Commercial Super Heavy Lift Launchers?

[Go4TLI]

I will conclude with this.  Based on the last posts of both pathfinder and spectre, I can say with some confidence that they just rant for the sake of ranting and have absolutely nothing to stand on. 

[spectre9]

I know which launchers are the most cost effective and they don't involve high thrust hydrolox engines.

The reason I can't say for sure how expensive this technology is is because the people that make it are secretive about the prices.

If RS-25E is cost effective in the long run I will eat my rants.

Until then I feel it needs to be proven that SLS will be cheap not the other way around.

[neilh]

I will conclude with this.  Based on the last posts of both pathfinder and spectre, I can say with some confidence that they just rant for the sake of ranting and have absolutely nothing to stand on. 

Because of the definition issue I mentioned earlier, you're all actually ranting about entirely different things

[IRobot]

If Mir and the ISS showed the way to go was modularity, future spacecrafts will also be modular, not a single launch mission like Apollo.
For those you don't really need any super heavy lift launcher.

[Go4TLI]

I will conclude with this.  Based on the last posts of both pathfinder and spectre, I can say with some confidence that they just rant for the sake of ranting and have absolutely nothing to stand on. 

Because of the definition issue I mentioned earlier, you're all actually ranting about entirely different things

Note this post here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29629.msg939131#msg939131

befor your "definition issue".  That is all.

[spectre9]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

[Prober]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

take a look at this.....the 7 body looks like a Proton to me.

[Downix]

I know which launchers are the most cost effective and they don't involve high thrust hydrolox engines.

The reason I can't say for sure how expensive this technology is is because the people that make it are secretive about the prices.

If RS-25E is cost effective in the long run I will eat my rants.

Until then I feel it needs to be proven that SLS will be cheap not the other way around.

Why is the RS-25E your target? The Japanese H-II is quite cost effective. Delta IV's cost issue is from low flight rate. If you could get it up to the original projections, it would be quite affordable.

[Downix]

The only rocket that still uses high thrust hyrdolox is Delta IV and it's hardly the most competitive launch vehicle on the market.

Energia, SII, SIV-B, Shuttle all cancelled.

If it was possible to find exact prices on the engines I would post them.

Delta is not the only rocket using high thrust hydrolox. Ariane 5 and H-II both use high thrust hydrolox.

[spectre9]

Well there you go. Thanks Downix.

I guess Ariane 5 is cost effective as they're still launching commercial payloads. Still need subsidies I think.

H-II I wouldn't know anything about. Seems like it was just built so JAXA could participate in ISS regardless of the cost.

LE-7A looks like a good engine and cost savings were made with the A version.

Is there even any customers besides HTV for the H-IIB?

[Downix]

Well there you go. Thanks Downix.

I guess Ariane 5 is cost effective as they're still launching commercial payloads. Still need subsidies I think.

H-II I wouldn't know anything about. Seems like it was just built so JAXA could participate in ISS regardless of the cost.

LE-7A looks like a good engine and cost savings were made with the A version.

Is there even any customers besides HTV for the H-IIB?

H-IIB has flown three HTV plus some cubesats. H-IIA (which is still hydrolox) has flown 22 times, most of them commercial missions. H-II had 6 launches, of which 5 were commercial.

[alexw]

Delta is not the only rocket using high thrust hydrolox. Ariane 5 and H-II both use high thrust hydrolox.

       Ariane V isn't quite "high-thrust" hydrolox, in the sense that Vulcain 2 is close in thrust to J-2X. Delta IVH, which seems the most comparable variant to Ariane V for higher energy orbits, has something like seven times the thrust in pure hydrolox, instead of ~90% solids for first-stage flight. H-II seems similar.
      -Alex

[RyanC]

Well if all you consider is an Saturn V type vehicle (monolithic, incapable of much else besides lunar program

Atlas V 541 (SEC) can send about 12,000~ ish pounds to Mars.

Basic Saturn V could have sent 86,000~ lbs to Mars.

There were proposals for Saturn V Centaur -- remember that Centaur was originally S-V; and under MSFC control before it got transferred out.

Ares V would have been about 99,000~ lbs to mars while Ares V Centaur would have been 110,000~ lbs.

[Ben the Space Brit]

To me, the rough designation-to-payload goes like this:

Medium - 10-25t IMLEO (Falcon-9, EELV-medium and -heavy)
Medium-Heavy - 25-50t IMELO (EELV Phase-1 and Falcon Heavy)
Heavy - 50-100t IMLEO (SLS Block I, Atlas-V Phase-2/3A, Falcon-X)
Super-Heavy - 100t+ IMLEO (SLS Block II, Atlas-V Phase-3B, Falcon-XX)

Personally, if, and this is a big if, SpaceX can find customers for Falcon Heavy, then I think ULA will be able to justify EELV Phase 1 to compete with them.  It is possible that DoD might have payloads for that weight class too but I suspect that they are more interested in driving forwards the Flyback Booster program than funding development of an upgrade to the existing Atlas- and Thor-heritage vehicles.

A Heavy-class launcher really only has one putative non-governmental payload at the moment, the Bigelow BA-2100 Olympus.  All other payloads for the 100t IMLEO/8m PLF class are exclusively NASA HSF.  The decision was made at a political level that the launcher for these payloads would be done on the old arsenal pattern with NASA as project lead.  This may ultimately turn out to be the wrong choice on both economic and technical grounds but it is rather late in the day to reverse it now.

It is my assessment, admittedly as an interested amateur, that there is currently no commercial justification for the development of a heavy-class launcher by anyone except NASA.

[Hauerg]

[quote author=Ben the Space Brit link=topic=29629.msg939298#msg939298
...
It is my assessment, admittedly as an interested amateur, that there is currently no commercial justification for the development of a heavy-class launcher by anyone except NASA.
[/quote]
Even the justification (business case, technological merits) for NASA developing the SLS looks, well, not THAT persuading to me.
 

[bulkmail]

To me, the rough designation-to-payload goes like this:

Medium - 10-25t IMLEO (Falcon-9, EELV-medium and -heavy)
Medium-Heavy - 25-50t IMELO (EELV Phase-1 and Falcon Heavy)
Heavy - 50-100t IMLEO (SLS Block I, Atlas-V Phase-2/3A, Falcon-X)
Super-Heavy - 100t+ IMLEO (SLS Block II, Atlas-V Phase-3B, Falcon-XX)

Personally, if, and this is a big if, SpaceX can find customers for Falcon Heavy, then I think ULA will be able to justify EELV Phase 1 to compete with them.  It is possible that DoD might have payloads for that weight class too but I suspect that they are more interested in driving forwards the Flyback Booster program than funding development of an upgrade to the existing Atlas- and Thor-heritage vehicles.

A Heavy-class launcher really only has one putative non-governmental payload at the moment, the Bigelow BA-2100 Olympus.  All other payloads for the 100t IMLEO/8m PLF class are exclusively NASA HSF.  The decision was made at a political level that the launcher for these payloads would be done on the old arsenal pattern with NASA as project lead.  This may ultimately turn out to be the wrong choice on both economic and technical grounds but it is rather late in the day to reverse it now.

It is my assessment, admittedly as an interested amateur, that there is currently no commercial justification for the development of a heavy-class launcher by anyone except NASA.

Actually, I had in mind http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/500393main_TA01-LaunchPropulsion-DRAFT-Nov2010-A.pdf where they say:
Small - up to 2t IMLEO
Medium - 2-20t IMELO
Heavy - 20-50t IMLEO
Super-Heavy - 50t+ IMLEO
But I agree that "50t+" is too wide a range and some intermediate lines would be helpful for the discussion.

To recap the two opening questions:
1. is there a technical or programatic reason for NASA to engage in driving the design of their own super heavy lift launcher? - from the comments it seems that there aren't many (if any) such reasons.
2. Is there enough non-NASA demand for such launchers? - here it's much more murky (but also more important)...

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php shows for the FH one demo flight and one Intelsat flight. http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28442 shows a third flight (unknown if a second demo or first customer). At the other hand current 20t launchers are often utilized to loft 2 payloads, so is it feasible for 50t/100t launchers to be utilized for multiple (e.g. 3, 4 or more) 10t or 20t payloads? Is it cheaper in comparison with multiple 20t launches?

Are there any commercial or military applications that will be possible only with 50t+ launchers?

[Robotbeat]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

If SpaceX is wildly successful with falcon Heavy over the next 5+ years, then we can start talking about launh vehicles twice as powerful. But not before.

[pathfinder_01]

It is feasible to lift more than one satellite with a 50MT lifter but it can be hard to find two satellites with compatible orbits.  Anyway in the case of FH it competes with Delta. It can lift 53MT to LEO but only lifts like about 19MT to GTO. Delta lifts 12 to GTO but only about 25ish to LEO.  i.e. In terms of GTO where many communications satellites go not much difference in performance(but big difference in price..FH is offered as cheaper).  It is an example of a heavy that has commercial applications. i.e. It can lift a lot to LEO while still being useful for other purposes.

A more extreme exmaple would be Atlas Phase II. It would be a system capable of lifting 10MT and up to 100+MT.

There may be no other users for supper heavy lift than NASA, but a rocket system capable of being a supper heavy or heavy does not have to be designed in such a way that it is useless to other users.

[Prober]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

There is not a commercial market for 100mt payloads. Yet. That's why they aren't being developed. Yet.

don't tell that to Bieglow.

Also don't say that around the SPS guys either.

A while ago I was curious about the SPS business case as how the SpaceX possible launcher prices would affect the $/kw prices. The result was that for a 50Mw 500mt demo sat with the DOD as a customer which would purchase the power at $.50 to $1.00/kwh, the FH prices made the case close but only if there was a government/private partnership of the development costs of the SPS part at the government supplying >50% or about $6.5B.

The odd thing here was that due to development costs of a heavier vehicle which would have little usage other than for the SPS (5 flight per year vs 1 from other customers) and little cost sharing with other customers the best business case was the FH and not some larger SpaceX vehicle. The caviat here was that the larger vehicles were all expendibles. A twice size vehicle but that only lifted the same payload as FH but was nearly fully reusable at 1/4 the flight price would make a more significant effect on such busness cases than any SHLV expendable.