Author Topic: Most Likely CLV  (Read 43428 times)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Most Likely CLV
« on: 04/25/2009 06:50 pm »
Which CLV is most likely to actually fly a crew? Ares I? D-IVH? Atlas V-H? Jupiter 120? Saturn IB? Rocketship X-M?

(Note that this is not a choice which CLV option you prefer, just the one most likely to actually become operational)

Simon ;)

Offline kyle_baron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #1 on: 04/25/2009 07:05 pm »
Which CLV is most likely to actually fly a crew? Ares I? D-IVH? Atlas V-H? Jupiter 120? Saturn IB? Rocketship X-M?

(Note that this is not a choice which CLV option you prefer, just the one most likely to actually become operational)

Simon ;)
To the ISS, Ares 1.
To the Moon, Mars, and beyond?  As stated in another thread, a man rated Ares V, with MLAS, 8.4m tank, 4 seg SRB, and 4 SSME.
What we do in life, echos in eternity. (Gladiator)

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #2 on: 04/25/2009 07:45 pm »
ISS: Ares I

Lunar: Something similar to Jupiter-246

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #3 on: 04/25/2009 08:02 pm »
Delta IV Heavy with RS-68A followed by with RS-68R regens also shared with Ares V. Path of least resistance and best synergy with CaLV.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 08:05 pm by marsavian »

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #4 on: 04/25/2009 08:05 pm »
Delta IV Heavy.

I agree -- Delta IV Heavy.  I think the only hope for Ares I is if the new administrator chooses to close his/her eyes to cost and schedule just to say he/she built a new rocket.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #5 on: 04/25/2009 08:06 pm »
ISS: Ares I

Lunar: Something similar to Jupiter-246

I am curious why you say this.  If Ares I can take Orion to ISS, why not take it to LOE for a lunar mission?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #6 on: 04/25/2009 08:08 pm »
Delta IV Heavy.

I agree -- Delta IV Heavy.  I think the only hope for Ares I is if the new administrator chooses to close his/her eyes to cost and schedule just to say he/she built a new rocket.

Danny Deger

If it's Lori Garver that just won't happen as the transition team questions were already signifying a loss of patience with Ares I and more interest in EELVs.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #7 on: 04/25/2009 08:11 pm »
Delta IV Heavy.

I agree -- Delta IV Heavy.  I think the only hope for Ares I is if the new administrator chooses to close his/her eyes to cost and schedule just to say he/she built a new rocket.

Danny Deger

If it's Lori Garver that just won't happen as the transition team questions were already signifying a loss of patience with Ares I and more interest in EELVs.

This doesn't surprise me.  I heard she and Griffin had a "discussion".  Do you have a link to what the questions were?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #8 on: 04/25/2009 08:13 pm »
I vote Delta-IVH+ for the ISS CLV.  With the exception of the RS-68A engine, it is already in existance, after all.

For lunar and beyond, some SDLV permutation, most likely something like the DIRECT Jupiter JS-241H (that's the one with the J-2X upper stage rather than the slightly better-performing RL-10B2 version).  I just think that J-2X has good political momentum behind it and needs a project to keep in development.  RL-10 is already safe thanks to it being used on D-IV and A-V.

An SDLV like the Jupiter with an 8.4m core and SSMEs as core engines would be a low-cost option and probably would be more acceptable to Congress in leaner times.  This is especially the case as the type probably has a shorter development cycle too and will get America back to the Moon much earlier than otherwise possible.

@ Danny Dot

The Jupiter-sized SDLVs don't have the performance to carry out an ESAS-style 1.5-launch lunar mission.  It is more cost-effective to launch the Orion and Altair on one Jupiter and the EDS on a second.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #9 on: 04/25/2009 08:17 pm »
Soyuz FG

 - Ed  Kyle

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #10 on: 04/25/2009 08:29 pm »
At the risk of turning this into a DIRECT thread, I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  Unless the decision is make to switch to DIRECT, in which case JS-130 may be ready sooner.

For the lunar missions, I think that the abject failure of Ares-I to meet any of its targets has destroyed the credibility of both Ares-I and Ares-V, as well as the whole 1.5 ESAS architecture.  I think the switch to 8.4m core with SSME is inevitable at this point, and the 2-launch DIRECT architecture that goes along with it.

Whether they call it Jupiter or Ares-Lite is up for debate, but the outcome would be the same.

Mark S.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #11 on: 04/25/2009 08:39 pm »
... I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  ...

Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 08:40 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #12 on: 04/25/2009 08:54 pm »
... I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  ...

Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

 - Ed Kyle

No synergy and shared costs with Ares V and it doesn't rely on an attempt to duplicate a highly tuned Russian engine for local production. Also a regen RS-68 would give it greater performance. It has the most potential given how lowly tuned the RS-68 currently is for cost reasons.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 08:55 pm by marsavian »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #13 on: 04/25/2009 09:31 pm »
Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

Fewer things to do to get it in service, basically.  Beyond the engines and some avionic 'tweaks' to get it to talk to the Orion and LAS logic, you're already there with Delta-IVH.  There is a lot of work to do to get Atlas-VH operational, not least of which is to do all the development work to create the outboard boosters and get the flight dynamics sorted out.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #14 on: 04/25/2009 09:34 pm »
... I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  ...

Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

 - Ed Kyle

Two reasons.  The Atlas uses Russian engines and the Atlas Heavy hasn't flown yet and is currently not under development.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #15 on: 04/25/2009 09:42 pm »
... I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  ...

Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

 - Ed Kyle

Two reasons.  The Atlas uses Russian engines and the Atlas Heavy hasn't flown yet and is currently not under development.

Danny Deger

According to Chris's story, Atlas V would still cost less than Delta IV, because the new Delta IV pad needed would cost twice as much as the Atlas V pad modifications, and because man-rating the Delta IV would cost twice as much as man-rating Atlas V.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/

If Ares I is so awful on cost and performance, then those opposed to Ares I cannot defend Delta IV over Atlas V on either count.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 09:46 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #16 on: 04/25/2009 10:08 pm »
Obviously Ares-I is currently the 'chosen one', like it or not.
However if there is a major shift in policy, I reckon we could see a stripped down Orion with most of its propellant offloaded flying on an Atlas 402. If we need a cheaper faster way of launching Orion, might as well do it really cheap whilst attaining the best safety possible in the circumstances. YMMV.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #17 on: 04/25/2009 10:13 pm »
snip

If Ares I is so awful on cost and performance, then those opposed to Ares I cannot defend Delta IV over Atlas V on either count.

 - Ed Kyle

I have no objection to the Atlas Heavy.  It is certainly lower cost and much sooner to IOC than the Ares I.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 10:53 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #18 on: 04/25/2009 10:16 pm »
I say Delta IV-H is most likely because Atlas V-H has not flown and the Delta can be ready sooner.
Atlas V would likely have lower reoccurring costs but it's lead time would be longer.
Plus P&W will need time to tool up engine production the foreign engine is an issue that would need to be solved.
Besides P&W probably can scare up a little more performance out of the RD-180 or give it a better health monitoring system as well increase it's safety margins.
Trust me they can improve on the design there's a reason why they make most of the world's commercial jet engines.
Technically a J130 or F9-H would be by far the best CLV cost wise but lead time is a very big issue.

For lunar almost certainly Direct/Jupiter in some form or another even under a different name.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 10:18 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #19 on: 04/25/2009 10:29 pm »
Obviously Ares-I is currently the 'chosen one', like it or not.
However if there is a major shift in policy, I reckon we could see a stripped down Orion with most of its propellant offloaded flying on an Atlas 402. If we need a cheaper faster way of launching Orion, might as well do it really cheap whilst attaining the best safety possible in the circumstances. YMMV.

I think it would have to be the Atlas 552 as you can only get rid of 6300Kg by off loading fuel since at least 2000Kg of propellant probably needs to remain so it can reach ISS and deorbit.
Even if you launched it with no propellant it still would be several tons too heavy for the 402.

Other things such as the LAS, and boost cover have to stay in place. An an Orion with an LAS on 552 is going to be a safer vehicle then one with no LAS on 402.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 10:32 pm by Patchouli »

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #20 on: 04/25/2009 10:39 pm »
Dragon on a Falcon 9.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #21 on: 04/25/2009 10:48 pm »
Obviously Ares-I is currently the 'chosen one', like it or not.
However if there is a major shift in policy, I reckon we could see a stripped down Orion with most of its propellant offloaded flying on an Atlas 402. If we need a cheaper faster way of launching Orion, might as well do it really cheap whilst attaining the best safety possible in the circumstances. YMMV.

I think it would have to be the Atlas 552 as you can only get rid of 6300Kg by off loading fuel since at least 2000Kg of propellant probably needs to remain so it can reach ISS and deorbit.
Even if you launched it with no propellant it still would be several tons too heavy for the 402.

Other things such as the LAS, and boost cover have to stay in place. An an Orion with an LAS on 552 is going to be a safer vehicle then one with no LAS on 402.

I guess you're right- I wasn't factoring in LAS or BPC. I was also being a bit mean with the amount of propellant left in the spacecraft.

So if a single-stick Atlas were chosen, you would need strap-ons after all, which is a shame from a LOM point of view. Maybe not as many as five, though?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #22 on: 04/25/2009 11:47 pm »
There is a lot of work to do to get Atlas-VH operational, not least of which is to do all the development work to create the outboard boosters and get the flight dynamics sorted out.

No, there isn't.  Atlas V Heavy has already gone through CDR.  Only thing needed is GSE mods and productions mods.  The drawings and analysis are 90% done (Definition of CDR)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #23 on: 04/25/2009 11:49 pm »

Two reasons.  The Atlas uses Russian engines

Not a issue.  Astronauts fly on Russian Soyuz

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #24 on: 04/25/2009 11:53 pm »
I say Delta IV-H is most likely because Atlas V-H has not flown and the Delta can be ready sooner.
Atlas V would likely have lower reoccurring costs but it's lead time would be longer.
Plus P&W will need time to tool up engine production the foreign engine is an issue that would need to be solved.
Besides P&W probably can scare up a little more performance out of the RD-180 or give it a better health monitoring system as well increase it's safety margins.




Delta won't ready earlier.  Pad mods will take  longer
Atlas lead time isn't longer.  Its avionics are nearly redundant and
Who says domestic RD-180 production is require?  Domestic Soyuz production isn't required.

Show your data as proof.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2009 01:04 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Jose

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #25 on: 04/26/2009 12:33 am »
J-130 and J-246, for purely political reasons.  Orion on an EELV is a public-relations nightmare for NASA.  They'll have to admit they've wasted billions on the shaft.  That's very dangerous in the current political climate.  The cries to spend NASA's budget on "education" would redouble.

It's a disaster for the NASA centers in the various congressional districts.  Lots and lots of people get laid off.  It's a disaster for ATK.  Not only do they lose the Ares I contract, they're in danger of losing the Ares V to upsized EELVs.  That path becomes a lot more like once you've got manned spacecraft flying on top of existing EELVs.

The Jupiter path gives them more room to spin this as a normal part of the design process.  They can also claim that the Ares I was not a complete waste if they can use the work already done on SRBs on future SDLVs.  They can name the rockets "Ares" something or other, to further enhance the notion that they're really they same thing they set out to do from the beginning.  It saves at least some jobs at the NASA centers.  It saves some of ATKs SRB development money.

But then again, I'm just a poorly-informed layman, so I'm likely wrong.


Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #26 on: 04/26/2009 02:05 am »

Two reasons.  The Atlas uses Russian engines

Not a issue.  Astronauts fly on Russian Soyuz

And I don't think Senator Nelson and others in congress like it.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 02:06 am by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #27 on: 04/26/2009 02:17 am »
Most likely:   Delta-IV Heavy.

Second most likely:   Jupiter-130 (or similar).

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #28 on: 04/26/2009 02:29 am »
Remember everyone,  this thread is not about which is your favorite LV or which is technically better.  It is strictly about probability, which is an unruly combination of technical and political and personality and manpower and backroom machinations and luck and everything else.

That is why I said DIVH, even though I feel JS-130 is the better choice.  After all, there have been a lot of "rumors" and "leaks" about Delta, very little about Atlas and, unfortunately, Jupiter/DIRECT.  That tells me that someone, or a group of someones, are priming the pump for just such a move.  And I realize that most of the print stories speak of "EELV", but if one or the other EELV is ever mentioned by name, it is almost always Delta.

Mark S.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #29 on: 04/26/2009 04:03 am »

Delta won't ready earlier.  Pad mods will take  longer
Atlas lead time isn't longer.  Its avionics are nearly redundant and


Nearly is not good enough it has to be fully redundant with safe failure modes or no dice.

Both LVs are going to require a lot of pad modifications the Launch Complex 41 launch pad is pretty much going to need a new tower or at least the addition of a mobile gantry system complete with an elevator and escape system.
The preferred solution would be to be able to have a catwalk able to swing in for the crew to egress at all times.
The big issue is the fact NRO is using Atlas for most missions and would not like to see their operations delayed 12 to 18 months while the pad is reworked.

Quote
Who says domestic RD-180 production is require?  Domestic Soyuz production isn't required.

As for domestic production I think a lot of congressmen might have some dispute with that.
Plus there's the pride factor which is more important then you think in gathering political support from the public.
The public decides who gets elected and those people decide where the money gets spent.
If the public is unhappy with a politician's performance they don't get reelected and can even be replaced before election.
There's a political interest to create new jobs in the US to help the economy this is a factor like it or not.

Quote
No, there isn't.  Atlas V Heavy has already gone through CDR.  Only thing needed is GSE mods and productions mods.  The drawings and analysis are 90% done (Definition of CDR)

No matter how you spin it a paper configuration is just that a paper configuration.
 Until it gets tooled up for production and flies or at least gets some hold down tests for the first time it's an unknown and is no more real then Ares I or F9-H.

Delta IV-H had a minor issue with it's first flight with a cavitation issue that did not arise until the added acceleration of the two booster CBC were present.
 Atlas V-H will be very lucky to have such a minor and easily fixed issue on it's first flight.
It'll have to fly three times before it's as well understood as the Delta IV-H is right now.

I really don't prefer one EELV over another just would like to see one chosen taking into account growth options,safety, and avoiding political minefields.
I'd also like to see our tax dollars stay in the country.

Personally I feel the J130/J120 which ever is cheaper placed on a fast track schedule is the best choice for a CLV.

The most important thing the Orion design team needs right now is an LV that will give them some necessary wiggle room on their mass budget.
They can do a much better job cutting excess mass to help with the lunar missions after they get some real flight data on the vehicle.

Killing the moon missions would be a disaster for NASA and is not an option since an Orion stuck in LEO would be viewed as a massive step backwards from the shuttle.

Jupiter makes it much more difficult for a short term funding issue to kill the moon program since the CLV and Cargo vehicle are the same vehicle.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:42 am by Patchouli »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #30 on: 04/26/2009 04:21 am »
The more I try and come up with a choice between Atlas and D4H, the more I'm torn between them.

Despite the issues, I think D4H would get the nod due to the Atlas RD-180 engine issue of it being Russian (politics). If it weren't for that, Atlas all the way. I haven't read up enough on the variants to choose the most likely candidate of the bunch though.

My favourite and first choice is the Direct approach. Whether the politics is in place, I don't know, but it makes the most sense for all the right reasons.

But for time constraints, I'd go with something that has flight history; we can work on the next phase/alternate later.

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #31 on: 04/26/2009 08:32 am »
Quote
No, there isn't.  Atlas V Heavy has already gone through CDR.  Only thing needed is GSE mods and productions mods.  The drawings and analysis are 90% done (Definition of CDR)
No matter how you spin it a paper configuration is just that a paper configuration.
 Until it gets tooled up for production and flies or at least gets some hold down tests for the first time it's an unknown and is no more real then Ares I or F9-H.
I will paraphrase Jim, but I'd say "incorrect", see the definition of CDR.
Falcon 9H hasn't passed any review (AFAIK), Ares 1 has only passed PDR with huge waivers. From an engineering point of view, Altas 5H is much more real.
Best regards, Stephan

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #32 on: 04/26/2009 09:15 am »
Obviously, if it is all right with the American political leadership for US astronauts to fly solely on Soyuz, then it will be all right for them to ride on a Russian produced RD-180. However, if both of those are all right, the Soyuz solution is faster, cheaper, and, best of all, currently in existence and flying. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that Orion-on_EELV is "not needed." This argument about the technical merits of Atlas V vs. Delta IV is trivial and ignores the governing realities of politics.

Politically, economically, and in the realities of contractor influence, it should be a contest between Ares-as-is and some Jupiter-like configuration that deploys the same money to the same contractors.


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #33 on: 04/26/2009 09:44 am »
William,
That essentially what we're trying to do.   But with two key differences from Ares:

1)   We're trying to stay firmly within the budget limitation bounding box.

2)   We want more "Return on Investment" in terms of missions performed, instead of mere development work which provides no actual returns, for that same amount of money.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 09:45 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Cons

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #34 on: 04/26/2009 11:20 am »
Which CLV is most likely to actually fly a crew?

To ISS: either Soyuz or Atlas V 552 as Orion Interim Launch Vehicle
To Moon, NEO ... : Ares V derived

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #35 on: 04/26/2009 11:46 am »
Atlas 402 with Orion Light.

This is the simplest, most robust vehicle with the lift capability to support crewed missions, providing arguably the most reliable launcher.  The Atlas also has by far the highest launch tempo, providing invaluable hands on flight experience, further improving reliability.

Orion light is like Soyuz on steroids.  Purpose built to efficiently get people from Earth to LEO without a lot of bells and whistles.  Perfect not only for transporting people to the ISS but also to orbiting mission modules designed to support specific needs.  These mission modules could be tailored to support: Lunar missions, L1 servicing, NEO mission or Mars missions.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #36 on: 04/26/2009 12:17 pm »
... I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  ...

Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

When last time NASA chose a lower cost, better performing option? I can't remember this ever happening. If such a thing ever happened, it was before Saturn V days.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 12:17 pm by gospacex »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #37 on: 04/26/2009 12:30 pm »
That's because, ever since the moon race of the 60's, one of the functions of NASA has been to "Spread the Wealth" around a number of distinct congressional districts.

Unfortunately, merely wishing it were different is not going to change a thing.   For a really good example:   Congress didn't like the EELV option under O'Keefe/Steidle.   So the first opportunity they got, they replaced that entire effort with someone who wanted an SDLV.   Do you really think any of them have changed their minds?

I don't exactly like the way it works, but Congress hands out the money, and the senior decision-makers regarding NASA's budget are all from the states affected.   As long as they remain in their positions, this won't change.


The *ONLY* choice that is realistically open, is just how much return one can get for the money which will be sent to those congressional districts?

The question we really need to answer is this:

Assuming the money remains about the same and the workforce levels remain about the same too, what can the agency be tasked to accomplish and what is the best possible Return On that Investment?

Like it or not, that's how the real world actually works, and the technical merits of any given system will *ALWAYS* take a back seat to the political merits as far as the Appropriations Committee's are concerned.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 12:34 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #38 on: 04/26/2009 12:43 pm »

1. Nearly is not good enough it has to be fully redundant with safe failure modes or no dice.

2.  Both LVs are going to require a lot of pad modifications the Launch Complex 41 launch pad is pretty much going to need a new tower or at least the addition of a mobile gantry system complete with an elevator and escape system.

3.  The preferred solution would be to be able to have a catwalk able to swing in for the crew to egress at all times.

4.  The big issue is the fact NRO is using Atlas for most missions and would not like to see their operations delayed 12 to 18 months while the pad is reworked.

5.  As for domestic production I think a lot of congressmen might have some dispute with that.
Plus there's the pride factor which is more important then you think in gathering political support from the public

6.  No matter how you spin it a paper configuration is just that a paper configuration.

7.  Until it gets tooled up for production and flies or at least gets some hold down tests for the first time it's an unknown and is no more real then Ares I or F9-H.

8.  Atlas V-H will be very lucky to have such a minor and easily fixed issue on it's first flight.


All wrong.  Again.
Here is where you are clueless and don't know what you are talking about

1.  No dice?  You don't know enough to say that.  Where is the requirement that it has to be fully redundant?  Where is your data for that?  Anyways, Atlas is only missing one box that doesn't have redundancy and the new version has gone through CDR.  D-IV is no where near redundant.

2.  Who says " a lot of mods"?  It will not need a gantry.  And both Delta IV and Atlas V will need a crew access tower.,  Crew access tower is not "a lot"

3.  How do you know it is the "preferred" solution?  Did you work OSP and know the results of the pad mod studies. 
No, you didn't.  You are just a poster, who continually posts incorrect or wrong data and opinions.
A sliding platform was the "preferred" solution

4.  Wrong again on  two accounts.  The NRO has few to none Atlas V east coast missions.  Also the Atlas V only spends a couple of days on the pads, so there would be minimal interference with construction.  This was also an outcome of the OSP studies

5.  Not so, we are already flying our astronauts on Soyuz, they aren't complaining about that.  An engine is minor compared to that

6.  Wrong again.  95% of the hardware is already flying.  It is far from a paper rocket.  And Atlas 511, 531 and 541 have n't flown, are they paper rockets?

7.  What hold down tests?  Again you don't what you are talking about.  F-9 hasn't flown and therefore doesn't even count

8.  Clueless again.  Atlas III, Atlas V 4XX and 5XX had flown their first flights with no issues.  Atlas can do the Heavy without issues..  BTW there were more serious issues on the D-IV mission

Again, don't post stuff you know nothing about

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #39 on: 04/26/2009 01:01 pm »
... I agree that the DIVH to ISS is the most likely CLV for ISS missions.  ...

Atlas V Heavy has been show repeatedly, both by NASA and by the recent independent Aerospace Corp study, to be a lower cost, better performing option than Delta IV Heavy.  If not Ares I, why would NASA pick the worst of two EELV choices?

When last time NASA chose a lower cost, better performing option? I can't remember this ever happening. If such a thing ever happened, it was before Saturn V days.

When NASA’s political motivations line up with the lower priced option.  NASA chose to launch astronauts on the 100% Russian Soyuz rather than continue with OSP/EELV that would have been flying by now.  NASA chose to rely on the 100% Russian Progress for cargo services rather than develop a transfer vehicle that could fly on EELV’s.

NASA, with congressional support, has proven very willing to spend billions on foreign products and ship the associated jobs over seas as long as it suits some political motivation.

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #40 on: 04/26/2009 01:45 pm »
DIV-H by a long shot. Ares I should be canceled. But you all know that part of the argument.
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #41 on: 04/26/2009 02:41 pm »
Atlas. Hopefully with domestic engine production, at least in part.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #42 on: 04/26/2009 03:02 pm »
Atlas V Heavy, initially with Russian engines, switching to domestic production as soon as viable. Tied with some kind of SDLV HLV.


5.  Not so, we are already flying our astronauts on Soyuz, they aren't complaining about that.  An engine is minor compared to that


To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #43 on: 04/26/2009 03:07 pm »
snip

1.  No dice?  You don't know enough to say that.  Where is the requirement that it has to be fully redundant?  Where is your data for that?  Anyways, Atlas is only missing one box that doesn't have redundancy and the new version has gone through CDR.  D-IV is no where near redundant.

snip

5.  Not so, we are already flying our astronauts on Soyuz, they aren't complaining about that.  An engine is minor compared to that

snip


Jim,

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?

If it is not a requirement, this makes Delta more viable.

And there has been much grumbling from congress about sending $1B to Russia to pay for Soyuz flights.  Have you read Senator Nelson's letter to the president?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #44 on: 04/26/2009 03:07 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #45 on: 04/26/2009 03:10 pm »

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?


Redundancy is method of meeting fault tolerance, it isn't a requirement in itself

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #46 on: 04/26/2009 03:12 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

And they just dropped the minimum number of seats from 18 to 3.  Something is afoot to not buy as many seats from Russia.  Does KSC know something about the Delta we don't know?  I detected a strong bias toward the Atlas while working OSP and from you I still see it.   You guys know these rockets as well as anyone.  If there is something wrong with the Delta, let us know.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #47 on: 04/26/2009 03:13 pm »

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?


Redundancy is method of meeting fault tolerance, it isn't a requirement in itself

Do you agree this requirement for "minimum of one failure tolerant" is the current requirement?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #48 on: 04/26/2009 03:24 pm »

Can you post a link to the latest NASA man rating requirement document stating single fault tolerant is no longer a requirement?  The latest I can find states it is still a requirement.

Here is a quote from the May 2008 version:
3.2.2 The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant),
Is there a later version where a "minimum of one failure tolerant" is not required?


Redundancy is method of meeting fault tolerance, it isn't a requirement in itself

Do you agree this requirement for "minimum of one failure tolerant" is the current requirement?

Danny Deger
yes

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #49 on: 04/26/2009 03:39 pm »
We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

Yes, but as a barely palatable stop-gap.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #50 on: 04/26/2009 04:00 pm »
Given the likelihood of a 4 man ISS Orion block1 I am making a totally uninformed guess, in order of likelihood:

1)   Soyuz FG (included for completeness and for Ed)

2)   Delta IV H (I am unsure if the current RS-68 could lift an Orion block1)

3)   Atlas (I do not have the knowledge to even hazard a guess as to which version(s)) (Jim there have been several variants mentioned in this thread, care to comment?)

4)   Ares I / Falcon-Dragon (both paper tigers atm imo)

I’d very much like to see either the Delta IV H or the Atlas V H developed as the primary vehicle on a fast track with additional funding for the other developed as a secondary system on a slower track.

« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:03 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #51 on: 04/26/2009 04:08 pm »
BTW given the discussion of an overarching panel at the WH level to provide synergies between DoD, NRO, NOAA, and NASA space programs does this give additional legs to the possibilities of EELV use as a CLV?
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:09 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #52 on: 04/26/2009 04:26 pm »
Delta IV-H keeps getting mentioned because, well, it's actually flown. If it pulled the Ares I "SM as a third stage" trick, a current Delta IV-H could probably work for ISS/LEO. With planned (and IIRC, already funded) upgrades it could handily do Lunar Orion. So, it's understandably the most mentioned second choice.

The real question with Delta IV-H is how to transition from LEO to the point of the VSE, exploration. If Delta IV-H were to be chosen to fly Orion, then the eventual lunar vehicle(s) would most likely use RS-68Bs, but not necessarily SRBs...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 04:28 pm by simonbp »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #53 on: 04/26/2009 05:17 pm »
Delta IV-H keeps getting mentioned because, well, it's actually flown. If it pulled the Ares I "SM as a third stage" trick, a current Delta IV-H could probably work for ISS/LEO. With planned (and IIRC, already funded) upgrades it could handily do Lunar Orion. So, it's understandably the most mentioned second choice.

Simon ;)

Hum, if true it would offer at least some possibility for early test flights of the Orion to "close the gap" in appearance if not in the reality of servicing the ISS (which would still depend on Soyuz/Progress). Meanwhile a robust development program for the RS-68 and Atlas V H with test flights of the existing Delta IV H combined would still be less expensive than the projected Ares I development costs (or so it seems from the posts on this site).
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 05:18 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #54 on: 04/26/2009 05:34 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

And they just dropped the minimum number of seats from 18 to 3.  Something is afoot to not buy as many seats from Russia.  Does KSC know something about the Delta we don't know?

I doubt the change in the Soyuz solicitation had anything to do with Delta. The change notice specifically mentioned commercial providers (e.g. SpaceX).
JRF

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #55 on: 04/26/2009 05:40 pm »
The real question with Delta IV-H is how to transition from LEO to the point of the VSE, exploration. If Delta IV-H were to be chosen to fly Orion, then the eventual lunar vehicle(s) would most likely use RS-68Bs, but not necessarily SRBs...

Simon ;)

IMO there is still quite a bit of "exploration" to do in LEO. Unlike the westward expansion lead off by Lewis and Clark we do not have an environment that can easily provide ISRU in space. The ISS demonstrates, almost every day, that there are huge gaps in our ability to support manned missions in space both logistically and environmentally. These problems can most easily be analyzed and solved in LEO rather than at the end of a very expensive 384,403 kilometer/238,857 mile supply chain.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #56 on: 04/26/2009 05:43 pm »

To be fair, we aren't flying our astronauts on Soyuz as the primary, much less sole, method of getting them to ISS. Though, as long as we ramp up domestic RD-180 at some point, I don't think it will shift the cards in favor of Delta IV.

We will during the gap.  NASA just sent out a solicitation for Soyuz rides

And they just dropped the minimum number of seats from 18 to 3.  Something is afoot to not buy as many seats from Russia.  Does KSC know something about the Delta we don't know?

I doubt the change in the Soyuz solicitation had anything to do with Delta. The change notice specifically mentioned commercial providers (e.g. SpaceX).

err, wouldn't a ULA Delta based system qualify as commercial?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #57 on: 04/26/2009 05:45 pm »

err, wouldn't a ULA Delta based system qualify as commercial?

ULA doesn't have a spacecraft

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #58 on: 04/26/2009 07:57 pm »
ULA doesn't have a spacecraft

This will probably annoy Jim (it usually does when I start weaving 'what if...?' scenarios with ULA) but I have to ask.

I know that Lockheed-Martin was co-operating with SpaceDev with on their DreamChaser space-plane.  Does anyone know what is the current status of those interactions? I must say that I haven't seen any updates recently.

Just look at what these arrangements potentially gives them:

1) Atlas-V - Flexible ELV; I'm sure Boeing wouldn't begrudge them a Delta-IV if they asked either;
2) DreamChaser - Essentially COTS-D-ready crew vehicle;

I'm not saying that they are planning anything right now.  However, if CxP crashes and burns, there is a nice big gap into which they (through the offices of ULA) could jump, if they have done their prepartory work correctly and can get moving quickly enough.

Don't forget that Lockheed have the Centaur (single and twin-engine variants) that is a good EDS.  They also did some work on various lander concepts.  Don't forget that they have also been talking to Bigelow, giving them access, if required, to a long-duration, large-capacity crew vehicle.  If MSFC completely drops the ball, they have the chance to 'save' the US manned space program.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #59 on: 04/26/2009 08:26 pm »
ULA doesn't have a spacecraft

This will probably annoy Jim (it usually does when I start weaving 'what if...?' scenarios with ULA) but I have to ask.

I know that Lockheed-Martin was co-operating with SpaceDev with on their DreamChaser space-plane.  Does anyone know what is the current status of those interactions? I must say that I haven't seen any updates recently.

Just look at what these arrangements potentially gives them:

1) Atlas-V - Flexible ELV; I'm sure Boeing wouldn't begrudge them a Delta-IV if they asked either;
2) DreamChaser - Essentially COTS-D-ready crew vehicle;

I'm not saying that they are planning anything right now.  However, if CxP crashes and burns, there is a nice big gap into which they (through the offices of ULA) could jump, if they have done their prepartory work correctly and can get moving quickly enough.

Don't forget that Lockheed have the Centaur (single and twin-engine variants) that is a good EDS.  They also did some work on various lander concepts.  Don't forget that they have also been talking to Bigelow, giving them access, if required, to a long-duration, large-capacity crew vehicle.  If MSFC completely drops the ball, they have the chance to 'save' the US manned space program.

There's nothing on SpaceDev's website to indicate DreamChaser ever got past drawings. As far as I know, there's nothing closer to flying than Dragon, although I suppose it's fair to say K-1 also got to the fabrication stage before going belly up.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #60 on: 04/26/2009 08:28 pm »


This will probably annoy Jim (it usually does when I start weaving 'what if...?' scenarios with ULA) but I have to ask.

A.  I know that Lockheed-Martin was co-operating with SpaceDev with on their DreamChaser space-plane.  Does anyone know what is the current status of those interactions? I must say that I haven't seen any updates recently.

Just look at what these arrangements potentially gives them:

B.  1) Atlas-V - Flexible ELV; I'm sure Boeing wouldn't begrudge them a Delta-IV if they asked either;
2) DreamChaser - Essentially COTS-D-ready crew vehicle;


A.  That was Atlas LM which is now part of ULA
B.  That would be ULA

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #61 on: 04/26/2009 11:47 pm »

According to Chris's story, Atlas V would still cost less than Delta IV, because the new Delta IV pad needed would cost twice as much as the Atlas V pad modifications, and because man-rating the Delta IV would cost twice as much as man-rating Atlas V.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/

If Ares I is so awful on cost and performance, then those opposed to Ares I cannot defend Delta IV over Atlas V on either count.

 - Ed Kyle

Sure Atlas V holds the edge when viewed in isolation. In fact it all boils down to the engines the HLV will have. At the moment that is leaning to regen RS-68s and with those D-IVH will close if not reverse the performance gap with Atlas V and sharing engine costs will prove cheaper. OTOH if the HLV has SSMEs or RD-180s then Atlas V should be the CLV. Either EELV can do the job but the difference with Ares I is that they can do it with margin, the time and the cost. The current Cx architecture could work too ... if NASA had a $25bn budget to solve all the performance/schedule problems ;).
« Last Edit: 04/26/2009 11:52 pm by marsavian »

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #62 on: 04/27/2009 12:46 am »
Dragon on a Falcon 9.
Well if all goes well, we’ll see an unmanned Dragon fly on a Falcon 9 later this year. That puts it way ahead of Orion / Ares-I, Orion / Delta IVH, Orion / Atlas VH or Orion / Jupiter 130.

I would definitely like to see a manned Dragon / Falcon 9 before Orion.

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #63 on: 04/27/2009 01:20 am »
Is there a sense here (I'm careful not to call it a consensus) that, in the absence of political and institutional forces, an RP-1 first stage would be preferable to an all-LH2 launch vehicle?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #64 on: 04/27/2009 01:50 am »

Well if all goes well, we’ll see an unmanned Dragon fly on a Falcon 9 later this year.
 

Doubtful we will see just a F9 before the end of the year much less one with a Dragon.

And it doesn't put it ahead of the others, since it is not an Orion

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #65 on: 04/27/2009 02:07 am »
Bit late to the pertinent discussion:

NASA already uses the Atlas V, and therefore the foreign made RD-180, in previous and upcoming science missions.  There is:

1. No demand for the Americanization of production of that engine.
2. No selection of the Delta 4 instead of the Atlas V.

Actual NASA behavior when faced with this choice is in direct contravention to the theory that NASA would reject the Atlas V due to nationalistic concerns over the engine source.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #66 on: 04/27/2009 02:20 am »
I'm going to go with marsavian's suggestion that commonality with the HLV is going to be one of the biggest driving forces in the selection of the CLV.
Cost is not the main issue with NASA if it was they would not be trying to build Ares I.

Constellation is not about visiting ISS for the lowest cost possible that's COTS-D.
It's about returning to the moon that's it's primary mission visiting ISS just is a secondary function that may not even be necessary if the COTS vehicles prove reliable.
Though they'll still fly Orion to ISS as it's a good mission to shake out the bugs on it.
If NASA was only out to make a good LEO vehicle they would have chosen a very different design for Orion.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2009 02:21 am by Patchouli »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #67 on: 04/27/2009 02:23 am »
Is there a sense here (I'm careful not to call it a consensus) that, in the absence of political and institutional forces, an RP-1 first stage would be preferable to an all-LH2 launch vehicle?

Purely based on performance, absolutely. Environmental concerns, maybe, but no different than all the petroleum-powered cars & trucks on the roads.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #68 on: 04/27/2009 06:28 am »
I still don't understand why ULA would want to propose Atlas V Heavy over Delta IV Heavy; it's simply more unprofitable development work for them for not much advantage over the existing hardware. If ULA didn't exist, LM would certainly be pushing Atlas Heavy, but with ULA, it's just not likely.

Of course, if that's what cartels get you: less choice for higher prices...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 04/27/2009 06:29 am by simonbp »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #69 on: 04/27/2009 09:36 am »
@ Jim

Actually, that is very interesting.  I didn't realise that the element of LM that handled Atlas was now considered to be ULA.  Of course, this simply feeds into my argument that if (and please notice that modifier - it is critical) they have some kind of crew vehicle in the works (thank you SpaceDev) ULA could make a bid for COTS-D.

This is all a big 'if' at the moment, though.  I've already said this over on the Space-X thread but I suspect that it would take very clear and explicit orders from above to make NASA divert funding and resources to COTS-D and allow a commercial provider become the exclusive US-based crew launcher for some time. 

Yes, I know that, as matters stand, Roscosmos are going to become the exclusive crew access provider for ISS.  However, the blow is softened by them being another state-operated space agency.  Buying tickets from a commercial provider as if travelling to LEO was like getting on the Red-Eye back to DC? That would be a bitter pill for them to swallow.

However, if CxP crashes and burns, or even if Jeff Hanley's plans are unsuccessful in greatly mitigating the gap, they may not have any other choice.

Will we one day see a picture from Canadarm-2's cameras of a DreamChaser or Dragon docked at PMA-2?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #70 on: 04/27/2009 11:56 am »
I think that Ben and some others are correctly reading the tea leaves.  The Obama administration loves commercial space access and are likely to push through some form of COTS D.  If any of the contenders are successful with COTS D this will result in a light weight capsule (not ruling out lifting body with this name).  Once successfully flying to ISS such a capsule could be evolved to support lunar missions, negating the need to complete the $12B Orion and its Ares I ($18B) or Delta HLV ($2B) class booster.

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #71 on: 04/27/2009 11:57 am »
At this point there's just as much chance IMHO of Orion flying on none of the popular choices since we've seen no concrete support from Obama other than lip service.  NASA and the VSE is dying on the vine now, with no leadership, poisoned from it's previous leader and starved for cash for the forseeable future. 

I have decided to take the totally pessimistic view since I have not seen anything to be optimistic about.  We are headed towards the dark ages of space exploration.....

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #72 on: 04/27/2009 11:58 am »
I don't understand all this 'sending money to Russia' angle.  We (the US) send over $270 Billion as our trade deficit to China (probably towards their own chinese space program).  Surely it dwarfs any Soyuz purhcase.

The big difference is tax money vs. personal money.

But I agree with you, why the heck are we so strict regarding ITAR when we are essentially paying China to develop an indigenous space program and military?

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #73 on: 04/27/2009 12:13 pm »
Bit late to the pertinent discussion:

NASA already uses the Atlas V, and therefore the foreign made RD-180, in previous and upcoming science missions.  There is:

1. No demand for the Americanization of production of that engine.
2. No selection of the Delta 4 instead of the Atlas V.

Actual NASA behavior when faced with this choice is in direct contravention to the theory that NASA would reject the Atlas V due to nationalistic concerns over the engine source.

Just goes to show us that parts of NASA are still being good stewards of our tax payer money, balancing cost of service with developing US jobs.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #74 on: 04/27/2009 12:13 pm »
  Of course, this simply feeds into my argument that if (and please notice that modifier - it is critical) they have some kind of crew vehicle in the works (thank you SpaceDev) ULA could make a bid for COTS-D.


It would be the other way around.  A spacecraft provider would make a bid for COTS-D.  ULA would just be a subcontractor

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #75 on: 04/27/2009 12:30 pm »
Bit late to the pertinent discussion:

NASA already uses the Atlas V, and therefore the foreign made RD-180, in previous and upcoming science missions.  There is:

1. No demand for the Americanization of production of that engine.
2. No selection of the Delta 4 instead of the Atlas V.

Actual NASA behavior when faced with this choice is in direct contravention to the theory that NASA would reject the Atlas V due to nationalistic concerns over the engine source.

We also haven't seen Delta IV downselected by DoD or NASA, and I don't think we will, sans actual, demostrated American coproduction of the RD-180. What you might see, under the right circumstances, is a plan to man-rate both vehicles, up to the point of maybe one unmanned Orion demo flight on each one, then the remainder of Orion-to-ISS flights would proceed on Atlas, with the assurance that if Atlas were grounded for some reason (including engine supply cutoff from Russia), Delta could step in on a few months notice. Or, they may simply decide the current stockpile covers it. How many Orions will there be to ISS through 2020? Maybe 10 or 12, tops? And that's assuming COTS-D doesn't make it. So we're talking 40 engines for the entire program, inlcuding preliminary tests.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #76 on: 04/27/2009 12:43 pm »

Actually, that is very interesting.  I didn't realise that the element of LM that handled Atlas was now considered to be ULA.  Of course, this simply feeds into my argument that if (and please notice that modifier - it is critical) they have some kind of crew vehicle in the works (thank you SpaceDev) ULA could make a bid for COTS-D.


That was the whole point of ULA.  The elements of LM that handled Atlas were combined with the Boeing elements that handled Deltas.

And again, ULA does not make spacecraft, those parts of the LM and Boeing stayed with the parent companies.   Only the launch vehicle "divisions" moved.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #77 on: 04/27/2009 02:47 pm »
I don't understand all this 'sending money to Russia' angle.  We (the US) send over $270 Billion as our trade deficit to China (probably towards their own chinese space program).  Surely it dwarfs any Soyuz purhcase.

The big difference is tax money vs. personal money.

But I agree with you, why the heck are we so strict regarding ITAR when we are essentially paying China to develop an indigenous space program and military?

Because most of import from China is commercial. It would be a sad day when government dictates whose ordinary goods I can buy and whose I can't. Conversely, I should not prohibit (for example, by lobbying a corresponding law) anyone else to buy "made in China" stuff too.

When it comes to govt purchases it's different.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #78 on: 04/27/2009 04:14 pm »
My answer is EELV.

If NASA pays attention to people who know EELV: Atlas V Heavy.

If not: Delta IV Heavy due to engine and proximity to MSFC and some similarities to STS.

Regarding Danny's question on Delta, part of the problem is that NASA has not done a thorough review of Delta IV as it has Atlas V since it has no missions on Delta IV.  (GOES is delivery on orbit, no LV insight.)  The rest of the problem is that what NASA has reviewed found corners cut in testing and requirements decreased to maintain cost and schedule.  There may be safe reasons for this (especially since USAF has no heartburn with them), but going back to the first part Delta never had to answer them since NASA never bought a Delta IV mission with insight.

Regarding libs0n's comment, repeatedly flying NASA astronauts on a Russian engine is a lot more visible than scattered science payloads.  There would definitely be more discussion in Congress and the media.

RP-1 first stages can be shown to be much cheaper and simpler than hydrogen due to size and purging requirements.  However, it adds another commodity to the pad and another type of expertise needed for the propulsion team.  Boeing had a lot of experience with SSME and STS MPS when it developed Delta IV.

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT???  ULA AS A PRIME CANNOT BID ON ANYTHING BUT GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES.  IT CANNOT BID ON COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES.  IT CANNOT BID ASA A PRIME ON GOVERNMENT OR COMMERCIAL PAYLOADS.  It would have to be a sub on COTS-D.  This is all due to the DoD and FTC consent decrees that allowed the formation of ULA to mitigate concerns by satellite companies.  If you learn one old thing on NSF this week, make it this.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #79 on: 04/27/2009 04:38 pm »
Upthread people were saying that the Delta IV Heavy could loft an Orion capsuke to the ISS but not a lunar able Orion to the LSAM+EDS stack. But I thought DIVH could lift 25 mT to LEO and that Lunar Orion was set at 20-21 mT. Elsewhere on this site people have said that ULA had developed a blackzone-free launch  profile and that it did not affect lift capacity.

One or more of the statements is false, but I don't know which?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #80 on: 04/27/2009 04:46 pm »
Upthread people were saying that the Delta IV Heavy could loft an Orion capsuke to the ISS but not a lunar able Orion to the LSAM+EDS stack. But I thought DIVH could lift 25 mT to LEO and that Lunar Orion was set at 20-21 mT. Elsewhere on this site people have said that ULA had developed a blackzone-free launch  profile and that it did not affect lift capacity.

One or more of the statements is false, but I don't know which?

I suspect that confusion is created by the RS-68A situation.  The existing Delta IV Heavy would not be able to lift the full-mass lunar Orion, as I understand it.  The RS-68A (more thrust and better ISP) powered Delta IV Heavy that should be available after 2011 would be able to do the job.

Keep in mind that the crew launch vehicle doesn't just launch the Orion CM and SM, but also must lift the heavy LAS and fly a more constrained ascent profile, which cuts payload capability compared to the standard satellite launch numbers.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/27/2009 04:49 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #81 on: 04/27/2009 05:02 pm »
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT??? ULA AS A PRIME CANNOT BID ON ANYTHING BUT GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES. IT CANNOT BID ON COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES. IT CANNOT BID ASA A PRIME ON GOVERNMENT OR COMMERCIAL PAYLOADS. It would have to be a sub on COTS-D. This is all due to the DoD and FTC consent decrees that allowed the formation of ULA to mitigate concerns by satellite companies. If you learn one old thing on NSF this week, make it this.

My bad, perhaps shouting will work on me given my ageing hearing, I know that you or Jim have told me that before but my mind ain’t what it used to be.

If I can ask without arousing too much ire, could LM or Boeing submit a COTS-D bid with ULA as sub-contractor?

« Last Edit: 04/27/2009 05:05 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #82 on: 04/27/2009 05:06 pm »
Yes.

Didn't mean my tirade specifically at you, Norm.  Many folks have that misimpression and I'm tired of correcting it.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Cons

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #83 on: 04/27/2009 05:18 pm »
If NASA pays attention to people who know EELV: Atlas V Heavy.


What's wrong with the Atlas 552 for ISS missions?

Performance? IIRC it's more than 18000 kg to ISS orbit including LAS.

'Human rating' a design with five solids? I doubt there is any statistically significant
difference in LOM numbers between the Heavy and the 552.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #84 on: 04/27/2009 05:22 pm »
Yes.

Didn't mean my tirade specifically at you, Norm.  Many folks have that misimpression and I'm tired of correcting it.

Correction where correction is due, I believe I was the first in this thread to suggest ULA had that capability and I did know better.

Given how prolific LM (and presumably Boeing) design departments are I would be surprised if they didn't have something on the shelf that could meet the requirements. Of course if they doubt they could make money on the program...
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #85 on: 04/27/2009 05:25 pm »

What's wrong with the Atlas 552 for ISS missions?

If NASA intends to go to the Moon someday, it needs to develop a Crew Launch Vehicle that can do the job.  Atlas 552 isn't that launch vehicle.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #86 on: 04/27/2009 05:43 pm »
Also keep in mind that the insertion targets for Ares-I vs. EELV's are completely different.

Ares-I inserts to sub-orbital -11x100nmi and then requires the Orion to perform 3 burns to complete the boost to 130x130nmi ready for rendezvous with the EDS/LSAM.

Both EELV's would be able to insert the Orion directly into 130x130nmi without it having to do anything at all.   The Orion would not then no longer need to carry as much fuel on board at liftoff, which makes it a lighter payload all the way from the ground up.

The difference is almost 1 metric ton of propellant, purge supplies and tanking which does not need to be carried at all by the EELV architecture.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #87 on: 04/27/2009 05:44 pm »
Keep in mind that the crew launch vehicle doesn't just launch the Orion CM and SM, but also must lift the heavy LAS and fly a more constrained ascent profile, which cuts payload capability compared to the standard satellite launch numbers.

Correct.   The Aerospace Corp report takes that into account though and could still comfortably lift the Orion on either vehicle.

Their report concluded that a Human-Rated Delta-IV Heavy could exceed CxP's Orion Lift Requirements by a very healthy 4.5mT and HR Atlas-V Heavy exceed them by 5.5mT.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2009 06:56 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #88 on: 04/27/2009 06:06 pm »
What's wrong with the Atlas 552 for ISS missions?
If NASA intends to go to the Moon someday, it needs to develop a Crew Launch Vehicle that can do the job.  Atlas 552 isn't that launch vehicle.

If you're going with a dedicated crew launch, it only matters if the CLV has synergy with the HLV if the CLV doesn't already exist and the development costs need to be gamed over two vehicles.  Not so with EELV.  AVH is past CDR, with experienced designers at the helm.

I advocate AVH over 552 to give Orion literally tons of margin and allow for growth.  Also, some have a knee-jerk reaction against solids.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #89 on: 04/27/2009 06:18 pm »
'Human rating' a design with five solids? I doubt there is any statistically significant
difference in LOM numbers between the Heavy and the 552.

There is, 3 more jettison events, 3 more ignitions, 3 more......

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #90 on: 04/27/2009 07:32 pm »
The Atlas V 552 has a much higher initial T/W ratio and so flies a much more aggressive trajectory than the Atlas V Heavy.  Higher dynamic pressure means lower structural margins on the vehicle, more difficult aborts, and a harsher environment for the payload.

The 551 configuration is the worst case for ascent loading and so drives the CCB structural margins.  Having a  1.2 factor of safety for the 55x configuration leads to greater than 1.4 factors of safety for almost the entire structure in the Heavy configuration.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #91 on: 04/28/2009 12:36 am »

What's wrong with the Atlas 552 for ISS missions?

If NASA intends to go to the Moon someday, it needs to develop a Crew Launch Vehicle that can do the job.  Atlas 552 isn't that launch vehicle.

 - Ed Kyle

Today's A-552 may not be up to the task of a lunar mission but they've talked about enhancements, such as WBC that could be ready long before NASA is ready for a lunar mission.

But I still prefer a lighter vehicle flying on a simpler version of Atlas with more robust margins.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2009 12:39 am by Xplor »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #92 on: 04/28/2009 12:51 am »
Again, Atlas Heavy is a really nice rocket, but it just ain't likely to happen. NASA would _only_ go with an EELV if they wouldn't have to spend even more development money, and that means Delta. ULA management would favor Delta too, as they don't have to do anything different than increase Delta IV core production.

If not Ares I, and not Delta IV-H, then Atlas Phase II (or similar) becomes likely, skipping Atlas V Heavy entirely.

Simon ;)

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #93 on: 04/28/2009 03:39 am »
Again, Atlas Heavy is a really nice rocket, but it just ain't likely to happen. NASA would _only_ go with an EELV if they wouldn't have to spend even more development money, and that means Delta. ULA management would favor Delta too, as they don't have to do anything different than increase Delta IV core production.

Prove that Delta is less expensive than Atlas.
Prove that ULA management favors Delta.
Don't say things you can't prove.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #94 on: 04/28/2009 04:08 am »
Again, Atlas Heavy is a really nice rocket, but it just ain't likely to happen. NASA would _only_ go with an EELV if they wouldn't have to spend even more development money, and that means Delta. ULA management would favor Delta too, as they don't have to do anything different than increase Delta IV core production.

If not Ares I, and not Delta IV-H, then Atlas Phase II (or similar) becomes likely, skipping Atlas V Heavy entirely.

Simon ;)

Go strait to Atlas phase II it might start looking like a good option to use the TR-107 just to get a higher thrust main engine for the 5M CCB which would also solve the Russian engine issue.

I don't really like relying on imported engines due to the need to preserve the skill base and train new engineers to design and produce new engines inside the US.

Besides the TR-107 is darn near an F1 in performance which means if needed a vehicle like the Saturn V becomes an option.

I know it will impact pad operations but they would already be impacted by the phase II modifications plus NASA would likely convert a pad such as complex 34 which already was considered for reactivation for Ares I vs use the normal ULA ones for their manned program.

Besides I'm sure the unmanned guys and NRO don't want operations at the the existing sites disrupted while all the stuff to support human space flight are added to the existing facilities.
This probably would disrupt operations far worse then something like a new engine when you look at what they're doing to pad 39B.


« Last Edit: 04/28/2009 04:17 am by Patchouli »

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #95 on: 04/28/2009 04:49 am »

. . . it might start looking like a good option to use the TR-107 just to get a higher thrust main engine for the 5M CCB which would also solve the Russian engine issue.

I don't really like relying on imported engines due to the need to preserve the skill base and train new engineers to design and produce new engines inside the US.

The powers that be don't appear to feel the same way. It's a concept that seems to have died on the vine.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #96 on: 04/28/2009 01:54 pm »

1.  Go strait to Atlas phase II it might start looking like a good option to use the TR-107 just to get a higher thrust main engine for the 5M CCB which would also solve the Russian engine issue.

2.  I don't really like relying on imported engines due to the need to preserve the skill base and train new engineers to design and produce new engines inside the US.

3.  I know it will impact pad operations but they would already be impacted by the phase II modifications plus NASA would likely convert a pad such as complex 34

4. which already was considered for reactivation for Ares I vs use the normal ULA ones for their manned program.

5,  Besides I'm sure the unmanned guys and NRO don't want operations at the the existing sites disrupted while all the stuff to support human space flight are added to the existing facilities.

6. This probably would disrupt operations far worse then something like a new engine when you look at what they're doing to pad 39B.


All totally offbase and wrong

Before making statements like this, provide the  data to support your claims or don't post them, or admit you are wrong, when correct.  Next time I will ask the moderators to remove your posts.

1.  What russian engine issue?

2.  And how does that matter?

3.  It wouldn't.  The phase II changes can be done in between flows and it doesn't affect the "pad", only the VIF.  Another option is a new VIF which would have zero impact.  Show your data

4.  No, 40 was looked at and not 34.  Show your data

5.  Not true, the impacts are minimal.  And as shown before, the NRO is not using Atlas V east coast. 

6.  No, it won't.  It was looked at for OSP

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #97 on: 04/28/2009 03:47 pm »
Most likely:   Delta-IV Heavy.

Second most likely:   Jupiter-130 (or similar).

Ross.

I agree in both cases. 

Although I really like the Atlas V I think politics favors the Delta IV.  And it's a big vehicle and a huge change but there is even more political reasons to support Jupiter and the massive STS workforce.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #98 on: 04/29/2009 04:23 pm »
Prove that Delta is less expensive than Atlas.
Prove that ULA management favors Delta.



Quote
Don't say things you can't prove.

Will do when you do.

Simon ;)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #99 on: 04/29/2009 04:34 pm »
Go strait to Atlas phase II it might start looking like a good option to use the TR-107 just to get a higher thrust main engine for the 5M CCB which would also solve the Russian engine issue.

If you go clean-sheet, Atlas Phase II looks good, but a entirely new engine development program would be a time/budget killer. Take all the headaches from J-2X and multiply them by two because of the even less schedule to work with...

Now, an Atlas Phase II-sized vehicle with a J-2X upper stage (already paid for, might as well use) and either RS-25 or RS-68 first stage sounds just as, if not more, likely...

Simon ;)

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #100 on: 04/29/2009 06:05 pm »
That picture so sexy! Thanks!
« Last Edit: 04/29/2009 06:05 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #101 on: 04/29/2009 06:12 pm »
That picture so sexy! Thanks!

While sexy, it does absolutely nothing to "prove" the points Antares raised.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #102 on: 04/29/2009 06:24 pm »
That picture so sexy! Thanks!

While sexy, it does absolutely nothing to "prove" the points Antares raised.

Actually it does, sort of. There are "reliable" figures on Delta IVH costs. Since the Atlas VH has not been built or flown there aren't as good a figure for them.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #103 on: 04/29/2009 06:39 pm »
Actually it does, sort of. There are "reliable" figures on Delta IVH costs. Since the Atlas VH has not been built or flown there aren't as good a figure for them.

True, but any additional fixed cost needed to finish development of Atlas V heavy needs to be weighed against the higher booster-core-unit cost Delta IV cores have over Atlas V. The fact D-IV is already flying doesn't by itself prove it's the cheaper of the two options in the end.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #104 on: 04/29/2009 06:44 pm »
Go strait to Atlas phase II it might start looking like a good option to use the TR-107 just to get a higher thrust main engine for the 5M CCB which would also solve the Russian engine issue.

If you go clean-sheet, Atlas Phase II looks good, but a entirely new engine development program would be a time/budget killer. Take all the headaches from J-2X and multiply them by two because of the even less schedule to work with...

Now, an Atlas Phase II-sized vehicle with a J-2X upper stage (already paid for, might as well use) and either RS-25 or RS-68 first stage sounds just as, if not more, likely...

Simon ;)

The J2X is not already paid for as for engine development I believe the TR-107 did make it to a hot test of it's powerhead something the J2X has not done yet.
Though bringing the engine program back may be difficult as the engineering team has found employment else where.
I believe the spacex Merlin team is comprised of several ex TRW engineers.

It's probably best to kill the J2X and forget the project ever existed as a cluster of RL-10s or even RL-60s will be cheaper and more reliable.

Why do I say this one reason the economies of mass production.
An engine that can find use else where such as the RL-10 will be cheaper.
The J2X will never be a low cost engine as it has no other place then the CLV and EDS which are not high enough production to make it's cost reasonable.

It's far to large for the existing EELVs and their mission.

I will agree Atlas is a better choice of a CLV because it can evolve into a Saturn Class LV and maybe even a semi RLV if the money was there.
Neither of the two suggestions are my ideas they're LM's so have a problem with them go take it up with LM.

 But I'm going to disagree with Jim on keeping the Russian engine long term.
It has to go on grounds of security but it's not a short term problem by any means.
 Just keep enough in storage for 18 months of operation in case political relations with Russia go bad or they decide to jack up the price.
Betting the manned space program on international politics is just foolish at best and down right suicidal at worst.

As for what to replace it with it's nothing that a study paid for with a very small fraction of the Ares I budget can't solve.

The easiest replacement would be US production of the RD-180 it is a good engine but long term costs there might be better options.

If I was an executive at ULA I would be very interested in being able to under cut Arianespace and the Russians.

No matter what switching to an EELV Delta or Atlas for the CLV is going to save billions over Ares I even if you play with the designs a little.

I think they should restart NGLT/SLI with whats left over from funding a crewed EELV and COTS-D
 If you get someone with some money sense running the project there will be a lot of money left over.

« Last Edit: 04/29/2009 06:54 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #105 on: 04/29/2009 10:16 pm »
Simon, I'll put my prima facie credibility on this board up against yours any time.

Your post did nothing to prove which was cheaper and which was favored.  I could prove one and infer the other, but I'd have to use data that doesn't belong to me (public data isn't accurate enough in this case).  You don't have access to that data and couldn't post it either for the same reason.  Ergo, you can't prove either of the things I asked you to.  You should not post about things you can't prove.  QED.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #106 on: 04/29/2009 10:33 pm »
Simon, I'll put my prima facie credibility on this board up against yours any time.

Your post did nothing to prove which was cheaper and which was favored.  I could prove one and infer the other, but I'd have to use data that doesn't belong to me (public data isn't accurate enough in this case).  You don't have access to that data and couldn't post it either for the same reason.  Ergo, you can't prove either of the things I asked you to.  You should not post about things you can't prove.  QED.

I think a fast tracked study needs to be done before an EELV can be chosen this is not the type of decision that can be made without one.

Many factors such as lead time,cost,pad operations and commonality with the HLV need to be considered.
The first CLV will likely be a short lifespan program quickly replaced by a derivative of the HLV or other vehicle as requirements evolve.
It won't be like Soyuz essentially unchanged for forty years.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2009 10:34 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #107 on: 04/29/2009 10:46 pm »
Simon, I'll put my prima facie credibility on this board up against yours any time.

Your post did nothing to prove which was cheaper and which was favored.  I could prove one and infer the other, but I'd have to use data that doesn't belong to me (public data isn't accurate enough in this case).  You don't have access to that data and couldn't post it either for the same reason.  Ergo, you can't prove either of the things I asked you to.  You should not post about things you can't prove.  QED.

I think a fast tracked study needs to be done before an EELV can be chosen this is not the type of decision that can be made without one.

Many factors such as lead time,cost,pad operations and commonality with the HLV need to be considered.
The first CLV will likely be a short lifespan program quickly replaced by a derivative of the HLV or other vehicle as requirements evolve.
It won't be like Soyuz essentially unchanged for forty years.


Again, why not both? Delta IVH is flying now, use it! Develop the Atlas as a follow on/backup. Even with both in development and a shuttle extension it is cheaper than Ares I.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #108 on: 04/30/2009 01:16 am »
Atlas V is (sorry you'll have to take my word for it, corroborated by other folks in the know on here) cheaper and has greater margins of safety.  The launch vehicle is not the critical path here.  AVH can finish development ahead of the time a crew-capable spacecraft is ready.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #109 on: 04/30/2009 01:22 am »
Atlas V is (sorry you'll have to take my word for it, corroborated by other folks in the know on here) cheaper and has greater margins of safety.  The launch vehicle is not the critical path here.  AVH can finish development ahead of the time a crew-capable spacecraft is ready.

How about the structural margins of the Centaur?  Are they OK as is?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #110 on: 04/30/2009 01:35 am »
Mods are part of the heavy design, IIRC.  They had some alternate solutions as well during OSP that could yield mass savings but are less mature.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #111 on: 04/30/2009 01:40 am »
Atlas V is (sorry you'll have to take my word for it, corroborated by other folks in the know on here) cheaper and has greater margins of safety.  The launch vehicle is not the critical path here.  AVH can finish development ahead of the time a crew-capable spacecraft is ready.

I'm with Norm on this one. As you can have both to fly Orion cheaper than Ares-I, it gives you a redundancy if things don't work out.

Here's another case: Stand-down. If we're at a point with lunar capability and you have a pad fire, or a vehicle issue, then you can get the other up in perhaps a shorter period of time.

I'm not saying it would be chosen, or if there even is a lunar program in the near future, but to me it makes sense to have that capability if the EELV path is chosen.

Who knows, you might need to juggle an ISS/lunar schedule down the road.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #112 on: 04/30/2009 05:42 am »
I've had in my head but failed to enumerate here that the goal should be both.  Yet, from what I've seen, my opinion is that Atlas is superior in cost, capacity and safety margins.  It should be the first, and if a choice has to be made the only.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 05:43 am by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #113 on: 04/30/2009 10:17 am »
Redundant manned access to LEO is also beneficial for the development of commercial manned spaceflight. COTS-D is one way to help achieve that, man-rating both Delta IV and Atlas V and using them to launch Orion is another. Both would also help reduce the gap.

Cancelling Ares I now and man-rating the EELVs seems like the most reliable way to close the gap. J-130 and COTS-D are longer term solutions, with J-130 having a greater probability of success and COTS-D being cheaper and having lower financial risk to taxpayers.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #114 on: 04/30/2009 11:24 am »
If NASA goes down the EELV route, would it make sense to pay for the mods for both Atlas and Delta? This is a higher upfront cost, but gives choice, resilience and competition downstream.

The cost of modifying both is insignificant to the cost of completing Ares I,

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #115 on: 04/30/2009 01:26 pm »
If NASA goes down the EELV route, would it make sense to pay for the mods for both Atlas and Delta? This is a higher upfront cost, but gives choice, resilience and competition downstream.

The cost of modifying both is insignificant to the cost of completing Ares I,

I don't think so.  As discussed in Chris's article, it would take more than a billion dollars per vehicle, at least, or multiple billions per vehicle according to NASA.  (The truth will probably end up being bigger than the $1 billion value.)  NASA has its hands full trying to get one crew launch vehicle running.  Don't give it two to struggle with.  Pick one, whichever is safest or whichever is the best buy, and go with it.

But once the EELV is chosen, be ready to accept the fact that no astronauts are going to the moon.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 01:30 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #116 on: 04/30/2009 01:40 pm »
Mods are part of the heavy design, IIRC.  They had some alternate solutions as well during OSP that could yield mass savings but are less mature.

Are the mods you are talking about to beef of the structure of the Centaur?  Can anyone out there provide any info on the status of Centaur structure to carry Orion to LEO?

Danny
Danny Deger

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #117 on: 04/30/2009 01:47 pm »
But once the EELV is chosen, be ready to accept the fact that no astronauts are going to the moon.

Ah, not necessarily.  However, you and I have agreed to disagree on that matter.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #118 on: 04/30/2009 01:55 pm »

I don't think so.  As discussed in Chris's article, it would take more than a billion dollars per vehicle, at least, or multiple billions per vehicle according to NASA.  (The truth will probably end up being bigger than the $1 billion value.) 

The truth is that it will be less than a billion for both (excluding new launch pads or pad mods)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #119 on: 04/30/2009 01:56 pm »
Can anyone out there provide any info on the status of Centaur structure to carry Orion to LEO?

Danny

There is no status since Atlas is not under contract for Orion

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #120 on: 04/30/2009 01:57 pm »
But once the EELV is chosen, be ready to accept the fact that no astronauts are going to the moon.


They weren't with Ares I neither. 

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #121 on: 04/30/2009 02:05 pm »
Can anyone out there provide any info on the status of Centaur structure to carry Orion to LEO?

Danny

There is no status since Atlas is not under contract for Orion

How about this?  Is the current Centaur strong enough to do the job with a reasonable safety factor?

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #122 on: 04/30/2009 02:11 pm »
Can anyone out there provide any info on the status of Centaur structure to carry Orion to LEO?

Danny

There is no status since Atlas is not under contract for Orion

How about this?  Is the current Centaur strong enough to do the job with a reasonable safety factor?

Danny Deger

ELV use 1.25fs

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #123 on: 04/30/2009 02:14 pm »

I don't think so.  As discussed in Chris's article, it would take more than a billion dollars per vehicle, at least, or multiple billions per vehicle according to NASA.  (The truth will probably end up being bigger than the $1 billion value.) 

The truth is that it will be less than a billion for both (excluding new launch pads or pad mods)

In terms of just contract value, I think that would be correct.   But there will be a variety of NASA overheads on top of that.   There always are.

I have seen a breakdown which said the "full wrap" cost would be about $2.2 billion to get to FOC on the Delta-IV Heavy, operated out of current facilities at LC-37B and not using a new Upper Stage.   I'm now trying to get hold of a copy of that report for Chris.

If it needs another Pad, I've seen figures from $1 billion to $3 billion depending on where it were to be located, and those options were LC-37A, LC-40 (before Space-X took it) and LC-39 using a customized MLP.   What surprised me most is that this summary indicated that LC-39 would actually be the cheaper option of those three.

The conclusion was that we're only talking about two flights per year to ISS anyway, so we should integrate it into the existing facilities at LC-37B.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 02:15 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #124 on: 04/30/2009 02:14 pm »
The truth is that it will be less than a billion for both (excluding new launch pads or pad mods)

That might be true if ULA was left to do it on its own... I doubt it will happen that way though. Sadly.

NOTE: I see that Ross posted at almost the same time, giving a much more complete comment.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 02:19 pm by madscientist197 »
John

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #125 on: 04/30/2009 02:26 pm »
If it needs another Pad, I've seen figures from $1 billion to $3 billion depending on where it were to be located, and those options were LC-37A, LC-40 (before Space-X took it) and LC-39 using a customized MLP.   What surprised me most is that this summary indicated that LC-39 would actually be the cheaper option of those three.

The conclusion was that we're only talking about two flights per year to ISS anyway, so we should integrate it into the existing facilities at LC-37B.

Ross.

That report was done by the shuttle group at KSC and was quickly discredited.   SLC-37B was the cheapest from other studies

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #126 on: 04/30/2009 02:27 pm »
ELV use 1.25fs

How difficult is it to make the Centaur stronger? I've heard the phrase "battleship version", though I think that refers to something that's used only for ground testing and is much, much stronger than the normal version. Is it just a matter of tweaking the production process or is it much more involved?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #127 on: 04/30/2009 02:51 pm »
Can anyone out there provide any info on the status of Centaur structure to carry Orion to LEO? 

Danny

There is no status since Atlas is not under contract for Orion

How about this?  Is the current Centaur strong enough to do the job with a reasonable safety factor? 

Danny Deger

ELV use 1.25fs

IIRC the Centaur isn't fully designed to carry a 25kT payload to LEO and its safety factor was less than 1.25 if it carried Orion.  Is this correct?  Keep in mind that with Orion, the Centaur will not be under a fairing and will have to withstands air loads in addition to the load of a 25kT payload.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 02:56 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #128 on: 04/30/2009 06:57 pm »
If NASA goes down the EELV route, would it make sense to pay for the mods for both Atlas and Delta? This is a higher upfront cost, but gives choice, resilience and competition downstream.

The cost of modifying both is insignificant to the cost of completing Ares I,

I don't think so.  As discussed in Chris's article, it would take more than a billion dollars per vehicle, at least, or multiple billions per vehicle according to NASA.  (The truth will probably end up being bigger than the $1 billion value.)  NASA has its hands full trying to get one crew launch vehicle running.  Don't give it two to struggle with.  Pick one, whichever is safest or whichever is the best buy, and go with it.

Ares I is currently budgeted at $11 billion to IOC, of which a bit less than $3 billion has been spent.  Once operational, it's budgeted at $1.3 billion a year for two flights.

If EELV costs $2 billion to human rate, that still saves $7 billion to IOC, which would then be available to cover Orion budget overruns, possibly accelerate Orion,  and start work on Ares V and Altair.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #129 on: 04/30/2009 08:18 pm »
The product card for Atlas says, "Max structural capability w/o Analysis or LV Mods is 19,050 kg (42,000 lb)."  However, "Analysis" and designs were done during OSP to increase this.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #130 on: 04/30/2009 08:45 pm »
Would Delta's upper stage be more up to the task?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #131 on: 04/30/2009 08:47 pm »
I don't believe in Frankenrockets for a project like this, so I don't have an answer.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #132 on: 04/30/2009 08:58 pm »
For a long time now, ULA has been looking at building a new common Advanced Upper Stage to use on both Delta and Atlas.   I don't think the effort is very far down the path yet, but it would seem like a very logical option for a crew configuration to consider.

In the short term I would say there is valid rationale to saying that the DHCUS and Centaur-V1 are both flight-certified and both have safe proven flight histories under their belts, so while we wait for the new advanced upper stage, we could make the deliberate choice to use the current stages *unchanged* (except a health monitoring system for the engines) under a completel routine waiver -- at least for the first six missions or so -- which should be sufficient to cover all flights from thru ~2016.

NASA's human rating specifications explicitly allow for precisely this sort of use of the waiver system for exactly this sort of flight hardware which has already been proven to work elsewhere.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2009 09:01 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #133 on: 04/30/2009 09:06 pm »
Which CLV is most likely to actually fly a crew? Ares I? D-IVH? Atlas V-H? Jupiter 120? Saturn IB? Rocketship X-M?

(Note that this is not a choice which CLV option you prefer, just the one most likely to actually become operational)

Simon ;)

I would give about the follow percentages:

Ares I   - 50%
J – 120 - 40%
EELV    - 10%


Ares I is the current vehicle and NASA will probably have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any other design. However there are two factors that could kill it.

1. Technical – Some problem such as a catastrophic failure of Ares I-X forces a new vehicle to be used
2. Political   - The Obama administration kills Ares I in favor of a different vehicle so that the return to the moon becomes Obama’s instead of Bush’s.

Thus I give it about a 50% chance of survival

--------------------

If a change is made a Direct type approach is the most likely alternative. If Ares I is killed for technical reasons a Direct vehicle would be the most face saving alternative for NASA since it can be promoted as being simply an upgrade. . If Ares I is killed for political reasons a Direct type approach would be the most politically viable alternative. It would also have the advantage of killing the Ares V as well making a clean break with “Bush’s” rockets.

----------------------

While EELV are possible they would most likely only be used if Ares I is killed but Ares V is not. This would have the problem of shutting down the Pad 39 complex longer while the Ares V is developed.   


Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #134 on: 04/30/2009 09:18 pm »
Would Delta's upper stage be more up to the task?

IIRC the Delta upper stage had a beefier structure and could carry more weight.

OSP was canceled about the time we got the contract straightened so engineers at JSC could talk to the EELV engineers.  We never did get this issue resolved completely.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #135 on: 04/30/2009 09:22 pm »
For a long time now, ULA has been looking at building a new common Advanced Upper Stage to use on both Delta and Atlas.   I don't think the effort is very far down the path yet, but it would seem like a very logical option for a crew configuration to consider.

In the short term I would say there is valid rationale to saying that the DHCUS and Centaur-V1 are both flight-certified and both have safe proven flight histories under their belts, so while we wait for the new advanced upper stage, we could make the deliberate choice to use the current stages *unchanged* (except a health monitoring system for the engines) under a completel routine waiver -- at least for the first six missions or so -- which should be sufficient to cover all flights from thru ~2016.

NASA's human rating specifications explicitly allow for precisely this sort of use of the waiver system for exactly this sort of flight hardware which has already been proven to work elsewhere.

Ross.

This would be great except I don't think the Centaur can take the weight of an Orion. It would need significant structural mods.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #136 on: 04/30/2009 09:36 pm »
Ares I is currently budgeted at $11 billion to IOC, of which a bit less than $3 billion has been spent.  Once operational, it's budgeted at $1.3 billion a year for two flights.

If EELV costs $2 billion to human rate, that still saves $7 billion to IOC, which would then be available to cover Orion budget overruns, possibly accelerate Orion,  and start work on Ares V and Altair.

Remember that the Ares I development cost includes J-2X, which is essential for EDS (cost of which includes the new vacuum test stand at Stennis, etc.).   It also includes avionics that would likely be reapplied for Ares V, as well as funding for five segment booster, which supports the infrastructure needed for the Ares V boosters, etc.  If NASA is going to the Moon, it is going to need these items, or else it will need to develop hardware that does the same job at great expense.  If it uses EELV for Orion, then where will J-2X, or equivalent, etc., come from?

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #137 on: 04/30/2009 09:39 pm »

The conclusion was that we're only talking about two flights per year to ISS anyway, so we should integrate it into the existing facilities at LC-37B.

Ross.

I've long thought that NASA should "get" one EELV, and the Pentagon the other.  I suspect that DoD would find a way to "give up" SLC 37 to NASA if it got Atlas V Heavy in return.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #138 on: 04/30/2009 09:48 pm »
I don't believe in Frankenrockets for a project like this, so I don't have an answer.

That's not what I meant. I was suggesting that the Centaur issue would be another point in favour of DIVH as CLV.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #139 on: 04/30/2009 09:50 pm »
If it uses EELV for Orion, then where will J-2X, or equivalent, etc., come from?

DHCSS + lunar mission kit could serve that purpose. It would require L1 rendez-vous however.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #140 on: 04/30/2009 10:14 pm »

The conclusion was that we're only talking about two flights per year to ISS anyway, so we should integrate it into the existing facilities at LC-37B.

Ross.

I've long thought that NASA should "get" one EELV, and the Pentagon the other.  I suspect that DoD would find a way to "give up" SLC 37 to NASA if it got Atlas V Heavy in return.

 - Ed Kyle

No, because the DIV Heavy on the west coast is the DOD's

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #141 on: 04/30/2009 11:31 pm »
Ares I is currently budgeted at $11 billion to IOC, of which a bit less than $3 billion has been spent.  Once operational, it's budgeted at $1.3 billion a year for two flights.

If EELV costs $2 billion to human rate, that still saves $7 billion to IOC, which would then be available to cover Orion budget overruns, possibly accelerate Orion,  and start work on Ares V and Altair.

Remember that the Ares I development cost includes J-2X, which is essential for EDS (cost of which includes the new vacuum test stand at Stennis, etc.).   It also includes avionics that would likely be reapplied for Ares V, as well as funding for five segment booster, which supports the infrastructure needed for the Ares V boosters, etc.  If NASA is going to the Moon, it is going to need these items, or else it will need to develop hardware that does the same job at great expense.  If it uses EELV for Orion, then where will J-2X, or equivalent, etc., come from?

Using EELV for Orion to LEO lets J-2X and 5-segment SRB development proceed in parallel with the development of the EDS, Ares V, and Altair.   Using Ares I means that development has to proceed in series.

The lunar architecture is still in flux - there is a good chance that it won't be able to do the job.  A 1.5-launch architecture may require 5.5-segment or filament-wound SRBs, while a 2x Ares V architecture may allow the use of off-the-shelf 4-segment SRBs.  Letting the architecture mature before launching into huge development efforts makes sense.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #142 on: 05/01/2009 02:20 am »

Using EELV for Orion to LEO lets J-2X and 5-segment SRB development proceed in parallel with the development of the EDS, Ares V, and Altair.   Using Ares I means that development has to proceed in series.


I don't see it myself.  If NASA can't afford to develop Ares I/Orion, I don't see how it can afford to develop EELV/Orion, J-2X, 5.5 segment SRB, EDS, Ares V, and Altair all at the same time.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #143 on: 05/01/2009 02:21 am »

The conclusion was that we're only talking about two flights per year to ISS anyway, so we should integrate it into the existing facilities at LC-37B.

Ross.

I've long thought that NASA should "get" one EELV, and the Pentagon the other.  I suspect that DoD would find a way to "give up" SLC 37 to NASA if it got Atlas V Heavy in return.

 - Ed Kyle

No, because the DIV Heavy on the west coast is the DOD's

Atlas V Heavy would do better from Vandenberg, especially if this RS-68A business doesn't work itself out.  Yeah, I know, launch facility costs for the Atlas Heavy, but what the heck.  Look at it from a national point of view.  DoD only has to fund one EELV program in the long run.  The U.S. Government only has to fund one biggie for DoD and one for NASA, rather than three.  SpaceX can have SLC-6 if it dares.   ;D

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/01/2009 02:25 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #144 on: 05/01/2009 09:37 am »
I don't see it myself.  If NASA can't afford to develop Ares I/Orion, I don't see how it can afford to develop EELV/Orion, J-2X, 5.5 segment SRB, EDS, Ares V, and Altair all at the same time.

The objective (or so I understand it) is to build a cheaper LEO-only CLV so that more money can be put into building the HLLV (and that doesn't automatically mean Ares-V). 

It is much more likely that the budget will be going into EELV/Orion (automatically a ~70% saving over Ares-I, plus a schedule compressed by three years or so), HLLV (likely considerably downsized from Ares-V and using 2-launch for manned lunar missions) and Altair.  It is possible to get acceptable performance out of using SS-RSRM for HLLV.  However, as 5-seg is a cheap and easy upgrade path (and was for the shuttle too), I imagine that its development will continue, if slightly de-prioritised.

Given recent thoughts emerging from CxP, money would probably need to be found for a long-duratation hab module for use in NEO missions - that would likely be Altair-derived.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline jeff.findley

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #145 on: 05/01/2009 02:27 pm »
Remember that the Ares I development cost includes J-2X, which is essential for EDS (cost of which includes the new vacuum test stand at Stennis, etc.).   It also includes avionics that would likely be reapplied for Ares V, as well as funding for five segment booster, which supports the infrastructure needed for the Ares V boosters, etc.  If NASA is going to the Moon, it is going to need these items, or else it will need to develop hardware that does the same job at great expense.  If it uses EELV for Orion, then where will J-2X, or equivalent, etc., come from?

The J-2X is less of a need and more of a want.  You can cluster RL-10's and get the thrust and ISP you need for an EDS like upper stage.  Yes introducing more engines may introduce more failure modes, but the RL-10 is a very mature design, so that's going to offset some of the risk.

Also, Ares V is not necessary to go back to the moon.  The whole 1.5 launch lunar architecture is silly.  A 2 launch architecture would be a bit more sane.  Such a vehicle could be based on existing SRB's, SSME's, and RL-10's.  No engine development means that such a vehicle would have lower development costs and could be launched much sooner than Ares V. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #146 on: 05/01/2009 10:19 pm »

The J-2X is less of a need and more of a want.  You can cluster RL-10's and get the thrust and ISP you need for an EDS like upper stage.  Yes introducing more engines may introduce more failure modes, but the RL-10 is a very mature design, so that's going to offset some of the risk.

It takes a dozen RL10s to produce the thrust of one J-2X.  No U.S. launch vehicle has ever fired a 12 liquid engine cluster at this thrust level.  Heck, it would be a challenge to *fit* 12 RL10 engines inside a 10 meter diameter interstage (while providing room for nozzle extension and thrust vectoring, etc.).

 - Ed Kyle

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #147 on: 05/01/2009 10:21 pm »
It takes a dozen RL10s to produce the thrust of one J-2X.  No U.S. launch vehicle has ever fired a 12 liquid engine cluster at this thrust level.  Heck, it would be a challenge to *fit* 12 RL10 engines inside a 10 meter diameter interstage (while providing room for nozzle extension and thrust vectoring, etc.).

Why do you insist on having the thrust of a J-2X?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #148 on: 05/02/2009 12:13 am »
It takes a dozen RL10s to produce the thrust of one J-2X.  No U.S. launch vehicle has ever fired a 12 liquid engine cluster at this thrust level.  Heck, it would be a challenge to *fit* 12 RL10 engines inside a 10 meter diameter interstage (while providing room for nozzle extension and thrust vectoring, etc.).

Why do you insist on having the thrust of a J-2X?

That's what it takes to boost the Ares V EDS into orbit.  The stage will weigh something like 280 tonnes at ignition - more than an entire Delta IV Medium!  RL10 only produces something like 10-11 tonnes of thrust.  Imagine an EELV needing to be powered not long after liftoff by an RL10 cluster!   

If not Ares V and EDS, then some other big stage will be needed for the lunar mission, even for a dual-launch architecture, and it will still need a lot of thrust to make it into LEO.  If not 12 RL10s, then maybe 11 - and 22 or 24 total for a single dual launch mission (about as many RL10s as have flown in this entire *decade*).  If a TLI-only stage is used, which would mean less thrust for the TLI burn, another ascent stage would still be needed, again with lots of thrust but requiring the launch vehicle to carry even more expensive engines on even more stages, etc.. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 12:19 am by edkyle99 »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #149 on: 05/02/2009 12:47 am »
Why do you insist on having the thrust of a J-2X?

That's what it takes to boost the Ares V EDS into orbit.

Why do we need to boost Ares V EDS into orbit? Is the mission to boost Ares V EDSs into orbit?

I though the mission is to get to the Moon in an economically efficient way. A lot of people are not convinced Ares V is such a way.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #150 on: 05/02/2009 01:12 am »
We're getting off topic. The subject is Crew Launch Vehicle, not EDS requirements nor the mass of an Ares-V EDS.
It's far too easy to hijack the the thread unintentionally, so let's not.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #151 on: 05/02/2009 04:14 am »
If NASA can't afford to develop Ares I/Orion, I don't see how it can afford to develop EELV/Orion, J-2X, 5.5 segment SRB, EDS, Ares V, and Altair all at the same time.

Because the development cost for EELV to launch Orion is chump change compared to completing Ares 1.  I know you don't believe that, Ed.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #152 on: 05/02/2009 05:18 am »
I'm actually with Ed on that particular point.

The budget projections all indicate that the agency can not realistically be able to afford to build, and then operate, Ares-V as it is currently proposed.   That's with or without a CLV of any flavor.


A scaled-down Ares-V, flown as a 2-launch solution is the only viable (budget-wise) way to keep going down the SDLV route if that's what the politicians still want in order to save the workforce.   While I think that is still the case, they have failed to step up to the plate WRT extending Shuttle, so perhaps those winds are indeed shifting.

A scaled-down Ares-V becomes more affordable alongside an EELV CLV in the short term.   The closer you re-scale the Ares-V down towards the existing Shuttle spec, the more affordable it will be to both develop, and later, to operate as well.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 05:21 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #153 on: 05/02/2009 12:34 pm »
Potentially daft idea off the top of my head:
Take a Delta IVH a replace the core's RS68 with an SSME. Don't bother with an upper stage. For thrust/weight reasons you'd probably need RS68As but the idea is that after booster sep the core functions as the upper stage itself, since it would still have two thirds or more of its propellant load and a high-isp engine.

I'm sure it's unrealistic but I'd be curious if such a configuration had ever been studied.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #154 on: 05/02/2009 03:36 pm »
My knee-jerk is that you would have to offload propellant since liftoff thrust would be about 1.8Mlb as opposed to 1.99Mlb.  Aside from that, I like the concept.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #155 on: 05/02/2009 03:52 pm »
Potentially daft idea off the top of my head:
Take a Delta IVH a replace the core's RS68 with an SSME. Don't bother with an upper stage. For thrust/weight reasons you'd probably need RS68As but the idea is that after booster sep the core functions as the upper stage itself, since it would still have two thirds or more of its propellant load and a high-isp engine.

I'm sure it's unrealistic but I'd be curious if such a configuration had ever been studied.

Your idea would be easier to quantify if you listed the power setting and associated rate of propellant consumption for that setting together with the amount of propellant you are suggesting is available for each of the boosters and the SSME-core. Nominal setting is fine for this exercise; it's understood that it will be cut back thru max-q and then re-established afterward. For now we will just ignore things like engine cost deltas, requalifying the core for the SSME, etc  and just look at the concept alone.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2009 03:53 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #156 on: 05/02/2009 05:47 pm »
I don't really feel qualified to analyse the concept like that, and I certinaly wouldn't be able to optimise the settings. However I'll have a go using CEPE if that's appropriate?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #157 on: 05/02/2009 06:18 pm »
I don't really feel qualified to analyse the concept like that, and I certinaly wouldn't be able to optimise the settings. However I'll have a go using CEPE if that's appropriate?

Go for it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #158 on: 05/02/2009 08:26 pm »
OK... I've not used CEPE before... but, umm, it seems work. i.e. it reaches LEO, and I've included a 7t LAS.
Using a home-made spreadsheet I achieve a delta-v at burnout of 9645m/s.

GLOW is about 725t, and if RS68As and a 109% SSME are used, thrust at launch is 826t, i.e. a ratio of 1.14 which is pretty low indeed, but maybe usable.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #159 on: 05/03/2009 01:31 pm »
Potentially daft idea off the top of my head:
Take a Delta IVH a replace the core's RS68 with an SSME. Don't bother with an upper stage. For thrust/weight reasons you'd probably need RS68As but the idea is that after booster sep the core functions as the upper stage itself, since it would still have two thirds or more of its propellant load and a high-isp engine.

I'm sure it's unrealistic but I'd be curious if such a configuration had ever been studied.

Actually, I was there last week: trying to imagine swapping out engines between vehicles to gain an advantage. I'm only just now getting into the TLI & thrust ramifications on things (never did well at math & science, but starting to make an effort for all the numbers being thrown around now).

I'm not sure how ULA would approach such a concept (which is why I didn't post such a concept) but I guess at this point all options are on the table.

I like (glad) to see the 109% SSME power setting, for I feel this only makes sense for this engine going in the drink. We 'may' be able to do better than that as well.

Now I don't know the good & bad of these things, but if the main core was SSME & the outer engines remained RS-68/RS-68A, does that gain an advantage? If they burn more fuel at lift-off, you don't have to worry so much (or maybe you do) about cross-feeding the propellant lines between the tanks. The SSMEs can be throttled at any time to conserve fuel of the center core to make of of the propellant later.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #160 on: 05/03/2009 03:57 pm »
I assumed RS68A in each booster, probably with slight propellant offload; the core uses a 109% SSME. No cross-feed. Throttle down the SSME as much as possible after launch, and probably cut back the booster engines too approaching sep. The idea is that you treat the core as a ground-launched upper stage.
From my limited ability to run the numbers on such a concept, it does actually appear to work quite well!
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #161 on: 05/03/2009 04:01 pm »
Now I don't know the good & bad of these things, but if the main core was SSME & the outer engines remained RS-68/RS-68A, does that gain an advantage?

I've read that this is very difficult due to vibration issues: each engine can deal with its own vibrations, but with different kinds of engines you can get resonances that will destroy your engines. Its apparently very difficult to fix this.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #162 on: 05/03/2009 04:27 pm »
How is this different to STS, Ariane-V, GSLV, Energia, or any other parallel-staged design?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #163 on: 05/03/2009 04:32 pm »
Now I don't know the good & bad of these things, but if the main core was SSME & the outer engines remained RS-68/RS-68A, does that gain an advantage?

I've read that this is very difficult due to vibration issues: each engine can deal with its own vibrations, but with different kinds of engines you can get resonances that will destroy your engines. Its apparently very difficult to fix this.

I understood that as well from other posts, but are you interpreting my statement a different way as to Kaptunik's? Or maybe I didn't state it clearly enough.

The central core has all SSME, the boosters have RS-68/RS-68A. Yes there would be vibrations transmitted through the attach-points of the boosters, but the propellant tanks 'might' dissipate some of that energy and keep those separate unto themselves.

At all stages of flight, as Kaputnik states, the engines can throttle as required to provide the optimal flight characteristics for given payloads. This might help the vibrations too, since they most likely varying somewhat at different thrusts.

Plus if the flight rate were high enough, both SSME and RS-68/RS-68A win from a production/cost standpoint.

Very elegant, indeed.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #164 on: 05/03/2009 04:38 pm »
Ah, you're right, I hadn't noticed that. Intriguing concept.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #165 on: 05/03/2009 04:41 pm »
Wouldn't developing propellant crossfeed from the strapons to the core stage be a greater performance benefit than replacing the middle RS-68 with a SSME?

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #166 on: 05/03/2009 05:14 pm »
The SSME allows you to delete the upper stage entirely. The RS68 is sea-level optimised so you'd have to modify the core's engine to make the core replace the upper stage in the way that the SSME allows.

I posted this assuming that either a) it had been considered before; or b) there was some glaring flaw that I'd overlooked. I'm surprised it's generated any interest!

I could see the advantages being that it's all-liquid and has all engine ground-started. It could even be quite cost effective because compared to the usual EELV options you've completely removed a stage.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #167 on: 05/03/2009 05:24 pm »
The SSME allows you to delete the upper stage entirely. The RS68 is sea-level optimised so you'd have to modify the core's engine to make the core replace the upper stage in the way that the SSME allows.

I posted this assuming that either a) it had been considered before; or b) there was some glaring flaw that I'd overlooked. I'm surprised it's generated any interest!

I could see the advantages being that it's all-liquid and has all engine ground-started. It could even be quite cost effective because compared to the usual EELV options you've completely removed a stage.

Oh, and don't forget that political issue of the RD-180: this one has American engines!

This is what I call 'thinking outside the box': use what you have, but put a twist on it.

I was going to look for the response (I think Jim) put out on the crossfeed issue, but got side-tracked...will try that search now.

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #168 on: 05/04/2009 09:04 pm »
Assuming I did my CEPE math right, if you take the existing Delta IV Heavy (current RS-68s), replace the core stage's RS-68 with a current SSME, and delete the upper stage, you could inject a 20.5mT crew vehicle with a 7mT LAS into a 51.6deg/407km/407km orbit.

Of course, it's always easier in CEPE that it is in the real world.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2009 09:09 pm by BogoMIPS »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #169 on: 05/04/2009 09:25 pm »
Yeah, I thought it worked too! Sweet.
I wonder what's cheaper- a SSME or an RS68+DHCSS?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #170 on: 05/04/2009 10:28 pm »
Yeah, I thought it worked too! Sweet.
I wonder what's cheaper- a SSME or an RS68+DHCSS?

It comes down to flight rate to drive quantity buys of engines.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #171 on: 05/04/2009 11:42 pm »
One could always just lenthan the core and call it, oh I don't know, Long Tank Delta IV...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Most Likely CLV
« Reply #172 on: 05/05/2009 12:00 am »
Assuming I did my CEPE math right, if you take the existing Delta IV Heavy (current RS-68s), replace the core stage's RS-68 with a current SSME, and delete the upper stage, you could inject a 20.5mT crew vehicle with a 7mT LAS into a 51.6deg/407km/407km orbit.

Of course, it's always easier in CEPE that it is in the real world.

You gotta like that  :)

Now if we can solve the avionics issue, we're laughing!  ;)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1