Eyes Turned Skywards

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

hi Shevek23...

Hi!

Originally Posted by Michel Van

...
Stage S-1C
406000 kg Fuel LOX/RP-1 (6000kg leftover in the tank)
6580 kg tank !
1096 kg structural part
8390 kg F-1 engine
670 kg rest (hydraulic helium gas tanks etc.)
422676 kg in total vs. 452000 kg to S-1B
to put it more drastic is burn out weight S-1C 22676 kg vs. 50500 kg of the S-1B, why?
It's the mass of the 9 tanks and there complex plumbing with left over fuel in it!

Ah yes, that makes sense. That lets us knock 25 tonnes, or over half the dry mass I guessed (ie rounded down a bit from the 1B first stage), which extrapolated to the Heavy with three, would knock 75 tonnes off the first stage dry mass!

I chickened a bit and just made it 20 tonnes. After all, the Multibody (which is what I'm really interested in) first stage(s) is designed to accept strap-ons--either solid fuel boosters, or the tripleting together of three standard first stages in parallel. I'm guessing structural reinforcement to allow that costs something. Also the first stages are improved with that insulation. Meanwhile general evolution of the state of the art ought to lower some weights a bit. Cutting the dry mass evenly in half seems about right.

Still, that's a 60 tonne reduction in the first stage mass of a Heavy.

Originally Posted by Michel Van

2950 kg Interstage structure S-1C to S-IVB
Stage S-IVB
114550 kg total weight
13200 kg empty (with leftover in the tank)
1940 kg Instrument unit
1700 kg Adapter S-IVB to Apollo CSM
15000 kg Apollo CSM
4000 kg apollo escape system (jettison during Stage S-1C S-IVB separation)

Comparison between Saturn IC vr. Saturn IB
Launch weight IC 568816kg vr. IB 592150kg
Thrust IC 6.67 MN vr. IB 7.1 MN
that lower as IB and absolute minimum thrust for Saturn-IC get of the launch pad
about 17 second the Saturn-IC will rise slowly into sky, then get faster. the F-1A is here a improvement
DeltaV: IC 9729 m/s vr. IB 9195 meter/s
with other words: Saturn IC could bring 870 kg more payload into that orbit.
....

Well, the thread authors seemed to be saying upthread the 1C was a bigger improvement than that. And the basic core Multibody rocket is upgraded a bit more. My target for the orbit you specified (well, close, I was going for 30 degrees inclination) was 22 tonnes for the basic Multibody.

And for the Heavy, I wanted Silverbird to agree that it could either put 77 tonnes into that same orbit, or put about 22 tonnes into translunar/escape orbit. (As near as I can see, a lunar trajectory is about the same as an escape trajectory.)

I don't plan to spend many many hours tonight fiddling around with Silverbird to try to hit it on the nose again. It probably is best to wait for the thread authors to give us the definitive figures. But I'm back to guessing that a Heavy upper stage masses about 25 tonnes dry, has three J-2S engines, and has 270 tonnes propellant.

And with the revised figures, the Silverbird again says that by using the 77 tonne to orbit payload capability to orbit a dedicated 77 tonne translunar vehicle, we can get not 20 but 30 tonnes beyond the stage mass there.

Specifically, I was thinking the third stage would mass about 40 tonnes all up, 4 of which is structure, 36 propellant, and use a hydrogen/oxygen engine that gets the same ISP as the J-2S, but has a much lower thrust. Now that I think about it I probably did wrong in specifying a 40 KN rocket engine for that, because that would be about 1/20 of a G for TLI, which would take some hours, whereas we'd want it to take a fraction of an hour I'd think.

