ULA's EELV alternative plans (DTAL, tankers & archetecture)

[docm]

A long article that includes things like fuel depots and the return of the Dual Thrust Axis Lander (DTAL) and another lander.

Archetecture....

DTAL....

Space 1999 - like lander 1....

Space 1999 - like lander 2....

NASASpaceFlight article....

ULA claim gap reducing solution via EELV exploration master plan

September 11th, 2009 by Chris Bergin

The United Launch Alliance (ULA) have created an expansive plan to utilize the Atlas and Delta Launch Vehicle families to provide the United States with an architecture that both reduces the gap and provides greater flexibility – when compared to NASA’s current Ares-based plans. ULA’s plans range from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) access, to the ability to cater for NASA’s most ambitious lunar base plan.
>
Background/Human Rating:

Several papers (see bottom of article for download link) - due to be presented at an upcoming American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)/Space 2009 conference – outline ULA’s ambitious plans to not only provide US manned access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), but also create an exploration plan, one which includes fuel depots and lunar landing craft.
>
>

 

[mainmind]

Re: ULA's EELV alternative plans....

Excellent find. It's much nicer to read the full studies instead of just the brief online articles about them.

They make a compelling argument for the smaller more modular systems. As much as I'd love to see a massive vehicle like the Ares V, I don't have much hope there's the political will to pay for its development.

Also, I posted a link to your post in another thread that has been discussing the ULA's proposal (titled "Orbital Gas Stations"), here:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11928&start=20

 

[EarthlingX]

This proposal makes so much sense, it's scary. It is probably in a grave political danger, because it might just work.
I must add, that i really love the modularity and openness of the architecture. It could probably profit from some international engagement to make it more politically survivable.
Now America has to decide, humans in space or not. I know what the other will.

 

[vulture4]

If Ares were dropped there would be enough money to keep the Shuttle flying until something better is available, and the commercial vehicles can be launched from CX-37, CX-40, etc and thus not interfere with continuing Shuttle operations.

The ULA studies look much better thought out than the NASA studies like LSAS and ESAS. LSAS said the Delta would have to be assembled in the VAB and launched from LC-39 for human launch, which makes no sense. Vertical processing would wipe out the cost advantages of the newly designed horizontal processing flow at Cx-37 and introduce numerous safety hazards.

 

[docm]

Popular Mechanics article....

Launch System Skepticism Grows at Space 2009: Guest Analysis

By Rand Simberg

Published on: September 14, 2009

It has long been conventional wisdom, going all the way back to Apollo, that heavy lift was a prerequisite for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit, but this summer has seen several cracks start to appear in that consensus. First, partly as a result of white papers circulated among its members in the last few weeks, the Augustine panel itself has championed the concept of propellant depots.
>
Three years ago, Lockheed Martin got itself into hot water with the former administrator, Mike Griffin, at the AIAA meeting in San Jose, where they held a joint press conference with Bigelow Aerospace announcing a study to "human rate" the Atlas V to service Bigelow's planned facilities. Griffin reportedly called upper management there to complain about the potential threat these plans posed to maintaining political support for Ares.
>
....the United Launch Alliance (ULA), has little to lose. Like the United Space Alliance that operates the Shuttle and ISS for NASA, the company was formed in a shotgun wedding at the request of the Air Force three years ago to consolidate manufacturing and launch operations of Boeing's Delta and Lockheed Martin's Atlas rockets, in the hope that it would save money. The new venture has military, commercial and even NASA customers, but only for unmanned missions. It was shut out of the human spaceflight program four years ago when Griffin made the decision to instead have NASA develop and operate the Ares vehicles. The papers ULA is presenting this week show the kind of innovation and boldness that NASA has been avoiding since then, with its decades-old, unaffordable and unsustainable (in the opinion of this author) "Apollo on Steroids" approach.
>

 

[EarthlingX]

NSS Statement On HSF Executive Summary :
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NSS ... y_999.html

These programs offer capabilities that can lead to asteroidal resource development and the means to protect the planet from their potential impact. Ultimately this could enable humanity to live in and "green" the cosmos.

NSS supports the development of a family of cargo and crew transportation options to Low Earth Orbit and beyond. We recognize that the development of commercial launch vehicles is integral to extending our economic sphere into the solar system.

And of course,
Lawmakers Give NASA Moon Plan a Boost
http://www.space.com/news/090916-ft-hou ... light.html

Giffords said she expected the report to recommend ways to advance the Constellation program, in which NASA has invested several years and billions of dollars. But the presidential panel gave only "glancing attention to Constellation -- even referring to it in the past tense."

 

[wtrix]

I find the ULA-s proposal fascinating, though, I still think that pumping liquids under 0g is too difficult to try. It's far easier to have standard size tanks that are emptied in sequence and assembled to the next spacecraft when fuel is spared. I also doubt their design of the moon lander. I still think that the fuel system and engines shall be separated.

 

[Valcan]

I like it.