...NASA engineers are poring over designs for a new affordable and quick heavy lift rocket capable of exploring the solar system.....The all liquid rocket is called HLLV RP-1. There was a similar rocket studied by NASA in the 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). It has an 8.4m first stage powered by five Russian-made RD-180 engines. It has 8.4m second stage powered by 4 J-2X engines. It also uses two liquid strap-on boosters each powered by an RD 180. No details were immediately available about its proposed performance or how it compares to the other rockets, including the Ares V.
Unless you go with a three stage rocket, wait what was that three stage moon rocket called again?
This thing would be a long shot I'd file it somewhere between unlikely and never.The size of that thing is almost comical.
Quote from: Patchouli on 11/16/2009 02:52 pmThis thing would be a long shot I'd file it somewhere between unlikely and never.The size of that thing is almost comical.It would be shorter than Ares V, and have a smaller diameter.It isn't Ares V class, however. In ESAS, it was listed as having something like 110 tonnes to LEO capability. This is a rocket that could be used for a dual-launch type lunar mission - if NASA were going to the Moon. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: kevin-rf on 11/16/2009 02:27 pmUnless you go with a three stage rocket, wait what was that three stage moon rocket called again? You still need a massive second stage lift due to the lower isp of the kerolox engines.
I doubt the first stage and booster engines would have enough thrust to get it off the ground unless they're proposing resurrecting the F1A or TR107.
Quote from: Downix on 11/16/2009 02:35 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 11/16/2009 02:27 pmUnless you go with a three stage rocket, wait what was that three stage moon rocket called again? You still need a massive second stage lift due to the lower isp of the kerolox engines. Not really. You have to consider energy density, and not just isp. Just because something has a higher isp doesn't necessarily make it better. That's why the Saturn V had an RP-1 stage. They did look at a large LH2 motor - the M-1 - but decided the size of the first stage would be so large and heavy, the additional isp wouldn't do any good.
Don't get into the fallacy of believing Saturn V was the optimal configuration ever. Rather, it was (like Ares V) the product of compounding a initial design; really, it was a scaled up Saturn C-4. Because of this, it's actually longer and taller than it should have been. If Saturn V had looked something like Ares V (or Direct), the VAB would only have needed to be half the size.Also, the M-1 wasn't canceled because it was inferior to F-1, quite the opposite. Rather, F-1 was adopted because M-1 was a larger, more powerful engine that would take too long to develop. The proposed upgrade versions of the Saturn V used M-1s on the second and third stages. F-1, by the way, was only available for Saturn V because Ike approved funding it way back in 1959, three years before the start of the lunar landing program.
Also, the M-1 wasn't canceled because it was inferior to F-1, quite the opposite. Rather, F-1 was adopted because M-1 was a larger, more powerful engine that would take too long to develop. The proposed upgrade versions of the Saturn V used M-1s on the second and third stages. F-1, by the way, was only available for Saturn V because Ike approved funding it way back in 1959, three years before the start of the lunar landing program.
Quote from: simonbp on 11/16/2009 03:37 pmAlso, the M-1 wasn't canceled because it was inferior to F-1, quite the opposite. Rather, F-1 was adopted because M-1 was a larger, more powerful engine that would take too long to develop. The proposed upgrade versions of the Saturn V used M-1s on the second and third stages. F-1, by the way, was only available for Saturn V because Ike approved funding it way back in 1959, three years before the start of the lunar landing program.If I implied the M-1 was inferior, I didn't meant to. I think the issue is whether an RP-1 or LH2 first stage is better, especially as new configurations for ARES are apparently being looked at.All I'm saying is an RP-1 first stage is probably still the best way to go. For example, the S-1C had a dry weight of about 300,000 lbs and could produce 7.5 millions pounds of thrust. On the other hand, the two Shuttle SRB have a dry mass of about 600,000 lbs - twice the dry weight of the S-1C and produce only about 6 million pounds of thrust. If NASA is looking at "new" designs, they'd be smart to go with an RP-1 first stage.
Quote from: Takalok on 11/16/2009 03:52 pmQuote from: simonbp on 11/16/2009 03:37 pmAlso, the M-1 wasn't canceled because it was inferior to F-1, quite the opposite. Rather, F-1 was adopted because M-1 was a larger, more powerful engine that would take too long to develop. The proposed upgrade versions of the Saturn V used M-1s on the second and third stages. F-1, by the way, was only available for Saturn V because Ike approved funding it way back in 1959, three years before the start of the lunar landing program.If I implied the M-1 was inferior, I didn't meant to. I think the issue is whether an RP-1 or LH2 first stage is better, especially as new configurations for ARES are apparently being looked at.All I'm saying is an RP-1 first stage is probably still the best way to go. For example, the S-1C had a dry weight of about 300,000 lbs and could produce 7.5 millions pounds of thrust. On the other hand, the two Shuttle SRB have a dry mass of about 600,000 lbs - twice the dry weight of the S-1C and produce only about 6 million pounds of thrust. If NASA is looking at "new" designs, they'd be smart to go with an RP-1 first stage.Won't argue there. In theory, Rocketdyne could use the information from the F-1 that was stored to develop an F-1B engine, derived from the original but while using new technologies, processes, material, etc, or derive a new engine using the stored know-how. If we had the time, this would be a very appealing option for such a booster. Even if we only matched the F-1A in performance, four F-1A boosters would crush the SRB's in terms of performance, while weighing less.
What capacity engine would be required to equal the Delta IVH with a single core/single engine? Basically, a single CBC that's equivalent to the current 3 x CBC Delta IVH. It would have to be more powerful than an F-1, correct?
Quote from: Downix on 11/16/2009 03:56 pmQuote from: Takalok on 11/16/2009 03:52 pmQuote from: simonbp on 11/16/2009 03:37 pmAlso, the M-1 wasn't canceled because it was inferior to F-1, quite the opposite. Rather, F-1 was adopted because M-1 was a larger, more powerful engine that would take too long to develop. The proposed upgrade versions of the Saturn V used M-1s on the second and third stages. F-1, by the way, was only available for Saturn V because Ike approved funding it way back in 1959, three years before the start of the lunar landing program.If I implied the M-1 was inferior, I didn't meant to. I think the issue is whether an RP-1 or LH2 first stage is better, especially as new configurations for ARES are apparently being looked at.All I'm saying is an RP-1 first stage is probably still the best way to go. For example, the S-1C had a dry weight of about 300,000 lbs and could produce 7.5 millions pounds of thrust. On the other hand, the two Shuttle SRB have a dry mass of about 600,000 lbs - twice the dry weight of the S-1C and produce only about 6 million pounds of thrust. If NASA is looking at "new" designs, they'd be smart to go with an RP-1 first stage.Won't argue there. In theory, Rocketdyne could use the information from the F-1 that was stored to develop an F-1B engine, derived from the original but while using new technologies, processes, material, etc, or derive a new engine using the stored know-how. If we had the time, this would be a very appealing option for such a booster. Even if we only matched the F-1A in performance, four F-1A boosters would crush the SRB's in terms of performance, while weighing less.A new F1 probably could be reusable if the stage mass reactions of Saturn were kept the SC-1 did stage at a fairly low speed.Though time constraints would limit us to options such as the TR-107,RS-84 or a RD-180/170 derivative.The TR-107 is probably going to be the quickest to deploy 1M+ lbs thrust engine.It uses modern materials or production techniques and would not involve getting a foreign manufacture to make huge changes to their design.
According the the Orlando Sentinel in <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/11/nasa-weighs-ares-alternatives-including-an-heir-to-the-saturn-v.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news%2Fspace%2Fspace_blog+%28Space+Blog+The+Write+Stuff%29" target="_blank">this article[/url], NASA is looking at a Saturn V class all liquid booster similar to a 2005 ESAS design.
Here's something completely off the top of my head. Call it a super-EELV, as it uses most of the same design philosophy but has a far greater baseline performance.Baseline model: 'Titan-V' - Kerolox core; Hydrolox upper stage to launch Orion (either LEO- or exploration-rigged) to LEO; About 25t to LEO in human-safe trajectory; 5.5m (18ft) diameter;Enhanced model: Up to four EELV-style small expendable SRMs or two kerolox outriggers and option for two SRMs; About 50t to LEO for ISS maintenance/resupply or LEO repair;Exploration model: As Enhanced version but with wide-body 7.5m (25ft)-diameter upper stage to double as EDS; About 75t to LEO for either dual-launch or single-launch with propellent transfer crewed missions;Super-heavy model: Five clustered cores with option for SRMs on outrigger CCBs; Version requring SRMs has black-zones; 100t to LEOThis might seem similar to Atlas-V Phase 2. The big difference is that I suggest a J-2X upper stage engine rather than RL-10B-2.Fantasy or possible?[edit]Fixed formatting
Why not do an all liquid version of the Jupiter-241? 4x SSME core, and two SSME boosters.
I love the idea of an RP1 booster but I don't see the money present to do it. Maybe it's cheaper to operate, but if the 4 segment shuttle booster and SSMEs already exist that goes along way.I'd expect NASA to look at (evaluate) this option and many others. Doesn't mean it's seriously considered.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 11/17/2009 04:35 pmI love the idea of an RP1 booster but I don't see the money present to do it. Maybe it's cheaper to operate, but if the 4 segment shuttle booster and SSMEs already exist that goes along way.I'd expect NASA to look at (evaluate) this option and many others. Doesn't mean it's seriously considered.This would be a cost-savings measure, utilizing the existing Kerolox boosters developed for the Atlas V Heavy, I would imagine.
Quote from: Downix on 11/17/2009 05:46 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 11/17/2009 04:35 pmI love the idea of an RP1 booster but I don't see the money present to do it. Maybe it's cheaper to operate, but if the 4 segment shuttle booster and SSMEs already exist that goes along way.I'd expect NASA to look at (evaluate) this option and many others. Doesn't mean it's seriously considered.This would be a cost-savings measure, utilizing the existing Kerolox boosters developed for the Atlas V Heavy, I would imagine.yes, and one of the things I had mentioned in the earlier topic post that got deleted was that if they wanted top keep commonality, then going with an Atlas V to lift the crew up as well (on Orion) makes even more sense. But no matter...everything seems so convoluted these days.
I did some calc (and homemade pyrotechnics) and a fuel-rich boosters would induce a vacuum space under the central core, drawing away the base heat from the RS-68, especially if you use 4-6 of them surrounding the core. I easily imagine something like a "Jupiter-Energia" design.
Quote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 01:50 am I did some calc (and homemade pyrotechnics) and a fuel-rich boosters would induce a vacuum space under the central core, drawing away the base heat from the RS-68, especially if you use 4-6 of them surrounding the core. I easily imagine something like a "Jupiter-Energia" design.haha...I'd be interested to know your 'homemade' pyro techniques. I'll have to look more into thermodynamics, but my initial reaction is 'a vacuum doesn't conduct heat because there are no atoms to vibrate'. I'll have to read up on that to not look stupid. Maybe that's too late...
That said, I did a BOTE and I think an Ares I replacement could be a 2 x RD-180 (kerolox) first stage and a single J2-X upper stage.
