COTS Award Announcement Thread

[Jim]

antonioe - 25/2/2008  12:12 AM

Antares - 25/2/2008 10:36 PM

antonioe - 25/2/2008 2:23 PM From CCAFS, range limits may preclude use of the the ascending azimuth (anybody knows for sure?)

IIUC the terminology and I'm 98% sure I do, ETR limits actually preclude descending azimuth from the Cape to the ISS. The Shuttle always launches to the north now.

Uhh... are you sure that's not a Shuttle-unique situation due to the STS transatlantic abort sites (Rota, Zaragoza)?  Somehow I remember that ELV's going to 51.6 are sent descending due to excessive Pc's over Europe... lower Pc's over Africa (stages are faster by the time the IIP's transit Africa). STS may not have suitable TAL's when going descending to 51.6... maybe Dakar?

I really should stop speculating about things I don't know... I apologize.

Mars Odyssey went north to a park orbit of 51.9 degrees.

[antonioe]

Jim - 26/2/2008 5:52 AM Mars Odyssey went north to a park orbit of 51.9 degrees.

Copy that.

[A_M_Swallow]

antonioe - 25/2/2008  8:23 PM
 What's at 51.6 deg north latitude?

The coast line of England.

[TrueGrit]

I had a couple of questions on what the initial Taurus II vehilce processing thoughts are?  Currently as I understand it the Taurus and Minatur payload and upperstage(s) integration and mate is in Vandenberg.  The integrated stage/payload is then shipped to the pad where it is integrated and mated to it's lower stage(s).  That certinaly makes sense considering the simularity to Pegasus.  Is the inital thoughts to continue the same for Taurus II, or a more traditional integrate and mate at the launch site approach?  The impression I had was that the intial thoughts are modeled after the Russians: integrate at a horizontal assembly building, roll out to the pad, errect, and shoot.  I've been wrong before...  If so are you considering on-pad payload integration, ala Delta IV, or plan on integrating the payload while horizontal?

[CFE]

TrueGrit - 26/2/2008  10:05 PM

I had a couple of questions on what the initial Taurus II vehilce processing thoughts are?  Currently as I understand it the Taurus and Minatur payload and upperstage(s) integration and mate is in Vandenberg.  The integrated stage/payload is then shipped to the pad where it is integrated and mated to it's lower stage(s).  That certinaly makes sense considering the simularity to Pegasus.  Is the inital thoughts to continue the same for Taurus II, or a more traditional integrate and mate at the launch site approach?  The impression I had was that the intial thoughts are modeled after the Russians: integrate at a horizontal assembly building, roll out to the pad, errect, and shoot.  I've been wrong before...  If so are you considering on-pad payload integration, ala Delta IV, or plan on integrating the payload while horizontal?

If I were to guess at what T-II payload integration would look like, the payload is going to go horizontal, get encapsulated, and then mate to the Castor 30 in a facility near the pad.  The first stage would arrive at the pad separately.  The mated Castor/payload/fairing stack will then be stacked atop the first stage on the pad.

Am I correct in this assumption?  Further, are WFF's current facilities sufficient to enclose the T-II first stage?

[meiza]

It's gotta be funny to lift it up with the light empty first stage and the heavy solid second one...

[antonioe]

meiza - 29/2/2008 6:55 PM It's gotta be funny to lift it up with the light empty first stage and the heavy solid second one...

As a matter of fact, yes, that is one of the design requirements of the Transporter-erector.  Also, don't forget the 6 mT or so of the encapsulated payload on top of it!!!

[TrueGrit]

Is the plan to add a crane and/or scar the mobile service tower to able to transition to vertical integration if the costumer requested it.  I could see some payload costumers that would prefer vertical integration, even if it costs money to do so.

[antonioe]

TrueGrit - 2/3/2008 1:00 PM Is the plan to add a crane and/or scar the mobile service tower to able to transition to vertical integration if the costumer requested it. I could see some payload costumers that would prefer vertical integration, even if it costs money to do so.

The customers that seemed to insist on babying the payload on top of the rocket are mostly NASA.  With the NASA science funding crunch I doubt very much any of them will have the funding necessary to do that.  You will be amazed at how fast customers change preferences when money is tight.

We've had not trouble with Taurus ("Classic") customers: when they ask us to gain access to the payload atop the rocket and we give them the keys to the cherry picker, all of suddent they figure out the payload is A-OK!!!

[TrueGrit]

Your "classic" Taurus reference had my thinking that your planning on a "clean-pad" concept.  Pad will consist of a propellant storage, vehicle errector and hold-down, lower umbilical interface, and "classic" Taurus umbilical tower.  No mobile service tower...  Am I correct or off-base?  That would of course make my previous question moot, as you can't scar what doesn't exist.

Would seem to make sense to go with full horizontal integration...  Particularly if you are working to minimize on-pad time.  Always wondered why Delta IV did it halfway...  My guess is that on-pad integration adds ~1 week to each rockets on-pad schedule.  The only restriction would seem to be getting the payload customer to buy-in.  Could be a problem if they start restricting optimal vehicle processing and testing.  Have you been precoordinating with the NASA and DoD launch services groups on horizontal integration?  Wonder if the governement costumer based in Virginia has any concerns in this area?

On another topic...  I remember the standard payload interface was a big item in the EELV spec development...  During RFP development.  That different Delta, Titan, Atlas interfaces was a problem.  With the ability to influence new vehicle development I wonder it Aerospace/NASA looking to extend that spec?  Or does that already extend down to the TII/DII payload class?

[antonioe]

antonioe - 2/3/2008 10:44 PM We've had not trouble with Taurus ("Classic") customers: when they ask us to gain access to the payload atop the rocket and we give them the keys to the cherry picker, all of suddent they figure out the payload is A-OK!!!

I forgot to mention I plagiarized aero313's very own words (he used to run the Taurus program in a galaxy far, far away).  He said that during the Taurus II PDR last month when somebody asked exactly the same question... (Joe was a member of the Senior Review Team at the PDR.)

You know, Joe, plagiarism is the best form of flattery (ask any politician)...

[antonioe]

TrueGrit - 2/3/2008 12:03 AM Your "classic" Taurus reference had my thinking that your planning on a "clean-pad" concept. Pad will consist of a propellant storage, vehicle errector and hold-down, lower umbilical interface, and "classic" Taurus umbilical tower. No mobile service tower... Am I correct or off-base?

No, you are quite correct, at least as far as the current concept goes.  You know what happens during development: "small" things make you deviate from the original concept.

but AFAIK today, vehicle transporter/erector (T/E), lower umbi interface, unbi tower and the pump/valves/instrumentation parts of the complex are all road-transportable.  At WFF we will likely use an extended version of the Taurus launch stool and a portable "elevator" to lift the T/E to stool height (then rolled out of harm's way). At CCASF we will likely use a flame trench with a ramp for the T/E to roll on.  At VAFB we have both options (ramp at SLC-8 or thw WFF approach at Pad 576)

In all cases it appears that it does not pay to make the LOX and fuel tanks portable, so we will likely have a fixed set at each facility we use.  that's a bummer, 'cause they are expensive and have a long lead time.

Could you all check you basement to see if you have any suitably sized LOX tanks lying around??? 

 

Would seem to make sense to go with full horizontal integration... Particularly if you are working to minimize on-pad time. Always wondered why Delta IV did it halfway...

Well, Atlas V comes pretty darn close to that...

 My guess is that on-pad integration adds ~1 week to each rockets on-pad schedule.

Ha!  Try one to two months!... if the pad crane doesn't get stuck!!!

On another topic... I remember the standard payload interface was a big item in the EELV spec development...

Things have calmed down a bit since there are fewer and fewer launch vehicles offered with "historical" interfaces.  The SAAB-Ericsson bands seem to be the de facto standard.

[iamlucky13]

antonioe - 2/3/2008 8:44 PM

We've had not trouble with Taurus ("Classic") customers: when they ask us to gain access to the payload atop the rocket and we give them the keys to the cherry picker, all of suddent they figure out the payload is A-OK!!!

 :laugh: I'm sure with the trouble the airline industry has with people running trucks and lifts into airplanes and causing millions of dollars worth of damage, your procedure is a little more rigorous than that. :laugh:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/leserreporter/2008/03/sturm__emma/fg-sturm/2/15-emma-flugzeug__MBQF__8701221,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=225.jpg" width="300" border="0" />

[kevin-rf]

So is there a sign in the cherry picker thats says; "Please return rocket to the pointy side up position when done" ?

[Sid454]

If you ever do wish to carry crew can the vehicle scale up so it can handle the task though it seems it could carry a small two place vehicle like Gemini?

[Jim]

Sid454 - 3/3/2008  4:34 PM

If you ever do wish to carry crew can the vehicle scale up so it can handle the task though it seems it could carry a small two place vehicle like Gemini?

Read the thread he answered this earlier

[Sid454]

I found it but it wasn't a serious answer a bit campy esp the silly talk on dwarfs the only part I can gather as serious information was the two person capsule more roomy then Gemini but not much better then Apollo and talk of a high energy upper stage which would increase it's payload considerably .
On anthropomorphic accommodation's for NASA to even consider it I guess Soyuz TMA would have to be used as a guide 150cm to 190cm  4'11" to 6'3" height so we know what sizes of people have to be able to ride on it.

I guess seriously it'll wait until they have a high energy stage for Taurus II or they find some way to get away from the 1800 to 3000Kg per crew issue maybe with composites or better heat shielding materials as in past discussions I heard four to five crew is the break even to be profitable also why spacex dropped the F5 and went to the F9.

But a lot of the information I'm interested in likely has an NDA attached to it at this moment.

[Lampyridae]

Sid454 - 4/3/2008  11:23 AM

I found it but it wasn't a serious answer a bit campy esp the silly talk on dwarfs the only part I can gather as serious information was the two person capsule more roomy then Gemini but not much better then Apollo and talk of a high energy upper stage which would increase it's payload considerably .

Adding a 3rd person to the design would result in a number of problems (I imagine) such as density, C of G and the sheer mass penalty for one extra person, pressure suit, parachutes, seat, heat shield, life support requirements and then the extra RCS propellant and larger escape tower for all that. Plus there may be the actual difficulty of where to put a third crew member in terms of vehicle layout and compromises. It could be done but Orbital aren't bothering - no business case.

[TrueGrit]

I like the concept...  You've gone one step further than I would by making your valve, pump, instrumentation unit mobile.  I would have integrated them into the propellant storage facility, since you would seem to need a minimum of valves and instrumentation for maintainance between launches.  The portable transporter/errector almost sounds like an old Russian ICBM truck...  Where's the nearest mobile crane chassis manufacturer.  I'm curious on the "elevator"...  TE with rocket must weight something over 60 mt...  That's a big lift mechanisim.

Athough I'd disagree that intergrating at the pad adds 2 months to the processing time...   At least when the crane works :-)  

[aero313]

antonioe - 3/3/2008  11:46 AM

You know, Joe, plagiarism is the best form of flattery (ask any politician)...

I was going to suggest that you're now apparently ready to run for office...