-
#180 by rcaron on 25 Apr, 2006 02:30
-
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2006 9:45 PM
Does not using the stick for the CLV preclude the CaLV?
If MSFC and the AF have been and are continuing to work on LOX/Methane engines why did the requirement get dropped in the first place? And what is the AF going to do with that engine anyway?
If we want a one-shot heavy lifter the CaLV is the only option, whether or not you use the stick. There are proponents out there that think 6-8 EELV launches for one CaLV launch is a good idea; I refer to my previous comments on why I'd be very weary about relying on automatic dockings with a high failure probability (due to sheer # of dockings required), a launch rate that has yet to be demonstrated, and the potential of cyro boil-off due to inevitable delays.
The LOX/LCH4 drop was part of the "Lunar Sooner" effort to get rid of items that have a signifcant probability of delaying the timeliine. This is, of course, at the expense of Mars compatibility and getting ourselves a nice flight history with these engines before we rely on them for a 6 month return trip. Despite MSFC/USAF's noteworthy advancements it is still quite a long way from flight-capabale, and I'm sure bugs will crop up in the dev process. LCH4 is one of the more benign cyrogenics as far as storability requirements, so maybe USAF wants it for that? Only speculation, of course. -
#181 by James Lowe1 on 25 Apr, 2006 02:35
-
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2006 8:45 PM
Well this thread has wandered well OT but it is such a good discussion that I can understand the Moderator not pulling in the leash.
Users are encouraged to start new threads if topics are going off topic too much. We're trying to all self moderation here, with our intervention coming if there's any form of distruption (via Chris' zero tolerance rule). -
#182 by Norm Hartnett on 25 Apr, 2006 02:51
-
Quote
rcaron - 24/4/2006 9:30 PM
If we want a one-shot heavy lifter the CaLV is the only option, whether or not you use the stick. There are proponents out there that think 6-8 EELV launches for one CaLV launch is a good idea; I refer to my previous comments on why I'd be very weary about relying on automatic dockings with a high failure probability (due to sheer # of dockings required), a launch rate that has yet to be demonstrated, and the potential of cyro boil-off due to inevitable delays.
Without some form of station/tug for docking and fuel transfer the 6 to 8 EELV option seems out of the question even with a massive cost savings I should think.Quotercaron - 24/4/2006 9:30 PM
The LOX/LCH4 drop was part of the "Lunar Sooner" effort to get rid of items that have a signifcant probability of delaying the timeliine. This is, of course, at the expense of Mars compatibility and getting ourselves a nice flight history with these engines before we rely on them for a 6 month return trip. Despite MSFC/USAF's noteworthy advancements it is still quite a long way from flight-capabale, and I'm sure bugs will crop up in the dev process. LCH4 is one of the more benign cyrogenics as far as storability requirements, so maybe USAF wants it for that? Only speculation, of course.
Ah, then the MSFC/AF effort may contribute to a solution to the Mars effort at a later date and if things go well may be available for later stages of lunar exploration, perhaps. -
#183 by rcaron on 25 Apr, 2006 03:00
-
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2006 10:51 PM
Without some form of station/tug for docking and fuel transfer the 6 to 8 EELV option seems out of the question even with a massive cost savings I should think.
A seperate station or tug is not required, and arguing pros/cons about such would definately be way out of left league. As each EELV-lofted element reaches orbit they can dock structurally with existing hardware as it would be configured for a lunar mission, and then transfer propellant in that manner (progress' docking system could refuel Sayult stations directly back in the day... not to again rely on unreplicable Soviet technology :-/)
EELV CaLV has enough cons next to it (in my opinion) without forcing a station handicap on them. -
#184 by Avron on 25 Apr, 2006 03:30
-
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2006 9:32 PM
Quotekraisee - 23/4/2006 9:14 PMI know quite a few of the guys managing and working on the CLV today. The ones I know ALL seem to have good experience and I see the "right stuff" in them to get the job done well.I personally think the CLV is in pretty good hands at MSFC.
Good Experience? when has MSFC built anything flight worthy in house during the last two decades?
Humm was wondering when that would be noticed and noted..
Bruhn, help me here please... what does MSFC do for $2B a year? -
#185 by Norm Hartnett on 25 Apr, 2006 03:30
-
Quote
rcaron - 24/4/2006 10:00 PM
A seperate station or tug is not required, and arguing pros/cons about such would definately be way out of left league.
