|
Smatcha
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 05/31/2006 06:20 PM » |
|
Jim - 30/5/2006 3:30 PM
SMetch - 30/5/2006 4:29 PM
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.
More costly than the vehicle itself? I'm well aware of all the above and it should be no where near the expense of cryo tanks, rocket engines ,spacecraft, life support, command/control, communications, in space power etc of everything above the MLP. To see such a hefty bill coming from something that should be routine in comparison is amazing. Everything you described can be found at a brand new run of the mill chemical plant and for alot less. Also it would be easier just to build a new MLP that matches the vehicle being launched than “modify” the shuttle MLP. It seems the space program has picked up a lot of inefficiencies when our modern day "modifed" MLP cost more the Saturn V did with a brand new MLP and Tower no less. What would be a good cost estimate for a new MLP?
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 05/31/2006 06:29 PM » |
|
I meant the MLP would be the most costly launch base expense.
No matter what the vehicle is, the expense part of the pad is the vehicle interface.
Building new would not be cheaper.
|
|
|
|
bad_astra
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 05/31/2006 10:20 PM » |
|
Then yet another argument for EELV. The pads already exist.
|
|
|
|
kraisee
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 05/31/2006 11:40 PM » |
|
bad_astra - 31/5/2006 6:07 PM
Then yet another argument for EELV. The pads already exist. Don't be fooled. The Atlas Phase 2 requires a new MLP for LC-41 too. Manned Delta variants required significant Pad mods at LC-37 too. ALL of the 50mT+ variants require very serious modifications to existing Pads, because the current facilities were simply never designed for the liftoff thrust, nor are the foundations of the Pads strong enough to support the fully-fuelled weights of those boosters either. The modifications required to any current EELV Pads for manned vehicle are still quite significant. Whichever Pad, it would have to be taken out of service for a period of at least two years - during which time that contractor can not launch regular satellites from that Pad and all flights must transfer to their competition. Boeing last year made noises to the effect that they expected that a manned variant of their Delta-IV Heavy would benefit greatly from having a dedicated pad. I suspect Lockheed would also prefer that approach too if there were a "blank cheque" available. All of these are a lot more extensive and expensive modifications than is being indicated around here at present. Don't be fooled by the pretty-pictures - remember there are no numbers available for you to compare - Ask yourself WHY?And don't forget that LC-39 has once before been modified for a new vehicle - between Saturn and Shuttle. There is an experience-base already available to indicate the costs, schedules and work requirements there - and the facilitiy is already the ideal one for handling manned operations being a civillian operation, its not part of a military base like the Pads on the Cape. Ross.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 06/01/2006 12:36 AM » |
|
Yes, there are numbers $500M for pads mods, per OSP and can be done in two years around scheduled launches.
The single body Phase 2 Atlas does not need a new MLP.
Most the Apollo to shuttle pads mods people are gone or move on to other jobs.
There is no difference wrt where a pad is located KSC vs CCAFS. The same base contractor supports both. It is called the Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Also in the EELV era, the DOD does not own the pads, the contractor does and provides all the necessary support for them The EELV pads are commercial pads, not military as was for Titan. The following has no real bearing and is just XXXXXXXX
"the facilitiy is already the ideal one for handling manned operations being a civillian operation, its not part of a military base like the Pads on the Cape. "
|
|
|
|
bad_astra
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 06/01/2006 12:37 AM » |
|
There aren't numbers to compare perhaps because EELV wasn't given a fair chance with ESAS. I realize you really liked the SDLV concept, but there isn't much S left in the DLV.
|
|
|
|
kevin-rf
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 06/01/2006 02:33 PM » |
|
Jim - 31/5/2006 9:19 AM
Limited? 4 vehicles at once? Apollo/Skylab never used more than 3 bays at once.
I thought a manned mars mission was for four heavy launches in short order. Due to the propellant boil off issue I would think you would want to have all four heavies stacked in the VAB before the first one flew. That would require either one of the flights to be manned or stacking of a fifth CEV vehicle after (before) the first mars payload has left the pad. Doesn't a profile with manned abort blackout zones deliver more payload to orbit? A full VAB will result in no ISS support missions during a mars campaign. A full VAB will result in no moon base support missions during a mars launch campaign. Is it the speed nasa can launch that is driving the other propellant issues? Will one of the MLP's support both Stick and CALV launches? Do four MLP's exist? Are we going to need an extra MLP? If so would not now be the time to build one? Will it be an expense that bites the program when we go to mars? With the moon we are looking at 1.5 launches (Two slots in the VAB) plus how ever many ISS support slots we need. So three... If NASA does the prudent thing they will have a second Stick stacked for fast turn arround in supporting the ISS. I believe nasa did that with skylab. So we may be running the VAB with all four slots full during the lunar missions. Maybe the Stick needs to be stacked in some TBA area outside of the VAB so we can support mars. Not saying the VAB is a bad thing, just think care must be taken to make sure we are not requiring more of the VAB than it can deliver. I wonder if it is driving some of the propellant issues. Remember the order is : ISS first Moon Second Mars Third Now is the time to make sure we are not limiting what we can do on mars.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 06/01/2006 05:04 PM » |
|
Mars is not entering the picture wrt CALV and CLV planning, only lSS and Lunar flights. That is too far out to scope. This is actual planning and budgeting, not my opinion
|
|
|
|
Damon Hill
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 06/01/2006 05:53 PM » |
|
Just supplying the hydrogen for a single CaLV and other normal Cape operations will be interesting enough. That'll be considerably more cryogen to supply than Saturn V or Shuttle operations ever called for; lots of tank trucks or perhaps a new hydrogen facility constructed for the purpose? There's been an oxygen plant in nearby Mims since Apollo days.
|
|
|
|
kraisee
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 06/01/2006 06:03 PM » |
|
Okay, first the ISS and Mars missions will not conflict. ISS is scheduled to be retired around 2016. It'll probably continue to be used for a while after that of course, but lets assume ten more years to 2026. Well, that's only 6 years into the development of the Mars mission hardware, so it still won't fly concurrent with ISS missions. ISS will no longer be in use when we start going to Mars.
There are a few different approaches for the Mars missions which would not max-out the VAB's facilities. A CaLV launch processing timeline is being planned to be noticably quicker than a Shuttle launch. It is quite possible to get a Shuttle off about once per month if you really wanted to, so lets use that figure as a nice round number.
For a Mars mission, I see it occurring across a number of CaLV launches, and across two separate stages:
Mission 1 - Automated ISRU pre-crew sortie:
* CaLV - Mission Module: ISRU hardware, Surface Hab Module w/ crew supplies (no crew), Common Lander System & Landing Fuel
* CaLV - Propellant Module: Re-usable TMI/TEI Engines & TMI Fuel
At this point you have a lot of useful hardware waiting on the surface, have tested the TMI propsulsion and Lander systems fully, know that there is a safe Hab checked-out and waiting on the surface already, and you are already "mining" for resources including the fuel to get crews home later. Only once you *know* everything is working correctly and awaiting a crew, you send them...
Mission 2 - Three separate Launches:
* CaLV - Mission Module: Transit Hab Module w/ crew supplies, Common Lander System & Landing Fuel
* CaLV - Propellant Module: TMI/TEI Engines & TMI Fuel
* CLV - Crew.
Processing *could* then be done in this way...
All payloads are delivered to, assembled & checked-out in the industrial area of KSC. When they are flight-ready, and have been sealed into their payload shrouds already, they are delivered to the VAB for stacking.
Lets assume MLP1 and High Bay 1 are used primarily for whatever CLV/CEV flights are required (to ISS-2 maybe). Thus, MLP3 is used in HB3 to prepare the Propulsion Module . MLP2 & HB2 could be used to process the first CaLV with the Mission Module on the second CaLV at the same time. Total processing time ~1 month, each, concurrent.
The Mission Module rolled-out and launched from Pad A. It is checked-out automatically once it arrives safely on-orbit, and assuming everything is good-to-go, the Propulsion Module is launched a week-or-so later to automatically rendezvous and dock. After a further checkout period, the mission leaves for Mars, completely automated. When the first mission has checked-out on the surface of Mars ~18 months later, you're ready to go with the second part of the mission - sending the crew.
It basically follows the exact same procedure, but adds one CLV launch from MLP1 / HB1 / Pad A bringing the crew up.
The initial versions of all these modules will probably be one-time-use-only. But later, a new "Block-II" Transit Hab Module, a new Block-II Propulsion Module, and a new re-usable Mars Lander system could all be developed. The reusable lander would wait in LMO between crews for an MOR procedure. At that point, all a Mars-bound mission would to launch is just the TMI Fuel, lander fuel, crew supplies and the Crew. You could *probably* do that using one CaLV and one CLV.
Assuming unlimited budget of course, I would say that the maximum number of CLV flights which could be processed annually would max-out somewhere around 18 flights per year, and I would say that you could theoretically get about 6-10 CaLV's processed and launched from each Highbay annually too. If you could get those sorts of numbers you'd get a traffic-jam at the Pads, but it's a non-issue.
Given the budget will never allow for such a high rate of flights, the VAB and LC-39 facilities will not get pushed close to its limits even if there were two Lunar missions and one Mars mission per year running concurrently, plus a handful of CLV missions to LEO too.
Ross.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 06/01/2006 07:16 PM » |
|
Damon Hill - 1/6/2006 1:40 PM
Just supplying the hydrogen for a single CaLV and other normal Cape operations will be interesting enough. That'll be considerably more cryogen to supply than Saturn V or Shuttle operations ever called for; lots of tank trucks or perhaps a new hydrogen facility constructed for the purpose? There's been an oxygen plant in nearby Mims since Apollo days. D-IV Heavy uses a lot of LH2, so it shouldn't be an issue. The LH2 comes from Louisana
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 06/01/2006 07:23 PM » |
|
The Mars missions require a extra CEV/CLV launch to check out the mission module before the mars crew uses it.
|
|
|
|
kraisee
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 06/02/2006 04:13 AM » |
|
I had heard that after the initial automated joining of the heavy payloads, the Mars-bound crew themselves would perform the full checkout prior to their departure.
It was something to do with the psychological benefits of performing their own thorough checkout would help give them a greater sense of confidence in the spacecraft they would be committing their lives to over such a long duration mission.
Either way, I don't think we're going to see the final form of the Mars missions for at least another decade, so all of this is still so incredibly early in the planning stages that it'll probably be unrecognisable by the time the plan is solidified.
Ross.
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 06/16/2006 10:05 PM » |
|
Jim - 1/6/2006 2:03 PM
Damon Hill - 1/6/2006 1:40 PM
Just supplying the hydrogen for a single CaLV and other normal Cape operations will be interesting enough. That'll be considerably more cryogen to supply than Saturn V or Shuttle operations ever called for; lots of tank trucks or perhaps a new hydrogen facility constructed for the purpose? There's been an oxygen plant in nearby Mims since Apollo days.
D-IV Heavy uses a lot of LH2, so it shouldn't be an issue. The LH2 comes from Louisana How much LH2 is in a Delta IV heavy as compared with what CaLV would have?
|
|
|
|
gladiator1332
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 06/16/2006 11:51 PM » |
|
bad_astra - 28/5/2006 7:51 PM
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. I looked into this awhile back, except I kept the 5 RS-68s. THe problem with that was you were basically building the CaLV. I like your idea, really does sound like mixing the Ariane V with the Shuttle. I did a render in paint using some CaLV images. Please note that center engine in that image is the Vulcan from the Ariane V, just pretend that it is a J-2.
|
|
|
|