OMG. I am not a rocket scientist (tm), but there is a lot of really bad information on this thread.That said, I did a BOTE and I think an Ares I replacement could be a 2 x RD-180 (kerolox) first stage and a single J2-X upper stage.
Quote from: kkattula on 11/18/2009 02:33 amOMG. I am not a rocket scientist (tm), but there is a lot of really bad information on this thread.That said, I did a BOTE and I think an Ares I replacement could be a 2 x RD-180 (kerolox) first stage and a single J2-X upper stage.Bad information, doubtless, as this is not just a paper rocket, it's not even that.And that is not a bad rocket idea, save for the J-2X being overkill and still being a long-pole.
Quote from: robertross on 11/18/2009 01:57 amQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 01:50 am I did some calc (and homemade pyrotechnics) and a fuel-rich boosters would induce a vacuum space under the central core, drawing away the base heat from the RS-68, especially if you use 4-6 of them surrounding the core. I easily imagine something like a "Jupiter-Energia" design.haha...I'd be interested to know your 'homemade' pyro techniques. I'll have to look more into thermodynamics, but my initial reaction is 'a vacuum doesn't conduct heat because there are no atoms to vibrate'. I'll have to read up on that to not look stupid. Maybe that's too late... Heat is atoms vibrating, stored energy. If you have a low-pressure area behind a vehicle, it draws away the air from the back of the vehicle, and as the air is what stores the heat, it would draw the heat away with it. And my pyrotechnics is pretty simple, I used two pulse-jets I had with a heat-coil in between then. My Pulse-Jets are fuel-rich, and continue to combust in the exhaust, so I ran them with a thermometer below the heat-coil elements, and watches as it's temperature dropped despite me adding heat as it ran.
Quote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 02:06 amQuote from: robertross on 11/18/2009 01:57 amQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 01:50 am I did some calc (and homemade pyrotechnics) and a fuel-rich boosters would induce a vacuum space under the central core, drawing away the base heat from the RS-68, especially if you use 4-6 of them surrounding the core. I easily imagine something like a "Jupiter-Energia" design.haha...I'd be interested to know your 'homemade' pyro techniques. I'll have to look more into thermodynamics, but my initial reaction is 'a vacuum doesn't conduct heat because there are no atoms to vibrate'. I'll have to read up on that to not look stupid. Maybe that's too late... Heat is atoms vibrating, stored energy. If you have a low-pressure area behind a vehicle, it draws away the air from the back of the vehicle, and as the air is what stores the heat, it would draw the heat away with it. And my pyrotechnics is pretty simple, I used two pulse-jets I had with a heat-coil in between then. My Pulse-Jets are fuel-rich, and continue to combust in the exhaust, so I ran them with a thermometer below the heat-coil elements, and watches as it's temperature dropped despite me adding heat as it ran.If you have a low pressure area behind the vehicle, it causes a recirculation zone of the hot gases. The existing low pressure area is part of the problem. Heat will also be transferred by radiation, and doesn't require a medium to transfer heat.
Quote from: strangequark on 11/20/2009 02:37 pmQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 02:06 amQuote from: robertross on 11/18/2009 01:57 amQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 01:50 am I did some calc (and homemade pyrotechnics) and a fuel-rich boosters would induce a vacuum space under the central core, drawing away the base heat from the RS-68, especially if you use 4-6 of them surrounding the core. I easily imagine something like a "Jupiter-Energia" design.haha...I'd be interested to know your 'homemade' pyro techniques. I'll have to look more into thermodynamics, but my initial reaction is 'a vacuum doesn't conduct heat because there are no atoms to vibrate'. I'll have to read up on that to not look stupid. Maybe that's too late... Heat is atoms vibrating, stored energy. If you have a low-pressure area behind a vehicle, it draws away the air from the back of the vehicle, and as the air is what stores the heat, it would draw the heat away with it. And my pyrotechnics is pretty simple, I used two pulse-jets I had with a heat-coil in between then. My Pulse-Jets are fuel-rich, and continue to combust in the exhaust, so I ran them with a thermometer below the heat-coil elements, and watches as it's temperature dropped despite me adding heat as it ran.If you have a low pressure area behind the vehicle, it causes a recirculation zone of the hot gases. The existing low pressure area is part of the problem. Heat will also be transferred by radiation, and doesn't require a medium to transfer heat.I'm curious whether the low pressure region would also cause drag on the vehicle. I have some vague memory this was an issue with N-1, and was part of the reason it had some engines in the middle, as well as the ring around the periphery of the stage one base.
Quote from: William Barton on 11/20/2009 02:40 pmQuote from: strangequark on 11/20/2009 02:37 pmQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 02:06 amQuote from: robertross on 11/18/2009 01:57 amQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 01:50 am I did some calc (and homemade pyrotechnics) and a fuel-rich boosters would induce a vacuum space under the central core, drawing away the base heat from the RS-68, especially if you use 4-6 of them surrounding the core. I easily imagine something like a "Jupiter-Energia" design.haha...I'd be interested to know your 'homemade' pyro techniques. I'll have to look more into thermodynamics, but my initial reaction is 'a vacuum doesn't conduct heat because there are no atoms to vibrate'. I'll have to read up on that to not look stupid. Maybe that's too late... Heat is atoms vibrating, stored energy. If you have a low-pressure area behind a vehicle, it draws away the air from the back of the vehicle, and as the air is what stores the heat, it would draw the heat away with it. And my pyrotechnics is pretty simple, I used two pulse-jets I had with a heat-coil in between then. My Pulse-Jets are fuel-rich, and continue to combust in the exhaust, so I ran them with a thermometer below the heat-coil elements, and watches as it's temperature dropped despite me adding heat as it ran.If you have a low pressure area behind the vehicle, it causes a recirculation zone of the hot gases. The existing low pressure area is part of the problem. Heat will also be transferred by radiation, and doesn't require a medium to transfer heat.I'm curious whether the low pressure region would also cause drag on the vehicle. I have some vague memory this was an issue with N-1, and was part of the reason it had some engines in the middle, as well as the ring around the periphery of the stage one base.Yes, the low pressure results in greater drag.
Here is the size comparison image that the Sentinel had, except I scaled down the Liquid HLLV as well.
Quote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 02:44 amQuote from: kkattula on 11/18/2009 02:33 amOMG. I am not a rocket scientist (tm), but there is a lot of really bad information on this thread.That said, I did a BOTE and I think an Ares I replacement could be a 2 x RD-180 (kerolox) first stage and a single J2-X upper stage.Bad information, doubtless, as this is not just a paper rocket, it's not even that.And that is not a bad rocket idea, save for the J-2X being overkill and still being a long-pole.With just 2 x RD-180, it would stage a lot lower and need a big engine like J-2X.With 3 x RD-180, (Atlas V Heavy), the first stage does a lot more work, so the upper stage is much smaller and you can get away with a few RL-10's.
Quote from: kkattula on 11/18/2009 03:03 amQuote from: Downix on 11/18/2009 02:44 amQuote from: kkattula on 11/18/2009 02:33 amOMG. I am not a rocket scientist (tm), but there is a lot of really bad information on this thread.That said, I did a BOTE and I think an Ares I replacement could be a 2 x RD-180 (kerolox) first stage and a single J2-X upper stage.Bad information, doubtless, as this is not just a paper rocket, it's not even that.And that is not a bad rocket idea, save for the J-2X being overkill and still being a long-pole.With just 2 x RD-180, it would stage a lot lower and need a big engine like J-2X.With 3 x RD-180, (Atlas V Heavy), the first stage does a lot more work, so the upper stage is much smaller and you can get away with a few RL-10's.The twin RD-180's provide equivalent performance to Ares I even with a cluster of RL10's:http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/EvolvedAtlasToMeetSpaceTransportationNeeds20056815.pdfWhile the J2-X's higher thrust increases LEO peformance compared to the RL10, it's higher mass and low ISP reduce its effectiveness for beyond LEO missions. In my opinion the J2 should be scrapped. In the near term use RL10's to support missions while developing an upgrade path using a true modern LH2 engine. Let the MB-60 (PWR) compete with Aerojets AJ-60. These are both modern, high thrust/ISP engines that will support NASA's future needs much better than the J2.
The twin RD-180's provide equivalent performance to Ares I even with a cluster of RL10's:http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/EvolvedAtlasToMeetSpaceTransportationNeeds20056815.pdf
Don't mistake this RP-1 booster being studied in the Bolden Study for the Atlas-V Phase 3B. It is NOT the same vehicle.For a start, this is intended to be a product of MSFC, not ULA. ULA will not do any of the DDT&E work.The intention is that if they can't have Ares-V, they need something else which can still create more make-work for MSFC to do, thus still justifying a larger portion of the NASA budget pie for North Alabama -- an additional portion which gets taken away from KSC and JSC, I might add.This vehicle is also NOT being designed with an RL-10 Upper Stage. It is being designed with 4 J-2X engines powering the US. Excessive? Yeah, sure. But the underlying reason is so that MSFC can then also design a third, RL-10 powered, US later as a dedicated EDS.Effectively, what they are trying to do here, is build a modern Saturn-V.Ross.
Saturn V again. Yeh. Saturn V was so affordable. What are these guys smoking?
Do they not realize that Saturn-V was only made possible because NASA was given the budget first, not the other way around?That's a fundamental mistake I would bet 99% of the readership here on NSF wouldn't be stupid enough to make.
Quote from: gladiator1332 on 11/17/2009 04:27 pmHere is the size comparison image that the Sentinel had, except I scaled down the Liquid HLLV as well. I'm starting to examine the All-Liquid Super Heavy idea at www.spacelaunchreport.com/liquidhllv.htmlHere's a drawing that compares Ares V, several RS-68 options, and the Evolved Atlas design postulated by Orlando Sentinel. - Ed Kyle
Interesting article. Did you look at an RS-68 based core with RD-180 strap-ons too?
Welcome back Atlantis.Shuttle flights now seem routine since Columbia. We now know better how dangerous space is and have taken prudent precautions. So lets keep shuttle. Helps that you can bring back a major component for repair, dunnit? Try that on so-use or anything in near future. So at a cost of $4B we get eight flights per year. Chickenfeed compared to anything else. This should be good to 2020. Need to develop something else meanwhile? So replace SRB's with liquids. Upgrade, repair and expand shuttle fleet. Start work on SD/HLLV.So, for crying out loud, lets keep Shuttle going.
Welcome back Atlantis.Shuttle flights now seem routine since Columbia. We now know better how dangerous space is and have taken prudent precautions.
So lets keep shuttle. Helps that you can bring back a major component for repair, dunnit? Try that on so-use or anything in near future. So at a cost of $4B we get eight flights per year.
Quote from: William Barton on 11/28/2009 09:52 amInteresting article. Did you look at an RS-68 based core with RD-180 strap-ons too?I wondered about that as well. The all-delta based variant requires a bigger core etc, but what about a nearly stock ET with RS-68s under it and Atlas strap-ons ?Of course, that would mean human rating two different first stage engines.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/23/2009 10:02 pmQuote from: gladiator1332 on 11/17/2009 04:27 pmHere is the size comparison image that the Sentinel had, except I scaled down the Liquid HLLV as well. I'm starting to examine the All-Liquid Super Heavy idea at www.spacelaunchreport.com/liquidhllv.htmlHere's a drawing that compares Ares V, several RS-68 options, and the Evolved Atlas design postulated by Orlando Sentinel. - Ed KyleInteresting article. Did you look at an RS-68 based core with RD-180 strap-ons too?
