SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 3: lightweighting the SLS core.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

 In the blog post SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design, I made the argument that the SLS Block I, scheduled to launch in 2017, should have significantly more payload than the 70 mT cited by NASA, which is no more than that of the smaller, less powerful Block 0 SLS. Recent news reports also indicated that a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to NASA on the SLS specifications was denied:

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 had suggested to me that the reason why NASA did not want to release the actual capabilities of the Block I SLS is that it would negate the need for even proceeding with the expensive Block II SLS. Thus it was an attempt, he argued, to maintain the "pork" of the expensive Block II development.

 However, I have been informed by those in the know that the Block I will indeed likely have a greater payload capacity than the 70 mT of the Block 0 version. However, a problem with providing such specifications for a new rocket is there is always weight growth beyond that which was originally expected.

 I had argued that scaling up a rocket should result in increased payload. But an additional factor to consider is that the new SLS core will not be scaled up in all dimensions. It is to be kept at the same width of the shuttle external tank (ET) while its length is stretched 33%. The same diameter is maintained to use the same tooling as that used to build the ET. However, stretching the length while maintaining the same diameter means additional strengthening members have to be attached to maintain its strength against bending and buckling loads. So it's not just a straight-forward matter of scaling up the mass of the core stage to estimate the payload capacity of the Block I. So I fully believe as the SLS core stage comes closer to completion then more accurate values for the payload capacity will be released.

 I was interested to note that, according to what I have been informed, that the current internal NASA estimates of the SLS payload to LEO would still allow my Orion+SEV lunar landing proposal, though not with as much leeway. Then to the end of increasing the payload and increasing the mass growth margins, I have some suggestions. Though having the propellant tanks being composite might be a bridge too far for a 2017 launch some of the structural strengthening members in the tanks might be. I was struck by this image while researching composite structures:

Isotruss

 It shows a new carbon composite structure called an isotruss. It just looks like it would be lightweight for the strength, doesn't it?

 SpaceX also uses composites to reduce weight in the interstage between the first and second stage of the Falcon 9. They could be used for the interstage for the SLS as well. An even more weight saving application of composites might be in the intertank though. This is the component of the external tank that supports the oxygen tank above the hydrogen tank. It's actually a heavy component of the ET, weighing more even than the oxygen tank.
  
 The tank mass of the ET and other rocket stages is discussed in the report:

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, FLJuly 1-3, 1996
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/379977-2LwFyZ/webviewable/379977.pdf

 I consider this by the way to be the best aerospace engineering paper never published because of the importance of its conclusions. If the validity of its arguments had been recognized then, then we would already have by now routine manned space access.

 On page 8 in Fig. 6 is shown a diagram giving the mass of the intertank in the ET. It's mass is listed as 5.5 tons:

 For the tank stretched 33% in the SLS this might be 7.3 tons. Estimates put the weight savings in the structural mass in the 40% range by using composites. 

 A greater weight saving strategy would be to eliminate the intertank entirely. This is known as common bulkhead design. It also eliminates the weight of one of the bulkheads. This was used very successfully on the Saturn V cryogenic upper stages. Currently it is used on the Centaur upper stage, the Falcon 9 first stage, and the Ariane 5 core. The plan now is to use separated tanks with an interstage to maintain commonality with the current ET design. Still it might be advantageous to do a trade study on the increased payload in comparison to the increased cost of the common bulkhead design.

 Another possibility to save weight might be inflatable payload fairings. For such a large rocket, intended to carry such large payloads, the payload fairings would be quite heavy. There was a NASA RFI for innovative proposals on fairings and adapters, which has already expired. However, perhaps NASA can do a trade study of the weight saving possible under this method. Bigelow has been in the news for his inflatable habitats so this would not be so unusual for aerospace applications.

 Also, I want to argue again as I did in my Orion+SEV post for funding the ULA suggestions for lightweighting the Centaurs, to the extent of getting a 20 to 1(!) mass ratio. With a propellant size of 40 metric tons(mT) this would allow a round trip lunar landing mission with a single in-space stage. In fact such a lunar lander could be reusable, and it would be so small it could even be launched with a 70 mT sized launcher.

