NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

NASA Shuttle Specific Sections => Shuttle History - Pre-RTF => Topic started by: Jamie Young on 05/03/2006 03:41 am

Title: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jamie Young on 05/03/2006 03:41 am
Kayla mentioned this was a month away from happening before Challenger, but I've never heard of this before. Anyone got images and info?
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Seattle Dave on 05/03/2006 03:45 am
Very little on google, in fact next to nothing.

This was interesting though.


http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/shuttle_centaur.html
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: J Britt RSA on 05/03/2006 03:53 am
There's a very short article about it on Astronautix.com: http://www.astronautix.com/stages/cenrgsts.htm

I 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.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Stowbridge on 05/03/2006 03:55 am
Some mention of this from one of the many Shuttle engineers on here (Steve the Deev in this case, last post):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=882&posts=9
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Skyrocket on 05/03/2006 06:35 am
Here are images of a Centaur-G including its Shuttle-cradle on display in Huntsville:

http://www.geocities.com/jassdude/centg.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hattonjasonp/hasohp/CENTAUR2.JPG
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hattonjasonp/hasohp/CENTAUR3.JPG


Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: simcosmos on 05/03/2006 10:21 am
Probably already mentioned, sorry if it is the case

Funny coincidence: I recently was researching Centaur related stuff (perhaps will implement some kind of Centaur variant as a 3rd stage for my virtual world's SRB launcher Orbiter simulator add-on - slightly different from the one being planned in real world, hehe) and, among some images, etc, I started (re)reading an interesting pdf about Centaur that had here on my archives.

Pdf references:


Title: "Taming Liquid Hydrogen – The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket, 1958-2002"
Download: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf
(from http://history.nasa.gov )


A very interesting reading covering many topics, Shuttle Centaur included.

António

Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: psloss on 05/03/2006 11:15 am
Quote
Jamie Young - 2/5/2006  11:41 PM

Kayla mentioned this was a month away from happening before Challenger, but I've never heard of this before. Anyone got images and info?
They were a few months away; there was still integrated testing to do.  At the time of the accident, KSC was getting Atlantis ready to go out to Pad A for Centaur tanking tests well ahead of the launch.   The planetary windows opened in May '86.

Philip Sloss
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2006 11:50 am
Quote
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.

It wasn't an idea, it was a program and hardware for the May launches were on site being processed at the time of 51-L.

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.

There were two versions of the Shuttle Centaur:  G and G Prime .  They were equivalent to 10' dia squashed to 14'

The G was the basic version and it was sized to carry a 40' long 10k lb to GSO.  USAF's MILSTAR and "other" DOD payloads were to use it.  Also NASA's Magellan spacecraft.

The G Prime was longer to hold more prop for the high evergy Galileo and Ulysses missions.

The G Prime (along with the G avionics) went on to be the upperstage for the Titan -IV


Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 05/03/2006 12:37 pm
Quote
Jim - 3/5/2006  1:50 PM
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
I 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?
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2006 12:50 pm
Quote
DaveS - 3/5/2006  8:37 AM
Quote
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
I 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?


Both
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: simonbp on 05/03/2006 02:21 pm
Quote
Skyrocket - 3/5/2006  1:35 AM
Here are images of a Centaur-G including its Shuttle-cradle on display in Huntsville:

...

Here's one I took last summer:



Interesting little factiod: like the Atlas A elsewhere in the museum, the Centaur has an automatic air compressor hooked up to it to keep the balloon tanks pressurised...

Simon ;)
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Orbiter Obvious on 05/03/2006 03:23 pm
They were going to stick that in a Shuttle cargo bay?  :o
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2006 03:29 pm
Quote
Orbiter Obvious - 3/5/2006  11:23 AMThey were going to stick that in a Shuttle cargo bay?  :o

It was only 2 months away from it

That's why Challenger had such a big impact on the US space program (both NASA and DOD).  Not only were missions delayed by the 3 year stand down.  Some missions lost their ride when Shuttle Centaur was cancelled.  They either were delayed until Titan-IV or took a performance hit (decreased mission life or longer trajectories) going to the  IUS.  Additionally, the shutdown of the VAFB pad did the same thing.  Missions either were delayed until Titan-IV or took a hit (decreased mission objectives) going to KSC.

And going further, the shutdown of US ELV production, delayed the restartup and gave Ariane a leg up
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Ben E on 05/03/2006 04:34 pm
Jim,

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.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: shuttlefan on 05/03/2006 06:24 pm
They had to totally replan the Galileo and Magellan missions because the IUS is less powerful. That's where the gravity-assists came into play.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2006 06:57 pm
Quote
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.

The Shuttle Centaur program offfice was half staffed with USAF personnel.  The G was for DOD requirements.  It had avionics to talk to USAF tracking sites. 

Milstar is one DOD spacecraft program, can't mention others

You can see the direct size translation from STS 60' payload bay to Titan IV 86' fairing.
STS - Centaur G 20' which leaves 40'
T-IV  - Centaur G Prime 26' (enclosed in fairing), fairing nose cap 20', which leaves a 40' barrel section

There were studies, but they would have been east coast missions moved west. 
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Launch Fan on 05/03/2006 08:11 pm
That sure would have made RTLS aborts very interesting in a scary way!
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/04/2006 12:51 am
Quote
shuttlefan - 3/5/2006  2:24 PM

They 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.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: simonbp on 05/04/2006 12:57 am
Though gravity-assist manuoevers are very time-limited, and mean a much longer time from launch to the start of the actual mission...

Simon ;)
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2006 01:20 am
Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/5/2006  8:51 PM
Quote
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.
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.

Gravity assists existed before Challenger.  Voyagers, Mariner 10 and Pioneer 10 or 11 used them
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: publiusr on 05/04/2006 05:22 pm
What 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.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2006 05:54 pm
Quote
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.

What says aerobaking won't work at Europa.  If it has an atmosphere, aerobraking works.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: yinzer on 05/04/2006 06:08 pm
Europa 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.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2006 06:15 pm
Quote
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.

My bad, I was thinking of Titan
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: HarryM on 05/04/2006 06:21 pm
VERY tenuous atmosphere, one hundred billionth pressure of Earth's. Also it is mainly oxygen, which can be nasty impacting a metal structure at high speeds (recall some LDEF results I think which showed it's bad erosion effects in Earth orbit from free oxygen).

EDIT: Too slow! :)
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Spacely on 05/04/2006 06:53 pm
Using 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

Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: publiusr on 05/18/2006 07:06 pm
I 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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2006 07:16 pm
Quote
publiusr - 18/5/2006  2:53 PM

I 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.

How many Cassinis have there been?  NASA is only budgeting one per decade.  We couldn't afford 100 CaLV's of planetary missions.  $350 Billion

OTV was a shuttle lifted vehicle.
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2006 07:19 pm
Quote
Spacely - 4/5/2006  2:40 PM

Using 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


Still need to get the payloads to the OTV and that will still take a CaLV
Title: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: publiusr on 05/18/2006 10:14 pm
Quite true--and with CaLV you don't have to fund OTV--save a step, build it all on the ground and launch.

Remember, the HLLV thrust class Shuttle was to launch probes too. Magellan was an HLLV payload of sorts. With CaLV you lose the orbiter. OTV is for the far future if at all. OTV will have to be refueled as it stands, and EELVs will also cost a lot of money in that you use three times as many engines than CaLV and five times as many upper stages.

CaLV is an asset we need to truly open space up for us.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 02:54 pm
Found some old pics
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 02:58 pm
more
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 02:59 pm
ISPM became Ulysses
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 03:01 pm
Real hardware
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: missleman01 on 05/01/2010 05:03 pm
One with its payload bay cradle is on display next to pathfinder at the space and rocket center in Huntsville.

http://historicspacecraft.com/Photos/Upper_Stage/Centaur_USSRC_RK_2008_1.jpg
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Blackstar on 05/01/2010 05:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 05/01/2010 05:23 pm
Very nice find Jim! Blackstar: Read the NASA SP Taming Liquid Hydrogen, The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf

The answer you want is in Chapter 7, Eclipsed by Tragedy, page 206.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 07:22 pm
I also got a document call Centaur G-Prime Technical Description.  Unfortunately, it is spiral bound.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 05/01/2010 08:37 pm
I also got a document call Centaur G-Prime Technical Description.  Unfortunately, it is spiral bound.
So no scans :( ? Hmmm, after checking these new images, especially the scale model ones, I notice several things.

