Poll

Which vehicle is your current preference

SD-HLV In-Line (i.e. DIRECT, ESAS Ares V Classic)
SD-HLV Side-mount
Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1)
Ares Launch System (Ares-I and Ares-V as currently envisaged)
Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase 1, ACES- or Common Centaur-based
MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based)
Other - Please specify

Author Topic: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE  (Read 41099 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Vote for your favored option.

There's a 101 ways to create such a poll with numerous vehicle options, so we're calling this Round One.

Round Two will remove two or three of the above options with the lowest votes, with the likes of SD HLV Inline being split into heavy and medium etc, and more specific commercial options (like ULA and SpaceX split).

Some help on some of the HLV concepts above (articles over the last one year period):

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/


ANY posts which are not deemed as civil will be deleted, without notice, regardless of who posts them and without appeal. I'm more than willing to annoy people if it keeps the forum clean of keyboard bashing.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17910
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 7306
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #1 on: 10/11/2010 11:09 pm »
No surprise for mine: the Jupiter (inline SDHLV)

btw: I like your approach to this poll Chris. Thanks.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6611
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3388
  • Likes Given: 1220
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #2 on: 10/11/2010 11:11 pm »
While the details on what MLVs are available might matter (ie I think we could at least do exploration within the earth-moon system just fine with existing commercial MLVs, but Phase 1 EELVs would make many things a lot easier), I think this is the option that provides by far the biggest benefit.

There are challenges:

-multi-launch architectures require better rendezvous and docking than we currently have, and require intelligent management.
-there are technical risks involved because many of the elements while demoed in the lab aren't flight-proven

But in the end I think the only way we'll be able to do not just a few exploration "missions", but actual development and commercial utilization of space is if we can increase the affordability of such missions.  And frankly RLVs have a ton more potential on that front than HLVs do.

All just my opinion, of course.

~Jon

Offline KEdward5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #3 on: 10/11/2010 11:11 pm »
Sidemount for me. Lower cost, faster schedule and a true backup to the commercial suppliers.

I too appreciate the approach of this poll, with Rounds and not over complicating the first round.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #4 on: 10/11/2010 11:13 pm »
In-line SDLV, DIRECT Jupiter-130/246 combo launcher. I would have been happy if S.3729 had simply said "Call Ross, implement DIRECT". :)

The 5/5 HEFT variant should be kept in reserve as a future upgrade.

Mark S.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2248
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #5 on: 10/11/2010 11:14 pm »
Orion + EELV represents the fastest way to close the gap, despite my longing for Jupiter/Direct as an HLV

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17910
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 7306
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #6 on: 10/11/2010 11:15 pm »
In-line SDLV, DIRECT Jupiter-130/246 combo launcher. I would have been happy if S.3729 had simply said "Call Ross, implement DIRECT". :)

LOL

btw, his number is 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx 
:)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23379
  • Liked: 1832
  • Likes Given: 951
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #7 on: 10/11/2010 11:15 pm »
i must have fat fingers tonight, voted sidemount instead of inline.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #8 on: 10/11/2010 11:16 pm »
EELV phase 1 for it's versatility, not to mention cost sharing with DoD.  IMO of course.

Thanks for setting up this poll Chris.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11556
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 5862
  • Likes Given: 2881
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #9 on: 10/11/2010 11:21 pm »
In-line SDLV, DIRECT Jupiter-130/246 combo launcher. I would have been happy if S.3729 had simply said "Call Ross, implement DIRECT". :)

LOL

btw, his number is 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx 
 :)

I actually have his number hahaha
No surprise from me: Jupiter/SLS SDHLV
GO DIRECT!!!
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline rv_rocket

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Denver, Co
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #10 on: 10/11/2010 11:44 pm »
Direct,
oops, I mean SD-HLV Inline - hands down! :D


« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 01:44 am by rv_rocket »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #11 on: 10/11/2010 11:49 pm »
Which timeframe is the poll referring to?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17910
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 7306
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #12 on: 10/11/2010 11:51 pm »
Which timeframe is the poll referring to?

The one that NASA chooses to go forward with for eventual BEO, by following the newly signed Bill (that's how I chose)
« Last Edit: 10/11/2010 11:52 pm by robertross »

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2855
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1324
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #13 on: 10/11/2010 11:55 pm »
Direct! Its bigger and makes more noise!


Orbiter
Astronomer, launch photographer. Saturn V's biggest fanboy.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #14 on: 10/11/2010 11:58 pm »
I chose "MLV/RLV-based frequent launch", although I think my actual preference would (very) roughly go something like this:

* for LEO, circumlunar, lower-energy NEO missions (next 5-10 years): MLV/RLV-based frequent launch
* for lunar landing, NEO missions, Mars orbit, Phobos missions (another 5-15 years): Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
* for Mars landings, asteroid farming, heavy lunar ISRU (after the above has been well-established): Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1)   
« Last Edit: 10/11/2010 11:58 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 354
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #15 on: 10/12/2010 12:11 am »
I wish there was a way to "rank" our preferences.. and see results based on overall points. I think that would be far more instructive than this black and white poll.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #16 on: 10/12/2010 12:12 am »
I wish there was a way to "rank" our preferences.. and see results based on overall points. I think that would be far more instructive than this black and white poll.

Heh, condorcet voting?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11556
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 5862
  • Likes Given: 2881
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #17 on: 10/12/2010 12:18 am »
I wish there was a way to "rank" our preferences.. and see results based on overall points. I think that would be far more instructive than this black and white poll.

IRV. Instant Runoff Voting.
It allows you to rank the options in your order of preferences.
It narrows down continually until there are only 2, one over 50%.

I'd LOVE to see Presidential elections done this way.
It gives the 3rd and 4th party candidate a running chance without the voter "wasting" their vote, and guarantees that the winner was chosen by a majority vote, not by a plurality. A true majority vote.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 12:19 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1126
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #18 on: 10/12/2010 12:54 am »
In-line SDLV, DIRECT Jupiter-130/246 combo launcher. I would have been happy if S.3729 had simply said "Call Ross, implement DIRECT". :)

LOL

btw, his number is 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx 
 :)

I actually have his number hahaha
No surprise from me: Jupiter/SLS SDHLV
GO DIRECT!!!
Lol.

And it appears so far.......that SLS inline options is in the lead. Lets see how this goes....

Edit: Corrected statement.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 01:39 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online Chris Bergin

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #19 on: 10/12/2010 01:00 am »
Wrong. SD HLV Inline (all inlines) is in the lead. There is no such vehicle called Direct, and of course this is going to win the poll.

Round Two will split up the options with the leading votes. Then it'll get interesting.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #20 on: 10/12/2010 01:00 am »
SD-HLV inline / Direct for me

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1126
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #21 on: 10/12/2010 01:33 am »
Wrong. SD HLV Inline (all inlines) is in the lead. There is no such vehicle called Direct, and of course this is going to win the poll.

Round Two will split up the options with the leading votes. Then it'll get interesting.
Thats what I am looking forward to.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #22 on: 10/12/2010 01:42 am »
Looks like I am almost alone in this, but I am voting for the kerolox SHLV.  I like the energy density of kerolox and simplicity of handling.  I also think that in the long run an all kerolox system can be less expensive than using large strap-ons . You also don't have the same concerns with boil off when using depots, that you have when using liquid Hydrogen. 

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23379
  • Liked: 1832
  • Likes Given: 951
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #23 on: 10/12/2010 01:45 am »
You also don't have the same concerns with boil off when using depots, that you have when using liquid Hydrogen. 

Just an fyi, no proposals so far use kerolox upperstages, only Falcon IX uses it at this point and they aim to replace it with the hydrolox upperstage eventually

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #24 on: 10/12/2010 01:47 am »
I second that notion. SHLV.

I would really go for Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1

These two categories are pretty close to one another...

(Edited to remove false assumption, bait - Andy).
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 01:58 am by Andy USA »

Offline Spacely

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #25 on: 10/12/2010 01:55 am »
I voted upgraded EELV (I assume this is Delta IV with RS-68A, solid strap-ons, upper stage, cross-feed).  Cheapest option.  Gets us about 50 tons/launch into LEO.  Most importantly, frees up money for actual heavy(ier) lift cargoes.

My second vote (bowing to political realities), would be the side-mount SDLV.



Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #26 on: 10/12/2010 01:57 am »
You also don't have the same concerns with boil off when using depots, that you have when using liquid Hydrogen. 

Just an fyi, no proposals so far use kerolox upperstages, only Falcon IX uses it at this point and they aim to replace it with the hydrolox upperstage eventually

Thanks for pointing that out. 

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #27 on: 10/12/2010 02:02 am »
How can you pick a launch vehicle without knowing the payload?

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7964
  • Liked: 2894
  • Likes Given: 276
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #28 on: 10/12/2010 02:07 am »
How can you pick a launch vehicle without knowing the payload?

How can you pick a payload without knowing the mission?

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #29 on: 10/12/2010 02:08 am »
How can you pick a launch vehicle without knowing the payload?

How can you pick a payload without knowing the mission?

How can you pick a mission without knowing your capabilities?

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3053
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 407
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #30 on: 10/12/2010 02:11 am »
I voted inline SDHLV, as I think it's the only way we'll see beyond-LEO human flights within a decade or so, but I still think the United States should be pursuing RLV development.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #31 on: 10/12/2010 02:16 am »
The huge monster inline Saturn-V heritage (33' diameter) kerolox HLV noted in recent trade studies with no less than five F-1A class engines producing 1.7 mlbf

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6056
  • Liked: 3918
  • Likes Given: 3570
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #32 on: 10/12/2010 02:22 am »
I agree with what Jon said.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online scotty125

  • Museum Docent/Leicester City Fan
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #33 on: 10/12/2010 02:27 am »
I guess a lot does depend on what you have in mind for a mission.  If we're looking at the primary mission as throwing 70mT chunks of hardware around, then SD HLV/In-line/DIRECT is the natural choice.  But if you're going to put people on top at any time, then SHLV/kerolox would be my preference.  I've always preferred liqid fuels to solids where crew is involved...
"He who will not, when he may, when he should, he shall have nay."
TV Commercial - Gulf Oil during Apollo Landings

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #34 on: 10/12/2010 02:50 am »
How can you pick a launch vehicle without knowing the payload?

How can you pick a payload without knowing the mission?

How can you pick a mission without knowing your capabilities?

Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #35 on: 10/12/2010 02:54 am »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Well, no.  There is no "right" and there is no "wrong" in this case.

I would like to point out that you have been stating on this forum that the 2010 Authorization Act was more "FY2011" than it was not.  Therefore, since FY2011 was about building "capabilities", you cannot insist on what you said above.

In other words, you can't have it both ways. 

Edit:  Here is the post:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22787.msg647308#msg647308
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 02:57 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #36 on: 10/12/2010 03:08 am »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Well, no.  There is no "right" and there is no "wrong" in this case.

I would like to point out that you have been stating on this forum that the 2010 Authorization Act was more "FY2011" than it was not.  Therefore, since FY2011 was about building "capabilities", you cannot insist on what you said above.

In other words, you can't have it both ways. 

Edit:  Here is the post:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22787.msg647308#msg647308

No, I haven't contradicted myself, this about launch vehicles and nothing more (not the missions they fly).
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 03:09 am by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #37 on: 10/12/2010 03:14 am »
Pretty thin line you're walking there Jim.  I'm pretty sure you crossed it. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #38 on: 10/12/2010 03:19 am »
Vote for your favored option.

Round Two will remove two or three of the above options with the lowest votes.

I like the way Chris is doing this, by whittling down the options.  I voted for kerolox SHLV, but was very close to voting for commercial HLV.  I hope that one of these choices makes it to round 2, while the other is eliminated.  Otherwise I think the vote will be split for those who like these types of vehicles.

By the way, when will we move on to round 2?

Offline saimoncis

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Italia
    • AstronautiNews.it
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #39 on: 10/12/2010 03:21 am »
I voted In-Line SD-HLV!
Go DIRECT!

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #40 on: 10/12/2010 03:44 am »
How can you pick a launch vehicle without knowing the payload?

How can you pick a payload without knowing the mission?

How can you pick a mission without knowing your capabilities?

Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

You said it wrong, Jim. You were supposed to close the circle with:

Quote
How can you decide the capabilities without knowing the payload?

See, it all depends on where in the circle you want to stop. Or start, as the case may be.

Mark S.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 03:44 am by Mark S »

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
  • Liked: 1456
  • Likes Given: 501
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #41 on: 10/12/2010 03:49 am »
I would vote "lander", since if we develop a lander, then there's a very good chance that we'll find the money to develop a suitable launch architecture.  But the converse is much less likely to come about.  An orbital habitat/mission module may be substituted for the lander if we do not plan to land in any gravity wells.

But in lieu of that option, I would like to vote upgraded EELV followed by commercial HLV.  The subject of the poll implies BEO as the objective, so I actually voted commercial HLV, since I believe that those vehicles would be ready by the time we finally have the in-space hardware ready for any BEO mission.

We could never actually develop any in-space hardware and just work on launch vehicles for another couple decades.  We could have many polls on their relative merits as the programs are cancelled and replaced with new acronyms and such.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 03:54 am by butters »

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7964
  • Liked: 2894
  • Likes Given: 276
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #42 on: 10/12/2010 03:51 am »
How can you pick a launch vehicle without knowing the payload?

How can you pick a payload without knowing the mission?

How can you pick a mission without knowing your capabilities?

Capabilities aren't the issue.  We've had a good handle on the capabilities of chemical rockets since at least the early 60s or earlier.  The limitation is funding.  So the question is, "how can you pick a mission without knowing your (out-year) funding?"  Answer:  I don't know, but large increases are looking very, very unlikely at this moment.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #43 on: 10/12/2010 04:19 am »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Which one did you vote for Jim?  EELV?

Online Chris Bergin

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #44 on: 10/12/2010 05:23 am »
Vote for your favored option.

Round Two will remove two or three of the above options with the lowest votes.

I like the way Chris is doing this, by whittling down the options.  I voted for kerolox SHLV, but was very close to voting for commercial HLV.  I hope that one of these choices makes it to round 2, while the other is eliminated.  Otherwise I think the vote will be split for those who like these types of vehicles.

By the way, when will we move on to round 2?

Thanks!

Probably all of Tuesday and go to Round 2 on Wednesday. Toying with the idea of Round 2 Group A (SD HLVs) and Group B (Non SD HLVs or something, maybe commerical....will take advice when I'm back from work later today before we start it up), and then a final hoedown (yee haa) showdown of the two or three 'winners' from Group A and B.

Interesting results so far. Of course Inline SD HLV was going to do well on this forum, but polls are only ever cross sections, as there's so much voter apathy with only a three figure total vote so far (according to the admin section, 12 times the amount that have voted have logged on to the forum since we started the poll. Baffles me to be honest). Anyway, still interesting, as we're seeing some movement with the non-HLV preferences via this.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #45 on: 10/12/2010 05:47 am »
Vote for your favored option.

Round Two will remove two or three of the above options with the lowest votes.

I like the way Chris is doing this, by whittling down the options.  I voted for kerolox SHLV, but was very close to voting for commercial HLV.  I hope that one of these choices makes it to round 2, while the other is eliminated.  Otherwise I think the vote will be split for those who like these types of vehicles.

By the way, when will we move on to round 2?

Thanks!

Probably all of Tuesday and go to Round 2 on Wednesday. Toying with the idea of Round 2 Group A (SD HLVs) and Group B (Non SD HLVs or something, maybe commerical....will take advice when I'm back from work later today before we start it up), and then a final hoedown (yee haa) showdown of the two or three 'winners' from Group A and B.

Interesting results so far. Of course Inline SD HLV was going to do well on this forum, but polls are only ever cross sections, as there's so much voter apathy with only a three figure total vote so far (according to the admin section, 12 times the amount that have voted have logged on to the forum since we started the poll. Baffles me to be honest). Anyway, still interesting, as we're seeing some movement with the non-HLV preferences via this.

I actually really like the idea of having separate SD- and non-SD polls for round 2. I don't think I've ever seen polls like that before, and it'd be really interesting to see the results. Comparisons within the same launch vehicle family tend to be more apples-to-apples, and I'm really curious about what people think are the best options within the families.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2997
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 649
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #46 on: 10/12/2010 06:16 am »
I voted MLV/RLV-based frequent launch, but I see almost zero probability of this in the next decade.

In Round 2 I will vote for the most Direct-ish SD HLV inline.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7050
  • Liked: 2573
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #47 on: 10/12/2010 06:21 am »
See, it all depends on where in the circle you want to stop. Or start, as the case may be.

If what's important is exploring space, first choose a space mission and then build a launch vehicle capable of performing the mission.  If what's important is building a rocket, first choose a rocket and then find a mission it can perform.  The US government has chosen the latter path.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7195
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 796
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #48 on: 10/12/2010 07:45 am »
After sitting down and thinking about this, I selected 'Commercial HLV'.  Why? Am I not a DIRECT fanboy? Well, I am.  However, DIRECT, for me, has always been the ideal political solution.

However, if I were to be asked what is the best overall option in terms of technology, performance and likely operational costs, it would be to have a large (but not over-large) kerolox MLV scalable to an HLV like the Atlas-V Phase 2/3A.  With engine upgrades and performance tweaks, it will easily get over the 100t to LEO mark and even has a potential three-stage option (Phase 3A).  Additionally, as the Atlas-V evolution uses ACES upper stages, this opens the way to a common payload interface with the EELVs, potentially doubling the number of pads (adding LC-37B and SLC-41 to the two LC-39 pads) available for a large LEO assembly mission.

DIRECT/SLS meets the politicians requirements to protect as much of the shuttle work-force as they can, but it is not the ideal LV.  I support it because it is the only one with a realistic hope of being funded and getting quick results.  However, it is not the best and my vote reflects this.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #49 on: 10/12/2010 08:14 am »
After sitting down and thinking about this, I selected 'Commercial HLV'.  Why? Am I not a DIRECT fanboy? Well, I am.  However, DIRECT, for me, has always been the ideal political solution.

However, if I were to be asked what is the best overall option in terms of technology, performance and likely operational costs, it would be to have a large (but not over-large) kerolox MLV scalable to an HLV like the Atlas-V Phase 2/3A.  With engine upgrades and performance tweaks, it will easily get over the 100t to LEO mark and even has a potential three-stage option (Phase 3A).  Additionally, as the Atlas-V evolution uses ACES upper stages, this opens the way to a common payload interface with the EELVs, potentially doubling the number of pads (adding LC-37B and SLC-41 to the two LC-39 pads) available for a large LEO assembly mission.

DIRECT/SLS meets the politicians requirements to protect as much of the shuttle work-force as they can, but it is not the ideal LV.  I support it because it is the only one with a realistic hope of being funded and getting quick results.  However, it is not the best and my vote reflects this.

I did the same, for pretty much the same reasons - although I couldn't have expressed them as well!

Offline mdo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #50 on: 10/12/2010 08:40 am »
... as there's so much voter apathy

A link "active polls" on the forum index page might alleviate what looks like voter apathy.

It is not entirely obvious how to spot polls in an efficient manner, i.e., without continuously checking all subsections.

Offline gin455res

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • bristol, uk
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #51 on: 10/12/2010 08:43 am »
upgraded EELV, as it could be the thin edge of the wedge, i.e. it might be commercially viable, and shift the cost balance between payload and launcher.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #52 on: 10/12/2010 09:33 am »
Just like Ben I favour DIRECT as a political solution, but in an ideal world Atlas Phase 2 really appeals to me due to the modularity.
John

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #53 on: 10/12/2010 09:43 am »
I voted for the original in-line SD-HLV, the ESAS Ares V Classic. Maximum bang for buck in the minimum time is what is needed if we seriously want to go to Mars with humans well before 2050 and this HLV either with or without a fuel depot can do that job, it can do it on its own without any new technology if it has to. A big flagship is also needed to spur public interest again in BEO exploration and in this modern day highly interconnected world won't easily be lost once grabbed. This HLV can act as the exciting exploratory spearhead for commercial business to follow in its wake which will enable the cheaper everyday/week launch vehicles that many want. First though the big powerful HLV has to go to new exciting places to show the rest of humanity what they are missing, it must act as the pied piper. This is not just a zero sum game for NASA's budget as has been narrowly and extensively debated here but a grab for a much larger share of humanity's untapped and unused wealth for the pursuit of BEO exploration, enjoyment, exploitation and eventual colonization. The HLV can be the most highly visible expression of that pursuit as well as being the most capable exponent of that desire.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 09:52 am by marsavian »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #54 on: 10/12/2010 11:45 am »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Which one did you vote for Jim?  EELV?

There wasn't one that really liked because, I see three/four of them as one.

Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase 1, ACES- or Common Centaur-based)
as a start which as requirements evolve could lead into

Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
and further

Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1) but without the NASA developed vehicle.

or by that time an  MLV/RLV-based frequent launch may be viable

So for the poll, I picked Upgraded EELVs as the start.

I picked these because they exist, they are cheaper and affordable and can be sized for existing budgets and they don't exist just to keep people employed.

It is not NASA's job to take care of humanity nor the USA's, these meet the USA's requirements
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 01:57 pm by Jim »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #55 on: 10/12/2010 11:50 am »
or by that time an  MLV/RLV-based frequent launch may be viable

So for the poll, I picked Upgraded EELVs as the start

I chose MLV/RLV (big surprise there), with upgraded EELVs as a close second. Why wouldn't MLVs be viable today? I thought that included EELV Heavies.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline dad2059

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • Dad2059's Webzine of Science-Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #56 on: 10/12/2010 11:55 am »
Count me in for commercial HLV, 1st Round.

IMHO, the most cost effective.
NASA needs some good ol' fashioned 'singularity tech'

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3135
  • Likes Given: 689
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #57 on: 10/12/2010 12:24 pm »
there's so much voter apathy with only a three figure total vote so far (according to the admin section, 12 times the amount that have voted have logged on to the forum since we started the poll. Baffles me to be honest).

Well, to be honest - what's the point of this poll? I mean it doesn't really decide on anything and people are generally apathetic even when their vote *does* count for something.  :)

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #58 on: 10/12/2010 12:57 pm »
I voted for the original in-line SD-HLV, the ESAS Ares V Classic. Maximum bang for buck in the minimum time is what is needed if we seriously want to go to Mars with humans well before 2050 and this HLV either with or without a fuel depot can do that job, it can do it on its own without any new technology if it has to. A big flagship is also needed to spur public interest again in BEO exploration and in this modern day highly interconnected world won't easily be lost once grabbed. This HLV can act as the exciting exploratory spearhead for commercial business to follow in its wake which will enable the cheaper everyday/week launch vehicles that many want. First though the big powerful HLV has to go to new exciting places to show the rest of humanity what they are missing, it must act as the pied piper. This is not just a zero sum game for NASA's budget as has been narrowly and extensively debated here but a grab for a much larger share of humanity's untapped and unused wealth for the pursuit of BEO exploration, enjoyment, exploitation and eventual colonization. The HLV can be the most highly visible expression of that pursuit as well as being the most capable exponent of that desire.

Yep. Thank you Marsavian. Well said. The in-line SD-HLV and BLEO Orion will help us to take great care of the ISS, go back to the Moon, explore NEOs, and head off to Mars. These space vehicles will also encourage lots of active international participation in everything we do in space. The BLEO Orion and in-line SD-HLV are a great investment in the future of our species.

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17910
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 7306
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #59 on: 10/12/2010 01:24 pm »

Probably all of Tuesday and go to Round 2 on Wednesday.

Seems a little soon to me, but that's just my opinion. I'd start round 2 maybe Friday, or better yet, 1 week later. Gives us something to blog (complain) about  :)

Online Nate_Trost

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #60 on: 10/12/2010 01:47 pm »
What, no Project Orion poll option?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9913
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1020
  • Likes Given: 576
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #61 on: 10/12/2010 01:55 pm »
Even tho I am in favor of the current SD-HLV, I chose the kerolox version.  I think it's a great idea to pick up where Saturn V left off.  Lotsa easy to handle fuel, easily scalable.

The current SD-LV at 100t should be MLV.  200-400t should be HLV, and where we should be heading.

The poll question is like asking, which candy do you prefer?  It doesn't ask me about the future availability of the candy, the cost of the candy, nor whether this is a new type of candy which doesn't rotcher teeth.

Which is fine as far as it goes.  But which is also why polls should be quaternary (fixed spelling: it is the word) influences on government policy, and logic should be the primary influence.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 04:18 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 494
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #62 on: 10/12/2010 02:37 pm »

... which is also why polls should be quatenary (if that's the word) influences on government policy, and logic should be the primary influence.

Very close (if your intent is "fourth-level"):

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quaternary

:)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1126
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #63 on: 10/12/2010 03:54 pm »
Interesting results so far. looking forward to round 2.

Everyone please get the word out about this poll and please VOTE NOW. The more people that vote the better a cross section this is :)

3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9913
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1020
  • Likes Given: 576
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #64 on: 10/12/2010 04:17 pm »
From:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/124#

quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, and denary...

Perhaps denary is the correct prioritization of polling.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #65 on: 10/12/2010 04:38 pm »
Tight vote between the non SD HLVs. That specific poll in Round 2 will be interesting, as I'd hope the SD HLV supporters will pick their their preference in that round specific to the non SD HLVs.

Will certainly be going with a Group A (SD HLV variants) and B (Non SD HLVs) tomorrow, as the two specific inlines will do battle and also face off with Sidemount.

Now if we can only find an artist who can draw HLVs having a rap battle like out of 8 Mile......Discovery can be MC: "Ok, Medium 70mt Inline SD HLV, you have two minutes. DJ, spin that s...." with an audience full of EELVs shouting "Choke, choke, choke!" :D

(Sorry!)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #66 on: 10/12/2010 05:06 pm »
Which BEO manned exploration mission is your current preference ?
= Lunar outpost

Which con-ops for that ?
= 1.5 launch,  separate crew from cargo
= 1 launch direct cargo/lander/EDS and 2-launch EOR CEV+lander/EDS

Which heavy launcher ? (this poll)
= STS and CxP -derived in-line HVL (vote for first option in this poll)

Which crew launcher ?
= Ares I or Delta IV or whatever


Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 494
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #67 on: 10/12/2010 05:21 pm »
From:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/124#

quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, and denary...

Perhaps denary is the correct prioritization of polling.

It may well ten'd that way ... ;)

Thanks for the link -- interesting!  Odd that they say there's nothing for 11th level -- would have thought that "undenary" would work there.  Had to chuckle at "duodenary" (wouldn't that have something to do with the duodenum?).  :)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6611
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3388
  • Likes Given: 1220
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #68 on: 10/12/2010 05:25 pm »
Vote for your favored option.

Round Two will remove two or three of the above options with the lowest votes.

I like the way Chris is doing this, by whittling down the options.  I voted for kerolox SHLV, but was very close to voting for commercial HLV.  I hope that one of these choices makes it to round 2, while the other is eliminated.  Otherwise I think the vote will be split for those who like these types of vehicles.

By the way, when will we move on to round 2?

Thanks!

Probably all of Tuesday and go to Round 2 on Wednesday. Toying with the idea of Round 2 Group A (SD HLVs) and Group B (Non SD HLVs or something, maybe commerical....will take advice when I'm back from work later today before we start it up), and then a final hoedown (yee haa) showdown of the two or three 'winners' from Group A and B.

Interesting results so far. Of course Inline SD HLV was going to do well on this forum, but polls are only ever cross sections, as there's so much voter apathy with only a three figure total vote so far (according to the admin section, 12 times the amount that have voted have logged on to the forum since we started the poll. Baffles me to be honest). Anyway, still interesting, as we're seeing some movement with the non-HLV preferences via this.

I actually really like the idea of having separate SD- and non-SD polls for round 2. I don't think I've ever seen polls like that before, and it'd be really interesting to see the results. Comparisons within the same launch vehicle family tend to be more apples-to-apples, and I'm really curious about what people think are the best options within the families.

Seconded (or thirded or fourthed as the case may be)

~Jon

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #69 on: 10/12/2010 05:47 pm »
Which BEO manned exploration mission is your current preference ?
= Lunar outpost


It has to fit within the current budget environment

Offline mrbliss

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #70 on: 10/12/2010 05:56 pm »
I voted for SD-HLV Inline, because I think it's the most pragmatic choice.  I think a Kerolox HLV (derived from SD-HLV) would be a better LV - safer for crews, greener, cheaper, etc. 

It seems like SLS is a good size for BLEO, based on the ideas of "smallest biggest piece" and "how many launches will it take to mount an expedition to Mars".  But I can't imagine we'll ever need anything bigger than SLS - propellant depots will obviate any requirement for super-sized launchers.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #71 on: 10/12/2010 06:12 pm »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Which one did you vote for Jim?  EELV?

There wasn't one that really liked because, I see three/four of them as one.

Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase 1, ACES- or Common Centaur-based)
as a start which as requirements evolve could lead into

Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
and further

Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1) but without the NASA developed vehicle.

or by that time an  MLV/RLV-based frequent launch may be viable

So for the poll, I picked Upgraded EELVs as the start.

I picked these because they exist, they are cheaper and affordable and can be sized for existing budgets and they don't exist just to keep people employed.

It is not NASA's job to take care of humanity nor the USA's, these meet the USA's requirements

For me, it's a bit like having to make a choice between the inline J-130 and the J-246 -- one eventually wants both of them, with one as an evolutionary step to the other, paced by budget, schedule, and mission needs.

Shuttle -> J-130 -> J-246 (both of which fall under the "SD-HLV Inline Option)
Current MLVs -> Upgraded EELVs[phase 1] -> Commercial HLV[phase 2/X] -> Kerolox SHLV[phase 3/XX] (currently split up into 4 different options)

(Also, sorry I didn't give feedback before the poll was made... that thread was closed before I saw it)
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
  • Liked: 1456
  • Likes Given: 501
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #72 on: 10/12/2010 06:14 pm »
I think that a lot of the non-SD voters are confused about the choice of MLV, EELV, or HLV (or even Kerolox SHLV to an extent).  I see these as a continuum, an evolutionary path.  Jim expressed this view better than I did (go figure). 

Choosing among these options mostly reflects on the voter's assumed timescale, especially since the poll doesn't provide any guidance on what kind of BEO mission we're initially and ultimately pursuing with this launch architecture.

If the game plan is flexible path, NEO followed by Moon and/or Mars, then it makes sense to evolve from the EELV and COTS launchers as the IMLEO and largest dry module requirements expand with the mission objectives.

Start with upgraded EELV/COTS and then move on things like Atlas Phase 2 or Falcon X and so on.  Which we vote for is a function of when the in-space hardware is to be ready and the nature of that hardware.

If we don't know what we're going to be launching or when, then inline SDLV makes sense because it covers all of our bases from an earlier date.  We may never have a payload, but hey, we have a really big launcher just in case we ever do.

Offline Davie OPF

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Kennedy Space Center
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #73 on: 10/12/2010 06:19 pm »

Now if we can only find an artist who can draw HLVs having a rap battle like out of 8 Mile......Discovery can be MC: "Ok, Medium 70mt Inline SD HLV, you have two minutes. DJ, spin that s...." with an audience full of EELVs shouting "Choke, choke, choke!" :D

(Sorry!)

As a fan of that particular film, that had me spitting my coffee out all over the place ;D

Offline Davinator

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #74 on: 10/12/2010 06:48 pm »
Sidemount. A real gap bridger between STS-135 and test launches.

Offline rsteinke

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #75 on: 10/12/2010 07:47 pm »
I vote for MLV/RLV frequent launches.  Assuming we're talking about a government funded exploration program, I would start by getting discounts for bulk purchases of existing expendable MLVs, and then hope that RLV builders would be able to get investment capital to develop vehicles to compete for that business.

Yes, there will be technical challenges to overcome with orbital assembly and propellant storage, but you will avoid paying tens of billions of dollars to develop a new rocket.  You can use that money to overcome the challenges.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #76 on: 10/12/2010 08:10 pm »
Looking ahead to the next round, for SDHLV I'll probably be voting inline, with J-130-equivalent evolving into J-246 (or maybe even something along the lines of AJAX). For non-SDHLV, my vote's for MLVs, evolving to heavier variants.

I'm not strictly non-SDHLV over SDHLV; for example, I think going for J-130 first would be wiser than immediately going for the monster Saturn V+ kerolox vehicle described in some presentations.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 08:12 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #77 on: 10/12/2010 08:26 pm »
I think that a lot of the non-SD voters are confused about the choice of MLV, EELV, or HLV (or even Kerolox SHLV to an extent).  I see these as a continuum, an evolutionary path.  Jim expressed this view better than I did (go figure). 
   jim/neilh/butters:
 
   I think the reason for separating out the existing MLVs/Heavies/Phase I/Phase II/Phase IIIa/Phase IIIb is that, although they sit on an evolutionary continuum, people may have very different visions.

   You can order the MLVs and upgraded Heavies today, sure, and Phase I online within 5 years or so. But some folks clearly believe -- not indefensibly -- that 40-50mT is inadequate, and that 70mT is the bare minimum entry if you're actually serious. That means go directly to Phase II. Some folks feel that that would be a bad idea of "skimping on the heavy lift", 100mT is the minimum price of entry, which means Phase III. A completely different reason is that some people may feel that we need to be using the VAB + LC-39 in any major NASA exploration program, which also leads towards the Phase III. The Phase IIIb design in particular, built at Michoud, could be a more NASA-owned style of vehicle, than say a Phase II which is just contracted for launches from LC-41 -- a shuttle-derived vehicle in spirit, if not using SSME. (Phase IIIa would split the difference.)
     On top of all this are those who worry about handing over all of NASA's exploration rockets to ULA (or LockMart) as a de facto monopoly. That leads to a desire to compete Falcon X & Falcon X Heavy or Falcon XX down the road, provided that SpaceX demonstrates, eventually, that it is the kind of company able to scale to that with confidence and reliability.

    So, although there may be a technical evolutionary continuum, that's not necessarily so when considering political and ops concepts and jobs and end-goals concerns, and different adherents may have very different futures in mind.
      -Alex



Offline Don RN

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • North Carolina, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #78 on: 10/12/2010 09:12 pm »
I think that a lot of the non-SD voters are confused about the choice of MLV, EELV, or HLV (or even Kerolox SHLV to an extent).  I see these as a continuum, an evolutionary path.  Jim expressed this view better than I did (go figure). 

(edited for length)
   
    So, although there may be a technical evolutionary continuum, that's not necessarily so when considering political and ops concepts and jobs and end-goals concerns, and different adherents may have very different futures in mind.
      -Alex


Alex,
Though I think many or all are thinking along those lines, you have very nicely summarized & discussed to make the point clearly and provide a mutual baseline understanding -- starting vehicle choice along the continuum is strongly influenced by a variety of factors and thus may eliminate a full evolutionary approach.

Don

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #79 on: 10/12/2010 09:41 pm »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Umm, Jim, can you tell me a single example of payload first, ever, in the actual history of flown spaceflight? Saturn V is maybe the closest, but the decision to use Saturn C-4/5 was before the LOR decision, so again, the launch vehicle came first, with payload scaled to match.

Ironically, Ares I was the prime example a rocket designed for a single mission, and failed partly because it couldn't do anything but that mission....

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1126
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #80 on: 10/12/2010 09:55 pm »
Hmm, side mount gaining some surprising results. Interesting considering it limitations. Not sure if side mount is still on the table politcally (seems like that internal strife with JSC vs. MSFC ended with MSFC being given the win). Anyway intersting results. I expected more support for EELV.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #81 on: 10/12/2010 10:10 pm »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Umm, Jim, can you tell me a single example of payload first, ever, in the actual history of flown spaceflight? Saturn V is maybe the closest, but the decision to use Saturn C-4/5 was before the LOR decision, so again, the launch vehicle came first, with payload scaled to match.

Ironically, Ares I was the prime example a rocket designed for a single mission, and failed partly because it couldn't do anything but that mission....

I'm not Jim, but Energia/Buran. Ariane 5/Hermes. Payload scaling the launch vehicle has applied to practically every MLV/HLV.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #82 on: 10/12/2010 10:11 pm »
Heard that guests can't see the results so far.....so:

SD-HLV In-Line (i.e. DIRECT, ESAS Ares V Classic) (50.9%)
SD-HLV Side-mount  (12.9%)
Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)  (9.3%)
Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1) (6.5%)
Ares Launch System (Ares-I and Ares-V as currently envisaged)  (0.7%)
Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase 1, ACES- or Common Centaur-based (9.3%)
MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based)  (9.3%)
Other - Please specify (1.1%)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #83 on: 10/12/2010 10:21 pm »
I expected more support for EELV.

and I expected more support for Cx which can't even beat Other ;). It is a clear win though for the Senate Bill's SD-HLV offering which is beating all others combined ! Looks like it's carrying the people as well as the politicians ;).

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 454
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #84 on: 10/12/2010 10:35 pm »
I voted side mount as it can fly sooner but can evolve into an inline later if needed.

If you don't have a large upper stage in the pipeline there's not as much of an advantage for the inline.



I'm not Jim, but Energia/Buran. Ariane 5/Hermes. Payload scaling the launch vehicle has applied to practically every MLV/HLV.

But they were not as closely tailored to their payloads as Ares I was.

Energia for example also had options for a 40T MLV  Energia M and the 175T HLV Vulkan-Hercules.
It was not built to launch just Buran in fact it's first flight carried a space station the Polyus.

The others they were designed for around a given payload size but with growth options.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 10:45 pm by Patchouli »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #85 on: 10/12/2010 10:49 pm »
I'm not Jim, but Energia/Buran. Ariane 5/Hermes. Payload scaling the launch vehicle has applied to practically every MLV/HLV.

Hermes never flew, and Ariane 5 was designed for more than just Hermes. Indeed Ariane 5 has been a success specifically because it can launch two sats to GEO, and satellites have been scaled accordingly. Energia is closer, but proves the point about Ares I. While a non-Buran payload was flown, it failed due to having to adapt to Buran's mounting points...

Again, it's really, really rare to see a successful LV designed around a single mission. The true successes are built to a general performance target, and the payloads designed around them. Everything else is nothing more than a paper study...
« Last Edit: 10/12/2010 10:50 pm by simonbp »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #86 on: 10/12/2010 11:29 pm »
Hi, all,

    Since the array of options may be bewildering, I've attempted to plot out the performance numbers to LEO for a number of vehicle variants.

This is a preliminary plot -- needs better numbers

Could the AJAX guys provide updated figures for their 3/4/5 SSME /w 2/4/6 strapons (or whatever figures you have easily at hand?)

Also, can someone provide the J-140SH and J-150SH figures, and the figures to LEO for J-246SH and J-256SH? From memory, it's around 100-110mT, but I haven't dug through the threads.

Does anyone know what the Atlas V Heavy and Atlas V Phase I Heavy performance would be with SRMs? (Barr & Kutter allude to it, but it's mixed up with other stuff like boctone and crossfeed.)

-Alex

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #87 on: 10/12/2010 11:32 pm »
I've already voted, but I'm a little confused about the MLV/RLV option. Exactly what MLV/RLV are we talking about? Atlas/Dreamchaser? Are there any other RLVs on the fast track to reality that I haven't heard of?

Sure RLVs are sexy but aren't they more like long-term research projects? Or are they a done deal, and all someone needs is the money to make it happen.

Mark S.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #88 on: 10/13/2010 02:36 am »
Wrong, mission drives the need for the capabilities. It is not build it and they will come.   Payload first, then launch vehicle.   That is how it is done and been done for decades.   That is why Ares I failed.

Umm, Jim, can you tell me a single example of payload first, ever, in the actual history of flown spaceflight? Saturn V is maybe the closest, but the decision to use Saturn C-4/5 was before the LOR decision, so again, the launch vehicle came first, with payload scaled to match.

Ironically, Ares I was the prime example a rocket designed for a single mission, and failed partly because it couldn't do anything but that mission....

No, the Saturn C-5 was sized to fit the Apollo spacecraft.

You want examples?

Atlas LV-3 : SLV-3 : SLV-3A

Atlas SLV-3 Agena : Titan 3B :  Titan 34B

Thor Agena A : Thor Agena B : SLV-2A :  SLV-2G

Thor SLV-2G: Titan 3D : Titan 34D : Titan IV

Titan 3C : Titan 34D : Titan IV

Delta progression through the years
Delta II Heavy

Atlas Centaur  progression through the years (LV-3C, SLV-3C, SLV-3D, Atlas G, Atlas II, IIA, IIAS, IIIA, IIIB, V)

Delta II (6925 : 7925)

Titan IV : Delta IV and Atlas V

Titan IV SRMU

The addition of solids to  Delta IV and Atlas V

RS-68A upgrade to Delta IV heavy

The shuttle was just a logical progression of the Titan missions.

« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 02:39 am by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #89 on: 10/13/2010 02:40 am »

Again, it's really, really rare to see a successful LV designed around a single mission. The true successes are built to a general performance target, and the payloads designed around them. Everything else is nothing more than a paper study...

Wrong, see above

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #90 on: 10/13/2010 03:01 am »
No, the C-5's size was set before the LEM RFP. Atlas's size was set in early 1950's based on its ICBM mission. Likewise for Thor and Titan. Centaur's size was set for the Saturn C-3 circulunar mission, and all Atlas-Centaur payloads were scaled to fit decisions made (in some cases) decades previous. Agena was scaled to fit a satellite it never launched. The SRBs on Titan III were scaled to fit the existing Titan II, not any particular payload. Delta II, Titan IV, Shuttle, Atlas V, and Delta IV were designed to meet a general payload requirement, not a specific payload.

Likewise, SLS is being designed to meet a set of general payload requirements (70/130 tonnes), not a specific requirement, just like everything else.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
  • Liked: 1456
  • Likes Given: 501
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #91 on: 10/13/2010 03:27 am »
The thing with Ares I is that it was designed for a suborbital trajectory.  Without a third stage, Ares I is basically a very heavy ICBM rather than a launch vehicle proper.

One can argue that Orion was designed around the limitations of Ares I more than Ares I was designed around the requirements of Orion.

Designing an LV around a payload is fine as long as the LV doesn't depend on unique capabilities of the payload.  Ares I was not a complete launch vehicle without Orion.  That's the problem, not the general idea of sizing LVs to payloads.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35679
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17748
  • Likes Given: 394
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #92 on: 10/13/2010 03:30 am »
No, the C-5's size was set before the LEM RFP.

1.  Atlas's size was set in early 1950's based on its ICBM mission.
2.   Likewise for Thor and Titan.

3.  Centaur's size was set for the Saturn C-3 circulunar mission,

4.   and all Atlas-Centaur payloads were scaled to fit decisions made (in some cases) decades previous.

5. Agena was scaled to fit a satellite it never launched.

6The SRBs on Titan III were scaled to fit the existing Titan II, not any particular payload.

7. Delta II, Titan IV, Shuttle, Atlas V, and Delta IV were designed to meet a general payload requirement, not a specific payload.



1.  The 5th engine in the C-5 was added for Apollo spacecraft weight increases
2. yes, which means it was designed to a payload, the warhead.  Anyways. we are talking about launch vehicles in the last 40-45 years.

3.  See #2, especially the Thor.  It was designed around the Atlas warhead

4.  No, Centaur exists for Atlas first and see # 2 and # 5.  Centaur came into being because Agena didn't have the performance

5.  Agena was a stage/spacecraft and not a launch vehicle. Also, it was only a concept until Corona.

6.  No, Titan III was originally designed for Dynasoar

7.  You could not be more wrong
7a.  Delta II was specifically designed for GPS. 
Atlas II was  specifically designed for DSCS
7b.  Titan IV was designed for Milstar, DSP, and classified spacecraft.  The upperstages and fairing lengths were for specific spacecrafts.
7c.  Delta IV and Atlas V were designed much the same way.  Existing and upgraded spacecraft programs were used.   The Performance Specification lists these spacecraft.

I know, I was there for 7. 
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 03:44 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #93 on: 10/13/2010 03:37 am »
As of now, the "MLV/RLV-based frequent launch" option has garnered almost 10% of the vote, barely less than "Commercial HLV" and actually more than "Upgraded EELV".

