Commercial HLV and R&D

[yg1968]

I am going to start a new thread on commercial HLV. The topic was started on the 2011 budget thread which has been locked for being too long.   

My question was the following: "There is a lot of discussion in this thread on commercial versus the traditional procurement method. But I am still trying to figure out the R&D on a HLV part of the Budget. What would be examples of R&D on an HLV project? How would a R&D project be selected."

Jongoff answered:

I imagine they'd probably use a Broad Area Announcement, or something along those lines.  This is what was done under the Human and Robotic Technology program (that Griffin gutted to fund Ares-I when he got in).  BAAs will mention topics of specific interest, guidelines on how to submit the proposals, etc. and then will be open for proposals from various parties.  They're used all the time.  They're kind of like SBIRs, but without the small business requirements, and without the maximum spending cap.

As for what sort of projects.  I could think of several possibilities (not that I'm deigning to suggest I actually know what they have in mind, but here's a few).

For first stage technologies:
1-Domestic LOX/RP-1 staged combustion technologies
2-High thrust LOX/RP-1 engines (like in the F-1 class)
3-Thrust Augmented Nozzles (taking them to flight status)

For upper stage technologies:
1-High-thrust expander cycle engines
2-Improved upper stage technologies along the lines of ACES?
3-Solar Electric Propulsion systems including VASIMR
4-Nuclear Propulsion systems

Now, $3B isn't going to cover all of that, but they could fund some subscale demonstrators of a few, and larger-scale system developments of others.

~Jon

[yg1968]

I then replied:"Interesting. But once the R&D phase is over, who would buy these products? NASA would not yet have a HLV that is ready. So it would not need to buy these products for a while?"

Jongoff answered this question as follows:

Well, contra earlier claims on this thread, I don't claim to have any special insight into what would happen in the future.  My opinion though is that at least some of the technologies are ones that if done properly could be commercially relevant even if NASA decides to never to an RLV.

Higher thrust LOX/RP-1 engines for instance might be useful to SpaceX or ULA, especially if they didn't have to develop them entirely on their own dime.  ULA wants to go to a slightly Atlas so they can get rid of their solid strapons.  SpaceX has expressed interest in cutting back on the number of engines for their larger vehicles (27 engines for an F9 Heavy is getting a bit onerous), so having a larger engine would help them too.  In their case, they're close enough to doing that anyway on their own dime that it probably wouldn't take much government encouragement to get them to expedite the development.

As for Thrust Augmented Nozzles, Tom Mueller said they actually liked the idea, but it was just too much risk and money required to take it to flight readiness at that point in the game.  Once again, providing some funding, and potential for future sales could make it easier for them to try an experiment with such systems on their vehicles.  Adding thrust augmentation to their engines would boost Falcon 9's payload dramatically.

As for higher power LOX/LH2 engines, or newer, larger, longer-duration Upper stages, again ULA and SpaceX could both benefit from something like that.  The main reason ULA hasn't done ACES yet though, is that at the current flight rate, they don't have enough demand to justify investing that much in a new capability.  If they didn't have to invest as much in that capability, combined with more demand from commercial crew services, that could help close the case on the demand.

There may be other cases, and a lot depends on the details and how the projects are done, but many of these HLV technologies can actually be commercially relevant.

~Jon

[Downix]

The key would be to keep it common with the existing designs.  Clustering 7 Delta IV Core, Falcon 9 core (egads, 63 engines!!) or Atlas V Cores with a super-large upper stage would do this.  It also would not kill the R&D costs, and a single HLV launch would drive the price of their core boosters down, not up, which is a win-win.

[mikegi]

The key would be to keep it common with the existing designs.  Clustering 7 Delta IV Core, Falcon 9 core (egads, 63 engines!!) or Atlas V Cores with a super-large upper stage would do this.  It also would not kill the R&D costs, and a single HLV launch would drive the price of their core boosters down, not up, which is a win-win.

