Author Topic: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion  (Read 20408 times)

Online bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 163
Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« on: 05/29/2006 12:04 AM »
In liu of qualifying a 5 segment srb, would resurrecting the idea of the side-by-side stack proposed earlier make more sense now for a clv updated to compensate for lack of ssme's?

Rather then the side-mounted shuttle-c looking thing, the idea would be as such:
Two 4 seg srbs with Shuttle ET with j2-x at the center, with the CEV stack atop it.  Lots of wiggleroom for weight gain.

By keeping the 4 segment solids for the time being, there would still be time to decide to go with a quad 4-segment srb longfellow behemoth for CaLV or continue readying the five segment srb for Ares V use. It would also allow, in the future, the chance to fall back on the 5-segment/J2-X upperstage CLV "stick" if it proved to be more economical (as it almost certainly would). As it is, this wouldn't require much in the way of pad changes and could still be developed quickly, esp with no significant changes to the current SRB's.

We could have no human spaceflight lag at all.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31144
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9395
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #1 on: 05/29/2006 02:31 AM »
Still need pad changes.  Hole for J-2, TSM;s moved, whiteroom etc.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #2 on: 05/29/2006 02:55 AM »
Well, your going to have to redo the pad anyway for the CaLV so why not do it now? Only "minor" modification of the ET, SRB remains the same.
Bet the pad could be done before the 5 segment CLV could be rated.
What would the performance figures look like?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31144
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9395
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #3 on: 05/29/2006 03:09 AM »
CaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while.  Shuttle still needs to use the pads.
"Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor.  
ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.
Costs per flight would be 2x more

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #4 on: 05/29/2006 03:43 AM »
DOH

Oh well, back to EELV vs Stick.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Online bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #5 on: 05/29/2006 05:52 PM »
By the time this lv was ready, it could be set up to share 39A with STS or else relegate STS to 39B until it is retired for refitting for CaLV.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31144
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9395
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #6 on: 05/29/2006 06:02 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 29/5/2006  1:39 PM

By the time this lv was ready, it could be set up to share 39A with STS or else relegate STS to 39B until it is retired for refitting for CaLV.

Too many differences make it incompatable with the shuttle.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #7 on: 05/30/2006 12:21 PM »
Heh, that would be an American Ariane V. :)

The Vulcain center engine of Ariane has the same ~1000 kN thrust as J-2S, except it's optimized for lower altitudes and has more chamber pressure and lower ISP. So I wonder would J-2 be of much use at low altitude, the nozzle would have to be truncated and ISP would suffer quite a lot because of the low chamber pressure?

But Ariane's solids only weigh 280 tons apiece compared to the shuttle's 600 ton ones. Approximately same ISP.  (Data provided by astronautix.)

So if you make the central tank heavy enough for the solids, the J-2 can't lift it and it comes back down crashing. And if you make it lighter, you could lift it with one solid. Hence the "stick" launcher. :)
Or you could put more J-2 engines in. If you light them only at after SRB sep, I wonder what the final payload becomes. It's kinda a mini-CaLV.

The Ariane V was originally designed for the Hermes shuttle. I don't know if there was a configuration with no upper stage, but nowadays it always has a top stage since it flies only GEO missions. Even the ATV for ISS will launch with an upperstage, albeit a small one.

Online bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 163
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #8 on: 05/30/2006 12:32 PM »
The X-33 Linear Aerospike engine was designed for that problem and is based on the J-2.

Also to the moderators, I apologize. I meant to put this thread in the CLV section.

Sidenote regarding Ariane V.. shame we can't use it :

http://www.esrin.esa.it/export/images/compare_atv400.jpg
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 87
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #9 on: 05/30/2006 12:55 PM »
Intesting idea, Arianespace man rates the Ariane V, NASA builds the CEV then let each agency buy the others hardware using actual money rather than bartering as with the ISS. That sounds like a good way to save bugets on both sides, assuming Europe want manned program. I'll never happen but it does seem logical.

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #10 on: 05/30/2006 01:28 PM »
Ariane V was meant to be manrated, and I think it is.
ESA clearly has the knowledge, skills ans technological resources to operate a significant manned space program, the problem is that in the european government, no one seems to give a damn.
but just look at the situation, NASA has difficulties getting a clear direction when dealing with the government, ESA has to deal with 15 governments !
 it's just hopeless.

of course the ariane could provide an access to ISS, and europe could contribute on a much larger scale, even for the moon missions, but it's just not going to happen

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 87
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #11 on: 05/30/2006 01:36 PM »
No the big ariane never got the man rating after Hermies went over mass and over budget.

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #12 on: 05/30/2006 07:47 PM »
Since ESA is buildint an ATV, it wouldn't be a huge trick to use that as a service module for a manned capsule - similar to soyuz vs progress.  It seems europe is happy to purchase russian launches though, and that's definitely a cheaper alternative.

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #13 on: 05/30/2006 08:42 PM »
Quote
Jim - 28/5/2006  7:56 PM

CaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while.  Shuttle still needs to use the pads.
"Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor.  
ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.
Costs per flight would be 2x more

The MLP should be lowest cost change altogether.  For goodness sake it’s an over designed piece of welded plate steel.  This aspect of the change anything and it will cost astronomical sums of money continues to amaze me.  It looks like we need to get into the welded plate steel fabrication business for KSC.  They have obviously lost all sense of what it should cost to do this.
“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #14 on: 05/30/2006 08:44 PM »
EADS has been working on a manned ATV with a reentry capsule. I even saw concept designs somewhere for 3 evolved versions of the vehicle.

one with a small return capsule for small cargo

one with 2 airlocks for a soyouz to dock behind
http://spaceflight.esa.int/projects/images/atv-pic/highres/SM_ATV_DK_SOYUZ_CUTAWAY.jpg

and one with a pressurized reentry capsule

and don't forget that they did a flight test of such a capsule a few years ago, so the knowledge is there and the will too.
here's the ESA page for the future possible evolutions
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/projects/file.cfm?filename=atvmission_concept

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #15 on: 05/30/2006 09:23 PM »

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #16 on: 05/30/2006 10:09 PM »
just found that on the ESA website
http://www.esa.int/externals/images/estec-photo-archive/142.jpg

interesting...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31144
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9395
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #17 on: 05/30/2006 10:43 PM »
Quote
SMetch - 30/5/2006  4:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 28/5/2006  7:56 PM

CaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while.  Shuttle still needs to use the pads.
"Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor.  
ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.
Costs per flight would be 2x more

The MLP should be lowest cost change altogether.  For goodness sake it’s an over designed piece of welded plate steel.  This aspect of the change anything and it will cost astronomical sums of money continues to amaze me.  It looks like we need to get into the welded plate steel fabrication business for KSC.  They have obviously lost all sense of what it should cost to do this.

You obviously don't know what is in the MLP.  It is the most costly part, because it is the interface with the vehicle.

1.  Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved.  Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc

2.  The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.

3.  TSM's will have to be moved.  This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.

4.  Water deluge rerouting

5.  This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.

Offline HailColumbia

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #18 on: 05/30/2006 10:52 PM »
hmmmm....

Think it would be cheaper to just build some new MLPs? how many more years can we get out of them anyway?
-Steve

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Twin SRB CLV Suggestion
« Reply #19 on: 05/30/2006 11:00 PM »
just found that on the ESA website

Thats an old concept for the Viking CTV, check wikipedia of into the new varients witch sadly seem to have been canned, for now atleast.:( Link

Tags: