CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007 2:28 AM(DIRECT also meets both, though I think it has other political problems.)
kraisee - 28/10/2007 4:25 PM So, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution? Ross.
SUMMARY: Which is why I think a Delta IV Heavy derivation, with it's so-called 'Black Zones' eliminated, should be seriously considered as the CLV for Orion -- no need to develop a new booster there -- and a Shuttle-derived launcher, preferably Direct, for the heavy lift solution. Once again, as Ross, Chuck and the others have pointed out: using the Shuttle ET, launchpads and standard SRB infrastructure will preserve many of the jobs and assets in place and give plenty of cargo 'grunt' capability to boot. And if they wanted to skim the money even more -- even an improved, optimised side-mounted 'Shuttle C' arrangement offering 85-90 tons to LEO would be quick(ish) to field and certainly be better than nothing, which is what we're all worried is going to happen if something isn't done and soon...
Equivalent in a functional sense but I'm not sure what the performance comparison would be. With propellant cross-feed, aluminium/lithium structures, uprated 106% percent RS-68s, an upper stage with 2x RL-10B-2 engines or better yet -- (nearly developed) RL-60 engines would allow more than 40 tons to be placed in LEO. And these upgrades wouldn't need significant changes to the Delta launchpad infrastructure. If further upgrades were needed, the often talked-about regeneratively-cooled version of the RS-68 could be developed. With modifications to the pads, strapping 6x 250k-thrust Aerojet solid boosters to the vehicle -- the same type as on the Atlas V-552 -- would push the payload past 50 tons. This is about the same ability as Jupiter 120, it should be pointed out and a size of booster China intends to stretch the Long March series to, so as to put Taikonauts on the Moon.
***50 metric tons to LEO ability should be considered the minimum useful benchmark of launcher from which to build an exploration architecture from.
With an all-new upper stage, powered by 1x J-2X or 4x RL-60s and using a 5-common core stage cluster, with added Aerojet solids, payload would climb past 60 tons. Then, there's a 7-Core design with a big payload fairing: combine that with the big upper stage and you'd exceed 80 tons. Also, a super-heavy 'Delta', based on clustering 3x 8.4m Shuttle ET-derived corestages, each powered by 4x upgraded RS-68s would give you a block-busting, genuine 140+plus tons to LEO. Add 8x Aerojet 250k-thrust solids to the corestage, or even 2x Shuttle 4-Segment RSRM in addition to the flanking 8.4m stages, would boost payload to about 170 tons to LEO...
That's one approach which, if using Atlas V Phase 2 clustered stages, would give similar results. Though I'm (sort of) pushing RS-68 engines because they're indigenous American engines.
And as the Direct team has showed us, the Jupiter 332(?) with stretched corestage, uprated regen RS-68s, 5-Segment solids and a big, 2x J-2X upperstage would give you more than 130 tons to LEO. Replace the solids with optimised hydrocarbon boosters (powered by 3x uprated RD-180 or RS-84) and you'd field a genuine, 150 ton to Low Earth Orbit class booster. And as pointed out, with relatively minimal changes to Pads 39A & B.
kraisee - 28/10/2007 1:33 AMQuotehyper_snyper - 28/10/2007 1:13 AMQuotekraisee - 28/10/2007 12:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.I hate to sound heartless, and I'm not advocating an RIF of this magnitude. But wouldn't less overhead be a good thing for NASA overall? A more cost effective architecture means more money to NASA's missions. I know this isn't workable politically but in the end NASA isn't a jobs program. Or then again maybe it is, I don't know.No.Reducing NASA expenses only means one thing to politicians: It allows NASA's budget to be reduced by the same amount - and the cash difference to be used to fund their other pet projects instead. NASA has *always* been treated in this fashion - does anyone here *really* think now will be any different?In point of fact, happening this close to an election, it is even more likely to turn into a complete re-direction of NASA's mission into an LEO-only mission instead of continuing the VSE.In the end though, all this does is put thousands of both highly & moderately trained engineers and managers (from the Contractor base mainly) out of work just at the time of significant national economic difficulties.That means many of those folk become a burden on the social security system, and that means that the savings Congress gets by cutting NASA's budget only go to pay the same people, just in a different (and far less economically sound) way - but the real loss is that NASA loses all of its STS infrastructure in the process and can never get those staff back. You try asking an experienced engineer back after you threw him out a few years earlier. You'll be lucky just to get the bird back.The mistakes of shutting Apollo down in precisely this same way in the mid-70's should have taught us very clearly that throwing away a perfectly usable Heavy Lift system is a RIDICULOUSLY STUPID IDEA that only serves to screw the space ambitions of the entire nation for multiple decades afterward.God help the US if this path is taken IMHO. You'll be handing China the red carpet all the way to Mars.Ross.
hyper_snyper - 28/10/2007 1:13 AMQuotekraisee - 28/10/2007 12:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.I hate to sound heartless, and I'm not advocating an RIF of this magnitude. But wouldn't less overhead be a good thing for NASA overall? A more cost effective architecture means more money to NASA's missions. I know this isn't workable politically but in the end NASA isn't a jobs program. Or then again maybe it is, I don't know.
kraisee - 28/10/2007 12:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.
A_M_Swallow - 27/10/2007 11:03 PMQuoteEE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AM{snip}Too bad some funding source just couldn't appear to develop it independently, as a concurrent contrast to Ares I development.Possibly ULA or Boeings director's will raise the enhancement money to win Bigelow's contract.
EE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AM{snip}Too bad some funding source just couldn't appear to develop it independently, as a concurrent contrast to Ares I development.
Jim - 28/10/2007 2:25 PMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 27/10/2007 11:03 PMQuoteEE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AM{snip}Too bad some funding source just couldn't appear to develop it independently, as a concurrent contrast to Ares I development.Possibly ULA or Boeings director's will raise the enhancement money to win Bigelow's contract.ULA doesn't build spacecraft. LV's are not Bigelow's issue, a suitable spacecraft is
kraisee - 28/10/2007 6:33 AMReducing NASA expenses only means one thing to politicians: It allows NASA's budget to be reduced by the same amount - and the cash difference to be used to fund their other pet projects instead. NASA has *always* been treated in this fashion - does anyone here *really* think now will be any different?In point of fact, happening this close to an election, it is even more likely to turn into a complete re-direction of NASA's mission into an LEO-only mission instead of continuing the VSE.In the end though, all this does is put thousands of both highly & moderately trained engineers and managers (from the Contractor base mainly) out of work just at the time of significant national economic difficulties.
kraisee - 28/10/2007 5:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.
CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007 2:28 AMQuoteEE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AMOne thing that gets me so uptight about current NASA management is how relatively straightforward it seems to be to take the current EELV upgrade path...I don't think NASA had much to do with it - this was a mandate from Congress (and the Administration) to preserve the jobs of those working on the STS as much as possible (worded as re-utilising STS hardware etc).Personally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.Taken together, an upgraded EELV is unacceptable to Congress (and the Administration) and NASA management would be well aware of that fact (as would Boeing and LM, which is why you've heard nothing from them).(DIRECT also meets both, though I think it has other political problems.)
EE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AMOne thing that gets me so uptight about current NASA management is how relatively straightforward it seems to be to take the current EELV upgrade path...
CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007 2:28 AMPersonally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.
kraisee - 29/10/2007 2:13 AMDoD would just be stuck with significant price increases. Actually the situation almost mirrors the situation DoD faced with the EELV program when the commercial sat market went bone-dry. Their products more than doubled in cost to the DoD and they had to just suck it up.There just aren't sufficient customers for either of these "products" outside of government programs and DoD is pushing *very* hard behind the scenes to make sure NASA sticks with large solids in their new program.Ross.
kraisee - 29/10/2007 1:13 AMCFE,Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers. But where are those other customers?
kraisee - 29/10/2007 2:20 PMAren't they already being supplied to full capacity?You're talking about 6,000 tons of solid propellant which the Shuttle uses in a "typical" year. If the military wanted more supplies than they are currently getting, they'd already be knocking down ATK's door to get it.But they aren't.Ross.