Author Topic: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles  (Read 11664 times)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #20 on: 06/21/2010 04:57 PM »
It's obvious you EELV guys can't as it upsets your delicate and carefully constructed non-HLV religion.

I'm not an EELV guy.

I did mean their fans and you are the biggest.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7443
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #21 on: 06/21/2010 04:59 PM »
I did mean their fans and you are the biggest.

Nope. Not only is this is off-topic, but you are misrepresenting my position.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 327
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #22 on: 06/21/2010 05:03 PM »
I know of at least one "Big" government payload that they were counting on Ares V to lift (and no I can not talk about it).
Those plans are now very much in limbo.
So you are saying that you know of a big government payload but you can not point to a public reference to what that payload is.  Then why are you mentioning it?

Maybe I'm wrong or naive, but if the DoD really wanted an HLV they would let people know and Obama, the Commander in Chief, would not put HLV development at NASA on hold.

Why can't you guys just graciously accept any inside info offered and stop berating the kind messengers who don't have to offer this information to us ?

http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/06/bolden-heavy-lift-will-be-international-effort-and-not-until-2020-2030/

"I haven't talked to anybody that doesn't agree that the nation needs heavy lift capability," said Bolden. "We need it for science, intelligence, for DOD, and NASA needs it for sending humans beyond orbit.
How do we evolve there? We take the lessons learned from Constellation. If I'm able to negotiate with Congress appropriately we may actually be carving out some subsystems that are in Constellation because they are advanced technology, and they are things that we will need to develop a heavy lift system. So while we will phase out the Constellation program per se, I donít want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We want to try to capture technologies and capabilities that are resident in Constellation as we migrate towards a new system."

Asked specifically about a timetable for heavy lift, Bolden said he ideally would like to see a rocket ready to go in the 2020 Ė 2030 time-frame, but that first NASA needs to decide what the destinations are. He said he thought Mars was the ultimate destination for humans, but that we would need to spend some time on the Moon first.


There, Bolden spelt it out for you.

:o  Oh wow. I never saw this comment by him. Given the current state of affairs, talk about ironic :P :P :P
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28101
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7913
  • Likes Given: 5269
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #23 on: 06/21/2010 05:14 PM »
This thread title is pathetic. What happened to the old one?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28101
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7913
  • Likes Given: 5269
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #24 on: 06/21/2010 05:46 PM »
Bolden can be wrong, no doubt about that. Doesn't mean we should stick to a Shuttle-derived infrastructure (but if we are, then we had best pick a good one).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #25 on: 06/21/2010 08:17 PM »


1.  When designing a launch vehicle the rocket men need to know the approximate mass, volume and orbit of the payload.  The payload can be treated as a black box.  For estimation of market purposes orbit only means LEO, GEO, polar, sun synchronous and the one one that gives extra spying time over the USSR.


1.  Not true.  More information on the payloads is required.

Basically, the post was a waste of forum space

Not really a waste.  Got my attention.   :)

What would be some of the payload spec categories (categories, not values) a launch vehicle would need to be designed too?  A reference would be great.  Categories I can think of, along the lines I'm thinking, would be acoustic, vibrational, and thermal environment, both on the ground and in the air, loading, shocks, and interface (electrical, mechanical, and fairing size).  Oh, and of course cost.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10888
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #26 on: 06/21/2010 08:55 PM »


1.  When designing a launch vehicle the rocket men need to know the approximate mass, volume and orbit of the payload.  The payload can be treated as a black box.  For estimation of market purposes orbit only means LEO, GEO, polar, sun synchronous and the one one that gives extra spying time over the USSR.


1.  Not true.  More information on the payloads is required.

Basically, the post was a waste of forum space

Not really a waste.  Got my attention.   :)

What would be some of the payload spec categories (categories, not values) a launch vehicle would need to be designed too?  A reference would be great.  Categories I can think of, along the lines I'm thinking, would be acoustic, vibrational, and thermal environment, both on the ground and in the air, loading, shocks, and interface (electrical, mechanical, and fairing size).  Oh, and of course cost.


The EELV SIS and System Performance (not just payload mass) Reference documents.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2010 09:17 PM by Jim »

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #27 on: 06/21/2010 10:43 PM »

The EELV SIS and System Performance (not just payload mass) Reference documents.

Thanks.  Digging into EELV lead me to the National Mission Model (NMM) for the EELV.  http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/eelvrfp1/annex_c.htm (Annex C-1)  There, the DoD spells out their needs in regard to EELV and classified missions are just labeled A, B, C, etc.  I gather this is for planning, acquisition (RFP), and GAO sort of needs.  However, I just read web info that interested me and therefore I don't really know.  Anyway, this just reinforces the idea that if DoD really seriously wanted HLV (Ares V/Shuttle Derived class) there would be similar public planning documents.  If anyone can point them out, that would be great.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5403
  • Liked: 943
  • Likes Given: 622
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #28 on: 06/21/2010 11:16 PM »
"I haven't talked to anybody that doesn't agree that the nation needs heavy lift capability," said Bolden. "We need it for science, intelligence, for DOD, and NASA needs it for sending humans beyond orbit."

