Author Topic: EELV Solutions for VSE  (Read 114137 times)

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
EELV Solutions for VSE
« on: 10/27/2007 05:20 pm »
Quote
TrueGrit - 27/10/2007  11:56 AM

There's a lot of discussion on the belief that if NASA changed direction the perfered direction would be EELV.  So I'm taking a quick look at the EELV backup option...  Particularly the maximum the upgraded DeltaIV Heavy CBCs described in the RIF responce can lift and what size upperstage that results in.  A change to a more capable but lower thrust booster means the upperstage needs to shink.  What weight should I assume for Orion?

Thought I would start a thread to discuss this, as it is an interesting topic.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #1 on: 10/27/2007 06:38 pm »
How about a little trip back into time before ESAS, when EELV looked to be the preferred approach. Two slides from a Boeing Document from 2004, "Launch Vehicle Options for Exploration"

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256922/e5e.jpg
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256923/e5e.jpg

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #2 on: 10/27/2007 07:00 pm »
That presentation was done prior to the RS-68 engine upgrade progam being initiated by the Air Force...  And as importantly prior to Delta and Atlas being reformed under ULA.  The future plans of ULA are unknown (as much because ULA is struggling with the merger at the moment), but a good glimpse was given with the NASA RFI responce.  Anyway I'm interested in is determining the maximum upperstage weight for the currently in work Delta IV Heavy with the upgraded engines.  Looking at what would be available without much investment, premise being that Ares fails (due to political, technical, or funding problems) and congress looses confidence in NASA.

So does anyone have the targeted mass for Orion?  Assuming it flys on Delta IV without a major redesign (including retaining the contreversal propellant capability).

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #3 on: 10/27/2007 07:16 pm »

Looking at the Atlas solutions as well:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256957/e5e.jpg
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256959/e5e.jpg

And a render of the Atlas Stick:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256958/e5e.jpg" /> 


Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #4 on: 10/27/2007 07:51 pm »
I've noticed that on the Atlas V Phase 2 art, there's a short core and a long core variant.  It appears the short core (with Wide-Body Centaur upper stage) is designed for being a direct replacement of the current Atlas V 401, while the long core's performance isn't being made public at this time.

NASA rejected Atlas V Phase 2 back during ESAS, and they'll probably say the same thing even if there are major problems with Ares I.  They won't like the fact that there are two engines on Stage 1 and four engines on Stage 2.  It will result in higher (theoretical) LOC/LOM numbers.

At the same time, I still like the Atlas V Phase 1/2 concept.  ULA is making some noise for a common upper stage that would replace the D4 upper stage and the SEC & DEC of the Atlas V.  It would not be surprising if ULA adopted a common core diameter for the Delta IV and the Atlas V Phase 2.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #5 on: 10/27/2007 08:34 pm »
Four engines on the upperstage would be a bit of an issue.

It should be said that Ares I / Ares V does appear to be pretty simple when compared to some of the Atlas V / Delta V growth solutions. You  currently have two stages and two engines on Ares I, and two stages and 2 boosters on Ares V. That is EELVs biggest issue...the requirement for such a large amount of engines boosters.


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #6 on: 10/27/2007 08:50 pm »
CEV mass at LSAM docking is believed to be in the region of 23.4mT currently.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #7 on: 10/28/2007 12:15 am »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #8 on: 10/28/2007 12:30 am »

These (pictured) manned boosters were/are pretty reliable: I'd ride them over a Shuttle anyday, which has 5x propulsive units at liftoff and 3x after staging. Saturn 1B had eight, Soyuz/R-7 has five, Saturn V had five, Titan 2 had two, Atlas had three... NASA's contention that having 'lots' of engines makes for an unsafe manned launcher and always will is nonsense. It is nonsense because of the insistence of sticking with Ares 1 makes their statements more and more 'Emporer has no clothes' with each passing month.

Sheesh... :(  

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #9 on: 10/28/2007 12:44 am »
Atlas actually had 2.  The boosters were one engineer

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #10 on: 10/28/2007 12:55 am »
You mean the one sustainer and the 2x 'boosters'?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #11 on: 10/28/2007 01:06 am »
In looking at Soyuz, it really puts to rest the notion that lots of engines equals low reliability.  After all, it's the longest-serving booster to date, and little different from the R-7 booster (ICBM) that started the space age.

Still, I'd be leery about putting a manned capsule on a triple-core EELV without some kind of propellant cross-feed.  I prefer the Atlas V Phase 2 approach because you always have a spare RD-180 that's feeding from the same tanks as the engine that was lost.  If one of the side engines on a Heavy EELV is lost, the propellant in the corresponding core becomes unusable (and the launch vehicle will be lost.)
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #12 on: 10/28/2007 01:07 am »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 27/10/2007  8:15 PM


One 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, as shown above in this thread, and get to a relatively safe CLV, that is much less expensive, and more flexible wrt Orion's final weight, which is looking to be quite unpredictable at this time.  Using the EELV's for NASA's needs benefits the DoD at the same time.

Additionally, the money saved by developing the EELV CLV would go a long way to designing and developing a CaLV from a clean sheet design.  NASA could clean sheet the CaLV from top to bottom in the time period they have designated the Ares V would come on line.  The reasons to stay with the current direction (Ares I/V) all seem rather sad to me (e.g., retaining workforce, spreading pork around, highly suspect LOM/LOC numbers, etc.).

Edit:
More on topic, it seems a cross-fed D4/A5 Heavy with a few choice upgrades gets it where it needs to be for CLV duty.  Too bad some funding source just couldn't appear to develop it independently, as a concurrent contrast to Ares I development.
Scott

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #13 on: 10/28/2007 02:03 am »
Quote
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.

Possibly ULA or Boeings director's will raise the enhancement money to win Bigelow's contract.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #14 on: 10/28/2007 03:25 am »
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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #15 on: 10/28/2007 03:51 am »
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2007  11:25 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.

That depends on Congress and its Committees/Subcommittees... and a very incredibly complicated combination of - local opinion polls; local political priorities; local voters' state of mind at election time (which can be greatly influenced by local & national media and local/targeted political ads); state of the economy in each district or state; and, finally, how much NASA's space or aeronautics programs and employment impact each local district or state in general.

(IOW, NASA manned spaceflight will barely be a blip on the radar in terms of political considerations or influence, apart from a few limited Congressional districts that have NASA Centers or have a large portion of the local more highly paid workforce involved with NASA programs. Unfortunately, apart from mere lip service, the majority of Senatorial candidates, as well, will be more influenced by overall state and national priorities and influences than making NASA manned spaceflight a priority of their campaign promises.)

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #16 on: 10/28/2007 04:13 am »
Quote
kraisee - 28/10/2007  12:25 AM

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.

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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #17 on: 10/28/2007 04:33 am »
Quote
hyper_snyper - 28/10/2007  1:13 AM

Quote
kraisee - 28/10/2007  12:25 AM

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.

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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #18 on: 10/28/2007 04:34 am »
Quote
hyper_snyper - 27/10/2007  12:13 AM

Quote
kraisee - 28/10/2007  12:25 AM

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.

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.

The current "NASA" isn't like the "NASA" of the 1960's. Back then their ratio of engineers/technicians and even groundskeepers and 'common laborers' overwhelmed the number of managers, administrators, and even general office staff for each Center.

Today, if Shuttle, VSE, and the Constellation program suddenly disappeared, NASA would be left with primarily bureaucrats (administrators/managers/administrative staff), and the engineer/scientist NASA gov't employees would be left in the minority.

IOW, NASA's "overhead" wouldn't be affected that much at all, but the very large amount of NASA Contractor employees would be the ones who would suffer the most from sudden unemployment.

Offline CuddlyRocket

RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #19 on: 10/28/2007 05:28 am »
Quote
EE Scott - 28/10/2007  2:07 AM

One 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.)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0