Author Topic: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest  (Read 30587 times)

Offline James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • New York City
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #20 on: 09/15/2005 09:51 pm »
Griffin is doing fine work.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #21 on: 09/15/2005 10:00 pm »
I though that the LM lifting body could take six, but only on ISS trips.

Offline Stardust9906

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
  • Durham, UK
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1369
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #22 on: 09/15/2005 10:21 pm »
Any word on the second stage for the SRB launcher?  Is it going to use the J2 or some other engine?

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 405
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #23 on: 09/15/2005 10:24 pm »
The Lockheed CEV was touted as being launched on an Atlas derived launcher powered by RD-180's. Is this what the money allocated to Russia is for?


Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #24 on: 09/15/2005 10:34 pm »
Yep the LM CEV can carry six, from the pop sci article

The Lockheed team--consisting of six companies--came up with a CEV in three parts. The titanium crew module holds four to six astronauts and launches separately from the mission module and the propulsion stage.

Then again so much has changed since then the vehicle described there may no longer resemble LM plans.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #25 on: 09/15/2005 10:36 pm »
The money for Russia could be to allow continued use of the Soyuz and Progress.

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #26 on: 09/15/2005 11:20 pm »
Hello,

I'm personally more interested in performance numbers (they can also give another view about other numbers, like needed money, timelines, etc).

Here go my questions just in case any of the answers are out there...

SRB LAUNCHER:
- SRB: are there plans to use a 5 segment SRB in a future expansion of the launch vehicle? Or it is all about just a 4 seg. SRB?
- 2nd  stage: how many tons and which type / how many engines? (last I heard was 1 x SSME)
- LEO payload?


HEAVY LIFTER:
- core: which and how many engines? (last I heard were 5 x SSME?)
- 2nd stage: how many tons and which / how many engines?
- fairing dimensions?
- LEO payload? (last I heard, 125tons, it seems)
- (supposing here the 2 x 5 seg. SRB, right?)


CEV:
Now, I'm really curious about this one: some strong hints given by NASA (others) seemed to point for the existence of two variants of an enlarged (around 5m base diameter) and updated  Apollo type capsule. One variant would be used for manned flights and would have a variable crew number ranging from 3 or 4 up to 6 or even 8 astronauts, depending of the mission… The other variant would be for unmanned cargo flights (no seats, etc)…

Last time I heard about the issue, both variants  would be reusable except for the heatshield and would be based on the same fuselage. They would have a service module and perhaps(?) even a mission module (like the Soyuz) depending again of the mission profile.

Now the question: after a calmer reading, are really there any solid evidences that this Apollo (conical capsule) approach will not be used and that the CEV will be something like a biconic design?

In any case, will the cargo spacecraft and the crew spacecraft share the same fuselage design? I was confused with some comments made in this thread :)

A few notes:

From here:
http://www.space.com/news/050914_nasa_cev_update.html

"NASA has been working intensely since April on an exploration plan that entails building an 18-foot (5.5-meter) blunt body crew capsule"

Note: There is the "blunt" word mixed with "capsule"...

Then, from here:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/09/rollout_plan_fo.html#more

"As to what it will look like: think Apollo - both for what it will feature - and what it will not feature - as well as how things will look- and how they will work. Mars is only a footnote - a distant one at that."

Note: mysterious line, isn't it?

Ho, the wait, ho the pain :)

António

Edits: ho, the typos...
my pics @ flickr

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #27 on: 09/15/2005 11:31 pm »
I'm a little confused as well. The LM concept that was posted here (in one of Chris' posts, I belive) dates back to the OSP days. When LM was going for the OSP they first started out with the biconic design launched on an Atlas V. They then got rid of this design and moved onto a capsule design. (The capsule wasn't rounded like Soyuz, nor conicle like Apollo, kind of inbetween). Then once the CEV came around we began to see the new lifting body design.


Offline Chris Bergin

Heavy lifters (Magnum and Longfellow) not launching till 2016 and 2017.
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 SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #29 on: 09/16/2005 02:37 am »
So does this mean all the Naysayers about NASA's actual intention to go back to the moon are wrong?

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #30 on: 09/16/2005 03:32 am »
Quote
SRBseparama - 15/9/2005  9:37 PM

So does this mean all the Naysayers about NASA's actual intention to go back to the moon are wrong?

Who knows. The way politics work in the US I don't know. When does this money become money in the bank? Thinking X-33 when 2 billion bucks was in the bank and they still dropped it.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #31 on: 09/16/2005 03:37 am »
Anyway that document can be mailed out to people who want it? I'm getting sick of the (edited for swearing) Incorrect that surround NASA and them saying cool things then doing nothing. Pictures and text would help me.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Chris Bergin

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? ;)

And there's no point mailing what I've got out as I know for a fact it's NOT an actual document from the ESAS documents going around the White House. More a case of someone writing up some notes on what they've seen..etc.
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 James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • New York City
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #33 on: 09/16/2005 03:44 am »
Might be worth calling the Russians. They seem to get to know everything before anyone and aren't shy of telling the media.

