Studying the issues with LV13.1 (Ares I classic)

[Prober]

Oh yeah, SEP ferries, fuel depots and L1 staging are low risk technologies - if you can talk the Area 51 alliens into paying for it and managing it and bailing it out when in dire need.

 

The Constellation architecture was fundamentally flawed so much so it cause in insurrection among the engineers.

Team direct already showed why the 1.5 architecture was bad and why two smaller HLVs can be better then one monster LV.

It's biggest flaw it was very unimaginative and expensive and inherited all the short comings of the Apollo architecture.

I literally face palmed when I saw Constellation for the first time and knew it was going to fail.

Space exploration is supposed to develop new technologies if you are afraid to trying anything new as in CxP then you are in the wrong business.

As for SEP ferries being low risk they are relatively low risk.
DS1 and Smart 1 already proved solar electric to be viable.

Telerobotic operations were proven on on ISS resupply with the ATV and missions like Orbital Express.

Boeing had them as a key part of their architecture.

I consider cryogenic fuel deports even higher risk then SEP tugs but not so high they should be avoided.

But ULA says the near zero boil off technology needed for fuel depots is doable.
They launch rockets for a living and know more on the subject then the designers of the ESAS architecture.

Couple of thoughts for you.  Aries 1 was to be the quick fix to maintain the space program and the ISS.

Other parts of the program were to save the space program so many of the compaines that might go out of business would have a new project to engineer work for.  2nd part of this was to give out a little seed money to Commercial, not as a replacement but as future support.

The program lost its way.  Timeframe 2008-09 the real design work would be locked down and funded for the Ares V.

[Patchouli]

Telerobotics and cryo storage have wide range applications for the lunar outpost. You don't need them in flight, not now, not for lunar.
You need them on the surface.

For ISRU or an affordable moon base they are a necessity.

Telerobotics can scout out and even set up a an oxygen plant before the first crew ever arrives.

Just a lunox depot on the surface of the moon and EML1 would be a game changer as it would enable reusable landers and ferries in place of a throw away architecture.

[Downix]

Oh yeah, SEP ferries, fuel depots and L1 staging are low risk technologies - if you can talk the Area 51 alliens into paying for it and managing it and bailing it out when in dire need.

 

The Constellation architecture was fundamentally flawed so much so it cause in insurrection among the engineers.

Team direct already showed why the 1.5 architecture was bad and why two smaller HLVs can be better then one monster LV.

It's biggest flaw it was very unimaginative and expensive and inherited all the short comings of the Apollo architecture.

I literally face palmed when I saw Constellation for the first time and knew it was going to fail.

Space exploration is supposed to develop new technologies if you are afraid to trying anything new as in CxP then you are in the wrong business.

As for SEP ferries being low risk they are relatively low risk.
DS1 and Smart 1 already proved solar electric to be viable.

Telerobotic operations were proven on on ISS resupply with the ATV and missions like Orbital Express.

Boeing had them as a key part of their architecture.

I consider cryogenic fuel deports even higher risk then SEP tugs but not so high they should be avoided.

But ULA says the near zero boil off technology needed for fuel depots is doable.
They launch rockets for a living and know more on the subject then the designers of the ESAS architecture.

Couple of thoughts for you.  Ares 1 was to be the quick fix to maintain the space program and the ISS.

Other parts of the program were to save the space program so many of the compaines that might go out of business would have a new project to engineer work for.  2nd part of this was to give out a little seed money to Commercial, not as a replacement but as future support.

The program lost its way.  Timeframe 2008-09 the real design work would be locked down and funded for the Ares V.

You have hit the nail on the head right here.  They lost focus for the whole point of the program.  If they had taken *some* kind of design we had on this thread, or others in ESAS such as LV2, they would have been able to maintain focus.  c'est la vie.

[Downix]

Turns out NASA did actually consider the Lawn Gnome:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

[Prober]

Turns out NASA did actually consider the Lawn Gnome:
 
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

now that design i could see

[Jim]

Turns out NASA did actually consider the Lawn Gnome:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

KSC considered it.  It was rejected by the rest of CxP

[Downix]

Turns out NASA did actually consider the Lawn Gnome:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

KSC considered it.  It was rejected by the rest of CxP

Figured.  Would have solved the issues of CxP almost immediately.  So of course, rejection. 

[nethegauner]

A bit older, however.  Here's Rev 3 of the Platypus IIRC

I've seen that picture before, but I never knew there were at least three Platypus designs. Did Rockwell revise it even more before transmitting to the SDIO? Are images of that available somewhere?

I tried to locate information on the Playtypus for a while -- but with no great success (just a report on NTRS with some basic info on two or so pages pages). Even an L2 request did not help.

I've always considered that Platypus thing to be quite an interesting concept. Where would the payload have gone? Right behind the cockpit? How long would the payload bay have been? There does not seem to be much space behind the crew cabin, right?

[Downix]

A bit older, however.  Here's Rev 3 of the Platypus IIRC

I've seen that picture before, but I never knew there were at least three Platypus designs. Did Rockwell revise it even more before transmitting to the SDIO? Are images of that available somewhere?

I tried to locate information on the Playtypus for a while -- but with no great success (just a report on NTRS with some basic info on two or so pages pages). Even an L2 request did not help.

I've always considered that Platypus thing to be quite an interesting concept. Where would the payload have gone? Right behind the cockpit? How long would the payload bay have been? There does not seem to be much space behind the crew cabin, right?

I know up ship has the basic drawings of the layout, because that's where I found mine.  And I had no idea NTRS had any information on it, frankly.

I am uncertain where in the timeline the five different forms were, honestly.  I can see from them a commonality with their X-33 proposal and with the JSC Shuttle II as well.  I still wonder if we'd be ahead if we'd just have used it.

Addendum, found out that there was a book with the details on it, along with other X-33 concepts/SSTO concepts published, "Aerospace Projects Review V1N1" by Scott Lowther.  Google books has it up:
http://books.google.com/books?id=s1Gm0FvRvfEC&pg=PA31&dq=Rockwell+Platypus+SSTO&hl=en&ei=q-X4Td7cNI2ksQO0mMzdBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Rockwell%20Platypus%20SSTO&f=false

[nethegauner]

And I had no idea NTRS had any information on it, frankly.

Hidden deep, deep within this study:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940014197_1994014197.pdf

Even includes an operational workflow diagram for the "platypus".

[Downix]

And I had no idea NTRS had any information on it, frankly.

Hidden deep, deep within this study:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940014197_1994014197.pdf

Even includes an operational workflow diagram for the "platypus".

I'd never gotten the numbers on the NLS-3 before.  I knew it was there, but no hard information.  Now it looks pretty clear the similarities between it and the Delta IV.

[luke strawwalker]

Got to pondering a bit more, the twin 2-seg with a new core stage still seems off, it means more development for the program.  Within the RAC-2 studies was one proposal which had Block I as the upper stage w/o the first stage, so, I did a bit of a switcharoo, and instead of developing an AIUS, I had the EDS developed, using the same 8.4m tooling at Michoud as the original plan, added the SRB support beam to the interstage, and viola, we have a core for our twin 2-seg SRB.  To speed up development, I did not use the EDS's new insulation, instead utilizing the existing ET orange thermal protection, so the new insulation would need to be added into development later on.  In addition, the tank is upside down, with the LOX to the front while for EDS it would be to the rear.

This would have been ready to fly in 2008, requiring minimal development.  This could loft up to 30.4 tonnes to the ISS. 

Once the J-2S+ engine was ready, the Block II program begins,  substituting the J-2S+ for the SSME.  This increases the payload to 36 tonnes to the ISS.  When Ares V is ready, swap interstage with one not sporting the SRB support to lighten the load and use the new, non-popcorning insulation, but keep the existing design for crewed launch. 

Consolidation of manufacturing, tooling, and employees makes it more efficient an operation.  This would have reduced the cost to develop the Ares V as well, with the EDS already being 80% completed, and enabled systems testing in the process.  When the 5-segment design for SRB was completed, the 2-segment now becomes the 5-segment with the 3 middle pieces eliminated. It would have fulfilled the ESAS CLV requirements, taken less time and money, and have been ready for flight by the required date.  No long poles, no costly up-front development, none of that.

You know, that vehicle makes a LOT of sense if you HAVE to have SRB's... the single stick version never really made sense without a more powerful and efficient upper stage engine than J-2S,+, or X...

