Author Topic: Completed SD HLV assessment highlights low-cost post-shuttle solution  (Read 60085 times)

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Understandably any SDLV with an inline payload requires launch tower modifications.  But what about modifications to the pad below?  Can the hybrid inline-payload with sidemount-engines be flown without changes to the existing launch platforms, flame ducts, etc?  Is that what lets it fly soon?
It seems that there's also some concern about the changes to the LOX and LH2 fill, vent, and drain lines in the MLP that are going to cost some $$$ and take some time if trying to modify the exisiting MLPs. Can't just use the existing beanie cap and tail service masts with in-line.

Of course there's a shiny new structure sitting outside the VAB waiting to be outfitted with servicing equipment. I wonder if they considered using it, or if that's just one of the things that didn't get looked at before the study wound down.

I am curious if the potential SRB aft assembly buckling issues for the 5 segment SRBs and stretched tank cited in the article were a known issue that would have added to Ares V's costs and further reduced commonality with Ares I. Or did SSP just have better knowledge of the potential issue than CxP.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
The take on side mount vs inline is interesting, particularly in regards to side mount then transition to inline. I worry a bit that the study was a bit biased to side mount since that is what they started looking at and then added the inline configuration later.

I'm sure they did a very good job with the study but it does look like they reached some conclusions that were different then Boeing and Direct. This study gives significantly higher estimates on time frames and costs. It will be interesting to hear what comments the Direct guys have. Boeing as well but I don't know if anyone that was involved with that study posts here.

It would seem like doing a side mount and then doing inline would be the most expensive path to take. If an inline configuration is what is ultimately wanted then not developing a side mount version first would save billions of dollars. For the extra once only pad modifications and development an inline has much better performance. And thats even if a side mount is cheaper which the Direct team claims it is not.

I think the issue here is that the sensibilities of 'straight to inline' are tempered with the need for a really 'quick and dirty' test vehicle to justify keeping the current workforce over the transition period. Hence the emphasis on sidemount?

Shannons team made some very interesting points in relation to ET modifications as their justification for Sidemount over Inline (smHLV vs. j130 block 1 configs). I will be interested to see the DIRECT team's response to their claims.

Personally inline appears to make more sense. From my viewpoint it would seem that Mr. Shannons team may have overestimated both cost and time on ET strengthing modifications, simply because I think they (may) overestimated structural loads (possibly). Again I would like to wait for an offical response from DIRECT on this issue.

Case and point is that they do evolve to inline showing that for missions like lunar and beyond, inline is the ultimate configuration they beleive is needed.


Primary question: What costs more et strengthing for inline or payload carrier for sidemount?

I thought a while back Shannon made a statement at the conclusion of his study that "side mount takes a hit on safety buys nothing in preformance, cost over inline". Could someone check and see if I am correct please? I seem to recall this was in one of Chris's previous SDHLV articles.


Also: if anyone from congress is reading I suggest you pay attention to this and boeing's HLLV proposals. Nelson's got it right but he needs backing and stronger, more specfic language for the SDHLV.


« Last Edit: 06/19/2010 02:56 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Finally....  :) (is there a smiley for an exhausted smile?!).

Whatever configuration they end up choosing, I hope we can all move forward to support it with verisimilitude and little controversy.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Finally....  :) (is there a smiley for an exhausted smile?!).

Whatever configuration they end up choosing, I hope we can all move forward to support it with verisimilitude and little controversy.

I hear that. And I will start a thread on that note :)
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Finally....  :) (is there a smiley for an exhausted smile?!).

Whatever configuration they end up choosing, I hope we can all move forward to support it with verisimilitude and little controversy.


I know we are all in high spirits tonight because of this great bit of new information...but all in all nothing has really changed. This study was ordered before FY2011, and things were wrapped up because FY2011 stated SDHLV was no longer relevant.

The only hope for SDHLV is that congress picks this document up and gives it a read and it persuades them to make a change.

We all have been waiting on the inevitable compromise since Obama took office, I'm just hoping Congress will wake up and make a change in time. This presentation has a wealth of information in it, but it is all for nothing if those in Congress don't do something about it!

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
I'm hoping Congress comes through!  Just seeing this now - will take a look at the document when I have some time.  Hopefully a glimmer of hope at least...

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
I have read the article a few more times now. There is a lot to digest in there, great job Chris! The recoverable engine pod sure looks interesting but I worry that it would take a lot of money and time to make work. Essential we are talking about an independent vehicle that has to survive in a flight environment almost as difficult as orbital reentry.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Finally....  :) (is there a smiley for an exhausted smile?!).

Whatever configuration they end up choosing, I hope we can all move forward to support it with verisimilitude and little controversy.


I know we are all in high spirits tonight because of this great bit of new information...but all in all nothing has really changed. This study was ordered before FY2011, and things were wrapped up because FY2011 stated SDHLV was no longer relevant.

The only hope for SDHLV is that congress picks this document up and gives it a read and it persuades them to make a change.

We all have been waiting on the inevitable compromise since Obama took office, I'm just hoping Congress will wake up and make a change in time. This presentation has a wealth of information in it, but it is all for nothing if those in Congress don't do something about it!

I hear you... And hear that sound? That's merely the 'Fat Lady' clearing her throat.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Finally....  :) (is there a smiley for an exhausted smile?!).

Whatever configuration they end up choosing, I hope we can all move forward to support it with verisimilitude and little controversy.


I know we are all in high spirits tonight because of this great bit of new information...but all in all nothing has really changed. This study was ordered before FY2011, and things were wrapped up because FY2011 stated SDHLV was no longer relevant.

The only hope for SDHLV is that congress picks this document up and gives it a read and it persuades them to make a change.

We all have been waiting on the inevitable compromise since Obama took office, I'm just hoping Congress will wake up and make a change in time. This presentation has a wealth of information in it, but it is all for nothing if those in Congress don't do something about it!

I hear you... And hear that sound? That's merely the 'Fat Lady' clearing her throat.

but in a good way........i hope.........
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Looks nice... But too late, I fear. FY2011 specifically kills Shuttle-derived. And I doubt NASA is important enough, compared to the other urgent issues facing the nation, for Congress to overturn FY2011.

Does make a great "what-would-have-been-if", tho...

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Does make a great "what-would-have-been-if", tho...
If it does not come to pass, then there are so many other better "what-would-have-been-if"s in the history of the HSF .. starting with evolving the X-15, to running the X-33 program right and actually following through with Steidle's spirals ..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
The recoverable propulsion module plus the side mounted SSME configuration does stir the imagination. :)

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
I hope they kill shuttle-derived. A new HLV should be developed from scratch, designed for low operational costs.

Offline raketen

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Finally....  :) (is there a smiley for an exhausted smile?!).

Whatever configuration they end up choosing, I hope we can all move forward to support it with verisimilitude and little controversy.


Agreed!

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
I hope they kill shuttle-derived. A new HLV should be developed from scratch, designed for low operational costs.

What is the point if developmental cost is high and flight rate is low?  At that point the low operational costs are meaningless.  Also you throw away 30 years of operational and technical knowledge and skills, and have to start over again.
« Last Edit: 06/19/2010 01:25 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
I will have to read the article more thoroughly later on.  However, at first glance, I've got the feeling that JSC may have done the usual NASA thing and chosen the most expensive path possible, given the objective and tools to hand.  The hybrid with the side engine pod and an ET-style oval LOX tank seems to be attempting to backwards justify the side-mount.

Nonetheless, it is good to see that NASA have finally acknowledged that D-SDLV is viable and not breaking any laws of physics.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I will have to read the article more thoroughly later on.  However, at first glance, I've got the feeling that JSC may have done the usual NASA thing and chosen the most expensive path possible, given the objective and tools to hand.  The hybrid with the side engine pod and an ET-style oval LOX tank seems to be attempting to backwards justify the side-mount.

Nonetheless, it is good to see that NASA have finally acknowledged that D-SDLV is viable and not breaking any laws of physics.

For goodness sake.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
I will have to read the article more thoroughly later on.  However, at first glance, I've got the feeling that JSC may have done the usual NASA thing and chosen the most expensive path possible, given the objective and tools to hand.  The hybrid with the side engine pod and an ET-style oval LOX tank seems to be attempting to backwards justify the side-mount.

Nonetheless, it is good to see that NASA have finally acknowledged that D-SDLV is viable and not breaking any laws of physics.

I have to agree..they not want an inline, so lets pick the most expensive way to do an inline vehicle to make sidemount look good.  :(

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I will have to read the article more thoroughly later on.  However, at first glance, I've got the feeling that JSC may have done the usual NASA thing and chosen the most expensive path possible, given the objective and tools to hand.  The hybrid with the side engine pod and an ET-style oval LOX tank seems to be attempting to backwards justify the side-mount.

Nonetheless, it is good to see that NASA have finally acknowledged that D-SDLV is viable and not breaking any laws of physics.

I have to agree..they not want an inline, so lets pick the most expensive way to do an inline vehicle to make sidemount look good.  :(

Really?  Show me your proof on that.
« Last Edit: 06/19/2010 03:00 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
The recoverable propulsion module plus the side mounted SSME configuration does stir the imagination. :)


An how much will it cost to develop the recoverable module?  Then you have to the refubishment of the engine... Sorry but it seems we have not learnt that much from shuttle.  The refab. cost are so high it may have been cheaper to just make them expendable.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0