The Delta IV product card has growth options:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/DeltaIVProductCardFinal.pdf

[yg1968]

Here is an article that is on point on the idea of a commercial HLV as it discusses among other things the development of an F-1 class engine:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1461/1

F-1-class engine development: At least three domestic commercial companies are well placed to compete for the development and supply of a large booster engine in the class of the Saturn 5 first stage F-1 engine (1.5 million pounds-force). Between six and nine of these engines would enable an all-liquid heavy-lift booster of Ares 5 lift capability, as required for almost any exploration architecture. Liquid rockets are intrinsically safer and more flexible than those using solid motors, and are especially safer than hybrid solid-liquid architectures. This is particularly true if engine-out capability is included, as on the Saturn 5. If NASA were to specify only propellants, broad technical performance goals, and the technical interfaces, it could attain at least two compatible suppliers of engines for its heavy-lift booster. The application of this class of engine to other, smaller commercial launch vehicles is also conceivable, perhaps as a successor to the EELV-class boosters.

[docmordrid]

As for a hyper-clustered Falcon 9 core lets not forget the clongton posts** about the possibility of SpaceX licensing the RS-84 tech, that coupled with the SpaceX statement last summer regarding the military's continued interest in DragonLab. 

IIRC other posts here have reported the military has expressed having a problem with multiple engines.  The RS-84 would solve that problem if it were swapped in for a Merlin cluster using the existing tankage.  Now you have a single-engine core that could be clustered into a beast.

**"SpaceX purchaced the rights to the RS-84. I'd say that they at least have plans in this direction."

"My source tells me that was initially the case but it was re-negotiated and successfully concluded on the 2nd round. Mind you I have no documentation for that but it creates a truely interesting possibility if true. "

[Ben the Space Brit]

IIRC other posts here have reported the military has expressed having a problem with multiple engines.  The RS-84 would solve that problem if it were swapped in for a Merlin cluster using the existing tankage.  Now you have a single-engine core that could be clustered into a beast.

FWIW, I don't think it will be possible to just strip out the Merlin-1s and replace them with Merlin-2 (A recent SpaceX marketing presentation gave the 1.5Mlbf engine that name).  As there is only one engine, some kind of roll control, mabye Kestrels as verniers, will be needed.  I wouldn't be surprised if the structure might need to be reinforced too, so the resulting 'super-F-9' would be different in many ways.

That said, a Delta-IVS (for 'Super-heavy') with ACES-41 upper stage would probably be nudging at the 100t to LEO mark, especially with SRMs, so you would have your heavy CaLV for lunar and NEO missions right there.  Add the ACES upper stage family, crew launch on an Atlas-V or other commercial LV and you are more-or-less there.

However, Lori Garver made it quite clear she wants a sparkly new rocket utilising cutting-edge technology.  So, once again, the EELVs will be starting with a big disadvantage.

[bad_astra]

We're several congressional cycles away from real work on a new HLV. I respect Lori Garver and admire her opinions, and the way she was willing to look under Griffin's hood, but time will tell, when it comes to that.

[robertross]

I am going to start a new thread on commercial HLV. The topic was started on the 2011 budget thread which has been locked for being too long.   

...

As for what sort of projects.  I could think of several possibilities (not that I'm deigning to suggest I actually know what they have in mind, but here's a few).

For first stage technologies:
1-Domestic LOX/RP-1 staged combustion technologies
2-High thrust LOX/RP-1 engines (like in the F-1 class)
3-Thrust Augmented Nozzles (taking them to flight status)

For upper stage technologies:
1-High-thrust expander cycle engines
2-Improved upper stage technologies along the lines of ACES?
3-Solar Electric Propulsion systems including VASIMR
4-Nuclear Propulsion systems

Now, $3B isn't going to cover all of that, but they could fund some subscale demonstrators of a few, and larger-scale system developments of others.

~Jon

[/quote]

1) RS-68A upgrades
2) RD-180 domestic production

These are two of the most important single stage upgrades, because it leverages existing launch vehicles

3) Human-rated upper stages: RL-10 for sure.
4) J-2X: many have complained it isn't necessary. Without a plan/destination, we don't know the requirements of engines. It's quite possible this project will fade away sadly.

Now, IF they wanted to put a capsule on the HLV, then all need HR. Personally, if we were going the R&D route with the above, HR them at the same time to expand the list of options for mix&match.

[TrueBlueWitt]

I am going to start a new thread on commercial HLV. The topic was started on the 2011 budget thread which has been locked for being too long.   

...

As for what sort of projects.  I could think of several possibilities (not that I'm deigning to suggest I actually know what they have in mind, but here's a few).

For first stage technologies:
1-Domestic LOX/RP-1 staged combustion technologies
2-High thrust LOX/RP-1 engines (like in the F-1 class)
3-Thrust Augmented Nozzles (taking them to flight status)

For upper stage technologies:
1-High-thrust expander cycle engines
2-Improved upper stage technologies along the lines of ACES?
3-Solar Electric Propulsion systems including VASIMR
4-Nuclear Propulsion systems

Now, $3B isn't going to cover all of that, but they could fund some subscale demonstrators of a few, and larger-scale system developments of others.

~Jon

1) RS-68A upgrades
2) RD-180 domestic production

These are two of the most important single stage upgrades, because it leverages existing launch vehicles

3) Human-rated upper stages: RL-10 for sure.
4) J-2X: many have complained it isn't necessary. Without a plan/destination, we don't know the requirements of engines. It's quite possible this project will fade away sadly.

Now, IF they wanted to put a capsule on the HLV, then all need HR. Personally, if we were going the R&D route with the above, HR them at the same time to expand the list of options for mix&match.

Not sure what the use for RS-68A will be?  If DoD wants it.. more power too them.
Human Rating RL-10 should be on the short list.. and probably covered under Commercial Crew Luanch and not advanced propulsion.

I have no problem with J-2X getting cut if they resurrect RL-60.. and possibly even qualifiy it for use with Methane?

[infocat13]

I think the HLV budget line item covers engine work for some future HLV.The Augustine commission recommended that if you go with EELV for human crew beyond LEO then EELV for HLV should be the plan.IE they where talking Orion on EELV and a super evolved EELV HLV.
  so it makes you wonder what the intent of these three budget line items are?
Commercial crew on EELV and perhaps later COTS D as well?
The HLV line item is intended to develop the super heavy EELV?
The technology line item will develop fuel depots/tankers that are in fact upper stages or share common with upper stages of the EELV architecture.
Bolden at the press club stated that it would be wrong to assume that the upper stages for any future crew beyond LEO would be hydrogen/oxygen based IE the technology line item might produce something better!
but that would cost money and legally speaking the AO or the bids are not yet in for the fuel depot or the commercial crew launch so the three guesses above are exactly that

EDIT
and a while back I posted my ugly rocket as my tongue in cheek contribution. It was a Delta V heavy with two 5 segment SRB's attached.it is  a politically correct bipartisan rocket and it is an
"instant"  super heavy EELV. Would need to stretch the Delta tank-age so that there are attach points for the SRB's. lori Garver did state the other day that ATK was welcome to bid in the commercial crew round

[docmordrid]

IIRC other posts here have reported the military has expressed having a problem with multiple engines.  The RS-84 would solve that problem if it were swapped in for a Merlin cluster using the existing tankage.  Now you have a single-engine core that could be clustered into a beast.

FWIW, I don't think it will be possible to just strip out the Merlin-1s and replace them with Merlin-2 (A recent SpaceX marketing presentation gave the 1.5Mlbf engine that name).  As there is only one engine, some kind of roll control, mabye Kestrels as verniers, will be needed.  I wouldn't be surprised if the structure might need to be reinforced too, so the resulting 'super-F-9' would be different in many ways.

The RS-84's thrust, presuming they stay in that ball park, is a bit less than the F9's stack; 1,064 Klbf vs. 1,125 Klbf, so the stresses would be less, not more.  I would also presume the thrust structure/mount would be mechanically simpler and possibly lighter with just a single engine to mount.