What I was doing there was, thinking about the sorts of engines one would want on my reusable Lunar shuttle, what I'm calling the Moonbug, for going from Luna to L1 and back. I figured we'd want a cluster of 5 engines, 4 in a square, one in the middle, and we'd want engine out capability. If an engine on the square outside fails, we'd have to shut down the opposite engine too to keep the forces balanced. Worst case would be a two engine failure of two adjacent outside engines, forcing us to shut down the other two and bringing us down to just one. Figuring the all-up mass of a fully fueled Moonbug is 40 tonnes, and at 1/6 G it weighs a bit over 4 tonnes, we'd want a single engine to have more thrust than that, to brake it to a landing in case of an abort. Now, if this pair of engine failures happens during descent to Luna, the ship will probably have already burned off close to half its mass; if it happens early in the descent even just one engine ought to be able to abort to Lunar orbit and one engine working reliably should be able to shove it back up to a return to L1 trajectory. Also, once we've avoided impacting the Lunar surface, it should be possible to use all three working engines, if we can gimbal their thrust axes so the net force runs through the center of mass. If we are so far down the descent trajectory that aborting to orbit is not an option the ship will be considerably lighter, so I was figuring each of the 5 engines should be about 40 KN of thrust. So I wanted to use one of those same engines for the TLI stage. But that's too slow for shoving 77 tonnes into TLI!

Maybe if we can use a cluster of 5 of them, then their interchangability with the Moonbug's engines comes in handy--an aborted Moonbug that manages to return to L1 with one or two engines out can just take a couple from the TLI stage.

Oh, yes, I didn't want to discard the TLI stage until it was used one last time to boost the return vehicle (an Apollo Block III+ or equivalent) back to Earth. I think if it has a cluster of 5 of these Moonbug engines and it donates a couple to keeping the Moonbug working, it can still do the injection back to Earth from L1 quite handily.

Anyway, with the third stage option, we should be able to launch a complete standard Apollo Block III+ stack plus about 10 tonnes extra--extra fuel in the TLI stage, perhaps, to be donated to the Moonbug and to the L1 station fuel dump. Or water to be electrolysized into fuel for a future mission.

Lots of equipment and supplies to be landed on the Moon in the Moonbug is a tricky proposition though. I'm not sure the Moonbug can have even a sufficient dry mass to be structurally sound, let alone haul down tonnes of payload to Luna. It would be quite different if Lunar water were available in abundance and cost-effectively; then we could save about 9 of the normal 30 tonne round trip fuel load and use that for cargo each way (so we could haul Lunar water up to L1, for instance).

Until that awaited day, I think that the Moonbug would be a device for getting people to and from the Moon, and any equipment or long-stay supplies they need needs to come in a separate launch from Earth to be landed directly at the exploration site, with no detours to L1. I figure if the Heavy can launch a stack including TLI stage plus 30 tonnes TLI payload, 12 of those tonnes can land softly on Luna; how much of that is useful payload I don't know.

---
Yet another use of Langrange points that might seem very interesting in this timeline, with the Saturn Multibody Heavy available, that I've seen suggested for our own future is using them to achieve multiple inclination orbits from a single launch. Specifically the idea is for launching large swarms of satellites, for GPS or low-altitude comsats or other applications that want global coverage at a low orbital altitude. The trouble with such constellations is, you want the mini-satellites to be in many differently inclined orbits, otherwise you either aren't covering high latitudes (assuming an equatorial type launch) or with polar orbits, the things cluster too much in the high latitudes and don't cover low latitudes well. But it is terribly costly to achieve a good range of inclinations from a single launch, and also costly to have dozens or conceivably hundreds or more separate launches to each desired inclination.

If we put all out constellation objects in one big cluster and send that cluster to L1, then it is relatively easy to send them separately from there back to Earth on trajectories at different inclinations. They'd achieve proper low circular orbits by aerobraking or aerocapture.

The cost is of course sending them all that way out first; rather more than half of the mass one can launch into low Earth orbit will get used up as propellent to get the payload out to L1 in the first place.

But with such a heavy booster as the Saturn Multibody Heavy available, we are still talking about 30 tonnes out there--maybe more like 25 or less once they've done their vector changes, and aerocapture implies still more maneuvering once they fall back to Earth. Still, a Heavy should be able to put 10-15 tonnes of mini or micro satellites into a full spectrum of separate orbits in just one launch.

The Lagrange points certainly do open up some interesting options!

Originally Posted by Warringer

I'd like to point you towards the recent studies about propellant depots in orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_depot
http://www.nss.org/articles/depots.html

Thank you for those references!

You can see why I am so interested in them.

None of these references give figures as to the sorts of equipment masses and power demands it would take to maintain tonnes of liquid hydrogen indefinitely. That depends on how good the insulation and shading of the cryogenic tanks are of course.