It's one thing for Bolden, in his (legitimate) role as cheerleader for the administration's space policy to say that heavy lift is needed.  It's entirely another to back up these "needs" with funded programs.  Take science.  One can dream about very large telescopes being place at a Lagrangian Point, but no such program has been funded or is likely to be funded in the near future.  This is just cheer-leading, as are the other points.

If Bolden's statement that everyone he's talked to says heavy lift is needed, then he hasn't talked to enough people.  For example, Jeff Greason, who as president of XCOR knows a thing or two and served on the Augustine commission is on record as saying that a cost-optimized 25-30 tonne vehicle with a 50-75-tonne variant (e.g., multi-core version) is entirely adequate.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 327
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #29 on: 06/21/2010 11:42 PM »
"I haven't talked to anybody that doesn't agree that the nation needs heavy lift capability," said Bolden. "We need it for science, intelligence, for DOD, and NASA needs it for sending humans beyond orbit."

It's one thing for Bolden, in his (legitimate) role as cheerleader for the administration's space policy to say that heavy lift is needed.  It's entirely another to back up these "needs" with funded programs.  Take science.  One can dream about very large telescopes being place at a Lagrangian Point, but no such program has been funded or is likely to be funded in the near future.  This is just cheer-leading, as are the other points.

If Bolden's statement that everyone he's talked to says heavy lift is needed, then he hasn't talked to enough people.  For example, Jeff Greason, who as president of XCOR knows a thing or two and served on the Augustine commission is on record as saying that a cost-optimized 25-30 tonne vehicle with a 50-75-tonne variant (e.g., multi-core version) is entirely adequate.


" 50-75-tonne variant (e.g., multi-core version) is entirely adequate.
"


J130 with 2 atlas CCBs is 56 mt to LEO. Atlas can be phased up itself into a Super heavy HLV.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #30 on: 06/22/2010 12:05 AM »
Any thoughts on this document?  It was published in 2006.  Any more up to date publications?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf

One point it makes is that the NSS needs are met though 2020.

Offline martin hegedus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #31 on: 06/22/2010 01:54 AM »
After spending more time on that document then I should have, here is the one tidbit.

"Chapter Three also indicates that the production capacity for Atlas V is sufficient to satisfy the total projected demand for EELV intermediate launch vehicles and that the production capacity for Delta IV, with one possible exception, can satisfy the entire projected NSS launch demand. The exception involves the requirement to increase the Delta IV Heavy lift capability to accommodate a single NRO payload. The best solution to this requirement is currently under study."

And later on

"Currently, the U.S. Air Force indicates that the Boeing Delta IV Heavy falls slightly short of meeting the performance needed for an NRO mission scheduled to launch before 2010. The Air Force is confident that modifications to the Delta IV will provide
sufficient lift. The cost of these modifications to attain the required performance improvement is estimated to be on the order of $200 million."

Anyone know if this was dealt with?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10888
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #32 on: 06/22/2010 02:17 AM »
After spending more time on that document then I should have, here is the one tidbit.

"Chapter Three also indicates that the production capacity for Atlas V is sufficient to satisfy the total projected demand for EELV intermediate launch vehicles and that the production capacity for Delta IV, with one possible exception, can satisfy the entire projected NSS launch demand. The exception involves the requirement to increase the Delta IV Heavy lift capability to accommodate a single NRO payload. The best solution to this requirement is currently under study."

And later on

"Currently, the U.S. Air Force indicates that the Boeing Delta IV Heavy falls slightly short of meeting the performance needed for an NRO mission scheduled to launch before 2010. The Air Force is confident that modifications to the Delta IV will provide
sufficient lift. The cost of these modifications to attain the required performance improvement is estimated to be on the order of $200 million."

Anyone know if this was dealt with?


RS-68A

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #33 on: 06/22/2010 04:09 AM »
"Heavy" lift means different things to different groups. For DOD, it can be as little as the uprated, upcoming Delta IV Heavy /w RS-68A -- ~30 mton. For MSFC, it can mean 140 (200?) mton leviathans. Misinterpretation is probably rampant.
    -Alex

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5403
  • Liked: 943
  • Likes Given: 622
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #34 on: 06/22/2010 04:57 AM »
"Heavy" lift means different things to different groups. For DOD, it can be as little as the uprated, upcoming Delta IV Heavy /w RS-68A -- ~30 mton. For MSFC, it can mean 140 (200?) mton leviathans. Misinterpretation is probably rampant.

Amen.  It behooves us all to be very clear about what we mean when we say "heavy lift."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10888
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: DOD spacecraft projects for existing vehicles
« Reply #35 on: 06/22/2010 11:30 AM »
"Heavy" lift means different things to different groups. For DOD, it can be as little as the uprated, upcoming Delta IV Heavy /w RS-68A -- ~30 mton. For MSFC, it can mean 140 (200?) mton leviathans. Misinterpretation is probably rampant.
    -Alex

For the DOD, "Heavy" lift is not a Delta IV Heavy /w RS-68A.  It is a heavy EELV but not an HLV.

Tags: