-
Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
by
TomH
on 21 Mar, 2012 21:15
-
O.K., so I know this is not part of the plan. This is purely for the sake of speculation. Some of this was in another thread that was about one specific LV; this thread is to discuss the overall concept of Orion being sent up by itself to EOR with the rest of an assembly just prior to deep space departure. I'd like to compare and contrast several possibilities.
The rationale for Ares I was to separate Orion, for the sake of safety, from the rest of the stack on a mega-liquid LV. Personally, I don't think riding on top of a mega solid is any safer. My other thread was in regard to ATK winning the advanced booster competition with a SRB then trying to use that advanced SRB as the first stage on an Ares I-Super type launcher. That idea blew up before the thread could go anywhere.
For the purpose of risk analysis, I'd like to consider whether Orion should go up on an SLS Block II with other hardware beneath her, or if Block II should be cargo only with Orion going last on something else to EOR prior to deep space departure. If this is worthy of consideration, the next question becomes, "On what?" I accept that early flights will be on Block I and Block IA, so this speculation is for well down the line in the future.
Other than riding on SLS Block II with other hardware, these are the possibilities that I can see (all man rated with emergency detection):
1) Atlas V Heavy
2) Delta IV Heavy
3) If LRB wins advanced competition, make it vectorable, use as first stage, add US.
4) If SRB wins advanced competition, build Ares I-Super as described above.
5) Atlas V Phase II
6) Do not phase out Block I or IA; keep it for this purpose after Block II comes on line and use Block II only for cargo, especially if Block IA goes with LRB.
7) (Edit) Falcon 9 Heavy (As Lobo points out below, I neglected this one.)
Firstly, how would you rank these seven LVs (and the Orion atop Block II stack) against each other as far as risk to vehicle and crew?
Secondly, what other issues do you see for each one in design, R/D, operational cost, politics, etc.?
-
#1
by
Robotbeat
on 21 Mar, 2012 22:01
-
Delta IV Heavy is the obvious choice IMHO, since EFT-1 will also use Delta IV Heavy as well. Delta IV Heavy has better performance than Ares I would have had.
Because of that inertia and (future) institutional experience and the possibility of problems with SLS and funding constraints, I actually would give Delta IV Heavy just as good odds (if not better) as SLS for the first manned flight of Orion.
Delta IV Heavy isn't going away, and I have a feeling the EFT-1 Orion test flight will cause a lot of people to think twice about waiting until SLS is finished to launch Orion. If only one SLS pad is built, it may be required if a one-launch SLS architecture isn't practical.
Also, going cargo-only for SLS may save a lot of development and infrastructure cost for SLS (very important since we're going to be pretty constrained financially no matter what), besides likely reducing risks (and reducing the requirement for more test-flights, thus allowing earlier operational flights).
Already, SLS will probably utilize a Delta IV Heavy upper stage (so that has to be man-rated either way) for the first two flights (at least) and many on the SLS team are going to be/are currently involved with integrating Orion on the Delta IV Heavy for EFT-1, so you have some political/institutional support there as well.
It fits quite well into the vacuum of Ares I, IMHO. It would make both Orion and SLS more viable (SLS can avoid man-rating requirements and can more easily get away with just one pad). And the integration/analysis work being done for EFT-1 goes a long way to making this more viable, IMHO.
-
#2
by
Lobo
on 21 Mar, 2012 22:58
-
Other than riding on SLS Block II with other hardware, these are the possibilities that I can see (all man rated with emergency detection):
1) Atlas V Heavy
2) Delta IV Heavy
3) If LRB wins advanced competition, make it vectorable, use as first stage, add US.
4) If SRB wins advanced competition, build Ares I-Super as described above.
5) Atlas V Phase II
6) Do not phase out Block I or IA; keep it for this purpose after Block II comes on line and use Block II only for cargo, especially if Block IA goes with LRB.
Firstly, how would you rank these six LVs (and the Orion atop Block II stack) against each other as far as risk to vehicle and crew?
Secondly, what other issues do you see for each one in design, R/D, operational cost, politics, etc.?
Well, there’s how I’d rank them as I like the technical/economical merits, from best to worst:
1) LRB with DCSS or kick stage, if this was a feasible option. Depends on the LRB design.
2) Atlas V Phase 2.
3) Atlas V Heavy or FH.
4) Delta IV Heavy.
