Author Topic: Man rating EELVs  (Read 63372 times)

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #40 on: 02/11/2010 07:33 am »
New paper on the ULA website: Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit.

Quote from the article "With a late 2013 initial launch capability for crew on Atlas we believe the commercial crew vehicle development, which has not begun in earnest as of mid 2009, will become the true pacing item with very low risk related to the launch vehicle  development becoming a driver. As such, the Atlas launch vehicle should support the earliest credible commercial ILC."

Ok, I trust them on their schedule for Atlas human rating (don't even want to know their costs...), but what really strikes out is the spacecraft development. They are baselining Orion and as much as LM tries to affirm they can get things done by 2013 on the cheap, they won't. And the above quote is of course true, as of 2009 (and 2010) there hasn't been done any real development of a crew vehicle to be launched on an Atlas (except of course Orion). The spacecraft becomes the pacing item.

Anyway, one option of the likely 3 funded programs under the new commercial crew program will involve an EELV (most likely Atlas). The interesting part will be, which spacecraft will be on top of it and can it be developed for the limited money that will come from NASA (and potentially some private investors)? I somehow doubt LM could finish Orion development for less than a billion... and Dream Chaser is a risky development project, even though they are doing some preliminary work already under CCDev.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #41 on: 02/11/2010 08:28 am »
New paper on the ULA website: Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit.

LM and Boeing now have the same opportunity as SpaceX, OSC, and anyone else to put up their own money and try for commercial manned spaceflight contracts. ATK too.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #42 on: 02/11/2010 12:01 pm »
New paper on the ULA website: Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit.

I'm generally a skeptic on contractor-provided data, but this is very, very good.  On first look, I would baseline something close to these estimates.

Well done, ULA!

(imagine if we had taken this route in 2005 with a shuttle derived SDLV)

Only issue for me is the trade between the superior safety of Atlas V vs. the need to rely on a foreign-produced RD-180.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 291
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #43 on: 02/11/2010 12:36 pm »
Several typos in this paper, seems like they might have cobbled it together from existing papers in a hurry.  I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion.  Oh well.
Scott

Offline MP99

Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #44 on: 02/11/2010 01:02 pm »
Several typos in this paper, seems like they might have cobbled it together from existing papers in a hurry.

Agreed. You'd have thought at least someone would have made sure not to claim adherence to 8705.2A if they're not, although context does suggest it's a typo and not a genuine claim:-

Quote
Atlas and Delta engineers performed a line-by-line review of NPR 8705.2A requirements and allocated each to the appropriate system responsible for demonstrating compliance (Launch Vehicle and Crew Vehicle, Launch Vehicle only or Crew Vehicle only). Once that was determined, the engineers assessed compliance of their systems to the requirements allocated to the system and the Launch Vehicle. Table 1 shows the results of that assessment.

Table title:- Table 1: Atlas and Delta 8705.2B Requirements Assessment Process


Quote
I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion.  Oh well.

I believe Jim has described this as a major change to the LV's architecture, so I can understand why it's not present.

Still, would have been nice to see.

Martin

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #45 on: 02/11/2010 01:19 pm »
Several typos in this paper, seems like they might have cobbled it together from existing papers in a hurry.  I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion.  Oh well.
What?  typos?  No way!  I honesty thought that the Atlas has been flying since the 12th century:
Development             Year Completed   Time to Complete (Months)
SLC3E Atlas IIAS              1194                        65
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #46 on: 02/11/2010 01:29 pm »
I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion.  Oh well.

That wasn't a ULA idea nor do they sanction it.

Offline strangequark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Co-Founder, Tesseract Space
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #47 on: 02/11/2010 01:40 pm »
I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion.  Oh well.

That wasn't a ULA idea nor do they sanction it.

Is it impractical, or just inadvisable? For Atlas, GNC is all/mostly in the Centaur, right? Is it the same case with the Delta IV, or are there other reasons it's a bad idea to fly without 2nd stage? If you would prefer to PM, my intent is not to hijack the thread.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #48 on: 02/11/2010 01:48 pm »

Is it impractical, or just inadvisable? For Atlas, GNC is all/mostly in the Centaur, right? Is it the same case with the Delta IV, or are there other reasons it's a bad idea to fly without 2nd stage?

Same case

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #49 on: 02/11/2010 01:56 pm »
What were the reasons behind the idea for Orion as a second stage? Structural loads on the upper stage?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #50 on: 02/11/2010 02:01 pm »
What were the reasons behind the idea for Orion as a second stage? Structural loads on the upper stage?

Reliability number game.  Reduced part count and systems

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 291
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #51 on: 02/11/2010 02:07 pm »
I was hoping for a mention of the version of Delta IVH with no upper stage, which is purported to be able to lift the LEO version of Orion.  Oh well.

That wasn't a ULA idea nor do they sanction it.

Ok, good to know, I didn't know that the idea didn't come from them - I suppose Aerospace Corp. came up with that one?  I can see how it would require extra development work wrt avionics, etc.  Still it's kind of an intriguing almost-SSTO (non-RLV) concept.
Scott

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #52 on: 02/11/2010 06:28 pm »
ULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. 

All in all, a very concise and thought out proposal.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #53 on: 02/11/2010 07:05 pm »
ULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. 


Then the same LCC and HIF be used.   That was OSP's contention.  Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39.  Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLP

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #54 on: 02/11/2010 07:20 pm »
ULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. 


Then the same LCC and HIF be used.   That was OSP's contention.  Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39.  Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLP
I'm looking at LC37A, I'm not sure how or what can be shared between the two beyond the fuel tank to the back.  Is there a good diagram or video showing how it works?
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #55 on: 02/11/2010 07:22 pm »
ULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. 


Then the same LCC and HIF be used.   That was OSP's contention.  Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39.  Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLP
I'm looking at LC37A, I'm not sure how or what can be shared between the two beyond the fuel tank to the back.  Is there a good diagram or video showing how it works?

The tank farm was designed to be shared.  But the real advantage was being close to the existing HIF and LCC.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #56 on: 02/11/2010 07:25 pm »
ULA's suggestion of completing LC37A took me by surprise. 


Then the same LCC and HIF be used.   That was OSP's contention.  Only those that wanted "NASA" control were suggesting LC-39.  Same goes for LC-41, all that is needed is another VIF and MLP
I'm looking at LC37A, I'm not sure how or what can be shared between the two beyond the fuel tank to the back.  Is there a good diagram or video showing how it works?

The tank farm was designed to be shared.  But the real advantage was being close to the existing HIF and LCC.
I'll admit, part of me really likes this idea, as I am someone that does not like inconsistancy, and an LC37B without an LC37A to go with it always bugged me...

Sounds good to me, the unmanned from LC37B, manned (and any unmanned which requires tower-access to the cargo) from LC37A.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #57 on: 02/11/2010 07:39 pm »

Sounds good to me, the unmanned from LC37B, manned (and any unmanned which requires tower-access to the cargo) from LC37A.

37B already provides adequate access for unmanned launches (less than a day before launch), just not late enough for a manned launch (less than T-3 hours)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #58 on: 02/11/2010 07:44 pm »

Sounds good to me, the unmanned from LC37B, manned (and any unmanned which requires tower-access to the cargo) from LC37A.

37B already provides adequate access for unmanned launches (less than a day before launch), just not late enough for a manned launch (less than T-3 hours)
Just saying... did not mean it was absolutely critical, just saying...
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #59 on: 02/11/2010 07:47 pm »
Did someone mess up by allocating LC-40 to Space-X instead of, say LC-36?  Atlas could have used 40 and 41, Delta 37A and B, and Space-X 36 A and B.  I know there's currently a Space Florida deal for launching Athena III from LC 36, but allocating the old Atlas pad to such a smaller LV just seems like major overkill.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0