Quote from: llanitedave on 05/12/2013 06:00 pmThe mandate was to make it to the Moon by 1970. Had that failed, I doubt there would have been the will in Congress -- or from a Republican president -- to continue on. There would have been no first landing in 1972.It was all about beating the Soviets. If the landing had slipped a year or two, it wouldn't have mattered. There's no way that Nixon would have wanted to be blamed for cosmonauts on the Moon first. - Ed Kyle
The mandate was to make it to the Moon by 1970. Had that failed, I doubt there would have been the will in Congress -- or from a Republican president -- to continue on. There would have been no first landing in 1972.
If you were willing to leave off the man-rating, and cite the common components with Atlas V to meet the language of the NASA authorization, D4SH would be done the fastest for super-heavy lift.
To grease the political wheels, do the final core assembly at MAF, ULA just ships D4 CBC's to MAF for final attachment, in the same manner by which the Redstone and Jupiter tanks were shipped in for turning into the S-IA/S-IB stage.
For launch pad, using KSC would make the most sense. It may not be the most efficient, but it does meet the letter of the law and can be converted rather quickly.
An upper stage using the J-2X would address the RS-25 issue as well, same tooling, plant, and material, plus would be shared with the RS-68A+ as well.
While Li-Al tanks would be nice, they are not critical. A later conversion would enable it to meet the letter of the law. As the law allowed for upgrades to enable meeting the final lift requirement, this is acceptable. The upgraded Li-Al CBC would further improve the USAF's options as well.
It is not ideal, but it could meet the letter of the law and been faster than the existing plan. However, it would not grow as well as the current SLS either. It's main strength is that it would cost less and make ULA more competitive on the global marketplace.
After the N1 debacle, there was no chance of the Soviets mounting any Lunar Landing challenge, and our own intelligence was well aware of the fact.
Quote from: llanitedave on 05/13/2013 03:44 amAfter the N1 debacle, there was no chance of the Soviets mounting any Lunar Landing challenge, and our own intelligence was well aware of the fact.Unsubstantiated. The N1 "debacle" didn't end until 1974 and the last flight in 1972. We did have intel about the explosions, but that did not mean the challenge was over or that they were not going to succeed, we only knew we were ahead. It was only over once we landed on the moon.
It was all about beating the Soviets. If the landing had slipped a year or two, it wouldn't have mattered. There's no way that Nixon would have wanted to be blamed for cosmonauts on the Moon first. - Ed Kyle
It all comes back to the fact that we never would have achieved Kennedy's challenge without Von Braun and the Saturn V.
None of this strikes me as carrying the cachet of personal irresponsibility that "loose cannon" entails
Ok folks, let's bring it back to the thread topic about a better CxP replacement rather than the Von Braun and the Soviet lunar program.
He was also a visionary, and flexible enough to be able to be convinced of the superiority of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous after having previously championed Earth Orbit Rendezvous as a staging method to get to the Moon.
To answer the last question, you have to answer "better for what purpose?"
If you were willing to leave off the man-rating, and cite the common components with Atlas V to meet the language of the NASA authorization, D4SH would be done the fastest for super-heavy lift. To grease the political wheels, do the final core assembly at MAF, ULA just ships D4 CBC's to MAF for final attachment, in the same manner by which the Redstone and Jupiter tanks were shipped in for turning into the S-IA/S-IB stage.
One of Constellation's initial birth-notices was in a famous article from Griffin pointing out that Saturns cost $X million each, and since 197<something> NASA had been given a total of $Y billion, and gee look where'd we have been if we'd just kept going with Saturns, and not gotten into the whole Shuttle thing.Leaving aside the whole Ares I/V thing (which I have no wish to re-autopsy), was Griffin's basic concept there (go back to where we were before Shuttle, and try and keep going on that path) right, or not? It seems to me that that's basically what's happening now.
Quote from: llanitedave on 05/13/2013 07:38 pmTo answer the last question, you have to answer "better for what purpose?"CxP was, at least supposedly, an answer to the challenge of the Vision of Space Exploration. Assuming that some kind of relevance to VSA, then I would argue, therefore, that the objectives of a CxP replacement would be:1) Affordable, reliable human and human-supporting space access;2) Return to lunar surface;3) Deploy and support multiple-crew lunar surface facility(s);4) BEO human exploration (Mars and other locations).I would also argue that any launcher system thus deployed to answer these objectives that was so expensive that payload development was effectively permanently deferred is missing the point.
Quote from: Downix on 05/12/2013 09:25 pmIf you were willing to leave off the man-rating, and cite the common components with Atlas V to meet the language of the NASA authorization, D4SH would be done the fastest for super-heavy lift. Do you mean NAA2010? That D4SH could meet it?Although this hypothetical is prior to that, selling a better concept that would then be written into NAA2010.And sticking with a 1.5 launch architecture, you could leave off the Delta IV man-rating, and just make it the cargo launcher.
Quote from: Downix on 05/12/2013 09:25 pmTo grease the political wheels, do the final core assembly at MAF, ULA just ships D4 CBC's to MAF for final attachment, in the same manner by which the Redstone and Jupiter tanks were shipped in for turning into the S-IA/S-IB stage. Interesting concept. That's probably be more politically palatable, although I'm imagine it could be assembled in the VAB better, right on the ML.Although, could that big 15m+ diameter construct be transported from MAF to the VAB ok? 10m was the biggest they ever did in the S-1C right?Also, would there be a better way to do a D4SH in this case? Boeing's D4SH seems to show the Central core supporting all the mass of the payload with 6 outboard boosters attached directly to it, but could it be put together more like S-1B, so that each Delta IV CCB sent to MAF would be literally a stock CCB used by USAF? So rather than ULA developing it, NASA would, and just buy the standard CCB's from ULA?
Quote from: Downix on 05/12/2013 09:25 pmFor launch pad, using KSC would make the most sense. It may not be the most efficient, but it does meet the letter of the law and can be converted rather quickly. Well, since only NASA would be launching this beast, and it probably wouldn't launch all that often even for NASA (only on Lunar missions probably) i think it would make the most sense to do that at KSC, so ULA's pads will be launching the configurations that USAF/DoD want, which would be the single stick or tri-core heavy Delta IV.
Quote from: Downix on 05/12/2013 09:25 pmAn upper stage using the J-2X would address the RS-25 issue as well, same tooling, plant, and material, plus would be shared with the RS-68A+ as well. Good point. Too bad J2X was as far along as it was. THe J2S would likely have been much cheaper to develop and build. The features of the X had for the Ares 1 wouldn't be needed.
Quote from: Downix on 05/12/2013 09:25 pmWhile Li-Al tanks would be nice, they are not critical. A later conversion would enable it to meet the letter of the law. As the law allowed for upgrades to enable meeting the final lift requirement, this is acceptable. The upgraded Li-Al CBC would further improve the USAF's options as well.Boeing's growth chart shows the near 100mt performance with Al-Li tanks, so I don't know how much less D4SH's perforamnce to not have the Al-Li. But I'd guess whatever it was could be made up for by designing the large upper stage for the D4SH to have a bit more performance, right? A big 8.4 m upper stage (built in MAF too) with a single J2X engine should be designed with extra margin without the Al-Li tanks I'd suppose.
Quote from: Downix on 05/12/2013 09:25 pmIt is not ideal, but it could meet the letter of the law and been faster than the existing plan. However, it would not grow as well as the current SLS either. It's main strength is that it would cost less and make ULA more competitive on the global marketplace.Well, that'd be in the event of the existing NAA201 still being written. But in this thread, Administrator Downix could have went out there in February 2010 and sold this concept. Along with the 7-core 1st stage being assembled in MAF to keep it working along with the new J2X upper stage for it. Orion wouldn't be cancelled in FY2011 budget, but a human rated Atlas 55x Phase 1 (with 5m upper stage) rather than Ares 1.you do it well enough, and NAA2010 would mandate -this- instead of something more shuttle derived, so you wouldn't have to dance around anything. :-)
You nailed it on the head at the end. It is not just bolting 7 CBC's together for launch a la D4H. It is physically modifying them to create a single core. They would no longer be 7 CBC's, they'd be an all unified design, similar to the Saturn IB, so the loads would be transferred in a more uniform manner. They could be transported, although it would need a new barge. The VAB has been studied to handle material wider than the 15' of this design. You would also reduce the number of engines from 7 to 6 this way, which would give a performance boost.
However those same features would work well for the Delta IV SuperHeavy in this case. The reduced impulse of the RS-68 vs the RS-25 mean that the system would stage lower, where the J-2X's design would be a well fit design. In fact, I'd almost say it was at the final J-2X's sweet spot, far enough out to take maximum efficiency out of the design.
That's just it, the Delta IV *is* shuttle-derived. That's why it meets the letter of the law.