Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/31/2010 03:55 amQuote from: sdsds on 05/31/2010 02:38 amt's reasonable to ask what kinds of missions are enabled by a vehicle that launches a 135 t payload into LEO?The HLLV study said that this rocket would be able to boost nearly 41 tonnes to trans lunar injection velocity. That's more than an early Apollo TLI payload, making sortie landings plausible. An interesting aspect of this design appears to be that it might do TLI with only two stages and eight engines, rather than the three stages and 11 engines of Saturn V. The study also said that this rocket could do a Mars mission with seven launches, fewer than any other rocket. Finally, the study said that this rocket would cost less to operate than any of the studied Shuttle-derived alternatives and that it would be ready in nearly the same amount of time. - Ed KyleNote, however, that they did the operating cost comparison assuming a constant flight rate: four launches a year, regardless of size. That tilts the analysis in favor of the bigger launchers. if your mission model requires 560 tons a year in LEO, that's at least 8 launches for a 70t launcher, and that changes the economics a lot.
Quote from: sdsds on 05/31/2010 02:38 amt's reasonable to ask what kinds of missions are enabled by a vehicle that launches a 135 t payload into LEO?The HLLV study said that this rocket would be able to boost nearly 41 tonnes to trans lunar injection velocity. That's more than an early Apollo TLI payload, making sortie landings plausible. An interesting aspect of this design appears to be that it might do TLI with only two stages and eight engines, rather than the three stages and 11 engines of Saturn V. The study also said that this rocket could do a Mars mission with seven launches, fewer than any other rocket. Finally, the study said that this rocket would cost less to operate than any of the studied Shuttle-derived alternatives and that it would be ready in nearly the same amount of time. - Ed Kyle
t's reasonable to ask what kinds of missions are enabled by a vehicle that launches a 135 t payload into LEO?
Quote from: Downix on 05/31/2010 01:48 pmQuote from: HappyMartian on 05/31/2010 01:03 pmQuote from: ugordan on 05/31/2010 01:00 pmWouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...Cheers!Or if it was a pure H2/LOX based rocket, such as the suggested Boeing SD-HLV evolutionWhere is that from, and what is its payload to orbit? I can't find it the Boeing SpaceOPS 2010 presentation.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/31/2010 01:03 pmQuote from: ugordan on 05/31/2010 01:00 pmWouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...Cheers!Or if it was a pure H2/LOX based rocket, such as the suggested Boeing SD-HLV evolution
Quote from: ugordan on 05/31/2010 01:00 pmWouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...Cheers!
Wouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble?
Quote from: 2552 on 05/31/2010 08:15 pmQuote from: Downix on 05/31/2010 01:48 pmQuote from: HappyMartian on 05/31/2010 01:03 pmQuote from: ugordan on 05/31/2010 01:00 pmWouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...Cheers!Or if it was a pure H2/LOX based rocket, such as the suggested Boeing SD-HLV evolutionWhere is that from, and what is its payload to orbit? I can't find it the Boeing SpaceOPS 2010 presentation.Page 9, figure 14. 16.0 mT to ISS.cheers, Martin
...Take for example a one-way cargo mission to the lunar surface. How much mass (not counting the lander itself) could be landed by a system that massed 135 t in LEO?...
Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/31/2010 12:57 pmI'd be willing to suggest a name...Neptune 8.For now I would like to stick with MSFC Concept 103, which is how it is identified in the HLLV study. MSFC also considered an ET-diameter kerosene rocket, augmented by two Atlas V CCBs, called Concept 101, but this concept (which would have been powered by a total of seven RD-180s and a single J-2X upper stage engine) appears to have been dropped or bypassed in favor of Concept 103. - Ed Kyle
I'd be willing to suggest a name...Neptune 8.
Quote from: hydra9 on 05/31/2010 05:42 am 1. Why spend billions of NASA money studying global warming only to launch a vehicle that contributes to global warming?4. It utilizes a fossil fuel that is likely to be substantially more expensive a decade from now. Marcel F. Williams These type of posts are determine whether a poster's opinions should be listened to or ignored. This post screams ignoreSRB's are more polluting than a Kerosene, in ozone depleting and acid clouds and many other areas that include perchlorates in ground water. They also put many other more harmful contaminates in the air.1. SRB contributes to global warming too. Water contributes to global warming. Same goes for hydrogen powered vehicle. Hydrogen is made from hydrocarbons and contribute more carbon. This is not going to change for decades (many years past the program life of any current launch vehicle)4. the cost of liquid propellant is insignificant, less than a few percent of the whole cost of the vehicle. Even a ten times increase in the cost of propellant is not going to have a significant affect on the percentage. Anyways, the increase in cost of fossil fuels is going to increase the cost of SRB's too.
1. Why spend billions of NASA money studying global warming only to launch a vehicle that contributes to global warming?4. It utilizes a fossil fuel that is likely to be substantially more expensive a decade from now. Marcel F. Williams
1. Please, not the water is a greenhouse gas argument again:-) 2. Hydrogen can be derived from the electrolysis of of water using nuclear or hydroelectric power plants. If we are to mitigate global warming and global sea rise while also reducing our dependence of foreign oil, we have to move towards a nuclear and renewable energy economy.3 It still may be possible to produce the kerosene rocket fuel from hydrogen by synthesizing it with CO2 extracted from the atmosphere or from biowaste. But it would probably be more expensive than liquid hydrogen. 4. Bolden's advocacy for a greenhouse gas polluting rocket while spending billions of tax payer money for NASA to study global warming is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Is there a Boeing 2010 pdf that I'm missing out on?Can someone direct me to the thread where it's posted? Thanks!
Concept 1Stg 2 (2xJ-2x = 266 tonnesf) Gross Mass 319 tonnesPL=135 tonnesDelta-v = 9,299 m/sConcept 2Stg 2 (2xJ2X T=266 tonnesf) Gross Mass 293 tonnesPL=135 tonnesDelta-v = 9,192 m/s
Is there any kerosene design using only a single J-2X that could achieve performance anything like this? Asked another way, how much better are these than a launcher using a stretched Ares I Upper Stage?
Does anyone know why MSFC Concept 101 was dropped?
How much would you need to beef up the pads and sound-suppression systems to handle 9-12 million tons of thrust-exhaust? Keeping in mind they were designed for the 7.5 million ton Saturn V, and modified for the ~7 million ton Shuttle...
Quote from: simonbp on 06/01/2010 04:39 amHow much would you need to beef up the pads and sound-suppression systems to handle 9-12 million tons of thrust-exhaust? Keeping in mind they were designed for the 7.5 million ton Saturn V, and modified for the ~7 million ton Shuttle...I remember a previous discussion about margin built into the launch pad system. Something like 10 million pounds thrust comes to mind, which should accommodate the Concept 103 liftoff thrust. - Ed Kyle
I thought the kerolox strap-ons envisaged for shuttle would be interesting to post here.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 06/01/2010 12:04 amDoes anyone know why MSFC Concept 101 was dropped? My guess is that it didn't meet the requirements of the study. An 8.4 meter kerosene core with five RD-180s, augmented by two Atlas CCBs with one RD-180 each, topped by a 4xJ-2X second stage and a 5xRL10 third stage could only lift 99.7 tonnes to LEO or 40 tonnes to TLI. - Ed Kyle