Author Topic: All liquid HLLV replacement for Ares being looked at "seriously"  (Read 58871 times)

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Dare we hope?

:)

I like the comparison to Atlas Phase III in the comments...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
NASA already posted how you cannot use even 2 J2X on a single stage, read the rebuttal to the DIRECT v2.0 proposal.  Putting 4 thereby is inviting disaster, and without those 4 you lack the lift to be competitive.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306

Unless you go with a three stage rocket, wait what was that three stage moon rocket called again?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

Unless 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.  That is best served by a LH2 engine, but for air-startable LH2 we have a lack of necessary thrust/lift which can be clustered as needed.  The RL-10 is there, of course, but you would need a ton of them.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
This thing would be a long shot I'd file it somewhere between unlikely and never.
The size of that thing is almost comical.
 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.
RD-180s wouldn't cut it would take four of them to replace one four segment RSRM.
Once you have enough of them the vehicle starts looking like the N1.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 03:03 pm by Patchouli »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
This 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.

The same all-liquid approach could be done with RS-68, as described by Aerospace Corp. earlier this year, except that that particular rocket would have been an Ares V equivalent, payload-wise.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 03:12 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
This 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
Fundimentally, it is a Kerolox alternative to DIRECT, with issues of second stage engine development a necessity due to the lower isp of the main engines.  While not unsurmountable, development time would be lost in comparison to the J130/J246 combination.

(Now, understand, I love the idea of a kerolox stage, but I'd sooner see kerolox boosters to an LH2 central core, and if done right I could even see such helping the Ares V fulfil its mission role)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Unless 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.
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Yeah.  It looks pretty weak.  Seven RD-180s produce six million lbs of thrust versus the 7.5 million lbs the five F-1 motors produced. 

BUT, for ARES I, they could swap out the solid for an RP-1 stage with four RD-180s.  Save alot of weight in the first stage, and by eliminating mitigation. 

For ARES V they could use the same CBC with two shuttle boosters. 

Or they could just use DIRECT, but I digress.
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457

Unless 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.

Saturn's construction would be considered very heavy by modern standards so tank size is less of an issue today then it was back then.
The shuttle stack if you include the orbiter does have a better mass fraction then the Saturn V did.
Of course going for the best possible mass fraction is part of the reason rockets are so expensive.
If you go all liquid might as well dust off the TR-107 and reduce the number of chambers.
This engine is not completely a paper engine it was very close to a full scale test when it was canceled.
It was far enough along if restarted it'll probably be ready before the J2X for the upper stage is ready.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 03:36 pm by Patchouli »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
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.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 03:38 pm by simonbp »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
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.

I thought the Saturn V was the result of cutting down a really big rocket the C-8 or Nova when they switched from direct landing to LLOR.

Or like Ares V lite or Direct vs Ares V.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 03:43 pm by Patchouli »

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
This would certainly be an interesting direction for NASA to head to, however I think the political problems with the design will outweigh the advantages for those who have to sign off on it.

ATK will not be happy about this at all. However, you sill are going to need solid motors for the LES, and they could get all of the work for the launch abort tests.

 

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

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.
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.

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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
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?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
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.

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 fractions 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.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 05:05 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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?
Semi-correct.  It would match the upgraded F-1A for thrust.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.

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.
I'll admit a lack of familiarity with both the RS-84 and TR-107, but upon quick review, I like the TR-107 for many of the same reasons I like the NK-33 design.  And Northrup seems to have it in late enough development that it would fit the applications.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Yes, bit of a shame that the previous thread on this topic several days ago mysteriously disappeared from the board. I'd really like to know why actually.
John

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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 LEO

This 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
« Last Edit: 11/17/2009 10:36 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Why not do an all liquid version of the Jupiter-241? 4x SSME core, and two SSME boosters.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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 LEO

This 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
If I was doing a "Super-EELV" I would be doing RS-68A core, RD-180 or TR-107 boosters.  but that is for me.  The RS-68 can throttle down midway to reduce heating issues while the kerolox does the hard work, then up afterwards.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Online Herb Schaltegger

Why not do an all liquid version of the Jupiter-241? 4x SSME core, and two SSME boosters.

Hmm, an all-hydrolox booster.  Where have we heard that before?  Why not just pay Boeing/ULA to build a DIV Super Heavy with a few more CBCs bolted on. ;)
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Here is the size comparison image that the Sentinel had, except I scaled down the Liquid HLLV as well.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
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.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
This would be a cost-savings measure, utilizing the existing Kerolox boosters developed for the Atlas V Heavy, I would imagine.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
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.
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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
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'd been studying this idea some more.  My idea of central core w/ RS-68 and Kerolox boosters would address the base heating issue very well.  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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
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...   :D

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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...   :D
 
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.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2009 02:19 am by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
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.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

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.

I wouldn't doubt that.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
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.
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.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
IMHO if the J2X is going to be built anyway, I would rather have an oversize J2X based US which could also be used as an EDS on a larger launcher. If NASA is going to have a large upper stage engine/large upper stage and most of the yearly costs are fixed, then it makes sense to use that engine/stage everywhere possible and get the cost down. That's one reason I hate the Ares I Upper Stage -- because it is in addition to having an EDS. A J2X stage might end up being close to competitive against 4 RL-10s per flight if you fly regularly enough, and it's certainly nicer to have excess lifting capacity. Then you cluster the first stage a few times and your EELV class booster turns super-heavy, but your fixed costs are amortized across lots of smaller launches (something along the lines of Atlas 5 Phase 2, but with a big US).

This sort of extensible/common component approach is the only real way I can see for super heavy launchers to be economical -- otherwise it will end up being the same sort of money-down-the-drain boondoggle we are all familiar with. And since NASA isn't allowed to compete with commercial launch providers, it means that it really does need to be commercial provider led.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2009 07:22 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Why not do an all liquid version of the Jupiter-241? 4x SSME core, and two SSME boosters.

I think that this was mentioned on the DIRECT thread a while back.  I believe that NASA was studying it as part of a pre-Columbia Disaster STS late-lifecycle upgrade.  IIRC, there is no performance reason why two 3 x SSME boosters couldn't do the job of two four-seg SRMs. 

However, there were a fe cost and technical issues that came up with the NASA study.  Additionally, USAF were insisting on fly-back boosters for some reason and NASA, for reasons of its own, were unwilling to have robot fly-back boosters.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
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...   :D
 
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.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
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...   :D
 
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.

Online Herb Schaltegger

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...   :D
 
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.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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...   :D
 
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.
Well, learned some more.

So, we still have the RS-68 overheating issue.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Here 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.html

Here's a drawing that compares Ares V, several RS-68 options, and the Evolved Atlas design postulated by Orlando Sentinel.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/23/2009 10:04 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
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.pdf

While 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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
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.pdf

While 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.
Agreed on both counts.  I may be more a DIRECT fanboi, but I will not deny the allure of the Atlas V in regards to HSF.  I'd be ok with the Atlas being evolved into this kind of HLV configuration, as I know it would be a proven, solid system.  (which is a bitter pill to swallow as I have family which works for Boeing, and would benefit more from Delta IV)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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

In other words, if the choice was made to replace the solid core on the Ares-I with an RD-180-powered liquid-fuelled core, then this would be the first step to adopting Atlas-V Phase 2 as CLV.

I just want to add that this would probably be a good thing.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
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

Fair enough. I did say it was a BOTE.

Personally I'd prefer multiple RL-10.  Looks like 5 or 6 might be needed for a full mass Orion.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
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.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2009 04:01 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
I thought that NASA said that two J2X wouldn't work however, so how would 4?
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
2x J-2X's don't work ***for an EDS*** because as the fuel is all used their total thrust produces too much g load for a crew to be comfortable with.

However, this configuration won't use the Upper Stage as an EDS -- the EDS intended for this vehicle will be yet another -- third -- stage fitted on top of this.   The trade is ongoing between 4x RL-10 / 1x J-2X for that.

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

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Saturn V again. Yeh. :( Saturn V was so affordable. What are these guys smoking?

Analyst
« Last Edit: 11/27/2009 05:10 pm by Analyst »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Saturn V again. Yeh. :( Saturn V was so affordable. What are these guys smoking?

In a book about NASA's organisational and cultural failings, I read an interesting story about astronaut Michael Foale having to rescue Dr. George Abbey from a bar where he had been regailing his fellow patrons with stories of NASA's 'glory days' of Gemini and Apollo.  The answer to your question is there.  The 1960s were NASA's high point and I think, on a certain level, there are those (in senior decision-making positions) at the agency that believe if they do it again, specifically if they do something very similar to Apollo again, people will love them again and the days of 5% budgets will return.