Can someone explain what all these people are voting for? I searched for "RLV" here on NSF and found a bunch of mostly stale threads, with most of the more respected posters saying "aint' gonna happen". Is this just wishful thinking, or do 10% of the voters have an ace up their sleeves?

(Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand what's going on.)

Mark S.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #94 on: 10/13/2010 03:49 am »
As of now, the "MLV/RLV-based frequent launch" option has garnered almost 10% of the vote, barely less than "Commercial HLV" and actually more than "Upgraded EELV".
Can someone explain what all these people are voting for? I searched for "RLV" here on NSF and found a bunch of mostly stale threads, with most of the more respected posters saying "aint' gonna happen". Is this just wishful thinking, or do 10% of the voters have an ace up their sleeves?
(Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand what's going on.)
   Looks a little ambiguous to me, but I suspect some people are taking it as just buying the existing Medium and/or Heavy EELVs (and possibly Falcon 9/Falcon 9-Heavy) at higher launch rates, and then, if/as the higher rates justify the effort, these vehicles may transition towards recovery and reuse of the first stages (as has been proposed by those companies already, but not yet demonstrated.)
    It might also be interpreted going directly to dedicated new-design RLVs (at least the first stage) right away.
   See the posts by jongoff, mmeijeri, rsteinke, etc., or ask them ;)
         -Alex

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35005
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 18976
  • Likes Given: 10009
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #95 on: 10/13/2010 04:35 am »
Also, remember, the Air Force is planning to initially field the replacement for EELV that will have a reusable first stage around 2025 (though not replacing EELVs until 2030), which is around when BEO missions will really get going (according to current plans).

And SpaceX seems pretty adamant about recovering/reusing the first stage (and second stage, eventually).

And Shuttle itself might count as a MLV/RLV for some people.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 05:05 am by Robotbeat »
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

Online Chris Bergin

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #96 on: 10/13/2010 04:52 am »
Round 2 Group A and Group B polls to begin on Wednesday.

Providing no one objects (and if you do, please post the options like below), Group B will be Non SD-HLVs:

Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)

Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1) 

Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase 1, ACES- or Common Centaur-based)

MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based)

(Also note we can add - or even reduce - the options on this for Group B with other options that may be viable for the poll).

Group A will be SD-HLVs:

SD-HLV In-Line (70mT): (HEFT "4/3", J-130)

SD-HLV In-Line (~130mT): (HEFT "5/5", J-150SH, Ares V "Classic")

SD-HLV Side-mount (70mT): (SSP Studied)

The winner of Group A and Group B will face off in Final Round cage match on Friday.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #97 on: 10/13/2010 06:25 am »
[yoda]Begun the launcher wars have.[/yoda] :D

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #98 on: 10/13/2010 06:30 am »
It might be worth mentioning Delta IV Heavy in the upgraded EELV section as that is the existing top-end and most likely to evolve further. I would also order them in descending size to make it easier to go to the one you want. Also the tonnage in the SD-HLV section probably needs to reflect the integrated upper stage for both of the HEFT options (p33 of HEFT2.pdf) so ...


Group B / Non SD-HLVs:


Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1)

Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)

Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase 1/Delta IV Heavy, ACES- or Common Centaur-based or solids or cross-feed or any combination)

MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based)



Group A / SD-HLVs:


SD-HLV In-Line (101-127mT): (HEFT "5/5", J-150SH, J-251SH, Ares V "Classic")

SD-HLV In-Line (76-85mT): (HEFT "4/3", J-130, J-231, "Direct")

SD-HLV Side-mount (70mT): (SSP Studied)
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 06:43 am by marsavian »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1126
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #99 on: 10/13/2010 06:52 am »
Chris: If you want the AJAX numbers I might be able to dig those up to. But the original numbers no longer apply to the preferred option (shortened core). Will try nonetheless so that you can include that if you want. ;)
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7195
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 796
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #100 on: 10/13/2010 08:00 am »
Can someone explain what all these people are voting for?

This is the architecture based on no individual component being no greater than 25t IMLEO and extensive use of propellent transfer in LEO, both hypergolic and cryogenic.  This works because, if you launch dry (without on-board propellent), even heavier elements can be brought comfortably into the EELV-Heavies' payload range.  They are then fuelled up (including hypergolic fuel for their on-board RCS and other propulsion) in orbit.  EDS and other propulsion units are also launched dry and fuelled in orbit.

The key objective of the architecture is force such a high launch rate that NASA and the commercial providers must develop an RLV and possibly reusable propellent tankers to allow for a launch rate as high as 24 flights per year just for propellent and possibly higher.  The objective isn't really to enable exploration as a first priority - it is to enable the reduction of launch costs by at least an order of magnitude, thus making later exploration far cheaper and easier to do.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #101 on: 10/13/2010 08:08 am »
Chris, I think marsavian makes good points; a few minor corrections (explicitly include DIVH per someone's question on the thread, make the JUS u/s engine-agnostic, fix J-130 lower bound, -231 typo, etc.)
Also added AJAX.
    -Alex

Group B / Non SD-HLVs:
Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-class-RP1)
Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase I/Delta IV Phase I, ACES- or Common Centaur-based or solids or cross-feed or any combination)
MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based, including existing EELVs & DIVH)


Group A / SD-HLVs:
SD-HLV In-Line (101-127mT): (HEFT "5/5", J-150SH, J-25xSH, Ares V "Classic")
SD-HLV In-Line (64-85mT): (J-130, HEFT "4/3", J-24x, "DIRECT")
SD-HLV Side-mount (70mT): (SSP Studied)
AJAX (SDHLV Jupiter core /w 4xAtlas V as LRB instead of SRB)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #102 on: 10/13/2010 08:26 am »
Alex,

The J-130 figure I quoted came directly from the HEFT2 document (p33) and is very similar to what DIRECT itself quote. J-231 was not a typo but the HEFT 4/3 vehicle with an upper stage as specified in HEFT2. If you want to broaden that category to specifically include Direct v3.0 than perhaps something like this, with changes to yours in bold ...

Group B / Non SD-HLVs:
Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-class-RP1)
Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase I/Delta IV Phase I, ACES- or Common Centaur-based or solids or cross-feed or any combination)
MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based, including existing EELVs & DIVH)


Group A / SD-HLVs:
SD-HLV In-Line (101-127mT): (HEFT "5/5", J-150SH, J-25xSH, Ares V "Classic")
SD-HLV In-Line (71-85-105mT): (HEFT "4/3", J-130, J-23/4x, "DIRECT")
SD-HLV Side-mount (70mT): (SSP Studied)
AJAX (SDHLV Jupiter core /w 4xAtlas V as LRB instead of SRB)



edit : 77 to 71mT and 110 to 105mT in HEFT "4/3", DIRECT SD-HLV option.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 09:19 am by marsavian »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #103 on: 10/13/2010 08:42 am »
The J-130 figure I quoted came directly from the HEFT2 document (p33) and is similar to what DIRECT itself quote. J-231 was not a typo but the HEFT 4/3 vehicle with an upper stage. If you want to broaden that category to specifically include Direct V3 than perhaps something like
SD-HLV In-Line (77-85-110mT): (J-130, HEFT "4/3", J-23/4x, "DIRECT")

 "J-[something]" (here on nasaspaceflight) refers specifically to DIRECT's Jupiter vehicles, which (naturally) are not in the HEFT under those names. 64mt is the official bold-print figure for crewed J-130. Where does 110mT come from?

   The upper stage options for SDHLV are very broad, and they certainly complicate the core performance figures to LEO! I think Chris's goal is to broadly distinguish the lighter (4 seg, standard-ET length) vehicles from the heavier (5 seg, stretched ET) vehicles, which seems reasonable.

   -Alex

    edit: add: sure, the performance for suborbital staging goes up, but for consistency and simplicity I use circular LEO. Also, I would try to stay "HEFT-agnostic", since many voters here will be interested in DIRECT, with crew.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 09:21 am by alexw »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #104 on: 10/13/2010 08:53 am »
The 64mT figure for J-130 is with additional DIRECT 10% margins on top of NASA's margins which in themselves give a figure of 71mT. NASA will not use DIRECT margins in any future documentation.

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.08100_CLV_100x100nmi_29.0deg_090606.jpg

Payload w/ regular NASA GR&A's

100.0 x 100.0nmi, 29.0
157,491lb (71,437kg)

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241-41.4002.08001_EDS_090606.jpg

Payload w/ regular NASA GR&A's

130.0 x 130.0nmi, 29.0
232,352lb (105,393kg)

I will edit my post to be more accurate in terms of encompassing the base DIRECT v3.0 range using NASA's apples to apples margins, 71mT for 77mT and 105mT instead of 110mT. If 4/3 is built than HEFT2 is saying it will only be a 3 engine core so although it might be more complicated in the options to mix HEFT with DIRECT v3.0 it reflects the reality of what will actually be more likely to get built.

« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 09:30 am by marsavian »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #105 on: 10/13/2010 09:31 am »
Hi, Chris & all,

 I've updated a big chart of most known vehicle options, attached below, especially with a wide range of SDHLV options using the most specific performance figures. I've sought to stay scrupulously "nonpartisan". It might help to clarify the gamut of performance options.

  Corrections and suggestions are eagerly appreciated.
   -Alex

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #106 on: 10/13/2010 09:34 am »
It is very partisan to use DIRECT's unofficial additional 10% margin on top of NASA's regular GR&A's !  Are there any other vehicles similarly hindered ? Do you not want to include the 127mT 5/5 figure with RS-25 upper stage either ?
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 09:57 am by marsavian »

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #107 on: 10/13/2010 09:43 am »
Please Chris, do try and resolve this fully before you post the next polls. As we learned from ESAS, the starting assumptions are the most important factor in the results obtained (at least in the case of a fair evaluation).
John

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #108 on: 10/13/2010 10:03 am »
It is very partisan to use DIRECT's unofficial additional 10% margin on top of NASA's regular GR&A's !  Are there any other vehicles similarly hindered ?
 
    It is the number in bold print on DIRECT's performance charts. Those are the figures that Ross routinely quoted for comparison to CxP.
It is clearly labeled on the chart as "crewed, inc. 10% res.", so there can be no possible confusion, and no deception.

    (And the HEFT vehicles are clearly labeled "cargo", since that was stated in the document, so the apples and oranges are clear.)

 I think (I hope!) that most people understand that the choice of fairing (diameter, length), delivery orbit (suborbital, 100 nm circular, 220 nm circ.), crewed vs. cargo, and margins all affect performance figures. Naturally, propellant depot filling-flights and crewed flights may have quite different performance for the same vehicle. Do you think that the chart does not encapsulate the full range of SDHLV performance options?

   FWIW, it's not quite clear, but HEFT may be using 407km x 407km as a delivery orbit, rather than 100nm. I've also read that ULA's performance figures include considerable extra reserves, since delivery orbits are contracts, so I would guess that, yes, they are also hindered.

   I welcome expert feedback from Ross or ULA-experts on this subject. What's the fairest way to proceed? What margins does SpaceX use? Do the EELV-evolved figures include the same margins as the payload performance guides? While we're at it, does DIRECT have more recent figures for the (unofficial) stretch-heavy vehicles? And does DIRECT have 130nmi x 130nmi figures for J-130 -- that's the orbit quoted for the other variants?
    -Alex


Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #109 on: 10/13/2010 11:08 am »
Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to remove the mT figures all together like so :-

Group B / Non SD-HLVs:

Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-class-RP1)
Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase I/Delta IV Phase I, ACES- or Common Centaur-based or solids or cross-feed or any combination)
MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based, including existing EELVs & DIVH)


Group A / SD-HLVs:

SD-HLV In-Line : (HEFT "5/5", J-150SH, J-25xSH, Ares V "Classic")
SD-HLV In-Line : (HEFT "4/3", J-130, J-23/4x, "DIRECT")
SD-HLV Side-mount : (SSP Studied)
AJAX (SDHLV Jupiter core /w 4xAtlas V as LRB instead of SRB)
« Last Edit: 10/13/2010 11:08 am by marsavian »

Offline Peter

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #110 on: 10/13/2010 11:24 am »
Best сhoice - Falcon-XX for BEO & Mars.
2nd option - NASA-developed Ares-V-RP1 based on new USA kerolox engine - more flexible family opportunity but more costly.
The best engine for upper stage - vacuum SSME derivation.
Unfortunately there isnt any sens of discussing - Congress made his decision - SDHLV based on improper Shuttle SRBs.

Offline MP99

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #111 on: 10/13/2010 01:31 pm »
   FWIW, it's not quite clear, but HEFT may be using 407km x 407km as a delivery orbit, rather than 100nm.

The HEFT LV's are not delivering to 407Km.

In the mission plans, all launches to 407Km either include a CPS or a kick stage. The mass of the CPS / kick stage is included in the payload breakdowns, so the HEFT launchers are delivering to some lower orbit (and could be not be circular). ISTR Ross saying the J-246 would be 110-115mT gross to 30x130nmi, but that would imply a third or kick stage


Quote
I've also read that ULA's performance figures include considerable extra reserves, since delivery orbits are contracts, so I would guess that, yes, they are also hindered.

   I welcome expert feedback from Ross or ULA-experts on this subject. What's the fairest way to proceed? What margins does SpaceX use? Do the EELV-evolved figures include the same margins as the payload performance guides?

The HEFT mission plans also show 10% reserved performance, described as "PjMR", presumably "Project Manager's Reserve" or similar. I suspect this is equivalent to the Level 2 & Level 3 through-TLI MR's (ie post-ascent) built into CxP. (See also this).

However, I too would be interested to know whether the "100t" payload depicted in HEFT2 (as attached) includes some extra margin on the launch.

cheers, Martin

Online Chris Bergin

Re: POLL: HLV/SLS/BEO Launch Vehicle Showdown ROUND ONE
« Reply #112 on: 10/13/2010 02:17 pm »
Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to remove the mT figures all together like so :-

Group B / Non SD-HLVs:

Kerolox SHLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 3B or Falcon-XX or NASA-developed Ares-V-class-RP1)
Commercial HLV (i.e. Atlas V Phase 2/3A, Falcon-X or Super-Delta)
Upgraded EELVs (i.e. Atlas V Phase I/Delta IV Phase I, ACES- or Common Centaur-based or solids or cross-feed or any combination)
MLV/RLV-based frequent launch (NASA or multiple commercial provider-based, including existing EELVs & DIVH)


Group A / SD-HLVs:

SD-HLV In-Line : (HEFT "5/5", J-150SH, J-25xSH, Ares V "Classic")
SD-HLV In-Line : (HEFT "4/3", J-130, J-23/4x, "DIRECT")
SD-HLV Side-mount : (SSP Studied)
AJAX (SDHLV Jupiter core /w 4xAtlas V as LRB instead of SRB)

Will do.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0