Author Topic: The Launch Vehicle Showdown  (Read 66552 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #100 on: 08/07/2006 10:34 pm »
Quote
Kayla - 7/8/2006  5:18 PM
  Most payloads don't.  Most payloads don't even want to go to LEO.  With the CLV, how would a com sat make it to GSO?  How will a a Mars robotic mission accelerate to C3~20 km2/s2.  How will an ISS module (no onboard propulsion) get to the ISS?  And the next spy satelite?  The CLV is not at all applicable to these missions.

  And to Earth escape or GSO the CLV's performance drops so severely that it can't even deliver its own upper stage, let alone a payload.  This is one reason why the RLEP program is no longer seriously considering use of the CLV for lunar missions.


The CLV is not allowed to be used for these missions.

Offline FatherRob

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #101 on: 08/07/2006 10:39 pm »
I guess I can see from a rocket-scientist viewpoint where you would view the OMS as a stage.  This is where I suffer from being 'out of the field' from a techie perspective.  

I guess I still don't see the problem with having an SPS engine on the CEV system.  Even if I view the SM as a stage, it worked fine for Apollo and from a lay perspective, I just don't see what is so bad about doing the same thing with Orion/CEV.  (To show my ignorance... does the Soyuz have an equivalent to the SPS?)  

I still think of the OMS on STS as the Orbital Manuvering System, not as a part of the launch vehicle... but that's an outsider's POV.

Rob+
Father Robert Lyons
Priest and Spaceflight Enthusiast
Central Indiana

Offline FatherRob

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #102 on: 08/07/2006 10:45 pm »
Quote
Jim - 7/8/2006  6:21 PM

Quote
Kayla - 7/8/2006  5:18 PM
  Most payloads don't.  Most payloads don't even want to go to LEO.  With the CLV, how would a com sat make it to GSO?  How will a a Mars robotic mission accelerate to C3~20 km2/s2.  How will an ISS module (no onboard propulsion) get to the ISS?  And the next spy satelite?  The CLV is not at all applicable to these missions.

  And to Earth escape or GSO the CLV's performance drops so severely that it can't even deliver its own upper stage, let alone a payload.  This is one reason why the RLEP program is no longer seriously considering use of the CLV for lunar missions.


The CLV is not allowed to be used for these missions.

Okay, I guess I am confoozed here...

I thought the mission architecture for a lunar mission something like this:
CaLV launches unmanned approximately one month prior to TLI with LSAM.  The EDS and LSAM await the subsequent launch of the four member crew aboard a Block II CEV aboard the CLV.  CEV performs rendevous and docking with the EDS/LASM stack in earth orbit and then after ensuring all is "go" TLI is ordered.  The EDS provides the burn for TLI, is then jettisoned.  CEV/LSAM stack proceeds to Luna.  CEV is put in a safe mode and the crew descends to the surface on the LSAM.  After surface ops are complete, the LSAM ascent stage docks with the CEV, the SPS (with RCS backup capability) burns for TEI, and the vehicle returns to earth and lands in the desert or wherever.

So, what part of this would rule out the CLV for launching the crew of this mission?

Again, I must be confoozoled...

Rob+
Father Robert Lyons
Priest and Spaceflight Enthusiast
Central Indiana

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #103 on: 08/07/2006 11:26 pm »
I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #104 on: 08/07/2006 11:57 pm »
Quote
zinfab - 7/8/2006  7:13 PM

I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO.

CLV is only for crew launch, no other missions "allowed"  per the agreement with the DOD and the Commercial Space Act.

Offline punkboi

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #105 on: 08/08/2006 12:36 am »

Quote
Jim - 7/8/2006 4:44 PM
Quote
zinfab - 7/8/2006 7:13 PM I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO.
CLV is only for crew launch, no other missions "allowed" per the agreement with the DOD and the Commercial Space Act.

Yea apparently, the meaning of the term CREW LAUNCH Vehicle escapes some of the folks here :)  


Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #106 on: 08/08/2006 02:08 pm »
Quote
punkboi - 7/8/2006  7:23 PM

Quote
Jim - 7/8/2006 4:44 PM
Quote
zinfab - 7/8/2006 7:13 PM I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO.
CLV is only for crew launch, no other missions "allowed" per the agreement with the DOD and the Commercial Space Act.

Yea apparently, the meaning of the term CREW LAUNCH Vehicle escapes some of the folks here :)  


This is exactly my point.  NASA is planning on spending ~$10B on a CLV that technically is only capable of launching to LEO.  The primary mission is as a crew "only" for exploration launch vehicle, but is also shown on the manefest to perform ISS service (crew & cargo), in direct competition with COTS.

If I remember correctly, the CEV's capsule only weighs 9 to 10 mT.  With a mini, ISS dedicated service module this weight would go up a few tons.  This puts the CEV for ISS only in the Atlas 402 to 422 payload category!  At current prices+ the human rating costs, the same $10B CEV investment could buy 100 actual crew missions to the ISS starting whenever the CEV is ready.  Lets see, a "new" unproven rocket with no missions, or 100 missions on an existing, proven rocket??? And this is assuming that NASA doesn't get a bulk buy discount.  Alternatively, saving $9B (assume $1B for human rating Atlas & crew access at LC 41, the high end from OSP) between now and 2012 would allow NASA to properly fund COTS, restore science funding, invest heavily in a cryo CEV service module significantly reducing total required launch mass, and support a very robust LPRP (RLEP) program prior to sending people.  Oh, did I mention send people earlier than 2018???  

The CLV won't improve America's broad needs for space access and space development.  Spending money on all of the things listed above are what will continue/regain (depending on ones perspective) America's space leadership.

Frequent program success are what will make VSE sustainable.  Lets have America lead the world in space development.

Offline rumble

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Conway, AR
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #107 on: 08/08/2006 02:53 pm »
Good point, Kayla...  If we can keep fixed, significant savings on LV will mean more money available for CEV/SM technology advances (instead of back-pedaling to "make it possible" on the stick).

I've already gone on and on about how great of an idea I think using an evolved Atlas would be for VSE.  I'll spare everyone another rehash.

But wait a minute...  what about an RL-10 for the SM engine?  (couldn't help it)  http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rl10b2.htm  The RL-10-b-2 is a bit different that the centaur engine (it has an extendable nozzle for added isp).  Restartable, but I'm not sure how many times.    *sigh*  I'll shut up now.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #108 on: 08/08/2006 03:30 pm »
Not sure that cryo props are a great idea for a SM with a minimum on orbit design life of six months. Especialy if it's your only ride home.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #109 on: 08/08/2006 03:52 pm »
Thank you Kayla. I can't put it that elogently. Sadly I think time is running out for NASA to adopt a change of course away from the Stuck.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #110 on: 08/09/2006 11:46 pm »
Quote
bad_astra - 8/8/2006  11:39 AM

Thank you Kayla. I can't put it that elogently. Sadly I think time is running out for NASA to adopt a change of course away from the Stuck.

Bad, I don't think that was ever a realistic option because of the job losses.   Retaining the current workforce was a Congressional mandate issued even before Griffin came in, and he has to comply with that.   Choosing an EELV solution would cause the termination of tens of thousands of currently STS-related workers, and the politicians will never support that.

EELV's were NEVER able to offer the retention of the workforce.

Because they couldn't do that, there was no way in hell the VSE would ever have gone that way, even if the tech was clearly superior.   Even then the tech isn't clearly superior - it's competative for sure, but doesn't offer any massive advantages, so other factors were always going to be the deciding ones.

Sorry, but its the truth and someone has to make it clear.

Nothing anyone here says or does is likely to change that.

So guys, lets please try to put this discussion down once and for all.   Lets stop griping and sniping, because all it is doing is providing ammunition to all of the real anti-NASA guys out there.   The years ahead are going to be hard enough without them having cr@p to spew at us!

