Author Topic: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS  (Read 130292 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #181 on: 03/03/2012 02:40 pm »
No, you concede that your comment about Ares-1X upperstage has no bearing on this thread and is unrelated to the Boeing pathfinder
So what would have "bearing on this thread" - Boeing using the 5.5m "tooling" to construct an entirely new, or open a new production line for iCPS and a follow-on CPS?

Irrelevant, that has nothing to do with the context of your comment about Ares I-X

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15393
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #182 on: 03/03/2012 05:59 pm »
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/

There is a proposal to use this already-proven 5.5 meter tank tooling, and other Ares I upper stage bits and pieces, to create an SLS upper stage.  The idea would be to create something that looked like the Delta 4 upper stage, except with an 8.4 meter diameter LH2 tank attached atop a separate 5.5 meter LOX tank.  It is just a proposal, of course - and it has little to do with ICPS (unless it represents a path to transition from ICPS to CPS).

 - Ed Kyle   
« Last Edit: 03/03/2012 06:04 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #183 on: 03/05/2012 05:15 pm »

However, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements.

Because Boeing and LM won't allow it.  ULA only exists to manage the Delta and Atlas vehicles.  Boeing and LM would rather compete for a new stage and pocket all the money themselves than share it as part of ULA.

1.  Ok, that's the info I don't really understand.  Thanks.  I assume that's why Boeing was pushing a modifies DCSS for their Gateway proposal rather than ACES?  Because that's ALE, not Atlas/ Delta?

2. So, LM and Boeing might develop ACES as a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, but they wouldn't want to propose it [jointly] for CPS?
Seems sort of counter productive, but obviously I don't understand all of the nuances here. 

3. So likely Boeing and LM  would each propose their own version of CPS in the competition rather than pool their resources and offer something that could also be a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta?
Am I understanding that better now?

1.  Yes, because it is not an EELV mission

2.  It would be ULA producing the ACES for its own needs (EELV market)

3. yes

Ok, thanks Jim.  Very informative.  It’s always good to get the right info rather than just my assumptions.  There’s lots I don’t understand on this stuff.

Seems “inefficient” perhaps though.  But I suppose they have their reasons for what they do.   And, I assume that any concept proposed by LM or Boeing for CPS could incorporate some ACES concepts into it?  Both could use ACES technologies for their individual projects, right?  Or not?
Like using GH2 boiloff for RCS, and IVF?

So they wouldn’t be submitting “ACES” proposals, per say, but something unique to each company, incorporating ACES tech as applicable?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #184 on: 03/05/2012 05:34 pm »

However, like I said above, I don't know why ULA wouldn't just offer the 5m ACES, and tweak it accordingly to meet the CPS requirements.

Because Boeing and LM won't allow it.  ULA only exists to manage the Delta and Atlas vehicles.  Boeing and LM would rather compete for a new stage and pocket all the money themselves than share it as part of ULA.

1.  Ok, that's the info I don't really understand.  Thanks.  I assume that's why Boeing was pushing a modifies DCSS for their Gateway proposal rather than ACES?  Because that's ALE, not Atlas/ Delta?

2. So, LM and Boeing might develop ACES as a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, but they wouldn't want to propose it [jointly] for CPS?
Seems sort of counter productive, but obviously I don't understand all of the nuances here. 

3. So likely Boeing and LM  would each propose their own version of CPS in the competition rather than pool their resources and offer something that could also be a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta?
Am I understanding that better now?

1.  Yes, because it is not an EELV mission

2.  It would be ULA producing the ACES for its own needs (EELV market)

3. yes

Ok, thanks Jim.  Very informative.  It’s always good to get the right info rather than just my assumptions.  There’s lots I don’t understand on this stuff.

Seems “inefficient” perhaps though.  But I suppose they have their reasons for what they do.   And, I assume that any concept proposed by LM or Boeing for CPS could incorporate some ACES concepts into it?  Both could use ACES technologies for their individual projects, right?  Or not?
Like using GH2 boiloff for RCS, and IVF?

So they wouldn’t be submitting “ACES” proposals, per say, but something unique to each company, incorporating ACES tech as applicable?


I realize that LM and Boeing are competing over every little bit of SLS funding.

Let me try to figure this out. The DCSS design belongs to Boeing, since the Delta is a Boeing LV. But, the DCSS is built by ULA (possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK), so both Boeing and LM have an equal share of the profits.

Boeing already has contracts in place for much of the core stage, which I assume includes making 8.4M tanks at Michoud. If the CPS stage is going to be 8.4 M, then Boeing might even use the same resources at Michoud to build both first and second stage tanks. Maybe ??

What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #185 on: 03/05/2012 06:02 pm »

1.  possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)

2.  What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?


1.  none built by ATK

2.  LM can propose anything that meets the requirements.  They don't have to have an existing design nor do they have to share any design before hand. And it can be built where ever it needs to be built.  All that info would be part of a propriety proposal in response to a solicitation by NASA.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #186 on: 03/05/2012 06:07 pm »

1.  possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)

2.  What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?


1.  none built by ATK

2.  LM can propose anything that meets the requirements.  They don't have to have an existing design nor do they have to share any design before hand. And it can be built where ever it needs to be built.  All that info would be part of a propriety proposal in response to a solicitation by NASA.

I saw a link that OV-106 posted a little while back that showed ATK built tanks for each Atlas and Delta launch. Perhaps these were 1st stage tanks ?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #187 on: 03/05/2012 06:52 pm »

1.  possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)

2.  What upper stages would LM propose, other than an upgraded Atlas Centaur or ACES ? Where would it be built ? Do they have existing 5M upper stage designs ?


1.  none built by ATK

2.  LM can propose anything that meets the requirements.  They don't have to have an existing design nor do they have to share any design before hand. And it can be built where ever it needs to be built.  All that info would be part of a propriety proposal in response to a solicitation by NASA.

I saw a link that OV-106 posted a little while back that showed ATK built tanks for each Atlas and Delta launch. Perhaps these were 1st stage tanks ?

fairings or interstages

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #188 on: 03/05/2012 07:43 pm »
I saw a link that OV-106 posted a little while back that showed ATK built tanks for each Atlas and Delta launch. Perhaps these were 1st stage tanks ?
fairings or interstages

ATK Space Systems is a prime supplier of hydrazine tanks. I don't know it for a fact (never worked those programs), but I would say it's about a 99% chance they supply the propellant tanks for Atlas & Delta’s roll/reaction control thrusters.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2012 07:51 pm by strangequark »

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #189 on: 03/05/2012 08:57 pm »

1.  possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)

1.  none built by ATK

Jumping into this without seeing background, so apologies in advance if I missed some detail, but didn't ATK buy out PSI several years ago? They make a lot of propellant tanks (mostly titanium and carbon-fiber overwrapped tanks for satellite applications). Oh...if you're making the point that ATK isn't in a great position to make cryogenic tanks, that's a more valid point.

~Jon

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37446
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #190 on: 03/05/2012 09:01 pm »

1.  possibly with propellant tanks supplied by ATK)

1.  none built by ATK

Jumping into this without seeing background, so apologies in advance if I missed some detail, but didn't ATK buy out PSI several years ago? They make a lot of propellant tanks (mostly titanium and carbon-fiber overwrapped tanks for satellite applications). Oh...if you're making the point that ATK isn't in a great position to make cryogenic tanks, that's a more valid point.

~Jon

The main core and upperstage tanks are not built by ATK.  I wasn't including pressurant and ACS tanks.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #191 on: 04/28/2012 02:00 am »
Just to note that following a recommended that NASA negotiate only with Boeing for a feasibility study of the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS) and its potential application to the SLS as an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), a contract has been awarded.

Original requirement was that total time and material price not to exceed $3,000,000 for 10 month period and that the effort includes assessment of DCSS:

• against SLS load factors and environments
• against requirements of NPR 8705.2B, Human Rating for Space Systems
• for impacts on support equipment and its concept of operations resulting from any needed flight hardware modifications, the current SLS concept of operations, or utilizing the SLS launch vehicle adaptor.

Limited Source Justification:
February 2, 2012
"Market research was conducted to evaluate in-space propulsion systems (with performance data) capable of performing the function of the ICPS for the initial flights of the SLS. [...]

The evaluation of the responses received from the sources sought [...] validated the findings of the internal SLS research - that the DCSS appears to be the only solution mature enough to meet the requirements of the Government within the timeframe needed to support the Government’s need date for initial delivery. Given the need to assess in more detail the DCSS’s potential use as an ICPS, no other source possesses the necessary data and insight to conduct the feasibility study sought by the Government."

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/151290-FOLS-001-001.pdf

Contract award notification:
Contract NNM12AA32T awarded April 27, 2012 for $2,435,225.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f04b3b90585ac8e84c005fdf2fab0623&tab=core&_cview=0

Offline MP99

Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #192 on: 04/28/2012 11:36 am »
Thanks for finding / posting that.

I doesn't explictly mention Justification for Other than Fair and Open Competition. Is this actually a JOFOC award?

As stated, DCSS is the only option and Boeing the only company who could perform this study.

(I know DCSS

cheers, Martin

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7205
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1967
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #193 on: 04/29/2012 08:21 am »
[It] doesn't explictly mention Justification for Other than Fair and Open Competition.

I've tried several times to read the sentence at the top of page 2 of the pdf. American English is my native language; even so I have only about 50% confidence that I understand that sentence. My belief is that it claims, by FAR standards, that this was a fair and open competition.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2012 08:21 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #194 on: 05/03/2012 10:37 pm »
NASA has posted the following solicitation for ICPS hardware.  They plan to go with Boeing, but other sources may submit capability statements - any such responses will be used to decide whether or not to make the procurement on a competitive basis.

Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage
Solicitation SLS-SPIO-0001 May 3, 2012

NASA/MSFC has a requirement for an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for the early Space Launch System (SLS) missions. The early flights of the SLS architecture will require the use of an ICPS to ensure the placement of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and/or payload on the required trajectory. In order to support the flight schedule, the initial ICPS flight unit must be delivered to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) no later than late in the fourth quarter of the 2016 government fiscal year (GFY). The second flight unit must be delivered to KSC by the fourth quarter of the 2020 GFY. Design parameters/ performance characteristics for the ICPS are as follows:

1. Human Rated per NPR 8705.2B, Human-Rating for Space Systems (at a minimum the second flight unit will be human rated);
2. Burns (accelerating MPCV) following placement of ICPS and MPCV at 975 x -50 nmi insertion point by the SLS Launch Vehicle -- three engine ignitions to achieve greater than 3050 m/s delta-V;
3. Lift Capability -- total weight of 53404 lbs which includes crew module, service module, and crew;
4. Mass -- less than 71400 lbs.;
5. Length -- packaged, as stacked, within 500";
6. Functional Capability -- perform a separation event and have three-axis attitude control after SLS insertion and prior to separation from MPCV;
7. Constraints -- axial acceleration, during stage burns, not to exceed 2g; and
8. Reference Missions -- support MPCV free lunar return without crew and MPCV High Lunar Orbit (HLO) with crew.

NASA/MSFC intends to purchase the labor and hardware necessary to meet the requirements described above from The Boeing Company (Boeing). To fulfill these requirements, Boeing will modify its existing Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS). [...] NASA determined that the DCSS is the only means available to support the immediate in-space propulsion needs of the SLS within the SLS manifest schedule constraints. The DCSS is the only known in-space stage requiring relatively minor modifications to enable full compliance with the requirements of the early SLS manifest. As currently designed, the DCSS meets all requirements noted above except Human Rating and delta-V. It has the means to be human ratable, since with the minor modifications it can be human rated by the second flight unit.  [...]


http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=150492

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7205
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1967
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #195 on: 07/29/2012 08:13 pm »
I haven't seen this being discussed:

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120724-boeing-awarded-upper-stage-sls.html

How can it be manrated for SLS when it "couldn't" be manrated for Delta IV?

I always thought that it was the Delta-IV CBC and the RS-68A that was the problem, not the DCUS.

It will be interesting to see how they address the fault tolerance (or lack thereof) on the DCUS nozzle extension deployment system. It's never failed, of course. But it isn't fault tolerant, either.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #196 on: 07/29/2012 08:37 pm »
I haven't seen this being discussed:

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120724-boeing-awarded-upper-stage-sls.html

How can it be manrated for SLS when it "couldn't" be manrated for Delta IV?

I always thought that it was the Delta-IV CBC and the RS-68A that was the problem, not the DCUS.

It will be interesting to see how they address the fault tolerance (or lack thereof) on the DCUS nozzle extension deployment system. It's never failed, of course. But it isn't fault tolerant, either.

Maybe similar to how they dealt with a J2 restart failure on the S-IVB.


The DCUS should still be able to reach LEO if the nozzle extension fails to deploy.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2012 08:38 pm by Patchouli »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7205
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1967
Re: Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for SLS
« Reply #197 on: 07/30/2012 08:13 pm »
The DCUS should still be able to reach LEO if the nozzle extension fails to deploy.

Yes, an SLS mission could safely abort if the NEDS failed, though use of abort as the first leg of failure tolerance is (or at least used to be) frowned upon. (E.g. NPR8705.2A section 3.1.7.)

More broadly I wonder if there is some way the intent of the human rating requirements could be met given this is for no more than four flight units. Could the components for those four units be subjected to extra-careful inspection, non-destructive testing, etc., so that the design doesn't change but the confidence in the performance of the units increases?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Tags:
 

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