Author Topic: Most Likely CLV  (Read 43430 times)

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #40 on: 04/26/2009 01:45 pm »
DIV-H by a long shot. Ares I should be canceled. But you all know that part of the argument.
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #41 on: 04/26/2009 02:41 pm »
Atlas. Hopefully with domestic engine production, at least in part.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #42 on: 04/26/2009 03:02 pm »
Atlas V Heavy, initially with Russian engines, switching to domestic production as soon as viable. Tied with some kind of SDLV HLV.


5.  Not so, we are already flying our astronauts on Soyuz, they aren't complaining about that.  An engine is minor compared to that


To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #43 on: 04/26/2009 03:07 pm »
snip

1.  No dice?  You don't know enough to say that.  Where is the requirement that it has to be fully redundant?  Where is your data for that?  Anyways, Atlas is only missing one box that doesn't have redundancy and the new version has gone through CDR.  D-IV is no where near redundant.

snip

5.  Not so, we are already flying our astronauts on Soyuz, they aren't complaining about that.  An engine is minor compared to that

snip


Jim,

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?

If it is not a requirement, this makes Delta more viable.

And there has been much grumbling from congress about sending $1B to Russia to pay for Soyuz flights.  Have you read Senator Nelson's letter to the president?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #44 on: 04/26/2009 03:07 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #45 on: 04/26/2009 03:10 pm »

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?


Redundancy is method of meeting fault tolerance, it isn't a requirement in itself

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #46 on: 04/26/2009 03:12 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

And they just dropped the minimum number of seats from 18 to 3.  Something is afoot to not buy as many seats from Russia.  Does KSC know something about the Delta we don't know?  I detected a strong bias toward the Atlas while working OSP and from you I still see it.   You guys know these rockets as well as anyone.  If there is something wrong with the Delta, let us know.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #47 on: 04/26/2009 03:13 pm »

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?


Redundancy is method of meeting fault tolerance, it isn't a requirement in itself

Do you agree this requirement for "minimum of one failure tolerant" is the current requirement?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #48 on: 04/26/2009 03:24 pm »

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?


Redundancy is method of meeting fault tolerance, it isn't a requirement in itself

Do you agree this requirement for "minimum of one failure tolerant" is the current requirement?

Danny Deger
yes

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #49 on: 04/26/2009 03:39 pm »
We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

Yes, but as a barely palatable stop-gap.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #50 on: 04/26/2009 04:00 pm »
Given the likelihood of a 4 man ISS Orion block1 I am making a totally uninformed guess, in order of likelihood:

1)   Soyuz FG (included for completeness and for Ed)

2)   Delta IV H (I am unsure if the current RS-68 could lift an Orion block1)

3)   Atlas (I do not have the knowledge to even hazard a guess as to which version(s)) (Jim there have been several variants mentioned in this thread, care to comment?)

4)   Ares I / Falcon-Dragon (both paper tigers atm imo)

I’d very much like to see either the Delta IV H or the Atlas V H developed as the primary vehicle on a fast track with additional funding for the other developed as a secondary system on a slower track.

« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:03 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #51 on: 04/26/2009 04:08 pm »
BTW given the discussion of an overarching panel at the WH level to provide synergies between DoD, NRO, NOAA, and NASA space programs does this give additional legs to the possibilities of EELV use as a CLV?
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:09 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #52 on: 04/26/2009 04:26 pm »
Delta IV-H keeps getting mentioned because, well, it's actually flown. If it pulled the Ares I "SM as a third stage" trick, a current Delta IV-H could probably work for ISS/LEO. With planned (and IIRC, already funded) upgrades it could handily do Lunar Orion. So, it's understandably the most mentioned second choice.

The real question with Delta IV-H is how to transition from LEO to the point of the VSE, exploration. If Delta IV-H were to be chosen to fly Orion, then the eventual lunar vehicle(s) would most likely use RS-68Bs, but not necessarily SRBs...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:28 pm by simonbp »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #53 on: 04/26/2009 05:17 pm »
Delta IV-H keeps getting mentioned because, well, it's actually flown. If it pulled the Ares I "SM as a third stage" trick, a current Delta IV-H could probably work for ISS/LEO. With planned (and IIRC, already funded) upgrades it could handily do Lunar Orion. So, it's understandably the most mentioned second choice.