Still it would be nice to know, "given that one kilogram of hydrogen has evaporated in the past hour, how much power would it take to recompress it and re-chill it to a liquid, within one hour?" Versus, how much solar energy would it take to split one kilogram of water into oxygen and hydrogen--then to liquefy these two gases of course!

I'm really hoping it can be feasible to ship water to these depots, rather than already separated and liquefied hydrogen and oxygen.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

hi Shevek23
after the demand of su_liam, i start to calculate the "classical" Saturn-1C hardware in comparison to Saturn 1B
as reverence i used the book "Grenzenlose Dimension Raumfahrt Band 2" by Harry o. Ruppe

Michel,

In part one reason I've been holding back is that the Saturn 1C's and particularly Saturn Multibody's actual mass breakdowns were very rough. However, it looks like your estimates concur roughly with mine, and I think I can point to where different assumptions make the difference.

Stage S-1C
406000 kg Fuel LOX/RP-1 (6000kg leftover in the tank)
6580 kg tank !
1096 kg structural part
8390 kg F-1 engine
670 kg rest (hydraulic helium gas tanks etc.)
422676 kg in total vs. 452000 kg to S-1B
to put it more drastic is burn out weight S-1C 22676 kg vs. 50500 kg of the S-1B, why?
It's the mass of the 9 tanks and there complex plumbing with left over fuel in it!

You went into way more detail than I did, and came up with a lot less dry mass. My guess was a reduction by about 5% of the initial dry mass. You're saying more like 50% is possible? It doesn't feel quite right, 6.5 tons of tank seems a little low for 406 tons of fuel--only 1.5% of the enclosed mass! I'd have guessed more like 5-6% at least. which brings the total burnout mass to about my 40 ton guess. What data to you have to support that suggested tank mass?

1940 kg Instrument unit

With the redesign happening for Saturn 1C occuring nearly a decade after the original instrument unit's design, I think a good bit of weight can be saved here.

15000 kg Apollo CSM
4000 kg apollo escape system (jettison during Stage S-1C S-IVB separation)

The LES is a little lighter in my guess--the area of risk from around the Saturn 1C will be smaller than the original LES design case of a Saturn V going off--guesstimate of about half a ton reduction, but no really solid justification for picking that specific number.

Thrust IC 6.67 MN vr. IB 7.1 MN
that lower as IB and absolute minimum thrust for Saturn-IC get of the launch pad

The F1A was rated and tested for ~8 MN at sea level, with that rising to 8.9 MN in vacuum. You're using a default F1 there, not the latest model. It's actually not only nice on off-the-pad thrust, but it helps late in the burn where the F-1A's throttle (it can come down to 75% thrust) helps avoid too high of a burnout acceleration. These features of the F-1A are OTL, but in the Saturn 1C's application they are very useful.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Still it would be nice to know, "given that one kilogram of hydrogen has evaporated in the past hour, how much power would it take to recompress it and re-chill it to a liquid, within one hour?" Versus, how much solar energy would it take to split one kilogram of water into oxygen and hydrogen--then to liquefy these two gases of course!

I'm really hoping it can be feasible to ship water to these depots, rather than already separated and liquefied hydrogen and oxygen.

The highest ISP LH2/LOX engine, the RL-10, has an oxidizer/fuel ratio of 5.75 to 1, as opposed to 8:1 in water. Even if one carries only water in those tanks (which would likely save on insulation needs, as the electrolyzed product would only be in its tanks a few days/hours), one would either need to carry extra water or keep an LH2 tank for the balance.

[e of pi]

There's more here than I have time to respond to tonight, but a few notes. First, I'd like to note that this thread has now passed 500 comments, and is closing rapidly on 35,000 views. That's more than I ever could have imagined when truth asked me to help out with some number crunching for a project of his a year ago.

Work is progressing (slowly) on Part II, but it's coming along. I'll be honest that the large part of the delay is my schedule--I just haven't had the uninterrupted time to sit down and rework things like station designs. That time should come a bit more after the end of this month, due to a few things. However, I think there's a lot of stuff people are going to enjoy reading in these posts--especially the unmanned probe and rover coverage truth has been doing, which is always a highlight of my week when a new draft goes up.

A link to the wiki page now appears in my sig, I'm planning to revise that when I have some free time this weekend. I hope I'll have free time this weekend, anyway...

