Budget Moon Flights: Ariane 5 as SLS upper stage.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

Delta IV Heavy Orion Circumlunar Test Flight.

I’m fairly sure looking at the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy with the upgraded RS-68a engine, about 28 metric tons to LEO, that it could launch the Orion on that 2014 test launch on an actual circumlunar flight, not just to 3,600 miles out as currently planned. A circumlunar flight would result in a much more capable test of the Orion.

The Orion test is planned to only carry a dummy service module, so that will be much lighter. The flight is planned though to carry the launch abort system (LAS) so that detracts from the weight that can be launched.

Without the LAS the DIVH could definitely send the Orion on a circumlunar flight. With the LAS, it makes it a little more difficult to estimate since it is jettisoned before reaching orbit.

This makes the use of the SLS for that unmanned circumlunar test flight in 2017 even more dubious, since the DIVH could do that, even if removing the LAS is required. That is another reason why I argue NASA should be aiming for an actual unmanned lunar landing test with that 2017 SLS flight.

Low Cost Lunar Lander and Crew Module.
ULA has done studies on adapting the Centaur upper stage as a lunar lander stage so you would not need a huge, and hugely expensive, Altair lander. We already even have a crew module that could be used for such a lander in NASA’s SEV, which can be ready by 2017 for test flights:

Inside NASA’s New Spaceship for Asteroid Missions | Space.com.
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing Editor
Date: 12 November 2012 Time: 02:30 PM ET

If the current schedule holds, NASA could test-drive a version of the SEV at the International Space Station in 2017. http://www.space.com/18443-nasa-asteroid-spacecraft-sev.html

Ariane 5 Core as SLS Upper Stage.
NASA is considering a version of the upper stage to be used with the Block II version of the SLS that uses RL-10 engines instead of the J-2X:

SLS prepares for PDR – Evolution eyes Dual-Use Upper Stage.
June 1, 2013 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/sls-pdr-evolved-rocket-dual-upper-stage/

This is expected to save on costs.

NASA also wants to encourage European participation in the proposed asteroid retrieval mission:

NASA Pitches Asteroid Capture To International Partners.
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
June 28, 2013
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_06_28_2013_p01-01-592208.xml

Then a way to save further on development costs and to get European involvement would be to use the Ariane 5 core as the upper stage. It’s of common-bulkhead design to save mass. I recently learned it also uses the pressure-stabilized, “balloon tank”, method a la the Centaur to further save on tank mass.

The ESA also believes its Vulcain II engine can be made air-startable since this was planned for the Liberty rocket. The Vulcain uses a rather short nozzle since it is meant for ground launch, giving it a 432 s Isp. But simply giving it a nozzle extension would give it the ca. 462 s ISP of the RL-10.

Another key advantage is that because little additional development would be needed it might even be ready by the 2017 first launch of the SLS. Then this first 2017 launch of what was only to be a 70 mT interim version could have the 100+ mT capability of the later versions of the SLS. Such a version would clearly have the capability to do manned lunar lander missions.

You could also give this stage the RL-10 engines, instead of the Vulcain. The Vulcain weighs about 1,800 kg. Four RL-10′s would weigh 1,200 kg. So this would save 600 kg off the stage dry mass.

The NasaSpaceFlight.com article mentions the advantage of having different diameters for the hydrogen and oxygen tanks to maintain commonality with tooling of existing stages, and that is the reason for not having both tanks the same diameter. That would not be a problem of course with using the Ariane 5 core at a common 5.4 meter diamter. And someone noted on the Nasaspaceflight forum thread on this topic that for a uniform 8.4 m diameter, NASA could just use the same tooling for both that is used for the 8.4 meter SLS core stage tank.

For any of these possibilities it would be very good if NASA could use the composite tanks Boeing is investigating. Aerospace engineer Jon Goff on his blog noted ULA estimated their ACES proposed upgrade of the Centaur could get a 20 to 1 mass ratio by switching to aluminum-lithium for the tanks. And according to Boeing, an additional 40% can be saved off the Al-Li tank mass by using composites, resulting in an even larger mass ratio than 20 to 1:


NASA Sees Potential In Composite Cryotank.
By Frank Morring, Jr. morring@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First
July 01, 2013
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_01_2013_p0-592975.xml


Scaling up your stage mass, such as to the DUUS size, is also known to be able to improve your mass ratio. Imagine then all these mass ratio improving factors being applied. How high could the mass ratio get, perhaps to the 25 to 1, or even 30 to 1 range???

Imagine what you could do with a hydrolox stage with an ISP as high as ca. 462 s with a mass ratio as high as 30 to 1. (*)

Bob Clark


(*) By rocket equation, the delta-v is:  462*9.81ln(30) = 15,400 m/s.


