Aerojet Rocketdyne Orion Launcher

[fredinno]

I think this (the rightmost one) should be built by Aerojet Rocketdyne (AR) primarily to launch Orion, but also for large satellites, like KH-11s, and dual launch GEO satellites (especially as GEO Satellites are estimated to get larger, with the largest being ~8T).

The launcher would be identical to the single stick launcher shown above, but with both stages reduced in length 75%, making the launcher have a ~23 T to LEO capacity.

AR could benefit from such a launcher- they are clearly interested in going into the launcher market, trying to obtain ULA multiple times, but failing due to the parent companies refusing (they still haven't given up, BTW) and the fact that ever one of their primary products is going to, or is in threat of replacement in the near future. The only exception to this is a small amount of RL-10s for SLS, and SSMEs, which would probably not keep the company afloat without significant downsizing. The Single-stick launcher could keep the company afloat long enough to develop a much cheaper RL-10, or a completely different product.

NASA would benefit, as they will have greater use of KSC but commercial customers, and not have to man-rate SLS blocks (3 different rockets needed for man-rating). It would also allow Orion to fill the congressional requirement to be a back-up in case CCdev fails (which sadly may actually be the case, due to underfunding), and increase possible payload capacity of future SLS missions, with a Constellation-style 1.5 launch structure.

This launcher would also be relatively cheap (probably) compared to Delta IV Heavy, which could be retired by ULA after Delta IV retirement in 2019, and would fulfill the 2-launcher requirement for DOD payloads (the other being Falcon Heavy, as Vulcan is too small for over 20T payloads w/o ACES)

My idea is that AR would make this rocket primarily off their own money, with some help from the govnt.

Also, apparently, Ares I tooling still exists, so the 2 stages are Ares I diameter (5.5 meter). This would use NASA's facilities, along with KSC, which would appeal to NASA, which is trying to increase the commercial use of its (especially KSC) facilities. Should all else fail, Vulcan/Delta IV 5 meter tooling will be available to build the rocket.

The rocket would launch in a new LC-48 south of LC-39A, aka the notational 'small vehicle launch site area' at KSC on this map. In the case it is not large enough, a new pad could be built north of the railroad north of LC-39D, (though that means that they would not be able to build a runway there, as NASA is planning.) If all else fails, it would launch at LC-37A, next to Delta IV, and use the h2 lox infrastructure there in place. The Vandeberg pad would be SLC-2E, 2W, 1W, or 1E.

What do you think?

[Kryten]

Where are AR supposed to get the money just to develop F-1B, nevermind the launch site and LV factory? How would something that has to both adsorb those costs and use relatively expensive AR engines compete with Vulcan or falcon heavy?

[sgt_flyer]

Well, this launcher is meant to make use of AR's Pyrios booster, using their F-1B engine (basically a Saturn-V F-1 engine built with today's lower cost techniques and materials knowledge) (they already tested the gas generator recently)

If the pyrios booster is not selected in the first place for SLS, it will lose quite some appeal (and ATK's booster seems to have better traction)

Besides, Orion is meant for beyond LEO operations, where you need the full SLS to send it. (For LEO operations, they will be able to call upon Boeing's CST-100 or spaceX dragon V2 anyway)

So, a bit redundant for now (though, the engine itself might still potentially spark some interest - if they manage to build it for reasonable costs)

[Kryten]

Well, this launcher is meant to make use of AR's Pyrios booster, using their F-1B engine (basically a Saturn-V F-1 engine built with today's lower cost techniques and materials knowledge) (they already tested the gas generator recently)

If the pyrios booster is not selected in the first place for SLS, it will lose quite some appeal (and ATK's booster seems to have better traction)

The liquid boosters for SLS have not been under consideration for some time. Too expensive to plumb the pad for kerosene.

[fredinno]

Well, this launcher is meant to make use of AR's Pyrios booster, using their F-1B engine (basically a Saturn-V F-1 engine built with today's lower cost techniques and materials knowledge) (they already tested the gas generator recently)

If the pyrios booster is not selected in the first place for SLS, it will lose quite some appeal (and ATK's booster seems to have better traction)

Besides, Orion is meant for beyond LEO operations, where you need the full SLS to send it. (For LEO operations, they will be able to call upon Boeing's CST-100 or spaceX dragon V2 anyway)

So, a bit redundant for now (though, the engine itself might still potentially spark some interest - if they manage to build it for reasonable costs)

The f-1 b is a simplified version of the F-1a designed for cheapness. The primary reason for this was so that the SLS could use a launch structure where crew launches in one vehicle, and cargo launches in SLS, to lower costs.

[Bill Phil]

The liquid boosters for SLS have not been under consideration for some time. Too expensive to plumb the pad for kerosene.

Why not Hydrolox boosters? Could use RS-25s...

Although the practicality pf that idea isn't very high. You'd be spending 6 or more RS-25s per launch with that booster.

[fredinno]

Why not Hydrolox boosters? Could use RS-25s...

Although the practicality pf that idea isn't very high. You'd be spending 6 or more RS-25s per launch with that booster.

'Cause SRBs were still capable of making Block II a reality.

[Bill Phil]

'Cause SRBs were still capable of making Block II a reality.

Yeah, but objectively hydrolox is better. It's a common propellant with the rest of the LV. It's using common components. It can be fueled on the pad... But it also has drawbacks.

[fredinno]

Yeah, but objectively hydrolox is better. It's a common propellant with the rest of the LV. It's using common components. It can be fueled on the pad... But it also has drawbacks.

So? SRB needs minimal modifications for SLS performance improvements- also, H2 lox is very $$$, which is only mitigated if you couple it with a lower cost, lower efficiency fuel like Solids.

[Bill Phil]

So? SRB needs minimal modifications for SLS performance improvements- also, H2 lox is very $$$, which is only mitigated if you couple it with a lower cost, lower efficiency fuel like Solids.

SRBs have already been heavily modified for Block 1/1A.

Yeah, that's a drawback.

[fredinno]

SRBs have already been heavily modified for Block 1/1A.

Yeah, that's a drawback.

There would be more modifications if they made a h2 lox booster- especially since h2 is so lacking in density, the booster would have to be huge. Also, SSME's probably would need a huge cluster to match the thrust needed to get off the pad.

[Kibble]

It would take a cluster of seven RS-68s (the most powerful hydrogen-burning rocket engine in production, or ever) to match 5-seg booster thrust.

[fredinno]

It would take a cluster of seven RS-68s (the most powerful hydrogen-burning rocket engine in production, or ever) to match 5-seg booster thrust.

Too bad they have the heating problem. :-p