Launch of the Artemis 1

 

 

Links and References

Deriving Economically Sustainable Crew Launch Vehicles from the SLS

Boeing's New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters

The Functional and Economic Value of Repurposing Spent SLS Core Stages

Deploying a Ginormous SLS Derived Dry/Wet Workshop Habitat with a Single SLS Launch

The Logistical Viability of an SLS EUS Derived Reusable Lunar Crew Lander

Back to the Moon with the European Space Agency

Orbital ATK Cygnus Cis-Lunar Concept

Substantially Enhancing the Capability of the SLS Architecture by Utilizing EUS Derived Propellant Depots and Reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicles

Left: Orion space capsule with hypergolic fueled Service Module; right:  notional Orion spacecraft with a reusable EUS derived orbital transfer vehicle.  

It now appears that Congress will direct NASA to return Americans to the surface of the Moon in order to prepare for future crewed journeys to the surface of  Mars. But the Moon could prove to be much more than just a beyond LEO testing ground for astronauts and components.

At minimum, an interplanetary round trip to the Red Planet would require several hundred tons of  water for drinking, washing, food preparation, radiation shielding, the production of air, and for the production of liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid (LH2)  for rocket propellant.

Supplying the water needed for an interplanetary spacecraft parked at LEO  would require a delta-v ranging from  9.3 km/s to 10 km/s from the Earth's surface. Minimum energy launch windows during the 2030s would require an additional delta-v ranging from 3.59 km/s to 4.81 km/s for Trans Mars Injections (TMI)  that could send humans to Mars in less than a year.

But at different locations within cis-lunar space, substantially lower levels of delta-v could be taken advantage of in order to launch cargo and crew into a Trans Mars Injection. And these interplanetary launch points within cis-lunar space are most easily accessible from the lunar surface rather than from within the Earth's deep gravity well. So utilizing lunar ice resources could greatly reduce the cost and the complexity of sending humans to Mars.


Delta-v to important destinations within cis-lunar space

Earth surface to LEO - 9.3 km/s to 10 km/s

LEO to EML1 - 3.77 km/s (~3 days)

LEO to EML1 - 4.5 km/s (~2 days)

LEO to EML2 - 3.43 km/s (~8 days)

LEO to EML2 - 3.95 km/s (~4 days)

Lunar surface to EML1 - 2.52 km/s (~3 days)

Lunar surface to EML2 - 2.53 km/s (~3 days)


Delta-v from cis-lunar space to Trans Mars Injection

LEO to TMI (2030s) - 3.59 km/s to 4.81 km/s

EML1 to TMI (2030s) - 1.04 km/s to 1.3 km/s

Because of its shorter travel times from Earth orbit,  EML1 would appear to be the optimal region for locating Deep Space Habitats (DSH), reusable lunar shuttles,  propellant manufacturing water depots that receive water from the lunar surface and for launching cargoes and crew on interplanetary journeys to the orbits of Mars and Venus.

A delta-v of   3.77 can transport crews to EML1 in approximately 4 days. It would require 3.95 km/s to travel to EML2 in 4 days but 8 days of travel and radiation exposure would be required to take advantage of a lower delta-v to EML2 at 3.43 km/s. A delta-v of 2.52 km/s would be required for a 3 day journey between EML1 to the lunar surface. 2.53 km/s would be required for a similar journey between EML-2 and the lunar surface. The significant presence of habitats and depots and reusable vehicles at EML-2 could also interfere with future radio astronomy on the back side of the Moon.

Taking full advantage of polar ice resources on the Moon would require a space architecture that utilizes orbiting depots to supply water and propellant to reusable interplanetary spacecraft and landing vehicles. Some space advocates have argued that propellant depots make heavy lift vehicle's an unnecessary expense. However, heavy lift vehicles would make it possible to easily deploy propellant manufacturing water depots to  EML1  for crewed interplanetary journeys to the orbits of Mars and Venus.

Similar depots located at LEO could also enable large payloads  originally deployed  to LEO by heavy lift vehicles to be later  deployed by reusable orbital transfer vehicles practically anywhere within cis-lunar space.

Expendable EUS for SLS launch vehicle (Credit: NASA)

In 2018, NASA will launch the first SLS heavy lift vehicle with an unmanned Orion space capsule and a hypergolic fueled Service Module and an interim upper stage. But NASA currently envisions crewed SLS launches in the 2020s to include an Orion space capsule with a hypergolic fueled Service Module and a large LOX/LH2 fueled Exploratory Upper Stage (EUS). 

But two of the principal companies (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) currently developing the SLS/Orion architecture are also--  privately developing-- an alternate space architecture through their joint company, the  ULA (the United Launch Alliance). In this alternate architecture, the ULA  will utilize their emerging  IVF (Integrated Vehicle Fluids ) technology to deploy a reusable ACES upper stage that could eventually utilize LOX/LH2  propellant depots for travel within cis-lunar space during the 2020s. IVF technology allows a spacecraft to utilize hydrogen and oxygen ullage gases for attitude control, power production, and for autogenously pressurizing propellant tanks, eliminating  the need for hydrazine and liquid helium. 

NASA could greatly enhance the capability, efficiency, and the safety of the SLS/Orion architecture by taking full  advantage of the ULA’s  emerging IVF  technology. While there's no reason to stop Boeing from developing the EUS as an expendable upper stage for the SLS, it would still be technologically advantageous for NASA to commission the ULA to use its IVF technology to convert some EUS vehicles into  reusable orbital transfer vehicles and others into propellant depots.

EUS derived propellant manufacturing water depot and reusable Orion orbital transfer vehicle.

 An SLS/Orion architecture utilizing EUS derived Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTV-125) and EUS derived propellant producing water depots (WPD-OTV-125) would no longer require the expense and the enhanced risk of launching astronauts on top of a super heavy lift vehicle. So for beyond LEO missions in the 2020s, under this scenario, astronauts would simply be transported to LEO by Commercial Crew vehicles that would have already been in operational service since 2018.

Once in orbit, the commercial crew capsule would dock directly with the Orion-OTV-125 reusable spacecraft, transferring its crew aboard the Orion for its beyond LEO mission. Alternatively, a crew capsule could dock at the port of  a space station where the Orion-OTV-125 would also be docked at a different port. Both scenarios would mean that the ATV based hypergolic Service Module being manufactured by the Europeans would not be required for crewed beyond LEO missions, and would only be used once during the 2018 test mission. So only  the domestically manufactured Orion capsule being developed by Lockheed Martin would be preserved in this architecture.

A single SLS Block I cargo launch could be used to deploy two WPD-OTV-125 depots to LEO plus a two 1 MWe solar arrays. With at least 35 tonnes of propellant, one of the water/propellant depots could self deploy itself to EML1 along with its 1.4 to 2.8  MWe solar array. Another basic SLS Block I cargo launch could be used to deploy two reusable Orion-OTV-125 vehicles to LEO. But once this reusable depot based extraterrestrial architecture is deployed by the SLS,  private commercial launch vehicles will only be required to conduct crewed beyond LEO missions. This will allow the SLS to be used exclusively as a cargo launcher for the deployment of large and heavy spacecraft and habitats and other large and heavy structures.

Notional lunar water ice extraction, storage, and LOX/LH2 manufacturing facility.

Water for the propellant manufacturing orbital depots could be regularly supplied to LEO and to EML1 from commercial launch vehicles (Atlas V, Delta IV heavy, Falcon 9, and the future Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, and Vulcan Heavy vehicles).  However, once water is being manufactured on the lunar surface, water transported to EML1 would be supplied  exclusively from the lunar surface.


Since the  Orion-OTV-125 would derived from the EUS, it would be capable of accommodating up to 125 tonnes of propellant. But less than 35 tonnes of propellant would be required for an Orion-OTV-125 to transport its crew to EML1. And an equal amount of fuel would be needed to return astronauts to LEO. No aerobraking would be required.

A reusable Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle (ETLV) would transport astronauts from EML1 to the surface of the Moon and back  to EML1 with a single fueling of LOX/LH2. A single SLS Block I cargo launch could deploy three ten tonne ETVL-2 vehicles to LEO, each with enough propellant to travel to EML1. The ETLV-2 could also serve as an back up OTV in case one or both of the Orion-OTV-125 vehicles becomes inoperable.

Until new RS-25 engines are in production, perhaps by 2021 to 2023, NASA will only be able to launch four SLS vehicles. And one of those launches will be an unmanned test launch in 2018. So after 2018, only three SLS launches will be possible before the RS-25 engines go into production.

Notional EUS derived propellant manufacturing water depot @ EML1 after refueling a reusable Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle.

But  just three basic  SLS Block I cargo launches would be required to deploy a reusable EUS derived cis-lunar transport architecture (WPD-OTV-125, Orion-OTV-125, and the ETLV-2) capable of transporting humans to EML1 and to the lunar surface and back.

However, the deployment of the lunar landing vehicles could be delayed until the new RS-25 engines are in production. This would allow NASA to use their last four Space Shuttle Main Engines to be used to launch a DHS (Deep Space Hab) to EML1. An SLS propellant tank derived habitat with over 510 cubic meters of pressurized habitable volume would have a dry weight of 22.4 tonnes. So in theory,  a single SLS Block I cargo launch could be used to deploy two or three pressurized habitats to LEO. A partially fueled Orion-OTV-125 could then be used to transport one of the pressurized habitats to EML1.

SLS propellant tank derived habitat (Credit: NASA).

This would leave one or two pressurized habitats at LEO with a combined pressurized habitable volume exceeding that of the ISS! All of that would be achieved with  a single SLS launch and a reusable propellant producing water depot architecture routinely and sustainably  supplied with water from commercial launch vehicles.

Links and References

Moon first, then Mars? Congress moves to shift space priorities

The return to the moon, Lori Garver, and the price of ambition

Lori Garver Questioned Astronauts about NASA's Next Destination?

Seeing the end of Obama’s space doctrine, a bipartisan Congress moves in

What about Mr. Oberth

Human Lunar exploration architectures

Earth Departure Options for Human Missions to Mars

A Study of CPS Stages for Missions beyond LEO

Deep Space Habitats

First Human Voyages to the Martian Moons Using SLS and IVF Derived Technologies

Congress Requires NASA to Develop a Deep Space Habitat

UltraFlex Solar Array Systems

Orion Splashdown Videos

NASA Updates Reporters on SLS and Orion Development

NASA: Asteroids and Phobos Base

NASA Orion/SLS Assembly and Launch

MPCV Splash Down Test

NASA's Next Crew Launch Vehicle?

by Marcel F. Williams

As the the President, Congress, NASA, and private industry weigh in on what NASA's next crew launch vehicles should be, here is a brief evaluation of the various viable options.

Shuttle derived core vehicle (SD-CV) with ACES 41 Service Module (SM) upper stage

ACES 41: Credit ULA (United Launch Alliance)

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit launch vehicle with engine out capability in both stages. Combined with a launch abort system for the CM (Command Module), this would be a safer manned launch vehicle than the Ares I and could be the safest manned launched vehicle ever developed.

Environmental Impact: carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water.

Commercial Viability: With a probable payload capacity of 30 tonnes plus, the this vehicle should be capable of easily delivering an Orion capsule, Boeings CST-100 capsule, or a Dream Chaser space plane easily into orbit plus at least 10 to 20 tonnes of liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel to LEO orbiting fuel depots for manned beyond LEO missions within cis-Lunar space. Hydrogen and oxygen can also be used as backup electric power aboard a space station using fuel cells with water as a valuable by product. Oxygen, of course, could be used to supply air to a space station.

Shuttle derived core vehicle (SD-CV) with stretched hypergolic Service Module (SM) upper stage

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit vehicle with no engine out capability in the upper hypergolic stage. This makes this an inherently less reliable two stage spacecraft than the SD-CV/ ACES 41 SM but still more reliable than an Ares I.

Environmental Impact: carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water.

Commercial Viability: Should be capable of delivering an Orion capsule, Boeings CST-100 capsule, or a Dream Chaser space plane into orbit.

Atlas V with ACES 41 Service Module (SM) upper stage


Atlas V and ACES 41 with command module (credit: United Launch Alliance)

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit launch vehicle with engine out capability only in the second stage.

Environmental Impact: First stage utilizes greenhouse gas polluting RP-1 (Refined Petroleum 1) fuel with liquid oxygen. However, the production of RP-1 rocket fuel from carbon neutral resources may be a possibility in the near future.

Commercial Viability: Should be able to lift an Orion capsule (without the SM) and a Boeing CST-100 into orbit. However, launching the much heavier Dream Chaser space plane with a rear positioned LAS (Launch Abort System) may require additional solid rocket boosters which would inherently lower the space vehicle's launch reliability relative to other vehicles.

Falcon 9

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit vehicle with engine out capability only in the first stage. The Falcon 9 should be inherently safer than the Ares 1.

Environmental impact: Both first and second stages utilizes greenhouse gas polluting RP-1 (Refined Petroleum 1) fuel with liquid oxygen which would make the Falcon 9 the least green of any crew launch vehicle. However, the production of RP-1 rocket fuel from carbon neutral resources may be a possibility in the near future.

Commercial Viability: The Falcon 9's high inherent launch safety should be attractive to customers for manned spaceflights. Space X argues that the Falcon 9 could be the cheapest manned launch vehicle ever developed.

