NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2006 03:20 pm

Title: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2006 03:20 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

Say hello to "Stumpy".
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: dutch courage on 07/27/2006 03:35 pm
It almost looks like an Ariane 5... ;)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2006 03:44 pm
Quote
dutch courage - 27/7/2006  4:22 PM

It almost looks like an Ariane 5... ;)

Stumpy is very much the American cousin of an Ariane 5 ECA.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/27/2006 03:52 pm
Great article Chris...I nearly spat out my coffee when I saw Stumpy on the front page.

Now let's just hope they replace the 5-seg monstrosity with this and all will be well with the VSE.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2006 03:57 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 27/7/2006  11:39 AM

Great article Chris...I nearly spat out my coffee when I saw Stumpy on the front page.

Now let's just hope they replace the 5-seg monstrosity with this and all will be well with the VSE.

That would be just as bad!
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/27/2006 04:11 pm
I have to say this is a vast imrpovement over the Stick...there is better out there, (EELVs) but in terms of SDLVs this is the best option they have right now.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: nacnud on 07/27/2006 04:11 pm
So what is your best solution Jim? Atlas x CLV launched from current pad, Atlas X phase 2 or 3 CaLV launched from C-39?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2006 04:13 pm
Compete it.  Send an RFP out  with the appropiate requirements and see what you get back.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/27/2006 04:19 pm
Wouldn't that just waste more time? And we already know the results...Boeing would give us the D4 Evolution, LM the Phase 2, ATK the Stick or Stumpy. Eventually some final decision has to be made, and the more it is debated, the later we get a working system. The VSE is very vulnerable right now and NASA needs to start cutting some metal if they want this thing to live.

There is no time for a competition. They either need to fix the Stick or immediatly go with something else, whether that is a EELV or SDLV. They are not going to give up on the SDLV just yet, that is why we are seeing Stumpy.

Stumpy is a perfect SDLV design, not too far removed from the Shuttle as well as not too far removed from the CaLV. To even say that the current Ares I (the Stick) and Ares V are from the same family is crazy. The two are nothing alike. This is a true scale down of the CaLV. With Stumpy and the CaLV you can truly use the Saturn I and Saturn V analogy.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mong' on 07/27/2006 05:02 pm
frankly I don't understand the fuss around "stumpy", and I really don't see how anyone can say it is a better option than the stick, it still requires modifications of the ground infrastructure, the re-certification of a new SRB (that would make 2 different SRB's to certify for the VSE) , plus as jim has pointed out in another thread it was designed by ground personnel, not an LV center.
and how do you know it is going to be better than the stick ? the problems with the stick were discovered during detailed review, "stumpy" is just a concept.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2006 05:02 pm
Here's an idea of the similarity on the size ratio to STS, from one of the images on L2....
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: hyper_snyper on 07/27/2006 05:07 pm
Would a 3 seg SRB entail the same amount of redesign work as a 5 seg?  Or is taking out a segment non-trivial as opposed to adding one?  What about just having a 4 segment shuttle motors on Stumpy?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2006 05:44 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 27/7/2006  12:06 PM

Wouldn't that just waste more time? And we already know the results...Boeing would give us the D4 Evolution, LM the Phase 2, ATK the Stick or Stumpy. Eventually some final decision has to be made, and the more it is debated, the later we get a working system.

waste more time?  The CLV isn't that far along.  With an RFP, you get a price per launch (let's not go into contract cost escalations).
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/27/2006 06:47 pm
Quote
hyper_snyper - 27/7/2006  11:54 AM
Would a 3 seg SRB entail the same amount of redesign work as a 5 seg?  Or is taking out a segment non-trivial as opposed to adding one?  What about just having a 4 segment shuttle motors on Stumpy?

I have to agree with hyper on this one, and as I let my L2 membership lapse, I can't go see if it's already been covered...

Why, oh why would you waste R&D $$$ on a 3 segment SRB?!?  ATK's gotta *love* this plan, they get R&D $ for both 3-segment and 5-segment SRBs this way!!!

Stick with existing 4-segment models, and launch a bigger CEV!  You've got to build the CEV anyways, and you can get back to a 5.5m CEV with enough room for the ISS 6-person compliment, and maybe get back to some other more interesting tech that was dropped for weight concerns.

Is ther another benefit to 3-segment SRB's I'm missing?  Having 3/4/5 segments in the "arsenal" does seem to make for a nicely-scalable launch system, I suppose...

Do we have any performance estimates for Stumpy, for mass to ISS or LEO?  About equal to The Stick I'm guessing?  Something we can compare to a 4-segment SRB equivalent (which we should have something close to in ESAS already), and the CaLV?

UPDATE: Looks like LV24 or LV25 would be the closest analogy to a 4-segment "Stumpy" that's in ESAS.

While I think the stick is a great idea, Stumpy makes more short-term sense, if you throw in all the political, job-saving, etc. arguments... But not with 3 segment SRBs, unless all we're trying to do is get some more $ for ATK!
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Peter NASA on 07/27/2006 07:04 pm
It's a KSC thing for sure, but it does have bonus points. Nothing is going to move NASA off the stick though, even if we fall into an X-33 problem.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/27/2006 07:35 pm
Well if NASA falls into an X-33 type problem it could mean the end of the program, then there will be a need for some change.

You can't possibly tell me that there are fewer modifications needed if we go with the Stick rather than Stumpy or EELV. Look at the size of the Stick, it is rediculous to even call it a SDLV any more. All of that to launch a stripped down CEV. I agree, I wish Stumpy used 4 seg boosters as well, as it would mean no R&D for a new SRB.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/27/2006 07:47 pm
Shouldn't a crew launch vehicle at least *look* like it can fly?   ;-)

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 07/27/2006 07:55 pm
I dont see anything in the stumpy design that people could reasonably take issue with.  Except for a slight increase in cost ( 1 more segment, 1 more J-2x).

Of course its not an EELV, so of course it will be unacceptable to some people.

It seems at first glance, to solve all the stick's problems.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2006 07:57 pm
extra aft skirt, extra recovery systems,  larger tank (it is not an ET any more),  Slight increase cost?  A lot more increase
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: UK Shuttle Clan on 07/27/2006 09:27 pm
I didn't realise how tall the CLV was! That was a surprise for me.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: PurduesUSAFguy on 07/27/2006 11:09 pm
It seems to me like if they were going to go this route for the CLV then it makes more sense to shift away from the '1.5' launch archetecture that the ESAS decided on and move towards a two launch solution. Having to only develop one launcher would yeild R and D savings, as well as applying at least some economies of scale to the vehicle.

Maybe stick with the 8.4meter diameter tank if the 10meter tooling isn't readily avalible just stretched and then use the existing 4 segement SRBs with 2 or 4 RS-68. Such a configuration could yeild between 100-115 tons to LEO which would give a two launch mission a throw weight between 200 and 230 tons, without having to develop and recertify new larger or smaller SRBs.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mong' on 07/27/2006 11:29 pm
interesting. a 115 tons injection stage could put about 70 tons of useful payload on a translunar trajectory, that makes something like 40 tons to the lunar surface, I also like the idea of a cheaper, sonner CaLV with an increased flight rate
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Mogster on 07/27/2006 11:36 pm
Wouldn't going with this 'stumpy' design make the CaLV that much closer as the two would have more in common?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mong' on 07/27/2006 11:45 pm
not really. it looks like CaLV, but it is very different. you would still have to develop the 5-seg SRB's, increase core diameter, adapt 5 RS68, develop the EDS, upgrade the crawlers...
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Bruce H on 07/28/2006 12:35 am
Quote
BogoMIPS - 27/7/2006  1:34 PM



Why, oh why would you waste R&D $$$ on a 3 segment SRB?!?  ATK's gotta *love* this plan, they get R&D $ for both 3-segment and 5-segment SRBs this way!!!


Rule one for the VSE. Don't mess with those crazy ATK cats, or else....
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Zonarius on 07/28/2006 02:44 am
I'm Not a rocket scientist. But being a side by side LV wouldn't 'Stumpy' be a inherently more dangerous design compared to the 'Stick'.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/28/2006 03:29 am
Quote
Jim - 27/7/2006  3:44 PM

extra aft skirt, extra recovery systems,  larger tank (it is not an ET any more),  Slight increase cost?  A lot more increase

About the larger tank...correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Atlas Phase 2 a larger tank? And the article states, "The core stage may be a derivative of the Shuttle External Tank" Nothing says the core has to be the same diameter as the CaLV, as it is already using different engines, I don't see why a ET-diamter tank could not be used.


Quote
Rule one for the VSE. Don't mess with those crazy ATK cats, or else....

I have to agree. I would not be surprised if ATK suddenly finds the Stick to be "broken" and unworkable. And why is that? Personally if I were making the decisions at ATK, I think Stumpy is a much better deal. 2X SRBs on CLV and 2X SRBs on the CaLV. You're talking an extra SRB per Moon shot. And not to mention you are getting rid of the engineering headache that is the Stick.

Quote
I dont see anything in the stumpy design that people could reasonably take issue with. Except for a slight increase in cost ( 1 more segment, 1 more J-2x).

Of course its not an EELV, so of course it will be unacceptable to some people.

It seems at first glance, to solve all the stick's problems.

And even though there is one more segment, it is one extra segment using SRBs that are much closer to the current SRBs. Everyone is making a big deal out of the R & D for the 3 seg, yes there will be some modifications, but for the most part they are much more similar to the standard shuttle SRB than the Stick's first stage ever will be.

Quote
Shouldn't a crew launch vehicle at least *look* like it can fly? ;-)

Looks a bit like the Ariane to me, and that's flown pretty damn well...




Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2006 11:41 am
Quote
gladiator1332 - 27/7/2006  11:16 PM

About the larger tank...correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Atlas Phase 2 a larger tank? And the article states, "The core stage may be a derivative of the Shuttle External Tank" Nothing says the core has to be the same diameter as the CaLV, as it is already using different engines, I don't see why a ET-diamter tank could not be used.

And even though there is one more segment, it is one extra segment using SRBs that are much closer to the current SRBs. Everyone is making a big deal out of the R & D for the 3 seg, yes there will be some modifications, but for the most part they are much more similar to the standard shuttle SRB than the Stick's first stage ever will be.


I meant the tank is larger that the stick upperstage therefore more expensive.

The 3 segment SRB will cost just as much to develop as the 5 segment
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: MATTBLAK on 07/28/2006 12:33 pm
Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 28/7/2006  9:56 AM

It seems to me like if they were going to go this route for the CLV then it makes more sense to shift away from the '1.5' launch archetecture that the ESAS decided on and move towards a two launch solution. Having to only develop one launcher would yeild R and D savings, as well as applying at least some economies of scale to the vehicle.

Maybe stick with the 8.4meter diameter tank if the 10meter tooling isn't readily avalible just stretched and then use the existing 4 segement SRBs with 2 or 4 RS-68. Such a configuration could yeild between 100-115 tons to LEO which would give a two launch mission a throw weight between 200 and 230 tons, without having to develop and recertify new larger or smaller SRBs.

As I've said in other earlier posts -- If they kept the 8.4m tank tooling with 4x RS-68, used 4x Segment SRBs and 2x J-2X for the EDS: they'd get a launcher that could orbit 115 tons which would be okay for a 2x launch Lunar missions. With 1x J-2X in the EDS, that payload figure drops to 110 tons, which reduces costs but still sits comfortably within the 2x launch option.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/28/2006 03:04 pm
I believe this "backup plan" will have one of three effects

1. NASA and ATK abandon hope on making the Stick work and go with Stumpy. Economically it is a better deal for ATK. Like I said I would not be surprised if ATK sees the $$$ signs and begins to push for replacing the Stick with Stumpy.

Then again, it is highly risky for ATK to get greedy and try to axe their own design in favor of something that makes them more money over time. Therefore...

2. The EELV debate is hotter than ever, and now there is another SDLV that makes sense thrown into the mix as well. Not to mention people are beginning to doubt every decision that NASA has made so far with the VSE. NASA cancels ATKs contract, and as Jim hopes for, we see a faceoff between ATK (Stick and Stumpy) Lockheed (Atlas Phase 2) and Boeing (Delta 4). If ATK goes with the Stick they will lose to Atlas Phase 2, if they go with Stumpy they have a chance. The likely choice is on of the EELVs, as that crowd is already putting tons of pressure on NASA.

However, if NASA does a competition it casts doubt on all decisions that have been made. This is a blackeye for them as it makes it look like they are incapable of making the correct choice in ther matter. ESAS would appear to be a complete waste, Griffin might as well start packing his bags.

3. But what if all of this pressure and the backup plan have a positive effect on the current architecture. We have already seen them shed 6,000 pounds from the CEV in order to give the Stick some breathing room. Though I feel the only way to save the Stick would be to go back to the 4 seg booster. The Stick made sense when we were using the current SRB as the first stage.

If someone could kindly remind me...why did we upgrade to the 5 seg again? I can't remember if it was because the CEV was growing in weight, or was it when the SSME upperstage was dropped and the J-2X went in? All I know is after it was upgraded to the 5, that is when this thing started to get out of hand. I know some will say the Stick was wrong from the start.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/28/2006 03:09 pm
Moved to CLV.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: zinfab on 07/28/2006 04:15 pm
gladiator, it was switching out the SSME for the upperstage for the J-2X (J-2X isn't as performant as the SSME- but, it'll air-light)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/28/2006 05:45 pm
Thanks, had a feeling that it was that.

Just to look play around with the concept, are there any other engines that would allow them to go back to the 4 seg? I'm guessing ATK has already looked into this...the article stated that they have tried many fixes but none of them are possible.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2006 05:50 pm
Not ATK.  they only supply the SRB, MSFC and the ESAS team did
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/28/2006 06:03 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 28/7/2006  9:51 AM
However, if NASA does a competition it casts doubt on all decisions that have been made. This is a blackeye for them as it makes it look like they are incapable of making the correct choice in ther matter. ESAS would appear to be a complete waste, Griffin might as well start packing his bags.

If the scenario did happen where NASA decided to throw it open to a true competition, Griffin might become the figurehead scapegoat for a politically-driven job-saving venture that got so many holes poked in it that they finally had to relent and let the free market find a solution.

If this were to happen, it may not be a bad thing.  I don't know if would mean the end of Griffin though.  I'd blame the politicians trying to save jobs in their own districts first.

I still think the stick CLV's got a shot if they can sort out the kinks without grossly out-of-whack expenditures.  Then again, we may have already crossed that bridge.  "Stumpy" may end up being ATK's only way to hold on to CLV if a competition occurs.

Either that, or they suck up some of the overages in R&D for a 5-segment SRB themselves, knowing they'll make it back in the end.

Oh wait... Forget that last part... ;)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: josh_simonson on 07/28/2006 08:07 pm
I'd think the 2x3 seg SRBs would favor the USA guys more than ATK, that's twice as many SRBs to assemble for them while ATK only builds one extra segment per launch.

I'm also curious what the development costs would be.  5 seg supposedly needs a heavier case, but 3 seg might be able to use the STS version.  The 3 seg definitely needs a new nozzle, but entirely eliminates the need for greater TVC that the stick has - potentially saving on the 5 seg development costs by reducing the amount of modifications needed to the aft assembly.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Generic Username on 07/28/2006 08:18 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 27/7/2006  1:34 PM

Why, oh why would you waste R&D $$$ on a 3 segment SRB?!?  ATK's gotta *love* this plan....

Insofar as we saw it for the first time *today,* and got a really good laugh out of it.




Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Generic Username on 07/28/2006 08:22 pm
Quote
josh_simonson - 28/7/2006  2:54 PM

 5 seg supposedly needs a heavier case

Wrong. The 5-segment is going to use exactly the same cases as the standard RSRM.

Quote
but entirely eliminates the need for greater TVC that the stick has

Again, the 5-seg uses the exact same TVC system as the standard RSRM

Quote
potentially saving on the 5 seg development costs by reducing the amount of modifications needed to the aft assembly.

The biggest expense is in changing the nozzle. Makign it bigger or smaller... probably not a whole lot of difference.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/29/2006 04:05 pm
Quote
Generic Username - 28/7/2006  4:09 PM
Again, the 5-seg uses the exact same TVC system as the standard RSRM

No, it has to be modified
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Ducati94 on 07/29/2006 08:56 pm
The five segment goes to a point higher and further down range  in the sky. This will make the parachute system and TPS have to be re-worked. The 3 segment would not require these systems be modified.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: copernicus on 07/30/2006 05:59 am
I am not a rocket scientist, but I am technically literate.  After reading the article
on which this thread is based, my only conclusion is that NASA is nuts if it
does not go with something like the 2X3 CLV alternative.  Even if the Stick
and the 2X3 cost the same to design and to build, the savings realized by
not having to massively re-do the infrastructure at Pad 39 and in the VAB and
on the MLP seem to make the 2X3 CLV alternative a winner hands-down.  

   What do the real rocket scientists (engineers) out there think about that?

   As a way for NASA to segue from the Ares 1 gracefully, I propose
that they give the name Ares 2 or Ares 3 to the 2X3 CLV alternative.




Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2006 01:26 pm
The 2x3 costs more per flight
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Scotty on 07/30/2006 03:06 pm
Copernicus, you nailed it!
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/30/2006 03:16 pm
Quote
Jim - 30/7/2006  9:13 AM

The 2x3 costs more per flight

But with the Stick and the much more expensive modifications to the pad and MLP and the VAB, who knows if there will be any program left once the Stick is ready.

In order for the VSE to make it, NASA needs a quick plan iwth hte fewest amount of modifications needed. What the Stick saves during flights is all for naught if there is no program left.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/30/2006 03:36 pm
Quote
Ducati94 - 29/7/2006  4:43 PM

The five segment goes to a point higher and further down range  in the sky. This will make the parachute system and TPS have to be re-worked. The 3 segment would not require these systems be modified.

Another good point. Many keep saying the 3 seg will cost just as much as the 5 seg to develop. In terms of the CLV, I cannot see how this is the case.

3 seg for Stumpy:

-Used in the same 2 x parallel configuration that has been used since 1981.

-Just a downgraded version of your everyday Shuttle SRB...parachute system stays the same as does TPS, overall shape of the booster remains the same.

5 seg for the Stick:

-The Shuttle SRB is now being used as the core first stage of a LV rather than a booster in a completely different configuration.