Simon ;)

Hum, if true it would offer at least some possibility for early test flights of the Orion to "close the gap" in appearance if not in the reality of servicing the ISS (which would still depend on Soyuz/Progress). Meanwhile a robust development program for the RS-68 and Atlas V H with test flights of the existing Delta IV H combined would still be less expensive than the projected Ares I development costs (or so it seems from the posts on this site).
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 05:18 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #54 on: 04/26/2009 05:34 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

And they just dropped the minimum number of seats from 18 to 3.  Something is afoot to not buy as many seats from Russia.  Does KSC know something about the Delta we don't know?

I doubt the change in the Soyuz solicitation had anything to do with Delta. The change notice specifically mentioned commercial providers (e.g. SpaceX).
JRF

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #55 on: 04/26/2009 05:40 pm »
The real question with Delta IV-H is how to transition from LEO to the point of the VSE, exploration. If Delta IV-H were to be chosen to fly Orion, then the eventual lunar vehicle(s) would most likely use RS-68Bs, but not necessarily SRBs...

Simon ;)

IMO there is still quite a bit of "exploration" to do in LEO. Unlike the westward expansion lead off by Lewis and Clark we do not have an environment that can easily provide ISRU in space. The ISS demonstrates, almost every day, that there are huge gaps in our ability to support manned missions in space both logistically and environmentally. These problems can most easily be analyzed and solved in LEO rather than at the end of a very expensive 384,403 kilometer/238,857 mile supply chain.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #56 on: 04/26/2009 05:43 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

And they just dropped the minimum number of seats from 18 to 3.  Something is afoot to not buy as many seats from Russia.  Does KSC know something about the Delta we don't know?

I doubt the change in the Soyuz solicitation had anything to do with Delta. The change notice specifically mentioned commercial providers (e.g. SpaceX).

err, wouldn't a ULA Delta based system qualify as commercial?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #57 on: 04/26/2009 05:45 pm »

err, wouldn't a ULA Delta based system qualify as commercial?

ULA doesn't have a spacecraft

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #58 on: 04/26/2009 07:57 pm »
ULA doesn't have a spacecraft

This will probably annoy Jim (it usually does when I start weaving 'what if...?' scenarios with ULA) but I have to ask.

I know that Lockheed-Martin was co-operating with SpaceDev with on their DreamChaser space-plane.  Does anyone know what is the current status of those interactions? I must say that I haven't seen any updates recently.

Just look at what these arrangements potentially gives them:

1) Atlas-V - Flexible ELV; I'm sure Boeing wouldn't begrudge them a Delta-IV if they asked either;
2) DreamChaser - Essentially COTS-D-ready crew vehicle;

I'm not saying that they are planning anything right now.  However, if CxP crashes and burns, there is a nice big gap into which they (through the offices of ULA) could jump, if they have done their prepartory work correctly and can get moving quickly enough.

Don't forget that Lockheed have the Centaur (single and twin-engine variants) that is a good EDS.  They also did some work on various lander concepts.  Don't forget that they have also been talking to Bigelow, giving them access, if required, to a long-duration, large-capacity crew vehicle.  If MSFC completely drops the ball, they have the chance to 'save' the US manned space program.
"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 William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #59 on: 04/26/2009 08:26 pm »
ULA doesn't have a spacecraft

This will probably annoy Jim (it usually does when I start weaving 'what if...?' scenarios with ULA) but I have to ask.

I know that Lockheed-Martin was co-operating with SpaceDev with on their DreamChaser space-plane.  Does anyone know what is the current status of those interactions? I must say that I haven't seen any updates recently.

Just look at what these arrangements potentially gives them:

1) Atlas-V - Flexible ELV; I'm sure Boeing wouldn't begrudge them a Delta-IV if they asked either;
2) DreamChaser - Essentially COTS-D-ready crew vehicle;

I'm not saying that they are planning anything right now.  However, if CxP crashes and burns, there is a nice big gap into which they (through the offices of ULA) could jump, if they have done their prepartory work correctly and can get moving quickly enough.

Don't forget that Lockheed have the Centaur (single and twin-engine variants) that is a good EDS.  They also did some work on various lander concepts.  Don't forget that they have also been talking to Bigelow, giving them access, if required, to a long-duration, large-capacity crew vehicle.  If MSFC completely drops the ball, they have the chance to 'save' the US manned space program.

There's nothing on SpaceDev's website to indicate DreamChaser ever got past drawings. As far as I know, there's nothing closer to flying than Dragon, although I suppose it's fair to say K-1 also got to the fabrication stage before going belly up.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1