 It needs to be mentioned that many knowledgeable industry insiders do not believe the final Block II version of the SLS will ever fly. This is because of the long time frame, 20 years from now so over several presidential administrations, and because of its high cost. The SLS Block I scheduled for 2017 on the other hand very likely will.

 Wouldn't it be great for the public to learn as we more closely approach the completion date for this SLS in 2017 that it already will have the capacity for lunar landing flights and moreover we already have, by then, the in-space stages to accomplish it?

 NASA considering the very legitimate possibility that the Block II will not be funded should have as a contingency some plans of accomplishing the BEO explorations with the Block I SLS. This can be done with no new technology and not really very much extra cost, but just by using known methods of lightweighting the core and in-space stages.


    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

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.

Copyright 2012 Robert Clark

 It is generally acknowledged that the SLS is based on the DIRECT teams "Jupiter" launcher. Then their respective launchers closely mirror each other in their payload capabilities for versions with similar components. The Block 0 SLS was initially planned to have a 70 mT payload capability, as mirrored by the corresponding DIRECT launcher:

http://www.directlauncher.org/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.08100_CLV_100x100nmi_29.0deg_090606.jpg

 In reports on the Block 0 SLS, NASA discussed the option of it using 4 or 5 segment SRB's as if it were no big deal. But I was surprised when I looked at the 5 segment version on the DIRECT teams site, that the payload jumped to ca. 95 metric tons:

http://www.directlauncher.org/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130H-41.5000.08100_CLV_30x100nmi_29.0deg_090608.jpg

  Ed Kyle who operates the SpaceLaunchReport.com site also estimates this first SLS version will have a payload to LEO of 95 mT. A jump in payload of 25,000 kg is a big deal. It's the difference in payload for instance between the 105 metric ton Block 1A version, and the 130 metric ton Block 2 version of the SLS. It would also mean the Block 0 given 5-segment SRB's would be close to the "magic" 100 metric ton payload number. And with just the interim upper stage, it would certainly exceed that.
 Judging by this Chris Bergin article, we would expect the 5 segment SRB's to be ready by the 2017 first flight of the SLS:

ATK and NASA ground test their SLS-bound five segment motor.
September 8th, 2011 by Chris Bergin

    As far as ATK’s role in SLS, documentation (L2) shows the Utah-
based company have proposed a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for 10
boosters, available between 2012-2015, whilst noting available assets
that can support up to 11 SLS missions prior to asset depletion in
2020.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/atk-and-nasa-ground-test-five-segment-motor/

The current plan now is to go directly to a Block 1 launcher, scheduled for a 2017 flight date. This will use 5-segment SRB's instead of the regular 4-segment ones planned for the Block 0. But the DIRECT teams 5-segment version of their Jupiter rocket has nearly a 95 mT capability. Moreover, NASA wants to give the Block 1 an additional SSME core engine and stretch the tank. Then it will have even greater payload than the 95 mT of the corresponding DIRECT teams launcher.

So NASA is still using the 70 mT payload number of the Block 0 in discussing this initial flight of the SLS when the actual payload capability will be 95+ mT. I think NASA should be more clear about what the actual capabilities of that first version of the SLS to fly will actually be. Saying it will do 70 metric tons to LEO is misleading as to what that first version can actually do.

According to the reports that first version to fly will even have an interim cryogenic upper stage, and at quite low cost by the reports if the Delta IV derived one is used. Presumably, this will improve the LEO capability, perhaps to the 100 to 105 metric ton range.

A launch capability this high raises the possibility of even doing lander missions not just lunar flyby's. This is important because it means we will have the capability of doing lunar lander missions not just in 2030 when the full SLS comes on line but just in 5 years.

This becomes even more important when you realize the necessary stages, the Centaurs, already exist to make the Earth departure/lander stages. ULA has written numerous reports on markedly reducing boiloff in the Centaurs so that we can consider that to be well understood, and essentially solved.

It has been complained that the SLS has no mission. NASA being direct, so to speak, about what the actual capabilities of that first version of the SLS to fly will make clear that the SLS does have an important mission, and in the very near term and at (comparatively) low cost: Return to the Moon.

CALCULATIONS

A Simple, Low Cost Upgrade.
 A question asked about the SLS is that if the Block 0 is derived from the space shuttle system that could lift 100+ mT to orbit when you include both the orbiter and payload, then why could the Block 0 only lift 70 mT to orbit? The answer is that for the shuttle the SSME engines only took the orbiter to a highly elliptical orbit whose perigee lied well within the Earth's atmosphere. This ensured the external tank after being jettisoned would reenter the atmosphere and break up on return.

 The shuttle would then use one or two OMS burns to raise the perigee and circularize the orbit. These OMS burns typically only totaled 90 m/s or less. Note that the total thrust of these OMS engines for the 100 mT+ shuttle was only about 6,000 kgf. This thrust is less than that of a single RL-10 engine. Then a way to recover the full mass to orbit of that of the shuttle system is by using a small propulsive stage to provide the same low amount of extra delta-v as provided by the shuttle's OMS engines.

 The shuttle orbiter with payload and with OMS fully fueled can mass 120 mT. An OMS burn of 90 m/s is less than 1/3rd the total OMS delta-v available of 305 m/s. So much of the OMS propellant of 12.8 mT will remain, with the remaining gross mass of the orbiter at the end of the OMS burn being above 100 mT.

 This delta-v change for a 100 mT payload can be done by just a cryogenic stage at only 1/10th the size of a Centaur upper stage, one of only 2 mT size. The Centaur has better than 10 to 1 mass ratio. But mass ratio gets better as you scale up or said another way gets worse as you scale down.

 The 'Golden Spike' paper on a commercial return to the Moon plan gives estimated sizes for some smaller cryogenic stages than the Centaur in a table on page 13. One at a 2,172 kg propellant load is given a dry mass of 445 kg. This could provide a 90 m/s delta-v to a 105 mT payload with a RL-10 engine at 451 s Isp:

451*9.81ln(1 + 2.172/(.445 + 105) = 90 m/s.

 Note this is just for Block 0. But the actual first version to be launched will be the Block 1 with 25% greater size and thrust on the SRB's and 33% greater size and thrust on the core stage. Then also using a small cryogenic stage the payload would be at least 25% greater than the 105 mT amount and probably closer to 30% greater since the upper stage that actually reaches orbit has a greater influence on payload than a lower stage.

 Even 25% greater would put the payload at 130 mT. This matches the payload of the expensive Block 2 SLS but only requiring a small cryogenic stage a fraction of the size  of a Centaur, and would be available by the 2017 first launch of the SLS.

Return to the Moon Architecture.
 In the post "SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11" I suggested the Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) be used alone as the single crew module for a lunar mission following the Early Lunar Access architecture. However, the Orion capsule has had billions of dollars spent on it and therefore has a lot of political capital attached to it. So I'll show we can also have a design that uses the Orion for the traverse from Earth orbit to lunar orbit and the return, with the SEV just for the trip from lunar orbit to the lunar surface. Using all cryogenic propulsion this will be doable using the likely 95 mT or higher payload first version of the SLS scheduled to launch in 2017. Using both the Orion and the SEV is in the plan NASA is considering for asteroid missions. I'm suggesting it also be used for lunar missions to get a lightweight architecture, rather than using some analogue of the quite heavy Altair lander (45 metric tons, really??).

 Use the delta-v's for the Earth-Moon system shown here:

Delta-V budget.

Earth–Moon space.

Currently existing cryogenic stages for simplicity and low cost: for the SEV lander use the Ariane H8 LH2/LOX upper stage. It had a 9,687 kg gross mass and 1,457 dry mass, and 443 s Isp. I'll round off the H8 mass values to 9,700 kg and 1,500 kg in the calculation. Use 4 mT for the crewed mass of the SEV, then:

 443*9.81ln(1 + 8.2/(1.5 + 4)) = 3,970 m/s, sufficient for the flight to and from the lunar surface from low lunar orbit.

 For a stage to insert the Orion+SEV lander into lunar orbit and return the Orion to Earth from lunar orbit, use the Ariane H10-3 LH2/LOX upper stage. This stage has a gross mass of 12,310 kg and dry mass of 1,570 kg, at a 445 s Isp. I'll round off the mass values to 12,300 kg and 1,600 kg, so 10,700 kg of propellant.

 The delta-v to insert into lunar orbit is 900 m/s, and the translunar injection(TLI) delta-v is 3,140 m/s making up the 4,040 m/s delta-v to go from LEO to low lunar orbit(LLO), as shown in the table above.

 Use 9 mT for the crewed mass of the Orion, and 13.7 mT for the SEV plus lander. Now burn only 6.9 mT of propellant for the lunar insertion, retaining 3.8 mT of the propellant after the lunar orbit insertion in order to be able to return Orion back to Earth. Then:

445*9.81ln(1 + 6.9/(1.6 + 9 + 13.7 + 3.8)) = 960 m/s, sufficient for lunar orbit insertion.

 Now for the return of the Orion, we have:

445*9.81ln(1 + 3.8/(1.6 + 9)) = 1,340 m/s, sufficient to go from low lunar orbit back to LEO, according to the table above. (Actually other sources give the required delta-v to break lunar orbit as only 900 m/s, same as to enter orbit, so it may be possible to make this stage even smaller.)

  Now we need a stage to do the translunar injection(TLI), requiring 3,140 m/s delta-v. The Centaurs have the best Isp and mass ratio of any upper stages so we'll use those. You could use two of them firing together in parallel or get better mass to TLI by firing them serially.  For simplicity I'll use the twin, parallel Centaur format. Rounding off, the Centaur has 21 mT propellant and 2 mT dry mass, with 451 s Isp. So two together would be 42 mT propellant and 4 mT dry mass. The Orion, SEV, and cryogenic stages together mass 35 mT. Then:

451*9.81ln(1 + 42/(4 + 35)) = 3,230 m/s, sufficient for TLI.

 Then the total mass that needed to be lofted to orbit would be 81 mT. The leeway between this and the 95 mT, and likely higher, payload capacity of the SLS would probably allow even hypergolics to be used at least for the departure stages, both from the lunar surface and from lunar orbit.

Increasing Mass Ratio to Improve Performance.  
 An even better option than the twin Centaurs would be to use the proposals of ULA (United Launch Alliance) to scale the Centaurs up larger, widen their diameters, and use lightweight aluminum-lithium instead of the steel now used. ULA suggests by doing this their mass ratio can be increased from 10 to 1 to 20 to 1. This is discussed by Jon Goff on his site, Selenian Boondocks.

 Scaling a rocket stage up is known to increase mass ratio. Widening them improves mass ratio because the closer a tank is to sphere the better the storage efficiency, a sphere having the best mass efficiency. And in regards to strength compared to weight, Al-Li can be as much as twice as good as steel. 

 These weight saving methods should also be applied to the smaller cryogenic stages to improve their performance. For instance the Ariane cryogenic stages I used above may be able to reach 10 to 1 mass ratios by following this. ULA has discussed improving mass ratio as the best way to improve performance at the NewSpace 2012 conference.

 A Centaur-style stage with these weight saving techniques applied at a 40 mT propellant load and 2 mT dry mass using the best vacuum Isp for a RL-10 series engine at 465.5 s can transport 5 mT from LEO to the Moon and back as a single stage:

465.5*9.81ln(1 + 40/(2 + 5)) = 8,700 m/s, sufficient for the round-trip according to the table above.

  Actually since the delta-v of a launch to LEO is just a little more than this delta-v for a round-trip lunar mission, I like to think of this example as a stealth SSTO. ULA in maximizing the mass ratio of a Centaur-style stage while at the same time using the highest Isp engine would unwittingly also create a SSTO, capable of significant payload to orbit.

 For this SSTO to have an engine that can operate at sea level, the nozzle extension would have to be retracted at launch and extend while the engine is firing. According to Henry Spencer, this has already been successfully tested.

RL-10-B2 with nozzle retracted.

2001: A Space Odyssey.
 Another version of this high mass ratio upper stage would put it in the from of a sphere. Since a sphere has the best mass efficiency for a tank this would get an even better mass ratio, and could carry more payload. This would be most useful for the lunar transport case since you would not have to worry about the high air drag of a spherical launcher as in the ground launched case.


 This would be interesting since it could serve as an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Aries lunar shuttle.

