Author Topic: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)  (Read 50293 times)


Offline Chris Bergin

RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #1 on: 04/08/2006 03:07 AM »
Last two comments from the locked (broken) thread:

Quote
simonbp - 7/4/2006  9:49 PM

And at this point (prior to cutting any metal), you'd rather change the LV (or not change as the case may be) than drop mission requirements or conscienously leave a safety loophole...

Simon ;)

Quote
SMetch - 8/4/2006  12:54 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/4/2006  12:01 PM

Quote
SMetch - 7/4/2006  2:37 PM
Quote
Jim - 7/4/2006  11:24 AM"Delta IV wasn’t optimized for LEO it was optimized to send things intohigh orbit like where we are now try to go, for example the Moon."

This even makes the abort issue worse
I agree that there were few good options with regards to the heavy OSP.  A correctly sized CEV with a correctly sized man rated upper stage used for EML1 injection or abort will work with the EELV’s optimal trajectories.

That is the issue:  EELV’s optimal trajectories and manrating for aborts are incompatible

With a man rated vehicle capable of over 3,000 m/s DV after abort it’s not any issue.  The OSP was too heavy to have this high of a percentage of fuel after abort.  As such the only safe Delta IV trajectories were direct insertion ones which in turn required a higher thrust to lift ratio than the Delta IV as optimally designed for.  To get that higher thrust to weight ratio required the dumping of payload.

The OSP and CEV with an EML1 insertion stage are not the same thing.  The combined package may have the same mass at lift off but one is much less dependent on the main launch vehicle.  As such a more lofted trajectory can be used with the EML1 stage serving as an emergency abort module instead of its primary role as an EML1 injection stage.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10839
  • Likes Given: 321
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #2 on: 04/08/2006 02:05 PM »
Quote
SMetch - 7/4/2006  2:37 PM[With a man rated vehicle capable of over 3,000 m/s DV after abort it’snot any issue. The OSP was too heavy to have this high of a percentageof fuel after abort. As such the only safe Delta IV trajectories weredirect insertion ones which in turn required a higher thrust to liftratio than the Delta IV as optimally designed for. To get that higherthrust to weight ratio required the dumping of payload.

I am talking about mid fight aborts with the use of an escape tower.  These crushed the astronauts.

Offline MartianBase

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2006 01:28 AM »
Thanks Chris, I'm keen on seeing what's going on with these J-2X

but I'd  just like to go back to an earlier post on costs of the CEV+CLV and the reported hikeby nasawatch
Quote
SMetch
   
Posted 6/4/2006 5:43 PM (#29546 - in reply to #29479)
Subject: RE: CLV - ONE J-2X Engin


publiusr - 6/4/2006 11:13 AM

Over at www.nasawatch.com is a claim from a 'reliable' source that the SRB mods would cost 1-3 billion. I wonder where that is coming from, and if it is even real.


It’s looking worse for the SRB based CLV.

NASA now needs to achieve a 57% lower $/kg in order to compete with Delta IV Heavy with that level of up front cost.

Then again ISS crew flights minus the fuel in the SM for EOI could be launched via a Delta IV Medium. At which point they would need to be 97% cheaper.

It seems to me we need to redirect the money currently going to the CLV to the Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle.

Its beginning to feel like 80% of ESAS recommendations won't survive to the end of the year. I'll give the remaining 20% until 2008.

Methane Engines – Gone (Hypergolic)
Air Start SSME – Gone (New engine a J2 in name only)
5.5 Meter CEV or “SUV” – Gone (5 Meter maybe smaller)
4 Segment SRB CLV – Gone (5 Segment SRB CLV)
25MT Class SRB CLV – Prediction (Delta IV Med-ISS & Delta IV Heavy-Lunar)
EOR-LOR – Prediction (L1 Rendezvous – Direct Return)
4 Crew to Moon – Prediction (2 Crew to Moon)
Inline SDHLV with SSME's - Prediction (Shuttle-C with RS-68)

Then again maybe we'll let the Chinese beat us back to the Moon. They aren’t as constrained in their thinking as we are.

“We can’t go back to the Moon, not with the technology we have today.”

Has it really jumped from 1 billion to 3 billion or is that an exaggeration?

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #4 on: 04/10/2006 03:17 PM »
Basically ATK is getting the US taxpayer to develop a yet another 25K class US based launcher.  We have two already why not three?  All the while we are dismantling the only heavy lift infrastructure we have now and will desperately need if we are every going to leave the gravity well of the Earth with men.

http://www.usspacenews.com/index.html

“We also have to do a considerable amount of analysis to make sure it's safe, and that we have not introduce an unknown into the SRBs performance.”

I can’t wait for when this one comes home to roost.  The CLV is top heavy already and getting worse with the new extension.  Its high center of gravity is approaching know control limits hence the addition of those side thrusters and fins you see in the design.  Then there is the matter of the crew access and LOX/LH2 stages being higher than the current tower.

Were are all the LockMart and Boeing lobbyists when you need them?

It’s a bad design that ignores current capabilities at the expense of what we desperately need.

Other than that its great.

“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #5 on: 04/10/2006 03:37 PM »
Quote
Jim - 8/4/2006  7:05 AM

Quote
SMetch - 7/4/2006  2:37 PM[With a man rated vehicle capable of over 3,000 m/s DV after abort it’snot any issue. The OSP was too heavy to have this high of a percentageof fuel after abort. As such the only safe Delta IV trajectories weredirect insertion ones which in turn required a higher thrust to liftratio than the Delta IV as optimally designed for. To get that higherthrust to weight ratio required the dumping of payload.

I am talking about mid fight aborts with the use of an escape tower.  These crushed the astronauts.

How is an escape tower abort off of an SRB based main stage different than a Delta?

How is an escape tower abort from a lofted trajectory different than a direct injection?

In our design, the escape towers role is to just get the crew away for the main vehicle as quickly as possible staying within their G limits, as all abort systems must do.  It’s the EML1 stages job then to either continue to Abort to Orbit or to shallow out the reentry at lower altitudes and speeds.  We fully understand that a lofted trajectory needs modification prior to CEV reentry in an abort situation at certain regions along its trajectory.  We are not “slamming” the CEV into the atmosphere at any point or under any abort scenario.

In summary, these issues are well understood and can be solved when your primary vehicle has a significant +3,000 m/s DV thrust capacity on board unlike the OSP.

Controlling a slender SRB based booster with such a large distances between its center of thrust, center of gravity and center of aerodynamic load on the other hand is not.
“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10472
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 14
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #6 on: 04/10/2006 07:14 PM »
Quote
SMetch - 10/4/2006  11:17 AM
The CLV is top heavy already and getting worse with the new extension.


While I agree that ATK is thoroughly gouging the taxpayer for this project, I don't think the Delta or Atlas derivatives are better.   Go have a look at the safety section of the ESAS report.   The pure numbers for how likely a liquid engine is expected to fail compared to SRB's is quite an eye-opener.   A single liquid engine like the extremely reliable SSME, is expected to fail about 5 times more often than an SRB.   The more liquid engines you use, the more likelyhood for failure too.   Add to that, liquid engines have far more catastrophic failure scenarios than SRB's do too, and I do think SRB's aren't a bad choice at all.

Also, there is one little thing which I'd like to correct...

Each of the segments in the SRB masses about 130 metric tons.   With the motor, and all the other items required, a the 5-seg SRB masses 731mT.

The Upper Stage "looks" bigger, but even when fully fuelled, it still masses only 144mT - which is only a little more than each segment of the SRB.

There's another 27mT of CEV and LES on top of that, but whichever rocket you use, you're going to need that :)

"The Stick" may appear a little unconventional, but it isn't "top heavy".

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

Offline dmc6960

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #7 on: 04/10/2006 07:16 PM »
Quote
SMetch - 10/4/2006  10:37 AM

How is an escape tower abort off of an SRB based main stage different than a Delta?

How is an escape tower abort from a lofted trajectory different than a direct injection?

In our design, the escape towers role is to just get the crew away for the main vehicle as quickly as possible staying within their G limits, as all abort systems must do.  It’s the EML1 stages job then to either continue to Abort to Orbit or to shallow out the reentry at lower altitudes and speeds.  We fully understand that a lofted trajectory needs modification prior to CEV reentry in an abort situation at certain regions along its trajectory.  We are not “slamming” the CEV into the atmosphere at any point or under any abort scenario.