Update, Sept. 28, 2013:

 Finally, NASA has acknowledged that the Block 1, first version of the SLS to launch in 2017 will have a 90+ mT payload capacity not the 70 mT always stated by NASA:

SLS Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS).
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130013953_2013013757.pdf

 This is important since it means we will have the capability to do manned lunar landing missions by the 2017 first launch of the SLS:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 5: A 90+ metric ton first launch of the SLS.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/09/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 5: a letter to the European space industry.

	Copyright 2013 Robert Clark
	Subject : A low cost, all European, manned launcher. Date :     Sun, Jun 16, 2013 07:37 AM EDT From :     "Robert Clark" <****@****> To :     ****@****

 This article discusses the possibility of using the ATV as a manned spacecraft:

Shifting Constellations: Europe Eyes China in Space Race.
By Kevin Holden Platt in Beijing February 08, 2013 – 03:17 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/esa-mulls-new-alliance-as-china-becomes-space-leader-a-882212.html

 Russia and China have their own manned spaceflight program, as will the U.S. once again soon. Even India and Japan are planning their own manned spaceflight programs. The European Union has been the greatest economic power in the world or a close second to the U.S. over the last few years. European space advocates then should regard it as unacceptable that Europe has no plans to develop a manned spaceflight capability.

 The main impediment has been cost. But such costs would be reduced greatly if the focus was on small rather than large. The ATV is a large, expensive spacecraft as is the Ariane 5. But there is no need to have a spacecraft as large as the ATV simply to carry a crew, or a rocket as large as the Ariane 5 to launch them to orbit. My recommendation is instead to adapt, for example, the much smaller Cygnus, designed and built in Italy, for the purpose.

 This would allow a much smaller vehicle of Ariane 6 size to be used as the launcher. The complaint that the Cygnus does not have life support or a heat shield is not valid since that would have to be provided to the ATV as well. Another possibility for the capsule would be the 'Magic Dragon' capsule developed by Elson Space:

PICTURE: UK built SpaceX capsule revealed.
By: ROB COPPINGER LONDON 11:25 15 Apr 2008
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-uk-built-spacex-capsule-revealed-222995/

 For this to be the case, you would have to adopt the liquid-fueled version for the Ariane 6, eventhough the solid-fueled version has been decided upon. The Academy of Air & Space in France has criticized the choice of the solid-fueled version on the grounds that it does not advance the technology and has limited flexibility:

Academy Urges Europe To Halt Work on ‘Wrong Choice’ Ariane 6 Design.
By Peter B. de Selding | May. 30, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35546academy-urges-europe-to-halt-work-on-‘wrong-choice’-ariane-6-design#.Ubqa4cu9KSO

 But another key advantage was not mentioned by the Academy, that the liquid-fueled version could serve as a manned launcher. To me this is an overwhelmingly important fact that needs to be mentioned in regards to their relative merits. This would be a profoundly important advance in European technology. Look at how the Chinese space program was regarded as having been advanced by developing its manned spaceflight program.

 Because of this advance, to some the Chinese space program is regarded as having surpassed both the European and American ones. I am aware of the fact that the choice of the solid-fueled Ariane 6 was largely political, shaped by the requirements of geographical return which the ESA has to follow. However, I am a strong proponent of the commercial space approach to launcher/spacecraft development. To me it is an extremely important fact that the costs to the government were reduced by 90%(!) by both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences in developing their respective launchers.

 For a commercial enterprise in the business world, if you found a way to reduce your costs by 90% that would be a development that would be hailed for decades as an extremely important advance. But because space programs are government run this is something that still is only spoken of in hushed tones by NASA.

 Still nevertheless NASA's commercial space program was a tremendous success in producing launchers at greatly reduced costs to the government. Note that NASA was forced to this because of the high cost of producing manned launchers under normal governmental financing procedures. This success then should be modeled by European space agencies in producing manned launchers even if it requires bypassing the ESA, with its geographical return requirements.

 Here I discuss how the liquid-fueled Ariane 6 could serve as a manned spaceflight vehicle:

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 4: how the Ariane 6 can beat both SpaceX and the Russians.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html


   Bob Clark

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 4: how the Ariane 6 can beat both SpaceX and the Russians.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

Europe Urged To Halt Work on ‘Dead End' Ariane 6 Design.
By Peter B. de Selding | May. 30, 2013

The academy is urging the agencies to stop work on the Ariane 6 they approved in November with a view to beginning full development in 2014. The academy-favored rocket would use liquid propulsion instead of solid, and would face four more years of preparatory work before moving to full development in 2018.
In the meantime, the academy says, Europe should focus on an upgraded heavy-lift Ariane 5 that would fly for a decade before both it and the Europeanized version of Russia’s medium-lift Soyuz rocket are replaced by the all-liquid Ariane 6 in 2027. This rocket, called Ariane 5 ME, has been in design for several years. Continued work on it was approved, alongside Ariane 6, at the November meeting of European Space Agency (ESA) governments.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35546europe-urged-to-halt-work-on-%E2%80%98dead-end-ariane-6-design

 The Academy should also emphasize another key advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 that it could be used for a manned launch vehicle.
 Note that Russia is raising their prices to $73 million per seat or $220 million for three. This is greater than the launch cost of the full 20 metric ton class Ariane 5. The smaller Ariane 6 would certainly be cheaper than that. By producing this liquid fueled Ariane 6, Europe could also get their own manned space flights and more cheaply than by paying the Russians.
 Both Russia and China have their own manned spaceflight programs, as will the U.S. in the near, short time frame. And even India and Japan are planning their own manned spaceflight programs. The Japan case is quite notable in that their plan is to use twin cryogenic engines of similar characteristics to the Vulcain II.
 The European Union has been the highest economic power or a close second to the U.S. in the world over the last few years. It should be regarded as unacceptable by European space advocates, private, governmental, and industry, that there has been no plan to give Europe a manned space program as with these other space agencies.
 Such a manned-capable launcher could be done more quickly and cheaply by using a commercial space approach. The Falcon 9 and the Antares only took 4 years and a few hundred million dollars in development cost that had to be paid by NASA.
 I also estimate the cost per launch of a single stage version could be done for half the $127 million cost given by the Academy in that report for their version of the Ariane 6, vastly undercutting the Russians:

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

 Here's an argument for producing the Ariane 6 at a faster time frame than just 2027. The Ariane 6 is supposed to be one-half to one-third as expensive as the Ariane 5. The Ariane 5 is already being used to deliver cargo to the ISS but using the very expensive to develop and produce ATV. In fact ESA doesn't want to produce any more ATV's after the last one to launch in 2014.
 But if you have this less expensive launcher in the Ariane 6 then you have a much less expensive route to sending cargo to the ISS. But then you need a pressurized capsule to transport it. Why spend the expense of developing a new small pressurized capsule when you already have one in the European developed Cygnus? (By the way this raises an interesting economic question I'll discuss at the end.)
 SpaceX is charging NASA $133 million to transport a maximum of 6,000 kg to the ISS. Note this is well above the launch cost of the Falcon 9 alone. The large extra cost is due to the use of the expensive Dragon capsule. The Ariane 6 would have comparable payload capacity as the Falcon 9 but using a 2,000 kg lighter capsule in the Cygnus. Then it could be at or above the cargo capability of the Falcon 9 to the ISS. And from the estimated launch cost of the Ariane 6 and the low cost of the Cygnus compared to the Dragon their price could be at or below that of the Falcon 9/Dragon. How's that for wanting to be competitive with SpaceX?
 Now, the Academy wants ESA to make a liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6 instead of the planned solid-fueled one. Imagine you have that and it is being used to send cargo via the Cygnus capsule to the ISS. It's not much of leap at all that if you add life support and a heat shield to the Cygnus then you would have a European vehicle capable of sending astronauts to the ISS as well. And you could do it at a price to undercut the Russians.
 I want to argue again here for the commercial space approach for accomplishing this. The 2027 time frame for such a liquid fueled Ariane 6 is following the usual glacial pace of government financed space programs. This would be near the end of the ISS (expected) extended life time. However, both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences by following the commercial space approach were able to develop their launchers in 4 years. Commercial space is both cheaper and faster than government space.
 To do the cost sharing of commercial space though the industry partners, or their investors, would have to be convinced it could be profitable. Note that SpaceX has gotten a $1.6 billion contract from NASA for delivering cargo to the ISS. The $127 million per launch cost estimated by the Academy is coming from the large, billion dollar, development costs under the usual governmental financing approach that would need to be recouped. Commercial space has proven though that both total development cost and the portion paid by the government are a fraction of those of the usual governmental financing. Then getting a similar billion dollar ISS supply contract as SpaceX and with a development cost that, literally, might only be a few hundred million dollars, would result in such a contract being highly profitable.

