Heavy lifter proposal

[Stellar_Optimist]

It seems that in almost every set of article comments I come across, someone invariably mentions the need to have a heavy lifter rocket that NASA or even the private US companies can use to provide a more cost-effective method to building in space or simply to launch larger vehicles for either orbital or interplanetary missions. Yet I see no suggestions other than reviving the Ares series of rockets from the Constellation program and finishing the project, or just start a new program. Well, I think we already have the technology available to build a heavy-lift vehicle, and on relatively short notice: why not create a scalable interlock system to join several Delta IV-H boosters together, or several of any booster together for that matter? You wouldn't have to start a new rocket program or spend billions finishing part of another one, as we already have the rockets we need. We could simply start by strapping them together to increase the payload capability of space missions, and we wouldn't have to begin another lengthy heavy lift rocket program. I know there would be some serious engineering feats involved with this type of contraption, but it seems so much simpler to use multiples of rockets to boost a payload capacity than to build a whole new rocket. What thoughts are there out there on this subject?

 

[voyager4d]

I don't think we need bigger (>50mT) rockets now.
They are just not economically viable at this point in time.
There are better more viable options to go beyond LEO, and that is use the medium (10-25mT) class rockets we already have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_for_less

If we get a higher demand (= higher fly rate), we should as you talk about, evolve the current rockets into bigger versions.
Like: Falcon 9 (10mT) -> Falcon 9 heavy (2 strap-on boosters) (32mT) -> Falcon 9 extremely heavy (4 strap-on boosters) (~50mT).
This would make a lot more sense, that if NASA build a new big dump booster. There is a reason why the Saturn 5 was discontinued.

The answer for getting us beyond LEO, is not the bigger the better, the answer is cheap access to space.
One of the keys are high fly rate, and that is a lot easier to achieve on smaller rockets.

 

[js117]

From http://www.spacedaily.com/

Boeing Statement On Need For Immediate Development Of A Heavy-Lift Vehicle

Chart of various heavy lift launch solutions.
by Staff Writers
Kennedy Space Center FL (SPX) Apr 16, 2010
Speaking at NASA's Kennedy Space Center on April 15, U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled proposed changes to the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget submission for space exploration, including a crew rescue vehicle and a decision on a heavy-lift rocket in 2015. The Boeing Company responded today with the following statement:
"The president's enthusiasm for space exploration was encouraging. We are pleased that the president remains committed to human spaceflight.

"We remain convinced that America stands at an inflection point with regard to space: If we make the right decisions today, we have the opportunity to create a new Golden Age of Space. Our national leadership's focus on this bodes well for our country and its highly experienced space industrial base.

"Boeing has served as a major partner in humankind's exploration of space since the beginning. Our talented people bring a mature understanding of NASA's enduring needs; a practical, businesslike approach to innovation; and a commitment to mission assurance and the safety and success of our astronaut corps.

"We are encouraged by the extension of the International Space Station program and look forward to enhancing scientific research onboard, upgrading the space station, and using it as a U.S. national laboratory.

"Benefits to be gained from extension of the space station include international cooperation; medical and pharmaceutical advancements; its use as a test bed for demonstrating Earth-observation capabilities and future exploration technologies; and the availability of a waypoint for future exploration missions.

"Excellence in human spaceflight is an important part of the American identity and symbolizes global leadership on the highest of technological platforms. We are greatly concerned that by backing away from the challenges of human space exploration, the United States would relinquish its leadership of a mission that has inspired generations.

"A bold national space program also supports the United States' security and economy by fostering a domestic work force that is educated and skilled in science, technology, engineering and math. It encourages the growth of new technologies and emerging businesses, large and small.

"We support the president's call for increased investment in heavy-lift launch vehicle technology, but we believe the United States should be on a clear path to accelerate the development and production of this critical system, along with a deep-space capsule. Both of these vehicles are essential to any deep-space exploration mission. We have the technology and the people to commence development of these vehicles now.

"A plan that includes a heavy-lift vehicle would enable space exploration supported by humans, large-array telescopes and deep-space robotic missions. It could achieve maximum benefit from American tax dollars by drawing on the cutting-edge technology already being developed for the Constellation program.

"Remaining at the forefront of human spaceflight is the only choice worthy of this great nation and to the long line of explorers and visionaries who brought us to where we are today."

 

[trailrider]

Why should we wait until 2015 to decide on a heavy lift launch vehicle? The studies have been made both by NASA officially (Ares V, Ares V-Lite, etc.), by others, probably including Boeing, by NASA engineers on their own time, etc. The main objection to Ares V (other than cost, lack of a clear destination, etc.) is the base-heating/recirculation problem caused by the use of six RS-68 in the first stage. The RS-68's don't have regeneratively cooled nozzle extensions, and the outside of the nozzles couldn't stand the heat unless spaced to the point where they would have required drag-inducing shrouds around them. Why not use "surplus" Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) that will be left over after the Shuttles are taken out of service? When these are used up, simpler, lower-cost, non-reusable version could be built readily.

Then there is the Direct 2.0. Except for the NIH syndrome on the part of NASA management, the Jupiter series might just be the answer. Clustering Delta IV Common Booster Core (CBC) could also be the answer, though not as good a one for truly heavy payloads. It shouldn't be all that hard to crossfeed the tankage and manrate the vehicles.

This must be decided on, and Congress must fund a decision on HLV NOW! This is an election year. Get on ALL the candidates and incumbents NOW, and let them know you want the HLV design decided on and FUNDS APPROPRIATED NOW!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! As Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[edkyle99]

Why should we wait until 2015 to decide on a heavy lift launch vehicle?

The problem is, simply, money. Until 2015, the money is going to go to crew transport development. After that, there may be enough to start working on a super heavy.

The studies have been made both by NASA officially (Ares V, Ares V-Lite, etc.), by others, probably including Boeing, by NASA engineers on their own time, etc. The main objection to Ares V (other than cost, lack of a clear destination, etc.) is the base-heating/recirculation problem caused by the use of six RS-68 in the first stage. The RS-68's don't have regeneratively cooled nozzle extensions, and the outside of the nozzles couldn't stand the heat unless spaced to the point where they would have required drag-inducing shrouds around them. Why not use "surplus" Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) that will be left over after the Shuttles are taken out of service? When these are used up, simpler, lower-cost, non-reusable version could be built readily.

Put big segmented solid boosters out of your mind. After the last Shuttle launch in a few months, they are history in the United States. RS-68s can fly in clusters if they don't have to deal with heat from SRBs. They already do so on Delta IV Heavy.

At any rate, NASA is probably not going to be building an RS-68 powered super heavy. The stars seem aligned for Atlas V Phase-2, the "Fat Atlas", seen below. Atlas V Phase 2 would consist of 5 meter tanks built using Delta IV CBC tooling, each powered by two RD-180s. 5.2 million pounds of liftoff thrust. 165,345 pounds (75 tonnes) to LEO.

- Ed Kyle

 

[Stellar_Optimist]

Well, now that would be more like it. Perhaps if they decided to cluster a few more boosters together they could even surpass 100 tonnes payload. This could start us on the way to building a whole space-based economy, maybe even laying the groundwork to start experimenting on asteroid mining and gas harvesting. Is there a site that has more info on the Atlas V developments?

 

[2552]

There's this image which was posted on the NASASpaceFlight.com forum a few years ago in the Atlas V and Centaur Q&A thread. Phase 2 (74 to 90 tons) is probably enough, but if needed Phase 3 can lift up to 140 tons.

Edit: the image is cutoff, here's a direct link to it.

The Atlas V Astronautix page has some more information.

The stars seem aligned for Atlas V Phase-2, the "Fat Atlas", seen below.

I agree. NASA wants a Kerolox HLV with a new engine to replace RD-180, Congress wants an HLV decision now, not 2015. Seems like a likely compromise to me. I also find it very hard to believe that Obama proposed the 2015 date for HLV decision thinking that Congress will go for that. And they're not:

"We are not going to wait five years before we make a decision on the heavy-lift rockets. I think we can make the decision much sooner"

 

[EarthlingX]

Nice post Welcome to SDC

What happened to RS-84 ? There were rumours (i could not find anything official) about SpaceX buying it from RocketDyne, i think, but nothing solid.

Wiki : RS-84

As part of the Space Launch Initiative, Rocketdyne developed a plan for the RS-84 rocket engine. It would have been the first reusable, Staged combustion cycle, liquid rocket engine produced by the US to use a hydrocarbon fuel.[2] In contrast, the Russians developed the RD-170 reusable staged combustion hydrocarbon engine for the Energia rocket in the 1980s.

and plenty of links to info and pictures.

 

[trailrider]

After the Shuttles are grounded there will be a number of SSME's left over. They have considerably more thrust than an RS-68, plus the nozzle extrensions are regeneratively cooled, eliminating the base heating/recirculation concerns. After the reusable SSME's are used up, tooling for a non-reusable version can be created fairly expeditiously. What's wrong with using some of these.

Frankly, I don't care if we use Wiley E. Coyote's Acme slingshot. And, with enough CO-ORDINATED support from the pubic, Congress can be "urged" to find the money. Instead of useless "jobs" programs that will, in the end, put very few people to work on low-paying, meaningless jobs, we can get America's economy going full bore again. Obama pledges to create 2500 jobs at KSC with his "new vision", but grounding the Shuttle is going to mean the LOSS of 24,000 jobs in the Space Coast area...jobs not directly getting green checks directly from "Uncle Sugar"!

The alternative, as Buzz Aldrin replied to Jimmy Kimmel, when Kimmel asked if Buzz would take him back to the moon, "Do you speak Chinese?"

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[edkyle99]

Nice post Welcome to SDC

What happened to RS-84 ? There were rumours (i could not find anything official) about SpaceX buying it from RocketDyne, i think, but nothing solid.

RS-84 was canceled in 2004, when NASA discovered it could not afford to develop a reusable next generation launch vehicle.

Now NASA is back to square one, getting ready to start a new propulsion R&D effort that, in turn, will probably end up being shortened of funding and ultimately canceled. At any rate, a new hydrocarbon engine should be designed for low-cost expendable use, which isn't what RS-84 would have been.

I'm not sure what SpaceX would want from the RS-84 program, or even what it could "buy", since it was a NASA funded R&D effort to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, SpaceX probably knows more about kerosene/LOX than any other U.S. company these days. PWR built its last production kerosene engine probably more than a decade ago.

- Ed Kyle

 

[Gravity_Ray]

A base line for heavy lift can be the Apollo era information. Apollo: 40 tonnes @ TLI for 2 men, 3 days on lunar surface. Unlikely to be reduced significantly; can miniaturize components but not crew. 50 tonnes @ TLI implies 100 tonnes in LEO.

We are also limited on types of architecture.

Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (Apollo style) and rather inefficient due to leaving some mass in lunar orbit, and being limited on where we can land on the Moon.

Earth Orbit Rendezvous with multiple launches which makes it easier because you launch less tonnage to orbit, but has its own problems especially storing fuel in orbit. Also some launch "window" issues.

Lagrange Point Rendezvous at L4 or L5. Best part of this is plenty of sunlight for power, plenty of shade for fuel storage. This is also the best place for a space dockyard where things get together for the trip.

Any of these options will work with about 50 T to TLI (or 100 T to LEO). Which ever way you go you will have to do a Lunar Surface Rendezvous for building a lunar base.

In my opinion the re-built uprated Saturn V at 140 T to LEO is the best way to go. This has the best cost/kg of all the options.

 

[edkyle99]

After the Shuttles are grounded there will be a number of SSME's left over. They have considerably more thrust than an RS-68, plus the nozzle extrensions are regeneratively cooled, eliminating the base heating/recirculation concerns. ...

SSME only produces 60% as much sea-level thrust as an RS-68, and only 57% as much as an RS-68A.

The business about the base heating is moot with the pending retirement of the SRBs. RS-68s can, and have, flown in clusters. See Delta 4 Heavy. When flown with the new RS-68A engines, a Delta 4 Heavy will lift off on 2.1 million pounds of thrust.

- Ed Kyle

 

[menellom]

As far as the 2015 thing goes, I was under the impression that:

1. 2015 is the deadline for when production of a heavy lift vehicle must start.
2. The 2015 deadline is based on the current economic situation, which means if the economy continues to improve it would likely move left.

 

[edkyle99]

As far as the 2015 thing goes, I was under the impression that:

1. 2015 is the deadline for when production of a heavy lift vehicle must start.
2. The 2015 deadline is based on the current economic situation, which means if the economy continues to improve it would likely move left.

My understanding of 2015 is that is when the Administration would *decide* whether to start development of a super heavy lift rocket, based in part on the results of R&D work (largely propulsion) performed between now and then. The year was likely picked based on availability of NASA funding. Between now and then NASA will be spending billions for development of a commercial crew taxi system *and* an Orion-based crew rescue vehicle. After that work is done, funding can begin to flow toward something else. There will probably be a tug of war over that no doubt, but super heavy lift is the currently-stated priority.

- Ed Kyle

 

[Valcan]

As far as the 2015 thing goes, I was under the impression that:

1. 2015 is the deadline for when production of a heavy lift vehicle must start.
2. The 2015 deadline is based on the current economic situation, which means if the economy continues to improve it would likely move left.

Mene are you saying a US politican would use the promise of giving people what they need in exchange for VOTES!
How could you accuse our pearless and noble figures of Noble and regal stature of such slander.

 

[2552]

Actually, the 2015 date comes from a recent MIT paper by Ed Crawley and David Mindell, released a few weeks before the speech. Here:

6. NASA should develop a roadmap of key decisions for the program, including
decision criteria and timeframes. These would likely include:
a. What are the key technology investments? (2010-2011)
b. What are possible reference architectures to study and guide technology
investments? (2010-2011)
c. Who are the commercial partners for crew launch and what is the form of
NASA investment and safety assurance? (2011)
d. What is the role of the International Space Station (ISS) in exploration
development, and how can out year ISS costs be reduced in order to provide
resources for system development? (2011-2012)
e. What is the form of international partnerships for exploration, and what role
will each of the partners play? (2012-2013)
f. How will heavy lift to low earth orbit (LEO), and in-space transportation be
achieved? (2014-2015)
g. What will be the form of in-space habitat used for voyages beyond LEO,
and how will it protect crew from radiation in space? (2014-2015)
h. What crew exploration vehicle will be developed for exploration beyond
low earth orbit, and how? (2015-2016)

The Orion lifeboat idea also appears in the paper:

One could construct alternatives for Orion besides
cancelation: a “lite” version as an option for commercial crew or a “very lite” version for
NASA-supplied crew rescue from the ISS.

Also, the 2025 date for the first human mission to a NEO is from a NASA evaulation of a 2025 Flexible Path human mission to the Near-Earth Asteroid 1999AO10.