Why go through that for no real gain?  To please the military, who from several accounts don't like multi-engine rockets. 

Going that way they could sell DragonLab flights to the military and have a less complex path to a heavy lifter entry.

Or, perhaps, that fake SpX concept that was going around a couple years ago wasn't so speculative after all....

[Halidon]

SRBs are routinely savaged here, but if we're doing technology development new SRB technology would be near the top of my wish list. Specifically, composite-case SRBs using ALICE instead of traditional propellants. Even if never used on a manned vehicle again, that's technology I'd like to have for unmanned launches going forward. Funding a Large expendable LH2 motor with regeneratively cooled nozzle channel-wall nozzle would be high on my list as well.

[Ben the Space Brit]

IIRC other posts here have reported the military has expressed having a problem with multiple engines.  The RS-84 would solve that problem if it were swapped in for a Merlin cluster using the existing tankage.  Now you have a single-engine core that could be clustered into a beast.

FWIW, I don't think it will be possible to just strip out the Merlin-1s and replace them with Merlin-2 (A recent SpaceX marketing presentation gave the 1.5Mlbf engine that name).  As there is only one engine, some kind of roll control, mabye Kestrels as verniers, will be needed.  I wouldn't be surprised if the structure might need to be reinforced too, so the resulting 'super-F-9' would be different in many ways.

The RS-84's thrust, presuming they stay in that ball park, is a bit less than the F9's stack; 1,064 Klbf vs. 1,125 Klbf, so the stresses would be less, not more.  I would also presume the thrust structure/mount would be mechanically simpler and possibly lighter with just a single engine to mount.

Remember that SpaceX are not talking about a RS-84, but their own engine derived from the RS-84, with 1,500klbf thrust.  Having a single force point (nozzle) rather than having it distributed over nine would alter the stresses on the structure too.

[docmordrid]

In that case do we know what the margins are for their tankage in terms of stress bearing capabilities?  Perhaps this was "all part of the plan" from the get-go.

[gladiator1332]

Since the issue over the lack of HLV has been a big issue, I bet we will know more about this R&D effort on Feb 11th, when Bolden speaks next.

But to need an HLV will mean we will also need a destination that will require such capabilities.

While I find the SpaceX option interesting, I think the group that is closest to fielding an HLV (not counting Shuttle-Derived options) is ULA with Atlas and Delta.

[clb22]

Since the issue over the lack of HLV has been a big issue, I bet we will know more about this R&D effort on Feb 11th, when Bolden speaks next.

Bolden already held another press conference on Tuesday (over one hour long), which included questions - also about the HLV line-item if I remember correctly. Bolden pointed to NASA Tiger teams very often, saying that plans for each newly funded programs are currently drawn up and he urged the press to give them more time (weeks) to provide details.

[jiffylube84]

What do all of you think about finishing the rs-84 r&d and the possibility of replacing the rd-180 on the atlas V with it. How hard would this be and rough cost. I think the rd-180 is a fine engine but I have a big problem with the whole russian thing being a big part of HSF is prestige. I feel that we made a huge mistake by scraping the F-1 with the end of apollo imagine where we would be now had we made the saturn's scalable, a saturn with one or two F-1 1st stage would of made a good medium LV. I think we could do atlas this way, imagine a 5 core atlas V if it is possible. Thanks for your input.

[neilh]

However, Lori Garver made it quite clear she wants a sparkly new rocket utilising cutting-edge technology.  So, once again, the EELVs will be starting with a big disadvantage.

Do you have a citation for that?

[2552]

However, Lori Garver made it quite clear she wants a sparkly new rocket utilising cutting-edge technology.  So, once again, the EELVs will be starting with a big disadvantage.

Do you have a citation for that?

I was about to ask that too, thanks. I don't remember hearing anything about a new HLV in the future, and in fact the Heavy-lift and Propulsion R&D line item does not mention new launch vehicles, only "heavy-lift systems", which probably doesn't mean a new HLV.