So, the question isn't 'is it affordable?' It isn't 'is it sustainable?' It isn't even 'is it worthwhile and inspiring?' It is 'does is have a huge SHLV and go to the Moon?'

I don't want to believe that this is true, but I genuinely wonder. :P
« Last Edit: 11/27/2009 08:26 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
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.

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

Offline StarGeezer

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 23
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.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
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.

Well said, Ross.  And no is unfortunately the answer to your question. NASA is hamstrung until MSFC learns how to manage and that there's no BFR without money for a payload to ride it. 'Course they probably think they could design the spacecraft better too.  They just don't understand it isn't the 60s or even the 70s any more and Jim Webb won't ride in with more money.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
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.

I looked at one possible design in the following thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19592.msg510204#msg510204

My model showed that two or three J-2X engines should be enough.  A fourth J-2X doesn't buy much extra capability. 

Interestingly, a TLI stage that could work for this could be about the size of a Delta 4 Heavy upper stage.

I don't see this as a Saturn V reprise for the following reasons.

1.  Unlike Saturn V, It uses strap on boosters that jettison.  These boosters could be Atlas 5 CCB's, providing commonality with an existing system.

2.  It uses RD-180, again providing commonality with an existing launch system.  No Saturn V engines or stages were shared with any other launch vehicle.

This isn't Atlas 5 Phase xxx, as you say.  It does seem similar to an ESAS CaLV version that was called "Evolved Atlas".

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/28/2009 03:35 am by edkyle99 »

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
The most logical approach if a third stage is required would be to build an advanced common upper stage for Atlas/Delta and have it do double duty as the EDS for the new super-heavy. That way the EELVs get more capability and some of the super-heavy costs are covered by the EELV launches. If NASA was serious about building the super-heavy, they could completely farm out the EDS to the commercial sector to design too.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2009 09:21 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Here 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.html

Here'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?

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Interesting 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.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
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.
yep. agreed.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Welcome back Atlantis.

Shuttle flights now seem routine since Columbia. We now know better how dangerous space is and have taken prudent precautions.

Translation: we now pour more $$$ into triple checking everything. And we do not launch more than 5 Shuttles per year since Columbia.

Quote
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.

Historically, whenever Shuttle sustained flight rate approaches 8/year, we have an event known as "Need Another Seven Astronauts". There is not enough time to triple check every tile at that rate.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
As often, you are wrong. Flight rate before Columbia has been ~5/year.

You should hope whatever replaces the Shuttle will fly more than four times/year maximum, will never have a fatal accident, will ever come close to have a meaningful reliability statistic (e.g. not stop flying after a dozen missions) and will fly at all.

And for the record: I don't value 7 astronauts higher than 7 soldiers, firemen, police officers or any other man or woman on earth. I simply don't get your fixation with astronauts lives. When the next system has a fatal failure, do you want to abandon it too and built the next one?

Analyst

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Interesting 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.
And designing a regen version of the RS-68, adding engine development costs to the design as well.  (Otherwise due to base heating, the ablative nozzle on the RS-68 will go kablooey)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Here 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.html

Here'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?

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
« Last Edit: 11/28/2009 04:42 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Here 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.html

Here'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?

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

Isn't that issue mitigated if RD-180 and RS-68 are also being produced for Atlas and delta in any case?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
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.


And forget about using an ACES stage for the EDS.   MSFC are designing this so that they get the maximum amount of design & development work out of it.   Cooperating with ULA would 100% fly in the face of that objective.

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.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2009 07:12 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
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.


That was sort of the plan for Atlas V too (domestic RD-180 production).  Never happened.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/28/2009 08:36 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
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.

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.

« Last Edit: 11/29/2009 03:39 pm by gladiator1332 »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
the culture is nothing like what it used to be.

I think that's backwards.  The Shuttle/Cx Program culture has not changed.  It hasn't adapted to the new reality of highly constrained budgets that may not even be what it was thought they were going to be when the project was formulated, nor has it adapted to the fact that most of the country (even their neighbors in HSV) isn't paying attention to the space program.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
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.

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't

do something great...

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
And 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
« Last Edit: 11/29/2009 06:17 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
And 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
Combine the two, RS-68 central core (4 engines) with 4 RD-180 boosters, and you may surpass either one on their own.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Saturn V again. Yeh. :( Saturn V was so affordable. What are these guys smoking?

