What are your ultimate commercial rocket designs?

[Patchouli]

Pop-up first stage booster is a good idea.

It was one of the more valid points of the Kistler K1.


One thing I'm surprised is that no one has tried is resurrect the concept of the SASSTO.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sassto.htm

It might be possible to build such a vehicle using a single SSME.

Even the ISP numbers are fairly close the SSME has better but slightly better sea level and slightly worse vacuum ISP numbers then the target set for the plug nozzle engine on the SASSTO.

359 sl and 459 vac for the plug nozzle vs 363 sl and 453 vac for the SSME.

The big short coming though it's payload is pretty small at only 3,600kg.
A modern version might be able to do 4,500kg IMLEO.
Though a few SRBs plus going expendable may double that.
Put it on something like a Saturn IB first stage and you get something with lift capacity similar to an EELV heavy.
The big short coming the SSME cannot air start easily and it's expensive which would make an expendable version very expensive.
Though if used with as an upper stage the SSME could be replaced with RL-10s or a J2 derivative.

DC-X though was fairly similar in concept.

[R7]

Pop-up first stage booster is a good idea.

It was one of the more valid points of the Kistler K1.

K1 didn't pop-up, it was supposed to pop-back exactly like F9R plans to (save the parachute landing vs powered).

[Hyperion5]

you're going to have to build some supremely sturdy launchpads, particularly because a launch failure, even with engine-out reliability and good quality control, would probably only be a matter of time.  So how do you make sure your pads could survive such an explosion?  I expect you could save any crew with a launch abort system at least. 

If it is necessary, build longish legs, and innundate the area with perhaps a meter of fresh water for launch/landing operations.  Though it might not be necessary.  A merlin doesn't seem to cut into the concrete.  I'm not sure how much larger this could be extrapolated to.  In any case, I suspect it will be trickier to deal with this issue on Mars or the moon for very big rockets. 

Actually a Merlin will burn straight through concrete, the trick being it has to be fixed to a test stand to do that.  Clearly judging from the Grasshopper tests it won't destroy concrete by landing on it (limited exhaust contact with concrete), but that's with one 147,000 lbf engine that's throttled back.  I'm not as confident that scaling up to an F-1 class engine will see this function as well.  That's why I think your idea about the water at the landing site is on the money. 

I believe you've already seen my PM on your Zeus probably producing 36,000,000 lbf of thrust from five 7.2 mlbf engines (assuming they fit on a 20 m core).  If those babies didn't burn through concrete I'd be surprised.  At the very least though I think the Zeus might actually benefit from a less efficient design.  I don't mean lowering chamber pressure, as that would not help its length/width ratio problem (somewhere around 2.8-3:1 without PLF).  However, if you ditched common bulkheads on both stages, I'd bet you could get the ratio up to 3.5-4 without a PLF, which is way more manageable.  You'd take a hit to payload, but hey, your Zeus will be topping 500 mt to LEO anyways.  It can afford to take a payload hit compared to most rockets.   

[R7]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

[Hyperion5]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

Yet.  I think the key would be getting more firms like Bigelow up and running.  If Bigelow could get some space stations into LEO, they might consider launching much bigger versions.  See attached for a 100 mt (65 mt empty) space station module almost twice the volume of the ISS . 

[go4mars]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

I agree with now.  But "near future" is undefined. If it existed, and was a lot cheaper per launch than the relatively tiny rockets of today, then my belief is that payloads would appear.  Especially payloads related to hypersonic terrestrial transportation (which would need to be planned in from the start of development), space tourism, and space colonization.  The only way to disprove my assumption is to build an inexpensive-to-operate reusable BFR fleet, and watch it fail to attract payloads. 

[Robotbeat]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

Yet.  I think the key would be getting more firms like Bigelow up and running.  If Bigelow could get some space stations into LEO, they might consider launching much bigger versions.  See attached for a 100 mt (65 mt empty) space station module almost twice the volume of the ISS . 

So you've launched one of them. Great. Now what? You've built all that for a couple launches?

[Patchouli]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

I agree with now.  But "near future" is undefined. If it existed, and was a lot cheaper per launch than the relatively tiny rockets of today, then my belief is that payloads would appear.  Especially payloads related to hypersonic terrestrial transportation (which would need to be planned in from the start of development), space tourism, and space colonization.  The only way to disprove my assumption is to build an inexpensive-to-operate reusable BFR fleet, and watch it fail to attract payloads. 

The best route to a commercial HLV would be to go with a modular system.
Something that first services EELV class payloads but can be clustered for heavier payloads.

[Robotbeat]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

I agree with now.  But "near future" is undefined. If it existed, and was a lot cheaper per launch than the relatively tiny rockets of today, then my belief is that payloads would appear.  Especially payloads related to hypersonic terrestrial transportation (which would need to be planned in from the start of development), space tourism, and space colonization.  The only way to disprove my assumption is to build an inexpensive-to-operate reusable BFR fleet, and watch it fail to attract payloads. 

The best route to a commercial HLV would be to go with a modular system.
Something that first services EELV class payloads but can be clustered for heavier payloads.

Agreed with this. This is essentially what SpaceX is doing, and it's essentially much of what people mean by "Atlas V Phase 2" (if I'm remembering correctly).

[Hyperion5]

All >100mt behemoths have common problem to be ultimate commercial rockets now or in near future. There are no payloads for them.

Yet.  I think the key would be getting more firms like Bigelow up and running.  If Bigelow could get some space stations into LEO, they might consider launching much bigger versions.  See attached for a 100 mt (65 mt empty) space station module almost twice the volume of the ISS . 

So you've launched one of them. Great. Now what? You've built all that for a couple launches?

Well you've got to remember Go4Mars' strategy and mine on HLVs are quite different.  He loves the idea of a monolithic HLV, while I've hedged my bets on a modular approach.  If you read back a few pages you'll find my Neptune proposal.  The basic LV is a 2-stage, 638 mt, 5-engine per stage (with T+.1 engine-out capability on both stages) methalox rocket developing 2,000,000 lbf of thrust at liftoff.  Just like an Atlas V Phase 2, the biggest Neptune would use additional CCBs (up to 4) to become a Saturn V-class rocket. 

The family was aimed at the Proton M in basic version but given I was using methane and staged combustion cycle engines on both stages, it turns out it will outlift an 800 mt Chang Zheng 5 (with margin to spare) in the simulations.  I hadn't quite counted on it performing as well as it has, so perhaps it's a tad oversized, but the basic premise is sound.  Just like the Atlas V Phase 2, it provides an easy way to tailor one LV family to a wide range of possible payloads.  However, unlike the Atlas Phase 2, with 5 engines per stage in x-layout it has both potential reusability and better engine-out capability baked in. 

[RocketmanUS]

Atlas V and F9 v1.1 For crew to LEO.

Heavy launch vehicle wide body to LEO.
Launch multiply rockets in a short time during good weather to LEO depot.
Store items at depot and send items to their destinations later as needed or when windows open up for BEO. Payloads what long periods of time to get a ride up anyway so there is no problem having them what at a LEO depot above the weather.

Should lower cost by having multiple launches ( HLV ) in a short period and give the standing army of workers time off between these launches.

Can use SEP tugs to deliver items to higher orbits or EML1/2, LLO from a LEO depot.

Ultimate commercial rocket design would be to have three and a half types. All should be liquid launchers with no solids except maybe the first one listed.
1 ) Pegasus class ( up to 2,000 lb to LEO )
2 ) Atlas V ( no SRB ) and Falcon 9
3 ) Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy ( common boosters to core making this the half type launcher )
4 ) The Heavy wide body launcher ( this class to be launched multiple time in a given period with 1 to 3 months in between these multiple launches )

[Hyperion5]

Atlas V and F9 v1.1 For crew to LEO.

Heavy launch vehicle wide body to LEO.
Launch multiply rockets in a short time during good weather to LEO depot.
Store items at depot and send items to their destinations later as needed or when windows open up for BEO. Payloads what long periods of time to get a ride up anyway so there is no problem having them what at a LEO depot above the weather.

Should lower cost by having multiple launches ( HLV ) in a short period and give the standing army of workers time off between these launches.

Can use SEP tugs to deliver items to higher orbits or EML1/2, LLO from a LEO depot.

Well so long as you're not depending on hydrolox stages you should be able to carry that off.  I still think a modular family than can do it all (Falcon 9-class, Falcon Heavy-class, Energia-class) would save more by eliminating some of the flight risk.  It could still take advantage of SEP tugs but launch far larger models. 

Ultimate commercial rocket design would be to have three and a half types. All should be liquid launchers with no solids except maybe the first one listed.
1 ) Pegasus class ( up to 2,000 lb to LEO )
2 ) Atlas V ( no SRB ) and Falcon 9
3 ) Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy ( common boosters to core making this the half type launcher )
4 ) The Heavy wide body launcher ( this class to be launched multiple time in a given period with 1 to 3 months in between these multiple launches )

I have to disagree with type #1.  Witness the Russians killing off the smallest Angara variant, or the fact that the most launched rocket family in history, the R-7 family, is much more capable than that.  You can even see just how much more competitive the bigger Falcon 9 is than the Falcon 1.  Cost per kg plunged when Spacex went bigger, where the demand was.  It'll go lower still when the 1.1 and Falcon Heavy start flying. 

I think the Angara family would be a better model for what you're proposing.  You've got the Angara 1-5, which will handle everything from Delta II class payloads to stuff beyond the LEO capability of a Delta IV Heavy (28.5 mt vs 23 mt).  You add a wide-body core for the Angara 7 variants (4.1 m--kerolox or 5.7 m hydrolox with RD-0120 engine) for your HLV (35-50 mt).  Otherwise if you're proposing 3 different cores for your commercial payload line that's a lot of overhead.  Angara family can get you down to two cores tops unless you're wanting even more capability than 50 mt. 

For that may I suggest a modular approach using a Zenit/Falcon 9-class LV with up to 4 CCBs?  That'd get you down to one core and possibly as few as one or two engines for almost anything you could want. 

[RocketmanUS]

Atlas V and F9 v1.1 For crew to LEO.

Heavy launch vehicle wide body to LEO.
Launch multiply rockets in a short time during good weather to LEO depot.
Store items at depot and send items to their destinations later as needed or when windows open up for BEO. Payloads what long periods of time to get a ride up anyway so there is no problem having them what at a LEO depot above the weather.

Should lower cost by having multiple launches ( HLV ) in a short period and give the standing army of workers time off between these launches.

Can use SEP tugs to deliver items to higher orbits or EML1/2, LLO from a LEO depot.

Well so long as you're not depending on hydrolox stages you should be able to carry that off.  I still think a modular family than can do it all (Falcon 9-class, Falcon Heavy-class, Energia-class) would save more by eliminating some of the flight risk.  It could still take advantage of SEP tugs but launch far larger models. 

Why not hydrolox stages?

Ultimate commercial rocket design would be to have three and a half types. All should be liquid launchers with no solids except maybe the first one listed.
1 ) Pegasus class ( up to 2,000 lb to LEO )
2 ) Atlas V ( no SRB ) and Falcon 9
3 ) Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy ( common boosters to core making this the half type launcher )
4 ) The Heavy wide body launcher ( this class to be launched multiple time in a given period with 1 to 3 months in between these multiple launches )

I have to disagree with type #1.  Witness the Russians killing off the smallest Angara variant, or the fact that the most launched rocket family in history, the R-7 family, is much more capable than that.  You can even see just how much more competitive the bigger Falcon 9 is than the Falcon 1.  Cost per kg plunged when Spacex went bigger, where the demand was.  It'll go lower still when the 1.1 and Falcon Heavy start flying. 

I think the Angara family would be a better model for what you're proposing.  You've got the Angara 1-5, which will handle everything from Delta II class payloads to stuff beyond the LEO capability of a Delta IV Heavy (28.5 mt vs 23 mt).  You add a wide-body core for the Angara 7 variants (4.1 m--kerolox or 5.7 m hydrolox with RD-0120 engine) for your HLV (35-50 mt).  Otherwise if you're proposing 3 different cores for your commercial payload line that's a lot of overhead.  Angara family can get you down to two cores tops unless you're wanting even more capability than 50 mt. 

For that may I suggest a modular approach using a Zenit/Falcon 9-class LV with up to 4 CCBs?  That'd get you down to one core and possibly as few as one or two engines for almost anything you could want. 

#1 could be replace with at least one dedicated F9 v1.1 launch in a calender year with a 4 month launch window. Another company wants to place small sat to LEO for $10M. So if F9 were to carry at least 6 of those sat then the small launcher might not be needed. The company needs a given amount of launches per year for that price.

If it were a F1 ( Merlin 1D ) I don't think that it would be that big of a problem even if it were just 1 launch a year. Say priced at $10M. With the Merlin 1D it should be able to use a 40 inch inside wide fairing with at least 2,000lb to LEO. I believe that there is a smart way that SpaceX could launch this on either coast and make the stage with the personnel they have. Flooring and tooling should not be a big problem.

Edit:
The second stage could be CH4/LOX. A way for them to test new designs for that type of engine and stage at a lower cost.

For the HLV the Atlas V could be a booster to a wider body core or a single engine or triple engine Falcon booster to a wide body core ( 9 engines on each core would be to much ). Core would use the same engines as the boosters.

The other option would be for the HLV to be a two stage vehicle. 1st and second stage use same type engine with 2nd stage engine vac rated. Minimum of six launches a year with at least three launches at any launch period. This I think would be the better of the two options. HLV for cargo only.

[Hyperion5]

Atlas V and F9 v1.1 For crew to LEO.

Heavy launch vehicle wide body to LEO.
Launch multiply rockets in a short time during good weather to LEO depot.
Store items at depot and send items to their destinations later as needed or when windows open up for BEO. Payloads what long periods of time to get a ride up anyway so there is no problem having them what at a LEO depot above the weather.

Should lower cost by having multiple launches ( HLV ) in a short period and give the standing army of workers time off between these launches.

Can use SEP tugs to deliver items to higher orbits or EML1/2, LLO from a LEO depot.

Well so long as you're not depending on hydrolox stages you should be able to carry that off.  I still think a modular family than can do it all (Falcon 9-class, Falcon Heavy-class, Energia-class) would save more by eliminating some of the flight risk.  It could still take advantage of SEP tugs but launch far larger models. 

Why not hydrolox stages?

Well besides the fact that I've yet to hear of a "cheap" hydrolox engine, you've got to worry about boil-off.  Unless you're willing to spend the cash for a cryo-cooler and ACES-like upgrade, you're going to have to launch everything within a few days.  Depots will help, but only if you've spent the cash on sun shades or cryo-coolers to enable refueling.  Otherwise that doesn't leave a lot of margin for error or schedule slips, which do happen in this business.  That's the whole reason why, if I were doing things, I'd do it all on a single HLV launch with its own dedicated EDS.  Before this is brought up again, that's a modular, 5-core HLV.

[Patchouli]

Atlas V and F9 v1.1 For crew to LEO.

Heavy launch vehicle wide body to LEO.
Launch multiply rockets in a short time during good weather to LEO depot.
Store items at depot and send items to their destinations later as needed or when windows open up for BEO. Payloads what long periods of time to get a ride up anyway so there is no problem having them what at a LEO depot above the weather.

Should lower cost by having multiple launches ( HLV ) in a short period and give the standing army of workers time off between these launches.

Can use SEP tugs to deliver items to higher orbits or EML1/2, LLO from a LEO depot.

Well so long as you're not depending on hydrolox stages you should be able to carry that off.  I still think a modular family than can do it all (Falcon 9-class, Falcon Heavy-class, Energia-class) would save more by eliminating some of the flight risk.  It could still take advantage of SEP tugs but launch far larger models. 

Ultimate commercial rocket design would be to have three and a half types. All should be liquid launchers with no solids except maybe the first one listed.
1 ) Pegasus class ( up to 2,000 lb to LEO )
2 ) Atlas V ( no SRB ) and Falcon 9
3 ) Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy ( common boosters to core making this the half type launcher )
4 ) The Heavy wide body launcher ( this class to be launched multiple time in a given period with 1 to 3 months in between these multiple launches )

I have to disagree with type #1.  Witness the Russians killing off the smallest Angara variant, or the fact that the most launched rocket family in history, the R-7 family, is much more capable than that.  You can even see just how much more competitive the bigger Falcon 9 is than the Falcon 1.  Cost per kg plunged when Spacex went bigger, where the demand was.  It'll go lower still when the 1.1 and Falcon Heavy start flying. 

I think the Angara family would be a better model for what you're proposing.  You've got the Angara 1-5, which will handle everything from Delta II class payloads to stuff beyond the LEO capability of a Delta IV Heavy (28.5 mt vs 23 mt).  You add a wide-body core for the Angara 7 variants (4.1 m--kerolox or 5.7 m hydrolox with RD-0120 engine) for your HLV (35-50 mt).  Otherwise if you're proposing 3 different cores for your commercial payload line that's a lot of overhead.  Angara family can get you down to two cores tops unless you're wanting even more capability than 50 mt. 

For that may I suggest a modular approach using a Zenit/Falcon 9-class LV with up to 4 CCBs?  That'd get you down to one core and possibly as few as one or two engines for almost anything you could want. 

Something like sodruzhestvo.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sodruzhestvo.html

A US equivalent could use a single TR-107,RS-84, or F-1A or similar on each core.

The single F-1A variant could be an extremely reliable LV.

The RS-84 could allow upgrades like flyback boosters.

[RocketmanUS]

Atlas V and F9 v1.1 For crew to LEO.

Heavy launch vehicle wide body to LEO.
Launch multiply rockets in a short time during good weather to LEO depot.
Store items at depot and send items to their destinations later as needed or when windows open up for BEO. Payloads what long periods of time to get a ride up anyway so there is no problem having them what at a LEO depot above the weather.

Should lower cost by having multiple launches ( HLV ) in a short period and give the standing army of workers time off between these launches.

Can use SEP tugs to deliver items to higher orbits or EML1/2, LLO from a LEO depot.

Well so long as you're not depending on hydrolox stages you should be able to carry that off.  I still think a modular family than can do it all (Falcon 9-class, Falcon Heavy-class, Energia-class) would save more by eliminating some of the flight risk.  It could still take advantage of SEP tugs but launch far larger models. 

Why not hydrolox stages?

Well besides the fact that I've yet to hear of a "cheap" hydrolox engine, you've got to worry about boil-off.  Unless you're willing to spend the cash for a cryo-cooler and ACES-like upgrade, you're going to have to launch everything within a few days.  Depots will help, but only if you've spent the cash on sun shades or cryo-coolers to enable refueling.  Otherwise that doesn't leave a lot of margin for error or schedule slips, which do happen in this business.  That's the whole reason why, if I were doing things, I'd do it all on a single HLV launch with its own dedicated EDS.  Before this is brought up again, that's a modular, 5-core HLV.

The depot is mostly for hardware. SEP would most likely use Argon.
Lunar lander would use hypergolics till Lunar ISRU was available.
So depot would store Argon and hypergolic propellants along with the hardware. Depot would be unmanned most of the time.

As for HLV an Atlas V core as boosters around a wider core powered by one or more RD-180's could be used. RD-180's are sold outside of Russia So this could be made into a global launcher. The booster and core would need to be made from tech that each of the launch countries would already have. So options might be U.S., Russia , ESA, China. Multiple launch sites and could keep prices down.

[Hyperion5]

The depot is mostly for hardware. SEP would most likely use Argon.
Lunar lander would use hypergolics till Lunar ISRU was available.
So depot would store Argon and hypergolic propellants along with the hardware. Depot would be unmanned most of the time.

I know hypergolic propellants offer major storing advantages, but are liquid methane and oxygen really that hard to keep from boiling off in space?  I was always under the impression it was liquid hydrogen that had the major issues in that area.  If I recall right, the Lox on a Saturn V's S-II was 70 degrees Celsius warmer than the hydrogen being stored in the tank next to it.  In contrast liquid methane would be 20 degrees warmer than Lox.  Or perhaps I've screwed up my units of measurement and that was the difference in Fahrenheit. 

As for HLV an Atlas V core as boosters around a wider core powered by one or more RD-180's could be used. RD-180's are sold outside of Russia So this could be made into a global launcher. The booster and core would need to be made from tech that each of the launch countries would already have. So options might be U.S., Russia , ESA, China. Multiple launch sites and could keep prices down.

That sounds a lot like the cancelled Rus-M rocket family.  I'm sure  TsSKB-Progress wouldn't mind your idea of using their cores in the slightest.  At least it'd get them some business at the expense of Khrunichev. 

[RocketmanUS]

The depot is mostly for hardware. SEP would most likely use Argon.
Lunar lander would use hypergolics till Lunar ISRU was available.
So depot would store Argon and hypergolic propellants along with the hardware. Depot would be unmanned most of the time.

I know hypergolic propellants offer major storing advantages, but are liquid methane and oxygen really that hard to keep from boiling off in space?  I was always under the impression it was liquid hydrogen that had the major issues in that area.  If I recall right, the Lox on a Saturn V's S-II was 70 degrees Celsius warmer than the hydrogen being stored in the tank next to it.  In contrast liquid methane would be 20 degrees warmer than Lox.  Or perhaps I've screwed up my units of measurement and that was the difference in Fahrenheit. 

As for HLV an Atlas V core as boosters around a wider core powered by one or more RD-180's could be used. RD-180's are sold outside of Russia So this could be made into a global launcher. The booster and core would need to be made from tech that each of the launch countries would already have. So options might be U.S., Russia , ESA, China. Multiple launch sites and could keep prices down.

That sounds a lot like the cancelled Rus-M rocket family.  I'm sure  TsSKB-Progress wouldn't mind your idea of using their cores in the slightest.  At least it'd get them some business at the expense of Khrunichev. 

SEP takes months to go from LEO to EML1/2 or LLO. So non hypergolics could boil off. If it's not a problem and there is the tech to transfer them in space plus the Lunar lander to use them , then go with the higher ISP.

[Robotbeat]

Soft cryogenics are space-storable (passively). It's hydrogen you've got to be worried about, and even that can be reduced to very low boil-off.

[A_M_Swallow]

Soft cryogenics are space-storable (passively). It's hydrogen you've got to be worried about, and even that can be reduced to very low boil-off.

Just accept that SEP tankers need the same protection as depots.  A 10% increase in the solar panels will give you lots of electricity for things like refrigeration equipment.  There is also plenty of room for sun shields, possibly attached to the solar arrays.