Author Topic: All EELV VSE architecture (Read 113995 times)

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #160 on:** 07/10/2009 11:36 am »

Quote from: agg3los on 07/10/2009 11:18 am

A question:its possible ,maybe in the future, to built an crew only Shuttle orbiter?true spacebus..maybe for more than 10 people..for tourism,or bigger space stations?this idea exists?
like we see on the movies..Moonraker.. ;)

How much money do you have?

Modify: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/pressreleases.htm <- This was supposed to be the best hope, but the latest press release is from 2005. . . .

mmeijeri · « **Reply #161 on:** 07/10/2009 11:41 am »

If it's Dream Chaser on Atlas V it might be cheaper than starting from scratch. And since it could be used for purely commercial purposes as well, there might be further cost savings.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #162 on:** 07/10/2009 11:45 am »

Quote from: agg3los on 07/10/2009 11:18 am

A question:its possible ,maybe in the future, to built an crew only Shuttle orbiter?true spacebus..maybe for more than 10 people..for tourism,or bigger space stations?this idea exists?
like we see on the movies..Moonraker..

Theoretically, everything is possible. Just take a current orbiter and put something like SpaceLab into it's payload bay, just this time for crew and additional life support equipment only, not for any science equipment. It would work.

But it's theoretical in any event. The STS system isn't safe to fly and even if you can get 20 people into a flight, your price for that flight to tourists would be way beyond the price of a seat on Soyuz, not to mention that you would have to find 20 wealthy passengers who are willing to pay dozens of millions USD each at first + you require a destination for your flight.

madscientist197 · « **Reply #163 on:** 07/10/2009 01:59 pm »

Quote from: Ron Carlson on 07/09/2009 04:36 am

According to NASA Facts ONLINE at

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/nasafact/count2.htm

Quote
The high efficiency engines aboard the Space Shuttle orbiter use liquid hydrogen and oxygen and have a specific impulse rating of 455 seconds.

Ron Carlson

Well NASAFacts is wrong then. :p It's like claiming that the RL-10-B2 has 465s ISP -- it doesn't. Theoretical predictions don't always match the actual performance.

From "History of Liquid Rocket Engine Development in the United States, 1955-1980, American Astronautical Society History Series, Vol. 13, Stephen E. Doyle, editor, Part 3, Chapter 4: Space Shuttle Main Engine, The First Ten Years, by Robert E. Biggs" gives 453.5 seconds as the actual vacuum ISP (from testing, not theoretical calculations). This was before the turbopumps were changed and the SSME lost a second of ISP. So, about 452.5s. If we want to get really picky, each SSME has a slightly different ISP based on process variation and of course the ISP also changes over time. There is an interesting blog post by Wayne Hale which mentions deliberately mixing and matching the SSME's which were known to have the highest ISP for certain high mass shuttle missions to the station.

Antares · « **Reply #164 on:** 07/10/2009 03:00 pm »

There are as many answers to Isp as groups looking at it. The analytical methods vary slightly. It's not unusual to see 1-2% differences across a community.

Ron Carlson · « **Reply #165 on:** 07/20/2009 05:17 pm »

A rumor from "Just old Gus" at the NASA Watch blog site at

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/farewell_ares_1.html

Quote

The word at MSFC is a change to Ares IV and Ares V.

Ares IV is the Ares V core stage and SRBs with the current Ares 1 Upper Stage/Orion. - Ares V stays the same.
Ares IV was the original configuration for the 1st 2 Ares V test flights.

The only difference between the two is the Ares 1 Upper Stage and Orion for crew and Earth Departure stage/Lunar Lander for Ares V.
Common launch systems, launch pads, buy/develop a common core capability, etc…

This will fix Orion weight needs and provide a serious cargo capability for other users like USAF, NRO, NSA, ESA, etc.

