Author Topic: 33ft core  (Read 22773 times)

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
33ft core
« on: 07/18/2007 02:27 pm »
I'm wondering about infrastructure changes required to produce 33ft diameter Ares V core. ESAS considered 27ft diameter for CaLV vehicle first and NASA later changed this to 33ft diameter which hasn’t been considered in ESAS.

1. MPL

ESAS planned to rebuild current MPLs for Ares I and build new MPLs for Ares V. I think that under the current architecture they build new MPLs for Ares 1 and rebuild old MPLs for AresV (it is questionable whether it is worth to store and than rebuild the old MPLs).
Two new crawlers will be needed for AresV. I think that the old ones used for Ares 1 can be scraped then.
What is the best approach? “To maintain and rebuild” or “to scrape and build new”?
 
2. VAB

Is there any substantial change from ESAS proposal or the current configuration?
New platforms? What is the cost of such modification?

3. Michoud

New tooling or any new machinery for 33ft core? Any new fabrication processes?
There will be production line for Ares I US, Ares V core and EDS. There is also K1 production (and ET, X-33, Saturn V etc. before that).
Does 33ft core cause any problems to produce?  

Buying new barge and selling the old one if it can’t handle 33ft? Anything else?

4. Clean pad vs. hybrid

NASA seems to be determined to go with a clean pad concept. This requires new MPL and new crawler for CaLV regardless of 33ft core.
   

Could anybody correct me if I’m wrong?
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #1 on: 07/18/2007 02:51 pm »
1.  MLP's.  No one hear can make that call.   It would required detail cost analysis

2. It doesn't matter  mods are needed either way..  The VAB can accept 33 feet (Saturn V)

3.  Again, Saturn V was 33 ft (Michoud and barge)    K1 and CEV manufacturing doesn't matter, the plant is huge.  Same goes for EDS and upperstage

Offline Apollo Alum

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #2 on: 07/18/2007 03:05 pm »

Right. I worked at Michoud 1966 - 1969 and the place is enormous. They were building two (three?) S1Cs side-by-side plus, for a while, a couple of S1Bs, and there was plenty of extra room in there. Plenty of head room, too.

Likewise riding the barge to MTF with a booster on board, it cleared the I-10 drawbridge with ample room to spare.

No problem!

Ron

Been there. Done that. Got the rocks.
—•— —•—• •———— —••• ——•

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: 33ft core
« Reply #3 on: 07/19/2007 09:27 pm »
Quote
JIS - 18/7/2007  10:27 AM

What is the best approach? “To maintain and rebuild” or “to scrape and build new”?

This whole question depends primarily on cost and schedule.

If you can reduce the amount of work which needs to be done, your costs and schedule should drop noticeably.   So the question becomes can we reduce the amount of work that needs to be done?

Ares-I and Ares-V are so completely different from one another that there is no common ground for them to really share facilities (except perhaps SRB recovery/refurbishment/stacking).

So you need two separate sets of infrastructure to support the two boosters.   You have one right now with STS, so some of that can probably be [somewhat] cost-effectively converted to fit one or other of the new systems.   But you will have to develop one complete infrastructure for the other vehicle.

Additionally, neither the Ares-I nor the Ares-V share anything much in common with the existing STS "footprint", so everything must be re-made to suit the different shapes & weights.

Then there is the concept of the "clean pad".   To me it makes little sense in this particular context to replace what's there right now.   At the time of launch you must have a huge honking 500ft tall launch tower sitting nearby as it lifts away.   And in fact having such a huge tower right next to the rocket on the MLP is far more dangerous than having it another 20-30ft away mounted on the pad structure instead - there's far less change of the rocket striking the tower as it climbs away - a problem Ares-I's SRB will have an "interesting" time with, and a problem which is very serious if any of Ares-V's inner (#1 & #2) main engines shut down for any reason - this would push the booster sideways into the LUT and cause a very "bad day".

To support both Ares-I and Ares-V use, NASA is planning to have five of these 500ft tall LUT's, one on each of the MLP's.   Yet there are currently two very suitable launch towers located at the Pads today: The Shuttle Fixed Service Structures (FSS).   These are more than suitable for conversion to support the new program, and they number just "two" - not "five".   So there aren't any prizes for guessing which of these options will have the higher maintenance costs as the program continues to operate over the next 30 years.

From a manufacturing perspective, there is a production line up and running right now, staffed and managed for an operational manned program.   Ares-I requires a second line, the Ares-V core a third with no tooling borrowed from the ET, and the EDS will require a fourth.   The Shuttle ET production line is to be discontinued and mothballed around the 2009/2010 timeframe.


There are alternatives to all of these changes however.   First you have to step back and take a look at what is there right now.   There is a fully operational infrastructure manufacturing, processing and flying 8.41m diameter cryo tanks, with two SRB's attached to the side.   Simply put, if you can duplicate this basic arrangement for your new launchers, most of the systems in place today do not require changing.

Further, if that "common" system is capable enough of performing both CLV and CaLV duties in support of the VSE plans (as we have tried to do with DIRECT and have found we exceed Ares-I/V performance by ~40%), then you simply remove all requirement and costs associated with needing a second LV infrastructure system on top of your first.   For manufacturing, that decision deletes two of the new manufacturing lines and just converts the existing ET line straight into the new Core stage production line with very little disruption at all (80% is ready to go right now).   You delete the two new MLP's, and all five of the new 500ft tall launch towers.   You delete most of the changes to the VAB and don't change the Crawlers at all.   All this saves *lots* of money and time.


By choosing to deliberately retain the current 27ft diameter "footprint" as STS, the list of modifications to the MLP's is reduced down to merely converting the three existing units to open up a new exhaust chamber between the SRB ones.   You don't have to build new MLP's for a "Stick", and you don't have to extensively rebuild the entire MLP structures to fit a wider Core and which need the SRB's mounted 6ft wider apart than at present.

The VAB's work platforms today process an 8.41m tank with SRB's.   Their platforms slide in to completely surround this size tanking.   For any other size they will have to be replaced.   So for a Jupiter-style launcher using the same basic layout, only the upper platforms (where the ET narrows at the top) need to be altered.   This is a far cry from being forced to replace every work platform to support the thin 3.9m/5.5m diameter Ares-I or the much fatter 10.06m diameter Ares-V.   Jupiter uses most of what's there now, Ares must replace everything.