Polish Eagle: The new images look great, though I think some blurring of the edges could hide the changes in sky colors and such between copied portions--the current version has some rather hard lines.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Polish Eagle: The new images look great, though I think some blurring of the edges could hide the changes in sky colors and such between copied portions--the current version has some rather hard lines.

Not the first time I've heard that complaint tonight. I'm going to try to blur them a little in Paint.NET and see what comes out.

[wingman]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Not the first time I've heard that complaint tonight. I'm going to try to blur them a little in Paint.NET and see what comes out.

they not that bad, but then again my skills at Photoshop (or related programs) well they are not the best.

[Warringer]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Hi!

*snippage*

Thank you for those references!

You can see why I am so interested in them.

None of these references give figures as to the sorts of equipment masses and power demands it would take to maintain tonnes of liquid hydrogen indefinitely. That depends on how good the insulation and shading of the cryogenic tanks are of course.

Still it would be nice to know, "given that one kilogram of hydrogen has evaporated in the past hour, how much power would it take to recompress it and re-chill it to a liquid, within one hour?" Versus, how much solar energy would it take to split one kilogram of water into oxygen and hydrogen--then to liquefy these two gases of course!

I'm really hoping it can be feasible to ship water to these depots, rather than already separated and liquefied hydrogen and oxygen.

I think is always better to get water upstairs then separate hydrogen and oxygen. Mainly because its easier to contain plain old water in a simple tank, while liquid oxygen and hydrogen ar much more energy expansive to keep refrigerated and stored.

But in the end I guess you need to do your own calculations.

Hmmm... Maybe the shade in space and a number of radiators may make refrigerating easier.

[Michel Van]

about my calulation
They optium data. in reality the stage would heavyer.
That fuel tank have very low mass, if it's build like S-IVB !
but on next generation Saturn IC common core booster, the fueltank will have even less mass !
if they are build like Shuttle main Tank

also i found error about Saturn IB data
empty weigth of S-1b is not 50500 kg but around 38000 kg
according to NASA document i fund at NTRS
it's very difficule to find real data about Saturn Hardware.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Warringer

Hmmm... Maybe the shade in space and a number of radiators may make refrigerating easier.

Yeah, it does. LOX basically just needs some shade and it'll settle itself. Hydrogen needs a tiny bit of active chilling or you'll lose about 5% over a few months (I'd have to dig up the studies on this, I know there's been several). Cracking water is very energy expensive--after all, if water didn't take so much energy to crack, LH2-LOW combustion (the reverse process, basically) wouldn't so energetic. The very thing that makes it great fuel makes it a pain to crack--about 13 MegaJoules/kg, or about 18.5 hours to crack a single ton of water with ISS's arrays producing 200 kW. The demands of active cooling a well-shaded depot are orders of magnitude less.

If you find the low-density and boil-off of hydrogen to be an issue, another option is an oxidizer-only depot. LOX has roughly the same density of water, the equilibrium temperature is low enough it won't boil if shaded, and it's about 85% or more of a hydrogen/oxygen, kerosene/oxygen, or methanae/oxygen rocket though that obviously varies with specific fuels. (Methane IIRC has similar storage temps, so if you want minimal active cooling and storage of both fuels you might want a methane-based architecture.)

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

about my calulation
They optium data. in reality the stage would heavyer.
That fuel tank have very low mass, if it's build like S-IVB !
but on next generation Saturn IC common core booster, the fueltank will have even less mass !
if they are build like Shuttle main Tank

It can't be built quite like the Shuttle main tank. The Shuttle ET has the distinct advantage of no thrust structure or heavy engines. Anyway, I took another look and you're right about the rough mass for the Saturn 1C first stage, it looks like it really could be made about 24 tons overall. I will revise my figures accordingly.

[neopeius]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Work is progressing (slowly) on Part II, but it's coming along. I'll be honest that the large part of the delay is my schedule--I just haven't had the uninterrupted time to sit down and rework things like station designs. That time should come a bit more after the end of this month, due to a few things. However, I think there's a lot of stuff people are going to enjoy reading in these posts--especially the unmanned probe and rover coverage truth has been doing, which is always a highlight of my week when a new draft goes up.

Take your time. Your fans will be here. I really appreciate the effort you put into gearheading all this stuff.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by neopeius

Take your time. Your fans will be here. I really appreciate the effort you put into gearheading all this stuff.

