Challenges of integrating very large payloads at KSC?

[Michael Bloxham]

Hey guys,

I've had this question on my mind for a while now. I hope I've picked the right place for this. And if this topic already exists elsewhere, feel free to point me in the right direction and then delete this one.

Okay, so over at MarsDrive we've been looking at some humans-to-mars architectures which involve very large payloads: Specifically one-piece conical entry vehicles up to 11 or even 12m in diameter. The question arose about the existing capability (or rather the lack thereof) to manufacture such large space vehicles and also problems with the lack of infrastructure and the like to be able to integrate such large payloads with the LV (in this case assuming a vehicle similar to the Jupiter-246) at KSC.

So the question is, how big of a deal is this problem?

I guess I should be more specific than that, so here goes:

Theoretically (of course ;-), if NASA were to be given the directive of assembling a humans-to-mars mission within the next 10 or 20 years with KSC-integrated SDLV hardware and the like, and assuming the use of large ~11 or 12m diameter entry vehicles were the most economical route to achieving this goal, how would they go about managing the assembly and integration of these large vehicles, and how much would it cost?

I know I've seen some papers praising the merits of the late Ares-V's payload envelope. But have there been any studies on the specific real-world problems that such big payloads would present, and how these might be overcome?

Thanks,

[alexw]

FWIW, it's been suggested around here several times that there are indeed major logistical problems with making use of the abilities of very heavy lifters. After all, this sort of issue brought about the Pregnant & Super Guppies, Beluga, and 747 LCF, and that only gets you to something like 6m diameters. Beyond that, it's barges, and the factories are either directly on the coast or a river, unless you can use a Skycrane.
   I'm not aware of any detailed studies of the subject, but you might find references with some careful searches on here. Good luck,
   -Alex

[orbitjunkie]

I just saw on the Orion thread a mention of the O&C building being used to assemble Orion which would then be mounted directly to the LV. I didn't realize they were doing it that way, which is pretty cool.

I did a quick Google search trying to find info on the size of that building and I found this: http://lockheedelectroniccomponents.com/data/assets/ssc/Orion/O_CBrochurevers3withnoNASAlogo.pdf

Judging from the rendering on p2 and knowing that Orion is 5m in diameter, I'd guess you might be able to work with 7-8m payloads there, though 10-12 would really be pushing it. However, articles say that the entire structure was gutted and renovated, including new GSE and some tooling for Orion manufacture, for only $55m. That sounds to me like this isn't such a hard or expensive problem to solve if you just build the facilities at KSC. Of course, the limiting factor is now what is the biggest smallest piece that would have to be shipped there. But presumably a facility like this would help.

Next question: are there any other buildings that could be similarly renovated specifically to handle 12m payloads? And how much would it cost? I know painfully little about KSC.

[Jim]

I just saw on the Orion thread a mention of the O&C building being used to assemble Orion which would then be mounted directly to the LV. I didn't realize they were doing it that way, which is pretty cool.

I did a quick Google search trying to find info on the size of that building and I found this: http://lockheedelectroniccomponents.com/data/assets/ssc/Orion/O_CBrochurevers3withnoNASAlogo.pdf

Judging from the rendering on p2 and knowing that Orion is 5m in diameter, I'd guess you might be able to work with 7-8m payloads there, though 10-12 would really be pushing it. However, articles say that the entire structure was gutted and renovated, including new GSE and some tooling for Orion manufacture, for only $55m. That sounds to me like this isn't such a hard or expensive problem to solve if you just build the facilities at KSC. Of course, the limiting factor is now what is the biggest smallest piece that would have to be shipped there. But presumably a facility like this would help.

Next question: are there any other buildings that could be similarly renovated specifically to handle 12m payloads? And how much would it cost? I know painfully little about KSC.

Incorrect information

1.  Orion will not go directly to the pad, it will have to go to a hazardous servicing facility first

2.  O&C crane hook height is too low

That is the issue, not all payloads are going to be assembled at KSC.  There are testing facilities that are required.

[Michael Bloxham]

Okay, so what is the most economical route to enabling the integration of large 10-12m payloads, if we absolutely had to do it?

Considering a giant ~12m diameter traditional blunt-cone shape (e.g. MSR, MSL) would it be viable to split the backshell into a few big sections; which are then assembled around the heatshield and payload somewhere at KSC (in a new building if needed)? Is that viable from a technical standpoint? And what is the necessary extent of testing required post-integration?

Thanks,

[Michael Bloxham]

Scratch that. Splitting the backshell sounds to me like it would best be avoided. Anyone got any other ideas?

[butters]

What about the aerodynamic performance of the launch vehicle?  Could Ares V or Godzilla VII or whatever we call it actually push a 12m cross-section through transonic and max-q without structural reinforcement and significant performance penalties?

I don't know if a launch vehicle exists, even on paper, that could orbit such a payload.  That may be the most challenging "integration" problem...

[Michael Bloxham]

What about the aerodynamic performance of the launch vehicle?  Could Ares V or Godzilla VII or whatever we call it actually push a 12m cross-section through transonic and max-q without structural reinforcement and significant performance penalties?

I don't know if a launch vehicle exists, even on paper, that could orbit such a payload.  That may be the most challenging "integration" problem...

Butters, AFAIK both NASA and DIRECT have proposed PLFs with an external diameter of 12m. Unfortunately I can't tell you how extensive the analysis of these options have been (e.g. logistics). Does anyone else here know?

Edit: As far as I can gather mass-to-LEO performance is not hugely affected by the larger PLF. This is because the fairing is ejected comparatively early into the flight and therefore doesn't impose much of a weight penalty. I know much less about the problem of getting thru max-q.

[Michael Bloxham]

Would it be possible to simply assemble the whole payload elsewhere and just fly it into KSC via the SSCA?

I calculated the frontal areas in SketchUp and they would seem comparable: ~77m^2 for the shuttle and 57m^2 for the example aeroshell. Like the Shuttle, perhaps the aeroshell could use a clip-on tail fairing to further reduce its aerodynamic drag.

The mass of the example aeroshell with its (unfueled) payload would be vastly less than the shuttle - probably around ~20 tonnes.

[Michael Bloxham]

Upon further contemplation, perhaps the aeroshell would best be oriented heatshield-forward so that the aerodynamic loading upon it is the same as it would experience during the actual mission?

Although in this orientation the frontal area has gone up to 95m^2 (for an 11m diameter aeroshell) so aerodymanic loading on the SSCA might be about 25% higher than with the Shuttle...

[Michael Bloxham]

What about the aerodynamic performance of the launch vehicle?  Could Ares V or Godzilla VII or whatever we call it actually push a 12m cross-section through transonic and max-q without structural reinforcement and significant performance penalties?

I don't know if a launch vehicle exists, even on paper, that could orbit such a payload.  That may be the most challenging "integration" problem...

Butters, AFAIK both NASA and DIRECT have proposed PLFs with an external diameter of 12m. Unfortunately I can't tell you how extensive the analysis of these options have been (e.g. logistics). Does anyone else here know?

Edit: As far as I can gather mass-to-LEO performance is not hugely affected by the larger PLF. This is because the fairing is ejected comparatively early into the flight and therefore doesn't impose much of a weight penalty. I know much less about the problem of getting thru max-q.

Oh, here we go: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21595.msg588557#msg588557

[Jim]

The attach points to the aeroshell from the 747 would not be able to take the loads

[Michael Bloxham]

The attach points to the aeroshell from the 747 would not be able to take the loads

I thought that could be the case. Although I wonder whether the reduced weight of the proposed payload compared with the shuttle might ease things a bit. Otherwise, perhaps the payload could be fitted to a carrier element like that shown to arrest the torque moment (perhaps with the payload mounted a bit further inwards than shown to further reduce the torque loads on the mounts)?

[Jim]

I am not talking about the loads into the 747 but into the aeroshell.  It is not designed to take side loads nor even the aero loads.  Remember it is for flying into a rarefied atmosphere.

[Michael Bloxham]

Hmm, I didn't think of that (loads being transmitted from the in-flight 747 to the payload)! Perhaps the aeroshell could be temporarily fitted with extra internal support elements, or else some sort of large exo-skeletal support structure? I'm running out of ideas...

[Michael Bloxham]

On second thought a fully-encapsulating aerodynamic carrier element would both arrest the torque moment and prevent aerodynamic loads from being transmitted into the payload. And we can afford the mass of such a thing too! Why didn't I think of that before? Just like a big cargo box: http://www.google.co.nz/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=aerodynamic+cargo+box&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[Dappa]

Hmm, I didn't think of that (loads being transmitted from the in-flight 747 to the payload)! Perhaps the aeroshell could be temporarily fitted with extra internal support elements, or else some sort of large exo-skeletal support structure? I'm running out of ideas...

Let's scale up the X-48 blended wing body, put the thing in there. It might not be high enough for the entire payload in one piece, but it would at least be big enough to keep the heat shield in one piece.

[Michael Bloxham]

Jim, might this work? Frontal area, side area, and total mass might be roughly equivalent to that of the Shuttle. You could even design in some lift to match that of the Shuttle if needed:

[sdsds]

The cargo box for the SCA is a truly lovely idea, and nicely drawn too!  But why wouldn't the payload be constructed at Michoud and brought to KSC via barge?

[Jim]

The cargo box for the SCA is a truly lovely idea, and nicely drawn too!  But why wouldn't the payload be constructed at Michoud and brought to KSC via barge?

Because Michoud is not everything for manufacturing spaceflight hardware

[sdsds]

Michoud is not everything for manufacturing spaceflight hardware

Sure, an Air Force plant in Palmdale would have many advantages.  But if Michoud could be made good enough for Orion fabrication, why not for this?

[Michael Bloxham]

Okay, so we now have at least one conceptually viable method to transport big payloads from their place of manufacture to KSC (the other is by barge). So whats next?

2.  O&C crane hook height is too low

I presume this would be a much simpler problem - i.e. extend the height of the crane?

Is there anything else?

[Jim]

Okay, so we now have at least one conceptually viable method to transport big payloads from their place of manufacture to KSC (the other is by barge). So whats next?

2.  O&C crane hook height is too low

I presume this would be a much simpler problem - i.e. extend the height of the crane?

No, it is at the max height already.  Need a taller building

[Jim]

You have omitted the infrastructure to get the hardware to the airport and on and off the SCA. 

[Patchouli]

Jim, might this work? Frontal area, side area, and total mass might be roughly equivalent to that of the Shuttle. You could even design in some lift to match that of the Shuttle if needed:

Why not the Dreamlifter aka 747 LCF it can probably accommodate 90% of the payloads you'd be sticking on a HLV like Ares V/SLS.
10M wide payloads will still have to take a barge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

[Michael Bloxham]

My specific interest was in the transport and integration of a payload in the 10m diameter by about 10m height class (which is the size of aeroshell needed to land about 10 tonnes of payload to the surface of Mars using upscaled conventional EDL tech).

I had a look at some interior images of the O&C building and it looks to me as though the crane is high enough for a 10m tall payload.

- Mike

[Jim]

My specific interest was in the transport and integration of a payload in the 10m diameter by about 10m height class (which is the size of aeroshell needed to land about 10 tonnes of payload to the surface of Mars using upscaled conventional EDL tech).

I had a look at some interior images of the O&C building and it looks to me as though the crane is high enough for a 10m tall payload.

- Mike

Incorrect.   

a.  The facility is dedicated to Orion
b.  The cranes height (it is less than 90') doesn't matter, the door height is 80'
c.  No hazardous processing is allowed in the O&C.


Ares V, SLS or your payload will need a new facility

[alexw]

Jim, might this work? Frontal area, side area, and total mass might be roughly equivalent to that of the Shuttle. You could even design in some lift to match that of the Shuttle if needed:

Why not the Dreamlifter aka 747 LCF it can probably accommodate 90% of the payloads you'd be sticking on a HLV like Ares V/SLS.
10M wide payloads will still have to take a barge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

     With aircraft, even the LCF, IIRC the best you can do is just over 6m. That may be why the Falcon X core is 6m, have something to do with why no one's taken ULA up on 6-7.2m fairings, and why 5-5.4m are the largest sizes in use today. Everything else is barge, or conceivably, something like a Skycrane.
    -Alex

[Michael Bloxham]

Or perhaps an SCA "cargo box" as suggested. For something as ambitious as a Humans-to-Mars mission (which might entail the assembly of 15 - 20 large payloads within their giant aeroshells), I would suggest that even something as big and expensive to develop as this "cargo box" for the SCA might not be uneconomic, if the option of assembly via a barge-accessible area is not available. Although I guess I do have to put a little more thought into the intermediate transport infrastructure as Jim suggests...

Taking a geezer at the wikipedia article on the Skycrane suggests that it might actually be able to lift even the large 10m x 10m craft that I am interested in, assuming the fueling of propellants and loading of consumables is performed at KSC (Jim?). I wonder about the aerodynamics of such a large low-density payload though (i.e. whether the Skycrane could handle it under average wind conditions, etc.).

- Mike

[Michael Bloxham]

Hehe, this picture makes me wonder whether it might be viable after all

[alexw]

Hehe, this picture makes me wonder whether it might be viable after all

    Skycranes are pretty nifty-looking   Apparently they're still in production.

    Another option might be something like Zeppelin NT, or the failed Cargolifter project -- wasn't something like that originally intended for movement of A380 components between manufacturing sites, but Airbus ultimately decided to rebuild canals and bridges, etc.?
 -Alex

[Michael Bloxham]

Yeah I was thinking about those. I used to read popular science and popular mechanics magazines almost religiously about ten years ago (this was while I was still a young teenager). Those gigantic modern "cargo blimp" concepts really impressed me. However, wouldn't these have even more problems with unfavourable wind conditions than the Skycrane?

[Jim]

Taking a geezer at the wikipedia article on the Skycrane suggests that it might actually be able to lift even the large 10m x 10m craft that I am interested in, assuming the fueling of propellants and loading of consumables is performed at KSC (Jim?). I wonder about the aerodynamics of such a large low-density payload though (i.e. whether the Skycrane could handle it under average wind conditions, etc.).

range is only 200 miles.

[Archibald]

Hehe, this picture makes me wonder whether it might be viable after all

    Skycranes are pretty nifty-looking   Apparently they're still in production.

    Another option might be something like Zeppelin NT, or the failed Cargolifter project -- wasn't something like that originally intended for movement of A380 components between manufacturing sites, but Airbus ultimately decided to rebuild canals and bridges, etc.?
 -Alex

Skycranes are so efficient as firefighter that a canadian firm build a handful of them (very small numbers).

Cargolifter went bankrupt at the wrong time, leaving Airbus with no other choice than cutting tree, moving traffic signals, etc.

[Michael Bloxham]

Taking a geezer at the wikipedia article on the Skycrane suggests that it might actually be able to lift even the large 10m x 10m craft that I am interested in, assuming the fueling of propellants and loading of consumables is performed at KSC (Jim?). I wonder about the aerodynamics of such a large low-density payload though (i.e. whether the Skycrane could handle it under average wind conditions, etc.).

range is only 200 miles.

Yeah, I was just thinking of this as the interim step between the place of manufacture and the airport where it could be loaded into a "cargo box" for the SCA.

[alexw]

Taking a geezer at the wikipedia article on the Skycrane suggests that it might actually be able to lift even the large 10m x 10m craft that I am interested in, assuming the fueling of propellants and loading of consumables is performed at KSC (Jim?). I wonder about the aerodynamics of such a large low-density payload though (i.e. whether the Skycrane could handle it under average wind conditions, etc.).

range is only 200 miles.

Yeah, I was just thinking of this as the interim step between the place of manufacture and the airport where it could be loaded into a "cargo box" for the SCA.

    Dispense with the additional expense and difficulty of the SCA-box. 200 miles will get you from anywhere industrial in California to the coast, and from almost any major city in the interior United States to the Mississippi or its major tributaries, except probably Denver, Salt Lake, Phoenix, and Las Vegas.  Barges are big, slow, reliable, and cheap.
   
    You could refuel, of course (and you would for anything much over 100 miles, since you'd want fuel margin), but you might need to have prepared locations to set down the underslung cargo.

    I wonder what the safety rules are? Auto-rotating with a 10m heatshield while over Los Angeles would not be pleasing. Is it better to crash on top of your own cargo, or jettison?
     -Alex

[Michael Bloxham]

Lol, yeah good question. And good point; I guess if you have access to ocean-connected barge-friendly waters from nearby the point of manufacture then you wouldn't really need the SCA...

It brings back the question of where would such a large spacecraft be manufactured anyway? Perhaps, if we are talking about a Humans-to-Mars mission, these things might be constructed like the Airbus... that might especially be the case if we are to use a more commercial-centric model, right?