Author Topic: HLV Raw: SSP side project making good progress for Augustine Review  (Read 67760 times)

Online Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/08/hlv-raw-ssp-side-project-making-good-progress-for-augustine/

Article created out of the highlights from the HLV notes from Mr Shannon via the Shuttle Standup/Integration reports on L2 over the last month (including the latest).

Went very raw - as the title suggested - as it's the kind of notes I really can't go representing in the article, bar lead-in paras. Also timed this to be a collation over the past month, as opposed to several articles of running commentary, which I'm guessing SSP might not of appreciated.
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 ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Great article. The Augustine Commission's final report will certainly be interesting to see -- as will the U.S. Government's ultimate decision.

Offline Paul Adams

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • United Kingdom and USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 26
Excellent article Chris, the comming months are going to be interesting.

It's all in the data.

Offline Paul Adams

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • United Kingdom and USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 26
This was just a random thought that was getting the thread off topic, so I have removed it.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2009 04:32 am by Paul Adams »
It's all in the data.

Online Chris Bergin

Thanks Chris and Paul :)
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.**

Online Chris Bergin

Here's a thought;

Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.

Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?

Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built.

Anyone looking at this?



Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).

Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul :)
« Last Edit: 08/10/2009 04:02 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 Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Here's a thought;

Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to make it safer and easier to operate and maintain.

Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?

Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built.

Anyone looking at this?


I don't think so, partly because we don't truely need a space shuttle anymore, with the ISS offering the same service as the shuttle but on a much larger scale.  The Shuttle gave us the experience needed for a successful ISS.  The next stage will be different. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Paul Adams

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • United Kingdom and USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 26
Here's a thought;

Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.

Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?

Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built.

Anyone looking at this?



Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).

Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul :)

I guess my point is, if you are going to do side mount, why not improve the vehicle you have rather than develop a completely new one. As far as the metallic TPS goes, you answered my question "foam is a tough science", thus build a stronger TPS. In addition, don’t the current tiles prohibit the shuttle flying through any rain on the way back in? Stronger tiles would help reduce that damager just in case a shower popped up unexpectedly.

If you aint got the dosh to design a whole new vehicle properly, improve what you already have.

« Last Edit: 08/10/2009 04:11 am by Paul Adams »
It's all in the data.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Back on topic, is Mr Shannon's HLV team trading in-line vs side-mount? Or just concentrating on side-mount at this stage?

Not that it really matters.  If HLV is selected, I suspect the first step in serious development would be an in-line trade.  Unless specifically prohibited.

Which brings me to another concern.  If NASA is directed to switch from Ares to a 'true SDLV', how would that be enforced?  By all appearances, MSFC like to tinker. How do you make them keep to the simple/soon path?

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Have the contractors do the development and rent Marshall out to UA for $1/yr.

Back on topic, is Mr Shannon's HLV team trading in-line vs side-mount? Or just concentrating on side-mount at this stage?

Not that it really matters.  If HLV is selected, I suspect the first step in serious development would be an in-line trade.  Unless specifically prohibited.

Which brings me to another concern.  If NASA is directed to switch from Ares to a 'true SDLV', how would that be enforced?  By all appearances, MSFC like to tinker. How do you make them keep to the simple/soon path?

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Here's a thought;

Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.

Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?

Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built.

Anyone looking at this?



Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).

Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul :)

I guess my point is, if you are going to do side mount, why not improve the vehicle you have rather than develop a completely new one. As far as the metallic TPS goes, you answered my question "foam is a tough science", thus build a stronger TPS. In addition, don’t the current tiles prohibit the shuttle flying through any rain on the way back in? Stronger tiles would help reduce that damager just in case a shower popped up unexpectedly.

If you aint got the dosh to design a whole new vehicle properly, improve what you already have.



You're assuming there is a stronger TPS available.  X-33 was a very different vehicle, with a very different thermal environment. Big empty propellant tanks made it quite fluffy. Shuttle is more like a brick with wings. Plus the orbiter structure is not designed for that type of TPS.

Maybe you could replace the white tiles with PICA, but I think that's heavier. Also ablative so you would have to replace all the tiles after each flight, and probably screw up the aerodynamics for landing.  I'm not aware of anything that could replace the fragile RCC (black/gray tiles).

Plus the vehicles are getting quite old, and need more and more maintenance.

The alternative to side-mount pod is to design a whole new Shuttle, not improve the existing ones.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here's a thought;

Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.

Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?

Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built.

Anyone looking at this?




Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).

Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul :)

Chris got it right in a nutshell.  The shuttle's days are coming to an end so the way this needs to be looked at is what can the Shuttle Program do for the launch vehicle of the Constellation Program as opposed to what can the launch vehicle development do for shuttle.

The reason for looking at this launcher, or any other more SDLV, is to take advantage of the assets that exist.  In the case of HLV you use the infrastructure, ET, SRB's, and SSME's and orbiter spares (until SSME and spares are used up), software and models.  What this allows for is development costs (which is necessary after spares are depleted) to be spread out over a longer time and therefore not the budget spike and significant gap being faced now. 

That said, there are synergies that can take place and modest development costs to field the HLV will have a significant cost, and I presume political, impact on continuing shuttle post-2010. 

Remember the ultimate goal is to control costs and development to enable exploration and minimize the gap.  A SDLV is the only thing that really enables this with all the other political underpinnings and the HLV probably comes out ahead of the other options on the trades.  Assuming it can launch crews then with the proper infrastructure in orbit, then a lot of things become possible.  Try not to get to fixated on the launch vehicle and what it looks like because it just needs to take us the first ~150 or so miles.  This vehicle may be ugly put it offers a crew (hopefully) and significant and impressive cargo capability pretty much right from the get go.  The real fun and prize is above the atmosphere. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
TPS is not a major concern in this configuration.  When an orbiter is attached to the side of the tank, absolutely, but TPS for the HLV will be an ablative for ascent heating and that is it.  It doesn't need to come back and therefore does not become a part of the equation.  If HLV is given the green light, there will be no metalic TPS development. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Here's a thought;

Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.

Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?

Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built.

Anyone looking at this?



Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).

Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul :)

I won't say no to *everything*, but I will repeat that metallic TPS isn't appropriate for vehicles as dense as the shuttle orbiter. They're meant for vehicles like X-33 with internal propellant tanks that are mostly empty during entry, thereby increasing the vehicle's area/mass ratio and allowing it to decelerate more before peak heating.

You *could* redesign the shuttle with the orbiter having internal tanks rather than external - that would certainly fix the foam problem once and for all as well - but the result wouldn't bear any resemblance to the current design, and you are probably talking over ten billion dollars to do it.

As for the rest... most of my past "no no no" nay-saying is based on doing these kinds of upgrades within the current budget profile. For a hypothetical development program with a budget of "X", it depends on how big "X" is, of course. Anything is possible with enough money but I think even Paul would choke at the amount of money I think it would take to achieve everything on his list, especially given that he's talking new airframes and the tooling used to build the orbiters no longer exists. And the fact that he's proposing it within five years qualifies it as an Apollo-style "crash" program.
JRF

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Almost spit out my coffee when I saw this on the Home Page. I'm amazed the HLV and DIRECT 'band-aids' are being given serious consideration.

   "The Augustine Commission has already made it known that the most viable option for reducing the gap between shuttle retirement and the operation of its successor would be via a "true" shuttle derived alternative - of which the HLV or Direct's Jupiter are the only two concepts that fit into that category."

Yes, these vehicles are solutions to 'the gap' (which reminds me of War Room dialogue in Dr. Stragelove), but pose a real risk of crippling the development of an adequate replacement (AresV) just as Flex-Path and Lunar bases risk crippling manned exploration. ISS science can easily be supported by Commercial/International vehicles rather then these 'gap fillers' and instead, NASA could spend the time and money building something worthwhile for the future rather then just building crap for the sake of building: Productive Jobs vs. Job Security

$0.02

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
but pose a real risk of crippling the development of an adequate replacement (AresV) just as Flex-Path and Lunar bases risk crippling manned exploration.

That's your opinion and not fact. In contrast, most people who have seriously studied the subject know that Ares V is not required, for any architecture and destination currently contemplated.
Flex-Path isn't "criplling manned exploration", it's enabling it.

Quote
ISS science can easily be supported by Commercial/International vehicles rather then these 'gap fillers'

On what do you base that? While I don't think an HLV decision should be made primarily due to filling the gap to crew and cargo to ISS through it, I am very much aware that right now there are serious doubts of whether commerical and IPs can support ISS sufficiently.

Offline SoFDMC

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Beautiful stuff. Now all that's left is for NASA to pay heed to the writing on the wall.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Very interesting article.

To be totally honest, we should put this whole side-mounted vehicle project into perspective. NASA is already getting Ares I folks moving over to Ares V, which means a directly shuttle derived in-line design probably gets much more attention than the side-mounted vehicle. The Shannon and Manella group just have to tackle a lot more issues for their proposal in a shorter time because - in contrast to an in-line "true" SDLV - the side-mounted option hasn't been looked at for years already.

Offline Syntax

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I know all the juice stuff (PDF, Images, etc.) is in L2, but could we "leeches" get a better graphical glimse at the proposed SD HLLV? The small images in the article just doesnt make it justice :-)

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I know all the juice stuff (PDF, Images, etc.) is in L2, but could we "leeches" get a better graphical glimse at the proposed SD HLLV? The small images in the article just doesnt make it justice :-)

The openly available June 17 presentation by John Shannon has quite good graphics. It's available on the Augustine Committee website here:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf


Tags:
 

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