Author Topic: Man rating EELVs  (Read 62820 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18344
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #60 on: 02/11/2010 08:10 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.

A.  Atlas does not need two pads.  It needs two processing facilities.  The vehicle is at the pad for less than a week

B.  36 couldn't handle a F9H.  Spacex was going to go there for the F5  I believe

C.  OSC is finding out it made a big mistake by going to WFF.

Offline mrhuggy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • East Yorkshire, UK
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #61 on: 02/11/2010 08:30 pm »
I dont think the would have any major problems launching from the pad s they have now. Both Atlas and Falcon 9 are designed to be rolled out on pad at last minute and launched, heh spaceX have talked about doing it all in 3 hours.

The main modification needed would be a access tower, basically a lift in a tower which can be moved back at last minute. Dosn't have to be fancy, nor does it need to carry services like LOX and RP etc.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6616
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3411
  • Likes Given: 1223
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #62 on: 02/11/2010 08:32 pm »
New paper on the ULA website: Atlas and Delta Capabilities to Launch Crew to Low Earth Orbit.

Thanks for the link, Martijn!   Fun reading.  I particularly like how using the same tricks from Ares-I PRAs (and another independent method based on a combination of PRAs and demonstrated flight heritage) they come to a LOC number for commercial crew launches on Atlas V 401 that is competitive with Ares-I...  :-)

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6616
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3411
  • Likes Given: 1223
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #63 on: 02/11/2010 09:10 pm »
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.

I may have misread it, but my understanding was they were talking about a commercial crew vehicle (much smaller than Orion) baselined as the vehicle to fly on the Atlas V 40x vehicles, and Orion was only baselined for the Delta-IVH.

~Jon

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #64 on: 02/12/2010 11:50 pm »
1) Ok, I trust them on their schedule for Atlas human rating (don't even want to know their costs...)

2) as much as LM tries to affirm they can get things done by 2013 on the cheap, they won't.

3) I somehow doubt LM could finish Orion development for less than a billion

1) Why don't you want to know their costs?  The Atlas group actually developed a vehicle in recent memory (between 1998 and 2002), so they have credible cost models; unlike NASA HSF which has never hit a cost target on a large project.  Not to mention that Atlas V only missed its projected launch date by 3 months, when it was predicted at L-51 months.

2 & 3) Cite evidence please.  No disparaging conjecture allowed.
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 mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #65 on: 02/14/2010 10:32 am »
I particularly like how using the same tricks from Ares-I PRAs (and another independent method based on a combination of PRAs and demonstrated flight heritage) they come to a LOC number for commercial crew launches on Atlas V 401 that is competitive with Ares-I...  :-)

There are some more gems in there. Paragraph 5. discusses reliability and it stresses that is was one of four top level requirements for the EELV program. It also takes a subtle dig at Ares PRA by mentioning "true reliability" and stating that their analysis was backed up by Aerospace and the USAF.

Quote
A similar approach for Delta IV is more problematic. The Delta II has enjoyed a long string of success, but the design similarities between Delta IV and Delta II are few. The Delta IV system itself has flown ten times with 100% success in nine operational missions.

This is another brilliant remark. Unlike Ares, I Delta IV has had 100% success in nine operational missions. Ares I has had one partially successful suborbital test flight. Just as there is little commonality between Delta II and Delta IV there is little commonality between the 4 seg boosters and a full Ares I. Whether you put more faith in PRAs, operational history or similarity between systems, Delta comes out on top. And Atlas is even better!
« Last Edit: 02/14/2010 11:15 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4790
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 3222
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #66 on: 02/14/2010 11:10 am »
A.  Atlas does not need two pads.  It needs two processing facilities.  The vehicle is at the pad for less than a week

Jim, do you know if they would still want an access tower at 41 would they be okay with some type of access off the MLP?

I've always liked the clean pad concept for Atlas V and I think the time and money required for a second VIF and ML would be shorter and cheaper than LC37 and another MST. 

It's been 10 years since the first one so I'm sure they wouldn't just build a copy of the VIF like originally planned, especially for a manned vehicle.  So you would have a design cycle but they are a sharp bunch and know what they are doing.
Superheavy + Starship the final push to launch commit!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #67 on: 02/14/2010 11:16 am »
How many VIFs could be reasonably added to an existing pad before you would need a new pad?
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: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18344
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #68 on: 02/14/2010 01:29 pm »

Jim, do you know if they would still want an access tower at 41 would they be okay with some type of access off the MLP?


I think they would go with MLP access.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18344
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #69 on: 02/14/2010 01:33 pm »
How many VIFs could be reasonably added to an existing pad before you would need a new pad?

Two total.  I think there would be other constraints for more, like LCC or horizontal processing space. 

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #70 on: 02/14/2010 01:36 pm »
Hmm, that's not much. What about Delta? A HIF takes up more space, so that doesn't sound good. Could you have 37A&B + 4 HIFs?
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: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18344
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #71 on: 02/14/2010 01:38 pm »
Hmm, that's not much. What about Delta? A HIF takes up more space, so that doesn't sound good. Could you have 37A&B + 4 HIFs?

The one HIF can support 3 heavies.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #72 on: 02/14/2010 01:41 pm »
Wow, that on the other hand is impressive. That presumably means it can also support 3 mediums, or is it more?
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: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18344
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #73 on: 02/14/2010 01:53 pm »
Wow, that on the other hand is impressive. That presumably means it can also support 3 mediums, or is it more?

2 or 3 mediums per bay, but the pads are the limiting factor. 

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #74 on: 02/14/2010 01:57 pm »
Does this mean that if there are going to be tens of commercial crew flights a year Delta Medium flying from both 37A&B could be more interesting than Atlas?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #75 on: 02/14/2010 02:39 pm »
The attached page from the Delta IV Payload Planners Guide shows the layout of the HIF.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline qti

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #76 on: 02/18/2010 03:07 pm »
How many VIFs could be reasonably added to an existing pad before you would need a new pad?

Two total.  I think there would be other constraints for more, like LCC or horizontal processing space. 

Hmm, that's not much. What about Delta? A HIF takes up more space, so that doesn't sound good. Could you have 37A&B + 4 HIFs?

There is also the SMARF which is huge.  It could be refurbished to accommodate 6 bays equivalent to an Atlas VIF, each with a dedicated mobile launch platform.  All feeding LC41 for potentially very frequent launches.  Atlas needs less then a day on the pad.  With adequate staffing it would be interesting to see how quickly LC41 could be turned around between launches.  Maybe a week isnít unreasonable?

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #77 on: 02/18/2010 03:12 pm »
Does the SMARF still exist? Didn't SpaceX tear down all the Titan facilities?
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: 35960
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18344
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #78 on: 02/18/2010 03:49 pm »
Does the SMARF still exist? Didn't SpaceX tear down all the Titan facilities?

SpaceX only tore down the LC-40 MST and umbilical tower.  LM tore down the LC-41 MST and umbilical tower and as ULA is using the MIS (ASOC), RIS and SRS.  The USAF tore the VIB.  The SMAB and SMARF are still up. 

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: Man rating EELVs
« Reply #79 on: 02/18/2010 04:10 pm »
Could the third area in the HIF be used as a fully functional bay just like the other two?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1