Quote from: William Barton on 11/28/2009 09:52 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/23/2009 10:02 pmQuote from: gladiator1332 on 11/17/2009 04:27 pmHere is the size comparison image that the Sentinel had, except I scaled down the Liquid HLLV as well. I'm starting to examine the All-Liquid Super Heavy idea at www.spacelaunchreport.com/liquidhllv.htmlHere's a drawing that compares Ares V, several RS-68 options, and the Evolved Atlas design postulated by Orlando Sentinel. - Ed KyleInteresting article. Did you look at an RS-68 based core with RD-180 strap-ons too?I have looked at that before, as did ESAS. It works, but at the expense of needing to support two separate engine and core production lines. Better to go either all-RD-180 or all-RS-68 from a budget standpoint, I suspect. (Both engines would cost about the same if produced in the U.S.)I'll revisit the concept though, and add it to the page eventually. - Ed Kyle
Perhaps I should just mention that the actual plan is to use the RD-180 as an interim stop-gap engine on the first stage, then change to a new US-designed engine as soon as possible for the Block II.
Please try to understand that this is entirely about money and politics. It has very little, if not nothing at all, to do with optimal design.Ross.
the culture is nothing like what it used to be.
Quote from: kraisee on 11/28/2009 07:10 pmPlease try to understand that this is entirely about money and politics. It has very little, if not nothing at all, to do with optimal design.Ross.And that is exactly why Apollo succeeded, and why all efforts so far have failed miserably. NASA is desperately trying to go back to their "glory days" but they forgot what allowed them to succeed. It's like the New York Mets wearing the uniforms they wore in the 1969 World Series....sure they look like that old team, but they still suck. You can dress this new launch vehicle up any way you want, and you can call it Saturn V Two if you want...but in the end, the culture is nothing like what it used to be.
And forget about using an ACES stage for the EDS.
Quote from: kraisee on 11/28/2009 07:10 pmAnd forget about using an ACES stage for the EDS. An RS-68, rather than an RD-180, powered core/booster combination would allow a dual-purpose upper stage, eliminating the cost of developing a separate EDS (third) stage needed for an RD-180 powered rocket. An RS-68 powered rocket trails an RD-180 powered rocket (with equivalent core/booster engine count) in LEO capability by 5 tonnes or so (because it uses only one J-2X), but it *beats* "Evolved Atlas" in TLI capability by the same 5 tonnes - and it does it with one less stage and one or two fewer J-2X engines. - Ed Kyle
Saturn V again. Yeh. Saturn V was so affordable. What are these guys smoking?Analyst
Quote from: gladiator1332 on 11/29/2009 03:39 pmQuote from: kraisee on 11/28/2009 07:10 pmPlease try to understand that this is entirely about money and politics. It has very little, if not nothing at all, to do with optimal design.Ross.And that is exactly why Apollo succeeded, and why all efforts so far have failed miserably. NASA is desperately trying to go back to their "glory days" but they forgot what allowed them to succeed. It's like the New York Mets wearing the uniforms they wore in the 1969 World Series....sure they look like that old team, but they still suck. You can dress this new launch vehicle up any way you want, and you can call it Saturn V Two if you want...but in the end, the culture is nothing like what it used to be. What I don't get gents, is the total apathy of the US people, to take on a system that clearly is defrauding the population who is paying the bills.. Where did the people of the USA loose their power, and the means to do the right thing.. surely one could take this up with the press or better some class action law suit asking for your tax dollars back.. in my part of the world its a police state so we have no rights.. you don'tdo something great...
Takalok, your are making a lot of false assumtions. I don't have the time to correct everything. Just one: Saturn V would have been cheaper to operate than Shuttle is not even a false assumption, it is proven false by reality. Your numbers too are from fantasyland. Analyst
We can operate a Saturn V class vehicle now for a fraction of the cost, I believe.
The funny thing about fantasylands is: People living in them don't realize they do.Analyst
The funny thing about fantasylands is: People living in them don't realize they do.
Plus, you wouldn't have lost those two crews.
I originally was making a poor attempt at a joke on his assumptions. But yes, Saturn V is an expensive beast to operate. Impressive, yes, but expensive. We learned to do more with less. We can operate a Saturn V class vehicle now for a fraction of the cost, I believe.
Quote from: Takalok on 11/30/2009 08:12 pmPlus, you wouldn't have lost those two crews. No, NASA will have lost other crews at other times for other reasons. That is inevitable.
Of course that's assuming they kept on flying the same vehicle vs redesigning it.
Quote from: Analyst on 11/30/2009 02:24 pmTakalok, your are making a lot of false assumtions. I don't have the time to correct everything. Just one: Saturn V would have been cheaper to operate than Shuttle is not even a false assumption, it is proven false by reality. Your numbers too are from fantasyland. AnalystFantasyland eh? That's somewhat amusing.It is unarguable that NASA could have done more, safely, for less $$$ had the Saturn production lines not been shut down and Shuttle were never built. The idea that Shuttle as an alternative to Saturn saved any money or provided heretofore unattainable vistas is laughable.
We shouldn't waste tax payer money by abandoning the ISS before we get the most use out of it.The problem with the US space policy is that we spend billions of dollars on a system (Saturn/Apollo/LM/Skylab, Shuttle/ISS) and then abandon the program and start a new space policy from scratch. We should learn from the Russians, who have kept to their goal of "routine" access to LEO and space station development and research.
There was not and is not any new spacecraft in design phase, that could do or can do what the Space Shuttle Orbiter has done since 1981.The Shuttle orbiter, with its large payload bay and robotic arm, will remain unmatched in its LEO capabilities of humans working in space, repairing, upgrading, providing supplies and returning large items back to Earth. The Saturn/Apollo couldn't do it, Ares I/Orion/Ares V will not be capable of doing it, nor any of the other designs being considered for the near future of human spaceflight.
The best use of US tax payer money is to continue to utilize the ISS as much as possible and gain further experience in space sciences, medicine, etc. And also, to allow astronauts to stay on station for longer and longer periods, to help simulate and observe how humans will adapt to long term space flight to asteroids, Mars, etc.
It would have been cheaper to fly more HST's than repair them.
So here's what I have seen and heard:RP-1/LOX= better then hydroloxHydrolox second stage and/or third stage as neededLRB's= better then SRBMy thought is that it would be prudent to consider this: Though RP1 is more powerful it terms of thrust to weight ratio it is also more unstable. The Saturn 5 that launched apollo 13 lost the center engine due to pogo ocsillations caused by the flexing of the first stage aft thrust structure (which in turn flexed propellant lines created pressure differences generating the oscillations). This proves two things: First that the new HLV/ beyond leo rocket must have booster of some type instead of just lots of, or several very large, main engines. Second: I have noted that kerosene propelled rockets are, in general, slightly more vunlnerable to pogo oscillations. Now I do not think this would be an issue for saftey or an LOM type issue but I do think that it would pose an issue for lifting a potentially sensitive upper stage and or mission module. RP-1 is cheaper and more powerful than hydrolox in most cases but its also more unstable.
3. For the HLV and SHLV classes use LRBS not SRBS (jackhammer thrust oscillation is just as bad as pogo oscillation)
My thought is that it would be prudent to consider this: Though RP1 is more powerful it terms of thrust to weight ratio it is also more unstable. The Saturn 5 that launched apollo 13 lost the center engine due to pogo ocsillations caused by the flexing of the first stage aft thrust structure (which in turn flexed propellant lines created pressure differences generating the oscillations).
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 12/02/2009 12:45 amSo here's what I have seen and heard:RP-1/LOX= better then hydroloxHydrolox second stage and/or third stage as neededLRB's= better then SRBMy thought is that it would be prudent to consider this: Though RP1 is more powerful it terms of thrust to weight ratio it is also more unstable. The Saturn 5 that launched apollo 13 lost the center engine due to pogo ocsillations caused by the flexing of the first stage aft thrust structure (which in turn flexed propellant lines created pressure differences generating the oscillations). This proves two things: First that the new HLV/ beyond leo rocket must have booster of some type instead of just lots of, or several very large, main engines. Second: I have noted that kerosene propelled rockets are, in general, slightly more vunlnerable to pogo oscillations. Now I do not think this would be an issue for saftey or an LOM type issue but I do think that it would pose an issue for lifting a potentially sensitive upper stage and or mission module. RP-1 is cheaper and more powerful than hydrolox in most cases but its also more unstable. Pogo is well understood now, and can be effectively mitigated prior to first engine test. CFD has helped enormously in this area (IE: computing power).RP-1/LOX is by far the best first stage.Hydrolox is arguably the best second stage, but if there are possibilities for second stage firing in orbit (re-start), then the use of Propellant depots brings in other alternatives, specifically to avoid LH2 boiloff issues.Quote3. For the HLV and SHLV classes use LRBS not SRBS (jackhammer thrust oscillation is just as bad as pogo oscillation)Remember, pogo is an instability in the inlet to a rocket engine (creating cavitation). These effects are NOTHING compared to Thrust Oscillation.Pogo can cause a shake, but it usually destroys engines.Thrust Oscillation has the potential to kill a crew by shaking directly, but more importantly it affects the whole rocket: it's structure, subsystems, avionics...and its engines, especially the upper stage propellant in tanks (if not mitigated with suitable baffles).
According the the Orlando Sentinel in <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/11/nasa-weighs-ares-alternatives-including-an-heir-to-the-saturn-v.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news%2Fspace%2Fspace_blog+%28Space+Blog+The+Write+Stuff%29" target="_blank">this article[/url], NASA is looking at a Saturn V class all liquid booster similar to a 2005 ESAS design.Quote...NASA engineers are poring over designs for a new affordable and quick heavy lift rocket capable of exploring the solar system.....The all liquid rocket is called HLLV RP-1. There was a similar rocket studied by NASA in the 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). It has an 8.4m first stage powered by five Russian-made RD-180 engines. It has 8.4m second stage powered by 4 J-2X engines. It also uses two liquid strap-on boosters each powered by an RD 180. No details were immediately available about its proposed performance or how it compares to the other rockets, including the Ares V.
I am all for RP-1 but as much as I admire the RD-180 engine for its amazing power and compexity its is still a Russian engine at heart. I would prefer (not because of safety but because of national pride) that U.S. rockets are powered by a U.S. developed engine. However, if we built an engine derived from RD-180 that would be great
Quote from: Takalok on 11/16/2009 02:07 pmAccording the the Orlando Sentinel in <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/11/nasa-weighs-ares-alternatives-including-an-heir-to-the-saturn-v.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news%2Fspace%2Fspace_blog+%28Space+Blog+The+Write+Stuff%29" target="_blank">this article[/url], NASA is looking at a Saturn V class all liquid booster similar to a 2005 ESAS design.Quote...NASA engineers are poring over designs for a new affordable and quick heavy lift rocket capable of exploring the solar system.....The all liquid rocket is called HLLV RP-1. There was a similar rocket studied by NASA in the 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). It has an 8.4m first stage powered by five Russian-made RD-180 engines. It has 8.4m second stage powered by 4 J-2X engines. It also uses two liquid strap-on boosters each powered by an RD 180. No details were immediately available about its proposed performance or how it compares to the other rockets, including the Ares V.I am all for RP-1 but as much as I admire the RD-180 engine for its amazing power and compexity its is still a Russian engine at heart. I would prefer (not because of safety but because of national pride) that U.S. rockets are powered by a U.S. developed engine. However, if we built an engine derived from RD-180 that would be great
Anybody got any info on the AJ-26? I find a few specs, but not much else.