Ares I

Launch Reliability: A two stage to orbit vehicle with no engine out capability in the solid rocket booster first stage and no engine out capability in the single engine LOX/LH2 second stage. So the Ares I would be inherently less safe than the SD-CV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 launch vehicles.

Environmental Impact: Upper stage uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the single solid rocket booster would be relatively tiny compared to the CO2 pollution that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Commercial Viability: It seems doubtful that private companies would be attracted to launching humans aboard a spacecraft with a liquid hydrogen/oxygen upper stage on top of a huge solid rocket booster.

Man-rated SD-HLV

Launch Reliability: Three boosters are required to reach orbit. And there is with no engine out capability in the two SRBs (solid rocket boosters). This makes the SD-HLV inherently less safe than the Ares I and a lot less reliable than both versions of the SD-CV.

Environmental Impact: Core booster uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the two solid rocket boosters is relatively tiny compared to the CO2 that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Commercial Viability: Because of the unnecessary addition of two SRBs, this would be a much more expensive manned launch vehicle than the SD-CV, Atlas V, or a Falcon 9. However, these cost might be mitigated if the cargo shroud also carried valuable cargo such as multiple satellites, hydrogen and oxygen for space depots, and water and oxygen for space stations. With a minimal payload capacity of at least 65 tonnes, the SD-HLV should be able to carry crew plus at least 40 to 50 tonnes of cargo to orbit-- which is much more cargo than the Space Shuttle.

Sidemount Shuttle

Credit NASA

Launch Reliability: Three boosters are required to reach orbit with no engine out capability in the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs). This makes the SD-HLV statistically not as safe as the Ares I and a lot less safe than an SD-CV. The placement of the crew capsule and LAS (launch abort system) on the side of the external tank also makes the Sidemount less safe than the inline SD-HLV.

Environmental Impact: Core booster uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the two solid rocket boosters is relatively tiny compared to the CO2 that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Commercial Viability: Because of the two SRBs, this would be a much more expensive manned launch vehicle than the SD-CV, Atlas V, or a Falcon 9. But like the SD-HLV, these cost might be mitigated if the cargo shroud also carried valuable cargo such as multiple satellites, hydrogen and oxygen for space depots, and water and oxygen for space stations.

Man-rated Delta IV Heavy

Launch Reliability: Three core stages and perhaps an upper stage would be required to transport humans to orbit. There would be no engine out capability in the three cores stages. This vehicle would be less inherently safe than the Ares I and only the LAS ( Launch Abort System) makes the Delta IV heavy inherently safer launch than the Space Shuttle.

Environmental impact: carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel in core stage and upper ACES 41 stage that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water.

Commercial viability: Should be capable of delivering an Orion capsule, Boeing CST-100, or a Dream Chaser space plane into orbit plus 10 to 20 tonnes of liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel to LEO orbiting fuel depots.

Space Shuttle

Launch Reliability: Three boosters are required to reach orbit with no engine out capability in the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs). No LAS (Launch Abort System). However, there has only been one fatal launch accident in the nearly 30 year launch history of the Space Shuttle with no fatal launch accidents in the last 24 years.

Environmental Impact: Core booster uses carbon neutral liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel that's easy to derive from carbon neutral resources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.) via the electrolysis of water. The CO2 produced from the polymers contained in the two solid rocket boosters is relatively tiny compared to the CO2 that would be produced from vehicles such as the Atlas V and the Falcon 9.

Relative Safety Levels to Low Earth Orbit

Safety Level One: SD-CV with ACES 41 (SM) upper stage

Safety Level Two: Atlas V + ACES 41 SM upper stage; Falcon 9

Safety Level Three : Ares I

Safety Level Four: SD-HLV

Safety Level Five: Delta IV Heavy

Safety Level Six: Space Shuttle

Relative Greenhouse Gas Impact Levels

Zero CO2 pollution: SD-CV (both versions); Delta IV Heavy
Relatively Minor CO2 pollution: Space Shuttle, SD-HLV, Ares I, Sidemount Shuttle
Highest CO2 pollution: Falcon 9, Atlas V

Of the crew launch options presented above, the SD-CV with an ACES 41 upper stage would have the safest inherent crew launch architecture. The Atlas V, the Falcon 9, and Boeing's SD-CV with a stretched hypergolic SM (Service Module) would be the next most inherently reliable launch vehicles with configurations inherently more reliable than the Ares I. Because of the addition of a LAS (Launch Abort System) the SD-HLV, Sidemount Shuttle, and a man-rated Delta IV heavy would be inherently safer than the Space Shuttle but still less reliable in their architecture than the less complex Ares I.

The SD-CV and the Delta IV heavy would have the least environmental impact as far as global warming is concerned while the JP-1 fueled Atlas V (first stage) and Falcon 9 (first and second stages) would have the most deleterious greenhouse effect on the environment. While the global environmental impact of manned space launches (less than a dozen per year) is currently meager compared to other manned transportation systems, the emergence of space tourism could dramatically increase the number of manned space launches to hundreds or even thousands by mid-century as the high demand for manned spaceflights begins to dramatically reduce the cost of rocket engines and space vehicles in general. And this doesn't include the the growing demand for commercial and military satellites and space solar power satellites. Therefore, NASA needs to join the US military in helping to develop aerospace fuels that are derived from carbon neutral resources in order to mitigate the environmental impact of global warming from government and private commercial launched space vehicles.

Links and References

1. Conquering Cis-Lunar Space with Shuttle and ULA Derived Technologies

2. No time for NASA complacency on crew safety

3. National Launch System

4. Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems (Boeing Phantom Works)

5. A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

6. DIRECT

7. Completed SD HLV assessment highlights low-cost post-shuttle solution

8. Boeing's New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters

9. ULA: Upper Stage Evolution

Obama's NASA Decision

by Marcel F. Williams

The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (the Augustine Commission) recently concluded that NASA's Constellation return to the Moon program is running $50 billion over the current budget through the year 2020. They also concluded that cheaper alternatives such as the NASA's Side-mount shuttle and the DIRECT concept would also exceed NASA's budget by at least $20 billion to $30 billion.

So it appears that the Augustine commission will recommend a $3 billion dollar increase to NASA's annual budget if the US is to return to the Moon or a termination of the Moon program in order to stay within NASA's current $17 billion dollar a year budget.

So what should President Obama do?

At the height of the Apollo program, the NASA budget reached $33 billion a year in today's dollars, nearly twice as large as NASA current budget. NASA's $17 billion annual budget represents less 0.6% of the total Federal budget while the US Federal government is spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on defense related purposes. So a $3 billion annual increase to the NASA budget would be extremely tiny relative to the overall Federal budget.

I believe that President Obama needs to raise the NASA budget while also choosing the fastest and the cheapest return to the Moon architecture. That's why President Obama needs to raise the annual NASA budget by at least $3 billion while choosing NASA's SD-HLV (Side-mount shuttle) concept in order to return to the Moon to set up a permanently manned lunar facility.

Terminating funding for the Ares 1 combined with a $3 billion annual increase should give NASA an extra $4 billion dollars a year to work with without immediately terminating the current Space Shuttle program or the ISS.

At least $700 million of that should go to finance the development the Orion (CEV) over the next 5 years which is currently being funded at nearly $1.4 billion a year. That would raise Orion funding to $2.1 billion a year over the next 5 years.

NASA has preliminarily estimated that the cost of developing the SD-HLV vehicles should cost $6.6 billion and could be ready for full testing in 4 and a half years. So 1.5 billion a year over the next 5 years should be more than enough to develop the SD-HLV vehicles.

That leaves another 1.8 billion a year to immediately start funding the development of the Altair lunar landing vehicle over the next 5 or 6 years so that America could be ready to return to the Moon by 2016. Why wait until 2020 to return to the Moon when the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicles could be ready by 2015 or 2016?

Additional funds for the development of the Moon program could be garnered by terminating the Space Shuttle program and US ISS involvement a year or more before the Orion-HLV and Altair-HLV space craft are ready. That would be $5 billion in additional funds if both the Shuttle and the ISS were terminated a year early and $10 billion if they were terminated two years early.

2016 should also be a time when NASA should have plenty of extra funds from both the termination of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs and from the completion of the Orion, Altair, and SD-HLV development programs: plenty of money for a continuously growing lunar base program and beyond.

The US space program has always been the ultimate symbol of America's scientific and technological achievement. And NASA has contributed far more to the economic wealth of the US than it has consumed. The expansion of humans into the rest of the solar system is essential to the long term survival our species and towards the continued economic growth of human civilization. That's why President Barack Obama needs to strongly commit the US towards leading that expansion of humanity into the New Frontier.

1. Augustine Commission
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/08/augustine-commission-recommends-that.html

2. NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/753191/-NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

3. Robots could build a base on the Moon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/19/733423/-Robots-Could-Build-a-Base-on-the-Moon

© Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus