Jamie Young - 2/5/2006 11:41 PMKayla mentioned this was a month away from happening before Challenger, but I've never heard of this before. Anyone got images and info?
J Britt RSA - 2/5/2006 11:53 PMThere's a very short article about it on Astronautix.com: http://www.astronautix.com/stages/cenrgsts.htmI remember seeing a black & white picture of the Galileo spacecraft being deployed from the Shuttle in some old space magazine. Before the Challenger disaster, there was a great deal of debate on how they would run the LOX/LH2 lines to fuel up the Centaur - would they run the lines through the shuttle's skin? What about an RTLS? How would they dump the Centaur's propellant?After Challenger, the debate became moot and the idea was canned.
Jim - 3/5/2006 1:50 PMThere were retractable umbilicals (Rolling Beam Umbilical System) on the top of the TSM's which mated with panels on the sides of the orbiter, towards the rear of the payload bay
DaveS - 3/5/2006 8:37 AMQuoteJim - 3/5/2006 1:50 PMThere were retractable umbilicals (Rolling Beam Umbilical System) on the top of the TSM's which mated with panels on the sides of the orbiter, towards the rear of the payload bayI know Atlantis was delivered to KSC as a Centaur capable orbiter, so now I'm trying to locate some photos of these panels. Where they on both sides of the orbiter or only on one side?
Skyrocket - 3/5/2006 1:35 AMHere are images of a Centaur-G including its Shuttle-cradle on display in Huntsville:...
Orbiter Obvious - 3/5/2006 11:23 AMThey were going to stick that in a Shuttle cargo bay?
Ben E - 3/5/2006 12:34 PMJim,Do you know of any other missions that would have used Centaur? As far as I'm aware, it was Galileo, Ulysses and Magellan, although I've heard it hinted that a few DoD missions out of Vandenberg would have needed Centaurs too.
shuttlefan - 3/5/2006 2:24 PMThey had to totally replan the Galileo and Magellan missions because the IUS is less powerful. That's where the gravity-assists came into play.
gladiator1332 - 3/5/2006 8:51 PMQuoteshuttlefan - 3/5/2006 2:24 PMThey had to totally replan the Galileo and Magellan missions because the IUS is less powerful. That's where the gravity-assists came into play.So in a strange way, though we lost a powerful upperstage and some missions were scaled down, we saw the use of the gravity-assists that are used a lot more today.
publiusr - 4/5/2006 1:22 PMWhat is more, the current Cassini Titan probe needed both a good upper stage and gravity assist.If you want greater outer planet probes, you need a bigger rocket. It would probably take CaLV to do JIMO right, sample return missions from Mars (with margin) and Europa landers. We got away with the Delta II to Mars because that planet did us a favor by being nearby and had an atmosphere to aerobrake and pop a chute in.You won't do that with Europa. No cheating. You will have to dump speed and burn your way to the surface. By the time you are done you melt and deploy a cryobot about the same size as Spirit or Opp. That looks for smokers.So you need real heavy lift to orbit Kuiper objects, to land on Jovian moons, or to return Martian samples. Either that or these Rube Goldberg schemes people come up with who fall all over themselves to keep from admitting a need for greater lift.
yinzer - 4/5/2006 2:08 PMEuropa has no atmosphere. Maybe a couple of microbars of atomic oxygen or something, but nothing you can aerobrake against. Aerocapture against Jupiter is also quite hard, because it's so massive that orbital speed at the top of it's atmosphere is very, very high. The radiation environment at and inside Io's orbit is also pretty nasty.
publiusr - 18/5/2006 2:53 PMI don't agree with that at all. Casseni isn't exactly cheap--and EELVs are too weak for JIMO and Europa lander missions. Look, we have funded 100 STS missions, each of which had lift-off thrust similar in power to Saturn V, and we have stayed in LEO. With CaLV subsituted for STS, with the same flight rate and the same or less costs as STS (no orbiter costs) the Solar System will open up to us in a way never before conceived. Naysaying only hobbles this.BTW the OTV masses out to nearly 40 metric tons. What are you going to launch this with, besides CaLV?You want to do EELV assembly, ISS style? Yeah--that style assembly really got Space Station finished in a hurry, didn't it?I'll take single shot Skylab segments myself thank you. That was cheaper than ISS. Heavy Lift saves money, in launches, in assembly, in pad times, in engines, and in upper stages.
Spacely - 4/5/2006 2:40 PMUsing expensive CaLV launches to lift aleady expensive (I'm talking 2-5 billion dollars here) sample return and outer planet orbiting missions seems like a catastrophic misuse of NASA funds, as such missions would essentially kill Space Science. We'd get, say, a Neptune Orbiter with Probes, and... well, that'd be it. For a decade.Why not invest upfront in the oft-tabled OTV instead of using precious CaLVs and hundreds of millions per launch? http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm
I also got a document call Centaur G-Prime Technical Description. Unfortunately, it is spiral bound.
I also got the top level configuration drawings.
Jim...of the 3 planned Shuttle / Centaur missions in 1986, was payload weight close to the 65k max permitted?Thanks.
Quote from: Jim on 05/01/2010 08:50 pmI also got the top level configuration drawings.No way you could scan those?
Quote from: DaveS on 05/01/2010 10:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/01/2010 08:50 pmI also got the top level configuration drawings.No way you could scan those?They are full size, I only have a 8x 11 scanner.
Very nice find Jim! Blackstar: Read the NASA SP Taming Liquid Hydrogen, The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdfThe answer you want is in Chapter 7, Eclipsed by Tragedy, page 206.
Quote from: DaveS on 05/01/2010 05:23 pmVery nice find Jim! Blackstar: Read the NASA SP Taming Liquid Hydrogen, The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdfThe answer you want is in Chapter 7, Eclipsed by Tragedy, page 206.Yeah, I'm mentioned in the acknowledgments section of that book for helping the author with the manuscript, but I don't remember it having the answer.
Oh, those are nice!I've whined about this before, but I'll do so again: there's no good history explaining why--with citations--the Shuttle Centaur was canceled. The few accounts that I have read essentially say "after Challenger, the astronauts objected and it was eliminated." But there had to be meetings where it was discussed, and data that was presented.
Quote from: Jim on 05/01/2010 11:19 pmQuote from: DaveS on 05/01/2010 10:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/01/2010 08:50 pmI also got the top level configuration drawings.No way you could scan those?They are full size, I only have a 8x 11 scanner.No way you could scan them in segments and then use a photo-editing program to stitch them back together? If you can scan and post the segments, I can stitch them back together into the full images.
Jim,I'd like to thank you for posting those images I'd only seen one of them before, the second of the Galileo pictures.
What I don't understand is why this hardware is not used for EELV for LEO payloads. Yeah, I know that there aren't any actual LEO payloads that need it today, but there are plenty of potential payloads, like Orion.
Sorry for the necromancy, but I just found a bunch of images of the sole Centaur-G on display. Enjoy!
Quote from: Danderman on 03/18/2011 03:58 pmWhat I don't understand is why this hardware is not used for EELV for LEO payloads. Yeah, I know that there aren't any actual LEO payloads that need it today, but there are plenty of potential payloads, like Orion.The DIV Heavy upperstage is larger and the current Centaur carries nearly the same amount of propellant.
Dual engine Centaur is a growth option for A-V. It's offered but never been ordered.
Quote from: bobthemonkey on 03/18/2011 10:47 pmDual engine Centaur is a growth option for A-V. It's offered but never been ordered. Untrue, there was a single Dual-Engine Centaur order, on an Atlas III launch. It is of the older style, with mechanical vs electronic controls, but the rest of the systems are the same.
There were retractable umbilicals (Rolling Beam Umbilical System) on the top of the TSM's which mated with panels on the sides of the orbiter, towards the rear of the payload bay.The LO2/LH2 were to be dumped during aborts thru the side panels. There was a H2 vent on top of the tail.
Quote from: Jim on 05/03/2006 11:50 amThere were retractable umbilicals (Rolling Beam Umbilical System) on the top of the TSM's which mated with panels on the sides of the orbiter, towards the rear of the payload bay.The LO2/LH2 were to be dumped during aborts thru the side panels. There was a H2 vent on top of the tail.That's pretty fascinating. Any ideas where might one find descriptions / schematics of how this worked? (For that matter, I've yet to come across a primer on how the standard umbilicals work.) I gather Challenger was fitted out with the necessary equipment at the time it was lost. Does Atlantis still have any of this hardware aboard or was it swapped out over the years?EDIT: Some good discussion begins here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17437.msg632423#msg632423
Quote from: jsmjr on 04/09/2011 09:12 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/03/2006 11:50 amThere were retractable umbilicals (Rolling Beam Umbilical System) on the top of the TSM's which mated with panels on the sides of the orbiter, towards the rear of the payload bay.The LO2/LH2 were to be dumped during aborts thru the side panels. There was a H2 vent on top of the tail.That's pretty fascinating. Any ideas where might one find descriptions / schematics of how this worked? (For that matter, I've yet to come across a primer on how the standard umbilicals work.) I gather Challenger was fitted out with the necessary equipment at the time it was lost. Does Atlantis still have any of this hardware aboard or was it swapped out over the years?EDIT: Some good discussion begins here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17437.msg632423#msg632423Here you go: A technical document on the RBUS hardware:
Always amuses me that they have a pump running 24/7 to keep the monocoque tanks pressurized!F=ma
Couldn't the Centaur-G, had it not been cancelled, launch the Magellan probe after the Ulysses and Galileo?
Quote from: longdrivechampion102 on 11/15/2012 07:37 pmCouldn't the Centaur-G, had it not been cancelled, launch the Magellan probe after the Ulysses and Galileo?Why? The IUS was quiet sufficient for the job of hauling Magellan to Venus.
Quote from: Ares67 on 11/15/2012 07:51 pmQuote from: longdrivechampion102 on 11/15/2012 07:37 pmCouldn't the Centaur-G, had it not been cancelled, launch the Magellan probe after the Ulysses and Galileo?Why? The IUS was quiet sufficient for the job of hauling Magellan to Venus.It was originally planned for Centaur-G
The G Prime (along with the G avionics) went on to be the upperstage for the Titan -IV
I understand that the required costs to develop a Centaur G Prime equivalent would be quite high. Why is that?
Quote from: Jim on 05/03/2006 11:50 amThe G Prime (along with the G avionics) went on to be the upperstage for the Titan -IVLet's see now, Centaur G Prime was a 2 engine Centaur with enlarged prop tanks that fit under a 5 meter payload fairing for Titan IV.Titan IV was eventually replaced by the current ULA launchers.There is currently a demand for a larger LH2 upper stage, possibly with larger prop tanks and at least 2 RL-10s. I understand that the required costs to develop a Centaur G Prime equivalent would be quite high. Why is that?
The answer may be in the "Centaur-G Technical Description". Fig 3-6 on page 3-5 is the second fluids config you show, and the last according to my memory of it. I will upload the PDF here, but I see the "Centaur-G' [Prime] Technical Description" has it's own thread which is outdated. Any suggestions?Please give feedback on my first few posts to get me up to responding efficiently on this great forum. This is post #1.Thx all... DanoChief Space Systems EngineerEdit: Just Adding two possibly helpful partial diagrams.
I apologize for the half document scans. The originals are 11 x 22 inches in size, not 8 ˝” x 11” as they appear. I cannot scan this size doc, but a lot of what I have is in that old ‘C-size’ format. [Many are Real Blue Prints that start to disintegrate if you look too hard at them, much less try to copy em.]First: These two unreleased ‘CDR handout destined’ drawings both dated 7-27-1983 are of the G’ vehicle, not the Stubby G version. [I don’t believe it but I am actually cutting-pasting-manipulating Shuttle/Centaur docs manually, just like I did 33 years ago… Worm Hole anyone?] Anyway, I reduced and then cut’n pasted the original yellowing 11 x 22 inch drawings into 6 x 8 inch pages which I Uploaded Down below.You will see that the diagram is really labeled accurately. [ya just had to see the whole pic is all]. The Draftsman was told to simply show each avionics box, both on the Centaur and on the CISS, exactly where they physically sat, as viewed from the Port and Starboard sides, as per the customers request. Cut-outs are used to show boxes hidden from view which may be on Centaur or CISS. These working dwgs were published in the “CISS Electrical Systems CDR Meeting Handout” in mid(?) 1983.Secondly: I got a lot of cobwebs shaking loose upstairs, and the solution for this program has always been for us to reference my Centaur/CASE Control Interfaces Block Diagram. It is easy to see all Centaur/Spacecraft Electrical Interfaces on one page for discussion purposes. It needs to be explained a little first, but I will upload any revision/Graphic I can find today. This Systems Block Diagram progressed from Rev-A on Aug- 27-1982, through Rev-G around Jan-1984.
I'm also interested in any schematics that shows the plumbing for the oxygen system on the CISS/Centaur to the same degree as the hydrogen system.
Quote from: DaveS on 11/19/2014 03:33 pmI'm also interested in any schematics that shows the plumbing for the oxygen system on the CISS/Centaur to the same degree as the hydrogen system.Are you talking about fluids schematics or physical structures diagrams?
Quote from: L5 on 11/19/2014 07:47 pmQuote from: DaveS on 11/19/2014 03:33 pmI'm also interested in any schematics that shows the plumbing for the oxygen system on the CISS/Centaur to the same degree as the hydrogen system.Are you talking about fluids schematics or physical structures diagrams? The physical structures diagrams, like the ones posted previously. Any details on the CISS would be great, especially the "break points" where the CISS ends of the plumbing meets the orbiter ends which was part of the "Centaur Mission Kit".Edit:Also was the red ring around the conical transition section between the LH2/LOX tanks flight equipment or was it GSE? Also in this photo where the LH2 F/D/D line is supposed to be there seems to be some kind of boxes. Also flight config or GSE?
Thanks for the reply. I'm one of the developers of a project to faithfully replicate the Space Shuttle, including the pads and the various upper stages for the free Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator. I'm the one who is creating the 3D models of the Centaur upper stages (both the G Prime and the G) as well as the CISS. So this involves getting the models as well as the coding that drives the simulation absolutely correct and accurate.The main thread where we in the project discuss the Centaur G Prime can be found here: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20597Be sure to check out the entire thread as it contains all of our discussions.I have attached a schematic from an unrelated document that illustrates the Centaur Mod/Mission Kits.
Do you have any titles or NASA reference date to start the search with? Most of our Centaur data comes from the Centaur G Prime Technical Description and some documents from the NASA Technical Report Server (NTRS).Also, any other photos showing the Centaur with the TPS applied would be great. The only S/C photos I have is of the one on exhibit at the US S&RC, but it along with the CISS it is mated to, has had alot of hardware including the TPS removed.And do feel free to join and post anything in our Centaur thread.
collectspace.com article on the Centaur G Prime/Centaur Integrated Support System exhibit move from the US Space & Rocket Center to NASA Glenn for its 75th anniversary: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-033016a-centaur-g-prime-move.html
One of the Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997.The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article.
1. Were any Centaur G stages manufactured?2. What about the preparations for Shuttle/Centaur launches from Vandenberg--was there any hardware already on-site?3. Is it likely that the other Centaur Gs and G Primes were modified and used in Titan IV/Centaur launches?
Is there any lists that show the changes made to the Centaur G Prime to enable it to fly as an upper stage option on the Titan IV? Was there any changes to the tank pressurization system that was one of the reasons that the Centaur G/G Prime got the axe as an shuttle upper stage?
Anyone know what encircled items on the CISS are? Photo courtesy of the San Diego Air & Space Museum.
A theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*) or to a trans-Mars trajectory? (*) I know that most of such missions would had smaller satellites doing direct injection to geostationary, but just let's say that we have the satellite making the circulation burns here. Also what is the maximum size of the volume that can be allocated to the payload in the Shuttlr Orbiter cargo bay?
Does anyone know if the payload bay liner flight kit was manifested for the Shuttle/Centaur missions? The reason I'm asking is that it was always flown on the IUS missions, so the question really is if the liner was flown for the IUS or the actual spacecrafts that the IUS carried.
A theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*)
The only figures I have are for GEO - which are probably not news to you - but anyway:Centaur G Prime: 6350 kgCentaur G USAF: 4500 kg
Quote from: DaveS on 06/09/2018 11:24 amDoes anyone know if the payload bay liner flight kit was manifested for the Shuttle/Centaur missions? The reason I'm asking is that it was always flown on the IUS missions, so the question really is if the liner was flown for the IUS or the actual spacecrafts that the IUS carried.Liner was independent of payload.
Quote from: Jim on 06/09/2018 02:23 pmQuote from: DaveS on 06/09/2018 11:24 amDoes anyone know if the payload bay liner flight kit was manifested for the Shuttle/Centaur missions? The reason I'm asking is that it was always flown on the IUS missions, so the question really is if the liner was flown for the IUS or the actual spacecrafts that the IUS carried.Liner was independent of payload.If it was independent of the payload why was it carried? What exactly was the liner's purpose? Some sort of payload bay protection?
Quote from: DaveS on 06/09/2018 02:33 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/09/2018 02:23 pmQuote from: DaveS on 06/09/2018 11:24 amDoes anyone know if the payload bay liner flight kit was manifested for the Shuttle/Centaur missions? The reason I'm asking is that it was always flown on the IUS missions, so the question really is if the liner was flown for the IUS or the actual spacecrafts that the IUS carried.Liner was independent of payload.If it was independent of the payload why was it carried? What exactly was the liner's purpose? Some sort of payload bay protection?To help keep the payload bay clean
They have optics, reflective surfaces, mechanisms and such