In summary, these issues are well understood and can be solved when your primary vehicle has a significant +3,000 m/s DV thrust capacity on board unlike the OSP.

Controlling a slender SRB based booster with such a large distances between its center of thrust, center of gravity and center of aerodynamic load on the other hand is not.

I dont believe you are understanding the problem SMetch.  If I'm understanding Jim correctly, the most energy efficient way into orbit, is up, then over.  This is why the upper stage engines on Delta IV require less thrust than the weight of the payload they are propelling.  If you put a manned spaceship on this trajectory, you would already be pushing your G-limits during the initial ascent.  If an abort becomes necessary, the acceleration required on top of what was already occuring for a safe abort, became lethal.

If you changed the trajectory to go both over and up from the get go, acceleration for abort is now possible without being lethal, but you've lost launch vehicle performace. This loss of performace brought Delta IV to its very limits of lifting which is what gave OSP some of its problems. This is why the EELV have been frowned upon for manned lift this go-around.  Am I right Jim?  (nice name BTW).

I also dont understand why you're talking about having 3000 m/s DV on the vehicle after escape?  Only the command module will be ejected with an escape tower, NOT the service module.  There goes all your DV.  I also dont understand your "slamming into the atmoshpere"  statement.  What you are slamming is people's guts, into the backs of the people, under an escape option from an optimal Delta IV trajectory.
-Jim

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10472
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 14
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #8 on: 04/10/2006 07:48 PM »
Not to mention that for a regular 20+mT EELV, the cost is still very high - $254m per flight - and that is for the non-man-rated version too.   Man rated ones would cost a lot more AND are not as safe as "The Stick" according to industry trade studies.   See p. 507 (Section 6.11.1) of the ESAS report for some of the trade study results into these different vehciles.

If "The Stick" costs anywhere near the $100m per flight they keep on talking about, it'll pay for itself veryy quickly, even with the extra $2Bn in development costs.

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

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #9 on: 04/10/2006 08:08 PM »
Hi everyone.

Assuming the NasaWatch article about the CLV cost balooning from $1Bn to $3Bn is accurate (probably is), is it safe to assume that a large chunk of that cost has to do with the 5th segment, and the different propellant?

Maybe ATK/NASA should concentrate on a proof of concept with the as-is 4-segment booster with the necessary modifications (forward skirt, RCS, etc.) first.  Granted, such a launcher may not be adequate for the CEV's lunar mission, but the vehicle seems to have the necessary capabilities for the ISS.

Also, if the cost per launch and pLOV are as much lower for these vehicles as ESAS has claimed, then I'm sure the commerical launch industry would latch onto the vehicle quickly as a cheaper, safer options for orbiting unmanned payloads.

Doesn't solve the problem of getting us back to the Moon, but keeps us in LEO.

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 18
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #10 on: 04/10/2006 08:14 PM »
The inflation in cost is due to the 5th seg addition.  Which doesn't make any sense to me.  As was stated elsewhere, ATK should internalize some of this cost, it shouldn't overburden an already buckling NASA budget.

Also, if launching the CLV is supposed to be relativley inexpensive shouldn't it pay for itself after a few launches?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10472
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 14
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #11 on: 04/10/2006 08:33 PM »
Quote
BogoMIPS - 10/4/2006  4:08 PM

Hi everyone.

Assuming the NasaWatch article about the CLV cost balooning from $1Bn to $3Bn is accurate (probably is), is it safe to assume that a large chunk of that cost has to do with the 5th segment, and the different propellant?

The news article Chris wrote today about the Lunar Reference Architecture coming in too heavy to be sent to the moon as-it-is, also mentions that the SRB's are going back to the same fuel as currently used on Shuttle SRB - PBAN instead of the newer HTPB.   I'm guessing this is a cost issue being "announced" as quietly as can possibly be done.   Oops, I just made it noticable.   Sorry.   ;)

Personally, I think ATK is price-gouging for all its worth.

They have already been allocated (not bid for) the contract to produce the CLV's SRB's, and the CaLV is already polanned to use precisely the same boosters too.   So I'm betting they feel ultra-confident they are the only organisation NASA can turn to in order to produce the SRB's in time for NASA to fly CEV by 2014.   Knowing that, I believe they are reaming the taxpayer for all they can squeeze out.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think NASA should take control of the SRB R&D program itself.   ATK should be relegated to merely a "metal bender" to build the casings and motor components to NASA specifications.   That way NASA can contract-out the work to whomever they want if costs start balooning rediculously out of control like seems to be occurring at present.

For that matter, I think that's the approach NASA should be taking for managing all the elements of the VSE.

I for one am getting real sick of the vast expense the "contractor empire" charges for their work.   It is certainly not competative *at all*, and seems to be hugely expensive for the items they turn out.   Its amazing just how much money it makes for these compains though...

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10472
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 14
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #12 on: 04/10/2006 08:37 PM »
Quote
hyper_snyper - 10/4/2006  4:14 PM

The inflation in cost is due to the 5th seg addition.  Which doesn't make any sense to me.  As was stated elsewhere, ATK should internalize some of this cost, it shouldn't overburden an already buckling NASA budget.

Also, if launching the CLV is supposed to be relativley inexpensive shouldn't it pay for itself after a few launches?

If ATK are going to triple development costs, I want to hear some real specifics as to WHY.

They are, after all, the organisation which proposed "The Stick" in the first place, and who did ALL the original pre-ESAS costing estimates for this entire plan.   They have said all along, amazingly until they got a contract in their sticky hands, that this could be done for one figure, and now they want triple?

There's such a fishy smell about this...   Anyone else noticing it?

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: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10839
  • Likes Given: 321
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #13 on: 04/10/2006 09:44 PM »
Quote
SMetch - 10/4/2006  11:37 AM How is an escape tower abort off of an SRB based main stage different than a Delta?
No different
Quote
How is an escape tower abort from a lofted trajectory different than a direct injection?
 Big difference

It has nothing to do with the actual escape rockets.
It has nothing to do with the acceleration of the vehicle at the time of abort.
It has nothing to do with how much DV you have in the upperstage and whether it is direct or suborbital injection.  Those are end state differences.

 It all has to do with velocity vs altitude in the early parts of the  trajectory

The black line is a EELV trajectory.  It flies steeply to get out of the Earth's gravity well and then uses its efficent low thrust second stage engine.  Unfortunately, aborts like the red line, subject the crew to unsurvivable g-loads.   The aqua line is the shallow traj of the shuttle and SRB CLV.  Aborts are similar to the blue, where the g-loads are less stressful.

EELV's, with modified shallow trajectories, lose 25-33% of their standard lift capability.



Offline mkirk

  • International Man Of Mystery
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • Florida/Texas
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #14 on: 04/10/2006 11:11 PM »
Quote
Jim - 10/4/2006  4:44 PM

Quote
SMetch - 10/4/2006  11:37 AM How is an escape tower abort off of an SRB based main stage different than a Delta?
No different
Quote
How is an escape tower abort from a lofted trajectory different than a direct injection?
 Big difference

It has nothing to do with the actual escape rockets.
It has nothing to do with the acceleration of the vehicle at the time of abort.
It has nothing to do with how much DV you have in the upperstage and whether it is direct or suborbital injection.  Those are end state differences.

 It all has to do with velocity vs altitude in the early parts of the  trajectory

The black line is a EELV trajectory.  It flies steeply to get out of the Earth's gravity well and then uses its efficent low thrust second stage engine.  Unfortunately, aborts like the red line, subject the crew to unsurvivable g-loads.   The aqua line is the shallow traj of the shuttle and SRB CLV.  Aborts are similar to the blue, where the g-loads are less stressful.

EELV's, with modified shallow trajectories, lose 25-33% of their standard lift capability.




That is a good explanation Jim!

I get asked this question a lot and some how I always end up in discussion of energy mangement, high and slow, black zones, g loads, etc...It would have taken me 2 pages to say what you said with a couple of colored lines and a few sentences.

Mark Kirkman
Mark Kirkman

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 682
  • Likes Given: 1121
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #15 on: 04/10/2006 11:59 PM »
Looks like the best answer (which I greatly dislike) is not sending humans into space  :(
SpaceX, just a few things planned for 2018: FH, Starlink Prototypes, Block 5, Dragon 2, Increased launch rate.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 152
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #16 on: 04/11/2006 03:28 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 10/4/2006  4:37 PM

There's such a fishy smell about this...   Anyone else noticing it?