Analyst
I think the idea is to be able to lift more than the 20 some odd tons the Shuttle can lift.  And as far as cost, Saturn would have been cheaper to operate than the Shuttle.  For example, let's say you want to, oh, toss up 120 tons of crap.  That would be 5 or 6 Shuttle launches at how much per launch?  (I know, debatable issue) but certainly far, far more than a single, large, liquid rocket.

As for motors, in the early 90's Rocketdyne said they could restart F-1 production (F-1A) line for $500 million.  And they cited the success of the Atlas program as precedent.  So let's say in today's world restarting the F-1 would be $2 billion.  Still chump change compared to what's been spent on the yet to fly Ares SRB.  And I'll point out that SpaceX has indicated numerous times the next step for them is an F-1 class motor.  It's needed.  We have it.  So let's build it.

And how much money has been spent on the J-2X, which gives only the most minimal advantage over the J-2S for twice the weight?  Does everything always have to be bleeding edge?  When is good enough good enough?

Whether you want to call it Saturn V redux, Atlas Heavy, Delta Heavy, Soyuz on steroids - who cares.  Tanks are cheap and light.  Liquid motors are cheap and light (if they're not the J-2X).  Liquid rockets are cheap, safe, powerful, and effective.  Screwing around with SRB's and bleeding edge engines is a waste of time and money.

Start a production line, save money through scale of production, and let the stupid things drop in the ocean. 
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

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't

do something great...

In your part of the world, what percentage of the population believe the universe is operated by supernatural beings? My understanding is, the US is second only to India in this regard. Now ask yourself why, in the context of an ominipotent, omniscient entity, you would care about anything other than what that entity wanted, or do anything other than what that entity instructed you to do. At least India has the advantage that it's multiple supernatural beings with conflicting goals, so they have a little slack to work with. So it's not "apathy" that afflicts so many here, it's that they have seemingly much more important things to think about than something so trivial as space exploration.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
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
« Last Edit: 11/30/2009 02:25 pm by Analyst »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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
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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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

Fantasyland 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.
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
We can operate a Saturn V class vehicle now for a fraction of the cost, I believe.

Well, yes, I agree.  That idea that a large, liquid rocket is either "impossible," as has been argued from time to time, or that it is "cost prohibitive," always seems to result from comparing actual hardware to paper rockets.  In that case, the paper rocket always wins, as they always will, until, as with Ares, you actually try to build the thing.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2009 05:22 pm by Takalok »
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
The funny thing about fantasylands is: People living in them don't realize they do.

Analyst

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
The funny thing about fantasylands is: People living in them don't realize they do.

Analyst

Yes, and when you deal with the insane, you smile and nod..... else they snap and take you out with them.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The funny thing about fantasylands is: People living in them don't realize they do.
You can't make your case, which is probably why, aside from name calling, you haven't said much.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm

Cost for Saturn in 2009 dollars was about $35 billion.  Sound familiar?  Sounds awfully close to the ever so optimistic ARES I budget. 

Total engine development cost for J-2 and F-1 - FROM SCRATCH - with 1960's technology was about $3 billion in 2009 dollars. 

The $500 million restart figure for the F-1 is from Rocketdyne.  Don't fault me, maybe they're just taking people for a ride, but it lines up with historical figures, and $2 billion restart figure is reasonable.

Or, one could look at the $90 billion adjusted cost of the Apollo program, and compare that to the $230 billion VSE estimate, or the somewhat optimistic $35 billion ARES I budget or the $145 billion moon landing budget.  Or the not-adjusted for inflation $174 billion dollar Shuttle program.  What is that with inflation $500 billion?

I mean, you're very confident.  What exactly are your "magical" figures?

I will say again, and post your figures if you can... the cost of maintaining the production lines would have been less in the long run than developing a whole new Spacecraft - ie. Shuttle.  Plus, you wouldn't have lost those two crews. 
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Plus, you wouldn't have lost those two crews. 

No, NASA will have lost other crews at other times for other reasons. That is inevitable. ::)
« Last Edit: 11/30/2009 08:26 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457

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.

The J246 probably would cost 1/4 as much as a Saturn V yet lifts the same payload.

Plus, you wouldn't have lost those two crews. 

No, NASA will have lost other crews at other times for other reasons. That is inevitable. ::)

Going by statistics the Apollo spacecraft was a lot more dangerous then the Shuttle proved to be and Soyuz is only about as safe.

Of course that's assuming they kept on flying the same vehicle vs redesigning it.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2009 08:41 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Of course that's assuming they kept on flying the same vehicle vs redesigning it.

This isn't going OT, so bear with me.

IIRC, one of the Apollo replacements was a reusable capsule that would launch on the proposed Saturn-VD, that used a modified S-IVB as a combination upper stage/service module.  The capsule would have been much bigger - similar in size to the Orion in fact. 

Kerolox core with jettisonable outboard engines, hydrolox upper stage and 5m-diameter capsule.  It just seems weird to me (although not entirely surprising) that NASA is effectively re-inventing something first proposed in the late 1960s.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2009 08:55 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline fredm6463

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Me at nozzle of SRB at KSC Visitor Complex
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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

Fantasyland 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.

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.

Unfortunately, NASA's budget will not support a new Moon program or even any other beyond LEO human spaceflight for the foreseeable future. While most of us want to see humans return to the Moon or land on Mars, humankind has plenty of time to do these promising missions.
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.
Stay on course and add new capabilities after we have gained the maximum usage out of our existing investments.

If humankind is to advance outward from Earth to Moon and to Mars bases, it will take time and a lot more long term human experience in spaceflight. This experience (micro-gravity living) can be gained best by using the ISS.

How long did it take after "the new world" was discovered and the settling of large numbers of people from the "old world" to America?
Centuries. What's the rush.

What I want most to see happen in my lifetime is concrete evidence that intelligent life exists off the Earth (SETI). I would rather experience this than have humans land on the Moon or Mars.


« Last Edit: 12/01/2009 04:55 pm by fredm6463 »

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Very well said.  Very well said indeed.
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

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.


That is a fallacy.  The shuttle (large payload bay and robotic arm) wasn't needed for most of the missions that it performed.

The ISS have been built without the Shuttle
Any spacecraft deployed from the shuttle could have been done by ELV's

Most of the Spacelab pallet missions would have been done better on dedicated spacecraft

There were less than 5 large spacecraft returned by the shuttle (Spartan and SPAS don't count, it would have been better and cheaper for them be launched by ELV and downlink their data)

the 30 Spacelab and Spacehab modules missions could have been done Foton style and cheaper.

It would have been cheaper to fly more HST's than repair them. 

So in all, there were less than 20 shuttle missions that needed its unique capabilities.

The shuttle paradigm was not and is not needed now or in the future.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

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.


shuttle is not needed to do this

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

It would have been cheaper to fly more HST's than repair them. 


Unless all the primary mirrors were made at the same time  ;)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
So here's what I have seen and heard:
RP-1/LOX= better then hydrolox
Hydrolox second stage and/or third stage as needed
LRB's= better then SRB
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). 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.

My idea for the new rocket:
1. Use the Jupiter architecture as a starting point.
2. Build a family of HLV and SHLVs based around this system (similar to the delta and atlas families.)
3. For the HLV and SHLV classes use LRBS not SRBS (jackhammer thrust oscillation is just as bad as pogo oscialltion)
4. Consider building an upgraded version of the SSME or RS 68  that is more suited to the current mission objectives (this has been considered to an extent in the form of nasa wanting to develop (at one point) something called a: Enhanced Electronically Modulated Ultra Efficient Staged Combustion Engine with international partners). Main power would be ethier RP1/Lox, HydroLox, or Nautral Gas(methane)/Lox.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
So here's what I have seen and heard:
RP-1/LOX= better then hydrolox
Hydrolox second stage and/or third stage as needed
LRB's= better then SRB
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). 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.

Quote

3. 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).

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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).
Untrue. Apollo 13 lost the center 2nd stage engine, the LH2/LOX burning J2. 

RP1 is plenty stable.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
So here's what I have seen and heard:
RP-1/LOX= better then hydrolox
Hydrolox second stage and/or third stage as needed
LRB's= better then SRB
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). 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.