-Changes to the shape of the booster have been made (interstage instead of the nose cone, etc.)

-Parachute and TPS issues mentioned above.


The reason Stumpy makes more sense is that you are using the SRB in the same way it has always been used. And as I have said before, who knows if this is the final configuration for Stumpy, maybe it will change to a 2 x 4 seg version. Then there will be no SRB development needed as the same everyday Shuttle SRBs would be used.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: astrobrian on 07/30/2006 06:20 pm

Quote
gladiator1332 - 30/7/2006  10:23 AM  maybe it will change to a 2 x 4 seg version. Then there will be no SRB development needed as the same everyday Shuttle SRBs would be used.

you might be suggesting a true SDLV then if you did that :)

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2006 06:36 pm
too big and expensive
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: astrobrian on 07/30/2006 06:43 pm
Is there an objective to cut costs X amount over the shuttle? If so how much? $ or %
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2006 06:55 pm
No real defined objective, but it can't be expensive or there won't be money for the other elements of the ESAS.  Basically, one pot of money.  Do you want to spend a lot on the CLV or have more to spend on CaLV and LSAM early
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Ducati94 on 07/30/2006 07:17 pm
One of the other advantages of the 2x3 is you can build the core at MAF where the ET is manufactured.  As the program stands currently there is a break in using MAF for 3 to 5 years and then most of the facility will be used to build the CaLV which amounts to 2 core stages per year. That will drive the cost per launch out the roof for CaLV, but if you split the cost across 2 programs?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2006 07:19 pm
The CLV upperstage is going to be built there already
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Ducati94 on 07/30/2006 07:58 pm
Will only use about 30% of the facility.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2006 08:18 pm
I was pointing out that there is no MAF "advantage"  Both 2x3 and the stick have MAF work.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Ducati94 on 07/31/2006 01:02 am
So true . Its just good to use as much of the facility as possible when ESMD will be paying to keep it running and there is not a viable way to drive down the facility cost.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: josh_simonson on 07/31/2006 06:41 am
Stumpies biggest drawback is probably that the failure mode that killed Challenger is still possible.  Of course it will be on the HLV too, but NASA seems to hold out launching crew on HLV as a last resort.  Designing a rocket in aftermath of a disaster like columbia is probably a bad idea.  It's like asking someone to design a car a month after their kid died in a car accident, the result will be safety overkill and expensive.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/31/2006 11:10 am
Quote
josh_simonson - 31/7/2006  2:28 AM

Stumpies biggest drawback is probably that the failure mode that killed Challenger is still possible.  Of course it will be on the HLV too, but NASA seems to hold out launching crew on HLV as a last resort.  Designing a rocket in aftermath of a disaster like columbia is probably a bad idea.  It's like asking someone to design a car a month after their kid died in a car accident, the result will be safety overkill and expensive.

Columbia was not a launch vehicle failure.  There already is a guide for manrating a LV and it was published pre columbia.  Anyways, if stumpy were to have a burn thru, then the abort system would  save the crew.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/31/2006 01:51 pm
Have to agree with you there. I believe there was discussion about Columbia on here before, and the conclusion was that every launch vehicle sheds material, therefore you need a vehicle that can cope with that.

If Stumpy is built, then we won't have to worry about foam because of its position, and the heatshield is protected. And I have a hard time believing something like Challenger will happen again, one because of the LES and because of the fixes to the SRB.

And while the 4 seg SRB would make Stumpy a true SDLV, it does add some height to Stumpy. Right now, it is at the perfect height, exactly the same as the Shuttle.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Generic Username on 07/31/2006 03:21 pm
Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006  5:57 AM

Columbia was not a launch vehicle failure.  

Errrrrm... that foam didn't fall off the *payload.* The launch vehicle suffered a very minor structual disintegration, which in turn damaged the payload. So while the immediate cause of failure was a structural problem with the payload, the root cause goes back to the launch vehicle.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/31/2006 03:50 pm
Quote
Generic Username - 31/7/2006  11:08 AM

Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006  5:57 AM

Columbia was not a launch vehicle failure.  

Errrrrm... that foam didn't fall off the *payload.* The launch vehicle suffered a very minor structual disintegration, which in turn damaged the payload. So while the immediate cause of failure was a structural problem with the payload, the root cause goes back to the launch vehicle.

Not to start this up again, but the orbiter is not the payload, it is an integral part of the LV (controls, avionics, and engines).  Payload is in the payload bay.  Being very harsh, this was a reuse problem.  It was LV design failure, one of its components (orbiter and its TPS) was designed based on an incorrect assumption of the operating environment (debris).   Debris shedding is normal for SOFI, additionally, a debris strike onorbit or a bird prelaunch would have caused the same result.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: copernicus on 08/02/2006 05:03 am
The subject of damage from foam-shedding is another of my
concerns over the design of the Ares-1 Stick.  Let's assume that
both the Stick and Stumpy (Ares-2?) WILL shed foam during ascent.
The longer that the foam is in the slipstream, the more it will be able
to accelerate, relative to either stack.  
 
    If one then compares the height of the Stick and Stumpy, then one
will see that foam shed from the top of the Stick's 2nd stage will have
the opportunity to attain quite a high velocity by the time that it, assuming
worse case, impacts the base of the SRB 1st stage.  The shorter design
of Stumpy considerably reduces the danger of foam impact damage
to the SRB's.  

   This is not a purely theoretical argument.  I am sorry that I don't recall
the mission number, but there was a Shuttle ascent that involved foam
liberation resulting in impact damage to one of the SRB's.  

   This is one more reason why my vote goes to Stumpy (Ares-2?)  








Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/02/2006 05:54 am
There will be no exterior avionics or other sensitive hardware on the the CLV, so foam and ice won't be an issue, just like all other ELV's
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: punkboi on 08/02/2006 06:41 am
Quote
copernicus - 1/8/2006  9:50 PM
I am sorry that I don't recall
the mission number, but there was a Shuttle ascent that involved foam
liberation resulting in impact damage to one of the SRB's.

Much like what Jim said, foam shedding shouldn't pose any threat to the Ares 1 stick (you see A LOT of ice falling off of almost every ELV during launch...without any effect on ascent performance).  And even if the SRB 'did' sustain damage, the vehicle's not high enough during SRB separation to burn up upon re-entry...let alone have debris damage cause the SRB to burn up upon re-entry
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2006 07:12 pm
If Bruhn or someone 'in the know' is available, I'm curious about the cost options involved in 'stumpy'.

Purely for hypothesizing, setting aside the 5-seg CLV design for a moment...

There would seem to me to be an advantage in creating a launcher using the same basic sized ET structure and the standard 4-seg SRB's as Shuttle uses today, rather than doing a major revision to get the shortened 'stumpy' flying.   The SRB's would seem to need little development work, the launch facilities and MAF facilities are set up largely to deal with an ET of that size fairly soon.   Also it should be possible to squeeze a set of J-2X's on to the current pads without anywhere near as vast a change to the MLP's, given the fact they would be air-started.

And a 2 x 4 SRB, 3 x J-2X arrangement, with a standard(-ish) sized tank, would seem to offer significant performance advantages, allowing perhaps 80mT to LEO each flight.   While this is perhaps 'overkill' for basic ISS missions, it would seem to offer a first generation Lunar mission to fly far sooner, with CEV/LSAM on one bird, and the EDS on the second.

Advanced versions could be produced in the future with 5-segs and tank size changes, but the basic vehicles would seem to be even more straight forward and less expensive to develop than 'stumpy'.

Does anyone know why this fairly 'obvious' option seems to have been disregarded already?

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mr.columbus on 08/02/2006 07:23 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2006  2:59 PM


Does anyone know why this fairly 'obvious' option seems to have been disregarded already?

Ross.

It has not been disregarded, it was discussed in the ESAS at length. It was ultimately dismissed in favour of the 1.5 launch option, although it was described as cheaper in launch costs (and of course cheaper in development costs).

See my post here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3547&posts=8&start=1
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2006 08:53 pm
Quote
mr.columbus - 2/8/2006  3:10 PM

Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2006  2:59 PM


Does anyone know why this fairly 'obvious' option seems to have been disregarded already?

Ross.

It has not been disregarded, it was discussed in the ESAS at length. It was ultimately dismissed in favour of the 1.5 launch option, although it was described as cheaper in launch costs (and of course cheaper in development costs).

See my post here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3547&posts=8&start=1

Yeah, I've seen that.   But ESAS was last year, and for sure 'stumpy' never appeared in there.   So other alternatives are being discussed within NASA now.

What I'm trying to figure out is why the 4-seg variant of 'stumpy' seems to have been disregarded in favour of the more costly 3-seg 'stumpy' option.   Does anyone know the reason for that?

Just because it could lift far more payload to ISS than just the 20-25mT CEV, doesn't seem to be a valid reason.   It would seem to still be capable of that job, but at a lower cost...   ...which is a good thing.   I just can't imagine anyone would accept the argument that "it does too much, for less money, so we shouldn't do it".

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: astrobrian on 08/02/2006 09:11 pm
Maybe more jobs for the booster reconfig? Personally I think the 4 seg stumpy makes the most sense regarding little to no booster work that I can see
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Generic Username on 08/02/2006 09:26 pm
Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006  10:37 AM

Quote
Generic Username - 31/7/2006  11:08 AM

Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006  5:57 AM

Columbia was not a launch vehicle failure.  

Errrrrm... that foam didn't fall off the *payload.* The launch vehicle suffered a very minor structual disintegration, which in turn damaged the payload. So while the immediate cause of failure was a structural problem with the payload, the root cause goes back to the launch vehicle.

Not to start this up again, but the orbiter is not the payload, it is an integral part of the LV (controls, avionics, and engines).

OK, so it's a reusable payload *shroud.*
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Generic Username on 08/02/2006 09:29 pm
Quote
copernicus - 1/8/2006  11:50 PM

The subject of damage from foam-shedding is another of my
concerns over the design of the Ares-1 Stick.  Let's assume that
both the Stick and Stumpy (Ares-2?) WILL shed foam during ascent.

Won't mean a whole lot. Remember, the after skirt is a massive structure, designed to take the weight of the entire launch vehicle; it is also "swept" aft at a pretty good angle. You can whack it all day long with foam going Mach 1, all you'll do it scratch the paint.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: astrobrian on 08/02/2006 09:50 pm
With the stick or stumpy the foam issue is mute due to the fact that the crew compartment is above it all and will not have an issue. Also as Gen User stated, it will not harm a booster either.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2006 09:52 pm
Actually no, the flight immediately prior to Columbia's last, STS-113, had exactly that happen.   A significant chunk of foam came off the bipod ramp and struck the aft skirt structure.   When the booster was recovered there was a big dent in the skirt structure.

While I don't think that sort of thing would render the skirt itself much damage, I can't help but wonder about the stresses such a whack imposed through the rest of the SRB's structure.   Things I start wondering about are:

* What loads were imposed to all of the O-ring joints?
* What unusual and unplanned loads did the motor's machinery and electronics experience?
* Could such a severe whack on the SRB possibly shake a piece of solid propellant loose inside the casing, causing it to fall into the flame path and get lodged inside?   That would cause an overpressurisation inside the booster core and a catastrophic failure would result.
* Can such a strike incur damaging loads to the mount hardware attaching the SRB to other elements of the LV?
* What would occur if a piece of foam squarely struck the Separation Motors attached on the aft skirt?   Would they fire prematurely?   What effects would that have on separation?   Could they even explode?

I'm not an SRB tech, but if I can think of those in just a few minutes, there must be dozens, if not hundreds, more critical problems which I can't think of if foam continues to strike the SRB's.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Smatcha on 08/02/2006 10:19 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2006  11:59 AM

If Bruhn or someone 'in the know' is available, I'm curious about the cost options involved in 'stumpy'.

Purely for hypothesizing, setting aside the 5-seg CLV design for a moment...

There would seem to me to be an advantage in creating a launcher using the same basic sized ET structure and the standard 4-seg SRB's as Shuttle uses today, rather than doing a major revision to get the shortened 'stumpy' flying.   The SRB's would seem to need little development work, the launch facilities and MAF facilities are set up largely to deal with an ET of that size fairly soon.   Also it should be possible to squeeze a set of J-2X's on to the current pads without anywhere near as vast a change to the MLP's, given the fact they would be air-started.

And a 2 x 4 SRB, 3 x J-2X arrangement, with a standard(-ish) sized tank, would seem to offer significant performance advantages, allowing perhaps 80mT to LEO each flight.   While this is perhaps 'overkill' for basic ISS missions, it would seem to offer a first generation Lunar mission to fly far sooner, with CEV/LSAM on one bird, and the EDS on the second.

Advanced versions could be produced in the future with 5-segs and tank size changes, but the basic vehicles would seem to be even more straight forward and less expensive to develop than 'stumpy'.

Does anyone know why this fairly 'obvious' option seems to have been disregarded already?

Ross.

We presented this very option at NASA-HQ in April 2003, Sept 2004 and November 2005.  Third tier NASA management rejected us every time for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with rational thinking.  Given that we are doing work for NASA under contract we didn’t want to climb over them to get to the top.  Given the politics it may have not made a difference then or now resulting in us just losing an important customer due to retaliation for daring to go over the heads of the middle management.  If they don't refer you its generally game over.  I felt we had pushed this about as hard and far as we could have gone.

In the first two rejections were due to the fact it wasn’t a variant of an ELV.  The third rejection was due to the fact that it was to big for ISS and too small for the lunar mission.  When we pointed out the obvious fact that a two launch EOR architecture utilizing this vehicle would produce enough IMLEO to do the job they rejected it because rule number one under this current management is to protect the SRB/CLV at all costs.  Using Med-ELV’s to the ISS mission went over like a lead balloon as well.  Refer to rule number one.

Extra Credit if you can guess what interesting and useful lunar precursor missions are possible with this approach.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: astrobrian on 08/02/2006 10:23 pm
I wasn't saying there is no potential for risk to the booster, but more that the risk is significantly smaller. That said a couple of those you mentioned did not cross my mind either :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: bad_astra on 08/02/2006 10:51 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2006  3:40 PM


What I'm trying to figure out is why the 4-seg variant of 'stumpy' seems to have been disregarded in favour of the more costly 3-seg 'stumpy' option.   Does anyone know the reason for that?

Offhand, perhaps because it resembles too closley the side mounted 70MT launcher that was proposed (It used SSME's instead of air-start J2's, though. Put the SSME's back and some OMS pods and you have Shuttle C
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: MKremer on 08/02/2006 11:16 pm
I don't think it matters whether it's 3 or 4 segment - the onboard flight control will still need major changes and recertification (the most time-consuming and costly part, usually) because it's so much of a change from the Shuttle.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/03/2006 12:36 am
Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2006  5:39 PM

Actually no, the flight immediately prior to Columbia's last, STS-113, had exactly that happen.   A significant chunk of foam came off the bipod ramp and struck the aft skirt structure.   When the booster was recovered there was a big dent in the skirt structure.

While I don't think that sort of thing would render the skirt itself much damage, I can't help but wonder about the stresses such a whack imposed through the rest of the SRB's structure.   Things I start wondering about are:

* What loads were imposed to all of the O-ring joints?
* What unusual and unplanned loads did the motor's machinery and electronics experience?
* Could such a severe whack on the SRB possibly shake a piece of solid propellant loose inside the casing, causing it to fall into the flame path and get lodged inside?   That would cause an overpressurisation inside the booster core and a catastrophic failure would result.
* Can such a strike incur damaging loads to the mount hardware attaching the SRB to other elements of the LV?
* What would occur if a piece of foam squarely struck the Separation Motors attached on the aft skirt?   Would they fire prematurely?   What effects would that have on separation?   Could they even explode?

I'm not an SRB tech, but if I can think of those in just a few minutes, there must be dozens, if not hundreds, more critical problems which I can't think of if foam continues to strike the SRB's.

Ross.

Because of the dent, the energy was absorbed and which lessens the loads and shock.  A hit like that wouldn't propagate throughout the structure.

SRM's are impact resistent

also on the CLV upperstage, there should only be sheets of SOFI, no need for complex shapes around objects.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 08/03/2006 12:08 pm
Quote
SMetch - 2/8/2006  11:06 PM

Third tier NASA management rejected us every time for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with rational thinking.
That's highly unlikely. Much more likely is that the they did so for unstated reasons, reasons you didn't think of, or reasons they gave more weight to than you did, such as.....

Quote
.....they rejected it because rule number one under this current management is to protect the SRB/CLV at all costs.
For perfectly rational reasons, although not engineering ones.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Generic Username on 08/03/2006 02:44 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/8/2006  4:39 PM

* What loads were imposed to all of the O-ring joints?


Unknown, but foam impacts are minor events compared to pressure and thrust oscilations.

* What unusual and unplanned loads did the motor's machinery and electronics experience?

Don't have that info.

* Could such a severe whack on the SRB possibly shake a piece of solid propellant loose inside the casing, causing it to fall into the flame path and get lodged inside?

Seriously unlikely. Remember, the impact would be largely tangential to the case, and the propellant web starts out about 40 inches thick. You can beat on the case all day long with a sledgehammer, the propellant really won't care... it's elastic.


* Can such a strike incur damaging loads to the mount hardware attaching the SRB to other elements of the LV?

Unlikely. The ET attach rings and struts are beefy items. And of course they don't exist on the CLV.

* What would occur if a piece of foam squarely struck the Separation Motors attached on the aft skirt?  


Not much.

* Would they fire prematurely?

Incredibly unlikely. The BSMs are covered with a thick layer of trowlable insulation... the stuff is *hard*. Recently some needed to be removed, and the best way to do that was found to be "nitrocision..." basically, a high-pressure water cutter, but using liquid nitrogen rather than water. This stuff woudl provide good impact resistance against foam. If it *did* get through the insulation, all the structures are heavily-built metal; about the worst I could see happening is the foam damaging the ignition train, such that the BSM affected does not fire. It would be annoying, but losing one or even two BSMs on the aft skirt is not enough to prevent safe separation.

And again, this is not a problem the CLV has, since the BSMs aren't on the aft skirt.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Bruhn on 08/03/2006 03:11 pm
The BSMs are on the interstage and they point throught the center of percussion so losing one wouldn't endager the separation.  The separation trade study included BSM a failure for the worst case clearance margins.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 04:30 pm
Ok, this whole thing is base on budget.  So,  heres an idea/suggestion that will be low cost, and b/c the system is already proven, we know it works, and we still have it.

SATURN V

Lets think back,  the MLP, the Pads, the VAB, everything was designed for the Saturn.  So,.....lets go back to it, paint it a different color, update the technology in it, rebuild it, and rename it.

Now you have a new rocket, new name, and a way to get to the Moon and Mars, without having to spend billions of dollars, designing a new rocket, testing it, remodifying everything all over, and......Since the documentation is still here and handy, we could get to the moon and Mars faster.

So lets think now, instead of two new rockets (which is not a logical idea anyway, with the thoughts of budget in our minds)  We go back to 1 rocket, update the capsule to hold 4 not three, make the necessary changes rebuild the LUT, replace the extensibles in the VAB, resurrect the orginal MLP, and what did we do?  We just saved billions of dollars that did not need to be wasted, we achieved the goal of going to the moon again, and also bringing us 1 step closer to the bigger Mission,.......Mars!

Someone somewhere needs to get ahold of the NASA Folks that make these decisions and give this some thought.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/03/2006 04:49 pm
yeah... but the pads, MLP and VAB have all been remodeled to suit the shuttle. F1's no longer exist etc etc. That would cost even more.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 06:09 pm
Quote
HailColumbia - 3/8/2006  12:36 PM

yeah... but the pads, MLP and VAB have all been remodeled to suit the shuttle. F1's no longer exist etc etc. That would cost even more.

The pads only mods was the addition of the FSS and RSS.  This could either remain temporoarily until a use is found, or turned into a LUT.  The MLP yes has had some modifications done to it for Shuttle support, but with the prints already available, it is still cheaper in the end to transfer back.  To come up with a new design, rocket and MLP, or remod the existing MLP for the new rocket, the designs have to be submitted approved, and then construction begins.  To convert back to the old MLP, the plans are there, nothing new needs to be done.  Use the original prints, go back to it.  

Lets face it, the only problems with Saturn was a oxygen leak that took 3 astronauts lives.  Noone's life was taken while launching, in orbit, or on return.  

Either way, converting back still is not going to cost half of what is looks like could be the new rocket, for the simple fact that, no new outside contractors would be needed to design, test, and submit new vehicles and/or facilities.

The VAB also was built and designed for the Saturn's.  To change again, is going to cost to remod it.  

Go back to the Saturn, and the costs are cut back drastically.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: punkboi on 08/03/2006 06:21 pm
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  10:56 AM
Go back to the Saturn, and the costs are cut back drastically.

I understand the notion of using what already works, but my God... That's the epitome of 'going backwards' ;)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/03/2006 06:34 pm
no no no no no. Look, building the saturn now would be like building a paper rocket that happens to fit in the VAB. The components just dont exist.  All the parts and tooling facilites are suited for the shuttle, ARES V is shuttle derived. (if you want to start to complain about that, all the parts tooling facilities etc for EELVs exist too, so same argument) Very few people have any Saturn V experiance. we have people that know SRBs, RS-68s etc etc.  

Either way, Saturn is obsolete, if you are going to upgrade it to modren technology, well then you have hardly just "restarted" the Saturn program.  If the Navy decided to get back into the battleship business, would they build Iowa-Class ships? no. they are obsolete and the facilites dont exist.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 07:02 pm
Quote
HailColumbia - 3/8/2006  2:21 PM

no no no no no. Look, building the saturn now would be like building a paper rocket that happens to fit in the VAB. The components just dont exist.  All the parts and tooling facilites are suited for the shuttle, ARES V is shuttle derived. (if you want to start to complain about that, all the parts tooling facilities etc for EELVs exist too, so same argument) Very few people have any Saturn V experiance. we have people that know SRBs, RS-68s etc etc.  

Either way, Saturn is obsolete, if you are going to upgrade it to modren technology, well then you have hardly just "restarted" the Saturn program.  If the Navy decided to get back into the battleship business, would they build Iowa-Class ships? no. they are obsolete and the facilites dont exist.

Lets look at the CEV its the Saturn on a shuttle based system, with no passengers.  And the CLV is a larger Atlas with passengers.  Lets put the Capsule from the CLV and put it on the CEV, (oh my, its a shuttle based Saturn now) and keep the shuttle around.  After all the Shuttle, never made it out of the experimental stage.  There is no logical reason to design a new rocket that has already been created and that has been proven to work.  OH MY GOD people today dont know about the Saturn and how it worked!!!

Um,...HELLO,...the people then didnt know what the Shuttle was going to do either when they came up with that idea now did they?  No,  when it comes to this type of travel, and technological advances its a great idea to 1) find something that works and works well.  2)  Update what does work, and throw away what doesnt.   3)  Stop trying to change things worked so well with things that dont exist yet.

We know we can get to space.  We know we can get to the moon.  So why dont we start using this knowledge, and experience, get to space, stop building simple little occupiable satellites and build a ship that is made to house people, and travel,....sounds a lot like the Enterprise.  

Back on track.  What im saying is, 25 years ago, noone had any clue about the shuttle, but they made it and it worked.   50+ years ago, noone had a clue about the Saturn, but they deisgned it and it worked.  Since then, we have had numerous unmanned rockets (Atlas, Delta, Titan, and on and on) that also have worked.  Instead of always trying to come up with something new, they need to take a step back, use what is already designed, tested, worked, and start going further then they thought.  Maybe to you, the Moon or Mars is awesome. But Id rather find another planet where Global Warming isnt a threat yet.  Where the sun is a little younger, so we dont have to worry about a super-nova hanging above us.  Find out if there is life in other Galaxies on other planets.  Stop looking at the small picture (which in this case is just our solar system), and imagine what the bigger picture holds.  

Just because the people of today may not know about the technology from Saturn, doesnt mean they cant learn it, like they did 50 years ago.  The only difference now is, we have the advantage of knowing what worked and how.  Better detailed descriptions of how it all worked, with better written user manuals.  Using older style rockets just means that we understand it alot better.   Sounds like a better solution to completing the goal of Mars, and the moon, then using something that hasnt even been approved for designing yet.......
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: zinfab on 08/03/2006 07:04 pm
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  1:56 PM

Quote
HailColumbia - 3/8/2006  12:36 PM

yeah... but the pads, MLP and VAB have all been remodeled to suit the shuttle. F1's no longer exist etc etc. That would cost even more.

The pads only mods was the addition of the FSS and RSS.  This could either remain temporoarily until a use is found, or turned into a LUT.  The MLP yes has had some modifications done to it for Shuttle support, but with the prints already available, it is still cheaper in the end to transfer back.  To come up with a new design, rocket and MLP, or remod the existing MLP for the new rocket, the designs have to be submitted approved, and then construction begins.  To convert back to the old MLP, the plans are there, nothing new needs to be done.  Use the original prints, go back to it.  

Lets face it, the only problems with Saturn was a oxygen leak that took 3 astronauts lives.  Noone's life was taken while launching, in orbit, or on return.  

Either way, converting back still is not going to cost half of what is looks like could be the new rocket, for the simple fact that, no new outside contractors would be needed to design, test, and submit new vehicles and/or facilities.

The VAB also was built and designed for the Saturn's.  To change again, is going to cost to remod it.  

Go back to the Saturn, and the costs are cut back drastically.

1) I understand we don't have the plans for the Saturn rocket.
2) The Saturn only launched 20 times or so. Shuttle has launched around 120 times. There's no way to predict whether or not Saturn would have retained a perfect launch record. It was years before the shuttle failed during launch.
3) Apollo 1 was not an oxygen leak; it was a wire-short in a 100% oxygen environment.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/03/2006 07:09 pm
Why rebuild the Saturn when we can build a Saturn-Class vehicle either using a SDLV or an EELV?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 07:12 pm
Quote
zinfab - 3/8/2006  2:51 PM
1) I understand we don't have the plans for the Saturn rocket.
2) The Saturn only launched 20 times or so. Shuttle has launched around 120 times. There's no way to predict whether or not Saturn would have retained a perfect launch record. It was years before the shuttle failed during launch.
3) Apollo 1 was not an oxygen leak; it was a wire-short in a 100% oxygen environment.


The plans are there.

Saturn still has a flawless launch record regardless of # of launches.

There was an oxygen leak, that the short ignited, causing the fire.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 07:25 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/8/2006  2:56 PM

Why rebuild the Saturn when we can build a Saturn-Class vehicle either using a SDLV or an EELV?

Again, to save the money that would be spent designing a new vehicle, testing a new vehicle, and finally approving a new vehicle.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/03/2006 07:26 pm
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  1:59 PM

There was an oxygen leak, that the short ignited, causing the fire.

There was no leak the origonal CM was designed to operate in a 100% O2 enviroment. The fire occured while the CM was operating in the 100% mode.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: zinfab on 08/03/2006 07:29 pm
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  3:12 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/8/2006  2:56 PM

Why rebuild the Saturn when we can build a Saturn-Class vehicle either using a SDLV or an EELV?

Again, to save the money that would be spent designing a new vehicle, testing a new vehicle, and finally approving a new vehicle.

If you have to pay the infrastructure costs to build the manufacturing capability to build almost every component again from scratch, where are the money savings? Shuttle fabrication (except for RSRM) is still relatively extant (so are EELVs for that matter). This was already pointed out.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Damon Hill on 08/03/2006 07:34 pm
There was no oxygen leak; the cabin was 100% 15 psi oxygen by design at the time, and dangerously prone to fire.  At any rate, that had nothing to do with the Saturn launch vehicle so further discussion of that tragedy is irrelevant.

Saturn itself did have several engine failures, one of which would have ended a lunar flight due to a non-start of a J-2.  Engines are a lot more reliable now.

The big problem with Saturn is that it will have to be reinvented, which will cost just as much as CLV/CaLV.  I can't see any advantage in nostalgia and restarting production facilities from scratch, when some of the major CLV/CaLV flight components are already in production or could use some of the existing tooling.

I favor uprated EELVs first, Stumpy a close second, the Stick last.  Saturn is not viable (though it would be an
interesting engineering exercise in updating the technology).

(edited to correct CEV to CLV, formatting text)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 07:39 pm
Quote
zinfab - 3/8/2006  3:16 PM

Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  3:12 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/8/2006  2:56 PM

Why rebuild the Saturn when we can build a Saturn-Class vehicle either using a SDLV or an EELV?

Again, to save the money that would be spent designing a new vehicle, testing a new vehicle, and finally approving a new vehicle.

If you have to pay the infrastructure costs to build the manufacturing capability to build almost every component again from scratch, where are the money savings? Shuttle fabrication (except for RSRM) is still relatively extant (so are EELVs for that matter). This was already pointed out.

The LUT is still here, the VAB is still set up for the Saturn with the exception of the platform placements, which just need to be set back up to the original elevations and converted back to a single cylinder rocket from the shuttle modifications.  that along is a few million saved.  Since the deisgn work is already completed no money is needed to be spent on countless engineers that are getting paid ridiculous prices to do the work.  Countless employees that are apart of these teams, analysists, design crew, graphics crews, testing crews, all these no longer need to be added into the budget.  Thats another few million.  Every single advancement that would be needed coming up with new ideas, different insights, bids to contractors that would be responsible for constructing this all, would be kept to a minimal.  Im talking about hundreds of millions of dollars would be saved.  Granted that would also mean that people like myself, a drafter and designer would be looking for work, but the space center would continue to move forward and reach the goals at hand.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/03/2006 07:42 pm
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the various vehicles  here.

Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:49 PM

Lets look at the CEV its the Saturn on a shuttle based system, with no passengers.


ok, you are confusing the CEV with the ARES V, the CEV is the crewed module, the modren equivelent of the Apollo CSM.  ARES V (somtimes called CaLV or SDHLV) is the modren equivelant of Saturn V

Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:49 PM
 And the CLV is a larger Atlas with passengers.

Not sure what you are getting at here.


Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:49 PM
 Lets put the Capsule from the CLV and put it on the CEV, (oh my, its a shuttle based Saturn now)
Again, the CEV IS the capsule.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: robtek on 08/03/2006 08:09 pm
Quote
HailColumbia - 3/8/2006  3:29 PM

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the various vehicles  here.

Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:49 PM

Lets look at the CEV its the Saturn on a shuttle based system, with no passengers.


ok, you are confusing the CEV with the ARES V, the CEV is the crewed module, the modren equivelent of the Apollo CSM.  ARES V (somtimes called CaLV or SDHLV) is the modren equivelant of Saturn V

Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:49 PM
 And the CLV is a larger Atlas with passengers.

Not sure what you are getting at here.


Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:49 PM
 Lets put the Capsule from the CLV and put it on the CEV, (oh my, its a shuttle based Saturn now)
Again, the CEV IS the capsule.


Ok, let me put everyone on the same page.   Ares I, and Ares V.
Crew Launch (Ares I) and Cargo Launch (Ares V).
Ares I is a giant Atlas.  and Ares 5 is a unmanned Saturn Based Rocket.

My errors are a combination from researching what is readily available from the Saturn days, here at the space center, and following these posts.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/03/2006 08:28 pm
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:56 PM


Ok, let me put everyone on the same page.   Ares I, and Ares V.
Crew Launch (Ares I) and Cargo Launch (Ares V).
Ares I is a giant Atlas.  and Ares 5 is a unmanned Saturn Based Rocket.

My errors are a combination from researching what is readily available from the Saturn days, here at the space center, and following these posts.

Giant Atlas is Atlas Phase II, Ares I will be the stick ... The Saturn Ib replacement, remember Saturn Ib, it was scrapped as the flight rate dropped because it was costing more than the Saturn V per vehicle. Atlas Phase II, or an uprated Delta 4 Heavy could fill the role of CLV, but it will still cost money.

Ares I will launch crew to ISS, cargo to ISS, crew for Lunar, crew for MARS(?)

Ares 5 will use Saturn V tooling for the 10m tanks in the same factory, will use the new improved resurected J-2's from the Saturn V second stage in second stage, and a combo of RS-68's and SRB's instead of resurecting the mighty F-1 in the first stage.

We are resurecting the Saturn V, look how much it is costing ...
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: zinfab on 08/03/2006 08:30 pm
What "millions" you save at KSC you lose as much or more redeveloping the manufacturing infrastructure. How are you going to manufacture the Saturn? What about its custom fittings and parts? You're going to lay off the entire Shuttle manufacturing industry and hire new people, train them, build new manufacturing plants, then start manufacturing Saturns? And this is LESS expensive?

The KSC mods are only a small fraction of the infrastructure costs you're proposing. We're talking billions, not "hundreds of millions."
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/03/2006 08:40 pm
This may be a stupid question, but I remember hearing somewhere that the shuttle ET was really a rework of the Staturn V third stage tank design with a tapered top. How Saturn derived is the shuttle ET?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/03/2006 10:05 pm
Well, (I could be wrong), as I understood it, it was the plan, but the actual ET really dident resemble the saturn tanks at all
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2006 12:45 am
Quote
kevin-rf - 3/8/2006  4:27 PM

This may be a stupid question, but I remember hearing somewhere that the shuttle ET was really a rework of the Staturn V third stage tank design with a tapered top. How Saturn derived is the shuttle ET?

S-IVB had a common bulkhead,was 22 feet in diameter and LH2 on top.  ET is 28 feet, separate tanks and LH2 on the bottom
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2006 12:51 am
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:59 PM

The plans are there.

There was an oxygen leak, that the short ignited, causing the fire.


The "plans" don't exists.  They were never saved.  There is not a complete set anywhere.  Not even for the F-1.

There was no leak.  Just a short circuit, fire and cabin rupture.

No LUTs exist.

Do a little more research before making claims.  There are a lot of experts on this website.  Look at the number of people that tried to correct you.  That may be a clue
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Wolverine on 08/04/2006 01:31 am
Not to argue with anybody here, but according to this Wiki article on the Saturn V, the plans exist on microfilm at MSFC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

"A popular, untrue urban legend, started in 1996, states that NASA has lost or destroyed the blueprints or other plans for the Saturn V. In fact, the plans still exist on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center."

It references this article here.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html

So who is right?  Also I read somewhere that there are a set of spare F1's stored in one of the Nasa facilities somewhere...True or not?

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: FatherRob on 08/04/2006 01:35 am
Quote
robtek - 3/8/2006  2:59 PM
The plans are there.

Even if we had all of the plans, many of the companies that worked on Saturn have consolidated into, as I recall, Boeing, many of the plants are gone, there is no remnants of the manufacturing base to work from... there is no existant manufacturing support that would be able to produce a Saturn booster.  The processes are in place to crank out Shuttle-derived equipment, the tooling operations are still alive and well and would need far less of an investment to overhaul than would be required to recreate the Saturn project.

Quote
Saturn still has a flawless launch record regardless of # of launches.

This is relatively meaningless, IMO.  Saturn had it's issues here and there... a premature engine cutoff here, POGO on some early Saturn I vehicles... sure, none of the vehicles were lost, but combining the Saturn I (10), IB (9), and V(13), the Saturn program only launched 32 vehicles.  Compare that with the STS system's 115 operational flights.  In these 115 flights, there was one failure that resulted in the loss of the vehicle/crew during the Ascent phase of the mission.  Without trying to sound callous, that's still pretty good numbers.

Quote
There was an oxygen leak, that the short ignited, causing the fire.

The Block I Apollo CM had a pure oxygen atmosphere, not an oxygen-nitrogen mix.  The pressure inside the Apollo 1 spacecraft was wratcheted up to 15 PSI during the test, and when the spark from the frayed wiring went off, it ignited the atmosphere itself.  There was no leak.

Rob+
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: lmike on 08/04/2006 02:46 am
On the possibility of the F-1 reincarnation http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1  One good point there is that even having the blueprints would not be sufficient (which do exist in some form).  A lot of the engineering data, fine tuning, parameters, solutions, techniques, ... is, or rather was ( :( )  in people's (engineers, tooling workers, managers, integrators ...) heads.  

[edit] btw, here I hope as NASA and contractors develop CEV/etc... they keep better documentation.  minute details shoud be recorded given the current technology.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2006 03:47 am
I can confirm Wolverine's comments above about the microfilm blueprints for the Saturn (both V and 1B).   I know a chap who, in about 1975, managed to get a complete first-generation copy from the silver microfilm versions there.   He's amazed at the detail they contain, and he should know, because he's currently working on the design for the US for the CLV.