The main one is that the model's LH2 F/D line has a Y manifold, whereas the display Centaur does not. And one the model the GH2 vent line goes all the way to the top of the LH2 tank, whereas on the display Centaur the GH2 vent line is significantly shorter and only goes to the bottom of the LH2 tank.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 08:50 pm
Now that I have the document, you can ask away.

The model is old.  The GH2 vent line is internal to the tank and there is no Y.

I also got the top level configuration drawings.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Fequalsma on 05/01/2010 09:05 pm
See also:

Mark D. Bowles, “Eclipsed by Tragedy: A History of Shuttle/Centaur,” To Reach the High Frontier: Case Studies in Launch Vehicle History, ed. Roger Launius (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 2002).
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: TJL on 05/01/2010 09:44 pm
Jim...of the 3 planned Shuttle / Centaur missions in 1986, was payload weight close to the 65k max permitted?
Thanks.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 05/01/2010 10:14 pm
I also got the top level configuration drawings.
No way you could scan those?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 11:18 pm
Jim...of the 3 planned Shuttle / Centaur missions in 1986, was payload weight close to the 65k max permitted?
Thanks.

The Galileo mission was at 65k
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2010 11:19 pm
I also got the top level configuration drawings.
No way you could scan those?

They are full size, I only have a 8x 11 scanner.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 05/01/2010 11:35 pm
I 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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Blackstar on 05/02/2010 12:49 am
Very nice find Jim! Blackstar: Read the NASA SP Taming Liquid Hydrogen, The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf

The 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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 05/02/2010 01:44 am
Very nice find Jim! Blackstar: Read the NASA SP Taming Liquid Hydrogen, The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf)

The 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.
Well, they did have meetings about the Centaur safety(given by then-LeRC)but I guess that the strained relationship between JSC and LeRC over the Centaur(JSC and KSC wanted MSFC to lead the Shuttle/Centaur program despite LeRC's experience with the Centaur) led to JSC getting the upper hand in the fight over the Centaur's struggle for survival.

Not only that, as Centaur was treated as a payload rather than orbiter system, it came under some pretty stringent safety rules, which it couldn't meet. I guess that was sort of a payback from JSC over that MSFC didn't get the program.

Had the Centaur been governed by the same rules that would eventually be applied to the EDO kit, I think it might have survived for the planned NASA flights(Galileo and Ulysses).

This is just speculation from what I have read over the years on the subject.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: yinzer on 05/02/2010 02:47 am
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.

Have you located the Congressional report that recommended cancellation?  I found a quote from a contemporary newspaper article complaining about the risk of spending further hundreds of millions of dollars improving the program and then having it be cancelled anyway.

You might also look at how quickly payloads decamped; Galileo could barely fly before Challenger; after the inevitable decrease in payload capacity from safety improvements, Lewis thought it wouldn't be able to fly at all.  If the USAF and NRO were already looking to move their big geosync birds to Titan IV, the number of Shuttle-Centaur flights would suddenly be a lot smaller.  Since development costs were suddenly much higher, cancellation would start looking more and more attractive.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Blackstar on 05/02/2010 03:54 am
I'll plead ignorance on all this because it is not a subject I've looked at recently.  Awhile back I reviewed a couple of manuscripts that had sections on Shuttle Centaur.  One was the Jenkins/Launius edited book on rockets and the other was the "Taming Liquid Hydrogen" book.  In both cases I suggested that the authors get more information on the cancellation, because they were rather thin.  In the case of "Taming," it is possible that the author did that (she did make a number of changes and improvements to the manuscript in response to reviews), but I know that the other essay didn't change.*

So maybe the story has been covered better and I'm just ignorant of it.  In general, I think that the Centaur story has been well told, whereas my own favorite, the Agena, has not.



*For "Taming Liquid Hydrogen" I also provided a lot of documents to the author and also suggested that she get more info on the connection to the Advent comsat.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/03/2010 01:37 pm
A bit late, but Jim, thanks again for those images. I had only seen one of them before. They are just jaw dropping.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Skylab on 05/03/2010 08:54 pm
I've not seen this bit of info mentioned specifically on this thread, so it might be worth sharing:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=mUNS96ZHyNUC&pg=PA415&lpg=PP1&dq=A+History+of+Shuttle/Centaur (http://books.google.nl/books?id=mUNS96ZHyNUC&pg=PA415&lpg=PP1&dq=A+History+of+Shuttle/Centaur)
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 08/05/2010 07:39 pm
I 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.
Just to give this suggestion a bump as it would be very nice to have.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Graham2001 on 08/07/2010 10:28 am
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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 03/01/2011 08:22 am
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.
Yes. Here's another that I have found, this time of it in the SPIF. Any shots of the +Y quadrant that has the LOX pipes?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: simonbp on 03/18/2011 03:44 pm
Sorry for the necromancy, but I just found a bunch of images of the sole Centaur-G on display. Enjoy!
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Danderman on 03/18/2011 03:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/18/2011 04:04 pm
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.

ummm... Titan 4 centaur.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 03/18/2011 04:11 pm
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.

The DIV Heavy upperstage is larger and the current Centaur carries nearly the same amount of propellant.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Blackstar on 03/18/2011 08:32 pm
Sorry for the necromancy, but I just found a bunch of images of the sole Centaur-G on display. Enjoy!

I have a bunch like that too.  It's a beautiful artifact that is marred by the poor way that they sealed off the engine nozzles from the elements.  They had rotted plywood stuck in there, with holes in it.  Heck, give me $30 and I could have come up with a better solution.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Danderman on 03/18/2011 10:45 pm
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.

The DIV Heavy upperstage is larger and the current Centaur carries nearly the same amount of propellant.

Do either have 2 engines?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: bobthemonkey on 03/18/2011 10:47 pm
Dual engine Centaur is a growth option for A-V. It's offered but never been ordered.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Downix on 03/18/2011 10:49 pm
Dual 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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/19/2011 04:06 am
Dual 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.
More information (and a photo of the DEC) here (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/ac204/020219atlas3b.html).
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 03/19/2011 12:42 pm
Sorry for the necromancy, but I just found a bunch of images of the sole Centaur-G on display. Enjoy!
Nice ones, but technically it is the sole G Prime. G was the shorter version. Any other shots? They're kinda repetitive given other photos available on the net. I'm kinda thinking of the right side and some more detailed shots of the CISS hardware.
Title: Re: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: jsmjr on 04/09/2011 09:12 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 04/09/2011 09:29 pm
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.

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
Here you go: A technical document on the RBUS hardware:
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 08/04/2011 09:16 pm
I 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.
Just to give this one final shot: Any updates on this?
Title: Re: RE: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: jscott1 on 05/18/2012 04:09 pm
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.

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
Here you go: A technical document on the RBUS hardware:

Thanks for that blast from the past...

I clearly remember when I first came to work at KSC in 1987 seeing the rolling beam umbilical in a scrap heap behind the Headquarters Building.

- Jonathan
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/16/2012 06:51 pm
Here's a photo I have gotten a hold of. Can someone ID the boxes that can be seen on the left side of the LO2 tank?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Fequalsma on 06/18/2012 01:17 am
Always amuses me that they have a pump running 24/7 to keep the monocoque tanks pressurized!
F=ma


Sorry for the necromancy, but I just found a bunch of images of the sole Centaur-G on display. Enjoy!
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2012 01:33 am
Always amuses me that they have a pump running 24/7 to keep the monocoque tanks pressurized!
F=ma


Actually, they didn't have to.  They could put the tanks in stretch. Which is being done to the vehicle above
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/18/2012 10:13 am
Anyone have any idea what the boxes on the LO2 tank are? They almost look like they're some sort of thermal covers for the LH2 fill/drain pipe.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/23/2012 05:09 pm
Here's another question. Where was the interface between the Xo1307 bulkhead and the in-flight GH2 vent line? Based on schematics found in the Centaur G Prime Technical Description on L2, I would guess somewhere around the top.

I have attached a photo of the Xo1307 bulkhead. Markings where the various interfaces was would be great!
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/15/2012 07:37 pm
Couldn't the Centaur-G, had it not been cancelled, launch the Magellan probe after the Ulysses and Galileo?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Ares67 on 11/15/2012 07:51 pm
Couldn'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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Art LeBrun on 11/15/2012 07:54 pm
Couldn'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.
Of course it was............there is no sound in space :D
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 11/15/2012 07:58 pm
Couldn'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
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: heng44 on 10/18/2013 01:24 pm
Here are some photos of the first Shuttle Centaur rollout on August 13, 1985.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: simonbp on 10/18/2013 10:13 pm
Couldn'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

And needed a very tight launch window to make it to Venus. Much like Galileo, Magellan originally had a straight-shot, quick transfer to its target. After Shuttle-Centaur was canceled, Galileo was changed to have a Venus flyby (in order to make up for the missing delta v). Since Galileo took the good launch window, Magellan on IUS had to take a really slow Type II trajectory to Venus.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Danderman on 10/19/2013 10:23 pm
The G Prime (along with the G avionics) went on to be the upperstage for the Titan -IV

Let'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?



Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2013 02:02 am

I understand that the required costs to develop a Centaur G Prime equivalent would be quite high. Why is that?


no need for this
The G Prime (along with the G avionics) went on to be the upperstage for the Titan -IV

Let'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?


no need for a G Prime equivilent when there is a larger stage available, the 5m DCSS.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/22/2013 04:01 am
The G Prime (along with the G avionics) went on to be the upperstage for the Titan -IV

Let'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?
Centaur G-Prime wasn't as large as it seems in our memories.  The current Atlas V Centaur stage holds almost as much propellant as Centaur G-Prime.  So does the 4-meter Delta IV upper stage.  The 5-meter Delta IV stage holds 1.35 times as much propellant as the old fat Shuttle Centaur.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 04/01/2014 01:33 am
A document dug up by Graham2001 on NTRS: Space Station Experiment Definition: Long-Term Cryogenic Fluid Storage (http://"http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870015208_1987015208.pdf")

The reason I post that document while it is directly unrelated to the Shuttle/Centaur, it has a page illustrating the Mission Kit/Orbiter mods that would have been used on the S/C missions. The relevant page is attached to this post. The page in question is 204.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 07/20/2014 01:07 am
I just came across this nice film uploaded by the San Diego Air and Space Museum on the Shuttle Centaur:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akHKvR-qiws
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Specifically-Impulsive on 07/29/2014 03:14 pm
Possibly on topic, ran across this old document from the Centaur model development for the Shuttle Mission Simulator.  This was the schedule as proposed in 1984, it didn't hold of course, but reminded me how out front the sim development had to be in order to train the crew well in advance of their flights...
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 10/25/2014 09:31 pm
Found something interesting in the STS/Centaur EIS that Blackstar linked earlier in the thread. It seems like the fluid/gas lines on the CISS changed between 1983 and 1985. The first attached image is of the fluid/gas system on the CISS in 1983 while the second is the same in 1985. Anyone know if that was the last change prior to production/final assembly of the CISS?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/13/2014 11:26 pm
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...
Dano
Chief Space Systems Engineer

Edit: Just Adding two possibly helpful partial diagrams.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/14/2014 03:43 pm
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...
Dano
Chief Space Systems Engineer

Edit: Just Adding two possibly helpful partial diagrams.
Great post and great complement document on the shorter G version. The images you attached, do you know the revision date of the document they came from? The Centaur G Technical Description that you attached was dated 1982 and showed some similarities in the fluid schematics with the one I attached from 1985.

Also, the titles are incorrect. All shown are on the CISS which is in the payload bay.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/17/2014 11:54 pm
I apologize for the half document scans. The originals are 11 x 22 inches in size, not 8 ½” 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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/18/2014 02:46 am
I apologize for the half document scans. The originals are 11 x 22 inches in size, not 8 ½” 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.
Gotta check my image rotation and figure out the quote function next time.