Well, thank you, but say that again after I get down yanking the man out from behind the curtain, eh? I've been doing gearheading the the level where I thought people would care and the level that interested me on that particular launch vehicle, so I offer no guarantees of completeness or correctness on anything. Anyway, with that caveat in mind, I'm beginning a technical info page on the wiki.So far it's just an outline of launch vehicles I intend to flesh out more, but my plan is to have it there with at least some data on the major vehicles from the TL. Tonight the main thing was creating it, and adding the Saturn 1B, the Saturn V, and the Saturn 1C. Tomorrow...we'll see. Probably Saturn Multibody.

The following vehicles will be largely OTL in terms of specs if someone wants to take a crack at adding them or expanding them:
Atlas variants through 1978
Titan variants through 1980
Delta through 1978
Soyuz rocket through 1980
Proton through 1982
Europa 1 and 2 rockets (except for service history)
Saturn 1
Saturn 1B
Saturn V
If people would be up to that to allow me to focus on TTL's vehicles...that'd be nice.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by e of pi

....
Titan variants through 1980
....
If people would be up to that to allow me to focus on TTL's vehicles...that'd be nice.

i work on what happen to Titan in this TL under worktitel "Rise and Fall of the Titan" (as proposal)
it's rise of ICBM Titan-II to low cost Launcher in 1960s
almost got in NASA with Titan IIIM/F version to replace Saturn-IB
But get's in between rivalry of Saturn-Gang and Shuttle-Maffia in 1967-1970
How USAF get involed with Shuttle-Maffia and how the program was killed and the rise of Saturn-IC.
and the last launchs of Titan IIIE/D while USAF NASA change on Saturn-IC and Saturn Multicore in 1970s/1980s
(this huge cost reduction factor, if more as 4 Saturn IC/year are build)
after a Titan IIIC explode over Califorina and the wind push toxic fume over citrusfruits plantation,
the Senat and Congress kill the Titan Program...

also i can provide with Europa 1/2/3/4 Information

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

i work on what happen to Titan in this TL under worktitel "Rise and Fall of the Titan" (as proposal)
it's rise of ICBM Titan-II to low cost Launcher in 1960s
almost got in NASA with Titan IIIM/F version to replace Saturn-IB
But get's in between rivalry of Saturn-Gang and Shuttle-Maffia in 1967-1970
How USAF get involed with Shuttle-Maffia and how the program was killed and the rise of Saturn-IC.
and the last launchs of Titan IIIE/D while USAF NASA change on Saturn-IC and Saturn Multicore in 1970s/1980s
(this huge cost reduction factor, if more as 4 Saturn IC/year are build)
after a Titan IIIC explode over Califorina and the wind push toxic fume over citrusfruits plantation,
the Senat and Congress kill the Titan Program...

also i can provide with Europa 1/2/3/4 Information

Well, we were already working on something for the Titan ourselves, but I'd love to see what you have if you'd PM it to me. Depending on how it works out, we might just drop our previous plans (it's happened before, many times).

And the Europa information would be great! Our Europa III isn't the same as the OTL Europa III, though (e of pi would know more about that, though), but by all means, feel free to put up Europa I/II information on the wiki. Or here, if you'd rather.

[Bahamut-255]

Something I've thought about. Venus. IOTL, the USSR managed to send a couple of landers onto the Venusian Surface from the late '70s to the mid '80s - and have been the only ones to accomplish that task - IIRC. I'm curious as to how things concerning that planet will operate ITTL.

The Venera Series is certainly something I'd like to see.

[Michel Van]

Some Info about the Europa rockets
Europa 1 as satellite launcher for LOW
Europa 2 as GEO satellite launcher
Europa 3 A B C D was:
A version was Blue Streak with second stage Lox/lh2 (in size of Centaur)
B was new stage french L120 with second stage High pressure engine Lox/lh2
C was a based on Blue streak Hardware but build by Italy and France !
with 4 RZ2 engine and had also second stage Lox/lh2
D German design fist stage Lox/lh2, second stage Astrid (europa 1/2 stage three) or Lox/lh2

Europa 4
look more like Titan IIIC but with 3 Blue Streaks and second stage Lox/lh2

Europa TA
that was program for Booster for Europa 2/3
this french 2xDiamant rocket or 2~4xP-10 solid rocket
MBB proposed systems wat was later used on Ariane 4 rocket

OTL in end only Europa 3B survied and transform into cheaper Ariane 1 rocket

but the Blue Streak was not bad, it work perfect.
Exept for flight F11 were the new Autopilot got braindeath and rocket break apart
had the Germans had build the Astrid better
ELDO had FIAT testobject in orbit with flight F7 at 30 november 1968
that had change allot in Europa space progam...

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Bahamut-255

Something I've thought about. Venus. IOTL, the USSR managed to send a couple of landers onto the Venusian Surface from the late '70s to the mid '80s - and have been the only ones to accomplish that task - IIRC. I'm curious as to how things concerning that planet will operate ITTL.

The Venera Series is certainly something I'd like to see.

I can tell you that a post on Venusian exploration is among the unmanned series truth has been working away on. From what I recall off the top of my head, Venus still ends up being a bit of a sideline to Mars for NASA, but it sees an orbiter or two.

[Bahamut-255]

Originally Posted by e of pi

I can tell you that a post on Venusian exploration is among the unmanned series truth has been working away on. From what I recall off the top of my head, Venus still ends up being a bit of a sideline to Mars for NASA, but it sees an orbiter or two.

Then it sounds like the Outer Planets and Mars are still the major points of interest for NASA.

Gonna be worth the wait, I'm certain.

[Bahamut-255]

In another key point that I've been having some thought about, I gotta ask about something concerning Saturn H03 - the 77,000Kg to LEO one.

You've already explained in my TL that 77,000Kg to LEO is enough to put about 35,000Kg to TLI - depending on engine Isp. So I know that that makes a Return to the Moon a possibility. In fact, selling such a plan in the 1990s under SEI - or an equivalent/modified scheme - may be easier since they don't have to develop a new HLV, because they already have a HLV that's up to the job. So long as they don't opt for a method costing ~$450Bn!

This also has an effect on Manned Mars Missions IMHO. With Saturn H03, I severely doubt that there'd be any real wish for an more powerful LV just for sending sufficient payload to Mars for Manned Missions there. So this leads us to Earth Orbit Assembly (EOA). Under OTL 'Mars Direct' or 'Mars Semi-Direct', you could use two Saturn H03 launches for each major component to be sent on it's way. So long as the engines are always pointing directly towards the Sun while waiting for the next part, you should be able to limit the boil-off losses to an acceptable level - active refrigeration if needed - and still be able to send the various spacecraft on their way.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Bahamut-255

In another key point that I've been having some thought about, I gotta as about some thing concerning Saturn H03 - the 77,000Kg to LEO one.

You've already explained in my TL that 77,000Kg to LEO is enough to put about 35,000Kg to TLI - depending on engine Isp. So I know that that makes a Return to the Moon a possibility. In fact, selling such a plan in the 1990s under SEI - or an equivalent/modified scheme - may be easier since they don't have to develop a new HLV, because they already have a HLV that's up to the job. So long as they don't opt for a method costing ~$450Bn!

This also has an effect on Manned Mars Missions IMHO. With Saturn H03, I severely doubt that there'd be any real wish for an more powerful LV just for sending sufficient payload to Mars for Manned Missions there. So this leads us to Earth Orbit Assembly (EOA). Under OTL 'Mars Direct' or 'Mars Semi-Direct', you could use two Saturn H03 launches for each major component to be sent on it's way. So long as the engines are always pointing directly towards the Sun while waiting for the next part, you should be able to limit the boil-off losses to an acceptable level - active refrigeration if needed - and still be able to send the various spacecraft on their way.

I don't actually see a question there, so I will respond simply: Yes, this is all technically feasible. We shall see how technical feasibility is modified by political and budgetary realities in Part II. The TLI payload of Saturn H03 is more like 30 tons unless you place an additional upper stage on above and beyond the SIVC, but that's still enough to get a crew vehicle to L1/2 or LLO with enough fuel to get back. A lander in the 65 ton range (Altai-sized or a bit more) should be doable with a 77-ton EDS and a two-launch EOR mechanism through TLI. Those two elements can meet at L1 or LLo for a LOR-LOR architecture, or landers can be sent on their own unmanned for cargo duties.