dutch courage - 27/7/2006 4:22 PM
It almost looks like an Ariane 5... ;)
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.
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.
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?
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!!!
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
Rule one for the VSE. Don't mess with those crazy ATK cats, or else....
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.
Shouldn't a crew launch vehicle at least *look* like it can fly? ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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....
josh_simonson - 28/7/2006 2:54 PM
5 seg supposedly needs a heavier case
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.
Generic Username - 28/7/2006 4:09 PM
Again, the 5-seg uses the exact same TVC system as the standard RSRM
Jim - 30/7/2006 9:13 AM
The 2x3 costs more per flight
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.
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 :)
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.
Jim - 31/7/2006 5:57 AM
Columbia was not a launch vehicle failure.
Generic Username - 31/7/2006 11:08 AMQuoteJim - 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.
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.
kraisee - 2/8/2006 2:59 PM
Does anyone know why this fairly 'obvious' option seems to have been disregarded already?
Ross.
mr.columbus - 2/8/2006 3:10 PMQuotekraisee - 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
Jim - 31/7/2006 10:37 AMQuoteGeneric Username - 31/7/2006 11:08 AMQuoteJim - 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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
SMetch - 2/8/2006 11:06 PMThat'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.....
Third tier NASA management rejected us every time for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with rational thinking.
.....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.
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.
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.
robtek - 3/8/2006 10:56 AM
Go back to the Saturn, and the costs are cut back drastically.
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.
robtek - 3/8/2006 1:56 PMQuoteHailColumbia - 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.
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.
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?
robtek - 3/8/2006 1:59 PM
There was an oxygen leak, that the short ignited, causing the fire.
robtek - 3/8/2006 3:12 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 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.
zinfab - 3/8/2006 3:16 PMQuoterobtek - 3/8/2006 3:12 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 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.
robtek - 3/8/2006 2:49 PM
Lets look at the CEV its the Saturn on a shuttle based system, with no passengers.
robtek - 3/8/2006 2:49 PM
And the CLV is a larger Atlas with passengers.
robtek - 3/8/2006 2:49 PMAgain, the CEV IS the capsule.
Lets put the Capsule from the CLV and put it on the CEV, (oh my, its a shuttle based Saturn now)
HailColumbia - 3/8/2006 3:29 PM
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the various vehicles here.Quoterobtek - 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 VQuoterobtek - 3/8/2006 2:49 PM
And the CLV is a larger Atlas with passengers.
Not sure what you are getting at here.Quoterobtek - 3/8/2006 2:49 PMAgain, the CEV IS the capsule.
Lets put the Capsule from the CLV and put it on the CEV, (oh my, its a shuttle based Saturn now)
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.
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?
robtek - 3/8/2006 2:59 PM
The plans are there.
There was an oxygen leak, that the short ignited, causing the fire.
robtek - 3/8/2006 2:59 PM
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.
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.
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.
kraisee - 3/8/2006 8:39 PMQuotelmike - 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.
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!)
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!
punkboi - 4/8/2006 11:59 AMQuotelmike - 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.
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"
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.
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 :)
The Phase 3, 5 seg CaLV impresses me the most. Definitely can't wait to see how that vehicle evolves through the development phase ;)
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.
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.
Jim - 8/8/2006 8:00 AMQuotekraisee - 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.
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?
Jim - 8/8/2006 5:00 AMQuotekraisee - 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.
SMetch - 9/8/2006 1:21 PMQuoteJim - 8/8/2006 5:00 AMQuotekraisee - 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?
Jim - 9/8/2006 10:31 AMQuoteSMetch - 9/8/2006 1:21 PMQuoteJim - 8/8/2006 5:00 AMQuotekraisee - 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.
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.
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.
mlorrey - 9/8/2006 4:56 PM
However, this is also why NASA likely won't endorse it...
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.
HailColumbia - 9/8/2006 6:02 PMQuoteJim - 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.
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.
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.
Jim - 9/8/2006 7:02 PM
what is the link to josh's post with the ESAS cost estimates?
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.
Jim - 10/8/2006 8:55 AM
"EVERY one of the Atlas, Delta, ..... figures are correct " They did not have access to these
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.
Jim - 10/8/2006 2:00 PMQuotekraisee - 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
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.
Jim - 10/8/2006 2:00 PMQuotekraisee - 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
mlorrey - 10/8/2006 6:07 PMYup.
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.
vanilla - 10/8/2006 4:49 PMQuotemlorrey - 10/8/2006 6:07 PMYup.
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.
Propforce - 10/8/2006 7:39 PMYup.
Well geez, Vanilla... don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY think?
mlorrey - 10/8/2006 6:07 PM
This is what is going to kill the VSE. It is not about exploration.
Jim - 27/7/2006 11:00 AM
Compete it. Send an RFP out with the appropiate requirements and see what you get back.
tom nackid - 24/8/2006 5:17 PMQuoteJim - 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?
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?
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 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!
Jim - 24/8/2006 4:53 PMQuotetom 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
publiusr - 25/8/2006 12:17 PMEven 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 if worked for Boeing he would be a clean as the driven snow?
Maybe he believes in what he is doing.
rumble - 25/8/2006 2:00 PMQuotepubliusr - 25/8/2006 12:17 PMEven 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 if worked for Boeing he would be a clean as the driven snow?
Maybe he believes in what he is doing.
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.
Jim - 24/8/2006 4:47 PMQuotetom 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
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.
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...
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
Chris Bergin - 27/7/2006 10:20 AM
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670
Say hello to "Stumpy".
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.
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.
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...
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 :)
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?
OV-106 - 14/10/2007 10:08 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with launching crew and cargo at the same time.
luke strawwalker - 14/10/2007 5:56 PMThe 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.
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 :)
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.
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.
Jim - 15/10/2007 6:28 AMQuoteOV-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.
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.
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?
SirThoreth - 15/10/2007 4:37 PMQuoteclongton - 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.QuoteBut 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?
OV-106 - 15/10/2007 10:52 PMQuoteJim - 15/10/2007 6:28 AMQuoteOV-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.
Patchouli - 28/3/2008 12:52 PMOne 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.
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.
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 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.
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
.. .. ..
replace Ares I with "Stumpy" as it would be drastically cheaper to produce
No way "Stumpy" (or Jumpiter, for that matter) is cheaper (let alone "drastically cheaper") to produce than Ares I.
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).
Quotemlorrey - 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.