NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan => Topic started by: Removed Account on 04/16/2009 02:01 pm
-
First step toward extended cryo ops for Centaur. This week's AW&ST carried a blurb on an inflatable sun shield that will be test-flown sometime in early 2011.
The test deployment will take place after the primary payload separates. Once operational, it will inflate and deploy after the fairing is jettisoned. ULA says it could be adapted to other rockets or used for orbiting fuel depots.
-
First step toward extended cryo ops for Centaur. This week's AW&ST carried a blurb on an inflatable sun shield that will be test-flown sometime in early 2011.
The test deployment will take place after the primary payload separates. Once operational, it will inflate and deploy after the fairing is jettisoned. ULA says it could be adapted to other rockets or used for orbiting fuel depots.
Can anyone provide insight into the schedule for this test? Is the Centaur for it associated with a particular payload?
-
This is great news! I wonder, how transferable is this to the Delta IV upper stage, if at all?
-
I imagine there may be more details to find in one of ULA's papers on the topic:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/DesignandDevelopmentofanInSpaceDeployableSunShieldfortheAtlasCentaur20087764.pdf
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SunShieldSpace2009.pdf
-
This is great news! I wonder, how transferable is this to the Delta IV upper stage, if at all?
According to this document (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SunShieldSpace2009.pdf), the sunshade can be scaled for use on the Delta IV upper stages.
-
This is great news! I wonder, how transferable is this to the Delta IV upper stage, if at all?
According to this document (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SunShieldSpace2009.pdf), the sunshade can be scaled for use on the Delta IV upper stages.
The pace of this work is noteworthy: "With continued funding, the team is on-track for a test flight in 2012." I'm reading that to imply there isn't yet an assigned payload for the sunshade to ride with.
-
The pace of this work is noteworthy: "With continued funding, the team is on-track for a test flight in 2012." I'm reading that to imply there isn't yet an assigned payload for the sunshade to ride with.
No, there is not a flight selected. A good guess would be one of the GPS-2F missions as they have capacities for secondary payloads and long coast phases.
-
It would be great if ULA did more such experiments.
-
It would be great if ULA did more such experiments.
Funded by ... ?
-
It would be great if ULA did more such experiments.
Funded by ... ?
The question every business asks or should be asking on every project.
-
It would be great if ULA did more such experiments.
Funded by ... ?
Probably NASA. It is a fairly obvious cryogenic propellent depot precursor technology.
-
It would be great if ULA did more such experiments.
Funded by ... ?
Probably NASA. It is a fairly obvious cryogenic propellent depot precursor technology.
Huh? I thought this was a ULA internal project, funded by them... Propellant depot's are not on the NASA road map, so why would they even have a need to fund it?
-
It would be great if ULA did more such experiments.
Funded by ... ?
Probably NASA. It is a fairly obvious cryogenic propellent depot precursor technology.
Huh? I thought this was a ULA internal project, funded by them... Propellant depot's are not on the NASA road map, so why would they even have a need to fund it?
From the FY-2011 Budget Overview:
Led by NASA’s Exploration Directorate, components include:
Flagship demonstration program:
...
Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and
other next-generation capabilities.
Most alternate plans for exploration that I've seen use prop depots. They are a good idea, and that's why NASA should fund it. Heck, it's even in the FY2011!
-
Once the launch is already up there, it's pretty much gravy to do some experiments. The launch services company owns the excess performance, unless the customer requests (and pays for) otherwise.
-
This is great news! I wonder, how transferable is this to the Delta IV upper stage, if at all?
According to this document (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SunShieldSpace2009.pdf), the sunshade can be scaled for use on the Delta IV upper stages.
I smell a cheap, quick, JUS .......... :D
-
First step toward extended cryo ops for Centaur. This week's AW&ST carried a blurb on an inflatable sun shield that will be test-flown sometime in early 2011.
The test deployment will take place after the primary payload separates. Once operational, it will inflate and deploy after the fairing is jettisoned. ULA says it could be adapted to other rockets or used for orbiting fuel depots.
As Dan Quayle would ask: why bother with a sun shade, why not just fly the Centaur at night?
:o
-
A heads up for others. :)
Arianespace doing a sunshade test with the ESC-A stage? They have a history of flying extra payloads already.
What about the Japanese?
Others don't use hydrogen for now.
-
Arianespace doing a sunshade test with the ESC-A stage?
Makes no sense, as ESC-A is not reignitable. Might be interesting later for the ESC-B.
-
Ah, you're totally right of course! I actually thought about that but didn't check it.
-
Once the launch is already up there, it's pretty much gravy to do some experiments. The launch services company owns the excess performance, unless the customer requests (and pays for) otherwise.
I'd love to see the space community do a lot more to take advantage of the excess performance on these launches. This could be customer or ULA driven. Something as simple as the DMSP demo (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SuccessfulFlightDemonstrationConductedbytheAirForceandUnitedLaunchAllianceWillEnhanceSpaceTransportation_.pdf) seems inexpensive while providing great data. Sun shield demos, advanced MLI demos, prox ops (http://www.darpa.mil/orbitalexpress/), avionic, solar array, cryo transfer, inflatable habitats or huge light weight mirrors all seem like great candidates for rideshare demonstration.
-
Once the launch is already up there, it's pretty much gravy to do some experiments. The launch services company owns the excess performance, unless the customer requests (and pays for) otherwise.
I'd love to see the space community do a lot more to take advantage of the excess performance on these launches. This could be customer or ULA driven. Something as simple as the DMSP demo (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SuccessfulFlightDemonstrationConductedbytheAirForceandUnitedLaunchAllianceWillEnhanceSpaceTransportation_.pdf) seems inexpensive while providing great data. Sun shield demos, advanced MLI demos, prox ops (http://www.darpa.mil/orbitalexpress/), avionic, solar array, cryo transfer, inflatable habitats or huge light weight mirrors all seem like great candidates for rideshare demonstration.
Nancy,
The key issues (as I understand it) is cost. ULA does do these post-delivery flight experiments on a regular basis, but they are limited on what they can do, because they have to fund the hardware out of IRAD money for the most part. With things like the proposed NASA technology programs (flagship and otherwise), there should hopefully be a lot more money for pursuing this more aggressively (including getting CRYOTE built and flying whenever they have enough spare performance to justify it).
~Jon
-
It's hard programmatically to add actual hardware on, though, because it increases risk to the primary payload.
-
It's hard programmatically to add actual hardware on, though, because it increases risk to the primary payload.
Different customers, different perceptions of risk. Delta II has been flying multiple payloads for decades, as has Ariane. The get away specials of shuttle a decade ago also provided a similar capability.
-
It's hard programmatically to add actual hardware on, though, because it increases risk to the primary payload.
Different customers, different perceptions of risk. Delta II has been flying multiple payloads for decades, as has Ariane. The get away specials of shuttle a decade ago also provided a similar capability.
Agreed, but note the slight difference between flying multiple customer payloads atop a launch vehicle, and flying experimental hardware on the launch vehicle below a customer payload. That might present additional challenges with a customer that contractually demands nearly complete "insight" into how the launch system is being operated. (My understanding is that USAF pays a full time quality assurance staff to watch over the shoulders of the ULA operators.) Paraphrasing recent observations by someone else: "Design is tough; verification is really tough." Verifying that a design (or design change) will cause no unintentional side effects is about the toughest verification task of all!
-
Different customers, different perceptions of risk. Delta II has been flying multiple payloads for decades, as has Ariane. The get away specials of shuttle a decade ago also provided a similar capability.
Dual payloads are different than secondary payloads. Also, there is no comparable get away special for ELV's (a benign and no interference payload).
It has be found that secondary payloads on ELV's actually requirem more care and feeding than a primary payload.