Now for the fluids delta question. I will look to see what the date problem is. I believe that this is the fluids change related to improving the ability/fault tolerance required when dumping propellants in an RTLS abort situation. The Orbiter could not land with a fueled Centaur… Period. The Astronauts wanted to know for sure that they could empty the vehicle’s tanks quickly and safely in that worst case emergency failure scenario, while maintaining full dual failure tolerance for all credible critical failures. This was just part of the first ‘Man Rating’ of the Centaur, so we took it in the chin and changed the configuration, adding weight + complexity.
Document dates on anything but officially released engineering drawings can be very misleading. Your 1985 CISS/Orbiter fluids system diagram is the same as the final one shown in the 1982 diagram in the Centaur G Tech Description I uploaded, right? If a subsystem hasn’t changed since the last design review, you would normally just copy the last document used and paste a new Title Block, and maybe a new date over the original. [The customer deserves up to date paper and ink for those momentous Critical Design Review meetings ya know.] I would say in general, that newer looking text and graphics on a document usually means they are the most developed designs. The opposite is true for very old unchanging subsystems/components; The spotty, gritty looking high contrast graphics/text tend to denote old stuff that never changes, except for multiple copies of copies degrading the document over time. Anyway, I will check exact dates when I can. I will also include some Titan 4 Centaur G’ images, and one of the more interesting Centaur DoD Missions. The Titan 4 Centaur version flew 16 missions with 100% success according to Gunter. This vehicle had to fly.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/18/2014 02:35 pm
Thanks for all the information, it is greatly appreciated. Does anyone of you have any final mass break downs from around the time the program got the axe (June(?) 1986)?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/19/2014 03:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/19/2014 07:47 pm
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.

Are you talking about fluids schematics or physical structures diagrams?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/19/2014 07:54 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/21/2014 09:03 pm
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.

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?

Most of what Centaur is, exists as Avionics equipment on the 'Equipment Module' (EM). It is a heavy system part. Here is the mass breakdown for one piece of Avionics equipment; one of 5 fault tolerant Computer Units (CU) on the CISS, which I have handy.
That top (bright) red scaffolding with white tiles to stand on, allowing total access to the EM and Spacecraft stacking, is REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT GSE hardware. Just like the flags by the woman and RL-10 Protectors/Environment Isolators on the engines. They are the same color. The ring around the Lo2/LH2 I/F is more brown/gold. That is the color of the insulation blanket, so I would say that is the bottom end of the Insul blanket. The manifold and that avionics box (It looks like the Aft Signal Conditioner or CDU or PICU) are also insulated, hence the same color. Just look at a Centaur image where the whole Insulation Blanket is exposed before Radiation Shield application, and you should be able to tell.

I have never read the "Centaur Mission Kit". U have link?
Are you building a scale model or something?

If you look closely at the Centaur/Booster I/F, you will see the top half of the 6 electrical rise off umbilical connectors at the separation plane almost hidden by the top rail of the white cart to the right of the 2 standing workers. Everything above that plane is Centaur. I uploaded the second to last revision of this Case/Centaur Interface I made... Rev-F. I have my final Rev- G in a file somewhere. It shows those 6 connectors in the center of the page. All subsystems to the left of the staging disconnects on that block diagram are Centaur or Spacecraft. Ignore the boxes to the right of these disconnects... ref only. I also integrated all Centaur Payloads. There were many.

Did you see pages 3-12, 3-22 & 3-23 in the G Tech Description. The rear view on Fig 3-34 is shows some LOX side, just hard to see. Both sides were symmetrical for the most part on CISS as I recall. These lines had to articulate evenly during rotation.

I have 65K lbs to LEO. The first 2 launches of STS-Centaur in a 2 week window were to be the heaviest launches yet, and the SSMEs were scheduled to run at 110% rated power during ascent for the first time. I will look for something more concrete.

Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/21/2014 09:26 pm
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=20597 (http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20597)
Be 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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/21/2014 10:00 pm
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=20597 (http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20597)
Be 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.
Very interesting on 2 fronts.
1) The first year of the three I worked in the GD Space Systems group on S/C, I designed the Systems Integration Facility (SIF) Simulators; Centaur/CISS/Spacecraft/orbiter/GSE/CCLS... etc. These were also used to develop the flight and ground software for everybody. This software and the detailed results of that development should be freely available from NASA now. Just find and download it. I'll help.

2) I just purchased the first game software of my life, and I have been playing computer games since 1972. Not a fan of any for long, so never bought. This one is called 'Space Engineers'. I've heard good things about Minecraft, which is supposedly similar to Space Engineers; 'Building something', but space based. You buy the software once and you own it. No monthly fees. I think I will like this game. I was going to get Microsoft flight sim which I know well. Maybe we can marry the two...

Edit: Give me some time to study the thread.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/21/2014 10:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/22/2014 12:05 am
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.
I have a bunch of pics and doc and refs. Do I post that much here, in the main thread, or a database...?
There is a second S/C & CISS on display. One S/C was slated for Galileo, the other for the single or dual satellite Huygens Sun Probe. [Orig named; The International Solar Polar Mission. Each satellite was to go to a different Sun Pole simultaneously, via Jupiter. Then the probes would have the North and South Poles of the Sun, exactly between them at points... made for better science.]

That is how we got both displays of the CISS & Centaur mated. However, there is strong controversy even now in NASA about Glen Research not getting one of the Displays. That was crappy wrong and exemplifies the petty strife coming from a small gutterball nasa subgroup and their crappy good old boy buddies in another NASA subgroup.

Here is mass from web;
Centaur G STS
Lox/LH2 propellant rocket stage. Loaded/empty mass 16,327/2,600 kg. Thrust 146.80 kN. Vacuum specific impulse 444 seconds.
Cost $ : 21.000 million. No Engines: 2.

Status: Out of production.
Gross mass: 16,327 kg (35,994 lb).
Unfuelled mass: 2,600 kg (5,700 lb).
Height: 5.95 m (19.52 ft).
Diameter: 4.33 m (14.20 ft).
Span: 4.33 m (14.20 ft).
Thrust: 146.80 kN (33,002 lbf).
Specific impulse: 444 s.
Burn time: 420 s.


Here is a meager start.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/22/2014 12:25 am
I think it would be best to post them as normal attached/embedded files.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/22/2014 03:18 am
OK, I will do that on the main thread. I have also located a few youtube videos on S/C.
Here is just one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akHKvR-qiws

Also, I have a pic of the G' with TPS, but I can't find the original yet.
Here is a screenshot of it.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: L5 on 11/23/2014 03:01 am
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.

Here is the main NASA Software catalog and a schedule for the SIF.
The software I reviewed and approved was very well annotated/remarked. My requirement was that I should not need to know a single line of code to review any software program if the remarks were simply complete and accurate.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/23/2014 09:46 am
Well, it isn' in it the NASA Software Catalog and besides, even if it was, it would most likely be US-only which is a hard NO-GO for us.

We'll just await the whatever documents you can provide and make our own from those.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 11/24/2014 03:44 pm
Another thing we're very interested in is any photos or schematics of the control panel(s) for the Centaur/CISS that would have been installed on the aft flightdeck of the orbiters. This is something that has eluded us for a long time.

I have attached a schematic of the IUS Power Control Panel as an example of what we're looking for.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: AnalogMan on 05/20/2015 06:29 pm
Thought this recently published Technical Paper - "RL10 Engine Ability to Transition from Atlas to Shuttle/Centaur Program" - might be of interest for this thread.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150008246.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150008246.pdf)

Abstract
[…] This paper describes the transition of the Atlas/Centaur RL10 engine to the Shuttle/Centaur configurations; shows the unique versatility and capability of the engine; and highlights the importance of ground testing. Propulsion testing outcomes emphasize the value added benefits of testing heritage hardware and the significant impact to existing and future programs.

It was originally prepared for the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, July 28–30, 2014

(Copy also attached)
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 04/01/2016 12:21 am
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
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/28/2016 12:41 am
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
Robert's informative article mentions:
Quote
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.

I have some follow-up questions.

Are there any pictures of the Centaur's arrival at NASA Glenn?

Do we know how many Centaur G and Centaur G Prime upper stages were built? Or partially assembled?

I'm counting:
1 ground-test article
1 Centaur G' for Galileo
1 Centaur G' for Ulysses
more?

Were any Centaur G stages manufactured?

What about the preparations for Shuttle/Centaur launches from Vandenberg--was there any hardware already on-site?

Is it likely that the other Centaur Gs and G Primes were modified and used in Titan IV/Centaur launches?
Is it possible that they were scrapped?

As always, I'm grateful for any answers that the forum members are able to provide!
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 04/28/2016 02:12 am

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?



1.  One tank I believe

2.  Was only a study.  Never got close to the hardware stage.

3.  G's were not going to fly on Titan.  Only G primes.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 07/15/2017 01:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2017 02:28 pm
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?

Just avionics transmitters to be compatible with the Ranges and AFSCN.  There was no need to change the pressurization system since it was fine for ELV's.  There wasn't any need to carry a CISS pressurization system because of the short duration before first engine burn
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: catdlr on 11/17/2017 08:35 pm
HACL film 01010 General Dynamics Roll Out of Shuttle Centaur


sdasmarchives
Published on Nov 17, 2017


Film from the Atlas Centaur Heritage Film Collection which was donated to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance.  The Collection contains 3,000 reels of 16-millimeter film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlO9q1y_Zfc?t=001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlO9q1y_Zfc
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: catdlr on 11/17/2017 08:39 pm
HACL film 01011 General Dynamics Roll Out of Shuttle Centaur


sdasmarchives
Published on Nov 17, 2017

Film from the Atlas Centaur Heritage Film Collection which was donated to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance.  The Collection contains 3,000 reels of 16-millimeter film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE63d5F7PxY?t=001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE63d5F7PxY
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: dchill on 11/18/2017 09:56 pm
Roll-out days were always good fun.  We all got an hour or so off work and got to spend time outside in the San Diego sun.  I was hired right out of college to work Shuttle/Centaur but it was cancelled 2 weeks before I started, so I ended up working Titan/Centaur and and Atlas/Centaur instead.  The later T/C and A/C roll-outs weren't quite as showy, but otherwise similar -until the move to Denver.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/16/2017 02:08 am
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?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: calapine on 12/16/2017 09:26 pm
The only figures I have are for GEO - which are probably not news to you - but anyway:

Centaur G Prime: 6350 kg
Centaur G USAF: 4500 kg
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 02/09/2018 03:08 pm
Anyone know what encircled items on the CISS are? Photo courtesy of the San Diego Air & Space Museum.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/09/2018 04:16 pm
Anyone know what encircled items on the CISS are? Photo courtesy of the San Diego Air & Space Museum.

I'm guessing those are helium pressurization tanks.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/09/2018 11:24 am
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.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/09/2018 01:45 pm
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?

Bumping if anyone can roughly calculate that.  :)
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2018 02:23 pm
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.

Liner was independent of payload.
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2018 02:24 pm
A theoretical question: What is the maximum payload the Shuttle with Centaur (both versions) could have pushed to a standard GTO (*)


Double GSO numbers for a ROM
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2018 02:25 pm
The only figures I have are for GEO - which are probably not news to you - but anyway:

Centaur G Prime: 6350 kg
Centaur G USAF: 4500 kg

Centaur G USAF: 10,000 lbs (that was the design spec)
Centaur G Prime: 14,500 lbs
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/09/2018 02:33 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2018 02:35 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/09/2018 02:44 pm
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.

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
So it would have been flown on the Shuttle/Centaur missions?  What exactly was the contamination concern that merited the liner on the missions it was flown on? The HST missions I can understand. But Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses were all orbiters (OK, Galileo carried the atmospheric probe but still).
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2018 12:52 am
They have optics, reflective surfaces, mechanisms and such
Title: Re: The Shuttle Centaur
Post by: DaveS on 06/10/2018 01:10 am
They have optics, reflective surfaces, mechanisms and such
So the liner is to protect the payloads from offgassing from the orbiter? Si the regular MLI blankets is pretty dirty when it comes to offgassing on-orbit? Is this something that was learned from the IECM data gatherings they did with it on STS-2 and STS-4?