds them in Decantur with river access and a custom built vessel. I think I heatd that the current bridges on the river limit maximum diameter to 6m and something. But that's at current factory. Also, the Atlas V core is 3.9m, which is designed to be transportable on an AN-124 (so is the Antares core). And Michoud is open to rent for zones, were you could do 8.4 to 10m depending on construction method.
I know that road limit is 3.9 but you can push it to 5m wide without too much trouble after that you have to start modifying bridges etc.Who ever picked the site for Michoud was a very clever man indeed.
I can't recall exactly what the total height limit is, but I guess it's close to 4.2m. But that's the top dynamic height for the whole transport. Once you take into consideration the support structure, the environmental protection, the clearance to the road plus the possible vertical curvature of the road and all such you arrive to an effective maximum height for your delicate cargo of around 3.7m (plus or minus a bit). You can do wider reasonably easy, but rocket cores are cylinders.
You can go a bit higher if you study the road, but ten you have to get a permit per each state you cross. And if you go higher you have to get a permit per county! Thus, 3.7m is sort of the maximum width that you could transport easily. Let's say that you want to transport a fairing that's 7m wide, but each half is 3.5m, you might do it cheaply. Or just look at the drawing of the Rocketdyne's F-1 transport rig.
Yet, water or even road transport are not always the cheapest way. Say, for example, that you do have a port, but it's on a shallow water way, or is very far from major traffic lanes, then it might cost you more than do a straight airlift. Ditto for very far places. Sometimes train is cheaper.
For some reason LM decided that 3.9m air lifted was better than 3.7m road transported. Now that they are unified on ULA, they ship it by water if they can consolidate it with some extra cargo, but if they only have to ship a single Atlas V core, they still send it by An-124. The US is a great place to move things around, all the logistics are reasonably optimized. Thus, airlift can be cheaper than even road transport for certain cases.
The reason MD/Boeing chose the wider core for Delta IV was because they chose H2 as core fuel. And because they expected to make tens of launches per year. At that rate, having a ship that can transport 3 cores per trip might well be cost effective vis-a-vis even road transport. Currently it's not. But they don't have that option.
Now, let's say that ULA can transport the wide cores and even a 10m fairing, if so they chose (which they can). Never forget that rockets are a mean to transport payloads, not an end in themselves. What there's a total scarcity, is of all the support structure for bigger than 4.6m payloads. Think about transporting those, about anechoic chambers, environmental testing chambers, shakers, clean rooms, etc. I would recommend that you look up videos about the ATV's processing. They clearance above and on the sides when entering a clean room is around 10cm. And all the things I've mentioned are cubically more expensive with scale. Thus, if you have a clean room that could fit a 6m payload, you would have to charge about twice for your services than a 4.6m one. How many clients would you expect?
You are making the point I was making I was complaining about 7.7 m cores.