Jupiter DIRECT vs SLS vs Shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle/Shuttle-C

[fredinno]

I would like to ask forums members here, which do you believe would be the best HLV concept for a Shuttle Derived HLV?

Shuttle-C:

-Far less ($6 billion) inital R&D costs due to more similarity to Space Shuttle

-Assymetric

-Inital Capacity- 71T to LEO

- Upgrades possible, but mich more difficult (bigger boosters or an upper stage in the payload fairing have the abilty to destabilize rocket.

-Adding upper stage increases capacity to 81 T to LEO. Adding 5-segment SRBs to this will increase capacity to 88T to LEO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle

Jupiter DIRECT:

-R&D costs somewhat lower than SLS due to the exclusion of 5-segment SRBs, and the ICPS.

-Inline

-Same basic core stage as SLS

-Same concept as SLS

-Inital version primarily designed for LEO (no upper stage)

-Upper stage: Centaur (Atlas) derived

-Inital version: 2x 4-seg SRB, Stretched inline ET core stage, 60T to LEO.

-1st evolution: Addition of an upper stage to initial version, 91.6T to LEO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(rocket_family)

SLS

-More capable than Jupiter Direct or Shuttle-C

-Higher R&D costs, and possibly cost per launch due to 5-seg SRBs and ICPS

-Inline

-Primarily designed for BEO (EUS has lower thrust)

-Boosters replaced with Advanced boosters for all versions due to Space Shuttle SRB production end.

-Upper stages: Delta IV upper stage derived.

-Block I: 5-seg SRBs on stretched inline ET, and IUS (Delta IV 5-meter upper stage) on top of core. 70T to LEO.

-Block IB: IUS replaced with larger 8-meter EUS. 100T to LEO.

-Block II: 5-seg boosters replaced by "Dark Knight" SRBs. 130T to LEO.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System&sa=U&ved=0CE8QFjASahUKEwjz0oX1_tTHAhWSEpIKHUiRAI8&usg=AFQjCNF2RPuPWeSfYZYUQdGKmmY_zdWr1g

Edited September 1, 2015 by fredinno

[SargeRho]

Right now, probably the SLS, because it's so far along its development already.

But a few years ago, Jupiter DIRECT would probably have been the better choice.

Edited September 1, 2015 by SargeRho

[UmbralRaptor]

I've missed something -- wasn't SLS strongly derived from DIRECT? And from what little I've read, apparently a Shuttle-C would have been more expensive in $/kg than a normal Shuttle.

[fredinno]

Shuttle-C could not have been more expensive per Kg than shuttle- it carried 3.2x more payload using practically the same rocket as the shuttle. In fact, it should be around 3x less expensive due to the heavier payload capacity.

And yes, SLS and Jupiter Direct are very similar. They do have differences, which I have put on my 1st post.

[UmbralRaptor]

Shuttle-C could not have been more expensive per Kg than shuttle- it carried 3.2x more payload using practically the same rocket as the shuttle. In fact, it should be around 3x less expensive due to the heavier payload capacity.

"The Class I SDV was again found to be the best solution. It was estimated it could deliver payload to orbit at a cost of $4400/kg, as opposed to $1720 for the Delta II, $ 1800 for the Titan IV, or $ 3400 for the shuttle."[circa 1988 dollars]

This confused me also.

[fredinno]

Possibly a typo- cost per launch is almost the same as the normal shuttle, on Astronautix.

It may also be using a higher estimate- there are many ways to calculate cost per launch, depending on what variables you include.

Who knows?

Astronautix is not always correct.

[Nibb31]

Sidemounted Shuttle-C would have made sense if it flew alongside the Shuttle because it would have used the exact same infrastructure. Once Shuttle was cancelled, Shuttle-C made no sense.

Don't forget that Shuttle-C was expendable. It would have expended 3 SSME's on each launch. There was no expendable RS-25.

[fredinno]

So is SLS and would Jupiter DIRECT. There is no reason Shuttle-C would not be able to use RS-25E.

Besides, following the Shuttle's end, they could have just kept LC-39A and its infrastructure for Shuttle-C.

[SargeRho]

Actually, Nibb, there was a proposal to recover the engines, landing with parachutes and retro-rockets in away that would not have the engines themselves touch the salt water. I don't know if it was for the Shuttle-C or a similar concept.

[fredinno]

It was for Shuttle-C

[cryogen]

The best HLV is one that shares stages and cores with a smaller rocket, one that launches frequently. For example, tri-cores like Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy. This is how you can get reliable, tested components.

All of the shuttle-derived concepts have a single, giant core that's only used for super-heavy payloads, so it gets launched very rarely. This is dodgy. If you share cores with a commercial sat launcher, everything's tested dozens of times a year: you get lots of engineering data, opportunities to learn and iterate.

[Sylandro]

I'm going to be that guy, and say that all three are equally as good and interesting ideas, and i'm not going to choose sides.

[Dkmdlb]

Vulcan Heavy

Is there something I missed about the Vulcan announcement or do you mean the Delta IV Heavy?

[SargeRho]

Is there something I missed about the Vulcan announcement or do you mean the Delta IV Heavy?

"In May 2015, the ULA CEO released a chart showing a potential future Vulcan Heavy three-core launch vehicle with 23,000 kg (50,000 lb)-payload capacity to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, while a single-core Vulcan 561 with the ACES upper stage would have 15,100 kg (33,200 lb) capacity to the same orbit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(rocket)

[Kryten]

Is there something I missed about the Vulcan announcement or do you mean the Delta IV Heavy?

It's an unfunded proposal ULA has been using to nominally beat Falcon Heavy payload figures in infographics.

[SciMan]

The best HLV is one that shares stages and cores with a smaller rocket, one that launches frequently. For example, tri-cores like Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy. This is how you can get reliable, tested components.

-snip-

The problem with that idea is the SLS and similar launchers are squarely in the Super-Heavy class. Saturn-V class stuff.

That takes a LOT of rocket, no matter what configuration it's in.

I think a 7-core Falcon 9, Delta IV, or Atlas V might work, but it's probably more likely to need something like a 3-core Proton. Even then the payload capacity would only approach SLS Block I.

That is, if you insist on using only core/first stages of currently-produced launch vehicles.

The bottom line is, when you need to launch a lot more payload than a small rocket can lift, it's probably easier to make a bigger rocket instead of putting a bunch of smaller rockets together.

[Kryten]

Or properly developing a distributed-launch architecture, like ULA is trying to do.

[_Augustus_]

Jupiter is the best!

[Elthy]

Isnt a problem with sticking several rockets together that the fairing size stays the same? I can imagine a mars ascent vehicle will need min. 6m fairing diameter, also i doubt you want the astronauts spending more than a year in super small tin cans, something fitting in a SLS size fairing will propably be way better for their mental health...

[Rakaydos]

Keep in mind that the reason the Falcon 9 and Facon heavy are the diamiter they are, is because that's the largest size they can legally transport by interstate freeway. Any larger, and they either have to construct the rocket entirely at the launch site, not just assemble it there... or come up with an alternate means of shipping parts. (My vote for shipping the MCT first stage by Grasshopper.)

[fredinno]

Or use barges like SLS, shuttle, etc...

- - - Updated - - -

You could use a Saturn I approach, and glue the tanks together, but have a seperate thrust and top structure to use larger fairings...