Sorry just a random thought on how to avoid that "unreplicable Soviet technology :-/)"
Quotercaron
progress' docking system could refuel Sayult stations directly back in the day...
Err... They are still doing that on the ISS at two different ports are they not? -
#186 by rcaron on 25 Apr, 2006 03:36
-
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2006 11:30 PM
Err... They are still doing that on the ISS at two different ports are they not?
I think so. I just remember reading about how the fueling lines worked in Sayult days from a nice Soyuz history book I got. Didn't know how modern transfers worked with the Progress - I do know what water transfers have to be monitored by the astronauts to minimize bubbles - not terribly automatic. -
#187 by Tap-Sa on 25 Apr, 2006 11:27
-
Quote
rcaron - 25/4/2006 6:30 AM
I refer to my previous comments on why I'd be very weary about relying on automatic dockings with a high failure probability (due to sheer # of dockings required)
Ah unreliable/unreplicatable KURS. But you forgot to ask a very relevant question; how many times has acting of KURS resulted LOM? AFAIK never, at least not during ISS flights. It may be that the system has failed to do fully automatic docking, but then a mission controller on Earth grabs a joystick and does it on remote. So it's a nuisance if autopilot fails but because army of engineers is closely watching the mission anyway then plan B of going manual is not such a big deal.
(Not that I'd expect fully EELV-based lunar missions ever see the daylight, just don't see real technical showstoppers for it)
Btw a reliable docking system might make a good NASA Centennial Challenge competition. Start with purely software simulation. NASA provides API from which competing rendezvous&docking software packages get simulated sensory data (location, attitude, radar, laser rangers and whatnot) and can issue commands to virtual RCS. $250k would activate a lot of software/physics savvy nerds to attack the problem. -
#188 by Jim on 25 Apr, 2006 12:10
-
Quote
Tap-Sa - 25/4/2006 7:27 AM
Quotercaron - 25/4/2006 6:30 AM I refer to my previous comments on why I'd be very weary about relying on automatic dockings with a high failure probability (due to sheer # of dockings required)
Ah unreliable/unreplicatable KURS. But you forgot to ask a very relevant question; how many times has acting of KURS resulted LOM? AFAIK never, at least not during ISS flights. It may be that the system has failed to do fully automatic docking, but then a mission controller on Earth grabs a joystick and does it on remote. So it's a nuisance if autopilot fails but because army of engineers is closely watching the mission anyway then plan B of going manual is not such a big deal.(Not that I'd expect fully EELV-based lunar missions ever see the daylight, just don't see real technical showstoppers for it)Btw a reliable docking system might make a good NASA Centennial Challenge competition. Start with purely software simulation. NASA provides API from which competing rendezvous&docking software packages get simulated sensory data (location, attitude, radar, laser rangers and whatnot) and can issue commands to virtual RCS. $250k would activate a lot of software/physics savvy nerds to attack the problem.
Just a correction, it is a cosmonaut onboard that takes a joystick (TORU system) and guides in the Progress. Don't believe the KURS reliability numbers. The cosmonauts get a bonus everytime they perform a manual docking for a Progress or Soyuz. Something always doesn't look right near the end of an KURS automated docking (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
-
#189 by Tap-Sa on 26 Apr, 2006 09:40
-
Quote
Jim - 25/4/2006 4:10 PM
Just a correction, it is a cosmonaut onboard that takes a joystick (TORU system) and guides in the Progress.
Thanks. Quite sturdy looking hardware (more pics here). The main point remains; somebody remotely guides the vehicle. Say if EDS would consist of six individual LOX tanks plus one LH2 and we ship and assemble those one by one without astronaut waiting in the destination then somebody with the remote control can do the job. I reckon the TORU system (or something similar) could be adjusted for being operated from Earth with slightly increased delay. To have a space station in the assembly orbit would be nice but I doubt there will be. AFAIK ISS inclination is too impractical.
NASA needs to overhaul the TORU for this millenia; cover the operator with latest VR-junk, 3D-view helmet, motion capture suit and whatnot. Connect RCS to finger movements
-
#190 by hop on 26 Apr, 2006 11:23
-
Quote
Jim - 25/4/2006 5:10 AM
I've heard that statement before, but I'm not sure I buy it. Most of the dockings are still in automatic mode, and at least some recent ones done in manual mode seemed to have involved very real failures.
The cosmonauts get a bonus everytime they perform a manual docking for a Progress or Soyuz. Something always doesn't look right near the end of an KURS automated docking (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
On the subject of unreliability, it is worth noting that if an automatic docking system doesn't work on the first try, that doesn't inherently mean the mission is a failure. Many things can be diagnosed and worked around from the ground, as long as your system is smart enough to back off when things go wrong. ISTR that happened a number of times in KURS development, and certainly looks like it would have been possible for some of the cases where manual dockings were used on ISS.
It is also worth noting that the worst failures of the Russian system involved TORU, and/or the man behind the joystick. -
#191 by publiusr on 30 Apr, 2006 19:46
-
Quote
Avron - 24/4/2006 10:30 PM
QuoteJim - 23/4/2006 9:32 PM
Good Experience? when has MSFC built anything flight worthy in house during the last two decades?
Humm was wondering when that would be noticed and noted...
No need to be ugly. MSFC has good people there who would do good work--if people would let them!
Now I will concede that when it comes to upper stages and in-space propulsion, Lewis and Stan B should rule the roost and Marshall should stay out of it. MSFC's mandate was to produce large heavy lift rockets--and in recent years they have done everything but. I know that. But there were a few folks who WANTED Marshall to go back to its heavy lift mandate--who have been ignored by the Goldin Hordes. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Though there is an amusing rumor about how a replica of a Goddard rocket was built as a hobby by Sackheim...
And it didn't work.
That just means we need to get rid of all the deadwood and get Bill Eoff (of Magnum fame) back and beg him to take over. All money there must needs go to big rocket production, and get the non-HLLV advocates to quit getting into other centers territory. That I will concede.
But we have good people working in my state--it is just that the competant ones get ignored, throw their hands up, and walk out.
But you see that everywhere now. I just get sick of all the Marshall bashing.
With Griffin supporting CaLV, I feel now is the time to support MSFC and to quit bashing it. You think Goddard is going to build anything, or JSC? l
MSFC was bogged down with crappy SLI-pushers with heavy-lift advocates having been ignored for too long.
I just fear we will see the Stick built and any bad experience from that nix CaLV. And we will have yet another of those d___ed "20-tons-and-no-more" medium boosters clogging the LV arena.
Sigh. -
#192 by Kayla on 30 Apr, 2006 23:18
-
Quote
publiusr - 30/4/2006 2:46 PM
QuoteAvron - 24/4/2006 10:30 PM
QuoteJim - 23/4/2006 9:32 PM
Good Experience? when has MSFC built anything flight worthy in house during the last two decades?
Humm was wondering when that would be noticed and noted...
No need to be ugly. MSFC has good people there who would do good work--if people would let them!
Now I will concede that when it comes to upper stages and in-space propulsion, Lewis and Stan B should rule the roost and Marshall should stay out of it. MSFC's mandate was to produce large heavy lift rockets--and in recent years they have done everything but. I know that. But there were a few folks who WANTED Marshall to go back to its heavy lift mandate--who have been ignored by the Goldin Hordes. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Though there is an amusing rumor about how a replica of a Goddard rocket was built as a hobby by Sackheim...
And it didn't work.
That just means we need to get rid of all the deadwood and get Bill Eoff (of Magnum fame) back and beg him to take over. All money there must needs go to big rocket production, and get the non-HLLV advocates to quit getting into other centers territory. That I will concede.
But we have good people working in my state--it is just that the competant ones get ignored, throw their hands up, and walk out.
Not trying to bash the folks at MSFC or elsewhere in NASA (OK, maybe a couple at the top). There are a lot of brilliant folks throughout NASA.
But I’m curious, what new rocket has MSFC developed and flown in the last 25 years? I think it is worth it to be fully honest with ourselves. Not admitting ones limitations is the surest direction to failure!
By the way, are you dissing Sackheim?
-
#193 by Avron on 01 May, 2006 01:33
-
Quote
publiusr - 30/4/2006 3:46 PM
But we have good people working in my state--it is just that the competant ones get ignored, throw their hands up, and walk out.
But you see that everywhere now.
And how I would like to see these good people move us forward, at the rate we saw for the Gemini and apollo teams, we have the tools, the people, something is stopping them, it is that what I Bash.
If we are to attract great talent to engineering, we cannot continue on the course, where the buracrate is king, That is killing the drive and free will of others, while producing Zero, other than meaningless words... while violating the basic concept of freedom... that I will bash, as it must be stamped out.. -
#194 by quark on 01 May, 2006 05:14
-
I would like to see MSFC move on to something else. Like landers and rovers and habitats and in-space stages and other things exploration related.