 About that economic question I mentioned above, Orbital Sciences paid for the development of the Cygnus to the Italian Space Agency(ISA). But certainly the ISA would not want to turn over the full rights to the Cygnus to a foreign company. It's quite likely ISA retains ownership of the Cygnus. This becomes interesting in regards to the price they would charge for the Cygnus compared to the price Orbital Sciences would charge.
 Because Orbital paid for the development of the Cygnus they would want to recoup that cost in the price they charge. But the ISA does not have to recover that cost. This means they could charge much less. But then why would anyone pay for the higher cost from Orbital when they could get it cheaper from the ISA?
 A puzzling question. It may be Orbital retains the rights to sell the Cygnus to NASA or even for all American launches.


    Bob Clark

Budget Moon Flights: letter to NASA.

 Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

 The cost to NASA for lunar or other BEO missions can be cut drastically, perhaps by three orders of magnitude, by following a combination of four cost-cutting approaches.

1.)Commercial space approach. SpaceX and now Orbital Sciences have shown that as much as 90% off of the development cost can be cut by the cost-sharing of the commercial space approach.

2.)Go small. NASA’s SEV weighs about a third that of Orion. Orbital’s Cygnus weighs about a quarter. Imagine how small, and low cost, your lunar mission could be if you only had to transport a quarter of the mass to the Moon.

3.)Use existing components. The huge development costs for the Apollo program and of Constellation were because they had to use all newly developed components. Those costs would be reduced greatly if you only had to adapt already existing components. No Saturn V, Ares V, or SLS, and their huge development costs, required.

4.)Use international partners. The cut in development cost by engaging in cost-sharing is already included in the commercial space approach. However, the cost to NASA can be cut even further by sharing development costs with our international space partners such as the ESA and Japan.


   Bob Clark

****************************************************************

Subject :	Budget Moon Flights.
Date :	Fri, May 31, 2013 07:40 AM EDT
From :	"Robert Clark" <****@****.edu>
To :	****.****@nasa.gov

 Charles Bolden has said that NASA won't us return to the Moon in our
lifetime. However, it's important to keep in mind that such negative reactions
to lunar return are based on the false premise that such a return has to be
hugely expensive. It doesn't.

 Simply by going small such a return can be done for costs in the range NASA
typically spends on its lowest cost, "discovery class", planetary missions,
i.e., in the range of a few hundreds of millions of dollars. This is very
important because rather than going over the constant wrangling with Congress
about funding such multi-billion dollar missions, NASA can simply pull it out
of their discretionary spending.

  I discuss such low cost flights here:

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

  If one uses false premises, one draws false conclusions. So it's very
important to bring to light the fact that expensive policy decisions are being
made by NASA based on incorrect assumptions.

 Given the success NASA has had at cutting costs with its commercial
spaceflight program, NASA should be directed to solicit proposals from
industry for following the cost-cutting commercial approach to produce
small-sized return to the Moon missions.

  The proposals should have as requirement to use at most a crew capsule the
size of the SpaceX Dragon, which is half-size to NASA’s Orion capsule. And
ideally the capsule should even be the size of Orbital Science’s Cygnus
capsule (adapted to carry crew), which is only one-fourth the size of Orion. 
 

  Imagine how small, and low cost, a Moon mission could be if you only had to
send one-fourth the mass to the Moon?

  Still, such a small, low cost approach, would be controversial on safety
grounds. Then the Robonaut would be ideal to test the feasibility of such a
plan:

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

 This suggests using the Falcon Heavy test flights beginning in 2014 to do
unmanned test flights to the Moon and to NEO's with the NASA SEV as crew
capsule, "manned" by Robonauts.

 It would be even of lower cost if using the smaller Cygnus as the "crew"
capsule, instead of the SEV. In this case, when carrying Robonauts, you would
not even have to give it life-support, though you would still need to give it
a heat shield. This scenario could be done with a single launch of the Delta
IV Heavy, Ariane 5, or Atlas V 551, no Falcon Heavy needed. 

 Such a mission would have even greater significance if we used it to return
samples from the permanently shadowed craters on the Moon. That way we could
prove definitely that there is abundant water ice on the Moon that can be used
for propellant. Some measurements by the LCROSS mission tentatively have also
identified valuable minerals on the Moon. Then such a sample return could also
provide justification for commercial development of the Moon.

 This scenario with the Cygnus would require one or two half-size Centaur-like
stages. A key viewpoint for such a low cost approach is to use existing
components if possible. Then rather than developing such half-size Centaurs
anew we could use the fact that the ESA already has such stages in the H10-3.
This would actually be beneficial since the current administration wants to
encourage cost-sharing partnerships in space with our international partners
and the ESA wants to do near term robotic Moon missions. We could even use the
German humanoid robot Justin as part of the "crew":

Humanoid Robot Justin Learning To Fix Satellites.
By Erico Guizzo
Posted 17 Jun 2010 | 14:14 GMT
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/humanoid-robot-justin-learning-to-fix-satellites

 In addition to partnering with the ESA on such missions, NASA could also
engage in a partnership with the private ventures proposing BEO flights.
Golden Spike, Inc. would be an obvious one but so also would be the asteroid
mining ventures Planetary Resources, Inc. and Deep Space Industries. This is
because flights to many NEO's have a lower delta-v requirement than flights to
the Moon. Then the in-space stages to be used for the Moon flights could also
be used for the flights to the asteroids. Then we could have flights in the
short near term to the asteroids that returned samples that proved
definitively that NEO's can have the trillion dollar deposits of valuable
minerals that has been estimated. 

 SpaceX and now Orbital Sciences have proven that development costs can be cut
by an order of magnitude over those of the traditional fully-government funded
space projects. By following this commercial approach and also going *small*,
the development costs for BEO flights can in fact be cut by orders (plural) of
magnitude over those commonly thought needed.


 Sincerely,


    Bob Clark

***********************************************************************

On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 3: towards European human spaceflight.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark 

 

European Human Spaceflight

The EU released a report critical of the ESA's policy on new launchers:

The EU Seems to Really Dislike ESA’s New Launch Vehicle Policy.
Doug Messier
on March 17, 2013, at 5:57 am
www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/17/the-eu-seems-to-really-dislike-esas-launch-vehicle-policy/

  The report is rather opaque about what changes the EU wants in space policy as opposed to what the ESA is proposing. One thing I noted is that it wants the ESA to keep up with technological advances the other space programs in the world are embarking on.

 This possibly might relate to the proposal of the Ariane 6 to use all solids on the lower stages. This is going backwards, not forwards in technology. A forwards suggestion for the Ariane 6 would have been the option that uses liquid fuel for a core stage simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core stage.
 Note this would have high commonality with the current Ariane 5 which the ESA also wants to save on costs rather than having to design entire new solid lower stages. But the most important advantage of this is a key technological advance it would provide to keep up with the other space faring nations.

 Russian and China have manned orbital launchers, and the U.S. will again also in the short near term. India is even planning on manned launchers. But the ESA has no plans on producing a manned launcher. Space advocates in Europe should regard this as unacceptable. But the key point is by using the multi-Vulcain option for the Ariane 6 this would provide Europe with a manned spaceflight capability.

 Another source of friction with the EU is that ESA is constrained to apportion work according to members financial participation, while the EU is under no such constraints:

CNES Design Team Sets ‘Triple-seven’ Goal for Ariane 6.
By Peter B. de Selding | Jan. 2, 2013
https://spacenews.com/33019cnes-design-team-sets-triple-seven-goal-for-ariane-6/

From the article:

...after months of hard selling that saw them pitted against much of France’s industry, CNES officials last year convinced Fioraso that Ariane 6 — less expensive and less powerful than Ariane 5, and carrying just one satellite at a time to orbit — is the way of the future.
The design of the rocket — two solid-fueled lower stages and a cryogenic upper stage, plus solid-fueled strap-on boosters — was frozen Nov. 21 during a meeting of ESA government ministers.ESA Launcher Director Antonio Fabrizi said this design, and no other, is what ministers approved.

and:

Ariane 6 has been conceived from the start as a “next-generation” rocket that in many ways looks like a throwback — more of a less-expensive Lockheed Martin Atlas 5, or a Proton launched from the equator. Ariane 5 can do more things for more customers.
But if it meets its design goal, Ariane 6 will reach a financial equilibrium that has eluded Ariane 5. CNES officials say economic criteria account for 43 percent of the design decisions made for the rocket, with technical criteria accounting for just 30 percent.
The remaining 27 percent of the design choices are being made on the basis of Europe’s existing industrial capacity.
French industry is responsible for around 50 percent of the construction of Ariane 5. Eymard said the agency assumes France will carry about the same load for Ariane 6.
Beyond the French contribution, all bets are off. CNES has penciled in Germany at 25 percent, and Italy at 10-15 percent. The Italian share should be relatively easy to secure because Italy already is heavily involved in production, with Snecma of France, of the solid-fueled strap-on boosters used on the Ariane 5 rocket. Italy is also the lead investor in the new Vega small-satellite launcher, which made its inaugural flight in early 2012.
Because of the all-but-guaranteed work share of Italian industry in the Ariane 6 solid-fueled stages, the Italian government is not likely to resist taking its 10-15 percent stake despite its public-debt crisis.
Ensuring German industry sufficient work will not be as straightforward, European government and industry officials said.

 This article shows the difficulty the ESA will have in developing innovative launch solutions. The biggest factor in deciding which launcher to develop is how much work it can provide to the ESA, member countries. This supersedes even lowered costs.

The ESA could develop a low cost launcher that would be comparable in cost to the SpaceX Falcon 9, AND moreover would give Europe an independent manned launch capability simply by adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core. Ironically though, this option is not chosen because it would be TOO low cost: it would be simple, quick - and not provide enough work to the ESA member countries.

The only way Europe is going to get low cost space access, it now appears, is if it is done under the commercial space approach. As proven by SpaceX this can cut 90% (!) off the development costs when privately financed. And in fact it should be even easier and cheaper than the SpaceX case since the components already exist in the Ariane 5 core, built in France, and Vulcain II engines, built in Germany. Even the capsule for the manned launchers is largely already designed in the Orbital Sciences, Cygnus capsule, which is actually built in Italy. You would just need to supply life support and heat shield to the capsule already designed to be pressurized.

 The only thing needed are entrepreneurs in Europe like Elon Musk in the U.S. with the insight to carry it out. In the blog posts "On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment" and "On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment, Page 2" I discussed the fact that space development costs were cut dramatically by SpaceX by private financing.

 NASA has found with its commercial crew program that it can develop manned launchers in general at lower costs by opting for a more commercial approach to their development. In fact NASA's commercial space program was presaged by the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The Air Force only had to pay $500 million out of a $3.5 billion development cost for the Delta IV and $500 million out of a $2 billion development cost for the Atlas V. For the Delta IV, that's a 86% (!) savings in development cost.

 NASA also has saved in development cost on Orbital Science's Antares launcher. It only had to pay $288 million out of a development cost of $472 million for a 5 metric ton class launcher. 

 Then the suggestion to the EU is to institute a similar program for European manned launchers. Politically the ESA appears to be set on the all-solid Ariane 6. But what the EU could do is put out a request to European industry for commercially developed man-rated launchers that would be largely privately funded aside for perhaps some seed money, a la SpaceX. To sweeten the pot, the EU could state that as part of their policy they will use these European launchers for their manned flights as long as they are comparable in price to say what they are paying the Russians for their launchers.

 The Russians are charging $63 million per seat for flights on the Soyuz, so for three crew in the range of $190 million. This is almost the cost of a full Ariane 5 launch, a vehicle capable of 20 metric tons (mT) to LEO.

 A vehicle capable of carrying a manned capsule could be done at a 5 mT payload capability, a quarter the size of the Ariane 5. SpaceX spent $300 million developing the Falcon 9, capable of 10 mT to LEO. Then a vehicle half the size, that was also largely privately funded as was the Falcon 9, might cost ca. $150 million.

 Considering the payload for our twin-Vulcain Ariane likely will be above 5 mT though, we might instead estimate the development cost as $200 million based on how much JAXA spent to add a second cryogenic engine to the H-IIA core.

 Also, I've been informed by people who aware of CNES studies on a multi-Vulcain Ariane that the estimated price for the two-Vulcain Ariane 5 core would be only 50 million euros, about $60 million(!) So for only a ca. $200 million development cost and a $60 million launch cost the ESA could have manned spaceflight ability.

 Another source of income for such a launcher with the Cygnus capsule would be deliveries to the ISS. SpaceX is charging NASA about $133 million for ca. 6,000 kg delivery of cargo using the Falcon 9. Part of this inflated cost above the $54 million cost of the Falcon 9 is the use of the expensive Dragon capsule. The Cygnus is a smaller capsule with a much smaller development cost, so would be much cheaper than the Dragon. Using a ca. 8,000 kg payload for the launcher and ca. 2,000 kg mass for the Cygnus, this launcher could match the 6,000 kg delivery capacity of the Falcon 9 at a much reduced price.

 European Moon Flights

 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, Planetary Resources, Inc., etc, while at the same time satisfying the critics who want us to return to the Moon.


   Bob Clark

Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

 In the post Budget Moon flights, I argued that by using a capsule half-sized to the Dragon capsule at ca. 2,000 kg dry mass, that we could launch a manned lunar landing mission carried to LEO by a single Delta IV Heavy or Ariane 5 ME, with a separate man-rated launcher to carry the capsule and crew. And if using the Falcon Heavy at the stated $1,000 per pound price point it could be done at launch costs of less than $100 million.

 I'll discuss such a half-sized capsule here. This report discusses a capsule with such low dry mass:

Phoenix: A Low-Cost Commercial Approach to the Crew Exploration Vehicle

Abstract: Since the announcement of President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in early 2004, the architecture of Project Constellation has been selected. The system will be centered around the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), which has been dubbed by NASA administrator Michael Griffin as “Apollo on steroids”. The CEV is to be launched on a new launch vehicle, derived from existing shuttle technology. The development of this new
spacecraft and launch vehicle is a very costly proposition. An alternate approach is proposed in this study. The Phoenix is a smaller spacecraft designed specifically to be launched on the Falcon 5 vehicle under development by SpaceX. Because the SpaceX vehicle will cost only a fraction of today’s launch costs, the Phoenix is estimated to cost less than half of the price of the CEV. This reusable three person capsule utilizes an innovative re-entry concept, which allows for a cylindrical spacecraft with greater interior volume. This extremely cost-effective spacecraft is an attractive option for fulfilling VSE requirements.

 Below is page 3 from this report:

  ...
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
  ...

 Our crew capsule would not need its own propulsion system, so get the dry mass by subtracting off the masses in the "Propulsion (SPS)" section to get 2,160 kg. We will retain the RCS system though. Note the 2,160 kg dry mass actually also includes the mass for a crew of three and the mass for their space suits, as well as the food and water for a mission to and from the Moon.
 The heat shield is of the innovative "parashield" design:

This with its truss structure/drive system would amount to about 15% of the capsules dry weight. This is about the same as Apollo era heat shields. However, the lightweight PICA-X material used on the Dragon capsule can withstand lunar return velocities and would only weigh half as much. This would subtract about 160 kg from the dry mass.

 This report on a "Phoenix" capsule only envisions this crew module to carry the crew from LEO to lunar orbit and back with a separate module to be used on a lunar lander, a la the Apollo architecture. But following the Early Lunar Access architecture we could use this one single crew module for the entire flight.

 It is notable that Orbital Sciences Cygnus capsule is of similar size to this "Phoenix" crew capsule.

Artist's rendering of Cygnus spacecraft approaching the International Space Station.

CREDIT: Orbital Sciences Corporation

 The Cygnus dry mass is 1,500 kg. This includes the propulsive service module at the base. The service module is based on Orbital's Star satellite bus. According to Astronautix this has a dry mass of about 800 kg. So the capsule itself is 700 kg. Adding on the life support elements as given in the "Phoenix" capsule report, would result in a dry mass of about 2,000 kg.
  This is important because the Cygnus is built by Thales in Italy so it means Europe could make all the components for the Moon mission, including the man-rated launch rocket as described in post The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
 The "Phoenix" capsule report estimates billions of dollars in development cost. But this is using traditional NASA costing estimates. However, SpaceX has shown that development costs can be cut by a factor of 10 by private financing both for launchers and for crew capsules. From its half-size compared to the Dragon we might estimate its development as privately financed at half of the $300 million spent developing the Dragon, so to only $150 million.


   Bob Clark

Update, May 1, 2014:

 For the passage above highlighted in red, I am now inclined to think that 1,500 kg dry mass does not include the mass of the service module, which is, the propulsion unit at the bottom. It's because of this page:

Cygnus Spacecraft Information

Pressurized Cargo Module

Cygnus standard and Cygnus enhanced use Pressurized Cargo Modules built by Thales Alenia Space, Italy. The module is based on the Multi Purpose Logistics Module that was flown on multiple Space Shuttle Missions to deliver pressurized cargo to ISS.

It is 3.07 meters in diameter and has a length of 3.66 meters in its standard configuration and 4.86 meters with one segment added in the enhanced configuration. The standard PCM has a dry mass of 1,500 Kilograms and the enhanced version weighs 1,800kg. 2,000 Kilograms of cargo can be packed into the standard PCM while the enhanced version allows 700kg more to be loaded. The cargo module has a pressurized volume of 18.9 cubic meters in the standard configuration and 27 cubic meters in the enhanced configuration. Power consumption of the PCM is less than 850 watts.

http://www.spaceflight101.com/cygnus-spacecraft-information.html

 This page also has a separate section on the service module which suggests that mass amount above was only for the pressurized module itself.

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 4: further on lightweighting the SLS core.

                                             Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

 NASA has decided to revert to the original Al 2219 aluminum alloy that was first used on the shuttle external tank for the SLS core:

SLS takes on new buckling standards, drops Super Light alloy.
February 18, 2013 by Martin Payne 
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/

 This is due to the greater brittleness of the lighter aluminum-lithium alloys used on the later super lightweight ET tank (SLWT). And because the later alloys were not available in the greater thickness needed for optimal lightweight performance. 
 However, NASA itself estimated the Al-li alloys could save 25% off the weight of a propellant tank over the Al 2219 alloy:

RELEASE : 09-096
NASA Uses Twin Processes to Develop New Tank Dome Technology
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2009/09-096.htm

 Still NASA estimated in regards to the SLS tank, reverting back to the Al 2219 alloy would only cost 3,000 kg in lost payload, much smaller than 25%. Apparently, the reduced thickness of the plates available for the aluminum-lithium alloys used on the SLWT results in reduced weight efficiency. 
 However, a new aluminum-lithium alloy Al-Li 2050 has similar strength at lightweight to the SLWT alloys and is available in thicker plate sizes:

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor (SBKF) Project Update.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/home/Feature_ShellBuckling_Test.html

 Then we could recover the ca. 25% saving over using the Al 2219 alloy. This now is a significant increase in payload, beyond just 3,000 kg. The original ET tank using Al 2219 alloy weighed 35,000 kg. The new SLS tank is scaled up 33%, so under the same Al 2219 alloy would weigh in the range of 46,000 kg. Then the new Al-Li alloy saving 25% off this would be a saving of 11,500 kg. 
 NASA made an assessment of cost benefit analysis and decided on the older Al 2219 alloy. But this is Apollo era, 1960's, technology. This is going backwards not forwards in our technological development. 
 Further weight saving can be achieved by using composites for the intertank. NASA with Boeing is investigating large cryogenic composite tanks. This is still a research project. However the intertank is an unpressurized structure. Structures like this have been made of composites for decades. 
 To estimate the weight that can be saved, note the intertank in the al-li SLWT weighed 5,500 kg:

Single Stage To Orbit Mass Budgets Derived From Propellant Density and Specific Impulse.
John C. Whitehead
32nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion ConferenceLake Buena Vista, FL July 1-3, 1996

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/379977-2LwFyZ/webviewable/379977.pdf

 Then the intertank of the SLS of 33% larger size may be estimated to weigh 7,300 kg. A new composite material known as an isotruss saves significantly on weight:

 It weighs less than 1/7th that of aluminum at the same strength. This would reduce the intertank mass to less than 1,000 kg. This would subtract off an additional 6,000 kg from the tank mass to bring it down to 28,500 kg. This is nearly 18,000 kg in total off from the original SLS tank weight, which could go to extra payload.
 As I mentioned in the blog post SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 3: lightweighting the SLS core, internal NASA estimates put the actual payload of the SLS as significantly above the 70 mT mark often cited by NASA. Then an additional 18,000 kg added to this payload capability would put the SLS payload to LEO at ca. 100 mT. This is important because it would mean the SLS would have the capability to do manned lunar lander missions, not just lunar flybys.
 NASA administrator Charles Bolden has said NASA, meaning the administrators, has no plans on a Moon mission, being more focused on a mission to an asteroid. However, the public in general, space advocates, industry, and even NASA's own ranks have shown no interest in the asteroid mission:

Back to the Moon? Not any time soon, says Bolden.

By Jeff Foust on 2013 April 5 at 1:05 pm ET

A week from Monday marks the third anniversary of President Obama’s speech at the Kennedy Space Center where he formally announced the goal of a human mission to an asteroid by 2025. While that is an official goal of NASA’s human space exploration program, there remains some opposition or, at the very least, lack of acceptance of the goal by many people, including some with NASA, as a report on NASA’s strategic direction concluded last December.
At a joint meeting of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board in Washington on Thursday, the head of that study, Al Carnesale of UCLA, reiterated those concerns. “Since it was announced, there was less enthusiasm for it among the community broadly,” he said of the asteroid mission goal. “The more we learn about it, the more we hear about it, people seem less enthusiastic about it.”
Carnesale suggested that, in his opinion, it might be better to shelve the asteroid mission goal in favor of a human return to the Moon. “There’s a great deal of enthusiasm, almost everywhere, for the Moon,” he said. “I think there might be, if no one has to swallow their pride and swallow their words, and you can change the asteroid mission a little bit… it might be possible to move towards something that might be more of a consensus.”

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/05/back-to-the-moon-not-any-time-soon-says-bolden/

 The SLS even by its first mission in 2017 can do manned lunar landing missions by incorporating well known and relatively low cost weight saving methods to its core and upper stages.

 This would go a long way towards garnering support both among the public and those in  industry to know that a return to the Moon is in the offing and in the very near term.

  Bob Clark


Update, Sept. 28, 2013:

 Finally, NASA has acknowledged that the Block 1, first version of the SLS to launch in 2017 will have a 90+ mT payload capacity not the 70 mT always stated by NASA:

SLS Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS).
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130013953_2013013757.pdf

 This is important since it means we will have the capability to do manned lunar landing missions by the 2017 first launch of the SLS:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 5: A 90+ metric ton first launch of the SLS.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/09/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html