A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

RGClark said:
About this last, it's interesting they give the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
Click to expand...

Well, they flew an upgraded version of the RS-68 engine, the RS-68A in June with the launch of NROL-15. The upgraded version has a thrust of 3,140 kN on sea level while the standard version has 2,950 kN. Since the engine was used in an NROL-launch I'm not sure if they revealed the payload capacity with it, but when I use this tool to calculate the payload capacity with the upgraded engines I end up with up to 28,7 mT.
 
MattBaker said:
Well, they flew an upgraded version of the RS-68 engine, the RS-68A in June with the launch of NROL-15. The upgraded version has a thrust of 3,140 kN on sea level while the standard version has 2,950 kN. Since the engine was used in an NROL-launch I'm not sure if they revealed the payload capacity with it, but when I use this tool to calculate the payload capacity with the upgraded engines I end up with up to 28,7 mT.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. I didn't know they had upgraded the RS-68.


Bob Clark
 
The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th

Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday
Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-next-thursday/


Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
MattBaker said:
Well, they flew an upgraded version of the RS-68 engine, the RS-68A in June with the launch of NROL-15. The upgraded version has a thrust of 3,140 kN on sea level while the standard version has 2,950 kN. Since the engine was used in an NROL-launch I'm not sure if they revealed the payload capacity with it, but when I use this tool to calculate the payload capacity with the upgraded engines I end up with up to 28,7 mT.
Click to expand...

What do you get when you add on the mass of a second Vulcain II to an Ariane core at a 165 mT propellant load for the payload of the first stage alone using the proposed upgraded thrust of the Vulcain II described here:

CNES, ASI Favor Solid-Rocket Design For Ariane 6.
By Amy Svitak.
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology.
October 15, 2012.
Amy Svitak Naples, Italy, and Paris.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml&p=3


Bob Clark

---------- Post added 12-02-12 at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-01-12 at 06:56 PM ----------

Proposes using the unmanned test flights of the Falcon Heavy to test low cost BEO missions to the lunar surface, near Earth asteroids, and the Lagrange points:

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3: Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html


Bob Clark
 
"Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to the Moon this week:

How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )
http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic.html

They estimated development costs in the $7 to $8 billion dollar range, less than 1/10 the cost of the Apollo or Constellation programs. However, even these numbers may be over inflated. The origin of the presented cost numbers were from NASA guys using NASA costing models. However, SpaceX has shown by following a commercial approach development costs can be cut by 1/5th to 1/10th that of NASA’s.

So what I think Golden Spike should do is bring SpaceX on board. With the development costs reduced to this extent, then we would have the really exciting possibility of the flight costs being brought down perhaps to the $200 million range, especially if using the Falcon Heavy launcher. This clearly would have a major impact on the prospect of profitability.

The only problem might be is that Elon appears to have no interest in the Moon, being focused on Mars as the ultimate goal. However the profitability motive may sway him. There is also the fact that these missions could serve to prove the capabilities of the Dragon even for BEO missions. It could also serve to prove the value of the Falcon Heavy for launching large payload at low cost, something Elon definitely wants for getting Air Force contracts.

As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a regular basis.

We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.

Bob Clark
 
Last edited:
SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.


Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Interesting articles:

NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR
http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1697

Report: NASA in Huntsville won't release performance specifications for new rocket
By Lee Roop | ****@al.com
on January 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, updated January 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/report_nasa_in_huntsville_wont.html

Rand Simberg suggested to me the reason why NASA keeps saying the Block 1 version of the SLS will only have a payload of 70 mT, same as for the Block 0, is to maintain the pork of the expensive upper stage.

Citing ITAR for the current Block 1 version makes no sense since they were willing to give the 70 mT capability of the Block 0. Also, another conclusion you can draw from this is the payload capability of the Block 1 will not really just be 70 mT otherwise they would have just given this number again for the FOIA request.

My guess about why NASA kept giving the 70 mT number of the Block 0 and not the real number of the Block 1 was because they just didn't take the time and effort to do the analysis on the capability of the upgraded rocket. It was easier to just cite 70 mT because they knew the new version would at least reach this. But now I'm beginning to think perhaps Simberg was right.

Certainly the cite of the ITAR restrictions just raises new questions.

Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
Interesting articles:

NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR
http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1697

Report: NASA in Huntsville won't release performance specifications for new rocket
By Lee Roop | ****@al.com
on January 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, updated January 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/report_nasa_in_huntsville_wont.html

Rand Simberg suggested to me the reason why NASA keeps saying the Block 1 version of the SLS will only have a payload of 70 mT, same as for the Block 0, is to maintain the pork of the expensive upper stage.

Citing ITAR for the current Block 1 version makes no sense since they were willing to give the 70 mT capability of the Block 0. Also, another conclusion you can draw from this is the payload capability of the Block 1 will not really just be 70 mT otherwise they would have just given this number again for the FOIA request.

My guess about why NASA kept giving the 70 mT number of the Block 0 and not the real number of the Block 1 was because they just didn't take the time and effort to do the analysis on the capability of the upgraded rocket. It was easier to just cite 70 mT because they knew the new version would at least reach this. But now I'm beginning to think perhaps Simberg was right.

Certainly the cite of the ITAR restrictions just raises new questions.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

I've been informed by knowledgeable individuals that the Block I SLS likely will have greater payload than just 70 mT, though not as high as what I was estimating. The problem is with designing any new rocket there is always weight growth so you put some error bars around your mass estimates. NASA frequently takes a conservative approach to those mass growth estimates which can drive down your payload estimates.
In any case I don't believe there was anything untoward in the decision not to release the SLS specifications. I think as the SLS comes closer to completion, hopefully by 2017, more accurate numbers for its capabilities will be released.
However, it should be noted that many industry insiders do not believe the final Block II version of the SLS will ever fly, because of its long time lag, 20 years, and high cost. Then I think it would be prudent for NASA to investigate weight saving techniques on the Block I SLS core to maximize its payload capability. Then even if the Block II is never completed we can still perform BEO missions even with just the Block I scheduled to launch in 2017.

Some suggestions for lightweighting the SLS core discussed here:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 3: lightweighting the SLS core.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/02/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html


Bob Clark
 
A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.


Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.


Bob Clark
Click to expand...

"Man-Rating" is a vestigial hold-over from the days when we were still using ICBMs to launch astronauts and a failure rate of 1 in 8 was simply written off as "acceptable losses" there's really no reason that a manned mission could not be launched using an Ariane or Delta Heavy right now.

That said I view the presumption that the SLS will be ready for flight by 2017 as absurdly optimistic.
 
RGClark said:
A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.
Click to expand...

Calculations for the all-liquid fueled Ariane 6 core as a SSTO:

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coming-sstos-multi-vulcain-ariane.html

Bob Clark
 
Last edited:
RGClark said:
Discussion of a low cost European crew capsule:

Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/04/budget-moon-flights-lightweight-crew.html


Bob Clark
Click to expand...

According to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, NASA will not be
returning us to the Moon but may engage in partnerships with other
space agencies or private entities who could.
Then it's interesting the ESA has the required lightweight in-space
stages and lightweight capsule in the Cygnus to accomplish this at low
cost.
Another key fact is that NASA has shown with SpaceX and now with
Orbital Sciences that development costs can be cut drastically (by 80
to 90% !) by following a commercial approach.
Then this could be a project NASA could encourage, at low cost to
NASA, by partnering with ESA and private entities like Golden Spike,
while at the same time satisfying the critics who want us to return to
the Moon.



Bob Clark
 
You should not compare the development costs of a toaster with the development costs of a rocket... The development costs of the Antares alone are 472 million USD until April 2012. How can you claim that NASA would have needed 4 billion USD for developing this?
 
Urwumpe said:
You should not compare the development costs of a toaster with the development costs of a rocket... The development costs of the Antares alone are 472 million USD until April 2012. How can you claim that NASA would have needed 4 billion USD for developing this?
Click to expand...

A key fact also is that NASA only had to pay $288 million of that Antares development cost. This for a 5 metric ton capable rocket. Because of such drastic cuts in costs that government has to pay for launcher development, commercial space will become the predominate means of producing new rockets going forward.
See argument here:

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3: towards European human spaceflight.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html


Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
A key fact also is that NASA only had to pay $288 million of that Antares development cost. This for a 5 metric ton capable rocket. Because of such drastic cuts in costs that government has to pay for launcher development, commercial space will become the predominate means of producing new rockets going forward.
See argument here:

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3: towards European human spaceflight.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html


Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Well, very interesting article to read! But why we don't calculate the profit ESA earns of a commercial Ariane-5 launch?

Also, if ESA really will to move on a new way who is more focus about going to GTO on a low price, then there not need to create a commercial spaceflight company. ESA can already do it cheaper if there can co-operate with Roscosmos and use there Soyuz 2.1b + Fregat for GTO launches from Guiana. (Or, there can wait until the new Soyuz 2,1v going to have the 4 well known boosters on it, and with a Fregat upper stage, and can put more mass into GTO, or maybe even into GEO!)

But why launcher development cost can't be done by government space agencies, but can be do by private spaceflight companies?
 
Last edited:
Alfastar said:
Well, very interesting article to read! But why we don't calculate the profit ESA earns of a commercial Ariane-5 launch?
Also, if ESA really will to move on a new way who is more focus about going to GTO on a low price, then there not need to create a commercial spaceflight company. ESA can already do it cheaper if there can co-operate with Roscosmos and use there Soyuz 2.1b + Fregat for GTO launches from Guiana. (Or, there can wait until the new Soyuz 2,1v going to have the 4 well known boosters on it, and with a Fregat upper stage, and can put more mass into GTO, or maybe even into GEO!)
But why launcher development cost can't be done by government space agencies, but can be do by private spaceflight companies?
Click to expand...

About the Ariane 5, Arianespace needs a yearly subsidy of about $200 million a year from the government otherwise it would go broke.
I'm not saying new launchers can't be done by governments, only that it can be done more cheaply by private companies for the simple reason people are more careful about spending and wasting their own money rather than the governments money.
And even if there is a cost-sharing agreement where the government pays for part of it, that portion that needs to be paid by the government is still greatly reduced over the usual method where the government pays for everything.
Following such a commercial, low-cost approach, every industrialized country, including the Netherlands, could have its own independent spaceflight program, no ESA required.

Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
About the Ariane 5, Arianespace needs a yearly subsidy of about $200 million a year from the government otherwise it would go broke.
Click to expand...

That is wrong. It had been 200 million Euro from ESA in 2011 and 2012 together paid by the SLICE 13 program, and that not as such a illegal direct subsidy, but for maintaining fixed ground infrastructure related to the Ariane 5 beyond the commercial flight operations. Especially not by "The government", as such a thing does not exist here.

Compared to other companies, Arianespace is far away from broke, but it really exists only by the vim of ESA - as you can see looking at the shareholders of Arianespace and how a company can operate with only 1.7 million net income in a year (Out of 1.3 billion Euro income in 2012).

100 million is a lot of money, but it is just 10% public money in 1.3 billion Euro income. SpaceX receives WAY more tax payers money in relation to their income, since almost all income is from NASA currently and not subject to market forces (And will likely never really be. There will never be a choice between Cygnus or Dragon, but rather a choice "How many Cygnus and how many Dragons").
 
In addition the issues already cited by Urwumpe your posts seem to assume numerous "Facts" not in evidence, and your conclusions do not seem to follow from your arguments.

Commercial development of space will only occur if there is incentive to do so. Without that incentive there is no reason for the current paradigm to change. What, in your eyes, is the incentive?

In a similar vein why would Arianespace bother with SSTO or "Man Rating" in the first place?

Likewise, your assertion that Commercial = Cheap and that Government = expensive is a misnomer. The expense of government-backed launch vehicles is only tangentially related to their source of funding. As you yourself have noted the primary mission of NASA and the ESA is the redistribution of funds and jobs to their target constituencies. Space exploration is merely a useful byproduct.

Similarly the current generation of commercial launchers are cheap for similar, but mirrored reasons, their primary mission is to get X tonnes to orbit. Losses are perfectly acceptable so long as they rare enough to not effect insurance premiums. Jobs and innovation are merely useful byproducts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pi314
KSP degen returning after a decade or so
Replies
0
Views
670
pi314
pi314
G
Challenge Artemis III - Landing on the Moon
Replies
19
Views
8K
gattispilot
gattispilot
CaptainSwag101
  • Locked
NASSP Quick-Start Guide and Extra Info for Newcomers
Replies
1
Views
9K
rcflyinghokie
rcflyinghokie
rcflyinghokie
Apollo 2 Fictional Mission Now Available!
Replies
6
Views
3K
Max-Q
Max-Q
Wedge313
Apollo 11: Did they have/use the "yo-yo" during their EVA?
Replies
1
Views
1K
rcflyinghokie
rcflyinghokie
Back
Top