1st launch of a crewed vehicle would slip 2-4 years. 2017-2019.
Posted by: Just old Gus at July 14, 2009 11:08 PM

Of course there is no telling ahead of time what the Augustine Commission or "Obama" will do.

bad_astra · « **Reply #166 on:** 07/20/2009 05:25 pm »

Ares IV will not solve the gap, not even close.

Kaputnik · « **Reply #167 on:** 07/20/2009 06:36 pm »

Which iteration of Ares-V core does this refer to?
One would assume that with such a big vehicle under it, the Orion would be heading to the moon for LOR with Altair. That, in turn, takes some pressure off Altair as it would only be braking itself into LLO. Perhaps this would sufficient to let Ares-V drop down to a somewhat smaller core again?

Bill White · « **Reply #168 on:** 07/20/2009 07:37 pm »

Ares IV?

SSME or RS-68? What diameter tank? 4 segment or 5 segment RSRM?

robertross · « **Reply #169 on:** 07/20/2009 08:10 pm »

Quote from: Bill White on 07/20/2009 07:37 pm

Ares IV?

SSME or RS-68? What diameter tank? 4 segment or 5 segment RSRM?

I believe you'll find this to be very similar to the Direct J-130, or thereabouts...

Danny Dot · « **Reply #170 on:** 07/20/2009 08:27 pm »

It looks like I will be working this issue and need to stop posting here. I will be monitoring. Keep the ideas coming guys and gals.

Danny Deger

robertross · « **Reply #171 on:** 07/20/2009 08:29 pm »

Quote from: Danny Dot on 07/20/2009 08:27 pm

It looks like I will be working this issue and need to stop posting here. I will be monitoring. Keep the ideas coming guys and gals.

Danny Deger

Congrats Danny! (if that is inideed an appropriate term)

gladiator1332 · « **Reply #172 on:** 07/20/2009 08:34 pm »

Quote from: Danny Dot on 07/20/2009 08:27 pm

It looks like I will be working this issue and need to stop posting here. I will be monitoring. Keep the ideas coming guys and gals.

Danny Deger

Best of luck, and thank you for all of the information you have been able to provide thus far. It was greatly appreciated by all.

I have no idea what you will be working on, and I understand you won't be able to give us details, but I hope we will get to hear a good "campfire story" about all of this a few months from now.

Bill White · « **Reply #173 on:** 07/20/2009 08:35 pm »

Quote from: Danny Dot on 07/20/2009 08:27 pm

It looks like I will be working this issue and need to stop posting here. I will be monitoring. Keep the ideas coming guys and gals.

Danny Deger

Call it Ares IV, but make sure it is an in-line shuttle derived design with a standard tank, 3 SSME and two 4 segment RSRM. Other than that, feel free to be creative. ;-)

Also, Ares V can remain on the drawing board and in a few years top brass can have a brainstorm -- hey, lets add a 4th SSME and 6 RL-10s for an upper stage.

kraisee · « **Reply #174 on:** 07/20/2009 08:46 pm »

Just piecing together a series of rumors from different sources, but this is what I think is coming together right now:

1) Ares-I is toast and CxP have been moving staff over to Ares-V. The move has been slow so as not to be noticed -- around ten each day, but continuously for 2-3 weeks now, making for quite a number of transfers already.

2) Ares-V's ridiculously large Core Stage is to be scaled back a *little*. To the 10m Core, 5-RS-68, 5-segment variant from a few years ago.

I'm even hearing about possible shortening to use 4-segment SRB's as being evaluated currently -- but that option is specifically tied to an option which intends to make use of a 3rd stage while still fitting inside the VAB.

3) The chosen architecture will now be LOR-LOR with the Orion and Altair now to fly on completely separate vehicles at separate times.

Now, I can't be 100% confident in the above and things are still very-much in flux and apt to change.

What I think they'll find, sooner or later, is exactly what DIRECT found two years ago -- that LOR-LOR is about 20% less efficient than EOR-LOR when using the same two launchers. We have traversed this ground and walked it for about 6 months. And it is not the best approach. I'm going to start a pool on how long it will take them to figure that out... It took us 6 months, I bet it'll take them longer.

Ross.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #175 on:** 07/20/2009 08:48 pm »

LOR-LOR is not inefficient in an all-EELV architecture, but L1/L2 may make more sense.

marsavian · « **Reply #176 on:** 07/20/2009 08:56 pm »

Quote from: kraisee on 07/20/2009 08:46 pm

Just piecing together a series of rumors from different sources, but this is what I think is coming together right now:

1) Ares-I is toast and CxP have been moving staff over to Ares-V. The move has been slow so as not to be noticed -- around ten each day, but continuously for 2-3 weeks now, making for quite a number of transfers already.

2) Ares-V's ridiculously large Core Stage is to be scaled back a *little*. To the 10m Core, 5-RS-68, 5-segment variant from a few years ago.

I'm even hearing about possible shortening to use 4-segment SRB's as being evaluated currently -- but that option is specifically tied to an option which intends to make use of a 3rd stage while still fitting inside the VAB.

3) The chosen architecture will now be LOR-LOR with the Orion and Altair now to fly on completely separate vehicles at separate times.

Now, I can't be 100% confident in the above and things are still very-much in flux and apt to change.

What I think they'll find, sooner or later, is exactly what DIRECT found two years ago -- that LOR-LOR is about 20% less efficient than EOR-LOR when using the same two launchers. We have traversed this ground and walked it for about 6 months. And it is not the best approach. I'm going to start a pool on how long it will take them to figure that out... It took us 6 months, I bet it'll take them longer.

Ross.

At least the fantasy rocket is being consigned to the waste paper bin of history. If they can get a 3 stage Ares V working just do one launch just like Saturn V. That's a very successful road travelled about 40 odd years ago

. Ares IV is overkill for launching an Orion into LEO unless they really need the margin and make it do a lot more in the Lunar profile. I think we could be seeing a J-140/J-251 version of Ares V doing the EOR-LOR if they decide to stay that route. Sounds like you would still need an EELV for ISS Orion duty though.

gladiator1332 · « **Reply #177 on:** 07/20/2009 08:57 pm »

Quote from: kraisee on 07/20/2009 08:46 pm

Just piecing together a series of rumors from different sources, but this is what I think is coming together right now:

1) Ares-I is toast and CxP have been moving staff over to Ares-V. The move has been slow so as not to be noticed -- around ten each day, but continuously for 2-3 weeks now, making for quite a number of transfers already.

2) Ares-V's ridiculously large Core Stage is to be scaled back a *little*. To the 10m Core, 5-RS-68, 5-segment variant from a few years ago.

I'm even hearing about possible shortening to use 4-segment SRB's as being evaluated currently -- but that option is specifically tied to an option which intends to make use of a 3rd stage while still fitting inside the VAB.

3) The chosen architecture will now be LOR-LOR with the Orion and Altair now to fly on completely separate vehicles at separate times.

Now, I can't be 100% confident in the above and things are still very-much in flux and apt to change.

What I think they'll find, sooner or later, is exactly what DIRECT found two years ago -- that LOR-LOR is about 20% less efficient than EOR-LOR when using the same two launchers. We have traversed this ground and walked it for about 6 months. And it is not the best approach. I'm going to start a pool on how long it will take them to figure that out... It took us 6 months, I bet it'll take them longer.

Ross.

What kind of infrastructure changes are we talking for the 10m core, 5 RS-68, 5 seg version? Would the crawlers need to be rebuilt, crawlerway changed, etc?

Two, what about the base heating issue? Direct only had 2 x RS-68 and 3 x RS-68 and you guys saw the need to switch. Won't 5 x RS-68 still be a major issue?

mmeijeri · « **Reply #178 on:** 07/20/2009 08:57 pm »

On topic please.

Bill White · « **Reply #179 on:** 07/20/2009 08:59 pm »

Sounds like you would still need an EELV for ISS Orion duty though.

As I recall, DIRECT 3.0 explicitly calls for using EELV for ISS duty.