A Jupiter-120 Stack weighs less than the Shuttle Stack for rollout, so the current Crawlers would have no problems with that.   The Jupiter-232 Stack, with a full Cargo payload, weighs only ~1% more than the current STS Stack for rollout, so even our "Heaviest" launcher does not require new Crawlers.

The current Shuttle Fixed Service Structure is ideal for use with Jupiter LV's, which are considerably shorter than either Ares vehicle, so there is no requirement for new LUT's.   Not to mention the difficulties which will be experienced in terms of hooking up the rollercoaster evacuation system every time an MLP moves to and from the pad are deleted if the system is fixed permanently in place at the pad.

As for the Pegasus barge - it has a covered, climate controlled deck which just fits the current Shuttle ET's.   While it could handle the Ares-I U/S and the EDS with no problems, this would need to be replaced to support the wider Ares-V Cores.   Also, one barge may no longer be sufficient for transporting so many stages.   But Jupiter Cores still fit snugly within Pegasus, so even it needs no changes.

In short, the extensive changes NASA is forced to do to support the radically different pair of Ares vehicles (compared to each other and to STS) requires more than 4 times as much time and money to be spent than a truly Shuttle-derived solution like DIRECT requires.   I thus consider the current plans to be woefully less efficient compared to what could have been chosen instead.

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

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 33ft core
« Reply #4 on: 08/07/2007 11:08 am »
Quote
kraisee - 19/7/2007  10:27 PM

From a manufacturing perspective, there is a production line up and running right now, staffed and managed for an operational manned program.   Ares-I requires a second line, the Ares-V core a third with no tooling borrowed from the ET, and the EDS will require a fourth.   The Shuttle ET production line is to be discontinued and mothballed around the 2009/2010 timeframe.

Ross.

Could you be more specific about ET tooling? It's very general term.
Is the only problem the diameter and the rest of the tank manufacturing process will be exactly the same as with ET (except for the ET LOX tank's forward bulkead which doesn't have round shape)?
Has the ET manufacturing process has changed from the AL-LI ET introduction or is it exactly the same?
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #5 on: 08/07/2007 09:57 pm »
IIRC they're primarily using two different alloys of Al-Li for SLWT tanks.   2195 IIRC, and I forget the other.   They have significant quantities of both in stock currently (or already paid for anyhow), and they intend to reuse it all in Ares somehow.

For Ares the plan is to simply to mothball the current 8.4m diameter ET production line and build a whole new fresh production line for Ares-I U/S, another for Ares-V Core and then a third for EDS.   And I believe there will be CEV manufacturing going on there too.   Apparently they don't intent to recycle or scrap any of it, just mothball it.

Whether than happens or not, I don't know, but without doubt the majority of the existing hardware used to produce ET's is not planned to be used by Ares at all.

I heard someone on here say a few months back that certain production parts for ET's had actually already completed their lifetime quotas for the remaining STS program and some minor ET production facilities are already being wound down at MAF *this* year.   I heard it was small stuff right now, but as production is completed with each individual element of an ET, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't stackin'n' rackin' the equipment soon after.

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

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #6 on: 08/08/2007 03:12 am »
Quote
kraisee - 7/8/2007  3:57 PM

IIRC they're primarily using two different alloys of Al-Li for SLWT tanks.   2195 IIRC, and I forget the other.   They have significant quantities of both in stock currently (or already paid for anyhow), and they intend to reuse it all in Ares somehow.

NASA's stockpile of the particular Al-Li alloy is so great that it has prevented firms like SpaceX from buying any for the Falcon launchers.

Question to the experts: If the EDS is supposed to use the same diameter as the Shuttle ET, can't the ET tooling be reused for the EDS?  For that matter, if Ares V is going to have a performance shortfall, couldn't NASA widen the EDS to 10m, to match the rest of Ares V?
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #7 on: 11/14/2007 05:08 pm »
I suppose that EDS design is significantly different from all ET, Ares V core and Ares 1 US. With rumour floating around of 10m fairing wouldn't be possible to build also 10m EDS?
Even better solution could be to encapsulate EDS and LSAM in one fairing. Something like Atlas V is doing with centaur.
Encapsulated 10m EDS would be lighter and could carry more propellants or payload.
Still, I suppose that the 10m EDS and 10m core will be of significantly different design.
On the other side it is clear that lot of infrastructure and resources will be shared.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #8 on: 11/14/2007 06:09 pm »
The Atlas V encapsulation is large amount of dead weight...  Something that is only that way because Atlas used the existing Centaur with minimal changes.  It's not the optimal design, but a compremise based on existing assets.  Therefore not something a "clean sheet" design would pursue.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #9 on: 11/14/2007 08:26 pm »
Quote
JIS - 14/11/2007  1:08 PM

1.  I suppose that EDS design is significantly different from all ET, Ares V core and Ares 1 US.

2.  With rumour floating around of 10m fairing wouldn't be possible to build also 10m EDS?

3.  Even better solution could be to encapsulate EDS and LSAM in one fairing. Something like Atlas V is doing with centaur.

4.  Encapsulated 10m EDS would be lighter and could carry more propellants or payload.
Still, I suppose that the 10m EDS and 10m core will be of significantly different design.
On the other side it is clear that lot of infrastructure and resources will be shared.

1.  Not that much different

2.  very< possible

3.  Very bad idea and inefficient.  There is no difference in the interior of an Atlas 400 or 500 series Centaur.  

The additional fairing length is a waste and only dead weight

4.  No.  the EDS would carry the same amount of fuel whether incapsulated or not.  It would be less payload just like the 501 vs 401

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #10 on: 11/15/2007 03:18 am »
The second last page of this presentation seems to indicate the a 10 m (33 ft) EDS and 10 m faring are both baselined (as of a month ago):

http://universe.nasa.gov/workshop/documents/Ares_V_Charts_for_Concept_Study_Brief_1.pdf

Simon ;)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #11 on: 11/15/2007 03:33 am »
That concurs with what I'm hearing at the moment from inside CxP.   And a second J-2X seems almost certain for the 10m dia EDS too.

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

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #12 on: 11/15/2007 04:12 am »
Quote
kraisee - 14/11/2007  11:33 PM

That concurs with what I'm hearing at the moment from inside CxP.   And a second J-2X seems almost certain for the 10m dia EDS too.

Ross.

How much would adding second J-2X increase payload(from current 128.8MT?) to the 120mile circular orbit baselined?  

Looks from the backup slides like a single J-2X never exceeds 1G(starting below .5G).. so gravity losses must be pretty significant in the single J-2X scenario.

Sounds like NASA is finally realizing their initial ARES V design was woefully inadequate and was not going to get us to the Moon, or Mars.  How much of this is still SDLV?  Anything left?

Not that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #13 on: 11/15/2007 04:37 am »
Second J-2X needs a significant amount of extra propellant too.   That means larger stage as well.   All-in, I would *guess* about 10mT extra payload.


As to "realizing woefully inadequate" things - my personal opinion is that Ares is already dead but folk both inside and outside the program are just mistaking the still-twitching corpse as serious signs of life.

Ares-I has really serious problems far more serious than any other launcher I've seen other than X-33!   Ares-I and Ares-V together don't even get close to closing performance, schedule nor cost boxes and are now plain implausible to me.   Frankly, it appears to be a train heading for a broken bridge and I'm pretty sure those in-the-know have known about the impending wreck for half a year now yet only one has managed to extract his butt from the mess so far.


The questions for me now rest upon whether management is even willing to attempt to change direction having wasted two years and billions of taxpayers money already?   But far more importantly, assuming they are open to another direction, what of their very few plausible options really remain?

EELV's relegate NASA to doing nothing more than servicing ISS for the next decade.   But is management too proud to look at alternatives which make more sense for the VSE to work without such grandiose plans using what they've got available right now to the best possible use.

I fear we are rapidly approaching the point of no return, if we haven't already passed it and simply not noticed yet, and we are going to be bulldozed into an LEO-only program again because management refuses to face reality.   It's a make or break position they are in IMHO and I personally have no confidence in their decision making ability.

But I digress from the topic.   My apologies.

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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #14 on: 11/15/2007 10:49 am »
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 14/11/2007  12:12 AM

Not that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..
The difficulty with building monster rockets is that they are not very cost conscious. They don't fly often enough to make it economically viable to keep them on-line for very long. They do "a" job, like Apollo/Saturn, and then they get decommissioned.  That ends up cost us huge amounts of money. Kinda like spending large sums on a huge project and not being allowed to depreciate it  over the years to recover the value of the project. We know how to build very good monster rockets, but we have not yet figured out how to afford them in an economically constrained climate.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #15 on: 11/15/2007 11:28 am »
Quote
clongton - 15/11/2007  6:49 AM

Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 14/11/2007  12:12 AM

Not that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..
The difficulty with building monster rockets is that they are not very cost conscious. They don't fly often enough to make it economically viable to keep them on-line for very long. They do "a" job, like Apollo/Saturn, and then they get decommissioned.  That ends up cost us huge amounts of money. Kinda like spending large sums on a huge project and not being allowed to depreciate it  over the years to recover the value of the project. We know how to build very good monster rockets, but we have not yet figured out how to afford them in an economically constrained climate.

It seems as if the viewpoint shoud not be "do a job" or short-term cost benefit for monster rockets, but to make a long term assumption that you will build programs around the availability of the monster rocket. A production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.

To me, the whole point of Jupiter, in place of Ares, is, it can be put in production and kept in production, and be the source point around which other plans are made. No "do a job," but, "We have a rocket available for payloads. What paylods should we have?" Maybe that involves a little too much "sci-fi fantasy" for real world administrators, or too much of "the vision thing " for real world politicans.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #16 on: 11/15/2007 12:59 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 15/11/2007  7:28 AM

Quote
clongton - 15/11/2007  6:49 AM

Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 14/11/2007  12:12 AM

Not that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..
The difficulty with building monster rockets is that they are not very cost conscious. They don't fly often enough to make it economically viable to keep them on-line for very long. They do "a" job, like Apollo/Saturn, and then they get decommissioned.  That ends up cost us huge amounts of money. Kinda like spending large sums on a huge project and not being allowed to depreciate it  over the years to recover the value of the project. We know how to build very good monster rockets, but we have not yet figured out how to afford them in an economically constrained climate.

It seems as if the viewpoint shoud not be "do a job" or short-term cost benefit for monster rockets, but to make a long term assumption that you will build programs around the availability of the monster rocket. A production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.

To me, the whole point of Jupiter, in place of Ares, is, it can be put in production and kept in production, and be the source point around which other plans are made. No "do a job," but, "We have a rocket available for payloads. What paylods should we have?" Maybe that involves a little too much "sci-fi fantasy" for real world administrators, or too much of "the vision thing " for real world politicans.
The problem with Apollo/Saturn was that there was no long term vision for the use of those wonderful launch vehicles. They were designed to “do a job”, which was to beat the Russians to the moon. The scientists and engineers certainly had long term aspirations for all the possibilities that these launch vehicles opened to them, but that’s all they were; aspirations. There was no long term plan and more critically, no political support for anything beyond the boots and flag mission. That is fundamentally what caused the demise of the Saturn. There was no long term vision and plan on the political arena.

Ares is in a different situation. While there is a long term plan on the table, Ares is SO expensive that it will be completely underutilized. All the grand plans for re-visiting the moon and going on to Mars not-withstanding, those goals will take literally decades to accomplish with the very low flight rate that will be possible with such a large and expensive rocket. Once again, NASA has produced a design that will not be able to successfully navigate the shifting political winds, primarily because of its cost. After all these years, you would think that the NASA leadership would have figured out that in spite of all the wonderful things that we can do, in the end it comes down to politics and the economy. Mike Griffin took President Bush’s VSE plan and ran with it, completely oblivious to the political realities that could come back to haunt it. The Congress supports the VSE, but the cost to build and fly the Ares-V is going to be enormous, so it will not fly anywhere near as often as Bush’s VSE would like. Not even mentioning that Bush announced the VSE, got his moment in the flashbulbs and then walked completely away from it, never to mention it again, leaving Mike Griffin holding the bag with no political savvy.

DIRECT took a different approach with the Jupiter launch vehicle family. Instead of developing a small EELV equivalent people launcher, that can't do anything useful, ‘and’ a monster rocket for cargo, we developed a single, cost effective medium lift vehicle which, when an upper stage is added to the basic launcher, becomes a heavy lifter. There are, or will be, many uses for the medium lifter that are beyond the capability of anything the United States currently has, which are beyond the capability of the Ares-I, that the Ares-V would be wasted on. But when an Ares-V size payload is required, this same launch vehicle just adds an engine to the core and an upper stage, and we have the heavy lifter for the job, all without developing a low-usage monster rocket. There are very few “jobs” that the Ares-V is supposed to do that the Jupiter-232, with slightly less lift capacity can’t do just as well and for a lot less money, and for the few that might come up in the future, there are other configuration options for the Jupiter that can be applied to lift up to 200mT to LEO, completely out-classing the Ares-V. It will be a very long time indeed before we will need to lift a single payload that exceeds that.

So building a monster rocket may be an engineering dream, but it is a political and economic nightmare and will be doomed to low usage because of its cost. Such a rocket ultimately does not serve the VSE well at all. The DIRECT team recognized that and deliberately avoided that pitfall, and developed a launch vehicle that will be able to remain economically viable in almost any political or economic climate imaginable, while at the same time remaining totally capable of accomplishing almost anything in space that may be required of it, far beyond the capability of the super-expensive, single use monster called Ares.

It all ultimately comes down to what the Congress wants, and how much it will cost. Congress supports the VSE and is willing to fund it, but if NASA stays with the Ares as its launch vehicle, we will fly, but we won’t be flying very much. It will simply be too expensive. It will eventually follow the same path as Saturn, and that would be a shame because it is a completely avoidable condition.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #17 on: 11/15/2007 02:13 pm »
Quote
clongton - 15/11/2007  5:59 AM

It all ultimately comes down to what the Congress wants, and how much it will cost. Congress supports the VSE and is willing to fund it, but if NASA stays with the Ares as its launch vehicle, we will fly, but we won’t be flying very much. It will simply be too expensive. It will eventually follow the same path as Saturn, and that would be a shame because it is a completely avoidable condition.

Saturn V wasn't canceled because it was too expensive. Saturn V was canceled because the Apollo program itself was seen by Johnson as too expensive, and should be replaced be a cheaper shuttle, which ended up costing just as much. The lesson there is not to harp on the technical details, but make sure that overall cost stays in budget. Launch vehicles are typically 1/3 the cost of a mission; keeping that other 2/3s down is going to be the trick.

Also, Ross, I don't know what you mean be Ares is dead. People have been saying that for years (literally), and it keeps on going because they keep on fixing problems as they arise. That's engineering, and Direct or any other program would go through the same problems. But so far, there have been no program-level threats, just innumerable rumors that turn out to be nothing...

Simon ;)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #18 on: 11/15/2007 02:25 pm »
Quote
simonbp - 15/11/2007  10:13 AM

Quote
clongton - 15/11/2007  5:59 AM

It all ultimately comes down to what the Congress wants, and how much it will cost. Congress supports the VSE and is willing to fund it, but if NASA stays with the Ares as its launch vehicle, we will fly, but we won’t be flying very much. It will simply be too expensive. It will eventually follow the same path as Saturn, and that would be a shame because it is a completely avoidable condition.

Saturn V wasn't canceled because it was too expensive. Saturn V was canceled because the Apollo program itself was seen by Johnson as too expensive, and should be replaced be a cheaper shuttle, which ended up costing just as much. The lesson there is not to harp on the technical details, but make sure that overall cost stays in budget. Launch vehicles are typically 1/3 the cost of a mission; keeping that other 2/3s down is going to be the trick.

Also, Ross, I don't know what you mean be Ares is dead. People have been saying that for years (literally), and it keeps on going because they keep on fixing problems as they arise. That's engineering, and Direct or any other program would go through the same problems. But so far, there have been no program-level threats, just innumerable rumors that turn out to be nothing...

Simon ;)
I did *NOT* say Saturn-V was cancelled because it was too expensive. From paragraph 1 of my post:... "There was no long term plan and more critically, no political support for anything beyond the boots and flag mission. That is fundamentally what caused the demise of the Saturn."

Saturn, unlike Ares-V, had no "POLITICAL" plan in place for it's use, therefore no long term funding availablity. Saturn was *not* too expensive; it simply had no "political" future and died the death of political shortsightedness. But I believe that Ares will ultimately suffer the same fate as Saturn, but for a different reason; it will be too expensive to operate.

That is what I said.

As for Ross' comment - just stay tuned.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #19 on: 11/15/2007 04:03 pm »
Quote
Jim - 14/11/2007  9:26 PM

Quote
JIS - 14/11/2007  1:08 PM
3.  Even better solution could be to encapsulate EDS and LSAM in one fairing. Something like Atlas V is doing with centaur.

4.  Encapsulated 10m EDS would be lighter and could carry more propellants or payload.

3.  Very bad idea and inefficient.  There is no difference in the interior of an Atlas 400 or 500 series Centaur.  

The additional fairing length is a waste and only dead weight

4.  No.  the EDS would carry the same amount of fuel whether incapsulated or not.  It would be less payload just like the 501 vs 401

I wanted to say something different. I suppose that there are the highest loads during max Q and at core burnout. Uncovered EDS is taking a lot of vibrations and dynamic pressure. The idea was to encapsulate EDS/payload and transfer those loads through the fairing attached to the core. The fairing and core would be 10m. EDS and LSAM would be slightly less than 10m.
The fairing can be jettisoned a long time before the core burnout not decreasing overall performance too much (similar to cover panels on Orion service module)
There could be some sort of support structure helping to take loads during max acceleration just before the core burnout. This structure can be jettisoned during core/EDS separation.
EDS would be designed for more benign conditions. It will be lighter and as it goes through TLI there will be a lot of benefit.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #20 on: 11/15/2007 04:25 pm »
Whoa, stop.  Dual engine J-2 has been thrown around, but not seriously.  So have a dozen other less feasible configurations, again not seriously.  The money is not there in the outyears to design and build such a configuration, nor in the short term to even analyze one.

(Shivers at the thought of mutually radiating nozzle extensions.)
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #21 on: 11/15/2007 07:20 pm »
Quote
JIS - 15/11/2007  12:03 PM
I wanted to say something different. I suppose that there are the highest loads during max Q and at core burnout. Uncovered EDS is taking a lot of vibrations and dynamic pressure. The idea was to encapsulate EDS/payload and transfer those loads through the fairing attached to the core. The fairing and core would be 10m. EDS and LSAM would be slightly less than 10m.
The fairing can be jettisoned a long time before the core burnout not decreasing overall performance too much (similar to cover panels on Orion service module)
There could be some sort of support structure helping to take loads during max acceleration just before the core burnout. This structure can be jettisoned during core/EDS separation.
EDS would be designed for more benign conditions. It will be lighter and as it goes through TLI there will be a lot of benefit.

It makes ground ops more expensive and more complicated since it doesn't allow for complete incapsulation.  It increases the size, weight and complexity of the PLF.   There has to be a structure between the EDS and PLF to keep the EDS/payload centered in the fairing (see T-IV and Atlas 5XX)  Why do think Atlas would go to a 5.4m Centaur and not a 5.0 or so in its advance studies

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #22 on: 11/16/2007 03:42 am »
Quote
simonbp - 15/11/2007  10:13 AM

Also, Ross, I don't know what you mean be Ares is dead. People have been saying that for years (literally), and it keeps on going because they keep on fixing problems as they arise. That's engineering, and Direct or any other program would go through the same problems. But so far, there have been no program-level threats, just innumerable rumors that turn out to be nothing...

I would contend that the majority of Ares problems faced so far, plus the many others identified in the IS-TIM this week are, in fact, mostly due to the marginal performance of the launch system concept which was chosen initially.

It seems that Orion's design is even being artificially castrated because of this low performance too.

I further contend that a more capable launch vehicle system which had considerable additional margin would solve the majority of these issues which CxP has been facing for the last year or two.

These are issues which will continue to cast a deep and dark shadow as long as Ares-I remains the primary vehicle.

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

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #23 on: 11/16/2007 04:18 am »
I fail to see the problem with 2 J-2s in a 33 foot core.  Or even say 5 J-2s in such a stage.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #24 on: 11/16/2007 04:43 am »
Quote
mike robel - 16/11/2007  12:18 AM

I fail to see the problem with 2 J-2s in a 33 foot core.  Or even say 5 J-2s in such a stage.

There are a few issues which must be considered.   The J-2X has an extension on the nozzle which makes it about 10ft across at the widest point, not 6ft like the original Apollo J-2. This imposes a few more restrictions on what physically fits inside the Interstage.   You couldn't have three engines in a line, which probably means the maximum theoretical limit is four - and even that would be a fairly tight fit.

Additionally, there needs to be as much space around the engines as possible in order to ensure the exhaust plumes don't impinge on the neighbouring engines - which seriously reduces efficiency of the affected engines.

Then there is an issue that with multiple engines, if one shuts down or doesn't start, there will be a significant lateral load on the stage and payload still attached.   This means that the effect must be very carefully mitigated, or all the elements need to be designed stronger to cope with such an eventuality, which means they would all weight more.

Also there are recurring cost implications too.   Every extra J-2X adds about $25m to the cost of each mission.   Add 4 and your per-mission costs would increase by $100m, which given the current LV variable cost will be in the ballpark of $400-450m, is quite an impact.


While lots of trade studies are going on, the only sure thing is that *something* has to change with Ares-I/V if NASA wants to achieve its currently planned missions.   Currently they are well below the line (~20%) performance-wise from closing the performance box using the current configuration of the launchers.   I'm on record for how I'd like to see them change, but I don't know which way they will jump.   Only time will tell that, but I am convinced that time is a commodity which we are seriously running out of.

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

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #25 on: 11/16/2007 08:39 am »
Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  5:43 AM

Also there are recurring cost implications too.   Every extra J-2X adds about $25m to the cost of each mission.   Add 4 and your per-mission costs would increase by $100m, which given the current LV variable cost will be in the ballpark of $400-450m, is quite an impact.


I agree at this point that 2 J-2X engines on EDS is not a good idea. It would be far better and cheaper to increase J-2X thrust and ISP.

Quote
While lots of trade studies are going on, the only sure thing is that *something* has to change with Ares-I/V if NASA wants to achieve its currently planned missions.   Currently they are well below the line (~20%) performance-wise from closing the performance box using the current configuration of the launchers.   I'm on record for how I'd like to see them change, but I don't know which way they will jump.  

I agree that more payload delivered to the moon the better. I think that for Lunar base construction and supply the key is a payload delivered in one launch. Therefore, I'm glad to see Ares V growing bigger. Hopefully the payload capability will increase as well.
10 m fairing is a very good news for base line LSAM (minimum ascend stage) and LSAM cargo derived from descend stage.

Quote
Only time will tell that, but I am convinced that time is a commodity which we are seriously running out of.
Ross.

The time is tight for J-2X development to get Orion/Ares 1 up and running to support ISS. There is no doubt that Orion/Ares 1 is more than enough for that. There is plenty of time for LSAM and Ares V development.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #26 on: 11/16/2007 08:55 am »
Quote
Jim - 15/11/2007  8:20 PM

Quote
JIS - 15/11/2007  12:03 PM
I wanted to say something different. I suppose that there are the highest loads during max Q and at core burnout. Uncovered EDS is taking a lot of vibrations and dynamic pressure. The idea was to encapsulate EDS/payload and transfer those loads through the fairing attached to the core. The fairing and core would be 10m. EDS and LSAM would be slightly less than 10m.
The fairing can be jettisoned a long time before the core burnout not decreasing overall performance too much (similar to cover panels on Orion service module)
There could be some sort of support structure helping to take loads during max acceleration just before the core burnout. This structure can be jettisoned during core/EDS separation.
EDS would be designed for more benign conditions. It will be lighter and as it goes through TLI there will be a lot of benefit.

It makes ground ops more expensive and more complicated since it doesn't allow for complete incapsulation.  It increases the size, weight and complexity of the PLF.

Yes, but it possibly decreases EDS dry weight.

Quote
 There has to be a structure between the EDS and PLF to keep the EDS/payload centered in the fairing (see T-IV and Atlas 5XX)  

Payload support structure attached to the core. It supports payload/EDS during max acceleration during the core burnout and is jettisoned with core. It can keep EDS/payload centered in the fairing. Similar to what is adopted for Orion SM.

Quote
Why do think Atlas would go to a 5.4m Centaur and not a 5.0 or so in its advance studies

Yes, it is quite possible that my idea is not the most effective. Another possible benefit is in using alternative approach in EDS thermal insulation.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #27 on: 11/16/2007 02:26 pm »
EDS insultation concepts are the best available based on the need to be on-orbit for multiple weeks waiting for Orion.  Both Delta and Atlas organizations downselected to the same solution when for their long duration upperstage studies.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #28 on: 11/16/2007 03:25 pm »
Quote
TrueGrit - 16/11/2007  3:26 PM

EDS insultation concepts are the best available based on the need to be on-orbit for multiple weeks waiting for Orion.  Both Delta and Atlas organizations downselected to the same solution when for their long duration upperstage studies.

What material is used?
Is it exposed to pad and launch environment?
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #29 on: 11/16/2007 04:20 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 15/11/2007  6:28 AM

A production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.


At last somebody understands...

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #30 on: 11/16/2007 04:35 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 16/11/2007  12:20 PM

Quote
William Barton - 15/11/2007  6:28 AM

A production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.

At last somebody understands...
A lot of us understand and agree. Unfortunately most politicians, who hold the purse strings, don't think past their own next reelection. That makes it really difficult to do any real long range planning that depends on federal funding. It's a never ending story of make the case, receive the funds, do the job, make the case, receive the funds, do the job, make the case, etc, etc.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #31 on: 11/16/2007 05:42 pm »
Oh, the joys of government appropriations and procurement...

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

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #32 on: 11/16/2007 06:35 pm »
It's like saying NASA should have gone to NOVA with eight F-1 engines, and launched one every month, that would have costed so little but the stupid politicians didn't think far enough. Urgh.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #33 on: 11/16/2007 07:05 pm »
I think that's a little extreme, but there is certainly a "sweet spot" which can be had in the middle-ground.   The question is how best to locate and utilise that sweet spot.

I think Ares-I is a long way below the sweet spot, and Ares-V is a long way beyond it.   Which leads me to a conclusion that its somewhere in between.   And we all know where that line of thought leads...

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

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #34 on: 11/16/2007 07:17 pm »
I don't think there would have been money for Saturn V payloads every few months. It was beyond the sweet spot.

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #35 on: 11/16/2007 07:29 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  12:42 PM
Oh, the joys of government appropriations and procurement...
Ross.

That is why I want SpaceX to succeed.  I keep hoping for the cycle of stupidity to be broken.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #36 on: 11/16/2007 08:07 pm »
I sure hope they don't put all their eggs in government hands.   If they can stay independent they can succeed.

But they still have so much to prove, I'm not willing to put any of my eggs in that basket for us to depend upon in order to do the VSE.

When they are ready to step-up and help, that'll be great, but we should not sit back and just hope they succeed.   We must press on.

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

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #37 on: 11/16/2007 11:35 pm »
I know this is a bit of symantics, but don't call the three-body EELV Heavys as a "medium".  This represents "heavy" lift with the same payload capability as Shuttle or Saturn IB.  In general the following is the agreed upon class distinctions:

"small" lift - approx 1,000 kg to LEO - Taurus, Minatuar, Falcon I
"medium" lift - approx 5,000 kg to LEO - Delta II
"intermediate" lift - approx 10,000 kg to LEO - Atlas V Medium, Delta IV Medium (Atlas III)
"heavy" lift - approx 20,000 kg to LEO - Delta IV Heavy (Saturn IB, Titan IB)
"super heavy" - approx 100,000 kg to LEO - (Saturn V)

Nothing has ever been fielded that bridges the gap between Saturn V and the Delta IV Heavy so I'm not sure there is a general agreed upon classification.  Shuttle and Buran are unique in that their payload lift capability is in the "heavy" class, but the total lift including the reusable birds is "super heavy".

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #38 on: 11/17/2007 02:34 am »
Quote
William Barton - 15/11/2007  6:28 AM

A production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs.

Perhaps, eventually. But it would never have gotten that far, because it could not have been done on the slim NASA budgets of the early to mid 1970s. No way, no how. Perhaps the Apollo CSM and Saturn IB could have squeezed through that bottleneck. But not the Saturn V, nor the LM. Especially if the decision to continue were made after about 1968, when it would have involved an actual production restart rather than simply continuing production. People look at NASA's 1972 budget and say, "hey, they managed to launch two Saturn Vs that year", but they don't consider how long the pipeline was. Those Saturns had been built years before, back when NASA's budget was much, much higher.

Here's where we get the "damn politicians" and "blame Nixon" rhetoric. Doesn't hold water, either. Neither the administration nor Congress had any appetite for continuing NASA spending at a rate that could possibly sustain the Saturn V.

(And yes, I am aware that Mike Griffin believes the contrary. So be it; Jeffrey Bell, with whom I otherwise agree little, has argued pretty convincingly that Griffin's analysis doesn't hold up, especially his estimates of Saturn launch costs and the rate of inflation.)
JRF

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #39 on: 11/17/2007 02:58 am »
Finally someone who speaks a lot of sense. :)

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #40 on: 11/24/2007 07:51 pm »
Agreed, Jorge.  It does beg the question of whether a Saturn V-only production line could have made the cut, replacing the Saturn IB with an S-IC + S-IVB vehicle.  It's doubtful, though.

As fas as Jeff Bell goes, I must say that I will agree with at least the first half of a Jeff Bell editorial/screed.  Then he takes a logical turn that's unexpected and extreme, with flimsy evidence to support.  That's the point where he loses me.  But he was totally correct to suggest that "shuttle derived" would evolve into something that has little or no shuttle heritage at all.  We still haven't gotten to his predicted "EELV derived" solution, though.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #41 on: 11/27/2007 03:49 am »
Quote
JIS - 16/11/2007  3:39 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  5:43 AM

Also there are recurring cost implications too.   Every extra J-2X adds about $25m to the cost of each mission.   Add 4 and your per-mission costs would increase by $100m, which given the current LV variable cost will be in the ballpark of $400-450m, is quite an impact.


I agree at this point that 2 J-2X engines on EDS is not a good idea. It would be far better and cheaper to increase J-2X thrust and ISP.

Quote
While lots of trade studies are going on, the only sure thing is that *something* has to change with Ares-I/V if NASA wants to achieve its currently planned missions.   Currently they are well below the line (~20%) performance-wise from closing the performance box using the current configuration of the launchers.   I'm on record for how I'd like to see them change, but I don't know which way they will jump.  

I agree that more payload delivered to the moon the better. I think that for Lunar base construction and supply the key is a payload delivered in one launch. Therefore, I'm glad to see Ares V growing bigger. Hopefully the payload capability will increase as well.
10 m fairing is a very good news for base line LSAM (minimum ascend stage) and LSAM cargo derived from descend stage.

Quote
Only time will tell that, but I am convinced that time is a commodity which we are seriously running out of.
Ross.

The time is tight for J-2X development to get Orion/Ares 1 up and running to support ISS. There is no doubt that Orion/Ares 1 is more than enough for that. There is plenty of time for LSAM and Ares V development.

I never thought I'd agree with JIS on something but I sure do here... upscaling the J-2 to higher thrust/ISP would be a LOT better than slapping a second one on.  Increasing the size of the J-2 to something closer to the SSME's performance (dunno, maybe halfway between the old/currently envisioned J-2 and SSME) would not only help Ares I by giving it more thrust but would save money down the road, because one souped up engine will undoubtedly be cheaper than two dinkyer ones.  I'm sure it would increase the cost of the J-2 in the short term but it would be more than worth it in the long term.  Besides the J-2 is mostly on paper at this point, and it'd be FAR easier and cheaper to choose the right size to build it NOW than later on after it's built, or having to use a second one on every EDS.  JMHO!  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 JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #42 on: 11/29/2007 09:53 am »
Quote
luke strawwalker - 27/11/2007  4:49 AM

upscaling the J-2 to higher thrust/ISP would be a LOT better than slapping a second one on.  Increasing the size of the J-2 to something closer to the SSME's performance (dunno, maybe halfway between the old/currently envisioned J-2 and SSME) would not only help Ares I by giving it more thrust but would save money down the road, because one souped up engine will undoubtedly be cheaper than two dinkyer ones.  I'm sure it would increase the cost of the J-2 in the short term but it would be more than worth it in the long term.  Besides the J-2 is mostly on paper at this point, and it'd be FAR easier and cheaper to choose the right size to build it NOW than later on after it's built, or having to use a second one on every EDS.  JMHO!  OL JR :)

Unfortunatelly J-2X has to be of J-2 heritage. The thrust can go up but not by 100% or so. The J-2X basic design is pretty much set now.
The best what they can do right now is to increase ISP a little over 448s.
As Ares V has very powerfull core and the injection orbit is circular the trajectory will be highly lofted. Therefore EDS doesn't need higher thrust.
I also think that they should drop human rating requirement for Ares V especially relax human rating structural requirements for the core.
I'm wondering what will be the payload capability of the new AresV with 10m EDS and higher ISP SRBs (high expansion nozzles).
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #43 on: 11/29/2007 11:15 am »
Quote
meiza - 16/11/2007  2:35 PM

It's like saying NASA should have gone to NOVA with eight F-1 engines, and launched one every month, that would have costed so little but the stupid politicians didn't think far enough. Urgh.

With enough exageration, anything can be made to seem absurd. I had a friend back in the 1960s who insisted the thing to do was save up satellites until there were enough to justify a Saturn V payload, and then launch them all at the same time...

Seriously, the point of the notion about keeping the Saturn production line open was result/dollar, not overall cost savings, or fantasies about politicians "seeing the light" and increasing the budgets. We could have had a 1970-1990 "Saturn Era" instead of a 1980-2010 "STS/ISS Era" for about the same money per year, but eventually the Saturn's time would have been over, just as the Shuttle's time is about over. What's worth more, a couple of dozen expeditions to the Moon, or 30 years of relatively unproductive LEO experience?

When you bring in politicians, all you get is what really happened, and guessing what those same politicans would have done if they hadn't done what they did is plainly silly. The only underlying notion is, what could/should we have done with all that money and hardware? The decision would have had to be made by LBJ in 1966, and then whoever won the White House in 1968 would have had to be agreeable. And both of them would have had to have seen the wisdom of bailing out of Vietnam. Which, of course, can only lead to paroxyms of "counterfactuals" arguments. (And, yes, I did publish a story about this 12 stuff years ago.)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #44 on: 11/29/2007 11:21 am »
Quote
CFE - 24/11/2007  3:51 PM

Agreed, Jorge.  It does beg the question of whether a Saturn V-only production line could have made the cut, replacing the Saturn IB with an S-IC + S-IVB vehicle.  It's doubtful, though.

As fas as Jeff Bell goes, I must say that I will agree with at least the first half of a Jeff Bell editorial/screed.  Then he takes a logical turn that's unexpected and extreme, with flimsy evidence to support.  That's the point where he loses me.  But he was totally correct to suggest that "shuttle derived" would evolve into something that has little or no shuttle heritage at all.  We still haven't gotten to his predicted "EELV derived" solution, though.

Somewhere on astronautix.com there's an article about a version of the S-IC where by dropping off the four outer engines after 2min and continuing on with the center engine (more or less like the original Atlas), you can put a Shuttle-class payload into LEO for about the same cost as using the Shuttle to do so. That'd replace the Saturn IB as well, I suppose.

The problem with the idea of keeping the Saturn production line(s) open is, all it takes is one decision in one fiscal year to put an end to the whole enterprise.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #45 on: 11/29/2007 11:37 am »
There were plans to recover, with parachutes, the Saturn V first stage.  There was also plans to increase the F-1 engine to 2.2 million lbs. of thrust (11 million total), which is the limit of the launch pads today.  The J-2 was to be upgraded from 200,000 lbs of thrust to 275,000 lbs of thrust.  This would have made the Saturn V capable of between 150-175 tons to LEO.  This would have reduced costs/lb to orbit, and with a reusable first stage, costs could have probably been further reduced.  The J-2 hardware was to make a plug nozzle engine for the 3rd stage, so it could have been made reusable, by using it as a heat shield.  The second stage could probably have been made the same and recovered.  The upgrades may have made the Saturn V sustainable.  Also, from what I have read, the cost to launch a Saturn I was about the same as the Saturn V.

Offline ChrisInAStrangeLand

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #46 on: 11/30/2007 01:08 am »
Quote
kraisee - 16/11/2007  2:05 PM
I think Ares-I is a long way below the sweet spot, and Ares-V is a long way beyond it.   Which leads me to a conclusion that its somewhere in between.   And we all know where that line of thought leads...

Ross.

Monomania?

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #47 on: 02/12/2008 02:33 am »
I don't think the change from 27 to 33feet will be an issue for infrastructure but the larger faring could be great for the LSAM and allow it to be a shorter wider design which is better for both stability and safety of the astronauts.

But on cost I have to agree with clongton here flight rate is everything in costs so maybe we shouldn't be trying to make the biggest rocket possible but instead the biggest one that can find a good flight rate and escape the Saturn V's fate if that means two big launches vs one big one and one small one so be it.

My biggest fear with Ares is the program could be canceled before Ares V  flies and then we would be stuck in LEO in a situation a lot worse then the one we are in now as we will not even have the ability to build space stations unless some private group produces a space tug.

Also JPL will get screwed out of an opportunity to have an HLLV to play with and I'd like to see things like an 8M optical space telescope and a Jupiter icy moon orbiter.

Also being able to perform missions with out those time wasting gravity assist flybys would be great.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #48 on: 02/12/2008 02:42 am »
Quote
Sid454 - 11/2/2008  10:33 PM

I don't think the change from 27 to 33feet will be an issue for infrastructure but the larger faring could be great for the LSAM and allow it to be a shorter wider design which is better for both stability and safety of the astronauts.


again you are clueless.  33 ft has bigissues at the pad

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #49 on: 02/12/2008 02:49 am »
Quote
spacenut - 29/11/2007  6:37 AM

There were plans to recover, with parachutes, the Saturn V first stage.  There was also plans to increase the F-1 engine to 2.2 million lbs. of thrust (11 million total), which is the limit of the launch pads today.  The J-2 was to be upgraded from 200,000 lbs of thrust to 275,000 lbs of thrust.  This would have made the Saturn V capable of between 150-175 tons to LEO.  This would have reduced costs/lb to orbit, and with a reusable first stage, costs could have probably been further reduced.  The J-2 hardware was to make a plug nozzle engine for the 3rd stage, so it could have been made reusable, by using it as a heat shield.  The second stage could probably have been made the same and recovered.  The upgrades may have made the Saturn V sustainable.  Also, from what I have read, the cost to launch a Saturn I was about the same as the Saturn V.

Yah they had lots of greats plans for Saturn derivatives one of the most interesting was the SASSTO a small Saturn SC-IVB derived vehicle who's payload was a Gemini capsule which would have produced a fast response vehicle for getting into orbit 48 hours from when the order was given.

The SASSTO also was considered as you said as a replacement for the SC-IVB in the Saturn IB and Saturn V

In the IB it would be reusable and would have even increased the vehicle's payload also there were plans on Making the Apollo CM reusable or replacing it with a small space plane for LEO mission.

One of the ironies here is such a reusable stage could even be used with ares I for 18ton or less class vehicles creating what would be NASA's first true RLV.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #50 on: 02/12/2008 03:45 am »
Sid,
There are a lot of integration problems they are finding with the 33ft arrangement of Ares-V.   For a start, the SRB's are 6ft wider apart than at present, and even for Shuttle they had to add large deflectors either side of the flame trench to keep the wider footprint firing into a safe zone.   Making the deflectors 6ft wider again is not impossible, but certainly trickier.   Then there is an issue with the SRB ignition shock-waves being in very close proximity to the RS-68's.   The new design for the MLP will not provide a 'wall' between the SRB exhaust and that of the SR-68's, so all the hardware will be exposed to the full environment.

Then there is the issue that the concrete hardstand and flame trench itself have a maximum capability very near to that of the Ares-V's full power.   The teams at KSC are looking at a variety of options such as opening up the sides of the flame trench catacombs to allow exhaust out on three or even four sides, not just two - although this would likely require strengthening of the crawlerway on top of the hardstand to support the great weight.

Which raises the other issue - the pair of 5-seg SRB's, along with the rest of the vehicle, up to 130 tons of payload and the new ML/LUT will together tip the scales far higher than the current Crawlers can handle.   Including the mass of a bigger crawler, the VAB floor, parts of the existing crawlerway and the concrete hardstand are proving to be either at or slightly beyond their design limits already and may well require replacement.

All of this adds up to a seriously extensive amount of change which will be required to support the new 33ft diameter stage configuration on Ares-V.

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #51 on: 02/12/2008 04:18 am »
Quote
kraisee - 11/2/2008  11:45 PM

All of this adds up to a seriously extensive amount of change which will be required to support the new 33ft diameter stage configuration on Ares-V.

Ross.

Bingo

Offline mikeh

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #52 on: 02/12/2008 02:50 pm »
Quote
Sid454 - 11/2/2008  9:33 PM

...maybe trying to make the biggest rocket possible but instead the biggest one that can find a good flight rate and escape the Saturn V's fate ...


The flight rate didn't kill the Saturn V, Nixon and Congress with their lack of funding and canceled programs did the job.
===========================================
"You can't BS physics".

Don Arabian-Head of MER during Apollo

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #53 on: 02/12/2008 03:04 pm »
Quote
mikeh - 12/2/2008  8:50 AM

The flight rate didn't kill the Saturn V, Nixon and Congress with their lack of funding and canceled programs did the job.

Close, but wrong dead president. Johnson actually killed the Saturn V in 1967 by not approving any further construction beyond the initial batch. Flight rates had nothing to do with it...

Simon ;)

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: 33ft core
« Reply #54 on: 02/12/2008 09:10 pm »
Quote
Sid454 - 11/2/2008  7:33 PM

the larger faring could be great for the LSAM and allow it to be a shorter wider design which is better for both stability and safety of the astronauts.

Safety probably isn't a big issue there. The LEM was definitely skinnier than the LSAM concepts so far studied, and NASA figured out how to control it reasonably enough. Or consider the Delta Clipper. However, a notable optimization issue brought up in the ESAS was how to get payloads off of the LSAM and onto the lunar surface easily. A wider lander accomodates this task more easily by allowing the engines to be placed next to the payload (on outriggers essentially) rather than below it.

Quote
But on cost I have to agree with clongton here flight rate is everything in costs so maybe we shouldn't be trying to make the biggest rocket possible but instead the biggest one that can find a good flight rate and escape the Saturn V's fate if that means two big launches vs one big one and one small one so be it.

Not directly addressing costs, but as far as sustaining the Ares V, consider NASA is talking about ~2 flights per year (whether they follow through on that, I don't know). The Delta IV is currently running about 1.5 flights per year counting all variants.

Ultimately though, it comes down to balancing the costs of a second line of infrastructure vs. the higher costs per launch of a system like Direct. I have no clue how that works out.

Quote
My biggest fear with Ares is the program could be canceled before Ares V  flies and then we would be stuck in LEO in a situation a lot worse then the one we are in now.

Very much agree.

Quote
Also JPL will get screwed out of an opportunity to have an HLLV to play with and I'd like to see things like an 8M optical space telescope and a Jupiter icy moon orbiter.

Also being able to perform missions with out those time wasting gravity assist flybys would be great.

Giant missions like JIMO seem unlikely, considering at the time of cancellation I think it was staring down the barrel of a $5 billion+ pricetag. Time doesn't typically matter too much on most deep space missions if you can save a few million by going with a smaller launch vehicle or add more instruments. Pluto isn't going anywhere in the next few years, although on the flip side of the coin, some of the original mission scientists and engineers might.

Tags:
 

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