Its too late to change things now.   The decision has been made and nothing but absolute failure of all the SDLV derivative designs will change it.

So guys, it is time to damn well get behind NASA and the new program.   Whether you are a big fan of the SDLV's or not, the Ares hardware will still get the job done and will still get us going to the "Moon, Mars and Beyond". Don't we all support that goal at least?

C'mon,

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #111 on: 08/10/2006 12:02 am »
The following is what you are asking us to do:

The end justify the means.  

In history, this has been used to commit some of mankind's worst moments, which doesn't compare to what we are talking about.  Nevertheless, just because a SDLV "seems" to provide a  way of reaching the goal (moon, and beyond?) doesn't mean it is the right one.  It will bankrupt NASA to do business as usual.  

Not to be cruel but the retention of the current workforce is the wrong reason to design a LV around.  They are the reason for NASA's manned flight high costs.  It would be better to wipe the slate clean and start over.  Otherwise the costs are going to kill it.  And from what I am hearing, it has started gagging.

Offline FatherRob

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #112 on: 08/10/2006 03:29 am »
Jim,

I don't know that I would say that the ends justify the means, but this is simply how it is.  If we want to support a NASA-led MMB drive, this is our cost.  EELVs may or may not have offered significant cost savings - I am not an industry insider so I don't know... but the politicians have determined that the string on the cookie jar is the retention of the current workforce.  

If NASA had their way, I think they would probably consider EELV's more closely... but NASA is beholden to the politicos who fund programs, and this is just how it is going to have to be for now.

:Sigh:

Rob+
Father Robert Lyons
Priest and Spaceflight Enthusiast
Central Indiana

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #113 on: 08/10/2006 03:43 am »
Quote
Jim - 7/8/2006  10:49 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 7/8/2006  11:32 AM
I look at this as a layman who is not particularly interested in who signed what contract.  If an IUS fails during a Titan or a Shuttle mission, than the stink of failure is there regardless of who was at fault.    

 - Ed Kyle

Reliability numbers aren't for the layman but for the professional.  It is representation like  saying the IUS is part of the shuttle is the problem.

But that, in my point of view, is correct.  IUS *is* (or was) part of the shuttle problem.  The very fact that shuttle required such a complex, failure-prone upper stage to deploy GTO, and other, satellites was a problem - an architecture problem.  Same for Titan.  Titan 4 with an IUS used six propulsion units.  An EELV Heavy can do the same job with four.

I think that professionals too often use compartmentalized failure results to fool themselves.  Lockheed people can tell themselves that only two Titan IV core vehicles failed (5% of the 39 total), but the layman knows a more accuracte story about the total Titan IV system - that it failed to place more than 10% of its payloads into their proper orbits.

 - Ed Kyle

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #114 on: 08/10/2006 04:05 am »
Personally I think having spent time on this site and being involved in these various discussions here I would like to let you all know how much I enjoy them.  Everybody has ideas I disagree with however I can confidently say everybody also has some ideas I think are simply excellent.  When I first came here I had different opinions about everything, there is a lot to learn poking around here.  While I will stand behind the idea of mankind getting off-world to explore other planets, getting a few facts is useful to help you figure out how far we will be able to go and what sort of things we expect to learn.

I think one of the things that has made this country great is the fact that we can make our own analyses and speak up about it.  If our ideas get recognized as excellent it can contribute to what makes us strong.  Even so, we are still going to support these things and nobody is going to cancel them because someone found out I think my idea is better.  One of the things that made the dark ages so dark was the lack of freedom to speak out or do things of your own.  Imagine where NASA might be (or lack thereof) if there was nobody to speak up.  

I have spent enough time in the past looking for jobs between consulting and working dot-coms so I can appreciate the desire to save the workforce.  I do feel however that various alternative strategies discussed would really change the game for space exploration.  The way things look to me, the current strategy gives short-term promises for the workforce but there will be long-term problems.  A better strategy would achieve results earlier, inject more energy and enthusiasm into space exloration and I think it would be easier to create new jobs and adapt the workforce.  Increase scientific research and work with industry to find value off-world.  Those would be exciting jobs to have.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #115 on: 08/10/2006 11:04 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 9/8/2006  11:30 PM

Quote
Jim - 7/8/2006  10:49 AM

Quote
edkyle99 - 7/8/2006  11:32 AM
I look at this as a layman who is not particularly interested in who signed what contract.  If an IUS fails during a Titan or a Shuttle mission, than the stink of failure is there regardless of who was at fault.    

 - Ed Kyle

Reliability numbers aren't for the layman but for the professional.  It is representation like  saying the IUS is part of the shuttle is the problem.

But that, in my point of view, is correct.  IUS *is* (or was) part of the shuttle problem.  The very fact that shuttle required such a complex, failure-prone upper stage to deploy GTO, and other, satellites was a problem - an architecture problem.  Same for Titan.  Titan 4 with an IUS used six propulsion units.  An EELV Heavy can do the same job with four.

I think that professionals too often use compartmentalized failure results to fool themselves.  Lockheed people can tell themselves that only two Titan IV core vehicles failed (5% of the 39 total), but the layman knows a more accuracte story about the total Titan IV system - that it failed to place more than 10% of its payloads into their proper orbits.

 - Ed Kyle

You have to compartmentalized failures, unless one company/organization is responsible for the total mission.  LM and NASA had no insight nor contractual leverage into the IUS.  Therefore, the ICD's and agreements are to deliver the IUS and its payload into LEO as a single entity.  The Centaur failure is included as a Titan failure.

With your line of reasoning, the Contour, MCO and MPL are launch failures.

It is not the fault of the launch vehicle, if the payload community adds other propulsive units to their spacecraft to achieve the required orbit.  The Titan IV concept did not have the IUS in the beginning.  Centaur was to be used for every GSO mission.  It was the USAF that added it since they already bought them for shuttle missions.  

The shuttle missions, STS-6 and 41B are listed as successful launches that had payload failures, just as Contour, MCO and MPL were successful ELV launches.  

PS.  layman don't know crap

Offline cozmicray

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #116 on: 08/11/2006 05:39 pm »
Spacecraft alive at launch ?
Well many are "Alive" during launch and ascent!
Receivers hardwired to SC internal batteries,
SC control computers running to do autonomous attitude control and deployments post separation.

At about L-5  switch over from Space Vehicle external to internal power
Spacecraft telemetry data is coming out over umbilcal to LV umbilical to ground station.
After Launch,  Spacecraft Telemetry inserted into LV downlink
Even on STS launch   Payload telemetry may be in STS downlink

Re Radiator inside fairing to outside fairing used to S-Band spacecraft RF
to ground station, aircraft, ship or relay satellite.
or  SC transmitter ON a couple of seconds post fair separtion.

On both East Coast and West Coast launches  Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)
  provided continuous coverage of spacecraft telemetry  launch pad to final orbit.
Both Spacecraft and LV   (s-band  L-band)


Many blind launches have left no critical event telemetry to know why it failed.
NASA did special investigation, post Mars Observer mishap and stressed as much as possible should
be done to have all critical events happen during times where downlink telemetry is available.

FWIW?

Offline Bubbinski

RE: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #117 on: 08/12/2006 03:25 am »
I voted for Stumpy.  I like the more minimal pad modifications involved compared to the Stick.  It just seems like it would be easier to implement than the Stick, closer to existing shuttle hardware, from the reading on the article about it.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #118 on: 08/12/2006 07:41 am »
Could I get these listed on here?

:)

R.
(being oh so cheeky tonight!)
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The Launch Vehicle Showdown
« Reply #119 on: 08/12/2006 01:48 pm »
For 2.0 launch scenario, with CEV/SM/LSAM on one launcher, EDS on another -- how do you dock the one stack to the other once in orbit? There doesn't seem to be an easy maneuver, available docking port or adaptor that can handle this. (Transposition and docking of CEV to LSAM, nose to nose . . . then what?)

Tags:
 

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