Quote

3. 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).
Okay I would have to agree. Yes pogo is bad but thrust osc. is much worse (my apologies). I would advicate an RP-1 common core first stage system. However: question: how much of an each would ecessive heating (due to the use of rp1) be in an rp powered first stage with many engines close together with LRBs or SRBs also very close?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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 :D
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

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 :D

Something for your reading pleasure...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14224.0

Still TBD, but there's always hope.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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 :D
Might I suggest the AJ-26 instead? A solid RP-1 engine, simpler design than the RD-180.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
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.
[/quote

Anybody got any info on the AJ-26?  I find a few specs, but not much else.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
AJ-26 == NK-33/43, eh?

I posted a link to a video last week
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
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 :D

How does building an engine derived from RD-180 help your "national pride"? What of RS-84 and TR-107 designs then if you're about to design an all-American engine anyway?

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.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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).

Just a correction here.  The engine out on Apollo 13 was on a J-2 hydrolox engine on the S-II second stage.  The problem with the J-2 prop lines was quite a recurring issue, IIRC.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
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.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2009 11:51 am by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

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.

You are correct.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173

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.

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?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Why 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.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2009 02:35 pm by ugordan »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Why 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.
]
Do you know which company?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

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.

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

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173

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.

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
Awsome :D Thanks for the info and I am glad to know that Volvo was the selected company.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
So here's what I have seen and heard:
RP-1/LOX= better then hydrolox
The issue isn't "better" or "worse."  You wouldn't commute in an 18 wheeler, and you wouldn't haul freight in a Prius.  It's a matter of the right tool for the job.

RP1 (highly refined Kerosene) is a great first stage fuel because of it's energy density.  A rocket designed to lift 100+ tons needs so much energy for the first stage (much, much more than the second and third stages) that a Hydrogen/Oxygen stage would be enormous and impractical. 

But weight is a big deal in the second and third stages, much more so than in the first stage.  Consequently, the impulse or change in momentum per unit of fuel is key, and Hydrogen is king in this respect. 

Quote
LRB's= better then SRB
Eh, think more in terms of right tool for right job.  The minuteman ICBM, a three stage solid propellent rocket, is a great piece of technology, and replaced the liquid Atlas.  It's really not a matter of superior / inferior.

Quote
...RP1 is more powerful it terms of thrust to weight ratio it is also more unstable.
Not true.  Hydrogen is more powerful in terms of thrust to weight.  But RP1 is also more stable, less toxic, and easier to work with than Hydrogen.  You can spill a bit of RP1 and still be OK.  Spilling -420 deg F LH2 can really ruin your day.

Quote
...pogo oscillations caused by the flexing of the first stage aft thrust structure....
The Saturn S-1C first stage had already dropped away before the second stage even fired up. 

Pogo starts with a tiny bit of variation in the thrust.  As the thrust varies, the g forces or acceleration of the fuel at the tank outlet and in the motor varies.  It is a feedback loop (harmonic) between engine thrust and fuel momentum, which affects fuel delivery, which affects thrust and round and round we go. 

Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Side Note
Personally, 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. 
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Side Note
Personally, 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. 

Exactly :D. "NASA laid out the specs and said to private industry, "Show us what you got." I wonder how the ares rockets would fair......

3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
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?

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.
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)?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

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)?

No, there are big differences between LH2 and RP-1 in pumping, burning and using for cooling.  The mixture ratios,  density and thermal coefficients are different.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Why 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.

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).

~Jon

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
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.

This was discussed here many times.

While some, less egoistic parts of NASA understand your point, other huge chunks of NASA do not want to buy LVs, they want to keep R&D and operations $$$ flow to _them_, not to LV service provides.

Whether NASA designed LVs work fine (or work at all) is not really the most important point (for them).

You'd need to pry LV development work (pork?) from NASA's cold clenched fists, it won't voluntarily let it go.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
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).

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.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
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).

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.

No...let me see if I can dig up a link....Here we go:

http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/08AB1FEB-3F52-4CF6-8E21-C1D37EFE442B/0/sandwichIAC2004.pdf

Basically it's like a milled channel-wall, but with a laser-welded closeout instead of a brazed or electrodeposited nickel closeout.  It's more weight efficient than tubewall designs, and I think has better fatigue resistant.

~Jon

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
 fill her up with all of the fish and chips shops waste fry grease in Florida and NASA could go green!
and on launch day stink up the neighborhood.gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Ya want fries wid dat? "


http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/B100_test/

but waste oil may be to much for you engineer types better to make a bio kerosene or the B100 used in the test rocket above
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
As a result of President Obama's meeting with Bolden, all sorts of reports are flying around....

From:  http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/
Quote
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.

From:  http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/12/reports_nasa_looks_at_new_rock.html
Quote
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.

Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
As a result of President Obama's meeting with Bolden, all sorts of reports are flying around....

From:  http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/
Quote
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.

From:  http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/12/reports_nasa_looks_at_new_rock.html
Quote
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.



you hijacked this thread and your header is wrong .    There is nothing in the reports about liquid boosters.

This is the thread with all the discussion.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19834.msg517849;topicseen#msg517849

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
There 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.

Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
There 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.



The booster is not "new" nor will it be liquid, it will be a SDLV.  There is nothing to support speculation of a liquid booster.

Also the "new" booster doesn't replace Ares I, it replaces Ares V.  Ares I is replaced by commercial vehicles.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2009 02:52 pm by Jim »

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 14
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.
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.
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline major_tom

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • far above the Moon
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
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.

Just a little remark: the Common Core Booster of the manned version of
Rus-M is almost 10 meters shorter than the Atlas V CCB. With that in
mind, the Atlas V heavy should be capable of orbiting about 30 T to LEO.

A stretched version of the Rus-M CCB is also planned. This one should be
about 5 m shorter than the Atlas V CCB (this length reaches a limit imposed by the
transport logistics of the new Vostochny cosmodrome).
« Last Edit: 01/03/2010 07:01 pm by major_tom »
Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
It seems really stupid to build two different versions instead of part fuelling as necessary.
John

Offline major_tom

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • far above the Moon
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It seems really stupid to build two different versions instead of part fuelling as necessary.

It seems that the stretch will only be used for a 50-60 T class booster.

That performance can't be reached with the "short" CCB:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ppts_lv.html
Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Bumping, as I suspect that the HLV design Obama might have in mind is something to this effect.

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Best regards, Stephan

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 1955
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
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.

Hmmm.
Not knowing your station, I'll go out on a limb and accept it as factual  :)

Lots of reasons why you could have either version selected.
More intersting is the 'lack' of ATK in the mix for SRBs. That speaks volumes, imo. I'm actually glad to see the strap-on liquid boosters, but something inside me says this is a political decision, not simply an engineering one. I know Jorge (IIRC) mentioned KSC wants to eliminate the issues of handling and storing them, and pad rat has also mentioned the issues with having to clean up after them (post launch).

I think domestic RD-180 production is the driving factor here for national security reasons (Atlas V). Not having to deal with SSME production for a limited use is another. Both version are readily available for immediate use for test purposes, but eliminating the large volume liquid hydrogen handling at the pad could be another underlying reason (costly and problematic).

Nice to see the 8.4m tank standardization. Can someone remind me of the change-over requirements/issues for RP-1 vs LH2 on the manufacturing process of the tanks? IE: Can MAF & the tooling easily handle this without too many changes? Sounds reasonable.

Offline major_tom

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • far above the Moon
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Well, Scotty, that could well be the plan.
But let's look at what Ed Crawley has to say in his most recent paper
( http://web.mit.edu/press/images/reports/space-report.pdf ) since
he seems to be pretty knowlegeable about the WH/OSTP plans (IMHO it's
not by chance - he may be one of the main authors of that strategy):

"A new “super heavy” launcher [...]. This new vehicle
would probably have a launch mass to LEO of a minimum of
65 to 70 metric tons (mt). [....] If extensive in-space fuel
transfer or on-orbit assembly are developed, this threshold
might be reduced [...]
The first stage of the new super heavy launch vehicle would
have a core vehicle and two or more boosters of nearly identical
design to the core, probably with the same engines – the
Augustine report suggested hydrocarbon, but hydrogen is an alternative.
Engines for this stage would be developed under the First Stage Launch
Propulsion element of the Heavy Lift portion of the FY11 budget."

From what he says it could be something much closer to a derivative
of an EELV, than anything comming out of the MSFC/KSC. Atlas V seems
to be favoured and the notorious 5 years of R&D seem to be for:

a) Development of an RD-180 clone/replacement (or development of
advanced RS-68 versions).

b) Figure out from the in-space refueling/assembly studies which is the
optimal HLV class: Atlas V phase I, phase II or phase III
(or its LH2/LOX equivalents).
« Last Edit: 04/18/2010 03:55 pm by major_tom »
Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I hope NASA takes its time and looks at all proposals for an HLV before making investments. Atlas V Phase 1 might be enough for all potential Flexible Path destinations when combined with fuel depots and its cost may just be very low both in development and in operations.

