Author Topic: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion  (Read 203892 times)

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #200 on: 08/25/2008 06:55 am »

The entire Falcon 1 does not appear to have gone through either alpha or beta testing, except for the 3 public launches.


wrong.  Launch is the only way to test. The launches were beta testing since customers flew on it.  Alpha testing would be with no payload

Now I don't think these alpha, beta etc. comparisons lead somewhere since they are simplay not applicable.
alpha is an prototype/architecture prototype with limited functionality. What would that be for a LV?
beta is testing of a version that is not broadly tested and may have known bugs at real customers. May come close but I doubt you would fly a LV with known bugs

They flew different versions because the new engine is what's going to be their baseline engine and it makes no sense to have two. Also, apparently their Falcon 1 BC didn't go well and the real focus is now on something bigger so again, it doesn't make sense to maintain a different engine for that. This has nothing to do with the test cycle.

Also, this isn't the SpaceX thread!
« Last Edit: 08/25/2008 06:56 am by pippin »

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #201 on: 08/25/2008 06:07 pm »
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.  :D

Of course the statistic isn't a lie.  The problem with that statistic is that had SpaceX decided to name the recently launched vehicle something else, then that statistic would be invalid.

I think historians would still consider the three Falcon 1s as members of the Falcon 1 family, even if SpaceX had renamed the third F1 the SpaceX Eagle 1. The same way the post-Challenger classic Deltas and classic Atlases are counted as members of the Delta and Atlas families, despire a steady parade of improvements and upgrades, which make them in many ways far more different from their predecesors than the three Falcon 1s are from each other. See also Jupiter-C counted as part of the Redstone family.

Saying its "too different and should get a new name" and not counting it against the Falcon 1 would be dishonest.



Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #202 on: 08/25/2008 07:35 pm »
Back to Taurus II discussion, once the LV is up and running has Orbital thought of using a pad at Kodiak?  It would make available a polar launch site which I believe Wallops lacks, plus it avoids the big boy situation at Vandenburg, plus Orbital already launches Minotaur from there

Also, what other payloads besides Cygnus is Orbital looking to launch on Taurus 2?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #203 on: 08/25/2008 08:01 pm »
Back to Taurus II discussion, once the LV is up and running has Orbital thought of using a pad at Kodiak?  It would make available a polar launch site which I believe Wallops lacks, plus it avoids the big boy situation at Vandenburg, plus Orbital already launches Minotaur from there

Also, what other payloads besides Cygnus is Orbital looking to launch on Taurus 2?

Eventually we would like to offer NASA Delta II-class science capabilities; Planetary and Space Science missions can be launched from WFF, but most Earth Science will have to be either Vandenberg/Kodiak or "mature" WFF launches (i.e. after enough flight experience to accept the "threading the needle" required with polar launches from WFF) and with some performance reduction.

If EELV is selected down to a single type (Delta IV, most likely) we'd also like to be considered as a "contingency" GPS III (single) launch option if Delta IV has to stand down for any appreciable length of time.

We have a lot of experience at Vandenberg and don't feel we're "low man (or woman) on the Totem Pole".  That said, as you point out, we also have Kodiak experience.  It will come, probably, to infrastructure cost and local economic support, much in the same way that WFF was chosen.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #204 on: 08/25/2008 08:52 pm »
Back to Taurus II discussion, once the LV is up and running has Orbital thought of using a pad at Kodiak?  It would make available a polar launch site which I believe Wallops lacks, plus it avoids the big boy situation at Vandenburg, plus Orbital already launches Minotaur from there

Also, what other payloads besides Cygnus is Orbital looking to launch on Taurus 2?

Just about anything that requires a delta II class LV, probes, small and medium sized satellites, the usual stuff.

It also could be used for testing sub scale reentry vehicles plus remember it can lift more with an upper stage with more delta V.

As is it's a a little small for most manned vehicle designs except for a slightly enlarged copy of Gemini or similarly small vehicles.

Might have enough payload to squeeze in a third seat and the RDS docking system and still have enough left over for an LAS.

Though the t/space CXV can fit but the 5,000kg figure does not include an LAS for the vehicle.
It's normally air launched and doesn't need one but for ground launch it would need an LAS of some sort.

Adding one also would increase the mass since an LAS would require structural changes to accommodate the forces.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cxv.htm

It's about 1700Kg short to lift a Soyuz which it's self is a very light vehicle.

Though a lot can be done to reduce the mass over the Russian vehicle such as use of composites,Al Li alloys, and a PICA or SIRCA heat shield.

A nice thing is if the DM and OM get lighter so does the LAS so maybe it just might work.

Though does anyone have any numbers on the TO of it's upper stage since that could completely preclude manned use until a new upper stage is built?
« Last Edit: 08/25/2008 08:53 pm by Patchouli »

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #205 on: 08/25/2008 10:28 pm »
Though does anyone have any numbers on the TO of it's upper stage since that could completely preclude manned use until a new upper stage is built?

TO?
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #206 on: 08/25/2008 10:36 pm »
Same problem as Ares-I is having.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #207 on: 08/25/2008 10:42 pm »
Though does anyone have any numbers on the TO of it's upper stage since that could completely preclude manned use until a new upper stage is built?

TO?

Thrust-oscillation I believe

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #208 on: 08/25/2008 11:03 pm »

Limits on computer power probably restricts simulation testing to only components or a (simplified) whole launch vehicle but not both.

Wrong.  It has nothing to do with computing power. 
1.  There is no component level simulations.  It would accomplish nothing.    Components are tested but it is not in an LV simulation.
A sufficiently detailed simulation would have caught the burp.
Quote
2.  The avionics are run in a lab doing full up simulation. 
3.  Mother nature and real world effects can't be modeled.
I would rewrite 3 as there is insufficient computing power to model mother nature and the appropriate subset of the real world.  This is ordinary chemistry and Newtonian physics.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2211
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #209 on: 08/25/2008 11:09 pm »
...

Also, what other payloads besides Cygnus is Orbital looking to launch on Taurus 2?

...

It's about 1700Kg short to lift a Soyuz which it's self is a very light vehicle.

Though a lot can be done to reduce the mass over the Russian vehicle such as use of composites,Al Li alloys, and a PICA or SIRCA heat shield.

...


I wouldn't argue that Soyuz is light.  Compared to Gemini, it is boilerplate.  While Gemini seated only two, it had 14 day free-flying endurance.  And its pressure vessel was not optimized, structurally.

I know we could do a lot better that the current Soyuz with only a little effort.

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #210 on: 08/25/2008 11:14 pm »
Though does anyone have any numbers on the TO of it's upper stage since that could completely preclude manned use until a new upper stage is built?

TO?

Thrust-oscillation I believe

Ah!  You mean resonant burn.  Yes, I am a bit familiar with the problem (aero313 is the real expert), since we had to address it with the TU-903/Castor 120 Taurus first stage.  Its frequency (and amplitude) is inversely proportional to the length of the burn cavity, some 8 m long for the C120 (the amplitude is also somewhat proportional to the chamber pressure.)  Also, the lower the frequency, the more "responsive" the structure is to the thrust oscillations that the resonant burn causes.  I remember during those days thinking "this is the largest in-line solid stage I ever want to use" (the ET and general arrangement of the Shuttle alleviate that problem).

Now we have Ares, with an over 40m long solid first stage - about 5 times the Taurus' length!  Ouch!

The Castor 30 is only about 3m long, so its resonant burn characteristics should not cause a problem.

I agree with the previous statements about launch mass, though; in order to provide three seats to ISS with a Taurus II we need the High Energy Second Stage (HESS) for performance (so it matches, say, a Soyuz LV); we also need a "50% Launch Abort System (i.e., a LAS which weighs about 50% of the capsule it separates), much like Apollo, rather than the "70% LAS" that the Orion/Ares combination requires (also, the lower acceleration, thrust-terminating Taurus II, much like the Saturn, supports the use of a passive LAS architecture...)

A 70% LAS+HESS (or a 50% LAS with the Castor-30) would probably only support two seats.

I also think that if all we wanted to do is carry three people to the ISS, we should be able to do it a bit more efficiently that the Soyuz spacecraft (one cabin body vs. two to begin with)
« Last Edit: 08/25/2008 11:17 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

manlymissileman

  • Guest
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #211 on: 08/25/2008 11:28 pm »
...

Also, what other payloads besides Cygnus is Orbital looking to launch on Taurus 2?

...

It's about 1700Kg short to lift a Soyuz which it's self is a very light vehicle.

Though a lot can be done to reduce the mass over the Russian vehicle such as use of composites,Al Li alloys, and a PICA or SIRCA heat shield.

...

....
I know we could do a lot better that the current Soyuz with only a little effort.

This is a bit cavalier.

Offline just-nick

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #212 on: 08/26/2008 12:59 am »
...we need the High Energy Second Stage (HESS) for performance
You say this in a way that implies that there is a sketch design at least for this Taurus 2 HESS...any truth to that, or just wishful thinking?

I spent the afternoon playing amateur rocket designer and punching numbers on a T2 first stage underneath a LOX/Methane 2nd stage derived from the original Orion SM plans (we can always dream...).

What are the back of the napkin sketches going on in the office?

 --Nick

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #213 on: 08/26/2008 01:11 am »

1.  Just about anything that requires a delta II class LV, probes, small and medium sized satellites, the usual stuff.

2.  Though does anyone have any numbers on the TO of it's upper stage since that could completely preclude manned use until a new upper stage is built?

1.  No need for your response.   antoine is from OSC

2.   TO is not applicable for stubby motors

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #214 on: 08/26/2008 01:14 am »

A sufficiently detailed simulation would have caught the burp.


I would rewrite 3 as there is insufficient computing power to model mother nature and the appropriate subset of the real world.  This is ordinary chemistry and Newtonian physics.

Another clueless response.  No it wouldn't due to #3

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #215 on: 08/26/2008 01:14 am »
...we had to address it with the TU-903...

OK, you win at Trivial Pursuit.   ;D

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #216 on: 08/26/2008 01:20 am »

You say this in a way that implies that there is a sketch design at least for this Taurus 2 HESS...any truth to that, or just wishful thinking?


Yes.  Both.  Need $$$'s.   :'(
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #217 on: 08/26/2008 01:22 am »
...we had to address it with the TU-903...

OK, you win at Trivial Pursuit.   ;D

Did I get that nomenclature wrong?  Do you remember approximately what was the feared/actual resonant-burn-induced acceleration (within ITAR accuracy limits, that is)?
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2211
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #218 on: 08/26/2008 03:28 am »
...

Also, what other payloads besides Cygnus is Orbital looking to launch on Taurus 2?

...

It's about 1700Kg short to lift a Soyuz which it's self is a very light vehicle.

Though a lot can be done to reduce the mass over the Russian vehicle such as use of composites,Al Li alloys, and a PICA or SIRCA heat shield.

...

....
I know we could do a lot better that the current Soyuz with only a little effort.

This is a bit cavalier.

Well, I was expressing an opinion (and if I read his reply correctly, with which Antonio essentially agreed).  I wasn't laying out the program plan...

But to get more specific, Gemini was 7200 lbs with ejection seats, metallic sidewall TPS, fuel cells with consumables for long duration, and an inefficient pressure vessel meant to accommodate rolling landing gear for the paraglider recovery system.  That's for two crew.  Swap the ejection seats for the mass of the third crewperson, and use the OMS propellant for the abort system (requiring the scar weight of a liquid fueled abort engine) and 12000 lbs seems like a easy target for a three crew vehicle.

I designed the t/Space COTS capsule for six and had detail design weights that were under 12000 lbs, as well, though w/o LAS since it was air-launched.  The compromises one makes to achieve low mass include short duration missions (direct ascent to rendezvous, for example) and spartan outfitting (reference our fabric hammock seats that weighed only 13 lbs each, built and tested).

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #219 on: 08/26/2008 04:42 am »
What's happening with t/Space these days ? I always thought you had the cheapest safest crew COTS option. Shame there wasn't enough COTS money to go round for you and Spacehab's equally unrisky cargo ARCTUS too.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2008 04:47 am by marsavian »

Tags:
 

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