The centroid of LV development and operations has gone to industry. As it should have. NASA is a government agency. It should be on the frontier where there are not established private industry capabilities. The current ESAS approach has NASA in effect competing with industry, taking business away from industry, instead of its historical purpose of paving the way and opening up new markets.
MSFC is staffed by great engineers and scientists, but they have no experience developing expendable launch vehicles. The course we are on is bad from many perspectives. It weakens the LV industrial base, and it risks the exploration program by putting the first critical step into inexperienced hands. -
#195 by kraisee on 01 May, 2006 08:54
-
Quote
Avron - 30/4/2006 9:33 PM
And how I would like to see these good people move us forward, at the rate we saw for the Gemini and apollo teams, we have the tools, the people, something is stopping them, it is that what I Bash.
I personally think Shuttle and ISS Construction are draining so much of the budget that its holding everything else up and squeezing the life out of virtually all the new development work. And it will continue to do so until it finally retires in 2010.
If it weren't for the life-blood-sucking program, we'd get CLV, CEV, CaLV, EDS and LSAM all years ahead of the current schedule, and with CaLV we could still finish the ISS around 2014 if we still wanted to.QuoteIf we are to attract great talent to engineering, we cannot continue on the course, where the buracrate is king, That is killing the drive and free will of others, while producing Zero, other than meaningless words... while violating the basic concept of freedom... that I will bash, as it must be stamped out..
Oh how do I agree!
I know some people bash Griffin, but I'm so glad a real engineering mind is back in charge of NASA for once. O'Keefe was a good man. But Goldin... Yeeesh.
We will get engineering spirit back in the country only when the dream of the moon is closer at hand. When children realise that they could one day go to the moon themselves if they only study hard at school, they will choose to do so all for themselves. We will not have to encourage those who choose to live their own dreams.
Ross. -
#196 by Jim on 01 May, 2006 12:21
-
Quote
quark - 1/5/2006 1:14 AMI would like to see MSFC move on to something else. Like landers and rovers and habitats and in-space stages and other things exploration related.The centroid of LV development and operations has gone to industry. As it should have. NASA is a government agency. It should be on the frontier where there are not established private industry capabilities. The current ESAS approach has NASA in effect competing with industry, taking business away from industry, instead of its historical purpose of paving the way and opening up new markets.MSFC is staffed by great engineers and scientists, but they have no experience developing expendable launch vehicles. The course we are on is bad from many perspectives. It weakens the LV industrial base, and it risks the exploration program by putting the first critical step into inexperienced hands.
Hear hear
-
#197 by Lunar Dreamer on 01 May, 2006 14:51
-
Quote
kraisee - 1/5/2006 3:54 AM
If it weren't for the life-blood-sucking program, we'd get CLV, CEV, CaLV, EDS and LSAM all years ahead of the current schedule, and with CaLV we could still finish the ISS around 2014 if we still wanted to.
If that was the case, and the Shuttle was retired now, how fast could we have these five elements? Because you can't take away testing and certfications before rolling new vehicles out and I think it's a false statement from people who just want to see the Shuttle ended, imho. -
#198 by Kayla on 02 May, 2006 02:11
-
Quote
kraisee - 1/5/2006 3:54 AM
I personally think Shuttle and ISS Construction are draining so much of the budget that its holding everything else up and squeezing the life out of virtually all the new development work. And it will continue to do so until it finally retires in 2010.
If it weren't for the life-blood-sucking program, we'd get CLV, CEV, CaLV, EDS and LSAM all years ahead of the current schedule, and with CaLV we could still finish the ISS around 2014 if we still wanted to.
Ross.
I'm actually quite confused with your comments Ross. You argued earlier that we have to go down the SDLV path to keep shuttle jobs to enable exploration. Than you go on to try and suggest that shuttle is cheaper than EELV. Now you are saying that Shuttle is a "life-blood-sucking program". Which is it?
If we take the shuttle mentality we will continue to have an army launching a few times a year, once again very expensive. Does anyone really believe that magically SDLV will shed its enormous costs? If not this will be an anchor preventing us from going anywhere just like the last 25 years! -
#199 by HailColumbia on 02 May, 2006 02:19
-
no, no, no. His point is that keeping the shuttle around until 2010 is delaying the CaLV. The shuttle can lift somthing like 19-20 tons to LEO. CaLV with its 100+ ton payloads is more efficiant. Drop the shuttle now, and those funds immedatly transfer to CaLV and lead to men on the moon faster. You should see his chart from a few months back, very impressive.
