I hope that the new pdf will have some good, large dimensioned drawings of each version of 3.0 for us modelmakers. I have watched the after skirt/thrust structure of the core change quite a bit over the span of time.
Direct Team,I like the concepts. Elegent is the right word. Straight forward, removes many unknowns and uses the existing wealth of data from STS equipment.I really like leveraging the nearly 40 years of SSME heritage and very extensive flight data. It only makes sense. Same with the SRBs, but solids are harder to like then liquid engines. Both have evolved and advanced. Why go change horses now?I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though. It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment. But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone. A few Direct flights a year would double their production.In all, great work and I hope the Augustine commission gives it a fair hearing.
FYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/01/2009 04:25 pmFYI: A standard Jupiter-130 CLV heading for ISS has a GLOW of 2,057,232kg. It lifts 66,980kg of useful payload to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg. Assuming a 20,185kg Orion, that leaves 46,795kg for additional cargo -- roughly equivalent to 3 ISS-bound Shuttle payloads worth.That's a lot of payload! From later in this thread, I followed the link to the Jupiter-120 CLV to ISS which has a payload of 39,339kg to ISS (that's with the extra 10% reserve). That's still a huge amount of payload even taking Orion into account.
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.
clongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.Best Luck I do wish you success.
I'm not sure that NASA will buy into the 6 RL-10's though. It's not man rated currently and 6 engines is alot of equipment. But it does exist and maybe the per unit costs would drop like a stone. A few Direct flights a year would double their production.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 06/02/2009 12:57 amclongton, good pionts but the NASA of the 60's was willing to do things that today's NASA wouldn't touch with a barge pole. I'd love to see NASA be willing to take the risk and do it again.Will never happen. You can only beat up an organization so many times before they decide that job one is to do anything, whatever it takes, to make the beating stop. That attitude is so thoroughly ingrained at NASA it cannot be extracted.
I still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:08 amI still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.The v2.0 J-23x is no longer an option. Because of base heating, the ablative RS-68 does not survive long enough to get the second stage off. If the SRB's must be used, the MPP must have regen engines. That leaves either the *existing* SSME or a future *RS-68R*. Somebody wise said something about a bird in the hand ...
Quote from: Lee Jay on 06/02/2009 01:08 amI still like the J-130 + J23x-Heavy. One less engine on the core means lower weight and lower loads, no differences between the cores means less development and more efficiency, and I think the 5-seg will go forward either way and the Shuttle-version with the same attach points, fuel, etc. is far closer to being ready. I'm also still unconvinced that the J24x has more performance than the J23x-Heavy.I don't think so. Years amd Billions can be saved by shelving the 5-seg.
Edit: Too many ripple effects (costs) on other components too.
Personally, I feel that keeping the J2-X development would buy much more political clout than the time/money saved with RL-10. Losing two rocket development programs (to be replaced by one) and main engine development are huge hits, the J2-X could be the bone that would keep Marshall chewing rather than a loose hungry dog.
Quote from: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 05:05 pmQuoteI would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.The flight immediately before STS-107 had a chunk of foam hit an SRB Aft Skirt. It left a visually noticeable dent in the thick steel structure.Which makes it all the more incredulous to me that prior to Columbia and even during the early part of the investigation, nearly everyone swore up and down that foam COULD NOT have caused sufficient damage to the shuttle TPS to have caused the tragedy. The evidence couldn't have been clearer, but it took shooting a block of foam out of an air cannon into a RCC wing leading edge panel and blowing a foot-wide hole in it to put two and two together... Seems like SOMEBODY would've said after the flight where the foam dented the SRB skirt, "whoa, look what that foam did to a streamlined steel skirt on what would have to be a glancing blow; can you IMAGINE what would happen if it hit a wing leading edge made of glorified fiberglass composite or glass foam belly tiles??" Later! OL JR PS. GREAT looking stuff for the Version 3... and I'll second the request for dimensioned drawings for model builders!
QuoteI would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.The flight immediately before STS-107 had a chunk of foam hit an SRB Aft Skirt. It left a visually noticeable dent in the thick steel structure.
I would think the SRBs can take the impact of shedding ice.