    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

"Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.

Copyright 2012 Robert Clark

"Golden Spike Co" has released a paper describing their return to the Moon plans:

An Architecture for Lunar Return Using Existing Assets.
by James R. French et. al.
http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

 It gives several different architectures and types of missions. But on page 8 it gives the payload capability of the Falcon 9, presumably the new version Falcon 9 v1.1, as 16,700 kg. However, on the SpaceX site it's given as 13,100 kg:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#launch_and_placement

 Interestingly at the 16.7 mT number you can do a manned circumlunar mission on a single Falcon 9 + Dragon, even including a launch abort system(LAS), by using a half-size Centaur as the in-space stage. But at the 13.1 mt number it becomes more problematical .
 Such a mission would be very important to accomplish. Recall the Apollo 8 mission was a manned lunar flyby that served as the prelude to the Apollo 11 mission. It is regarded then as being a part of the costly Apollo program, requiring the expensive Saturn V launcher.
 The skepticism among many about the Golden Spike plan or other commercial lunar plans is the idea it would require large, highly expensive Saturn V class launchers. However, if the manned flyby could be done by a single launch by what is still just a medium size launcher in the Falcon 9 v1.1 it would show that by going small and following a low cost, commercial approach, that a low cost return to the Moon is feasible.
 The Falcon 9 v1.1 will cost in the $60 million range, and we might estimate the half-size Centaur to be in the $15  million range. So the launch cost for such a mission might be in the $75 million range.
 As I discussed before in regards to using the first test flights of the Falcon Heavy for unmanned BEO test flights, the test flights of the Falcon 9 v1.1 could serve for unmanned test flights for this lunar flyby. Since SpaceX needs to do such tests anyway most of the cost of the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule would be borne by SpaceX. Then you could have Golden Spike only paying ca. $15 million for the half-size Centaur.
 There would be some development cost of course beyond that for this half-size Centaur. For one thing you would have to make the cryogenic propulsion undergo less boiloff for 1 to 2 week missions. ULA has done studies on this so should be doable but still it has to be carried out in practice. An advantage of this would be that this half-size Centaur is about the size you need for the lander. So the lander could be derived from this, and the development cost for the two stages could be reduced.

CALCULATIONS
 The Golden Spike landing plan specifies using two Falcon Heavy's even though it uses a Dragon sized capsule. This is more than 100 mT to LEO. This is puzzling since the advantage of using a lightweight capsule is that it should require smaller amounts to be launched to orbit, known as IMLEO, initial mass to low Earth orbit. For instance the Early Lunar Access plan only requires 52 mT to orbit using a small two-man capsule. However, I believe the Golden Spike paper by French et. al. explains where the discrepancy arises.
 On page 13 is given a table of some masses for different possible propulsive stages. The mass for the Dragon with trunk and crew and supplies is 8,853 kg, well above the given dry mass of the Dragon capsule at 4,200 kg. The trunk section is less than 1,000 kg and the propellant for the Dragon is at 1,290 mT. The mass for crew and supplies in the Golden Spike paper is given as 300 kg. Evidently then the extra mass to get to a 8,853 kg mass is coming from the launch abort system (LAS).
 In any case a 8,853 kg mass would be at the mass of the Orion capsule and we would lose any advantage of a lightweight architecture. Then I suggest an alternative to the SpaceX LAS that has the LAS permanently integrated into the capsule.
 We could use again a tower type LAS that would be jettisoned prior to reaching orbit. To estimate its mass we might make a comparison to the Orion LAS. The Orion LAS is at 6,000 kg. The Dragon is at half the mass of the Orion capsule. Then we can estimate the mass for a tower type LAS for the Dragon as 3,000 kg.
 This is also a high additional mass. However, typically a tower LAS is jettisoned soon after first stage separation. So we can estimate how much this will subtract from the payload to orbit by making a comparison to how much the payload is reduced for an increased dry mass to the first stage. A rule of thumb is that every kilo of mass added to the first stage dry mass subtracts off 1/10 of a kilo from the payload. So we can estimate 300 kg being subtracted off the payload.
 Now we'll estimate the size of a cryogenic stage needed to take the Dragon to a circumlunar mission. In the table on page 13 in the Golden Spike paper is given a cryogenic, LH2/LOX, stage at 1,196 kg dry mass and 7,534 kg propellant mass. This is a mass ratio of 7.3 to 1. Notably this is less than that of current Centaur upper stages at about 10 to 1. This is because mass ratio improves as you scale up your rocket stages.
 This rocket stage would be sufficient to carry the Dragon's 4,200 kg dry mass plus the 300 kg for crew and supplies using RL-10 engines. The delta-v for trans lunar injection(TLI) is 3,150 m/s. Using a 451 s Isp for the RL-10 engines we get a delta-v of:

451*9.81ln(1 + 7534/(1196 + 4500)) = 3,700 m/s.

 But because of the loss of payload capacity due to the LAS from  SpaceX's cited payload to LEO of the Falcon 9 v1.1 of 13.1 mT, this would be slightly more mass than can be carried to LEO. So we'll use a slightly smaller stage. Let the propellant mass be 7,000 kg. Keeping the same 7.3 mass ratio, this corresponds to a dry mass of 1,100. Then the delta-v will be:

451*9.81ln(1 + 7000/(1100+ 4500)) = 3,600  m/s, still sufficient for the TLI.


  Bob Clark

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3: Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.

Copyright 2012 Robert Clark

The Falcon Heavy is planned to be tested by SpaceX by 2014. By using the Early Lunar Access (ELA) architecture we could have a return to the Moon by 2019, using either the Falcon Heavy or the SLS, as described in the blog post "SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11". Note this would also be by the 2020 timetable set by the Vision for Space Exploration(VSE).
 This ELA architecture could be implemented either using either the Dragon capsule or the NASA Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV). The SEV is intended to be used for BEO missions perhaps for mission durations up to 28 days long with two crew members. Then the first Falcon Heavy missions would provide means for testing unmanned the SEV for BEO missions to the lunar surface, the Lagrange points or to near Earth asteroids.
 SpaceX needs to perform the test flights for the Falcon Heavy so they would pay for the costs of the launch themselves. For the lunar flights as discussed in the "SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon" post, the two Centaur-like upper stages might require in the range of $30 million dollars each. There would be an extra cost for the SEV but for these first test missions we might only use the prototype test vehicles now undergoing field tests with NASA's Desert RATS program. These prototype vehicles only cost in the few hundred thousand dollar range. This would put the cost to NASA in the low cost Discovery-class mission range.

2011 Desert RATS Overview

 Since these are to be unmanned test flights, ideal would be to "man" them with two Robonauts. This would dovetail nicely with the Johnson Space Center's Project Morpheus plan to send Robonaut to the lunar surface.  In regards to NEO missions, this is one of the planned uses for the SEV. For the manned asteroid flights NASA was considering, the mission time ranges were above 90 days. That would be unrealistic for flights just using the SEV alone. However looking at the Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS) page there are NEO missions with duration times of 34 days or less at stay times of greater than 8 days that could correspond to under 28 day mission times if we limit the stay time to a day or so.


      Bob Clark

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.

Copyright 2012 Robert Clark

Credit: NASA's Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).

Very interesting report about using NASA's proposed Space Exploration Vehicle for cislunar space exploration:

Lunar Surface Access from Earth-Moon L2.
A novel lander design and study of alternative solutions.
1 October 2012 | Washington, DC

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SEV-L2-Lander-Presentation_1Oct2012.pdf

 The report proposes using the lightweight SEV, at only a 3 mT empty weight, and all cryogenic propulsion as a shuttle between the L2 space station NASA has recently discussed and the lunar surface. However it could also be used as the crew capsule between LEO and the Moon's surface.
 The architecture discussed is very interesting in that the SEV would be used as the single crew module to carry the crew all the way from the L2 station to the lunar surface and back again, i.e., no separate lander crew module. There would also only be a single propulsive stage to carry the SEV from low lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back to lunar orbit, i.e., no separate lunar descent and ascent stages.
 This has similarities to the architecture for the Early Lunar Access(ELA)[1] proposal of the early 90's. This also used all cryogenic space stages to save weight, only 52 mT required to LEO. ELA also saved weight and cost by using a single crew capsule for the entire flight from LEO to the lunar surface and back again. It also used a single propulsive stage for lunar descent and ascent. But instead of linking up with a stage waiting in lunar orbit for the return, the ELA proposal was to have this single lander stage return all the way back to LEO.
 An alternative architecture discussed on page 23 in this report on using the SEV for cislunar travel does not use the method of first stopping in lunar orbit, then having a separate lunar lander stage. Instead it uses the "direct descent" method of descending directly to the lunar surface. This landing method is analogous to that used in the ELA proposal to save propellant. Interestingly the SEV report on page 23 gives the delta-V for the direct descent method as 2,610 m/s. This compares to the 760 m/s + 2,150 m/s = 2,950 m/s for the method that first stops in lunar orbit, then descends to the surface as indicated in the image above. So according to this report a savings of 300 m/s in delta-V for the trip from L2 to the Moon is possible using direct descent, a significant savings.
 I had wondered if it was possible to save delta-V and propellant in this blog post 'Delta-V for "direct descent" to the lunar surface?'[2]. The SEV report suggests it may be possible to save in the range of 300 m/s by the direct descent method.
 The only technical complaint raised against the feasibility of the ELA proposal back in the 90's was the suggestion of getting a 2-man crew capsule at only a 3 mT empty weight. So the fact the SEV is expected to have this low an empty weight is important, since it suggests the possibility with just the 70 mT first version of the SLS of a manned lunar lander mission using currently existing cryogenic stages.
 Actually the 70 mT payload of the SLS is so much better than the 52 mT needed for ELA that likely we could even use a heavier hypergolic stage for the lunar ascent stage. During the early planning of the Apollo program when the possibility an engine might not ignite was regarded as a definite possibility, it was decided to use hypergolics, which ignite on contact, for the lunar ascent stage. At this point though the cryogenic RL10 engines have had decades of use and are regarded as highly reliable.
 Still for these first versions of these new lunar landers we might still want the certainty of using hypergolics for the ascent stage. I suggest using the engine and propellant tanks of the shuttle orbiter OMS pods for the purpose. This would be quite appropriate actually since the OMS pod engines were derived from the Apollo lunar lander engines. By the Astronautix page on the OMS pods[3], they are each about 10 mT propellant mass and 1.8 mT dry mass. Then using its 316s Isp, one of them would suffice for the ca. 2,740 m/s delta-V to go from lunar surface to LEO even with a 4 mT crewed and supplied mass for the SEV with plenty of margin: 316*9.81ln(1 + 10/(1.8 + 4)) =  3,100 m/s.
 The first version of the SLS, called Block 1, is expected to launch by 2017. I would expect a test lunar lander mission, especially if using all cryogenic in-space propulsion, to be done first before a crewed mission is sent. But certainly by 2019, the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, a crewed mission could be sent. This is in contrast to a post-2030 proposed time frame for a crewed lunar landing using the full 130 mT version of the SLS when it first becomes available.
 There is the cost issue of mounting a manned lander mission. Oddly, the high cost of the SLS might be helpful in this regard. The cryogenic Centaur-like upper stages are already available at a cost in the range of $30 million [4], so the modifications there would be comparatively low cost, compared to the already high cost of the SLS. As for the development cost of the SEV, I suggest use of NASA's commercial crew program's financing procedures. SpaceX was able to develop the Dragon as largely privately financed for reportedly $300 million. And Boeing is paying much of the cost of the development of the CST-100 capsule. It is highly dubious they would be spending a billion dollars of their own money for its development. Then likely its total development cost is in the few hundred million dollar range. Therefore it is likely the development cost of the smaller SEV under commercial crew procedures would also be in the few hundred million dollars range, again comparatively low cost compared to the SLS.
 As I discussed in the blog post "SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon", SpaceX will also be able to mount a manned lunar landing mission using the 53 mT Falcon Heavy by following, it turns out, the ELA architecture. This will be much cheaper than using the SLS launcher, perhaps only in the few hundred million dollars range cost. But you would have to get private financing for that, since NASA would not fund it as it would undercut NASA's own program.
 In contrast, NASA using the SLS in such an early time frame for a manned return to the Moon would provide further support for continuing the SLS funding. No longer would the SLS be referred to as "a rocket to nowhere".


  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

REFERENCES.

1.)Lunar Base Studies in the 1990s. 
1993:  Early Lunar Access (ELA). 
by Marcus Lindroos 
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html 
(Note a typo on this page: the payload adapter mass should 
be 2,000 kg instead of 6,000 kg.) 

2.)Delta-V for "direct descent" to the lunar surface?
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2012
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/09/delta-v-for-direct-descent-to-lunar.html 

3.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Shuttle Orbiter OMS.
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/shueroms.htm

4.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Centaur IIA.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cenuriia.htm

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 2: Comparison to 'Early Lunar Access'.

 Copyright 2012 Robert Clark

 Early Lunar Access lander stage.

 The Early Lunar Access [1],[2], proposal of General Dynamics came as quite a surprise to those in the industry when it was first proposed in the early 90's. It suggested manned lunar missions at half the mass needed to LEO and at 1/10th the cost of the Apollo missions.

 It was based on using existing launchers with small upgrades to keep costs low. The only part of it that was technically doubtful at the time was that you could get the lightweight 2-man capsule they were proposing at only a ca. 3.7 mT crewed mass.

 Based on such a small sized capsule, they were able to get a manned mission to the Moon at only about 52 mT required to LEO using all cryogenic space stages. However, the 7-man Dragon capsule at a ca. 4mT dry mass suggests this is indeed feasible.

 It is also interesting the architecture they were proposing for low costs was similar to what I suggested for the SpaceX Dragon via the Falcon Heavy launcher. It would use a single capsule to take the crew all the way from LEO to the Moon's surface and back again, i.e.,no separate lunar crew module. Also it would use as I suggested a single lander stage to take the crew capsule from low lunar orbit to the Moon's surface and then all the way back to LEO, rather than linking up with a return stage waiting in lunar orbit for the return.

 This gives further confidence in the feasibility of the lunar lander plan using the Dragon with Centaur-style stages launched on the 53 mT Falcon Heavy.

  Bob Clark

1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica
Early Lunar Access.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160315095322/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

2.)Lunar Base Studies in the 1990s.
1993:  Early Lunar Access (ELA).
by Marcus Lindroos

https://web.archive.org/web/20170204225428/http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

(a typo on this page: the payload adapter mass should

be 2,000 kg instead of 6,000.)

Re: On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

Copyright 2012 Robert Clark 

Congratulations to SpaceX on their second successful flight to the ISS. However, it is disturbing that there have been engine anomalies on all the flights, the last being the most serious:

 It is reassuring that the mission was able to be completed even with one engine shut down. However, I don't think that would be an acceptable state of affairs for manned flights to have an expectation that during any flight at least one engine would malfunction and need to be shut down, including to the extent that that engine would be destroyed, shedding debris in the process.
 I think SpaceX should investigate the possibility of producing a larger version of the Merlin to reduce the number of engines required. It's been reported also that NASA is not too sanguine on the possibility of using so many engines on a manned vehicle.
 There was a discussion of this possibility on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:

Should SpaceX aim for a 330,000 lbs engine rather than am F1 class engine?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29277.0

 The idea was generally disparaged on that forum, but I think it is a good idea. SpaceX was considering building a 1.5+ million pound thrust engine referred to as the Merlin 2 as part of a proposal to NASA for a heavy lift vehicle. They estimated a $1 billion development cost for the engine. Based on thrust size, we might estimate the development cost for this smaller upgrade at 1/5th of this so only $200 million. Given the billion dollar contracts SpaceX already has for NASA and commercial satellite launches, there is little doubt that SpaceX could again get private financing for the development of this engine.
 SpaceX has shown that it is able to cut development costs when it follows a private financing path. I think that would be the ideal approach to follow in this case as well.
 If they did develop the 330 klb. engine, that would still require 5 engines for the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage. My preferred solution then to minimize the number of engines at an affordable cost would be to go for a 500,000 pound thrust engine. Again estimating based on thrust size, this would be a ca. $300 million development cost, not too much more than the 330 klb case. But in this case you would only need three engines.


   Bob Clark