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Under the Presidents proposed plan, NASA has nothing but time to study rockets.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
More 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.

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...
« Last Edit: 04/18/2010 08:59 pm by simonbp »

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
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...

This is what Obama said:
Quote
And 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.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
More 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.

You're right, I mis-read that.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
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...

This is what Obama said:
Quote
And 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.

Yeah, like there are NEVER any changes to a design...

I hope NASA has learned their lesson, if they are given that opportunity again.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
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 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.

Plus there is a mess of political issues behind not keeping the RSRM or a derivative.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2010 02:23 am by Patchouli »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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.

I think that, at this stage, there are only three runners in this race:

1) D-SDLV in-line (like DIRECT and Zubrin's Mars Direct Ares);

2) D-SDLV side-mount (like SSP's SD-HLLV);

3) Kerolox core, hydrolox upper stage super-sized EELV (like the 5m-diameter core Atlas-V).

The D-SDLVs grow less and less likely every year we get from the last shuttle flight.  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.  The only reason for the 2015 date is that is the earliest that the President is willing to contemplate funding development to begin.

What I wonder is if the second-generation EELV common upper stage (ACES) is to be developed in the interim to shorten the HLV development track.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline major_tom

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • far above the Moon
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The only reason for the 2015 date is that is the earliest that the President is willing to contemplate funding development to begin.

The interesting thing is that it seems to be the other way round:
The 2015 date for HLV decision was already a feature of the MIT
paper's "roadmap of key decisions"  before the WH/OSTP disclosure:

"6. NASA should develop a roadmap of key decisions for the program, including decision criteria and timeframes. These would likely include:

a. What are the key technology investments? (2010-2011)

b. What are possible reference architectures to study and guide technology investments? (2010-2011)

c. Who are the commercial partners for crew launch and what is the form of NASA investment and safety assurance? (2011)

d. What is the role of the International Space Station (ISS) in exploration development, and how can out year ISS costs be reduced in order to provide resources for system development? (2011-2012)

e. What is the form of international partnerships for exploration, and what role will each of the partners play? (2012-2013)

f. How will heavy lift to low earth orbit (LEO), and in-space transportation be achieved? (2014-2015)

g. What will be the form of in-space habitat used for voyages beyond LEO, and how will it protect crew from radiation in space? (2014-2015)

h. What crew exploration vehicle will be developed for exploration beyond low earth orbit, and how? (2015-2016)

The criteria for these decisions should be guided by public policy, national needs, and consideration of all NASA stakeholders, as suggested in the Augustine report. NASA should develop a transparent system for reporting progress towards exploration missions."


This leads me to believe
that Obama has delegated most of his strategy and decision making in
space policy to his experts (which points to a "here, take this money
and do your thing, I'll do the PR" approach by him).

... by "coincidence" the Orion lifeboat idea also appears in the MIT paper
before any WH/OSTP announcement:

"One could construct alternatives for Orion besides cancelation: a “lite” version as an option for commercial crew or a “very lite” version for NASA-supplied crew rescue from the ISS."
« Last Edit: 04/19/2010 11:27 am by major_tom »
Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
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.

Interesting. Despite the MIT paper being the actual origin of the 2015 HLV decision date, it's obvious Congress will not go with 2015 anyway. Sen. Bill Nelson after the speech:
Quote
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.
Knowing that, it's possible immediate development of Atlas V Phase 2, with the new engine (which Bill Nelson said he supported), could emerge as a compromise as an alternative to the Brand New HLV, which would use the same engine. Obama indirectly hinted at this possibility in the speech itself:
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2010 01:08 pm by 2552 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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 only way to actually "freeze" a *final* design at any given point in time is to have already test flown the major components in some form or another. Thus, if that truely is the plan, we are likely to see the core stage fly a few times before them, in an X-Plane type of sceneario, as well as the upper stage in some similar way. Admitedly I'm speculating, but if it plays out that way, it will be "design a little, test a little, fly a little and do it again", until they are confident in their designs enough to freeze the final design and enter production.

Note what Senator Nelson said following Obama's address last Thursday:

Quote
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.

The Florida Democrat is chairman of the Senate's Science and Space Subcommittee that oversees NASA.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2010 01:02 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

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