Heavy Lift & Commercial; can we have it both ways?

[sftommy]

60 Members of the House sent Obama a letter asking for Heavy Lift development beginning this year!
Senator Brownback is hosting an informational Commercial Space meeting Thursday for his Senate colleagues pushing their capabilities.

Heavy lift now and Commercial;
can it be done on a budget of $18.7B?
or will Congress have to come up with more?
or will NASA have to sacrifice elsewhere?

Is this the right track?

 

[nimbus]

I think I read on NSF that DIRECT v3 can be done within budget while still allowing at least a small commercial package.

 

[rockett]

can it be done on a budget of $18.7B?

Yes, but not the way NASA does business. They would have to cut a lot of bureaucracy.

or will Congress have to come up with more?

Probably

or will NASA have to sacrifice elsewhere?

Probably both.

Then they will form a study group, that will spend millions, to decide they need still more.

 

[access]

Why can't commercial develop heavy lift?

SpaceX has the F9 heavy planned, ULA would probably be up for the task (Although we have yet to see how the work outside of cost plus), ATK and others may be possible. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they opened up such a project.

 

[rockett]

Why can't commercial develop heavy lift?

SpaceX has the F9 heavy planned, ULA would probably be up for the task (Although we have yet to see how the work outside of cost plus), ATK and others may be possible. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they opened up such a project.

That's a very good idea, I suggested it on another thread:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=23134&start=100

So if the push is for commercial, why are we spending billions on research for a NASA heavy lift?
We already have the Atlas V Heavy in 2 versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
and the Delta IV Heavy in production and Extra Heavy proposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

It would seem from the two above, commercial is well on it's way to developing a Super Heavy.

I think I smell pork. :lol:

 

[kelvinzero]

If we do need super heavy lift, I really like the idea that it is pretty much some smaller launchers strapped together as with those commercial heavy lift.

That way the heavy lift is not like an albatross around your neck. If for a decade you do not need any heavy lift, you can still keep building, launching and perfecting the smaller launchers, so the next time you need one, you can build it in short order, rather than embark on a massively expensive decade-long development phase.

As much as possible, you do not launch crew or expensive (by weight) items on your heavy lift because it will be somewhat less tested than the smaller launchers. You are not using heavy lift to be cheaper by the pound, You are just using it when you have some component that is just not practical to launch on smaller launchers and assemble.

Two problems with this idea though
(1) competition with commercial. Suppose we want a super heavy lift that can handle 100 tons, so we aim for a smaller launcher that can do a third of that. This scale does not have much market by itself and that small market can already be done with existing commercial launchers.

(2) Heavy lift needs a larger launch faculty. You are either paying for it all the time, or you have to build an entire faculty next time you want to launch something heavy. There may be ways around this. Sealaunch certainly sounds interesting although a bit hard for me to fathom

 

[EarthlingX]

An old news :

www.spaceref.com : NASA Heavy Lift Launch System and Propulsion Technology Request for Information

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Source: Marshall Space Flight Center

NASA RFI Related to Heavy Lift

Summary

On May 3, 2010, NASA will issue a Request for Information (RFI) seeking general information regarding potential launch or space transportation architectures (expendable, reusable, or a hybrid system) that could be utilized by multiple customers (e.g. NASA, commercial and other Government agencies). The RFI also will solicit information regarding propulsion system characteristics; technology challenges related to liquid chemical propulsion systems; as well as innovative methods to manage a heavy-lift development program to include effective and affordable business practices. The RFI will be open to the broad space community, including commercial, other Government agencies and academia. Information obtained from the RFI will be used for planning and acquisition-strategy development for current heavylift planning activities, as outlined in the Conference Report to FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117).

 

[rockett]

An old news :

http://www.spaceref.com : NASA Heavy Lift Launch System and Propulsion Technology Request for Information

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Source: Marshall Space Flight Center

NASA RFI Related to Heavy Lift

Summary

On May 3, 2010, NASA will issue a Request for Information (RFI) seeking general information regarding potential launch or space transportation architectures (expendable, reusable, or a hybrid system) that could be utilized by multiple customers (e.g. NASA, commercial and other Government agencies). The RFI also will solicit information regarding propulsion system characteristics; technology challenges related to liquid chemical propulsion systems; as well as innovative methods to manage a heavy-lift development program to include effective and affordable business practices. The RFI will be open to the broad space community, including commercial, other Government agencies and academia. Information obtained from the RFI will be used for planning and acquisition-strategy development for current heavylift planning activities, as outlined in the Conference Report to FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117).

Then it would seem that ULA has a jump on things with the Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy designs, and the Delta IV Heavy has been launched 3 times already.

 

[rockett]

So HLV AND Orion?

U.S. House Members Call for 'Immediate Development' of Heavy-lift Rocket
http://www.space.com/news/us-house-members-heavy-lift-rocket-sn-100624.html

 

[Valcan]

Why can't commercial develop heavy lift?

SpaceX has the F9 heavy planned, ULA would probably be up for the task (Although we have yet to see how the work outside of cost plus), ATK and others may be possible. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they opened up such a project.

That's a very good idea, I suggested it on another thread:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=23134&start=100

So if the push is for commercial, why are we spending billions on research for a NASA heavy lift?
We already have the Atlas V Heavy in 2 versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
and the Delta IV Heavy in production and Extra Heavy proposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

It would seem from the two above, commercial is well on it's way to developing a Super Heavy.

I think I smell pork. :lol:

Ok heres something i dont get.

The wiki article on the Falcon 9 Heavy says its maximum payload to GTO is: 43,000 lbs.

The Delta IV Heavy says its: 28,950 lbs.

"An upgrade of the Delta IV Heavy, using the higher-performance RS-68A engine, is under development with initial availability in early 2011. This upgrade is planned to provide a roughly 13% improvement in payload capability to GTO. The new RS-68A is also planned to be used throughout the entire Delta IV family, where at 106% thrust it will provide a roughly 7-11% improvement in GTO payload (although this higher power level may require structural changes; running the engine at the current 102% produces a smaller improvement but requires less modification)."

Its been a long day and someone probably needs to check me on this but the falcon 9 H would still lift more.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

This is what I found in Wiki:

Falcon 9 Heavy (proposed): LEO 32,000kg, GTO 19,500 kg
Delta IV Heavy (proposed): LEO 23,040kg, GTO 13,130 kg
Atlas V Heavy (proposed): LEO (5H2) 25,000 kg, GTO (5H1) 13,605 kg

 

[rockett]

Thanks Ray. You got me thinking, so here is a more complete list. It actually helps put things more into perspective.
Maybe Ares V was not such a bad idea after all.

All figures are kg to LEO

Ares V 160,000
Saturn V 118,000
Energia Soviet Union NPO Energia 100,000
Delta IV Super Heavy 91000
N1 Soviet Union NPO Energia 75,000
Saturn INT-21 75,000
Falcon 9 Heavy 32,000
Atlas V HLV 29,420
Ares I 25,600
Long March 5 China 25,000
Angara A5 Russia 24,500
Space Shuttle (STS) 24,400
Rus-M Russia TsSKB-Progress 23,500
Delta IV Heavy 22,950
Titan IVB 21,682
Proton Soviet Union 21,600
Ariane 5 21,000

Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems
Comparison of heavy lift launch systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems

 

[rockett]

Ares not dead?

U.S. House Members Call for 'Immediate Development' of Heavy-lift Rocket
http://www.space.com/news/us-house-members-heavy-lift-rocket-sn-100624.html

How does this sound:
1. Continue development of the Orion capsule
2. Cancel Ares I and replace it with Falcon 9 Heavy or Atlas V HLV
3. Accelerate development of Ares V

 

[Valcan]

Ares not dead?

U.S. House Members Call for 'Immediate Development' of Heavy-lift Rocket
http://www.space.com/news/us-house-members-heavy-lift-rocket-sn-100624.html

How does this sound:
1. Continue development of the Orion capsule
2. Cancel Ares I and replace it with Falcon 9 Heavy or Atlas V HLV
3. Accelerate development of Ares V

I like it but its also gonna have to have a large budget increase like say around 3 to 6 billion.

 

[nimbus]

There's an F9H included above, but no DIRECT rockets?

 

[scottb50]

If we do need super heavy lift, I really like the idea that it is pretty much some smaller launchers strapped together as with those commercial heavy lift.

That way the heavy lift is not like an albatross around your neck. If for a decade you do not need any heavy lift, you can still keep building, launching and perfecting the smaller launchers, so the next time you need one, you can build it in short order, rather than embark on a massively expensive decade-long development phase.

As much as possible, you do not launch crew or expensive (by weight) items on your heavy lift because it will be somewhat less tested than the smaller launchers. You are not using heavy lift to be cheaper by the pound, You are just using it when you have some component that is just not practical to launch on smaller launchers and assemble.

Two problems with this idea though
(1) competition with commercial. Suppose we want a super heavy lift that can handle 100 tons, so we aim for a smaller launcher that can do a third of that. This scale does not have much market by itself and that small market can already be done with existing commercial launchers.

(2) Heavy lift needs a larger launch faculty. You are either paying for it all the time, or you have to build an entire faculty next time you want to launch something heavy. There may be ways around this. Sealaunch certainly sounds interesting although a bit hard for me to fathom

You pretty much echo what I have been advocating. Two or four Delta Common Cores and up to two Centaur upper stages with a bolt on body, engines and landing gear. The body for either could be the same, except the four Core version would need need six trucks and the two only four.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Thanks Ray. You got me thinking, so here is a more complete list. It actually helps put things more into perspective.
Maybe Ares V was not such a bad idea after all.

All figures are kg to LEO

Ares V 160,000
Saturn V 118,000
Energia Soviet Union NPO Energia 100,000
Delta IV Super Heavy 91000
N1 Soviet Union NPO Energia 75,000
Saturn INT-21 75,000
Falcon 9 Heavy 32,000
Atlas V HLV 29,420
Ares I 25,600
Long March 5 China 25,000
Angara A5 Russia 24,500
Space Shuttle (STS) 24,400
Rus-M Russia TsSKB-Progress 23,500
Delta IV Heavy 22,950
Titan IVB 21,682
Proton Soviet Union 21,600
Ariane 5 21,000

Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems
Comparison of heavy lift launch systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems

I like what you did here. Now since you seem to be a database miner, find the cost of these rockets! Then you will have a much better comparison. $/kg (you will see why the shuttle got axed).

 

[nimbus]