| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space Forum » brainstorming, and need some launcher costs and payloads...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Phil Fraering |
 Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm brainstorming about the upcoming Mars program, and I have a bunch of
questions that are now bugging me:
* What's the payload to a LEO parking orbit, and cost, of the following
vehicles: Sea Launch, Delta 4, Delta 4-Heavy, Atlas 5, Atlas 5-Heavy?
* I *think* the Delta and Atlas use hydrogen-fueled upper stages. Are
the upper stages of the Sea Launch "storable" in LEO?
I'm thinking along the lines of how cheaply one could build a "Flags and
Footprints" Mars mission, just as a thought experiment.
EVEN if one limits oneself to using currently available US boosters like
Delta or Atlas, with a little bit of Sea Launch thrown in.
What sort of volume discounts do you think could be gotten from the above?
Sea Launch is mainly Ukranian, right?
Thanks a lot...
Phil
--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Iain Young |
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2004-01-11, Phil Fraering <pgf@AUTO> wrote:
Quote: * What's the payload to a LEO parking orbit, and cost, of the following
vehicles: Sea Launch, Delta 4, Delta 4-Heavy, Atlas 5, Atlas 5-Heavy?
First off, which Delta-IV, and which Atlas V ? Delta-IV has a Delta-IV
Medium, MediumPlus 4.2, MediumPlus 5.2, and MediumPlus 5.4 variants (First
digit is the payload fairing diameter, second is the number of SRBs).
Atlas V has many more options. Again it can have a 4 or 5 meter fairing,
but can have between 0 and 5 SRBs, and one, or two CUS (Centaur Upper
Stage[s]) - Note there are some extra restaints in there IIRC that
mean not all theortical options are avaliable.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/delta4_specs.shtml has the
payload capabilities for the Delta-IV to GTO, and the "ETR Reference
Mission", which I believe is to 28 degrees from LC-37B.
(ETR is the Eastern Test Range, I forget if LC-37 is officially part
of CCAFS, or KSC these days,)
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas5_specs.shtml has
similar data for the Atlas V range of launch vehicles.
Make sure you compare like for like. Look at the ETR Ref Mission
for both.
Delta-IV Heavy is supposed to fly July 2004, but Atlas V Heavy
isn't expected to be with us until Q3 2006. IIRC Atlas V Heavy also
can't take advantage of the entire potential payload capacity,
due to a structural issue.
Both Boeing and Lockmart have Payload Planner's Guides avaliable,
with more details, see:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/guides.htm and
http://www.ilslaunch.com/missionplanner/
SeaLaunch has a 'Users Guide' on their website at
http://www.sea-launch.com/user_guide/user_guide.pdf , but I haven't
looked at it, I'm guessing it might contain payload capacities
for Sea Launch.
Quote: * I *think* the Delta and Atlas use hydrogen-fueled upper stages. Are
the upper stages of the Sea Launch "storable" in LEO?
Both Delta-IV, and Atlas V currently use a Centaur Upper Stage, using
a RS-10-B engine, which is indeed LOX/Hydrogen fueled.. Boeing were|are
planning to replace it with the MB-60 (which is also LOX/Hydrogen fueled)
Quote: I'm thinking along the lines of how cheaply one could build a "Flags and
Footprints" Mars mission, just as a thought experiment.
If I remember correctly, there are two general possibilities for a
Manned Mars Mission, due to orbital mechanics:
1) Fly there, Spend a couple of weeks at mars, Fly Back, or
2) Fly there, Stay a couple of years, waiting for the next return
opportunity, then Fly back.
So long as the consumable and psycological<sp> issues are resolved,
then a long stay mission probably isn't all that much harder, or
expensive, and would be much better from a scientific point of view
(Although mission hardware would have to be 'hard' enough, to manage
the length of the extended mission, theres a difference between
designing something to last a few weeks on Mars, and designing it
to last a couple of years in a Martian Environment)
Best Regards
Iain
(who will now wait for all those who are better versed in these things,
to correct any glaring (and not so glaring mistakes he made) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Henry Spencer |
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <5sh8d1-edp.ln1@lungold.cox-internet.com>,
Phil Fraering <pgf@AUTO> wrote:
Quote: * I *think* the Delta and Atlas use hydrogen-fueled upper stages. Are
the upper stages of the Sea Launch "storable" in LEO?
Only briefly. The Sea Launch third stage is yet another variant of the
long-serving Blok D, which is LOX/kerosene and has a rated orbital life of
24hr. That could probably be stretched to several days easily enough,
with minor performance penalties. But it won't go to weeks or months
without major changes.
And yes, Delta IV and Atlas V are pretty much straight LOX/LH2 in the
upper stages.
Quote: Sea Launch is mainly Ukranian, right?
Mainly; the first two stages are a slightly modified Zenit. The third
stage is Russian.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Phil Fraering |
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Iain Young <iain@g7iii.demon.co.uk> writes:
Quote: On 2004-01-11, Phil Fraering <pgf@AUTO> wrote:
* What's the payload to a LEO parking orbit, and cost, of the following
vehicles: Sea Launch, Delta 4, Delta 4-Heavy, Atlas 5, Atlas 5-Heavy?
First off, which Delta-IV, and which Atlas V ? Delta-IV has a Delta-IV
Medium, MediumPlus 4.2, MediumPlus 5.2, and MediumPlus 5.4 variants (First
digit is the payload fairing diameter, second is the number of SRBs).
I think I'll go with Delta-V Medium, regular payload fairing, and no SRB's.
Quote: Atlas V has many more options. Again it can have a 4 or 5 meter fairing,
but can have between 0 and 5 SRBs, and one, or two CUS (Centaur Upper
Stage[s]) - Note there are some extra restaints in there IIRC that
mean not all theortical options are avaliable.
I was thinking of 0 SRB's here too, and one CUS. (I thought Atlas V was
moving to an upper stage more like Delta V's?)
Let me see the numbers, though:
Assuming the ETR Reference Orbit:
Delta IVM : 70000000/6760 = $ 10,355/kg
Delta IVM+(4,2): 90000000/9070 = $ 9,922/kg
Delta IVM+(5,2): 80000000/7850 = $ 10,191/kg
Delta IVM+(5,4): 100000000/10300 = $ 9,708/kg
Delta IVH : 140000000/20500 = $ 6,829/kg
This says that the Delta IVH is the cheapest one.
Quote: http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas5_specs.shtml has
similar data for the Atlas V range of launch vehicles.
OK, looking at Atlas:
Atlas V 402: 90000000/12500 = $ 7,200/kg
Atlas V 502: 85000000/10300 = $ 8,252/kg
Atlas V 512: (one SRB? Huh? Figures close enough to 402...)
Atlas V 522: 95000000/13950 = $ 6,814/kg
Atlas V 532: 100000000/17250 = $ 5,797.10/kg
Atlas V 542: 105000000/18750 = $ 5600/kg
Atlas V 552: 110000000/20050 = $ 5486.28/kg
At first glance, it seems that Atlas "Z" (enit) is cheaper than Delta, but
if I were running the program and had made the decision to buy a launcher
dependent on foreign parts (which the Atlas is), I'd rather cut out the
middleman and just buy some Zenits and launch them from the cape.
And the cost figure there is:
60000000/13740 = $ 4,366.81/kg.
(The reference orbit given for Zenits is 200 km at 51 deg.; I'm not sure
what its payload to the ETR standard orbit would be; you'd probably gain
something from the lower launch latitude).
Quote: If I remember correctly, there are two general possibilities for a
Manned Mars Mission, due to orbital mechanics:
1) Fly there, Spend a couple of weeks at mars, Fly Back, or
2) Fly there, Stay a couple of years, waiting for the next return
opportunity, then Fly back.
So long as the consumable and psycological<sp> issues are resolved,
then a long stay mission probably isn't all that much harder, or
expensive, and would be much better from a scientific point of view
(Although mission hardware would have to be 'hard' enough, to manage
the length of the extended mission, theres a difference between
designing something to last a few weeks on Mars, and designing it
to last a couple of years in a Martian Environment)
I'm thinking about using a faster-than-usual trajectory to lessen some
of these issues. Throwing mass at the problem might be cheaper than
designing everything to last a couple years on Mars.
Even at these prices.
(Let's see... NASA's budget this year was roughly 15,000,000,000, and
Zenit 2 launches at $4,366.81 per kg...)
You could launch 3,435,000 kg to orbit.
Using Delta IVH, you'd still get 2,196,510 kg to LEO.
How is this looking to everyone else so far?
--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Phil Fraering |
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:
Quote: * I *think* the Delta and Atlas use hydrogen-fueled upper stages. Are
the upper stages of the Sea Launch "storable" in LEO?
Only briefly. The Sea Launch third stage is yet another variant of the
long-serving Blok D, which is LOX/kerosene and has a rated orbital life of
24hr. That could probably be stretched to several days easily enough,
with minor performance penalties. But it won't go to weeks or months
without major changes.
OK.
Do you think the Blok D would be a good starting point for designing
a fuel/oxidizer/engine module, such as was being discussed earlier?
I guess not, if it's using cryogenic oxidizer.
Quote: And yes, Delta IV and Atlas V are pretty much straight LOX/LH2 in the
upper stages.
What sort of fuel would you want to use for a long-term-storage-in
orbit application?
Quote: Sea Launch is mainly Ukranian, right?
Mainly; the first two stages are a slightly modified Zenit. The third
stage is Russian.
I suspect that if one is not _using_ the third stage as the tug, for
this application you'd probably want to leave the third stage off.
I have to think some more.
--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Martin |
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Atlas V has many more options. Again it can have a 4 or 5 meter fairing,
but can have between 0 and 5 SRBs, and one, or two CUS (Centaur Upper
Stage[s]) - Note there are some extra restaints in there IIRC that
mean not all theortical options are avaliable.
Minor nitpick... the "one, or two CUS" should be "one or two _engines_
on the CUS." Two engines are used for LEO launches, and one for
GTO/escape.
Atlas designations are as follows:
First number-payload shroud size. 4 for the 4-meter fairing, 5 for
the 5-meter fairing.
Second number-number of SRB's. 0-3 for 4-meter variants, 0-5 for the
5-meter
Third number-number of engines on the Centaur. 1 or 2, as explained
above.
Therefore, the 422 configuration uses the 4-meter fairing, has 2
srb's, and uses a dual-engine centaur (DEC). A 541 configuration uses
the 5-meter fairing, 4 SRB's, and a single-engine centaur (SEC).
Quote: * I *think* the Delta and Atlas use hydrogen-fueled upper stages. Are
the upper stages of the Sea Launch "storable" in LEO?
Both Delta-IV, and Atlas V currently use a Centaur Upper Stage, using
a RS-10-B engine, which is indeed LOX/Hydrogen fueled.. Boeing were/are
planning to replace it with the MB-60 (which is also LOX/Hydrogen fueled)
The new engine provides more thrust with roughly the same weight and
ISP, translating into lower gravity losses along the ascent. As it
is, both EELV's have underpowered upper stages. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Henry Spencer |
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <6bi9d1-pb5.ln1@lungold.cox-internet.com>,
Phil Fraering <pgf@AUTO> wrote:
Quote: Only briefly. The Sea Launch third stage is yet another variant of the
long-serving Blok D, which is LOX/kerosene and has a rated orbital life of
24hr...
Do you think the Blok D would be a good starting point for designing
a fuel/oxidizer/engine module, such as was being discussed earlier?
I guess not, if it's using cryogenic oxidizer.
Probably not. It ought to be possible to store LOX indefinitely in LEO,
using passive cooling, but the technology is not fully developed. You'd
have to either do a bit of work on that, or use a non-cryo oxidizer.
Quote: And yes, Delta IV and Atlas V are pretty much straight LOX/LH2 in the
upper stages.
What sort of fuel would you want to use for a long-term-storage-in
orbit application?
The oxidizer's the hard part. My personal inclination would be to sort
out the technology for LOX storage. The alternatives all have annoyances
of their own. Hydrogen peroxide and nitrous oxide are easy to store but
perform poorly. Nitrogen tetroxide is obnoxious but not hard to store,
and performance is okay. If you want to live dangerously, chlorine
pentafluoride has markedly better performance -- people have proposed it
for things like Mars ascent vehicles -- but storage is a little tricky.
Note also that large-engine technology is poorly developed for choices
other than LOX and nitrogen tetroxide.
The fuel choice is mostly just a matter of whatever works best with the
chosen oxidizer. LH2 is grossly bulky and passive cooling is a much
bigger challenge than for LOX; I'm inclined to ground-rule it out. I'd go
with kerosene or propane unless the oxidizer preferred something else
(e.g., hydrocarbons are poor choices for ClF5 unless you can get a bit of
oxygen into the mixture somehow).
Quote: Sea Launch is mainly Ukranian, right?
Mainly; the first two stages are a slightly modified Zenit. The third
stage is Russian.
I suspect that if one is not _using_ the third stage as the tug, for
this application you'd probably want to leave the third stage off.
For LEO you only really need the bottom two. By one plausible account,
Zenit was originally planned to replace the Semyorka family as the main
Russian LEO launcher, carrying enlarged versions of Soyuz and Progress.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:50 am
|
|