The Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle ("HLV") was an alternate super heavy-lift launch vehicle proposal for the NASA Constellation program. It was first presented to the Augustine Commission on 17 June 2009.Based on the Shuttle-C concept which has been the subject of various studies since the 1980s, the HLV was a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) that proposed to replace the winged Orbiter from the Space Shuttle stack with a side-mounted payload carrier. The Space Shuttle's External Tank (ET) and four-segment Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) would have remained the same.The side-mounted Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle had a wide range of exploration cargo missions along with a CEV launcher for lunar missions using the same basic launcher and infrastructure. This configuration is a straight-forward derivative of the current STS configuration, replacing the reusable Shuttle orbiter with an expendable payload carrier.
Woah thats super cool. Are there any historical LVs that actually had a fairing lower on the rocket like that?
That’s a really nice piece of rotoscoping and CGI. Well-done.Two nits: a cargo flight wouldn’t have included the LES, and the fairing would have dropped off much later in flight.Had NASA (ahem, I mean the US Senate) exercised this option rather than SLS, we’d have been flying these for the past 4-5 years.
Two nits: a cargo flight wouldn’t have included the LES, and the fairing would have dropped off much later in flight.
Quote from: dglow on 10/27/2020 01:28 pmTwo nits: a cargo flight wouldn’t have included the LES, and the fairing would have dropped off much later in flight.It doesn't look like a cargo flight. It looks like Orion and and an earth departure stage.See slide 14:https://www.slideserve.com/paul/shuttle-derived-heavy-lift-launch-vehicleThe animation seems to be based on that powerpoint given the dates match between the video description and that slide deck.
Quote from: dglow on 10/27/2020 01:28 pmThat’s a really nice piece of rotoscoping and CGI. Well-done.Two nits: a cargo flight wouldn’t have included the LES, and the fairing would have dropped off much later in flight.Had NASA (ahem, I mean the US Senate) exercised this option rather than SLS, we’d have been flying these for the past 4-5 years.The battle in Congress was led on the side for Shuttle-C by Sen. Trent Lott. The battle against was led by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, The senate still needs the house to go along. This time they didn't.
This video does not accurately represent time, in so much as the SRB separation was very early. In fact the actual jettison of the fairings occurred before the actual SRB sep. would have occurred in a time accurate simulation.This sis SO much more Shuttle derived than SLS. Tank, boosters, main engines already done. Just had to do some figuring with the RS-25D gimbal issue that occurs after SRB sep due to the "sidemount" design.Great video!
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 10/27/2020 01:37 pmQuote from: dglow on 10/27/2020 01:28 pmThat’s a really nice piece of rotoscoping and CGI. Well-done.Two nits: a cargo flight wouldn’t have included the LES, and the fairing would have dropped off much later in flight.Had NASA (ahem, I mean the US Senate) exercised this option rather than SLS, we’d have been flying these for the past 4-5 years.The battle in Congress was led on the side for Shuttle-C by Sen. Trent Lott. The battle against was led by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, The senate still needs the house to go along. This time they didn't.Let's be clear, this 2009 proposal is NOT "Shuttle-C". It is "Based on the Shuttle-C concept which has been the subject of various studies since the 1980s, the HLV was a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) that proposed to replace the winged Orbiter from the Space Shuttle stack with a side-mounted payload carrier."Some have even dubbed this 2009 Shuttle Derived HLV proposal as "Shannon's NOT Shuttle-C" vehicle.This video does not accurately represent time, in so much as the SRB separation was very early. In fact the actual jettison of the fairings occurred before the actual SRB sep. would have occurred in a time accurate simulation.This sis SO much more Shuttle derived than SLS. Tank, boosters, main engines already done. Just had to do some figuring with the RS-25D gimbal issue that occurs after SRB sep due to the "sidemount" design.Great video!
Quote from: Hog on 10/27/2020 05:44 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 10/27/2020 01:37 pmQuote from: dglow on 10/27/2020 01:28 pmThat’s a really nice piece of rotoscoping and CGI. Well-done.Two nits: a cargo flight wouldn’t have included the LES, and the fairing would have dropped off much later in flight.Had NASA (ahem, I mean the US Senate) exercised this option rather than SLS, we’d have been flying these for the past 4-5 years.The battle in Congress was led on the side for Shuttle-C by Sen. Trent Lott. The battle against was led by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, The senate still needs the house to go along. This time they didn't.Let's be clear, this 2009 proposal is NOT "Shuttle-C". It is "Based on the Shuttle-C concept which has been the subject of various studies since the 1980s, the HLV was a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) that proposed to replace the winged Orbiter from the Space Shuttle stack with a side-mounted payload carrier."Some have even dubbed this 2009 Shuttle Derived HLV proposal as "Shannon's NOT Shuttle-C" vehicle.This video does not accurately represent time, in so much as the SRB separation was very early. In fact the actual jettison of the fairings occurred before the actual SRB sep. would have occurred in a time accurate simulation.This sis SO much more Shuttle derived than SLS. Tank, boosters, main engines already done. Just had to do some figuring with the RS-25D gimbal issue that occurs after SRB sep due to the "sidemount" design.Great video!The SSME gimbal issue was in fact the problem that eventually killed any hope of this thing ever flying.
Quote from: Hog on 10/27/2020 05:44 pmThis video does not accurately represent time, in so much as the SRB separation was very early. In fact the actual jettison of the fairings occurred before the actual SRB sep. would have occurred in a time accurate simulation.This sis SO much more Shuttle derived than SLS. Tank, boosters, main engines already done. Just had to do some figuring with the RS-25D gimbal issue that occurs after SRB sep due to the "sidemount" design.Great video!Regarding the timing issue, I think you are saying the side fairings (surrounding the upper stage, or the payload if a cargo launch) would jettison before SRB sep? I wouldn't ride the crewed version if the LES jettisoned before SRB sep!Clearly the simulation is not in real time. It was about 2 minutes from launch to SRB burnout and sep, which is close to realistic, but the ~7 more minutes on the main engines was greatly abbreviated.
Quote from: Hog on 10/27/2020 05:44 pmThis video does not accurately represent time, in so much as the SRB separation was very early. In fact the actual jettison of the fairings occurred before the actual SRB sep. would have occurred in a time accurate simulation.This sis SO much more Shuttle derived than SLS. Tank, boosters, main engines already done. Just had to do some figuring with the RS-25D gimbal issue that occurs after SRB sep due to the "sidemount" design.Great video!Regarding the timing issue, I think you are saying the side fairings (surrounding the upper stage, or the payload if a cargo launch) would jettison before SRB sep? I wouldn't ride the crewed version if the LES jettisoned before SRB sep!Clearly the simulation is not in real time. It was about 2 minutes from launch to SRB burnout and sep, which is close to realistic, but the ~7 more minutes on the main engines was greatly abbreviated.The upper stage sliding along the side of the payload mount seemed a little wrong to me, but who knows. I would have thought they would use the ACS to separate sideways.Should there also have been a very short post-ET burn to put the payload in a parking orbit, while the ET and engines reenter over the Indian Ocean, like on a Shuttle launch?Would the cargo design have included payload mounting points compatible with or extremely similar to those in the Shuttle payload bay?What is the issue with RS-25D gimballing that wouldn't also apply to the original Shuttle? It also had to deal with (and successfully dealt with) the sudden change in the location of the center of mass at SRB sep. Why would this vehicle be different? Was it very close to gimbal limit of the engine mounts and the slight difference in the dynamics with this design put it over the limit? Or was there some other problem?
The SSME gimbal issue was in fact the problem that eventually killed any hope of this thing ever flying.
