|
|
|
Dappa
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 09/26/2010 02:34 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 09/26/2010 02:45 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 09/26/2010 06:31 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 09/26/2010 06:47 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 09/26/2010 07:09 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 10/08/2010 05:14 AM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 10/08/2010 11:51 AM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 10/08/2010 11:52 AM » |
|
You have omitted the infrastructure to get the hardware to the airport and on and off the SCA.
|
|
|
|
Patchouli
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 10/08/2010 04:55 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 10/08/2010 05:20 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 10/08/2010 05:59 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 10/08/2010 07:40 PM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 10/09/2010 03:46 AM » |
|
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
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 10/09/2010 04:01 AM » |
|
Hehe, this picture makes me wonder whether it might be viable after all 
|
|
|
|