I like the plan to reuse shuttle tank tooling and do a lot of development work on the EDS at the same time, but I think the changes necessary (reversing the LOX tank in the stack, SRB thrust beam, etc.) would have made them two VERY separate beasts indeed...

Not much savings there over AIUS, ESPECIALLY if the AIUS could have indeed been 'shrunk' for use on EELV....

I was always kinda fond of the Stumpy... even this mini-me version of it...  

later!  OL JR

[luke strawwalker]

Ok, proof I am completely bonkers.  In a discussion about dead-ends, the discussion turned to the X-33, and I mentioned how I liked the Rockwell X-33 design due to how pragmatic it was in comparison to the selected Lockheed design.  I them lamented how even then, it still could never be SSTO.  Someone else in the group then popped up "If the point is to be re-usable, why not just re-use the Shuttle SRB? It's already re-usable."  Which then got gears turning.  The ESAS requirement for Ares I was a single SSME and a single 4-segment SRB, so I took the Rockwell X-33, with it's single SSME, cleaned it up for crewed flights, and strapped an SSME to the bottom.

I then crunched the numbers through Schillings, and it would work as an orbital crew vehicle.  It also avoids the pitfall which started the chain of failure with Ares I, that the SSME was too expensive to throw away, and too expensive to make air-startable.  I took the X-33 and Platypus both (all 5 revisions of Platypus at that) and merged their lines with the existing shuttle systems.  I even included an F-111 ejection module that seats 7.

Stupid OCD, 5 hours of my life gone.

I always liked this one myself... use an off-the-shelf SSME, groundlit just like shuttle, enlarge the AIUS for the extra propellant to burn from ground to orbit, use either the 4 segment or 5 segment booster, and you'd have a plenty good enough CLV launcher. 

Before someone says "it'd never work" I beg to differ-- if the shuttle stack can fly, this could too-- heck even model rocket guys are flying stuff like this WITHOUT ACTIVE GUIDANCE using only aerodynamic fins and canting the thrust through the combined stack CG on both motors... including different thrust levels and staging in mid-flight by dropping the booster.  If MODEL ROCKET guys can do it, I KNOW NASA could!!! 

Later!  OL JR

[Silmfeanor]

  If MODEL ROCKET guys can do it, I KNOW NASA could!!! 

Later!  OL JR

These proposals begin to look like abstract art. I like it, though. The Garden Gnome looks better, though. 

How about you add another SRB on the other side, that is airstarted? 

[Jason1701]

That thing must have one heck of a LAS!

[Downix]

Ok, just noticed a slight interesting bit within the Appendix for ESAS.  The LOC is given as 1:1958, but looking at the various parts, it had a LOC for different pieces, and the upper stage had a LOC of 1:911. 

How can a vehicle has a LOC of 1:1958, when one component has a LOC of 1:911?

[renclod]

Ok, just noticed a slight interesting bit within the Appendix for ESAS.  The LOC is given as 1:1958, but looking at the various parts, it had a LOC for different pieces, and the upper stage had a LOC of 1:911. 

How can a vehicle has a LOC of 1:1958, when one component has a LOC of 1:911?

You mean vehicle 14, right ?

LOC (mean) = 1 in 1958

Upperstage engine BGN (benign) failure = 1 in 911

[ Upperstage engine ICF (Instantaneous Catastrophic Failure) = 1 in 7751 ]

911 = number of mean flights between benign failures

[Downix]

Ok, just noticed a slight interesting bit within the Appendix for ESAS.  The LOC is given as 1:1958, but looking at the various parts, it had a LOC for different pieces, and the upper stage had a LOC of 1:911. 

How can a vehicle has a LOC of 1:1958, when one component has a LOC of 1:911?

You mean vehicle 14, right ?

LOC (mean) = 1 in 1958

Upperstage engine BGN (benign) failure = 1 in 911

[ Upperstage engine ICF (Instantaneous Catastrophic Failure) = 1 in 7751 ]

911 = number of mean flights between benign failures

You're right, they did not list this breakdown for the chosen vehicle.

In any case, with a claim of 1905 flights between loss, when there is 911 flights between failures, there is a disconnect in those numbers.