Offline gyro2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #34 on: 09/16/2005 03:47 am »
KCowling...see you are online. Do you have anything at NASAWatch or SpaceRef? Eager minds wish to know :)

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #35 on: 09/16/2005 03:50 am »
Stupid question, maybe, but how does this design maneuver upon reentry?   Via RCS?

Similar specs as Kliper, but this design is not reusable, is it?  How much will this puppy cost per pop?


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #36 on: 09/16/2005 05:34 am »
Quote
Stardust9906 - 15/9/2005  6:21 PM

Any word on the second stage for the SRB launcher?  Is it going to use the J2 or some other engine?


About the time Discovery launched I spoke with one engineer over from Marshall who had just been offered the chief engineering position on NASA's design team for that exact stage.   It still wasn't confirmed at that point, but was looking likely enough that NASA was appointing a team to start the real groundwork to start production of such a piece of hardware.   His personal choice was SSME over J2 or RS-68.

He made a very convincing argument that the knowledgebase for SSME is now vast compared with almost any other engine, and a bunch of RSRM guys who were there celebrating the launch also agreed.   The argument is this:

Simply because SSME has always been recovered and can be analysed in finite detail after every flight, they know it inside and out.   They know all its strengths and all its weaknesses, and have vast amounts of data from flown articles to give them a high degree of confidence in the powerplant.

However, he did concede that RS-68 has taught them a LOT about how to manufacture that sort of engine with far less intensive (read expensive) effort than is done with SSME.   He said that SSME would need some modifications anyhow, such as changes to allow it to be air-lit once the RSRM burns out and is discarded.   So if it's going to be re-developed, there is a real chance that a simplified, expendable variant of SSME could be made instead - an "SSME-S", using all the lessons learned from RS-68's development and all the lessons from SSME's flight history.

Ultimately the jury is still out on that decision, but the performance figures speak for themselves:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.18.l.jpg">

-Ross
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #37 on: 09/16/2005 05:57 am »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 15/9/2005  5:25 PM

Ok. Some summary points:

CEV now 2011...not 2014. One year downtime between STS and CEV. (Guess the Russians were right about the reduction of the timeline between STS and CEV...ages ago).

NASA to spend $7 billion a year from 2011...rising year on year to $15 billion by 2018.

Why a load of cash going to the Russians?

I don't believe it's for the engines.   Pratt & Whitney build the RD-180's these days under licence, so that's not where the money is going.

I'll speculate (based on conversations with some interesting chaps!) that the cash going to Russia for three reasons:

1) The Shuttle schedule is being scaled down to about 13 more flights from now to 2010.   That means lots of elements of the ISS will simply never fly on STS.   Proton's are the absolute cheapest alternative launch vehicle anywhere for putting 10-20 tons of stuff 'up there'.   Perhaps NASA is paying for the launch of some of the stuff it has committed to, just doing it the cheapest way it can find.   Sensible IMHO.

2) The ISS is being scaled back and *ALL* the international partners involved are being placated by the simple use of the American Greenback.   This is a good thing because it keeps foreign governments happy with the US, and gets them off NASA's back, which then allows NASA to focus on the moon, and hopefully then Mars too.

3) NASA does not want to use STS for flying many of the cargo and crew rotation missions.   Soyuz & Progress can do that job far more economically.   NASA may still have the duty to get those jobs done, but if they can save millions of dollars by buying flights in Russia, and put that money into the Exploratrion program instead - they have my support.

IMHO, Russia had better look out though.   If SpaceX are successful with their Falcon program, they could be a cheaper alternative again - and have the benefit to the US of being within the US Economy too.   SpaceX's Falcon 9 would give Proton, Arianne V and even Delta-IV Hvy & Atlas-V a helluva run for their money.   If I were ULA, I'd be looking over my shoulder over the next few years to see if their market isn't going to just up and vanish to Elon Musk...

-Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
« Reply #38 on: 09/16/2005 01:53 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 16/9/2005  12:57 AM


1) The Shuttle schedule is being scaled down to about 13 more flights from now to 2010.   That means lots of elements of the ISS will simply never fly on STS.   Proton's are the absolute cheapest alternative launch vehicle anywhere for putting 10-20 tons of stuff 'up there'.   Perhaps NASA is paying for the launch of some of the stuff it has committed to, just doing it the cheapest way it can find.   Sensible IMHO.

-Ross.

Any ISS modules that are left grounded because of Shuttle flight cutbacks will be left grounded for some years to come. ISS modules were designed specifically to be launched only in the orbiter's payload bay. Thus, they *can't* be launched via an expendable booster, unless you can find a way to mount the equivalent of an orbiter payload bay support structure (including extra power for heaters and monitoring sensors) on top of an existing booster.

Offline Chris Bergin

There was a note recently from Griffin that the SDLV could "finish the ISS construction" - thus they could make the ISS a two stage build...with the latter parts going on a number of years after the STS is retired. Doesn't sit well with me when you think about that, but it's a possible.
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.**

Tags:
 

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