Ross.

Same old... Same old...  then who would be playing games,  there is a lot of money for the taking and the game is to take as much as you can, as fast as you can, and deliver zero in return.. the perfect buisness...

So why no two J-2S you ask? Why not two boosters, hell why not three, looks like we will be needing a lot more lift that was in the original vision, or should that just be proposal...

Specific Impulse I understand... but don't understand its meaning...

Jim.. another cool graph may help.. please..

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #17 on: 04/11/2006 04:46 PM »
Quote
Jim - 10/4/2006  2:44 PM

Quote
SMetch - 10/4/2006  11:37 AM How is an escape tower abort off of an SRB based main stage different than a Delta?
No different
Quote
How is an escape tower abort from a lofted trajectory different than a direct injection?
 Big difference

It has nothing to do with the actual escape rockets.
It has nothing to do with the acceleration of the vehicle at the time of abort.
It has nothing to do with how much DV you have in the upperstage and whether it is direct or suborbital injection.  Those are end state differences.

 It all has to do with velocity vs altitude in the early parts of the  trajectory

The black line is a EELV trajectory.  It flies steeply to get out of the Earth's gravity well and then uses its efficent low thrust second stage engine.  Unfortunately, aborts like the red line, subject the crew to unsurvivable g-loads.   The aqua line is the shallow traj of the shuttle and SRB CLV.  Aborts are similar to the blue, where the g-loads are less stressful.

EELV's, with modified shallow trajectories, lose 25-33% of their standard lift capability.




Agreed

The ESAS report states;

“Both Atlas and Delta single-engine upper stages fly highly lofted trajectories, which can produce high “deceleration loads” on the crew during an abort and, in some case, can exceed crew load limits as defined by NASA Standard (STD) 3000, Section 5.  Depressing the trajectories flow by these vehicles will require additional stage thrust to bring peak altitudes down to levels that reduce crew loads enough to have sufficient margins for off-nominal conditions.”

The key term is “deceleration loads”

The basic problem is that if an abort occurs during the red portion of the EELV trajectory the CEV will be on a very ballistic (i.e. highly elliptical) return trajectory.  This is okay for nuclear missiles but not okay for people.  The “deceleration loads” will be extreme as the capsule effectively slams into the atmosphere.  Think of it as the difference between a belly flop off of a high board into a pool vs. releasing the handle in water skiing gradually re-entering the water.  The total kinetic energy might be the same but the experience is very different.  The reentry angle is very narrow for the CEV due to G-limits and heat shield capabilities.  

My main point is that since the CEV contains a man rated EML1 insertion stage the additional DeltaV required to make orbit during the red portions of the curve can be achieved by re tasking this stage to replace what was originally supposed to come from the now aborted main stage.

Jim, what happens when you add up to a 3200 m/s deltaV after abort from the EML1 insertion stage?

“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10839
  • Likes Given: 321
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #18 on: 04/11/2006 08:59 PM »
There is no stage attached to the CEV during those aborts.  It just is the capsule.

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: (CONT): CLV - ONE J-2X Engine (not two J-2S)
« Reply #19 on: 04/11/2006 09:28 PM »
Quote
Jim - 11/4/2006  1:59 PM

There is no stage attached to the CEV during those aborts.  It just is the capsule.

Exactly, run your curves with a 3,200 m/s delta V after abort.  Our trajectory models show us safely in orbit.  The mission is toast because we used the EML1 injection fuel saving the crew but that’s okay.  Mission failure “is” an Option if it means the crew survives.

In fact in the baseline CLV SRB Stick approach the CEV’s TEI stage is used to abort to orbit after the tower is jettisoned following a successful 2nd stage ignition in the advent of a latter 2nd stage failure.  The identical approach was in place for Apollo, they didn't carry their LAS all the way into orbit either.

Come to think of it the CLV stick could pursue a more lofted trajectory as well with their current design if they wanted to increase the CLV efficiency and save alot money by not needing the 5 segment SRB after all.  Of course doing that would negate a lot of the arguments as to why the EELV’s were going to kill everyone.  What a tangled web we weave when at first……
“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Tags: