Author Topic: ULA claim gap reducing solution via EELV exploration master plan  (Read 198649 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/

Different style of publication for the site with this article.

Article published along with ULA publishing the documents (link at the end of the article). So you all have everything you need, and hopefully the article helps as there's a ton of info to go through on the presentations.

Offline cixelsyD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
That Lunar lander is like nothing I've ever seen!

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 33
At least it's not just another rehash of Apollo.

Ambition and innovation in my space program?  It's more likely than you think!

Mark S.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 33
Okay, so will this grand architectural proposal get taken at face value, or will all of its cost and schedule projections get the Augustine treatment like everyone else's?

The DIRECT integrated plan also looked pretty darn good, until it was sliced and diced and shoehorned into the HSF Panel's idea of exploration.

Mark S.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
I like DIRECT, but I'll be honest, this is a proposal I can get behind. 
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 EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 101
Great article, Chris!  What a great way to start the weekend.  Now I just have to find the time to get through all the associated docs during a busy weekend.

ULA's push is an overdue alternative future for exploration.  It might be too radical for some folks, but one does not know how all this will shake out in the next several months.  I am just glad to see ULA finally get its two cents in, properly.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 06:42 PM by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Wow that was a long read, but very impressive. I loved how they can covert the lander's LH2 tank into a habital module!
Let's go and explore space.

Offline grdja

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
I say for everyone that 95% of us will get behind of whatever beyond LEO program that has some actual chances of coming to existence and flying.

This one is the "pure commercial" commission option?  I have to say, using a common upper stage as a basis of ... well everything, is innovative to say the least. Now if they can only sell it to politicians that don't want to see all the juicy job generating NASA centers downsized and shut down.


I'd say (if their cost estimates are honest and this has come chance of receiving support and authorization), this may be a better option that even best case DIRECT scenario that has Space Shuttle army tying down NASA for decades to come.

Edit. This really feels like a  "back to 2005" moment.   And back to the "Mars 25 tons at a time" talks. Yes it all has its flaws. But has one wonderful plus. You don't need to spend 30 or 40 billion developing a HLLV.
For the time being, it might be that launching a EELV every week and singing hymns to Semyorka is best possible option, better even than using x billion to develop a 40-70 tonne LV.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 06:57 PM by grdja »

Offline daj24

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
Even though the ball is still in the air this looks like a home run.  All the bases covered, including our newly favorite subject - propellant depots. 

I like the zinger that they through in:

"Currently 1.40 safety factor has been removed from NASA requirements"   Take that for changing the requirements after the fact.

You go ULA!
"You'll be a witness to that game of chance in the sky. You know we've got to win" D. Fagen

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Outstanding definitive article on ULA's latest ideas. Nice work by both them and you Chris ;).
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 07:22 PM by marsavian »

Offline wronkiew

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • 34.502327, -116.971697
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 116
I see some really good ideas here. Too bad this wasn't published before the HSF committee finished its public meetings, because this doesn't really fit in any of their options. It's a Moon first architecture with no HLV development. I'd like to see some more details, such as how this would fit in the projected funding profile, and how they intend to dock the different vehicles to the propellant depots.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26870
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6775
  • Likes Given: 4805
$30 billion to develop a new HLV is a waste, since that's a launcher with no hardware! $20 billion could be directly applied into building actual exploration hardware and integration. $10 billion would launch 1000 tons, at current prices.

If 25-40 tons is doable with current launch vehicles with only incremental development and we can get to the Moon and Mars with pieces only that big, then let's do it NOW!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 33
I see some really good ideas here. Too bad this wasn't published before the HSF committee finished its public meetings, because this doesn't really fit in any of their options. It's a Moon first architecture with no HLV development. I'd like to see some more details, such as how this would fit in the projected funding profile, and how they intend to dock the different vehicles to the propellant depots.

Just follow the link at the end of Chris's article, it takes you right to ULA's documentation.  The docs answer all your questions, and more.

Mark S.

Offline Marsbug

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I see some really good ideas here. Too bad this wasn't published before the HSF committee finished its public meetings, because this doesn't really fit in any of their options. It's a Moon first architecture with no HLV development. I'd like to see some more details, such as how this would fit in the projected funding profile, and how they intend to dock the different vehicles to the propellant depots.

I have a question: I was re reading the article 'Augustine Review: October summit set to reveal NASA’s forward path' here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/augustine-review-october-summit-set-to-reveal-nasas-forward-path/

and I ran across this line in the second paragraph of the SD HLLV section: "An impressive EELV-based exploration architecture is understood to be making huge strides behind the scenes, in preparation for being one of the frontrunners in the conclusions of the Augustine Review report."

Is this likely to be that EELV architecture? If so it sounds like the Augustine commision already knows about it!
'We came in peace, for all Mankind' Consider that phrase and all it implies.

Offline Chris Bergin

Thanks much to those saying they enjoyed the article - means a lot :)


I see some really good ideas here. Too bad this wasn't published before the HSF committee finished its public meetings, because this doesn't really fit in any of their options. It's a Moon first architecture with no HLV development. I'd like to see some more details, such as how this would fit in the projected funding profile, and how they intend to dock the different vehicles to the propellant depots.

I have a question: I was re reading the article 'Augustine Review: October summit set to reveal NASA’s forward path' here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/augustine-review-october-summit-set-to-reveal-nasas-forward-path/

and I ran across this line in the second paragraph of the SD HLLV section: "An impressive EELV-based exploration architecture is understood to be making huge strides behind the scenes, in preparation for being one of the frontrunners in the conclusions of the Augustine Review report."

Is this likely to be that EELV architecture? If so it sounds like the Augustine commision already knows about it!

Yep, this is exactly what I was referencing in the previous article.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 101
I would assume that the direction NASA finally implements does not match up so precisely with any of the Augustine options, more likely publicly choosing one option and tweaking a lot of the details, possibly to deal with political constituencies, etc.  I personally still think we need to develop a moderate HLV, however I am always in favor of doing something doable sooner rather than something cooler way off into the future.  And could NASA *ever* really downsize its Centers and let go of the STS workforce?  That seems like a such a large leap from business as usual.
Scott

Offline Chandonn

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1227
  • "Pudding!!! UNLIMITED Rice Pudding!!!"
  • Lexington, Ky
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 9
That Lunar lander is like nothing I've ever seen!

Shades of "Space: 1999"!   I like it!

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
 Notice many of these ULA documents also state that their components  can be incorporated into a directly shuttle derived architecture.
they are reading tea leaves.IE a mixed fleet.
 
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 08:29 PM by infocat13 »
I am a member of the side mount fanboy universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture fanboy universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8504
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1021
  • Likes Given: 234

Pay to develop our ACES and we will give you the moon.... (sorry for the sarcasm) ... That is cheaper than Ares...

More interesting is :

Quote
ACES has no helium or hydrazine systems- all pressurization, attitude control and power is generated by consuming its two main propellants.

So what is the impact of that?
Will ACES be cheaper due the lack of other systems?
Will ACES be more reliable?
It will lack the toxicity of other systems.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17772
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 440
  • Likes Given: 3261

Pay to develop our ACES and we will give you the moon.... (sorry for the sarcasm) ... That is cheaper than Ares...

More interesting is :

Quote
ACES has no helium or hydrazine systems- all pressurization, attitude control and power is generated by consuming its two main propellants.

So what is the impact of that?
Will ACES be cheaper due the lack of other systems?
Will ACES be more reliable?
It will lack the toxicity of other systems.


Simpler, cheaper, low toxicity for ground handling, fewer leaks (He).

I still wish they would abandon LH2 for liquid propane...solves so many problems, especially boil-off.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Tags: