8 thoughts on “None Of The Above”

1. I was annoyed at that NASA Watch poll too. I voted EELV Heavy there and no heavy lifter here. I suppose EELV Heavy includes EELV Phase 1, which is what I would advocate. A bit bigger than necessary, but it’s what rolls out naturally if you want a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, an ACES depot or an upper stage/EDS that’s slightly bigger than the current Delta IV upper stage or even just the cheapest EDS possible. Plus it would allow you to do exploration without the need for cryogenic propellant transfer, but with commercial propellant launches and would allow that soon and with little risk. It would also be a step in the direction of cryogenic depots and would realign NASA’s interests with commercial development of space. There would be little reason for multi core versions to keep flying once cryogenic depots were operational, but the increased payload of a single core Atlas would be welcome both for manned spaceflight and some current payloads that would otherwise fly on a Delta IV Heavy.

2. I dont see the problme wiht Atlas Phase II.

   You still have the capability to efficiently launch 25 ton payloads and still have the capability to launch an occasion 75ton one.

   It can transform into a heavy lifter without being limited to being one all the time so the costs can be spread over all the common elements. It would seem this arrangement would do much to temper the standing army for a low fligh rate vehicle issue.

3. I’d love to see a 1950’s von Braun-style heavy lifter: a liquid fuel-based vehicle that looks like like an EELV but is fully recoverable and reusable, with a payload of say 100-200 tons to near earth orbit. Too bad it isn’t an option.

4. I was under the impression that the EELV-Heavies were already designed and, in a few cases for each, have actually been flown. Is this incorrect?

5. R-

   There’s a little bit of an overlap in terms. Each EELV family has a heavy lift variant right now (the Delta version having flown, the Atlas version planned), where they combine 3 (for Delta) or 2 (for Lockheed according to Wikipedia, though that sounds strange to me and I couldn’t back it up with Lockheed-sourced documentation in a quick search, and Astronautix.com says there are 3) of their common cores to provide a lift mass of approximately 25 mT to LEO. When discussing heavy lift in an exploration architecture, most people are referring to a booster based on EELV technology that has a throw mass of approximately 75 mT to LEO. The option called an EELV Super Heavy and is discussed on page 67 of the Augustine report.

6. The three core Delta-IV Heavy has flown and a three core Atlas could be flown within two years if a customer signed on the dotted line.

   The EELV-Heavies we were talking about here are part of a new roadmap for scaling up the existing launchers. Phase 1 would add a new common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, combining the best elements of the existing upper stages, widening the diameter of the upper stage and consolidating the production lines. That has to be a good thing and it gives you a ~50mT Delta and a ~40mT Atlas. Phase 2 adds wider cores as well, and Phase 3 would add new engine development and perhaps even wider cores or more than five core configurations.

   As far as I can tell Phase 1 will happen eventually anyway since the DoD wants a common upper stage.

7. Tom, Martin –

   Thanks for the info! I could’ve sworn I saw an article in AvWeek a year or so ago that covered the first launch of the Atlas EELV-H at Vandenberg, but I guess not. Either way, if it’s staged development that’ll be happening anyway due to customer requirements, my vote for “heavy lift” (such as it’s needed…) would go there in a heartbeat. The Air Force buys rockets off the shelf; why can’t NASA?

8. EELV Phase 1 would happen eventually, or so I’ve been told. I doubt the other phases would and I hope they won’t.

Comments are closed.