Author Topic: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?  (Read 44086 times)

Offline demorcef

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • SCE to AUX
  • Chicago, IL
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #40 on: 01/26/2012 09:12 pm »
I'd like to get ONE SLS into LEO at this point guys ;)

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #41 on: 01/26/2012 10:20 pm »
I'd like to get ONE SLS into LEO at this point guys ;)

Yea, but the ultimate purpose of this rocket is to get to Mars. If you read Chris' article on the new ConOps, a single manned mission to Mars will require 10-15 SLS launches.  This rocket needs to be scalable  somehow when that time comes and it is prudent to consider that now.  One way is to consider some design changes now (or as Block III later on) that would enable the addition of 6-8 Atlas VPII or Falcon X Kerolox boosters, and even perhaps 2 of the 67' SRBs to the outer sides of those.

Reading all these ideas of a 3 core SLS CCB, I am starting to think that an even better solution would be a pair of 8.4m KeroLOX boosters. Similar tooling to the core, but you get the actual thrust you need for the first part of the flight. The connection points may need less modification than going with 8 boosters. There is less complexity, fewer launches are needed for a manned Mars mission; that allows more efficient design (and fewer) of the modules to be assembled in LEO. There is less boil off time to worry about and fewer chances of a LOV. I think this thing might look like the Falcon XX Heavy image that someone else created elsewhere on this site.

I agree this mega rocket is not needed now, but when it's time for Mars, I just don't think 15 Block II SLS launches is the best approach. Once we reach Mars, we will likely continue missions there and end all the things we've been doing during the lead up.  15 Block II launches for every Mars mission seems unsustainable. We need to think about what Block III could look like way down the road and figure out how we could be a bit penny wise now rather than pound foolish later. I.E. design the pad, flame trenches, acoustic supression for the most evolvable version that could ever be possible and build them that way during the current modifications. I think no extra VAB or crawlerway mods would be needed. We should think now about how the thrust beam might need to be changeable in the future if going to 8 liquid boosters or a pair of 8.4m boosters. Even if we don't build it that way now, design it in such a way that the change can be made with minimal difficulty when Block III comes on line.
« Last Edit: 01/27/2012 03:05 am by TomH »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #42 on: 01/26/2012 10:41 pm »
Crazy nonricket scientist thought.  What kind of solids would be required to give a fully fueled tricore a t/w >1?  I'm thinking you could then open the door to Cross feeding the center tank.  I am crazy and that becomes a completely crazy rocket bu I thought I would throw it out there as a purely hypothetical question.  Thanks

There are some concept drawings of such a tricore with two solids on each outer core here somewhere.  I think there are others of a pentacore and eight solids too.  I will see if I can dig them up.  I believe they were drawn by Simcosmos.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #43 on: 01/26/2012 11:24 pm »

LC-39 compatibility is an issue with this configuration.  Boeing probably ran into the same headwinds with its tri-core 8m Delta IV concepts.  My initial guess is that such a rocket could fit, but only "sideways", on a purpose-built MLP, but the service tower would have to be grounded, STS-style.  VAB hook height is always going to be a limit as well.  Basically, this design doesn't meet the "Block 1A" limitations that call for swap-outs with existing SRBs.  Those requirements mean that the boosters can't be more than 5.5 meters diameter.  I haven't thought about whether or not 5.5 meter diameter boosters could work with these engines, beyond noting the interesting fact that Boeing/MSFC have developed the Ares I 5.5 meter diameter tank tooling, and even built a demonstration tank at Michoud, which is really, really interesting I think. 

So tri-core doesn't meet Block 1A, but I still like to think about such mega-liquid rockets. 

 - Ed Kyle

YEa, it's fun to speculate.

Perhaps they could completely redo one of the pads, with the wider flame trench.  IT'd need a new ML, but the existing CT should be able to move it, as it's unfueled weight wouldn't be that much.  And you could still affix a UT to that ML, so you can still have a clean pad.  Design the new pad to accept existing ML/MLp's (for whatever commercial rockets might be flying off them by then.) as well as the new wider ML for Super-SLS.  A new ML and modified pad with longer flame trnech.  What might that cost?  Maybe it's not quite as spendy as it sounds.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #44 on: 01/26/2012 11:38 pm »
I'd like to get ONE SLS into LEO at this point guys ;)

Yea, but the ultimate purpose of this rocket is to get to Mars. If you read Chris' article on the new ConOps, a single manned mission to Mars will require 10-15 SLS launches.  This rocket needs to be scalable  somehow when that time comes and it is prudent to consider that now.  One way is to consider some design changes now (or as Block III later on) that would enable the addition of 6-8 Atlas VPII or Falcon X Kerolox boosters, and even perhaps 2 of the 67' SRBs to the outer sides of those.

Reading all these ideas of a 3 core SLS CCB, I am starting to think that an even better solution would be a pair of 8.4m KeroLOX boosters. Similar tooling to the core, but you get the actual thrust you need for the first part of the flight. The connection points may need less modification than going with 8 boosters. There is less complexity, fewer launches are needed for a manned Mars mission; that allows more efficient design (and fewer) of the modules to be assembled in LEO. There is less boil off time to worry about and fewer chances of a LOV. I think this thing might look like the Falcon XX Heavy image that someone else created elsewhere on this site.

I agree this mega rocket is not needed now, but when it's time for Mars, I just don't think 15 Block II SLS launches is the best approach. Once we reach Mars, we will likely continue missions there and end all the things we've been doing during the lead up.  15 Block II launches for every Mars mission seems unsustainable. We need to think about what Block III could look like way down the road and figure out how we could be a bit penny wise now rather than pound foolish later. I.E. design the pad, flame trenches, acoustic supression for the most evolvable version that could ever be possible and build them that way during the current modifications. I think no extra VAB or crawlerway mods would be needed. We should think now about how the beam that carries the core's weight between the top of the two boosters might need to be changeable in the future if going to 8 liquid boosters or a pair of 8.4m boosters. Even if we don't build it that way now, design it in such a way that the change can be made with minimal difficulty when Block III comes on line.

Now that's an interesting idea.  A pair of 8.4m kerlox booster to go with the standard SLS core.
Ed, what might something like that lift?  I'd have to imagine around 200mt.

But, the problem is, agian you have two single purpose only boosters, that would probably no be used for anything else. 
I think a better version of "Block 3" SLS would be to redesign the core so it can take two pairs of whatever advanced booster getrs teh Block 1A contract.  This would assume it's some type of LRB, because 4XSRB would be too heavy for the CT's and crawlerway.    So instead of designing a new booster, you just redesign your core, and then buy more boosters.  Hopefully an LRB would be able to be used as a MLV anyway by whichever company gets the contract (similar to an FX or AVP2).  So there would alraedy be commonality with a commercial LV.  IF a two LRB SLS Block 2 can lift over 140mt (which they are saying it should), then with two more boosters, it should get close to 200mt I'd think.

The advantages of this are many.  NO new booster development.  existing pad can be used (You put the boosters in a pair like Energia, so it should all fit the existing pad flame trench).  Existing ML for SLS should be able to be modified to accept that.  And you can still launch SLS Block 1a and Block 2, just attach one booster on each side rather than two on each side.  REquires modifications to the SLS core, but it shoudl mainly be just the upper thrust beam structure.  Widened or whatever so that two pairs of boosters lift on it, rather than just two boosters.  The rest of the core should pretty much be the same. 

Offline FuseUpHereAlone

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #45 on: 01/27/2012 12:14 am »
Hi...I'm a long time listener, first time caller.

For a configuration that uses RS-25Es on the core, and RS-68As as strap on boosters, it may be possible to develop a semi-common core for SLS.  The fuel/oxidizer tanks and their run ducts would be similar (if not identical), but there could be a generic interface that could accommodate either a RS-25E (for the core) or RS-68A (for the boosters).  This would probably require integrating much of the MPS at a subassembly (which would include the engine).

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #46 on: 01/27/2012 12:42 am »
<snip>

I know there will be numerous issues I have not considered, one being the noise decibel level, but I am wondering if this would at all be practicable in any way, shape, or form. I would think a new RP-1 engine with the thrust of an F-1A and the efficiency of an RD-180 is needed, but it looks like Rocketdyne, Aerojet, and SpaceX all may begin R&D as advanced booster competition proceeds, and there have been rumors of the Russians upsizing the RD-180. (With Putin's latest antics, I think we really need to wean ourselves from Soyuz and from RD-180s.) On the other hand, if an engine goes out, is it better to have two RD-180s per booster or cross tanking between boosters? If one RD-180 flamed out and you ran the second one longer, it would need to be jetisoned much later.  With a single engine on each booster and no cross tanking, a flame out on a single booster could lead to LOM/LOV. So many liquid engines does add a lot of complexity and a greater statistical probability of an engine failure somewhere. OTOH, multiple STS 130 mt launches to LEOR and docking prior to TMI may have an even higher statistical probability of a failure somewhere in the manifest.

I look forward to everyone's feedback on any and all of these thoughts.  Thanks in advance for your input.
Noise level
Anything beyond the 130t should be sea launch like Sea Dragon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

Also to lower the cost.

It would only be for cargo launches, crew would use a land based launcher like the commercial crew taxi planned for ISS.

Unless they would have went with the AJAX concept I do not believe that SLS would be able to add more boosters. The big problem is the noise level you brought up.

In space assemble and fuel depot or in space fuelling from tanker would be better than a bigger single launcher. This is do to yearly overhead cost weather you launch or not in a given year. The smaller launcher would have more customers ( planetary probes, lunar, L1/2, GTO, fuel depot, ect ) and would most likely launch multiple times in a year lowering the per launch cost.

And the more boosters added increases loss of mission and launch complexity.

Read up on some of the Direct threads , they have some of the reasons for the smaller launcher.

You did ask a good question.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #47 on: 01/27/2012 01:58 pm »
Hi...I'm a long time listener, first time caller.

For a configuration that uses RS-25Es on the core, and RS-68As as strap on boosters, it may be possible to develop a semi-common core for SLS.  The fuel/oxidizer tanks and their run ducts would be similar (if not identical), but there could be a generic interface that could accommodate either a RS-25E (for the core) or RS-68A (for the boosters).  This would probably require integrating much of the MPS at a subassembly (which would include the engine).


One difference would be the big propellant lines, since the two engine types would need different propellant feed rates.  Another difference would be the strength of the stages themselves, since the boosters would have to support more weight, essentially.  That would probably require slightly thicker tank skins, but I'm not a structural expert so this is just a guess.  There could be a happy "common core" compromise.  On the other hand, thicker tank skins on a common diameter tank could likely be milled on the same machines, in the same factory, by the same employees, etc.

I do like the RS-25E as a core engine with RS-68A as a booster, since these are the designed applications for these engines.  On the other hand (the other, other hand?), an all-RS-68A vehicle would eliminate the need to continue funding RS-25 while leveraging the cost advantages of RS-68 use by EELV. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #48 on: 01/27/2012 03:38 pm »
I do like the RS-25E as a core engine with RS-68A as a booster, since these are the designed applications for these engines.  On the other hand (the other, other hand?), an all-RS-68A vehicle would eliminate the need to continue funding RS-25 while leveraging the cost advantages of RS-68 use by EELV. 
Let's not forget that the RS-68 was designed to be Russian cheap with an annual production rate of around 20 engines. A triple RS-68A would mean 12 to 15 engines, plus whatever NRO uses, that's close to 20 units. That would make those engines really cheap.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #49 on: 01/27/2012 06:32 pm »
I agree this mega rocket is not needed now, but when it's time for Mars, I just don't think 15 Block II SLS launches is the best approach. Once we reach Mars, we will likely continue missions there and end all the things we've been doing during the lead up.  15 Block II launches for every Mars mission seems unsustainable. We need to think about what Block III could look like way down the road and figure out how we could be a bit penny wise now rather than pound foolish later. I.E. design the pad, flame trenches, acoustic supression for the most evolvable version that could ever be possible and build them that way during the current modifications. I think no extra VAB or crawlerway mods would be needed. We should think now about how the thrust beam might need to be changeable in the future if going to 8 liquid boosters or a pair of 8.4m boosters. Even if we don't build it that way now, design it in such a way that the change can be made with minimal difficulty when Block III comes on line.

You could do a MArs Mission with FAR fewer than 15 HLV launches if you wanted to.  That's a little CRazy.  I think NASA's DRM for ARes might have been using TNR propulsion?  And that was 7 HLV launches.

But there's other options.  Smaller scale missions.  Especially for early Pathfinder missions. 
LEts' say wae have full block II SLS with LRB.  That should be about 140mt to LEO.  YOu design a large EDL system for entry into MArs.  Make it common and "mass-produce" it.  Direct had a cool plan where the aeroshell was used as a rigid parachute, and then would drop the lander in a MSL "skycrane" type of landing. 
So rather than doing a lot of in-orbit construction, you launch a full SLS BLock II with CPS that will send a payload in the aeroshell to MArs.
CPS and Aeroshell/lander could even have a teather between them after the TMI burn, to generate artificial gravity on the trip out.
You start with an SLS Block II sending a Mars Return Vehicle to either propulsively or aerobrake into Mars orbit.  No hurry on this, so it could be sent on a very slow trajectory to make Mars orbital capture easier.  This would consist of an inflatible Hab, an Orion CM (with just a trunk to protect the heat shield, power is supplied by the MRV), and a Mars Departure Stage to break Mars Orbit and send it back.
Then, a couple of SLS Block II's could be sent to the landing site with cargo lander, and the ascent vehicle.  The ascent vehicle could be LOX/CH4 powered and carry LH2 to react with the atmosphere via a Sabieter Reactor.  You might do 2 cargo landers. To have more supplies. 
Then you send the crew.  Again, using an aeroshell EDL system.  The lander is a hab as well, as serves as a hab during transit, as well as a hab on the surface.  And additional inflatable hab could be used once on the surface attached to the hab lander.  A teather with the empty CPS could be used to produce artificial gravity so the crew has less muscle loss after the 6 month trip.  The crew lands in the ha blander near the cargo and MAV landers.  One cargo lander could have a large pressurized rover, and the other landers could have wheels, so the rover could tow the landers closer together for the base.
After the mission, (or in case there is an emergency evacuation), the crew enters the MAV and takes off for Mars Orbit.  It docks with the Mars Return Vehicle (MRV), and jettisons the MAV.  The MRV burns for Earth.  You could try to have a configuration with a tether for artificial gravity on the way back, but it’s less important because the crew doesn’t need to perform a mission once they get back, so they could rehab from the 6 month return in zero gravity once on earth.  The MRV comes in hot to Earth.  The crew enters the Orion capsule with trunk (no Service module per se) and does a direct entry.  The rest of the MRV could either burn up in the atmosphere, or do a swing by and be catapulted into a solar orbit.  IT wouldn’t be that big, and most of it an inflatable module, so it should be ok to dispose of it in the atmosphere.

So now you have a Mars Mission that takes maybe 5-6 SLS Block II launches.  Less if there was a super-heavy vehicle.  If future missions went to the same location, they could reuse the power array, rover, and other equipment, so you wouldn’t need as many launches to that location. 

Another way, if you want some in-orbit assembly, would be to assemble the MRV and crew/ha blander in orbit.  Then shoot the crew up to it in an Orion (on a D4H maybe).  They dock, and that Orion is the Orion that’s used to return to Earth.  The Whole stack burns for Mars.  When they get close, the hab lander detaches, as it’s in an aeroshell.  So it does a direct entry, while the rest of the stack, now relieved of a considerable amount of mass, does a slow propulsive orbital insertion.  The rest of the mission stays the same.   The nice thing about doing it like this, is the inflatable transit hab would be available to the crew on the trip out. 

Anyway, obviously that’s just a rough outline, but there’s options other than 15 HLV launches!


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #50 on: 01/27/2012 07:53 pm »
I've only seen 8.4m and 10m fairings. Which would allow at most a 9m aeroshell. That has 3.8 more surface area. If you could keep the rest of the weight down, which I'm not sure you can, that would mean 3.4tn on the Mars surface. Volume shouldn't be a problem, but it seems sort of restrained for anything that you'd want for a crewed base.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #51 on: 01/28/2012 05:42 am »
Crazy nonricket scientist thought.  What kind of solids would be required to give a fully fueled tricore a t/w >1?  I'm thinking you could then open the door to Cross feeding the center tank.  I am crazy and that becomes a completely crazy rocket bu I thought I would throw it out there as a purely hypothetical question.  Thanks

There are some concept drawings of such a tricore with two solids on each outer core here somewhere.  I think there are others of a pentacore and eight solids too.  I will see if I can dig them up.  I believe they were drawn by Simcosmos.

O.K., found some of the tricore (Jupiter III) pics. The outer cores on this are actually just cross feeding tanks, but with the 4 SRBs, you get the general picture of what you inquired about.

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showpost.php?p=198317&postcount=40

Am still looking for the pentacore with 8 SRBs.

Edit: This page has pics of tricore Jupiter III-X and pentacore Jupiter V-X. All outer cores are actually just tanks which feed to a half stage (engines only) beneath the center core. SRBs jetison first, followed by outer tanks and half stage. Core then ignites as an US. Do not click on the links at the top of the page; just scroll down the page.

http://www.amcsorley.dsl.pipex.com/my_orbiter_addons.htm
« Last Edit: 01/28/2012 07:03 pm by TomH »

Offline MP99

Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #52 on: 01/31/2012 06:50 pm »
There are some concept drawings of such a tricore with two solids on each outer core here somewhere.  I think there are others of a pentacore and eight solids too.  I will see if I can dig them up.  I believe they were drawn by Simcosmos.

O.K., found some of the tricore (Jupiter III) pics. The outer cores on this are actually just cross feeding tanks, but with the 4 SRBs, you get the general picture of what you inquired about.

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showpost.php?p=198317&postcount=40

Am still looking for the pentacore with 8 SRBs.

Edit: This page has pics of tricore Jupiter III-X and pentacore Jupiter V-X. All outer cores are actually just tanks which feed to a half stage (engines only) beneath the center core. SRBs jetison first, followed by outer tanks and half stage. Core then ignites as an US. Do not click on the links at the top of the page; just scroll down the page.

http://www.amcsorley.dsl.pipex.com/my_orbiter_addons.htm

Is this related?

cheers, Martin

Offline MP99

Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #53 on: 01/31/2012 06:57 pm »
On the other hand (the other, other hand?)

On the gripping hand...

cheers, Martin

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #54 on: 01/31/2012 07:00 pm »
On the other hand (the other, other hand?)

On the gripping hand...

cheers, Martin
Wiston Churchil always remarked that he wanted a one-handed economist. Because they always gave one answer and then they said "on the other hand...".

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #55 on: 02/01/2012 11:23 pm »
Is this related?

Looks like the same thing. Appears to be a 10m core with standard 8.4m STS ETs. Cool models.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #56 on: 02/02/2012 12:50 pm »
Hi...I'm a long time listener, first time caller.

For a configuration that uses RS-25Es on the core, and RS-68As as strap on boosters, it may be possible to develop a semi-common core for SLS.  The fuel/oxidizer tanks and their run ducts would be similar (if not identical), but there could be a generic interface that could accommodate either a RS-25E (for the core) or RS-68A (for the boosters).  This would probably require integrating much of the MPS at a subassembly (which would include the engine).


One difference would be the big propellant lines, since the two engine types would need different propellant feed rates.  Another difference would be the strength of the stages themselves, since the boosters would have to support more weight, essentially.  That would probably require slightly thicker tank skins, but I'm not a structural expert so this is just a guess.  There could be a happy "common core" compromise.  On the other hand, thicker tank skins on a common diameter tank could likely be milled on the same machines, in the same factory, by the same employees, etc.

I do like the RS-25E as a core engine with RS-68A as a booster, since these are the designed applications for these engines.  On the other hand (the other, other hand?), an all-RS-68A vehicle would eliminate the need to continue funding RS-25 while leveraging the cost advantages of RS-68 use by EELV. 

 - Ed Kyle
You can compromise by having two feed lines on the RS-68 based core, and one on the SSME.  If you are running SSME's, you block off/remove the unused feed line, or conversely, you add the feed line if RS-68.

Still, man-rating the RS-68, even if improved with the RS-68A, is still time consuming.
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 luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #57 on: 02/05/2012 04:14 am »
Crazy nonricket scientist thought.  What kind of solids would be required to give a fully fueled tricore a t/w >1?  I'm thinking you could then open the door to Cross feeding the center tank.  I am crazy and that becomes a completely crazy rocket bu I thought I would throw it out there as a purely hypothetical question.  Thanks

There are some concept drawings of such a tricore with two solids on each outer core here somewhere.  I think there are others of a pentacore and eight solids too.  I will see if I can dig them up.  I believe they were drawn by Simcosmos.

Sounds like the "Jupiter III" proposal that was floated WAY back around the time ESAS was going on...

A Super-Duper-Uber Core flanked by a pair of crossfeeding ET's, each equipped with a pair of SRB's... 4 SRB's and a boatload of liquid engines (RS-68's IIRC) all burning at liftoff... SRB's all sep together, ET's ejected shortly thereafter, core continues on it's own fuel to staging...

Later!  OL JR :) 
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #58 on: 02/05/2012 04:40 am »
Crazy nonricket scientist thought.  What kind of solids would be required to give a fully fueled tricore a t/w >1?  I'm thinking you could then open the door to Cross feeding the center tank.  I am crazy and that becomes a completely crazy rocket bu I thought I would throw it out there as a purely hypothetical question.  Thanks

There are some concept drawings of such a tricore with two solids on each outer core here somewhere.  I think there are others of a pentacore and eight solids too.  I will see if I can dig them up.  I believe they were drawn by Simcosmos.

Sounds like the "Jupiter III" proposal that was floated WAY back around the time ESAS was going on...

A Super-Duper-Uber Core flanked by a pair of crossfeeding ET's, each equipped with a pair of SRB's... 4 SRB's and a boatload of liquid engines (RS-68's IIRC) all burning at liftoff... SRB's all sep together, ET's ejected shortly thereafter, core continues on it's own fuel to staging...

Later!  OL JR :) 

Course the PROBLEM with these sorts of designs is that the weight would ABSOLUTELY KILL YOU trying to move these things from the VAB to the Pad... and you'd probably need a new VAB floor and crawlerways and seriously beefed up pads at the least...

Here's a more realistic interpretation...

Later!  OL JR :) 
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: Could SLS Ever Add Boosters Like an EELV?
« Reply #59 on: 02/05/2012 06:39 am »
I would think that for something like the Jupiter series of rockets, from III to V-X it would make more sense to built the Rockets in a VAB that was situated on the pad and the VAB walls moved away from the pad, on rails, to a safe distance (?) from the blast area;
    one other point, I would think using an Ajax like configuration, with LRBs instead of SRBs would be better for weight on the pad; But what would be the trade off in payload weight restrictions?
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Tags:
 

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