5) Block 1A (Block 1 goes away completely with Block 1A, so that’s not really an option.)
Obviously I like the idea of the LRB being used as a stand along MLV. If the engines gimbaled (they might not have to for an LRB), and if they were designed with some sort of load bearing base ring and strong back (to lift from the top and take the full load of the stack on the pad, per SLS requirements for a booster), that could be omitted if used as a stand alone LV. After that, A5P2 would be a good match, if ULA every wants to actually build the thing. That’s up for debate. Would probably cost a fair bit, and depends if they thought there’d be any need for it other than a LEO Orion. Atlas V Heavy and FH would probably be closer than A5P2, because the central cores will be man-rated anyway for commercial crew. Should be pretty easy to man-rate the heavy version. FH might have a bit of a leg up, as it –should- be flying anyway. A5H will only get built once there is a customer to pay for it’s development. D4H is flying, but isn’t man-rated. A5 is getting the man-rated upgrades, so not much need for D4 to be. Probably be easier to develop the man-rated A5H once man rated A5 is done, than do develop man-rated D4H.
Block 1/1A is the least desirable to get Orion to LEO, as it’s hugely over powered for that purpose. If you are looking to do a 1.5 Launch, you’d be doing a 2-launch with SLS, can’t do a 1.5 launch with the HLV.
So here’s how I’d rank them in order I think they’d me most likely given my understanding of the variables.
1) SLS 1A (2-launch architecture, really the PoR right now I think).
2) LRB with kick stage.
3) FH or AVH.
4) D4H
5) AVP2.
I think more likely than a 1.5 architecture with SLS Block II, and a smaller LV launching Orion, is a 2 X SLS Block 1A architecture. One carrying Orion and CPS, the other carrying a payload and perhaps a CPS. Depends on how much mass CPS can throw through a TLI, or wherever you are going.
After that, LRB with kick stage/DCSS (if LRB is designed to launch stand alone, it might or might not), because it’ll already be man-rated, and NASA will already be using it and familiar with it. It’ll seem a little more like a “NASA Rocket” than a “Commercial Rocket”, likely. So NASA might like that. Ultimately, such a system would be almost like CxP.
After that, once F9 is man-rated, FH should be pretty easy to man-rate. AVH would need to be developed and man-rated, but it’s probably closer to ready than ran-rated D4H (might be a push), and man-rated D4H would be closer than man-rated AVP2, which isn’t even designed, much less flying yet.
Just my 2 cents.
-
#3
by
Robotbeat
on 21 Mar, 2012 23:00
-
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
-
#4
by
edkyle99
on 22 Mar, 2012 01:44
-
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
As would a 1.5 launch architecture.
Dual SLS might not necessarily need two pads, but it would definitely need two launch platforms which also would require more money.
Given the money situation, and the ICPS thing, Delta 4 Heavy seems the likeliest alternative, but I'm doubting any such plans will come to fruition. SLS is a big bad rocket - why not simply use it to launch everything at once together? It has the same number of separation events as Delta 4 Heavy, etc.
- Ed Kyle
-
#5
by
Lobo
on 22 Mar, 2012 02:43
-
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
As would a 1.5 launch architecture.
Dual SLS might not necessarily need two pads, but it would definitely need two launch platforms which also would require more money.
Given the money situation, and the ICPS thing, Delta 4 Heavy seems the likeliest alternative, but I'm doubting any such plans will come to fruition. SLS is a big bad rocket - why not simply use it to launch everything at once together? It has the same number of separation events as Delta 4 Heavy, etc.
- Ed Kyle
Yea, I was about to say something like that.
Also, I think I saw on one of the slides that have come out recently, that they are considering launching a lunar lander and CPS to some lunar parking orbit, then like 120 days later, launch Orion with CPS to the same orbit for LOR.
If your payload/lander, and the CPS are designed for enough loiter time, then you don't really need two pads. You could stage your mission.
But even if you wanted to launch them closer together, do you really need two pads? Or two ML's? So you can stack them in the VAB at the same time, then launch them close together, with just the required turn around time to do any mods to the flame trench that might need, which shouldn't be too long. They could build another ML, and build it to something like USA's concept of a universal ML that can handle SLS, Atlas, Delta, or Falcon.
-
#6
by
Lobo
on 22 Mar, 2012 02:47
-
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
Also...as luck would have it, LC39 has two pads!
lucky that...