I would prefer (not because of safety but because of national pride) that U.S. rockets are powered by a U.S. developed engine. However, if we built an engine derived from RD-180 that would be great
The Saturn 5 that launched apollo 13 lost the center engine due to pogo ocsillations caused by the flexing of the first stage aft thrust structure (which in turn flexed propellant lines created pressure differences generating the oscillations).
Quote from: Downix link=topic=19481.msg512377#msg512377 Might I suggest the AJ-26 instead? A solid RP-1 engine, simpler design than the RD-180.Anybody got any info on the AJ-26? I find a few specs, but not much else.
Might I suggest the AJ-26 instead? A solid RP-1 engine, simpler design than the RD-180.
While you're at it, you might want to also make the J-2X nozzle extension domestic because IIRC it's to be foreign made.
Quote from: ugordan on 12/02/2009 09:00 amWhile you're at it, you might want to also make the J-2X nozzle extension domestic because IIRC it's to be foreign made.You are correct.
Why would they do that (it sounds like it would me more expensive than a domestic product)?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 12/02/2009 02:10 pmWhy would they do that (it sounds like it would me more expensive than a domestic product)? The same way a russian-built RD-180 is inherently cheaper than a U.S.-built one would be due to workforce cost?SpaceX have no production line open for J-2X nozzles. The contract for the nozzle was I assume competitively awarded so the best proposal won. A foreign one.
Quote from: robertross on 12/02/2009 11:46 amQuote from: ugordan on 12/02/2009 09:00 amWhile you're at it, you might want to also make the J-2X nozzle extension domestic because IIRC it's to be foreign made.You are correct.So in fact the current plan was to make the vaccum extension foreign? Why would they do that (it sounds like it would me more expensive than a domestic product)? Plus if worst came to worst couldn't you just ask Space X (since they have a production line operating at present) to make them for you?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 12/02/2009 02:10 pmQuote from: robertross on 12/02/2009 11:46 amQuote from: ugordan on 12/02/2009 09:00 amWhile you're at it, you might want to also make the J-2X nozzle extension domestic because IIRC it's to be foreign made.You are correct.So in fact the current plan was to make the vaccum extension foreign? Why would they do that (it sounds like it would me more expensive than a domestic product)? Plus if worst came to worst couldn't you just ask Space X (since they have a production line operating at present) to make them for you? here:http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Volvo+Aero+in+Collaboration+with+PWR+and+NASA+on+the+Return+to+the+...-a0155856427
So here's what I have seen and heard:RP-1/LOX= better then hydrolox
LRB's= better then SRB
...RP1 is more powerful it terms of thrust to weight ratio it is also more unstable.
...pogo oscillations caused by the flexing of the first stage aft thrust structure....
Side NotePersonally, at this date in history, I really wonder about all the fuss regarding something as basic as a booster. I peruse conversations where people breathlessly talk about "new technology" as if it's some fantastical Genie come to grant all our wishes. The laws of physics are immutable, and the basic materials we have to work with - hydrogen, hydrocarbons, oxygen, aluminum, and steel, are all we have and all we're gonna have. Just because we can fit 59 thousand gazillion transistors on a grain of melted sand doesn't mean the basic properties of matter have somehow been magically changed over time.NASA has and continues to do some really cool stuff. And there's lost of super cool stuff left to do, even in LEO. Solving the so-called "problems" of boost is such old news, it's such a mundane, well-researched, well known phase of the process, at this point, NASA should be seeking to farm this part of the operation out. Liquid, solid, who cares? Put it out to bid and let the best design win.For example, the SSME, which is perhaps the finest (albeit expensive) rocket motor ever developed, was the result of a comptetive bid. NASA laid out the specs and said to private industry, "Show us what you got."Why can't NASA do the same for boost? I mean, it's just BOOST. All the major problems, major design issues, were SOLVED forty years ago. Time to move on.
Quote from: Proponent on 12/02/2009 03:42 amQuote from: Downix link=topic=19481.msg512377#msg512377 Might I suggest the AJ-26 instead? A solid RP-1 engine, simpler design than the RD-180.Anybody got any info on the AJ-26? I find a few specs, but not much else.It began life as the NK33/NK43 from the soviet moon program. While having less thrust than the RD-180, they are also dramatically simpler engines. Their biggest advantage is in thrust to weight ratio, almost twice the RD-180s. Another advantage is cost to produce. To me, the thought of us using a design that the Russians threw away would be almost as good as using our own.
Quote from: Downix on 12/02/2009 10:52 amQuote from: Proponent on 12/02/2009 03:42 amQuote from: Downix link=topic=19481.msg512377#msg512377 Might I suggest the AJ-26 instead? A solid RP-1 engine, simpler design than the RD-180.Anybody got any info on the AJ-26? I find a few specs, but not much else.It began life as the NK33/NK43 from the soviet moon program. While having less thrust than the RD-180, they are also dramatically simpler engines. Their biggest advantage is in thrust to weight ratio, almost twice the RD-180s. Another advantage is cost to produce. To me, the thought of us using a design that the Russians threw away would be almost as good as using our own.To me, the big value in US coproduction of RD-180 and NK33/43 is as a learning tool (particularly the former). Otherwise, is starting domestic production really so much cheaper than picking up RS-84 where it left off?
