Author Topic: Major Shuttle and ISS extension drive taking place at the Augustine Commission  (Read 83347 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
The Aerospace study involved a new upper stage as one of the ways to launch a lunar capable Orion.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline A8-3

  • Member
  • Posts: 50
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 16
"the current favorite called the Shuttle Derived (SD) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV)"

Can you elaborate on this at all?

The current favorite of whom? NASA? The commitee? The chairman? Sally Ride?

Is this based on any documentation?

Is there more than one source naming it as the favorite?

Offline quark

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The Aerospace study involved a new upper stage as one of the ways to launch a lunar capable Orion.

The Delta IV heavy has the performance (with 20% margin) to meet the lunar mission.  Aerospace likes the new upper stage because it provides engine out and allows derating of the RL-10.  Engine out is nice but not required.  Same for derating.

ULA has been working on a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta as part of the natural evolution of the products.  The AF likes the idea and has included it in the long term sustainability plan for EELV.  But in the near term the is no $$.

Offline smith5se

If I may ask, based on the extension options stated in the article, wouldn't the direction of CxP, whether it be scrapped and switched with another vehicle, modified, etc, play a big part in which extension options could be chosen? (sorry if I'm asking the obvious)

Also, the third extension option which relies heavily on Discovery, I feel that could also be a risky option in relying on a single orbiter for 6 flights. Just my opinion though.
My views are mine, and mine alone and DO NOT reflect that of my employer nor my place of employment.

Online Chris Bergin



Also, the third extension option which relies heavily on Discovery, I feel that could also be a risky option in relying on a single orbiter for 6 flights. Just my opinion though.

The question is why is that your opinion?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline smith5se


The question is why is that your opinion?

No my question is in the above sentance, which I should probably reword, in short, wouldn't the choice of direction to take affect which option of extension could/should be chosen?
My views are mine, and mine alone and DO NOT reflect that of my employer nor my place of employment.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Well, judging by today's meeting Chris was right on the money.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline DwightM

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2405
  • Valdez, AK
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 901

Also, the third extension option which relies heavily on Discovery, I feel that could also be a risky option in relying on a single orbiter for 6 flights. Just my opinion though.
I think it’s actually beneficial to utilize one orbiter instead of two. 
The turn around time for two missions a year is plenty of time to process a single orbiter (or MPLM for that matter). 
Also, we’ll have two orbiters available to supply spare parts for the single orbiter as opposed to one orbiter supporting two.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089

Also, the third extension option which relies heavily on Discovery, I feel that could also be a risky option in relying on a single orbiter for 6 flights. Just my opinion though.
I think it’s actually beneficial to utilize one orbiter instead of two. 
The turn around time for two missions a year is plenty of time to process a single orbiter (or MPLM for that matter). 
Also, we’ll have two orbiters available to supply spare parts for the single orbiter as opposed to one orbiter supporting two.
It would be similar to how Atlantis was utilized for most of the Mir dockings (the first seven out of nine total).

Offline kyle_baron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
As Tom Cruise once said, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!  SHOW ME THE MONEY!............."
What we do in life, echos in eternity. (Gladiator)

Offline MP99

The Delta IV heavy has the performance (with 20% margin) to meet the lunar mission.  Aerospace likes the new upper stage because it provides engine out and allows derating of the RL-10.  Engine out is nice but not required.  Same for derating.


Can you say more about this - I've not noticed this (RL-10 derating) mentioned on the forum before.

Have I missed comments or a thread - maybe on L2?

cheers, Martin

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Here is something I posted in L2, but I see it's in Chris' article (btw: great article Chris!!!) so I'll elaborate here.

It's hard to visualize without slides but I'll do my best. I'll quote some of Chris article in my lead-in:

Option 2 (adds 2 flights using two existing ET tanks):
'Discovery retires first after she’s flown as STS-131'.
'With Atlantis’ OMDP deadline in January 2012, she finds herself mothballed after STS-134 in September 2011.'
'...Endeavour finding herself tasked with two additional flights in February and August 2012.'

Option 3 (adds 6 flights, 4 new tanks):
'Discovery then receives another six flights, flying twice a year through to September 2014, with both Atlantis and Endeavour are retired in 2011'

My question/idea:
What option 3 does, however is NOT INCLUDE those 2 additional flights for Endeavour. Discovery goes through OMM, and loses 1 flight in the process.

What if they fly Discovery up to STS-131 in August 2010. Fly out Atlantis until January 2012 for spares. Keep those 2 Endeavour flights and then retire her for spares to support final Discovery flights.

What this gives is a few extra missions in the manifest, holds LON capability a little while longer, and gives flexibility on choice of orbiter should the need arise. Most of this will no doubt be MPLM missions anyway, so a bit of juggling won't be so bad.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Shuttle-C turned out to be an unsustainable development (IE cost of shuttle boattail, computers ect) so why would SD HLLV be any different?

At this rate, I would say switch to EELV and just do incremental development to gain an HLV.

Online Chris Bergin

Shuttle-C turned out to be an unsustainable development (IE cost of shuttle boattail, computers ect) so why would SD HLLV be any different?

At this rate, I would say switch to EELV and just do incremental development to gain an HLV.

It's not Shuttle-C.

The point is commonality. SD-HLLV after Shuttle extension is the only way to reduce the gap. It was said enough times at the commission today.

It was pretty obvious that the findings available to the commission have ruled out all vehicle alternatives as gap reducers bar SD-HLLV on the end of shuttle extension.

After all, this is about shuttle and ISS extension.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2009 04:12 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Shuttle-C turned out to be an unsustainable development (IE cost of shuttle boattail, computers ect) so why would SD HLLV be any different?

At this rate, I would say switch to EELV and just do incremental development to gain an HLV.

It's not Shuttle-C.

The point is commonality. SD-HLLV after Shuttle extension is the only way to reduce the gap. It was said enough times at the commission today.

It was pretty obvious that the findings available to the commission have ruled out all vehicle alternatives as gap reducers bar SD-HLLV on the end of shuttle extension.

After all, this is about shuttle and ISS extension.

I thought that Sally Ride said that none of the alternative launchers could reduce the gap.  The only way to reduce the gap is to stretch out the launch schedule and then extend the manifest in one of three complicated scenarios.

If anyone said SD-HLLV was the answer, I didn't hear it.

Mark S.

Offline loomy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
SD-HLLV after Shuttle extension is the only way to reduce the gap. It was said enough times at the commission today.

I think she said nothing will be ready soon enough to shorten the gap from the tail end ("right side"), but that it could be shortened from the left side by extending the shuttle launches. 

I THINK the SD-HLLV was mentioned just because the costs for it would be shared with the shuttle costs if you extended the shuttle launches.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
The point is commonality. SD-HLLV after Shuttle extension is the only way to reduce the gap. It was said enough times at the commission today.


Sally Ride also said that the Option 3 Shuttle extension, the option that provided more than just a single extra Shuttle flight, was not affordable unless both it *and* SDHLV were done. 

Regardless, Option 3, which included the ISS extension to 2020, exceeded the current budget limits, though exceeding current budget limits seems, realistically, to be a given.

Sally Ride, BTW, gave an impressive, convincing, realistic, common-sense presentation.  It made me wish she was still part of NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/29/2009 05:07 am by edkyle99 »

Online Chris Bergin


I think she said nothing will be ready soon enough to shorten the gap from the tail end ("right side"), but that it could be shortened from the left side by extending the shuttle launches.

Yep, that's what I was getting at.

The gap starts with shuttle retirement, the gap ends with Orion IOC (should be FOC really). Extending shuttle reduces the gap from the left if the follow on program is SD-HLLV due to commonality.

People are thinking too much of the gap from right to left, not left to right.

===

Now forget about the commission hearing today for a moment, as the following is my own info.

The way they are pushing SD-HLLV within SSP is on commonality, I've seen figures *waiting for permission to run as documentation* showing it is possible to fly shuttle to 2012 and debut SD-HLLV in 2014 (four years, two year gap), and for LESS money than the projected CxP budget for 2010 to 2015 (five years).

I've heard it from several sources of late and I reckon this is what is planned as the main push on the battle plan. They've gotten the upmass/downmass issue into the commissions mindset with extension and ISS, next is extension to exploration/gap buster.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2009 05:13 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If they do a shuttle extension and transition to an SSME powered launcher (NSC or Direct), could they fly expendable SSME's on the later shuttle flights, and then just throw them out after the shuttle lands?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
1) Put Orion on Delta IVH.

Use any saved money - and there would be money at current levels - to develop a cargo SDLV, sidemount likely be the cheapest and fastest.

2) If the saved money is not enough to do this, it wouldn't be enough for Orion on SDLV anyway. So you would get nothing.

I strongly, by default, prefer scenario 1).

Analyst

Tags:
 

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