-
#7
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 22 Mar, 2012 02:47
-
Delta-IV Heavy.
1) Its available now.
2) Upper stage is already being crew-rated.
3) It can be used for the first crewed launch of an Orion in a LEO test. I think the first crewed Orion mission going all the way to the Moon is too risky.
4) It can be used as a viable backup for commercial crew.
Disadvantages
1) Need to crew-rate booster stages.
2) Need to build a new pad.
3) It makes too much sense. :-)
-
#8
by
RocketmanUS
on 22 Mar, 2012 03:01
-
Option 1
Orion to an EML2 ISS-EP station ( SLS block 1 or 1A )( FH possible if it has the delta v ), crew then is sent to moon by a reusable lunar lander fueled by lunar made fuel.
( fuel from moon could then be used for Mars missions launched from EML2 station or NEO mission )
Option 2
Orion to LLO ( SLS block 1 or 1A )( FH possible if it has the delta v )
LOR with a hypergolic lander ( same launcher as Orion, cargo or crew version )
What about ACES/Orion, ACES as it's CM ( from ULA PDF ) on an Atlas V?
That would even get us the ability to have fuel depot(s) when needed.
-
#9
by
sdsds
on 22 Mar, 2012 04:14
-
I think one way to look at human rating is by asking, "How many more non-crewed flights would you require to succeed before you would ride the rocket yourself?" For me:
Delta IV Heavy --- Zero. I would ride the very next one.
Atlas V Heavy \
+--- Two. They're each variants of a well qualified base vehicle.
Atlas V Ph. 2 /
LRB-derived \
+--- Ten. I would be trusting the abort system even then.
Falcon Heavy /
SRB-derived --- Twenty, plus two successful ascent aborts tests.
-
#10
by
QuantumG
on 22 Mar, 2012 05:28
-
Shame it's so subjective.. anyway, back to the topic?
-
#11
by
A_M_Swallow
on 22 Mar, 2012 10:36
-
I think one way to look at human rating is by asking, "How many more non-crewed flights would you require to succeed before you would ride the rocket yourself?" {snip}
This sounds like a quality control problem and can therefore use similar statistical methods. With an accuracy of 1 in 1000 how many successful flights in a row are needed to show that the probability of being killed is less than 1%?
-
#12
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 22 Mar, 2012 11:14
-
I'm a supporter of a ~50t IMLEO-based launcher strategy. That would use:
* Atlas VH Phase I
* Delta-IVH Phase I
* Falcon Heavy
* SRB-X with AIUS/Liberty upper stage? (optional)
This would use a lot of EOR, as the OP rightly pointed out; that is going to be needed no matter how large the launcher so it is something we're going to have to accept.
I would also like to see the use of dry launch and cryogenic prop transfer. It wouldn't be strictly needed for a cis-Lunar program but it would be something that it would be nice to try out and prove before you really need it for inner solar system/main astroid belt exploration. It would also keep the 10-20t IMLEO medium launchers nice and busy.
The argument for 50t IMLEO, in my mind at least is that, with a high-energy upper stage, you're looking at up to 20t to EML with a single launch, which is a good mass for commercial cargo and fuel support of lunar exploration. This is, in my view, the next stage for commercial space development.
-
#13
by
Lobo
on 22 Mar, 2012 15:28
-
Well, D4H seems like the likely choice. My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does. Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon). If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser? Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even. Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying.
AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record. AV is already getting the things done to man rate. So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too.
I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage. That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights.
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser.
So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated? Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated. But that might not be the case....
-
#14
by
aquanaut99
on 22 Mar, 2012 15:45
-
Well, D4H seems like the likely choice. My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does. Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon). If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser? Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even. Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying.
AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record. AV is already getting the things done to man rate. So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too.
I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage. That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights.
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser.
So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated? Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated. But that might not be the case....
Man-rating Delta-4H was discussed a few years back. IIRC, it was estimated to require $1 billion and 5 years time. It would also have required an upgrade to the RS-68 (I think it was called RS-68B).
However, the opportunity to man-rate this rocket is has now passed and won't be coming back. D4H will not be man-rated. The USAF opposes it and will fight it tooth and nail (because they fear that man-rating the rocket will further drive up costs on an already very expensive launcher and also because they consider the D4H to be "their own launcher" and don't want to share it with NASA).
Too bad, actually. I was a fan of Orion on D4H as a crew launcher (instead of Ares-1) back in the early Constellation days (with a J-246 type SDLV for the heavy lift stuff). Selecting this option in 2005 would probably have us launching crews to ISS on D4H right now; and it would also make better use of the under-used Delta manufacturing facillites and probably drive costs down. Also, the Delta-4H could have been spin-doctored as the "worlds first green rocket" (even if it isn't quite true), which would probably increase support of the manned space program among the liberals...
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...
-
#15
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 22 Mar, 2012 16:02
-
Re. aquanaut's comments: I think this is why a new upper stage (be it Common Cenatur or ACES) would have to be part of major utilisation of D-IV by NASA for HSF. The non-human-rating of RS-68A doesn't matter as no humans would be riding on a D-IVH cargo launcher. However, after rendezvous, the upper stage would likely be a propulsion stage and would need to be human-rated to some degree. So, a seperate NASA upper stage would neatly side-step DoD's objections to NASA utilising the type.
* A-VH (5H2) - Crew launcher
* D-IVH Phase 1 - Cargo launcher
* FH - Cargo launcher
If LC-37A is brought to service, that would be about 150t + crew to LEO per pad cycle. That's effectively a CxP lunar mission in four launches. IIRC, the EELVs have an option for 6- and 7-meter PLFs, so the potential width of modules isn't a necessarily a red flag.
1) Lander to parking orbit;
2) EDS to parking orbit - is the active vehicle in rendezvous with lander;
3) Tanker to rendezvous with stack and top up prop tanks on both lander and EDS;
4) Crew launch.
A cargo-only flight to the Moon could get away with just the first two launches. As I pointed out above, a cargo support mission to an EML gateway station could actually be a single launch with D-IVH Phase 1 or FH.
As aquanaut asked: Why isn't NASA already doing this?
-
#16
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Mar, 2012 16:15
-
We used to launch our astronauts on converted nuclear missiles. I'm pretty sure it's not too late to man-rate Delta IV Heavy (I don't buy the argument that the RS-68A can't be man-rated... ask ULA). And if the Delta IV Heavy upper stage is man-rated for iCPS, you're already almost half-way. Can't really beat the flight history, either.
I just don't see the Atlas V Heavy being used, not unless someone else wants to use it (that someone else is USAF).
-
#17
by
Lobo
on 22 Mar, 2012 16:16
-
It's also interesting to think about how things might have evolved if instead of CxP being chosen back in 2004, if something Direct-like had been chosen, in conjunction with a man-rated EELV and EELV-HEavy. Either AV or D4.
Then you'd have a man rated 10mt LV, 23-30mt LV (depending on D4H or AVH), a 70mt LV, and a 105mt LV.
Gives a lot of options from ISS taxi service, to lunar missions. LV's could be mixed and matched as the missions called for.
The only real costs would have been the new Jupiter core and MPS, Orion, JUS, and man-rating costs of the EELV.
Seems like a real bargin compared to what was spent on CxP then tranitioned into SLS.
Or even better yet, AJAX in 2004. Need a new AJAX core and MPS, and man-rating of AV. It doesn't need a LUS. An EELV-US would work. AV is now man rated, so you just need AVH to fly for ORion or smaller paylaods. Man-rated AV is then available for commercial crew.
AJAX is then scalable from 70-130mt by just adding AV CCB boosters. Not that you really need 130mt, since this program would mean NAA2010 would never have come to be required. But if you designed the core for up to 8 boosters, then you have that option if needed.
A CPS would probably be useful for AJAX, but you wouldn't need it right away, that could have been an incremental thing.
AJAX wouldn't have needed any CT upgrades, and the MLP's could have just had towers remounted to them, as the empty LV wouldn't weigh more than the empty Saturn V did.
Oh...the missed opportunities...
But I digress...
-
#18
by
edkyle99
on 22 Mar, 2012 17:25
-
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...
Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability.
The current program will spend billions, though fewer than Constellations billions, so that astronauts can see the Moon slide by their windows before they loop back home.
Different missions entirely.
- Ed Kyle
-
#19
by
Jason1701
on 22 Mar, 2012 18:33
-
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...
Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability.
The current program will spend billions, though fewer than Constellations billions, so that astronauts can see the Moon slide by their windows before they loop back home.
Different missions entirely.
- Ed Kyle
Delta IV would be great for launching crew in each option. Griffin seemed to go out of his way to pick the worst possibility.