Would it be possible to take the base architecture of the RS-68 and then take 4 RS 68 chambers, 4 RS 68 nozzles, ect and build an engine like the RD180 (the difference being the parts used to construct it are all RS-68 parts)?
Why can't NASA do the same for boost? I mean, it's just BOOST. All the major problems, major design issues, were SOLVED forty years ago.
The Volvo Aero nozzle is a stainless steel welded sandwich wall design (ie regen cooled). The SpaceX nozzle extensions are tube-wall (also regen) and resistance welded niobium sheet (radiatively cooled). They have different properties, and I'm not sure which has better performance (though I'm pretty sure the sandwich wall construction has higher performance than the tube-wall design).
Quote from: jongoff on 12/02/2009 04:25 pmThe Volvo Aero nozzle is a stainless steel welded sandwich wall design (ie regen cooled). The SpaceX nozzle extensions are tube-wall (also regen) and resistance welded niobium sheet (radiatively cooled). They have different properties, and I'm not sure which has better performance (though I'm pretty sure the sandwich wall construction has higher performance than the tube-wall design).Pardon my ignorance, but is a sandwich-wall nozzle the kind in which the cooling channels are formed by sandwiching a corrugated layer between to flat sheets? In any event, why would the Volvo nozzle have higher performance? I thought the advantage of sandwich walls was lower cost rather than better performance.
President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. ....According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.
According to online reports late Thursday, NASA will shift its focus to a heavy lift rocket launcher, akin to a Saturn V vehicle, after a meeting between NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and President Barack Obama Wednesday.
As a result of President Obama's meeting with Bolden, all sorts of reports are flying around....From: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/QuotePresident Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. ....According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.From: http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/12/reports_nasa_looks_at_new_rock.htmlQuoteAccording to online reports late Thursday, NASA will shift its focus to a heavy lift rocket launcher, akin to a Saturn V vehicle, after a meeting between NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and President Barack Obama Wednesday.
There is nothing in the reports about liquid boosters.
Quote from: Jim on 12/18/2009 02:39 pmThere is nothing in the reports about liquid boosters.Yes, of course, thus the question marks - they indicate speculation. I did not mean to "hijack" anything, but since I started the thread regarding a new HL booster, and this news story continues the idea of a new HL booster, I thought it would be good to put the two together.
With 3 x RD-180, (Atlas V Heavy), the first stage does a lot more work, so the upper stage is much smaller and you can get away with a few RL-10's.
Quote from: kkattula on 11/18/2009 03:03 amWith 3 x RD-180, (Atlas V Heavy), the first stage does a lot more work, so the upper stage is much smaller and you can get away with a few RL-10's.G'day kkattula - congratulations, it is an exact configuration of a new Russian manned LV (4xRD-0146 instead of RL-10 on second stage of course). Capability - 23.5 metric tonnes on LEO at 51.6 degree.
It seems really stupid to build two different versions instead of part fuelling as necessary.
As I have posted earlier, there are two all liquid vehicles now being looked at by MSFC/KSC. Both are based on a core using current ET technology and diameter (8.4 meter).1) Cluster of 5 RD-O180 engines on core with 2 Atlas V first stage derived strap on boosters each using 2 RD-O180 engines. Thus all LOX/RP-1.2) Cluster of 4 SSME on core with 4 Atlas V first stage derived strap on boosters each using 2 RD-O180 engines. Thus a mix of LOX/LH2 and LOX/RP-1. (Sort of an American Energia!)At this time I'm hearing the all LOX/RP-1 version is favored. (Why, I have no idea)Both versions would sport some sort of yet to be determined LOX/LH2 upper stage.
More intersting is the 'lack' of ATK in the mix for SRBs.
And considering that Our Glorious And Benevolent Leader has decided that we can't really start on an HLLV until 2015, I doubt these will be the final options...
And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it.
Quote from: robertross on 04/18/2010 03:13 pmMore intersting is the 'lack' of ATK in the mix for SRBs.Rob, note that Scotty said those are the two all-liquid options being looked at, not necessarily all the options. And unless Aerojet has got something up their sleeve, any non-all-liquid configuration would nessisarily use ATK solids.
Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2010 08:58 pmAnd considering that Our Glorious And Benevolent Leader has decided that we can't really start on an HLLV until 2015, I doubt these will be the final options...This is what Obama said: QuoteAnd we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it. To me, it looks like the idea is to finalize the design, hammer out as many details as possible, then freeze the design and build it, so that after the building begins, there will be no more changes to the design, saving development cost and time. He also said "no later than 2015", meaning the design process can be finished before then, but for some reason it could possibly take until 2015.
I have to agree with Jim on this one that an all liquid HLV is very unlikely.The HLV likely will be something very similar to the Direct,Shuttle-C,or Zubrin's Mars direct LV concepts.
The only reason for the 2015 date is that is the earliest that the President is willing to contemplate funding development to begin.
Given that they are developing a US-indigenous kerolox 1Mlbf engine, I would argue that Atlas-V Phase 2 has already been selected, especially given that one of the authors of the new plan wrote a paper specifically describing it (although not by name) as the preferred HLV design.
We are not going to wait five years before we make a decision on the heavy-lift rockets. I think we can make the decision much sooner.
In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models; we want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what we can do when we get there.
The key issue here is it has to be something that can have it's design frozen no later then 2015 and be ready to enter production.
The president called for making a decision on a heavy lift rocket design in 2015. "I think we can make the decision much sooner," Nelson said. "We're going to keep testing the monster rockets at Kennedy Space Center.