I know they're comprehensive because I have actually used the associated set of the designs from that same archive to make my extremely finely detailed scale models of the Apollo LUT.   The details in there go down to detailing all the threads for all the bolts holding pipework and electrical wiring in place, and include all the field change documents through the entire Apollo program.   While I haven't personally seen the LV drawings in that collection myself, the LUT drawings would seem to indicate the detail level is incredibly fine.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2006 03:52 am
Quote
lmike - 3/8/2006  10:33 PM

On the possibility of the F-1 reincarnation http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1  One good point there is that even having the blueprints would not be sufficient (which do exist in some form).  A lot of the engineering data, fine tuning, parameters, solutions, techniques, ... is, or rather was ( :( )  in people's (engineers, tooling workers, managers, integrators ...) heads.  

[edit] btw, here I hope as NASA and contractors develop CEV/etc... they keep better documentation.  minute details shoud be recorded given the current technology.

I don't put a lot of faith in that article saying the F-1 couldn't be put back into production.

The same basic arguments exist for the J-2 too, yet P&W/Rocketdyne are still going to revive that for the new program.

In precisely the same way, they would not simply re-create the F-1 as it was (or even the F-1A), but they'd take the basic design and principles used in that engine, and then design a brand new version of the whole engine afresh in the modern computer systems.   This is exactly what is happening for the J-2X.   You would end up getting an "F-1X" evolution design, with a "heritage" dating back to Apollo, but it would still be a new engine.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/04/2006 03:53 am
It is the details of the contractors designs that is lost, like brackets, connectors, etc.   More important, it is the processes that are lost.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2006 04:04 am
Quote
Jim - 3/8/2006  11:40 PM

It is the details of the contractors designs that is lost, like brackets, connectors, etc.   More important, it is the processes that are lost.

But none of those would be done the same way today anyhow, so that's a fairly moot point.   We wouldn't build a Sat-V the same way, because we could seriously modernise it and improve it if we wanted to make a heavy-lift Saturn derivative again today.

Using the F-1 engine as a good example; P&W/Rocketdyne have learned a lot since the 60's, and the design process would be modernised.   The process used on projects like the RS-84 would probably be more akin to what would be needed, with the design being near finalised on computer before any parts are actually made.   With the enormous range of modern Fluid Dynamics modelling, most of the problems can be resolved prior to bending any metal.

Once the design is about ready, the parts themselves would then be made using modern CAD/CAM processes which totally supercede even the breakthrough 1960's technology.

The entire process to create a modern F-1 engine would be radically different to the process 40 years ago, which is why I believe the F-1 could be recreated if the requirement were there.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: lmike on 08/04/2006 04:11 am
Quote
kraisee - 3/8/2006  8:39 PM

Quote
lmike - 3/8/2006  10:33 PM

On the possibility of the F-1 reincarnation http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1  One good point there is that even having the blueprints would not be sufficient (which do exist in some form).  A lot of the engineering data, fine tuning, parameters, solutions, techniques, ... is, or rather was ( :( )  in people's (engineers, tooling workers, managers, integrators ...) heads.  

[edit] btw, here I hope as NASA and contractors develop CEV/etc... they keep better documentation.  minute details shoud be recorded given the current technology.

I don't put a lot of faith in that article saying the F-1 couldn't be put back into production.

The same basic arguments exist for the J-2 too, yet P&W/Rocketdyne are still going to revive that for the new program.

In precisely the same way, they would not simply re-create the F-1 as it was (or even the F-1A), but they'd take the basic design and principles used in that engine, and then design a brand new version of the whole engine afresh in the modern computer systems.   This is exactly what is happening for the J-2X.   You would end up getting an "F-1X" evolution design, with a "heritage" dating back to Apollo, but it would still be a new engine.

Ross.

I don't read it that a reproduction of the F-1 is impossible.  Just like the J-2*.  Nor do I think so on technical merits.  It's the level of "difficulty"  It is just that the availability of high level blueprints from the 1960s for a high thrust kerosene engine does not yield much advantage currently unless the folks who worked those blueprints are also 'reproduced'.  Might as well start anew with given reqs for the T/W (high), ISP (low), and costs (low).  The whole fire testing and qualification of the engine would have to be reproduced as well ( a science in itself!)

[edit] *which has not been reproduced as blueprinted.  Yet.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2006 04:26 am
Quote
lmike - 3/8/2006  11:58 PM

I don't read it that a reproduction of the F-1 is impossible.  Just like the J-2.  Nor do I think so on technical merits.  It's the level of "difficulty"  It is just that the availability of high level blueprints from the 1960s for a high thrust kerosene engine does not yield much advantage currently unless the folks who worked those blueprints are also 'reproduced'.  Might as well start anew with given reqs for the T/W (high), ISP (low), and costs (low).  The whole fire testing and qualification of the engine would have to be reproduced as well ( a science in itself!)

Yes, I agree.   In the same way as there's a lot of relevant data about the shape and dynamics of the Apollo Capsule, which offers lots of benefits to the design for the CEV, there is a lot of useful test data available surrounding the F-1, much of which would still be applicable in a modern variant.

But the hardware itself would (and should) have to be all-new, as would the design and manufacturing processes.

Also, the team involved in developing the RS-84 a few years back learned a lot of lessons from the F-1 program and integrated most of those lessons into that large engine.   They combined most of the positive elements, along with a lot of lessons they learned from the Russian RD-180 and even lessons learned from maintaining the SSME's too.

I wonder if a more powerful RS-84"X" might not be a better alternative for a hypothetical modern Sat-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: MKremer on 08/04/2006 04:46 am
It could be due to time contraints. Recreating modern versions of successful 'classic' engines does take a lot of time and money. The money factor probably takes second place to whether there's enough time to re-develop, construct, test, and manufacture certain engines within a time period that's within the limits of NASA's plans.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: darkenfast on 08/04/2006 07:22 am
I think we've lost sight here of the goal of this program, which is not just to plant another set of flags on the Moon (contrary to what some here have claimed), but to undertake a new exploration.  The ESAS missions are planned to more than double the man-hours on the surface (compared to the Apollo J missions) during the initial flights to the lunar surface, not to mention the expanded choice of landing sites.  

Resurrecting the Saturn V would not do that.   I'm sure that an Apollo CM could be modified to take four astronauts (there were contingency plans for five on a rescue mission).  But what would those four people do?  The LM could only take two to the surface (and I don't think it had the margins for any further improvement).  The CLV/CaLV scenario allows a larger tonnage to be sent to the Moon.  The LSAM should be a much more capable lander than the LM.  

No one is going to just make a new CM/SM.  It doesn't have the life-span in space (fuel-cells vs. solar), it doesn't have the required capacity (either in crew or in things like down-cargo or amount of lunar material it can return),  and it's not exactly optimized for dry land return.  It would still have to be a new spacecraft, with all the expense and time which that implies in the real world, and if that's the case, then why not build the much more capable CEV?  

I know that there were various ideas discussed about improved Saturn V's, but that means a whole new testing and certification regime for what I imagine was the most complicated American rocket ever flown.   At least the J-2 has had various programs running at a low level at various times that will help get it back into production, but that's about it.   The Saturn V was an incredible accomplishment, but it's history.

The statements made above, claiming that returning to the Saturn V would be cheaper than the ESAS, really should be backed up by some facts.   I would very much like to see them.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: lmike on 08/04/2006 08:32 am
I believe we shouldn't have had stopped at the Apollo 18 back then and switched over to the STS.  The STS cost us 30 years of useless LEO crap.  There was much utilization for the Apollo/Saturn hardware back then.  Many plans for real exploration.  And the $145billion (current) dollars that'd been spent on the STS would have come in handy for the Moon bases and stuff.  But since we did and have, I'm at a loss as to what to say.  Start the architecture anew!
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: lmike on 08/04/2006 08:52 am
God, I'm replying to myself, but &*$% I lament the burial of the Apollo/Saturn and the ascendance of the STS (curse it).  (Political) crap replaced gold.  We goofed and threw 30 years away.  We'd have folks on the moon right now, do you realize!!!

[edit] Apologies, perhaps my post was uncouth.   Emotions mixed in.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: bad_astra on 08/04/2006 02:36 pm
There are people who think we took a wrong turn not building MOL and that we should have a dozen folks going up there in Big Gemini's every month, too. It's irrelevant. VSE is what we have and resurrecting dead favorite programs like Saturn and X-33 is not only a bad idea, it's not going to happen. I'm sure if The Stick + CaLV is built, thirty years from now there will be people lamenting 2 side-mounted booster launch.

My main worry has been the lag in time from last STS mission until the first manned CEV launch.  The Stump would alleviate a lot of that time (and I proposed something very similar in a thread awhile back, including, when I was really reaching, air start for the J2). On the other hand the costs for the Stump are inexcusable, really. I'd like to see EELV's modified to be a CLV, but that's not going to happen either, it seems to be more and more cleare now. I can live with the Ares 1.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: punkboi on 08/04/2006 05:12 pm
Quote
lmike - 4/8/2006  1:19 AM

I believe we shouldn't have had stopped at the Apollo 18 back then and switched over to the STS.  The STS cost us 30 years of useless LEO crap.  There was much utilization for the Apollo/Saturn hardware back then.  Many plans for real exploration.  And the $145billion (current) dollars that'd been spent on the STS would have come in handy for the Moon bases and stuff.  But since we did and have, I'm at a loss as to what to say.  Start the architecture anew!

Blame that on Richard Nixon (and the American public back then for becoming bored of moon missions).  Someone recently posted that he supposedly wanted to put an end to U.S. manned spaceflight...with the last astronaut flying into space on his watch.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Delta Manager on 08/04/2006 05:55 pm
Checking out the test vehicle and the massive cost of it in the visually great document on L2, it may be time to move to the 3x2. The test vehicle is superb, but not at that cost.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mlorrey on 08/04/2006 06:56 pm
Quote
punkboi - 4/8/2006  11:59 AM

Quote
lmike - 4/8/2006  1:19 AM

I believe we shouldn't have had stopped at the Apollo 18 back then and switched over to the STS.  The STS cost us 30 years of useless LEO crap.  There was much utilization for the Apollo/Saturn hardware back then.  Many plans for real exploration.  And the $145billion (current) dollars that'd been spent on the STS would have come in handy for the Moon bases and stuff.  But since we did and have, I'm at a loss as to what to say.  Start the architecture anew!

Blame that on Richard Nixon (and the American public back then for becoming bored of moon missions).  Someone recently posted that he supposedly wanted to put an end to U.S. manned spaceflight...with the last astronaut flying into space on his watch.

At about the same time, then-Senator Walter Mondale (D-Luddite), spoke in opposition to shuttle and space stations, in the Senate against "spending billions in space, when there are many social ills here on earth they could be spent on," as if there are malls in space that astronauts go on massive shopping sprees in....
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Wolverine on 08/04/2006 09:21 pm
Aha.  Kraisee and Jim thanks for the clarification on that.  

Back to the topic....I do love the Stumpy.  Who cares if it's ugly.  If it's the best way to do the job then go for it.  IMO What a launch vehicle *looks* like is meaningless.  Most of it burns up in the atmosphere anyway.  It's not like shopping for a car.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: punkboi on 08/04/2006 09:52 pm
Quote
mlorrey - 4/8/2006  11:43 AM
At about the same time, then-Senator Walter Mondale (D-Luddite), spoke in opposition to shuttle and space stations, in the Senate against "spending billions in space, when there are many social ills here on earth they could be spent on"

So was HE the one who started that stupid cliche?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: FatherRob on 08/06/2006 12:10 pm
Quote
Wolverine - 4/8/2006  5:08 PM

Aha.  Kraisee and Jim thanks for the clarification on that.  

Back to the topic....I do love the Stumpy.  Who cares if it's ugly.  If it's the best way to do the job then go for it.  IMO What a launch vehicle *looks* like is meaningless.  Most of it burns up in the atmosphere anyway.  It's not like shopping for a car.

Let me first say that, in principle, I agree with you.  So long as we are getting to orbit and on to Luna soon, I don't care what the spacecraft looks like.  

On the other hand, however, there was always something majestic and, well, sexy about the Saturn vehicles... they inspired the public.  They were slick and they were massive... they just looked damned powerful and utterly gorgeous.

Stumpy doesn't.

Stumpy:  Good tech... Bad PR. ;)

Rob+
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2006 08:34 pm
While there is no technical value in aesthetics, the public taxpayers funding the program want to be able to have pride in the things they are funding.   The elegant look of Shuttle has helped keep it's poularity in the public for a long, long time.

Ares-I and Ares-V both manage to look elegant, a=so I believe they will be popular with the masses.

Stumpy just does not look good, and honestly seems to offer few real-world technical advantages.   Personally I think people would laugh at it.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mike robel on 08/07/2006 08:45 pm
The shuttle looks like a kludge and is NOT elegant.  The Ares I looks much sleeker, though unbalenced, and the Ares V looks pretty much like a rocket should look.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: rsp1202 on 08/07/2006 09:07 pm
Maybe you're both half-right.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: punkboi on 08/07/2006 09:14 pm

I was wondering when someone would post some form of titillation on this forum.  Can I say that word here? ;)

And Stumpy looks like a reject from an old Flash Gordon film.  If I wanted to see a spacecraft design taken from a movie, well, it's all about X-Wings, baby :)

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/07/2006 09:21 pm
I must be the only one that prefers the look of stumpy the the stick.  its just a little shuttlestack minus the orbiter, I like it.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/07/2006 09:26 pm
We'll just get NASA to paint some slimming vertical stripes on Stumpy's tank... :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2006 10:10 pm
IMHO: This three-phase progression would be the best direction to go if NASA can't make The Stick fly:

R.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: FatherRob on 08/07/2006 10:50 pm
Ross,

I think I could get behind your Phase I and II vehicles far easier than Stumpy.  Your Phase I design actually looks 'sexier' than the image of Stumpy I have seen previously.  Don't get me wrong, I still prefer The Stick, but your Sexy Stump might just do the trick ;)

Rob+
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: josh_simonson on 08/07/2006 11:11 pm
I like that except that it keeps two separate LVs for crew and cargo, and the associated costs of that redundancy.  Once the 125t version is built the only option should be wether or not it has an EDS - and crew should be able to ride either.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2006 01:02 am
Josh,
   With a 25mT CEV on top, I think it could very much act like the Saturn-1B (or V) and offer a payload of up to 45mT inside the "SLA" if ever required (allowing the SLA to mass 10mT).

   Every lunar Sat-V flight demonstrated this capability safely, and so did the Sat-1B ASTP.   While "no crew and cargo" is the current rule, the capablity might come in handy in the future.

   Heck, you could easily bring up a complete ISS Construction payload, including a support structure and get within that mass figure as long as your support structure doesn't mass more than 29mT!

   And while the Large version could fly crew, it might still prove safer to fly on the smaller simply because there are three less main engines on the core, and that may offer a significant safety factor.

   Of course, with 80-100mT lift capability on the smaller launchers, you may not require the 5-seg stretched version at all until the Mars Program kicks in to high gear.   NASA could out-perform the current 1.5 payload mass immediately at Phase 2.   Two Phase 2 vehicles could put about 200mT up, which would allow an LSAM about 65mT to go to the moon, compared with the current 45mT one being planned.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: punkboi on 08/08/2006 01:13 am

The Phase 3, 5 seg CaLV impresses me the most.  Definitely can't wait to see how that vehicle evolves through the development phase ;)

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: astrobrian on 08/08/2006 01:49 am
Phase 2, or Phase 3 w/ 5seg SRBs for me :)  Though I seem to remember Boeing I think had a CAD drawing of a Delta IV Heavy and a capsule/LAS on top ,  Basically a CaLV.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mike robel on 08/08/2006 01:52 am
Quote
kraisee - 7/8/2006  8:49 PM

Josh,
   With a 25mT CEV on top, I think it could very much act like the Saturn-1B (or V) and offer a payload of up to 45mT inside the "SLA" if ever required (allowing the SLA to mass 10mT).

   Every lunar Sat-V flight demonstrated this capability safely, and so did the Sat-1B ASTP.   While "no crew and cargo" is the current rule, the capablity might come in handy in the future.

   Heck, you could easily bring up a complete ISS Construction payload, including a support structure and get within that mass figure as long as your support structure doesn't mass more than 29mT!

   And while the Large version could fly crew, it might still prove safer to fly on the smaller simply because there are three less main engines on the core, and that may offer a significant safety factor.

   Of course, with 80-100mT lift capability on the smaller launchers, you may not require the 5-seg stretched version at all until the Mars Program kicks in to high gear.   NASA could out-perform the current 1.5 payload mass immediately at Phase 2.   Two Phase 2 vehicles could put about 200mT up, which would allow an LSAM about 65mT to go to the moon, compared with the current 45mT one being planned.

Ross.

 
I don't see anything greatly wrong with your concepts Ross.  I would note though, that we wouldn't need that dinky little Service Module with your configuration, and while it would violate the "Don't mix Cargo and Crew" rule, you coiuld easily put a sizeable resource/logistics module in the the SLA.  Get to orbit, flip the CEV around, pop it out like a LM, and off to rendevouz with the ISS (or other vehicle of choice).  In that case, crew and cargo would not be in the same spacecraft and the crew's safety would not be compromised.

For an Apollo analog, http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollox.htm  



Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mike robel on 08/08/2006 01:57 am
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2006 07:01 am
Precisely Mike, that concept was fully validated during Gemini and became operational during Apollo.

I see no common sense in the "don't misx crew and cargo" concept if the vehicle is more than capable of doing so without any significant extra complication.   As long as the risk is absolutely minimal, why not?

With this approach we get 80mT launch capability with every single VSE flight, and a straight-forward and cost-effective upgrade path to 110mT capacity.   Heck, if you really want maximum performance, use quad SRB's and you can launch over 200mT to LEO.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2006 12:13 pm
Quote
kraisee - 8/8/2006  2:48 AM

I see no common sense in the "don't mix crew and cargo" concept if the vehicle is more than capable of doing so without any significant extra complication.   As long as the risk is absolutely minimal, why not?

Ross.

the whole reason for the CEV/CLV is to eliminate mixing crew and cargo.  It is one basic tenets/requirements of the Constellation program architecture.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2006 02:27 pm
Houston, we have a problem...

The phased design I posted earlier has had a major set-back.

It seems that I misquoted the payload capacity of the 4x2, 2xRS-68 variants.   I had been using the quoted figures of the 2x4, 3xSSME launcher as proposed in Section 6 of the ESAS Report.   This is incorrect.   It appears after running numbers into the wee small hours of the night, that there is a 20mT LEO payload "hit" for switching to two of the less efficient RS-68's.

The Phase 1 and Phase 2 figures I posted should ALL be amended DOWN by about 20mT.   This thoroughly messes up the 160mT two-flight Lunar Missions.

Both Phase 3 (2x5, 5xRS-68) birds are accurate though.

Damn.   Sorry for getting people's hopes up.

Mind you, if a new version of the RS-68 comes out which has an Isp closed to 450s, then that would "fix" this again.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2006 02:41 pm
Quote
Jim - 8/8/2006  8:00 AM

Quote
kraisee - 8/8/2006  2:48 AM

I see no common sense in the "don't mix crew and cargo" concept if the vehicle is more than capable of doing so without any significant extra complication.   As long as the risk is absolutely minimal, why not?

Ross.

the whole reason for the CEV/CLV is to eliminate mixing crew and cargo.  It is one basic tenets/requirements of the Constellation program architecture.

I understand that has been a stated goal, but even the most cursory examination of that rationale shows that it simply does not hold water.


Shuttle's problem is not that it tries to launch crew and cargo together, but that the overall package is one of the the worst possible bastardised contraptions imaginable.

Shuttle's most critical flaws are:-

* Extremely delicate, yet absolutely essential, TPS rides in the debris field during the entire launch.
* High pressure Propellant lines also cross this debri-filled space throughout the launch too.
* Crew has no realistic escape options during ascent.

If those could all be solved somehow, I think we could all be justified in having some real faith in the Shuttle again, but none of those flaws can actually be solved on Shuttle because of the fundamental design of the system makes that impossible.

Absolutely none of these critical flaws have anything to do with crew + cargo being together.   By focussing on crew + crago as a flaw, we're concentrating on a bogus problem, and distracting attention from the real problems which need to be tackled.

All IMHO of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2006 02:57 pm
It has nothing to do with the specific launch vehicle.  It is risking a crew for no other reason than to deploy a spacecraft/cargo element when unmanned vehicles can do it just as well.  Prime example is TDRS on 51-L.   There was no value added to the spacecraft by have crew onboard.  In fact, the oppposite, the spacecraft had to be "manrated" and therefore heavier and more expensive.

PS.  LSAM is not cargo or any other "to be" manned spacecraft.  Tang, toilet paper and T-shirts for the ISS is cargo.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: RedSky on 08/09/2006 12:20 am
Could something like Ross' Phase I crew launch version on the previous page be made without the need for a stretched ET?  It would seem to still have ample lift for only the the CEV.  I would think such an LV could be ready far faster than developing  5-seg or 3-seg SRBs, an upper stage, etc.  Really, it would just be the current shuttle stack without the orbiter, the only real alterations being a thrust structure on the back of the ET for the engines (and associated plumbing), and the adapter fairing at the top of the ET to hold the CEV.  Won't need a new mobile transporter, either, as is contemplated for the Stick.

I guess what's been bothering me is how the CEV and its capabilities are shrinking to fit the (already picked) Stick LV.  The last straw was seeing the service module shrink to being  the minimum necessary to just house the tankage and engine.  It might have been nice to have some SIMbay space there, since the CEV is to be in lunar orbit for up to two weeks (hopefully) waiting for the crew return.  It seems like there is little "vision" in the "Vision".

Ross'  Phase I type CEV booster might allow for greater CEV weight and capabilities, and be ready as fast (or faster) than the Stick.  Also, in its later stretched ET form,  think of other visionary aspects of having a medium lift CEV LV...  it might lift not only the CEV, but include a beefed-up Lunar Ascent Stage (or Lunar Habitation Module).  A Heavy Lifter CaLV 2nd launch would bring up the EDS and a beefed up decent stage.  

The "shuttle stack minus shuttle" (standard ET+4 seg SRB)" Phase I version might seem overkill for ISS CEV missions, but there will be what, 6 of those at most. (every 6 mos over 2014-2016).

I dunno, it just seems like the VSE is squeezing down to bare bones to just "accomplish the mission" (4 men on the moon for up to 2 weeks), with less and less forward thinking as to how the 1.5 launch architecture may be limiting in the future... all because the Stick was advertised at the start to be the quickest and cheapest way.



Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/09/2006 01:30 am
I imagine whatever modifications to the ET to allow a thrust structure on the bottom and payload on the top are dramatic enough that stretching the tank at the same time is not a major operation.  Then again, I have little clue what I'm talking about. :)

I suppose you could have a side-mounted boattail ala Shuttle-C and eliminate even more pad costs for a "Phase 0", but that's probably a waste.

I'm with Redsky... the biggest thing I like about this is you wouldn't have to skimp on weight for the CEV, as all the scaling down efforts have been recently.  You could even talk about 5.5m again, though I doubt that would happen.

The real question is operating costs.  This is basically STS without the Shuttle itself (which is certainly the most expensive component to turn around).  How would the operational costs of the 2x4 CLV compare to the Stick?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 02:23 am
Quote
BogoMIPS - 8/8/2006  9:17 PM
The real question is operating costs.  This is basically STS without the Shuttle itself (which is certainly the most expensive component to turn around).  How would the operational costs of the 2x4 CLV compare to the Stick?

3 more segments,
1 more SRB components (aft skirt with TVC, fwd skirt with recover h/w, avionics and cables)
x more liquid engines
x larger tank
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/09/2006 07:48 am
The fixed costs for Shuttle are somewhere in the ballpark of $2.5Bn per year.

Variable costs for each individual Shuttle flight are in the $250m range currently.

The FY98 NASA Budget details the subsystem costs for the Shuttle Program allowing us to work out costs.   Converted to FY06 dollars, an External Tank costs around $52m for a SLWT, and each standard 4-seg SRB costs about $45m each, per flight.


From Josh's research, we know that:

- ESAS CLV Variable: $113m/flight - Fixed: $855/year
- ESAS CaLV Variable: $179m/flight - Fixed: $1,272m/year

From various sources we also know that:
- Each SSME costs about $40m (with about $3m maintenance cost per flight when reused).
- Each disposable RS-68 costs about $12m, although the man-rated variant NASA wants for Ares-V will cost about $20m.

Thus, an educated guess would seem to expect the J-2X, being man-rated and both air- and re-startable, will cost more than a bare disposable RS-68, but significantly less than an SSME. Somewhere around $15m would be my pure stab-in-the-dark guess.

Additionally we can calculate that if the ESAS CLV costs $113m, minus the $40m SSME, minus $45m 4-seg SRB; leaves $28m for the Upper Stage Structure and other sub-systems


So, extrapolating from all these figures, and estimating other costs (add 1/4 to the SRB to account for extra 5th segment and such things), would indicate:

STS Stack (minus Orbiter) Variable: $130m/flight - Fixed: $1,250m/year

1.5 launch solution:
ESAS CLV Variable: $113m/flight - Fixed: $855/year
ESAS CaLV Variable: $179m/flight - Fixed: $1,272m/year
6 CLV + 2 CaLV Flights/year + 10% Reserve: $3.5Bn


1.5 launch solution:
Ares-I Variable: $104m/flight - Fixed: $855m/year (same as ESAS)
Ares-V Variable: $125m/flight - Fixed: $1,272m/year (same as ESAS)
6 CLV + 2 CaLV Flights/year + 10% Reserve: $3.3Bn


1.5 launch solution:
"Stumpy" CLV Variable: $115m/flight - Fixed: $1,064m/year (half way between ESAS CLV and CaLV)
Ares-V Variable: $125m/flight - Fixed: $1,272m/year (same as ESAS)
6 CLV + 2 CaLV Flights/year + 10% Reserve: $3.6Bn


2.0 launch solution:
82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CLV Variable: $192m/flight - Fixed $1,272 (ESAS CaLV cost)
82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CaLV (exactly the same as above, but with payload shroud and optional EDS) Variable: $192m/flight - Fixed ZERO - does not require any duplication
6 CLV + 2 CaLV Flights/year + 10% Reserve: $2.8Bn


Looks like Josh was absolutely right:   A medium-class 2x4-seg, 3xSSME derivative is considerably cheaper ($500m, equivalent to more than two whole extra flights worth!) than the other options, is far cheap to develop and implement too, and benefits from there being just one single launch vehicle, so you get considerably more flight experience, and is VERY similar specification to the current Shuttle hardware initially, with a lot of potential for upgrades in the future (EDS, 5-segs, RS-68 etc).

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/09/2006 08:01 am
Revised Version goes back to using SSME, based on the costing figures I described above.

RS-68"B" revision engines might offer high (450s Isp) efficiency, in which case only two are required for this same performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Smatcha on 08/09/2006 05:34 pm
Quote
Jim - 8/8/2006  5:00 AM

Quote
kraisee - 8/8/2006  2:48 AM

I see no common sense in the "don't mix crew and cargo" concept if the vehicle is more than capable of doing so without any significant extra complication.   As long as the risk is absolutely minimal, why not?

Ross.

the whole reason for the CEV/CLV is to eliminate mixing crew and cargo.  It is one basic tenets/requirements of the Constellation program architecture.

And one they violate by using ISS boost propellant to hold down the SRB.  Then again it’s only a “requirement” when it supports what they want to do.  Otherwise it’s just a “recommendation”.  See the difference?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 05:44 pm
Quote
SMetch - 9/8/2006  1:21 PM

Quote
Jim - 8/8/2006  5:00 AM

Quote
kraisee - 8/8/2006  2:48 AM

I see no common sense in the "don't mix crew and cargo" concept if the vehicle is more than capable of doing so without any significant extra complication.   As long as the risk is absolutely minimal, why not?

Ross.

the whole reason for the CEV/CLV is to eliminate mixing crew and cargo.  It is one basic tenets/requirements of the Constellation program architecture.

And one they violate by using ISS boost propellant to hold down the SRB.  Then again it’s only a “requirement” when it supports what they want to do.  Otherwise it’s just a “recommendation”.  See the difference?

That is not a violation nor is it "cargo".    The design reference is a lunar CEV.  The ISS CEV (which is no dfferent than a lunar one) is just an alternative use of a CEV.   The only difference is the amout of fuel and O2 required.  Not enough difference to justify another version of a SM.
 
Like I said, they can launch it with half full tanks.  
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Smatcha on 08/09/2006 07:27 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2006  10:31 AM

Quote
SMetch - 9/8/2006  1:21 PM

Quote
Jim - 8/8/2006  5:00 AM

Quote
kraisee - 8/8/2006  2:48 AM

I see no common sense in the "don't mix crew and cargo" concept if the vehicle is more than capable of doing so without any significant extra complication.   As long as the risk is absolutely minimal, why not?

Ross.

the whole reason for the CEV/CLV is to eliminate mixing crew and cargo.  It is one basic tenets/requirements of the Constellation program architecture.

And one they violate by using ISS boost propellant to hold down the SRB.  Then again it’s only a “requirement” when it supports what they want to do.  Otherwise it’s just a “recommendation”.  See the difference?

That is not a violation nor is it "cargo".    The design reference is a lunar CEV.  The ISS CEV (which is no dfferent than a lunar one) is just an alternative use of a CEV.   The only difference is the amout of fuel and O2 required.  Not enough difference to justify another version of a SM.
 
Like I said, they can launch it with half full tanks.  

By definition then it is cargo to the ISS.

So burning up lunar hardware about 20 times before you need it is cheaper?  And forcing a major lunar architecture fuel choice decision Hypergolic vs LOX/? to support the nearer term ISS?

As far as the “half full” tanks that means the upper stage will be “half full” as well?  Though they can’t do that or the SRB would over accelerate the vehicle so they need to launch with a full upper stage just leave half the fuel behind at staging?  Or do they fill up the SM’s fuel tanks and just vent approx 10,000 kg at $10,000/kg into space.  All to delivery an over designed S/C with $20,000-$50,000 per kg of additional unneeded lunar specific hardware to be burned up on reentry.

Talk about stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.  O and increasing the gap between SSTS retirement and first launch.  Of course the SRB/CLV won’t be flying until after 2016 so everything will be late.  Maybe that’s why they are doing it this way, so we all won't be twiddling our thumbs waiting for the Grand and Glorious SRB/CLV while ELV's are just sitting there.

“The glass is not half full or half empty its just over designed”

Face it it’s a bad approach all things considered.  One size never fits all in Space.

SM-1 (RCS/OMS) to ISS (Works on a Med-ELV I might add)

SM-2 (Remove OMS add LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4+extended power+life) to Lunar  (perfect for a 2 HLV option).  The two SDHLV being much more compatible with everything including themselves.

If they can’t figure this out and pull this off they have no business being where they are.

It’s all so obvious.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 07:55 pm
Quote
SMetch - 9/8/2006  3:14 PM

SM-1 (RCS/OMS) to ISS
SM-2 (Remove OMS add LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4+extended power+life) to Lunar  (perfect for a 2 HLV option).  The two SDHLV being much more compatible with everything including themselves.

This is the problem.  The cost of the 2 configurations is greater than extra expense of flying the propellant.

Anyways, the reboost is part of the US contribution to the ISS and is a requirement levied on the CEV.   How else is the US going to reboost the ISS.

PS.  It will be much less than 20 missions to ISS
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mlorrey on 08/09/2006 09:09 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/8/2006  2:48 AM

Revised Version goes back to using SSME, based on the costing figures I described above.

RS-68"B" revision engines might offer high (450s Isp) efficiency, in which case only two are required for this same performance.

Ross.

I fully endorse kraisee's proposal here. This is the sanest, lowest cost plan that results in the most payload in orbit. The savings in work also means workers can work toward LV production and not RDT&E, thus faster launch cycles, and an accelerated plan.

 However, this is also why NASA likely won't endorse it...
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/09/2006 09:26 pm
Quote
mlorrey - 9/8/2006  4:56 PM

 However, this is also why NASA likely won't endorse it...

Also, its probably not a good idea to adopt launch vehicle designs and change national space policy based a post someone saw on a webfourm.

I do like Ross's idea tho.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/09/2006 09:30 pm
It seems too sane... NASA either didn't consider it for some reason we don't know, or their cost estimates were wildly different.  I can't believe they didn't think of it.  

I wish the masses could see the appendices from ESAS with the more detailed cost estimates, as some of those other designs are similar to Ross's phases here.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 10:01 pm
Phase 1 manned launcher is too big and too expensive per mission.  No need for 80t to LEO for the CEV.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/09/2006 10:15 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2006  5:48 PM

Phase 1 manned launcher is too big and too expensive per mission.  No need for 80t to LEO for the CEV.

no NEED, but it would be nice, gives a lot more capability you could haul up ISS modules in the adapter below the CEV, then use the CEV as an OMV. also its more congress proof, even if they cancel the 125 t rocket, you still have an 80 ton rocket, the moon is still in the picture with the 2 launch scenerio.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 10:17 pm
Quote
HailColumbia - 9/8/2006  6:02 PM

Quote
Jim - 9/8/2006  5:48 PM

Phase 1 manned launcher is too big and too expensive per mission.  No need for 80t to LEO for the CEV.

no NEED, but it would be nice, gives a lot more capability you could haul up ISS modules in the adapter below the CEV, then use the CEV as an OMV. also its more congress proof, even if they cancel the 125 t rocket, you still have an 80 ton rocket, the moon is still in the picture with the 2 launch scenerio.

Where is the money to that? Delay and modify ISS modules and modify the CEV and ISS docking systems.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Spacely on 08/09/2006 10:19 pm
The CEV tugging ISS modules sounds great, but from what Jim's posted before, I don't believe ISS modules can be simply slapped inside HLV cargo canisters and sent on their way. They're designed and optimized to fly in a Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 10:27 pm
82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CLV Variable: $192m/flight

It doesn't add up.   2x SRB @ $45m, 1 ET  @  $52M, 3x SSME @ $40m = $262M and doesn't include avionics and mods to ET.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 10:28 pm
Quote
Spacely - 9/8/2006  6:06 PM

The CEV tugging ISS modules sounds great, but from what Jim's posted before, I don't believe ISS modules can be simply slapped inside HLV cargo canisters and sent on their way. They're designed and optimized to fly in a Shuttle orbiter's cargo bay.

Ross has "a way around" that, but it cost $ and delays the flights for 2-4 years
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/09/2006 10:55 pm
I am not arguing that we do that for ISS assembly, I was just giving an example of what you could do with all that extra lifting power.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/09/2006 10:58 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2006  6:14 PM

82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CLV Variable: $192m/flight

It doesn't add up.   2x SRB @ $45m, 1 ET  @  $52M, 3x SSME @ $40m = $262M and doesn't include avionics and mods to ET.


The ESAS CaLV (2x5-seg, 5xSSME with 1xJ-2X powered EDS too) only cost $179m variable.

I actually think my $192m estimate for the FAR simpler Phase 1 2x4-seg 3xSSME is a serious over estimate.   Even the Phase 2 would still be cheaper.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2006 11:15 pm
what is the link to josh's post with the ESAS cost estimates?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/09/2006 11:24 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2006  7:02 PM

what is the link to josh's post with the ESAS cost estimates?

Here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3487&posts=3

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2006 12:27 am
I have another cost estimate and it is as valid as Ross's

The difference between a 82mT In-Line 2x4 SRB, 3xSSME CLV and two 25mT In-Line 1x4 SRB, 1xSSME CLV's is"
tankage - 2 upperstages vs mod ET
avionics - 2 Stick's means there is an extra set
Engines -  The Stick has one less.

The costs associated with these differences is a wash.  2 upperstages = 1 mod ET and 1 SSME = 1 avionics suite

Therefore the cost of the 82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CLV is twice that of the ESAS CLV or 2 x $113m or $226m

2.0 launch solution:
82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CLV Variable: $226m/flight - Fixed $1,272 (ESAS CaLV cost)
82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CaLV (exactly the same as above, but with payload shroud and EDS $40m ) Variable: $266m/flight - Fixed ZERO
6 CLV + 2 CaLV Flights/year + 10% Reserve: $3.5Bn
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/10/2006 12:59 am
That is simply impossible.

The cost for the original ESAS CaLV, including 2 x 5seg SRBs, plus 5 x SSME main engines, plus 1xJ-2X upper engine is only $179.44m

Are you seriously trying to make a case that a vehicle with obviously cheaper SRB's, two fewer SSME's and no Upper at all is going to be more expensive?

Sorry, but that's crazy.

My figures were based on another set of figures I have which I'm not allowed to release.   In short the SSME and SRB costs are lower to NASA than I published, but the figures I have are clearly marked as export controlled, so I simply won't publish them.

As an engineer 'inside', you may be able to research the costs and see these numbers for yourself.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2006 01:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 9/8/2006  8:46 PM

That is simply impossible.

The cost for the original ESAS CaLV, including 2 x 5seg SRBs, plus 5 x SSME main engines, plus 1xJ-2X upper engine is only $179.44m

Are you seriously trying to make a case that a vehicle with obviously cheaper SRB's, two fewer SSME's and no Upper at all is going to be more expensive?
Ross.

No, just that all the cost estimates (especially ESAS) are full of crap.  My numbers are just as valid.  So the ESAS CLaV numbers are just as suspect too.

1.  Those SRB and SSME's numbers don't mean squat unless they are under contract, which neither are.
2.  And the EELV's costs are much lower than published also.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/10/2006 03:19 am
The ESAS Report which was publicly released is NOT the same report which was presented to NASA.

One ACI copy got placed on NASAWatch by accident on the first day it was released and having studied that, I will confirm that there are a LOT more details in it than the version available today.

Further, I have seen some of the sections (and apendices) which NASA have not yet released.   There are an awful lot of details in the Full version of the ESAS Report which most people will never get to see, and all the LV variants are detailed very thoroughly indeed, down to sub-system costs, with cost figures sourced directly from the relevant manufacturers themselves.

EVERY one of the Atlas, Delta, and Shuttle-derivatived figures are correct and accurate in the report.   I believe you just have gripes you're trying to exercise, and no basis for them, so I hereby challenge you to back up your claim that the "cost estimates... [in the] ...ESAS are full of crap", or please retract that statement and refrain from doing it again.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2006 11:53 am
ESAS is full of crap.  My numbers prove it.  There is not much difference between 2 CLV's and one CaLV.  The costs should be close.    The ESAS was written backwards like a faked scientific report.  The conclusion was given and the report was written to support it.  The answer was in here: http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf

OSP was going to use EELV's in 2003 .  You know why?  Because Griffin wasn't the Admin at the time.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2006 01:08 pm
"EVERY one of the Atlas, Delta, ..... figures are correct "  They did not have access to these
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/10/2006 06:06 pm
Quote
Jim - 10/8/2006  8:55 AM

"EVERY one of the Atlas, Delta, ..... figures are correct "  They did not have access to these


Sorry Jim, but I'm going to call "B#ll$h!t" on that statement.   Prove it or retract it.

Just saying something is wrong does not make it so.   Where is your evidence?   The reason you haven't provided it is because you have nothing but your opinion to fall back on.


The LV team reviewing the concepts for the ESAS Report had all the facts and figures for thirty different rocket concepts, and dozens of sub-variants too.

The ESAS LV team got them directly from the manufacturers in *every* case.   Engineers from the related LV programs were actually involved in the analysis process for evaluating their LV in order to ensure they got the best performance out of each trade, in a fair and balanced manner.

They aren't fantasy figures, and you have ZERO evidence proving otherwise, other than your highly biased opinion.

The ESAS LV team got the hardware specifications directly from the manufacturers in every case, and did thorough independant analysis.   In all cases, the ESAS Team required engineers from the manufacturers themselves to actually be involved in the analysis process of evaluating "their" LV in order to customise trajectories and flight controls in a bid to tailor them for the best possible performance out of each trade.

I've got a lot of the different figures already, unofficially, and I can independantly confirm that happened.   I am trying to get this information released through the FOIA process, but it is a complex request and involves export controlled material, so I can not publish what I have in a public forum until they provide final releasable versions.


I have also personally "run the numbers" using my own (admittedly rough) tools here, and I have been able to validate every one of the configurations I have personally been interested in checking out; including Atlas-V Heavy, Atlas-V Heavy (ESAS revised manned variant), Atlas Phase 2 (ESAS RMV), Delta-IV Heavy (ESAS RMV), Shuttle-C, plus a variety of SRB-based CLV concepts and CaLV concepts.

Through a contact at LM I have gathered some numbers on the various Atlas Phase designs (V, P1, P2, P3A and P3B), sourced purely from within LM itself - and I will personally confirm that they are the SAME figures as those used in the ESAS Trade analysis data (which has never been published and may never see the light of Public daylight), but I have seen it and can validate much of it (although I haven't finished my own analysis of the P3B yet and can't validate that rocket yet).

I have also seen the ESAS costs for Atlas HLV, Delta HLV and for the CLV.   I now understand for myself why the EELV's were not cost effective.   The costs to NASA to shut down the whole of LC-39 and all the other Shuttle-specific infrastructure totals billions and billions.   Closing down SDLV facilities would also costs 6,500 jobs at KSC, 45,000 jobs at JSC, and about the same at MSFC.   And that doesn't take into account any of the jobs at the manufacturers sites around the country, but a similar number of sub-contractor job losses was expected.

Now, Jim, seriously: If you can back-up your claim, do so - NOW.   Or give it a rest.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2006 07:06 pm
I personally know an ESAS team member.  the report was written backwards

The OSP contract proposals, not study, numbers were lower than in the ESAS.   If one number is wrong, then the others are suspect.  Atlas Phase 2 would not cost $1B to develop, especially since it is less of a change than Atlas II to Atlas III
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2006 07:13 pm
Quote
kraisee - 10/8/2006  1:53 PM

The costs to NASA to shut down the whole of LC-39 and all the other Shuttle-specific infrastructure totals billions and billions.   Closing down SDLV facilities would also costs 6,500 jobs at KSC, 45,000 jobs at JSC, and about the same at MSFC.   And that doesn't take into account any of the jobs at the manufacturers sites around the country, but a similar number of sub-contractor job losses was expected.

Ross.

This is what is going to kill the VSE.  It is not about exploration.  It is a jobs program.  It is weighed down by all these people and won't achieve goals because after paying all of the people there won't be money available to explore with.  We will be stuck with a dead end program like the shuttle
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kfsorensen on 08/10/2006 07:35 pm
Quote
Jim - 10/8/2006  2:00 PM

Quote
kraisee - 10/8/2006  1:53 PM

The costs to NASA to shut down the whole of LC-39 and all the other Shuttle-specific infrastructure totals billions and billions.   Closing down SDLV facilities would also costs 6,500 jobs at KSC, 45,000 jobs at JSC, and about the same at MSFC.   And that doesn't take into account any of the jobs at the manufacturers sites around the country, but a similar number of sub-contractor job losses was expected.

Ross.

This is what is going to kill the VSE.  It is not about exploration.  It is a jobs program.  It is weighed down by all these people and won't achieve goals because after paying all of the people there won't be money available to explore with.  We will be stuck with a dead end program like the shuttle

Yup.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: yinzer on 08/10/2006 07:58 pm
If the only justification is jobs, that leaves the program completely at the mercy of the political fates of the relevant representatives and senators.  Anyone care to guess how much money will be steered to JSC now that they aren't represented by the Speaker of the House any more?  Any other NASA centers with representation up for grabs?

On the other hand, if the government (and the people) feel that they are getting something of value out of the program other than welfare for aerospace engineers and technicians, the program is a lot safer.  Freedom/SSA almost got canceled, and it was only turning it into ISSA and bringing on board the "cooperate with the Russians now that the Cold War is over" crowd that kept it alive.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mlorrey on 08/10/2006 11:12 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2006  5:14 PM

82mT In-Line 2x4, 3xSSME CLV Variable: $192m/flight

It doesn't add up.   2x SRB @ $45m, 1 ET  @  $52M, 3x SSME @ $40m = $262M and doesn't include avionics and mods to ET.


The cost of a SLWET varies considerably with production rates. At ~16/year, the cost is about $750,000 per tank, according to NASA's own parametric studies. By building the launcher family out of the same core tankage, production rates are maximized and per tank costs are minimized.

One suspects that higher production rates for SRBs will reduce their price as well.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: mlorrey on 08/10/2006 11:20 pm
Quote
Jim - 10/8/2006  2:00 PM

Quote
kraisee - 10/8/2006  1:53 PM

The costs to NASA to shut down the whole of LC-39 and all the other Shuttle-specific infrastructure totals billions and billions.   Closing down SDLV facilities would also costs 6,500 jobs at KSC, 45,000 jobs at JSC, and about the same at MSFC.   And that doesn't take into account any of the jobs at the manufacturers sites around the country, but a similar number of sub-contractor job losses was expected.

Ross.

This is what is going to kill the VSE.  It is not about exploration.  It is a jobs program.  It is weighed down by all these people and won't achieve goals because after paying all of the people there won't be money available to explore with.  We will be stuck with a dead end program like the shuttle

For once, I agree with Jim (I'm shocked too). VSE is so ill considered an "exploration program" as to be tantamount to building a fleet of Hawaiian dugout catamarans to explore the Pacific, simply because we know it was done that way once in the past.

The only way to acheive any real increase in human exploration is to cut the standing army, and go with a launcher program that enables that. If you can't do that, then NASA doesn't belong in human space exploration, Congress and the people would be better served to just set up a series of prizes, just as (to use a historical referent) British Parliament set up the Longitude Prize, for the private exploration and commercialization of space.

Stop wasting tax dollars on jobs programs that are gussied up to look like pioneering heroism.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kfsorensen on 08/11/2006 12:02 am
Quote
mlorrey - 10/8/2006  6:07 PM

For once, I agree with Jim (I'm shocked too). VSE is so ill considered an "exploration program" as to be tantamount to building a fleet of Hawaiian dugout catamarans to explore the Pacific, simply because we know it was done that way once in the past.
Yup.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Propforce on 08/11/2006 12:52 am
Quote
vanilla - 10/8/2006  4:49 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 10/8/2006  6:07 PM

For once, I agree with Jim (I'm shocked too). VSE is so ill considered an "exploration program" as to be tantamount to building a fleet of Hawaiian dugout catamarans to explore the Pacific, simply because we know it was done that way once in the past.
Yup.

Well geez, Vanilla... don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY think?

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kfsorensen on 08/11/2006 01:03 am
Quote
Propforce - 10/8/2006  7:39 PM

Well geez, Vanilla... don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY think?
Yup.

That's how I really think.   :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: publiusr on 08/18/2006 08:04 pm
Quote
mlorrey - 10/8/2006  6:07 PM

This is what is going to kill the VSE.  It is not about exploration.

It most certainly is, sir. I think more of VSE than any mini-spaceplane idea I've seen.

And EELV is a jobs program too--and if you want space to pay--it means jobs--that is a GOOD thing.

I think more of our NASA chief than libertarian frauds and their lies.

I find Ross's suggestion reasonable in that it will give us a good interim HLLV right away, and will allow not only for CEV but will alow for, perhaps, large biconic designs to be tested in LEO at a later date--with an insertion stage launched atop a larger Ares later on.

Ross should be commended.

Bravo.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: publiusr on 08/24/2006 08:15 pm
Speaking of OSP. Ross DSD concept is just large enough that something like an OSP would work and not have to fight weight so very much--as Kliper and even Hermes would have had to do.. So it could launch a big capsule with a lot of water and some ISS material-- or a biconic craft in LEO for tests--or an OSP type craft---all top mount. The heavy cargo and lander segments would be launched from another pad perhaps.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/24/2006 08:40 pm
Actually I didn't come up with the idea, so I don't want the credit.

The idea simply presented itself as the simplest possible solution to take what we have now and make a better LV out of it.   Then when I checked, it had already been proposed and was actualy anaylsed in the ESAS (the EOR-LOR option) - although with a few minor changes, like putting the LOI burn on the CEV instead of the LSAM.   With the latter conclusions in the ESAS though, putting LOI on the LSAM for the EOR-LOR option works even better than their CEV-LOI option.   But the decision appears to have already been made to go with the 1.5 solution by that third stage of the anaylis.

All I am trying to do is promote the idea as the most effective design available, fullfilling all the requirements better and covering all the bases (economic, political, technical & performance) even better than I believe any of the other alternatives do.

To do that I have created a "face" and a "name" for people to relate to it: "Direct"ly ;)

I'll take credit for that, maybe.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/24/2006 09:21 pm
"putting LOI on the LSAM for the EOR-LOR option works even better than their CEV-LOI option"  because the LSAM is to be launched unmanned for later logistics missions.  
So how does DSD do unmanned lunar missions without the CEV and still have only one launch, which was also a selling point of the 1.5 launch concept?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: tom nackid on 08/24/2006 09:30 pm
Quote
Jim - 27/7/2006  11:00 AM

Compete it.  Send an RFP out  with the appropiate requirements and see what you get back.

Were not talking about a contract for a million Hummvees or 10,000 F-16s here. What company will go through the massive expense of designing and testing a man-rated system of this magnitude only to have at best a 50% chance of winning the contract?  What board of directors would do that to their stock holders?  Even if you win the "fly off" could you ever recoup your investment at the manned flight rates envisioned for the foreseeable future?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/24/2006 09:35 pm
My modelling software is a bit limited in calculating masses delivered to the Lunar surface, but my indications appear to show that a single DSD should be able to place about 10-12mT of useful payload on the surface using a standard LSAM Descent Stage above an DSD+EDS, compared with the current 18mT of useful payload for single CaLV missions.

Because DSD saves about $900m per year over the current Ares plans, one option is that money could be used to launch 6 more DSD flights (making 12 in total for the year) without costing any more money than the current 4xCLV + 2xCaLV plans.   Together those extra flights can place three full extra missions worth of payload on the surface, placing an extra 60mT the moon in addition to the 'normal' 40mT per year planned already, which instantly more than doubles the current Ares capacity per year, without paying anything more than we are planning today.

Alternatively, remember that the development cost for DSD is still comparable to just the CLV.   If you want to invest the money you'd use to build CaLV as well, you can still build that full capability, and it costs no more than the current plan does.

It's just that CaLV is removed from the critical path.

I personally think developing the full CaLV is worthwhile for the later Mars missions though - it just isn't essential once you've got a uber-capable initial "CLV" launcher developed.   We could still construct a Mars mission with the DSD+EDS's 90mT lift capacity.   It's not much lower than CaLV's 125mT capacity.   It incurrs one extra flight to put ~450mT up for a Mars mission.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/24/2006 09:45 pm
Quote
tom nackid - 24/8/2006  5:17 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/7/2006  11:00 AM

Compete it.  Send an RFP out  with the appropiate requirements and see what you get back.

Were not talking about a contract for a million Hummvees or 10,000 F-16s here. What company will go through the massive expense of designing and testing a man-rated system of this magnitude only to have at best a 50% chance of winning the contract?  What board of directors would do that to their stock holders?  Even if you win the "fly off" could you ever recoup your investment at the manned flight rates envisioned for the foreseeable future?

Never did say have a fly off.  the CEV contract is not fly off neither, yet it is being competed before SRR, PDR and CDR.  At least, the  proposed LV's would have parts flying in other LV's, providing some flight test.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: tom nackid on 08/24/2006 09:50 pm
Sorry, I misunderstood. But didn't Boeing, LockMart, Thiokol, et al. already have a chance to pitch their ideas for review by NASA? I remember seeing very detailed plans for various architectures using EELVs modified for manned flight. Doesn't the possibility of using an EELV for manned flight go back to the Orbital Space Plane project?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/24/2006 09:54 pm
Yes Tom.   That is correct.   NASA knows the current EELV choices inside and out.   Also the advanced EELV designs, The Astronaut Office's Stick concept and a variety of NASA-sourced SDLV concepts were submitted for review by the ESAS teams.

NASA could have chosent to compete a few of the potential designs though.   They chose not to do that.   That decision is criticised by the EELV proponents.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: tom nackid on 08/24/2006 09:57 pm
So what would be the point of another round of RFPs? Just keep doing it until NASA choses something that the EELV people like? Then the SDLV people will start with the whinning!
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/24/2006 10:00 pm
Quote
tom nackid - 24/8/2006  5:37 PM

Sorry, I misunderstood. But didn't Boeing, LockMart, Thiokol, et al. already have a chance to pitch their ideas for review by NASA?

Not really, there never was an official competition.  It was a backroom decisions
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 08/24/2006 10:06 pm
Quote
tom nackid - 24/8/2006  5:44 PM

So what would be the point of another round of RFPs? Just keep doing it until NASA choses something that the EELV people like? Then the SDLV people will start with the whinning!

There is only one - ATK.  And if the resigning head of the astronaut office goes to work for ATK.  That will further reinforce the theory
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/24/2006 10:17 pm
Quote
tom nackid - 24/8/2006  5:44 PM

So what would be the point of another round of RFPs? Just keep doing it until NASA choses something that the EELV people like? Then the SDLV people will start with the whinning!

Tom, could you point out the RFP's you're refering to?   Are they related to the tech to be utilised in the current CLV or new RFP's for a replacement should CLV need to be replaced?   If the latter, I haven't seen those yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: tom nackid on 08/24/2006 10:21 pm
I was referring to Jim's post of 7/27.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 08/25/2006 12:01 am
Tom, thanks for clarifying.   You just got me wondering what I'd missed ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: publiusr on 08/25/2006 05:30 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/8/2006  4:53 PM

Quote
tom nackid - 24/8/2006  5:44 PM

So what would be the point of another round of RFPs? Just keep doing it until NASA choses something that the EELV people like? Then the SDLV people will start with the whinning!

There is only one - ATK.  And if the resigning head of the astronaut office goes to work for ATK.  That will further reinforce the theory

And if worked for Boeing he would be a clean as the driven snow?

Maybe he believes in what he is doing.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: rumble on 08/25/2006 06:13 pm
Quote
publiusr - 25/8/2006  12:17 PM

And if worked for Boeing he would be a clean as the driven snow?

Maybe he believes in what he is doing.
Even from an outside perspective, it looks like someone from ATK twisted someone's arm, because the currently proposed architecture is only SDLV because it's using an ATK booster as the centerpiece, when almost all other shuttle-derived pieces have been discarded.  
And look at all the other changes taking place to keep the proposed architecture?  significant investment to up-rate the SRBs since stock shuttle boosters aren't cuttin' it...New pads...new LUT...and jobs will still need to be shuffled.  It doesn't sound like shuttle-derived to me.  It sounds like ATK booster retained.

All that to say it just sounds suspicious.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Avron on 08/25/2006 06:42 pm
Quote
rumble - 25/8/2006  2:00 PM

Quote
publiusr - 25/8/2006  12:17 PM

And if worked for Boeing he would be a clean as the driven snow?

Maybe he believes in what he is doing.
Even from an outside perspective, it looks like someone from ATK twisted someone's arm, because the currently proposed architecture is only SDLV because it's using an ATK booster as the centerpiece, when almost all other shuttle-derived pieces have been discarded.  
And look at all the other changes taking place to keep the proposed architecture?  significant investment to up-rate the SRBs since stock shuttle boosters aren't cuttin' it...New pads...new LUT...and jobs will still need to be shuffled.  It doesn't sound like shuttle-derived to me.  It sounds like ATK booster retained.

All that to say it just sounds suspicious.


Another convert... :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Kayla on 08/25/2006 08:39 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/8/2006  4:47 PM

Quote
tom nackid - 24/8/2006  5:37 PM

Sorry, I misunderstood. But didn't Boeing, LockMart, Thiokol, et al. already have a chance to pitch their ideas for review by NASA?

Not really, there never was an official competition.  It was a backroom decisions

Industry supported top level discussions through about May 2005.  NASA never put out an RFP that contractors could bid on, or even requirments that contractors could talk to.

I'll tell you this much, the estimate that Atlas gave NASA (MSFC and Hq) for a CLV and CaLV equivalent was ~25% of what NASA now has in their 2007 budget request!!!  I'd like to see NASA justify over paying by that much on an actual response to an RFP!!!
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: James Lowe1 on 09/17/2006 12:53 am
Moved to the correct thread:

Quote
J Britt RSA - 16/9/2006  6:00 PM

Hi,

Does anyone have any data on "Stumpy"? I'm specifically looking for it's overall length, gross liftoff weight and it's payload capacity to low Earth orbit.

Thanks.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Launch Fan on 10/04/2006 12:58 am
It would seem the powers that be didn't allow specifics to be worked on as it goes against the beloved stick.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: publiusr on 11/03/2006 08:16 pm
ATK still stays in business with Direct, so they should have no problem with that.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/13/2007 03:03 am
I have a question I hope yall can help me out with... Where can I find more information about Stumpy??  I'm rather interested in the design from recent posts... is there a website with more info on Stumpy or some good threads on here (already read the "Alternate Solutions beside the 5 Segment CLV" or something along those lines) that have more info/drawings/pics of Stumpy??  I've done a search on here and on google and I'm kinda, forgive the pun, been STUMPED to find good info in all the noise.  

Also, for those who would know, could Stumpy work with a single J-2, either airlit or groundlit??  I could see where, keeping the ET diameter for the lower stage, especially if using 4 seg SRB's for boosters to eliminate development/testing/certification costs for 3 seggers, that the tanks should EASILY hold enough LH2/Lox to burn from the pad to orbit (or just shy of orbit for stage disposal).  I defer to experts here but it might be possible, especially using 4 seg SRB's (with their greater length compared to 3 segs) and the ET diameter core stage (with it's 27.5 foot diameter) to make the core LH2/intertank/Lox tanks all fit UNDER the SRB cross-beam between the upper attach points and having the SRB upper attach cross-beam integrated into a ring just above the O2 tank but just below the spacecraft adapter (assuming a cylindrical O2 tank).  Not sure this would be worth the effort or even possible considering the weight distribution and density differences of the O2 versus LH2 but it's an interesting possibility, though I'm sure would require a sharp pencil to figure out.  

So would Stumpy work with a single J-2 and how much propellant would be required for groundlit to orbit (or ET sep velocity/altitude), or are 2 J-2's absolutely necessary.  How about a stumpy using a single RS-68 groundlit??  I'm assuming that all would use 4 seg SRB's for simplicity/ using what we have already available and manrated, but if 3 segs were the smarter/better way to go....  

Somthing I read recently said that the 5.5 meter US was non-negotiable, so if they have their heart that set on it and didn't want to continue using standard ET diameter tanks for a 'Stumpy' but required (for whatever reason) a 5.5 meter 'core' between 2 standard 4 seg SRBs or even 3 seg SRBs, would a single J-2 work for that arrangement, or would 2 J-2's be necessary??  How long would a 5.5 meter core have to be to hold all the propellant (for one or two J-2s whichever is necessary), and would groundlit or airlit be better in that iteration??  How would a single RS-68 groundlit under a 5.5 meter 'core' work, would it have enough propellant capacity in such a core to get from the pad to orbit (core sep just shy of orbit)?  Which would be better, J-2 or RS-68 for such a vehicle??  What would it's performance be??

I'm really intrigued by the concept and wondering what could be done to optimise the design...
Short of Direct this might be the easiest/cheapest thing to do, if Ares I is more trouble than it's worth while still wanting a minimalist launch vehicle in the 'shuttle derived' category...  And I have a feeling that part of the reason they cling to Ares I SO passionately is to *force* the development of Ares V later on (which I ultimately believe will backfire) and that is part of the reason that DIRECT is SO threatening, it does TOO MUCH.  A minimalist Stumpy design using 2 4 seg boosters and a simple single engine, even groundlit, core, might be a lot more palatable and less threatening, still 'requiring' the development of Ares V later on, but I could see where it might be a good tradeoff because you'd have the basics to develop a Jupiter from the Stumpy later on if Ares V was cancelled or a non-starter...

Just thinking out loud... OL JR :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 10/13/2007 04:58 am
Your best bet is to look up the thread here on NSF, and then look up the article which was written for the main site at that time too.

The problem with the original Stumpy design is just like you have to completely re-engineer the boosters for 5-segments and you would also have to do exactly the same for 3-segment versions too.   The 4-segment variants though are already fully man-rated, flight qualified and flight proven since they were redesigned after Challenger over 20 years ago.

Another issue is that it still has the long-pole schedule problem of needing the J-2X for the first flight of the new program, and there seems no way to close the gap any closer if that is in the mix.   If you rely on J-2X or an SRB redesign, you simply aren't going to be flying your first legitimate test flights until 2013 at the earliest, and a manned mission is no earlier than 12 to 18 months after that.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 10/13/2007 12:09 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 12/10/2007  11:03 PM

I'm really intrigued by the concept and wondering what could be done to optimise the design...

The optimization is Direct

Stumpy was proposed by KSC ground operations people (non rocket scientists) who wanted to minimized GSE and facility impacts.  It had very little flight design and analysis performed on the design
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: William Graham on 10/13/2007 12:37 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3537&start=1
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/13/2007 01:43 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 13/10/2007  1:37 PM

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3537&start=1

Thanks, and merged.

For new people reading this...it's an old story, was a bit like Ares IV with the trade study only, never got past that stage.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Tim S on 10/13/2007 05:50 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 27/7/2006  10:20 AM

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670

Say hello to "Stumpy".

Oh I remember this Chris! It was a KSC CxP preference to a Marshall hybrid SDLV design. Apparently they liked the lower integration costs charged against them with this. Where are the presentation slides on L2?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/13/2007 05:56 pm
Yep. L2 Constellation, Page 11: The 2x3 Seg SRB Crew Launch Vehicle Option
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/14/2007 12:18 am
Crazy question:

Had "Stumpy" gone foreward, how possible would it have been to keep parts commonality with the Ares V?  Could the center liquid-fuel stage have been the same as an upper stage on the Ares V, and could Ares V fly with four 3-segment SRBs, rather than two five-segment SRBs?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2007 07:43 pm
Its unlikely that there would have been much commonality between Stumpy's Core and the Ares-V U/S.   While there might be some visual similarities, a stage designed primarily for launch in the atmosphere would differ considerably from one who's primary purpose is to loiter in LEO for weeks and then perform the TLI burn.   In practice this would dictate a completely different unit.

Using four 3-seg SRB's is an interesting idea, although it adds more staging events which would lower reliability.   Also the whole stack would weigh about 300mT more during rollout, so would probably require an even bigger Crawler than Ares-V does already - although deciding to do that at this stage wouldn't be much of a problem.

I suspect its another of those "maybe" solutions, but there were some significant cost & schedule problems with Stumpy which didn't put it ahead of the Stick, and NASA management really like the Stick, so they simply weren't interested in changing.   Also it was developed by KSC and MSFC didn't appreciate that.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/14/2007 09:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/10/2007  12:43 PM

Its unlikely that there would have been much commonality between Stumpy's Core and the Ares-V U/S. While there might be some visual similarities, a stage designed primarily for launch in the atmosphere would differ considerably from one who's primary purpose is to loiter in LEO for weeks and then perform the TLI burn. In practice this would dictate a completely different unit.

Yeah, I hadn't noticed until well after I posted this that the idea I was thinking of was basically using the Ares I upper stage as a lower stage for Stumpy (having also seen the Ares IV artwork which used it as an upper stage, with an Ares V lower).  I hadn't really connected that the planned Ares V upper is the EDS for the lunar missions.

Quote
I suspect its another of those "maybe" solutions, but there were some significant cost & schedule problems with Stumpy which didn't put it ahead of the Stick, and NASA management really like the Stick, so they simply weren't interested in changing.   Also it was developed by KSC and MSFC didn't appreciate that.

Ross.

I hadn't realized there was that kind of rivalry between KSC and MSFC.  Ugh.

While I realize DIRECT is basically the same concept of this refined, one of the things I'm pondering is what eventualities we might find ourselves in, say, four years from now, well after production of the STS EFTs have stopped, development of the Ares I in the "Stick" configuration has continued....and some sort of major developmental issue crops up, be it the 11 KHz "chugging" problem being mentioned in another thread, weight issues, etc.

Combine in the stated policy of not carrying cargo on crewed flights anymore and also retaining the STS workforce, and, in that kind of situation, is there some kind of fall-back plan that could be enacted, kind of a hybrid between "Stumpy" and DIRECT?  Would we be able to restart production of an EFT-based rocket while, at the same time,  not horribly delaying the whole thing?  Or, at that point, does the goal of either not flying crew and cargo at the same time on the same rocket (ie. something like DIRECT or Ares IV), throwing out the idea of retaining the STS workforce (ie. an EELV route, and I'm including COTS in this) become the only other alternatives?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/14/2007 09:56 pm
I think I have read this idea before and it being shot down, but I wanted to put another little spin on it and maybe get a bit more justification on why it wouldn't work.  I think this idea has been put forward as a J-110 or something like that...

Why could you not have a hybrid 'stumpy' with 'direct' utilizing the four seg boosters of Direct and STS with a single RS-68, or even the upgraded one currently baselined for Ares V, with an ET based 'core' that is optimized (downsized?) for the exact amount of fuel needed by the RS-68 from the pad to orbit. (just shy of orbit)  How long would the ET be in that design??  What would the performance be?

I think this would eliminate the arguments that "Direct is too much for ISS missions" and would make a decent orbital taxi.  I think the arguments of "direct is too much for ISS missions' is idiotic anyway considering that we're only talking about MAYBE 6 missions AT MOST before ISS retirement.  Saturn Ib was WAY too much for Skylab missions and ASTP but we flew it on them anyway.  If we'd have had a few more S-Ib's and Apollo CSM's I bet we'd have flown them for some kind of mission too, until whatever was left became lawn ornaments...

fire away... OL JR :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/15/2007 12:06 am
Quote
luke strawwalker - 14/10/2007  2:56 PM

I think I have read this idea before and it being shot down, but I wanted to put another little spin on it and maybe get a bit more justification on why it wouldn't work.  I think this idea has been put forward as a J-110 or something like that...

Or even Ares II, sticking with the Ares nomenclature, with bigger Direct rockets as Ares III and IV (replacing the other Ares IV concept).  Ares V then fits as a bigger "stretched" bird in the launch family, and sticks with 5-segment SRBs.  Which reminds me, I've got to dig through the (huge) Direct 2.0 thread to see if any of their configs can handle 5-segment SRBs...

Quote
Why could you not have a hybrid 'stumpy' with 'direct' utilizing the four seg boosters of Direct and STS with a single RS-68, or even the upgraded one currently baselined for Ares V, with an ET based 'core' that is optimized (downsized?) for the exact amount of fuel needed by the RS-68 from the pad to orbit. (just shy of orbit)  How long would the ET be in that design??  What would the performance be?

We're thinking similarly here.

Quote
I think this would eliminate the arguments that "Direct is too much for ISS missions" and would make a decent orbital taxi.  I think the arguments of "direct is too much for ISS missions' is idiotic anyway considering that we're only talking about MAYBE 6 missions AT MOST before ISS retirement.  Saturn Ib was WAY too much for Skylab missions and ASTP but we flew it on them anyway.  If we'd have had a few more S-Ib's and Apollo CSM's I bet we'd have flown them for some kind of mission too, until whatever was left became lawn ornaments...

fire away... OL JR :)

I agree, more or less, that no cargo and crew at the same time seems kind of overly-restrictive, but I get the distinct impression that it's very much a "this is how it must be" kind of thing.

Does anyone know where that originated, anyway?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2007 12:24 am
Quote
SirThoreth - 14/10/2007  8:06 PM

I agree, more or less, that no cargo and crew at the same time seems kind of overly-restrictive, but I get the distinct impression that it's very much a "this is how it must be" kind of thing.

Does anyone know where that originated, anyway?

Challenger.  No reason to risk a crew when an ELV could do the same job
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: tnphysics on 10/15/2007 12:26 am
Yes if it is the manned launches' main purpose.

Not if the cargo will be used by the same crew that it is launched with.

Nor if it is an incidental secondary payload.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Namechange User on 10/15/2007 02:08 am
There is absolutely nothing wrong with launching crew and cargo at the same time.  In fact it can be much more efficient.  If it was absolutely against the "law" politically, etc the shuttle fleet would have been immediately retired.  

The real requirement is crew escape capability.  The shuttle stack design does obviously not allow that.  Orion will allow that regardless if it is launched on Ares 1, or a more current shuttle derived stack.  The argument is there that using a launch vehicle with with more performance margin not only lessens up the constraints on Orion but allows for more mission scenerios.  That may be something you want for America's space program for the forseeable future.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2007 11:28 am
Quote
OV-106 - 14/10/2007  10:08 PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with launching crew and cargo at the same time.

Yes, there is.  If it is a payload that doesn't require crew involvement, it is an unneccessary risk for the crew.  TDRSS on Challenger is a prime example.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: clongton on 10/15/2007 12:05 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 14/10/2007  5:56 PM

I think I have read this idea before and it being shot down, but I wanted to put another little spin on it and maybe get a bit more justification on why it wouldn't work.  I think this idea has been put forward as a J-110 or something like that...

Why could you not have a hybrid 'stumpy' with 'direct' utilizing the four seg boosters of Direct and STS with a single RS-68, or even the upgraded one currently baselined for Ares V, with an ET based 'core' that is optimized (downsized?) for the exact amount of fuel needed by the RS-68 from the pad to orbit. (just shy of orbit)  How long would the ET be in that design??  What would the performance be?

I think this would eliminate the arguments that "Direct is too much for ISS missions" and would make a decent orbital taxi.  I think the arguments of "direct is too much for ISS missions' is idiotic anyway considering that we're only talking about MAYBE 6 missions AT MOST before ISS retirement.  Saturn Ib was WAY too much for Skylab missions and ASTP but we flew it on them anyway.  If we'd have had a few more S-Ib's and Apollo CSM's I bet we'd have flown them for some kind of mission too, until whatever was left became lawn ornaments...

fire away... OL JR :)
The initial objection to the J-110 actually came from the DIRECT team. Internally, after a careful analysis, we demonstrated that the J-110 was a totally viable launch vehicle, but that it essentially duplicated the performance of the existing EELV fleet. A fundamental philosophy of the team was to compliment those assets, not compete with them.

But it was interesting to note that the J-110 actually exceeded the performance projections of the Ares-I; not by a lot, but by enough to take Orion's weight difficulties off the table. Used strictly as a CLV, a J-110 would work just fine. But again, the nation has assets in this lift capacity range already.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/15/2007 09:37 pm
Quote
clongton - 15/10/2007  5:05 AM

The initial objection to the J-110 actually came from the DIRECT team. Internally, after a careful analysis, we demonstrated that the J-110 was a totally viable launch vehicle, but that it essentially duplicated the performance of the existing EELV fleet. A fundamental philosophy of the team was to compliment those assets, not compete with them.

On the other hand, current planning is to still reproduce those capabilities, more or less, with the Ares I.  There seems to be a strong desire to reproduce those capabilities with Shuttle-derived hardware, which, to me, seems to go back to the idea of retaining as much of the STS workforce as possible, which, in turn, helps secure Congressional support for the project.

In those terms, if J-110 can delive the required performance for VSE and for ISS missions, and especially if it can get LOC/LOM numbers below those projected for EELVs, then it strikes me that it'd be an excellent alternative that may well be worth pursuing.

Quote
But it was interesting to note that the J-110 actually exceeded the performance projections of the Ares-I; not by a lot, but by enough to take Orion's weight difficulties off the table. Used strictly as a CLV, a J-110 would work just fine. But again, the nation has assets in this lift capacity range already.

....that NASA, and even Congress, seem intent on not using for that role.

BTW, where might I find more detailed performance info on J-110, and had any artwork been done for it?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Namechange User on 10/16/2007 02:52 am
Quote
Jim - 15/10/2007  6:28 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 14/10/2007  10:08 PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with launching crew and cargo at the same time.

Yes, there is.  If it is a payload that doesn't require crew involvement, it is an unneccessary risk for the crew.  TDRSS on Challenger is a prime example.

Ah yes, once again we are not on the same page Jim.  I would suggest you pick an argument and stick to it.  You yourself, and I happen to agree with you on this point, have said that when the shuttle fleet retires so does that mentality.  With the Constellation architecture or anything that even remotely resembles the current thinking the crew can get away in the event it becomes necessary.

Ares/Orion will not be launching TDRSS sats or anything that is not necessary for the Constellation mission.  So give me and everyone on this site a little credit without bringing out that tired example.  However, try to prove to me that it is more efficient preping two launch vehicles to get everything needed up to LEO.  Again there is nothing wrong with crew and cargo on the same stack if the crew has a reasonable chance to survive a catasrphic event during all phases of launch.  The CAIB did NOT make this a requirement nor did any branch of the Federal Government.  It is a NASA policy gone too far.  You are in my opinion simply playing your home turf with EELV's and wanting everything possible to fly on them and them only.  Those rockets have a mission and payloads to fly on them but you nor any one else will ever convince me that we should have a rocket dedicated to ONLY lifting the orbital vehicle and nothing else.  That is short sighted and I think you know that.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2007 07:51 am
Easy guys :)   Chill-pills at forty paces ;)

I think everyone knows that launching any payload which doesn't *require* people is a job better suited to an unmanned launch.   If crew don't have to be involved, they simply shouldn't be.

Having said that, launching payloads which do require crew involvement on a separate flight would, in many cases, be an illogical waste of resources and funding if the opportunity does exist to launch them together SAFELY.

TDRSS was always a bad idea on Shuttle.   Routine satellite deployment is high-risk, and it simply does not require humans to be in local proximity.   It should *always* have been planned as an unmanned operation, and I doubt anyone would, or could, argue that point otherwise.

But conversely, you wouldn't expect to launch all of the Hubble Servicing Equipment on a separate EELV and force a Shuttle to then meet up with it in orbit before ever proceeding to Hubble - that would clearly be an unnecessary waste of perfectly usable capability, not to mention valuable funding.

The name of the game is to match your cargo to the requirements, be it crew, cargo or a mixture.   There are many wide-ranging approaches possible, all of which depend on the exact nature of the mission at hand, and there is logic supporting all approaches.

Having a flexible and versatile capability is of critical importance, but the sad fact is that certain LV choices we are pursuing right now (cough, cough Ares-I, cough, ahem) are not powerful enough to allow any of the useful options in the future.   Their lack of performance simply deletes the option to use capability to launch useful payloads along with a crew.   Instead they force the wasteful additional cost of *always* requiring other assets to be deployed in addition.   I think its a shamefully short-sighted loss of capability myself. YMMV.

Ross.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: SirThoreth on 10/16/2007 09:55 am
At this point, assuming the 5-segment SRB version of Ares I does prove to be unworkable at a later date, what would be NASA's alternatives for crew-launch?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 10/16/2007 11:43 am
Quote
OV-106 - 15/10/2007  10:52 PM

1.   The CAIB did NOT make this a requirement nor did any branch of the Federal Government.  It is a NASA policy gone too far.  

2.  You are in my opinion simply playing your home turf with EELV's and wanting everything possible to fly on them and them only.  

3.  Those rockets have a mission and payloads to fly on them but you nor any one else will ever convince me that we should have a rocket dedicated to ONLY lifting the orbital vehicle and nothing else.  That is short sighted and I think you know that.

1.  This has nothing to do with Columbia.  This goes back much further.  It is a good and proper  policy

2.  It's your opinion but not mine nor am I an EELV only advocate.  I just advocate what is right

3.  We already have one and it called Ares I.    

4.  "rocket dedicated to ONLY lifting the orbital vehicle"  I never said this.  The rocket can lift cargo when the orbital vehicle is not there.


This mixing of cargo and crew is defined as this:

It is ok to carrying an "extension" of the manned spacecraft to perform a mission.  Perfect examples are ASTP docking module or a lunar module.  

Prime example of what not to do (aside from TDRSS) is an MPLM.  No sense in risking crew for Tang, toilet paper and T-shirts.  

HST is not an example, because HST only exists due to the shuttle.  Subsequent space observatories (SIRTF, SWIFT, JWST, AXAF) were/are to be placed in orbits more suited for observing


Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: BogoMIPS on 10/16/2007 01:37 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 16/10/2007  4:55 AM

At this point, assuming the 5-segment SRB version of Ares I does prove to be unworkable at a later date, what would be NASA's alternatives for crew-launch?

There was talk on this site for a short period of time around moving back to a 4-segment SRB with a wider upperstage with 2 J-2X (or J-2XD, can't remember which) engines.

Concerns were widening the stick even more at the top throwing of the flight stability even further (i.e. the drumstick), and having an upperstage with engines out of centerline having a negative impact on pLOC numbers.

The talk seemed to get quiet pretty quickly, so I'm guessing it's out of favor now?

What other options are out there for tweaks to the Stick concept (short of abandonment for something like DIRECT, EELV, Stumpy, etc.)?  Other than magically coming up with a readily-available, more capable upperstage engine, it seems like any more shortfalls in performance will have to continue to be absorbed by Orion... Another diameter reduction? :(
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/16/2007 02:29 pm
Quote
SirThoreth - 15/10/2007  4:37 PM

Quote
clongton - 15/10/2007  5:05 AM

The initial objection to the J-110 actually came from the DIRECT team. Internally, after a careful analysis, we demonstrated that the J-110 was a totally viable launch vehicle, but that it essentially duplicated the performance of the existing EELV fleet. A fundamental philosophy of the team was to compliment those assets, not compete with them.

On the other hand, current planning is to still reproduce those capabilities, more or less, with the Ares I.  There seems to be a strong desire to reproduce those capabilities with Shuttle-derived hardware, which, to me, seems to go back to the idea of retaining as much of the STS workforce as possible, which, in turn, helps secure Congressional support for the project.

In those terms, if J-110 can delive the required performance for VSE and for ISS missions, and especially if it can get LOC/LOM numbers below those projected for EELVs, then it strikes me that it'd be an excellent alternative that may well be worth pursuing.

Quote
But it was interesting to note that the J-110 actually exceeded the performance projections of the Ares-I; not by a lot, but by enough to take Orion's weight difficulties off the table. Used strictly as a CLV, a J-110 would work just fine. But again, the nation has assets in this lift capacity range already.

....that NASA, and even Congress, seem intent on not using for that role.

BTW, where might I find more detailed performance info on J-110, and had any artwork been done for it?

My thoughts exactly!  Sometimes you have to give the buyer what they want.  I know I had a dealer shoving an Explorer at me one time when I wanted a station wagon, and he wouldn't listen so I just went to another dealer.  Problem solved.  The Explorer duplicates the capabilities of the station wagon but at worse gas mileage and I didn't need the four wheel drive, or the extra price of the SUV (in high demand) versus the station wagon (low demand).  

Yes, I can see from what clongton said that the J-110 would duplicate EELV performance pretty much.  But the buyer (NASA) and the co-signer (Congress) wants SDLV, not EELV.  I personally think it's PAST time for the stick to go away; it's proven to be the most expensive and least capable of all solutions, but they love it because it's an SDLV (barely kinda sorta) and it's JUST enough for ISS, forcing development of the HLV.  EELV already surpasses Ares I performance from what I've read on this board and would be fairly straightforward to man-rate and adapt to Orion.  BUT it's EELV and won't bring votes to the co-signer when STS starts handing out pink slips.  

SO, if the buyer wants SDLV that's just enough for ISS AND Lunar, then give it to them!  What are LOC/LOM numbers on J-110 like, costs, overhead, etc. compared with Direct V.2.0??  I would tend to think that it would have a little lower safety numbers than Ares I but closing the gap and eliminating all the changes to VAB and MLP's and everything else would more than even that out, and having greater commonality with SDHLV in either J-232 or Ares V iterations.  

OH, and BTW, I think NASA actually likes the gap; they're leveraging it as 'well, if we had more money we could shorten the gap'.  If Congress wants the gap shortened they'll have to pony up, and if not NASA rolls the blame on them.... call me cynical but that's how I read it!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: NotGncDude on 10/16/2007 10:32 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 15/10/2007  10:52 PM

Quote
Jim - 15/10/2007  6:28 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 14/10/2007  10:08 PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with launching crew and cargo at the same time.

Yes, there is.  If it is a payload that doesn't require crew involvement, it is an unneccessary risk for the crew.  TDRSS on Challenger is a prime example.

Ah yes, once again we are not on the same page Jim.  I would suggest you pick an argument and stick to it.  You yourself, and I happen to agree with you on this point, have said that when the shuttle fleet retires so does that mentality.  With the Constellation architecture or anything that even remotely resembles the current thinking the crew can get away in the event it becomes necessary.

Ares/Orion will not be launching TDRSS sats or anything that is not necessary for the Constellation mission.  So give me and everyone on this site a little credit without bringing out that tired example.  However, try to prove to me that it is more efficient preping two launch vehicles to get everything needed up to LEO.  Again there is nothing wrong with crew and cargo on the same stack if the crew has a reasonable chance to survive a catasrphic event during all phases of launch.  The CAIB did NOT make this a requirement nor did any branch of the Federal Government.  It is a NASA policy gone too far.  You are in my opinion simply playing your home turf with EELV's and wanting everything possible to fly on them and them only.  Those rockets have a mission and payloads to fly on them but you nor any one else will ever convince me that we should have a rocket dedicated to ONLY lifting the orbital vehicle and nothing else.  That is short sighted and I think you know that.

I think his point is that mixing cargo and crew when the crew was not necessary in the first place is an unnecessary risk, however small. It's also expensive! I think it's hard to argue against that.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: tnphysics on 10/16/2007 11:53 pm
Use DIRECT with a WBC upper stage. That can be done by 2012.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Patchouli on 03/28/2008 03:52 pm
Stumpy is kinda like a light version of the Jupiter 120 and it would solve many of the issues with ares I and give the first stage a little more total delta V.

Now having the option to go to four segments as an upgrade will make life a lot easier for the Orion design team they could now no longer worry about being forced to use splash downs or gut their vehicle of safety equipment.

The side mount of the SRBs allows the fuel in the sustainer once the second stage to act as a damper much like the shuttle's ET does on STS.

It also reduces the height and flexibility of the stack very good for vibration damping and better for emergency crew egress.

Lastly this fixes a few problems with the roller coaster escape system since they are now only 180 to 200 feet up vs over 300 feet up.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Patchouli on 03/28/2008 04:01 pm
Actually there is no danger in with riding with the cargo so long as you have a means of escaping the launch vehicle if something goes wrong.

An Orion on an Ares V would be nearly as safe as an Orion on Ares I in theory .

In practice the Direct launcher or Ares V Orion might actually be a lot safer since it's not subject to dangerous mass cutting measures and would have more back systems plus the all important airbags so it can land anywhere.

Also the extra payload would allow a better LAS maybe even one that can throttle or has several firing modes .

You don't want to perform a 10g plus abort unless you absolutely have to as it injures the crew.

Just about the only time you need it is at t+0 to T+60 after that you might want a lower g escape just read up on the history of soyuz esp soyuz flight 18-1 and this becomes very clear.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: clongton on 03/28/2008 04:03 pm
Quote
Patchouli - 28/3/2008  12:52 PM

Stumpy is kinda like a light version of the Jupiter 120 and it would solve many of the issues with ares I and give the first stage a little more total delta V.

Now having the option to go to four segments as an upgrade will make life a lot easier for the Orion design team they could now no longer worry about being forced to use splash downs or gut their vehicle of safety equipment.

The side mount of the SRBs allows the fuel in the sustainer once the second stage to act as a damper much like the shuttle's ET does on STS.

It also reduces the height and flexibility of the stack very good for vibration damping and better for emergency crew egress.

Lastly this fixes a few problems with the roller coaster escape system since they are now only 180 to 200 feet up vs. over 300 feet up.
One of the main objections to Stumpy is the use of a derivative of the J-2 as the main engine. That's another engine development program and the J-2X is already slated to take until at least 2015 before that engine becomes operational. That means running two engine development programs at the same time, one for the lower powered J-2 derivative and another for the J-2X. Replace the J-2 derivative with an existing engine and things become better, schedule wise, which is the main sticking point in this entire transition process.

The other problem is that certifying the 3-segment SRB, while not as expensive as creating the new 5-(5.5/6.0 ?) segment, still costs a considerable sum of money. In addition to that, new development work would need to be done to shorten the ET. The bottom of the SRB’s would need to remain about where they are, so that means that the location of the crossbeam for mitigating SRB Thrust Oscillation will have to change, driving changes to the ET as well. And you would still need to develop the thrust structure to go under the ET. I wouldn’t be surprised if by the time you fielded Stumpy, it would end up costing a little more than if you just fielded DIRECT, because there would be less changes and modifications to pay for.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Patchouli on 03/28/2008 04:07 pm
True but it is an improvement over Ares I but not as good a LV as the Jupiter 120.

But it seems they want to use that J2 in as many things as possible so they can justify it over picking up the RL-60 or using a cluster of six RL-10s.

I have no unit costs on the J2X vs three RL-60s or 6 RL-10s.

Though canning the J2X and using two J2s off stumpy for the EDS might save a lot in development costs and remove an LOM failure mode.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Keermalec on 08/11/2008 11:02 pm
Stick with existing 4-segment models, and launch a bigger CEV!  You've got to build the CEV anyways, and you can get back to a 5.5m CEV with enough room for the ISS 6-person compliment, and maybe get back to some other more interesting tech that was dropped for weight concerns.

I fully agree with BogoMIPS on using existing 4-segment boosters. So what if it increases payload capacity beyond the needs of the CEV? Partially fill the tanks or add some extra ISS-oriented payload to CEV. ISS always needs extra payload doesn't it?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: errant_trajectory on 07/12/2009 05:21 pm
I have not heard much about this concept in relation to the human spaceflight committee.  I'd assume the new solid rocket configuration would be its main disadvantage compared to the modified side-mounted shuttle-derived concept.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/13/2009 02:04 am
I have not heard much about this concept in relation to the human spaceflight committee.  I'd assume the new solid rocket configuration would be its main disadvantage compared to the modified side-mounted shuttle-derived concept.

Stumpy is just not a serious option now, as far as I can gather. It takes TO out of the picture, but in truth it has no advantages over EELV, other than sharing development money with Ares-V for the J-2X. I don't even know what the LOC numbers for this thing are. It would certainly take longer to develop and cost more than human-rating a D-IVH,
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: loomy on 07/18/2009 01:56 pm
That article states the problems of the present:

the schedule delay and cost overrun of ares i problem workarounds.

and I don't think anyone remembers NASA basically had DIRECT as a backup plan the whole time
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Khadgars on 07/22/2009 07:52 pm
I remember reading an article a while back that NASA had a back up plan for Ares I called "Stumpy" which used 3 Seg SRB's.  Was that plan completely dumped, if not why not replace Ares I with "Stumpy" as it would be drastically cheaper to produce while at the same time NASA can safe some face and continue with building the Ares V (hopefully smaller).

Just some food for thought

-Khad
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: William Barton on 07/22/2009 07:59 pm
Would it be cheaper than Jupiter 130? You'd have to do some development on the 3segs, whereas Jupiter uses existing 4segs, and would have the same development costs for changes to ET, development of thrust structure, etc. I guess it would cost less per launch once developed, but would still cost more time and money up front. How much, either way, I don't know. Why not just go for the extra payload?
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: KSC Sage on 07/22/2009 08:04 pm
I remember reading an article a while back that NASA had a back up plan for Ares I called "Stumpy" which used 3 Seg SRB's.  Was that plan completely dumped, if not why not replace Ares I with "Stumpy" as it would be drastically cheaper to produce while at the same time NASA can safe some face and continue with building the Ares V (hopefully smaller).

Just some food for thought

-Khad

The In-Line 3 segment SRB LV so-called "Stumpy" was a KSC in-house study that never made it beyond KSC.  Like the Ares I it would be an all new vehicle.  A new core with the J-2X engine and the 3 segment SRBs would have to be developed and certified.  The Direct J-130 would be a better vehicle if NASA wanted to go that route.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: bad_astra on 07/22/2009 08:20 pm
Stumpy wouldn't have provided much margin, putting all the onus on Ares V. In the end you're still left with two wildly different vehicles, + two different SRB development program, pad mods, etc.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: renclod on 07/22/2009 09:55 pm
.. .. ..
replace Ares I with "Stumpy" as it would be drastically cheaper to produce

Where is the evidence for that ?

Why would be two SRB's "drastically cheaper" to produce than one ?

A solid rocket booster is not just 3 segments, but much more:
- launch vehicle integration
- igniters (cross linked for 2 boosters)
- hydraulic power supply
- thrust vector control: actuators, controller, software
- avionics
- electrical power
- staging system: separation motors, tumble motors, pyrotechnics
- FTS: comm, linear shaped charge
- recovery system: parachutes, pyrotechnics, flotation, beacon

Two SRB's must match segment-for-segment propellant batch.

And so on, and so forth.

No way "Stumpy" (or Jumpiter, for that matter) is cheaper (let alone "drastically cheaper") to produce than Ares I.

IMHO.

Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2009 10:04 pm

No way "Stumpy" (or Jumpiter, for that matter) is cheaper (let alone "drastically cheaper") to produce than Ares I.



When you take into the account the 32 billion dollar development of Ares I, then Direct is cheaper.

2 existing SRB's are cheaper than 1 new one.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2009 10:05 pm
I remember reading an article a while back that NASA had a back up plan for Ares I called "Stumpy" which used 3 Seg SRB's.  Was that plan completely dumped, if not why not replace Ares I with "Stumpy" as it would be drastically cheaper to produce while at the same time NASA can safe some face and continue with building the Ares V (hopefully smaller).


The 3 segment development would be just as costly as the 5 segment.
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: Khadgars on 07/22/2009 10:11 pm
It appears I read the article incorrectly as I got the impression that it would be using a lot of the existing technologies and thus reduce a lot of the cost.  The way you guys put it I don't see any reason to go with it either.  :P
Title: Re: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives (The Stumpy Thread)
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/23/2010 09:58 pm
Quote
mlorrey - 9/8/2006  4:56 PM

 However, this is also why NASA likely won't endorse it...

Also, its probably not a good idea to adopt launch vehicle designs and change national space policy based a post someone saw on a webfourm.

I do like Ross's idea tho.

Have we not come along way since then. :-)