Author Topic: SSP aiming to find the balance between Shuttle legacy and HLV advancement  (Read 22206 times)

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:06 pm by infocat13 »
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
If the 2nd from the right was pushed as Ares V I think there would have been less issues, altho still some due to the SRB's.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline DavisSTS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • England, American Ex Pat
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 63
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
If the 2nd from the right was pushed as Ares V I think there would have been less issues, altho still some due to the SRB's.

well........second from the right is also a happy bipartisan rocket as it retains the SRB's from Utah ;D and uses EELV CBC's which presumably may be our commercial crew to LEO launch vehicle. but the new HLV budget line item calls for a new engine and is funded at $1 billion per year
perhaps Constellation is dead but some components might live on with a little nudge from congress
Downix what would have been the issues with the SRB's ?
Jim tells me you can'nt mount shuttle SRB's on a Delta-IV core but this is a ET core.
thanks
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:35 pm by infocat13 »
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
If the 2nd from the right was pushed as Ares V I think there would have been less issues, altho still some due to the SRB's.

well........second from the right is also a happy bipartisan rocket as it retains the SRB's from Utah ;D and uses EELV CBC's which presumably may be our commercial crew to LEO launch vehicle. but the new HLV budget line item calls for a new engine and is funded at $1 billion per year
perhaps Constellation is dead but some components might live on with a little nudge from congress
Downix what would have been the issues with the SRB's ?
Jim tells me you cant mount shuttle SRB's on a Delta-IV core but this is a ET core.
thanks
Same issues Ares V has, the SRB outputting massive amounts of heat, and due to the RS-68's Ablative cooling system, they would fail before the lift stage was complete.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

[/quote]
Same issues Ares V has, the SRB outputting massive amounts of heat, and due to the RS-68's Ablative cooling system, they would fail before the lift stage was complete.
[/quote]

ahhhh ok I remember now, thanks, so the first rocket on the right would have meant a massive buy of Delta CBC's and RS-68's along with the Orion on Delta-IV prices for lead items would drop.But this is now what could have been........................right? ::)
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Online Chris Bergin

Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Chris, do you know if Mr. Snyder is with NASA or a contractor?  Just a guess, but that might make a very slight difference.  I can't recall any NASA Shuttle people doing that, and reporters have attempted to draw them out on multiple occasions in the last few years.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:56 pm by psloss »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.

Political flunkies appointees have to toe the company line.  Professional managers do not and should not.

That's what gets NASA in trouble every time.  Wearing their "manager hats" instead of their "engineer hats".

Mark S.

Online Chris Bergin

Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Chris, do you know if Mr. Snyder is with NASA or a contractor?  Just a guess, but that might make a very slight difference.  I can't recall any NASA Shuttle people doing that, and reporters have attempted to draw them out on multiple occasions in the last few years.


Ah good point. I understand he's United Space Alliance.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline tminus9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 03:03 pm by tminus9 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.

Political flunkies appointees have to toe the company line.  Professional managers do not and should not.
I'm not sure that Mr. Shannon or Mr. Moses promotion from MOD are highly political.

Offline dbhyslop

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4

Political flunkies appointees have to toe the company line.  Professional managers do not and should not.


Not true.  The political appointees make the policies and the civil servants are there to execute them.  This is why the names of government attorneys are redacted out of the OPR report on the interrogation memos.

Online Chris Bergin

Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.
Since the 5-seg booster would be ready by 2012, could even do two 5-seg SRB shuttle launches and make ATK quite happy by getting in two "test" launches while the shuttle fans will then have a bigger payload on the orbiter.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Since the 5-seg booster would be ready by 2012, could even do two 5-seg SRB shuttle launches and make ATK quite happy by getting in two "test" launches while the shuttle fans will then have a bigger payload on the orbiter.
They'd have to qualify/certify those to fly on Shuttle and I don't think any work has been done in that regard in a long time.  (IIRC that was a different 5-seg booster than this one and not sure "integration" got beyond study phase.)

The certification work would likely require additional money, too.

Edit2:
Was discussed here a couple of years ago:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11356.msg229847#msg229847
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11356.msg229852#msg229852
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:53 pm by psloss »

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 821
  • Likes Given: 22
It's interesting that the previous battle was extension vs Constellation funding. Losing both was not something that should be accepted.

Offline Longhorn John

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 130
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.

Maybe the powers that be just want the shuttle to end? :(

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 457
I think the Shuttle should be extended to 2012 this would give overlap with the commercial providers.

I also believe an HLV should be one of the high risk things that NASA can be developing in house as HLVs with a payload over over 35 to 40T lack a commercial market at this time.

As for where to get the money there is several billion unspent in DHS mostly from the stalled and pretty much dead real ID program half the states bailed on it so it's dead as well as money that can be diverted from the DEA.
I won't go into all the details as it could be politically charged but it's something around 3 Billion to 6 USD a year more then enough for a Shuttle extension and fielding an HLV
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:31 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
Maybe the powers that be just want the shuttle to end? :(

I don't think anyone's standing in their dark tower, twisting their hands and muttering "I could rule this world, if not for that damned Space Shuttle!" to their magic mirror.

Take a look at the DoD: The F-22 and DDG-1000 are superb platforms and you can easily make an argument that the more of them our military has the better off it is. But for as excellent as they were, and as many people as their programs employed, their financial burden going forward was preventing the USAF and USN from attending to other needs. The shuttles are great, but the powers that be believe we can't get out to the next level while we're paying to keep them going.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:17 pm by Halidon »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0