Author Topic: Constellation 2.0  (Read 7120 times)

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #20 on: 04/06/2010 04:34 AM »
This is my proposal to update Constellation with Constellation 2.0 ...
There are better more cost effective designs, as will be addressed. Orion should not be cancelled. Orion is a spacecraft capable of leading the US back to the Moon and then beyond....
Constellation 2.0 replaces the Ares I and Ares V rockets with the J-130, with possible future addition of the J-246. Furthermore, it continues development of Orion as is with plans to restore Orion to its pre-scaled down version incrementally over a period of years. ...
I'll agree that Orion should not be cancelled and Ares I & V need to be addressed, but I disagree that Jupiter is a viable alternative. It never has been.
Orion: Continue to develope the stripped-ISS and deep-space versions.
AresI: A scalable, inexpensive and domestic design that should replace AtlasV and compliments DeltaIV/H well. With varying SRM and upper stage lengths and J-2X throttling, I'd submit two new versions and a renaming.
AresI: Unmanned 3-seg design
AresII: ISS/Orion 4-seg design
AresIII: Existing 5-seg design
AresV: Staying with a 10m core diameter and crossbeam/SRB attatchment locations, but with a standardized 4/RS-68 base structure (periphrial mounted) that can accomodate 1-2 more RS-68s in the center. Base structure includes an ultralight composite shroud/spoiler to eliminate the need for regen RS-68s. Core comes in two lengths; Full-with the SRB crossbeam running through the intertank, and Short-that hangs below the crossbeam and contains a common bulkhead. With this, and the SRBs scalability, the design improves efficiency and flight rate, while new names are in order.
AresIV: 4/RS-68s, Short core, 3-seg SRBs with spacers
AresV: 4/RS-68s, Short core, 4-seg SRBs with spacers, J-2X upper
AresVI: 5/RS-68s, Full core, 4-seg SRBs with spacer, J-2X upper
AresVII: 6/RS-68s, Full core, 5-seg SRBs, J-2X upper
« Last Edit: 04/06/2010 04:37 AM by tamarack »

Offline MP99

Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #21 on: 04/06/2010 07:31 AM »
The J-130 can lift about 100 tons.

No, it can't. 70-77mT max.

J-24x required for ~100mT loads.

I'm pretty sure that you can't lift an Orion and an EDS on a J-130. Well, not with a load of fuel in the EDS, anyways.

That would leave little room for a lander of any kind.


The J-130 can lift an EDS.

You wouldn't need to lift a lander. A reusable lander would be launched by itself into Lunar orbit.

On a nominal Lunar mission the J-130 would launch Orion with its Extended Service Module (additional fuel for refueling the lander) and the EDS.

How much can the J-130 lift to LEO?  Orion is 25 tons.  You'll probably need 20 tons of lander propellant, seeing as a reusable lander would require more fuel than a two stage design.  LEO to LLO is about 4 km/s delta v so assuming a 45 ton payload and a specific impulse of 450 seconds you would need 65 tons of EDS propellant.  Not including the weight of the EDS that brings your LEO mass up to 110 tons.

That's in line with J-246H or J-246SH performance (ie design the EDS so it also burns as second stage during launch, which maximises TLI throw mass).

Martin

Edit: BTW, rendezvous with a lander in an arbitrary LLO needs much more prop for plane changes. The lander will require further prop to perform plane changes before landing. The lander will also need to consume a lot of prop in station-keeping in LLO.

EML avoids these issues, but EML/surface/EML (and LEO/EML/surface/EML/re-entry) has much prop requirements than CxP, and more of the landed mass is return-to-EML prop.

Martin
« Last Edit: 04/06/2010 07:44 AM by MP99 »

Offline MP99

Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #22 on: 04/06/2010 07:35 AM »
After Orion and the lander dock, the ESM would refuel the lander. Supplies and crew would then transfer into the lander for landing. Upon conclusion of the mission, the lander would stay in Lunar Orbit for the next Lunar Expedition. The advantages are simple a single launch and no one and done landers.

This simply replaces the costs of developing Ares with the costs to develop a reusable lander. TRL is pretty low at present.

Martin

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #23 on: 04/06/2010 11:45 AM »
This is my proposal to update Constellation with Constellation 2.0 ...
There are better more cost effective designs, as will be addressed. Orion should not be cancelled. Orion is a spacecraft capable of leading the US back to the Moon and then beyond....
Constellation 2.0 replaces the Ares I and Ares V rockets with the J-130, with possible future addition of the J-246. Furthermore, it continues development of Orion as is with plans to restore Orion to its pre-scaled down version incrementally over a period of years. ...
I'll agree that Orion should not be cancelled and Ares I & V need to be addressed, but I disagree that Jupiter is a viable alternative. It never has been.
Orion: Continue to develope the stripped-ISS and deep-space versions.
AresI: A scalable, inexpensive and domestic design that should replace AtlasV and compliments DeltaIV/H well. With varying SRM and upper stage lengths and J-2X throttling, I'd submit two new versions and a renaming.
AresI: Unmanned 3-seg design
AresII: ISS/Orion 4-seg design
AresIII: Existing 5-seg design
AresV: Staying with a 10m core diameter and crossbeam/SRB attatchment locations, but with a standardized 4/RS-68 base structure (periphrial mounted) that can accomodate 1-2 more RS-68s in the center. Base structure includes an ultralight composite shroud/spoiler to eliminate the need for regen RS-68s. Core comes in two lengths; Full-with the SRB crossbeam running through the intertank, and Short-that hangs below the crossbeam and contains a common bulkhead. With this, and the SRBs scalability, the design improves efficiency and flight rate, while new names are in order.
AresIV: 4/RS-68s, Short core, 3-seg SRBs with spacers
AresV: 4/RS-68s, Short core, 4-seg SRBs with spacers, J-2X upper
AresVI: 5/RS-68s, Full core, 4-seg SRBs with spacer, J-2X upper
AresVII: 6/RS-68s, Full core, 5-seg SRBs, J-2X upper
All of these retain the 10m base?  If so, you still have to develop a whole-new regen RS-68 engine, otherwise you go kablooey.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #24 on: 04/06/2010 12:34 PM »
After Orion and the lander dock, the ESM would refuel the lander. Supplies and crew would then transfer into the lander for landing. Upon conclusion of the mission, the lander would stay in Lunar Orbit for the next Lunar Expedition. The advantages are simple a single launch and no one and done landers.

This simply replaces the costs of developing Ares with the costs to develop a reusable lander. TRL is pretty low at present.

Martin

This would almost certainly be the greatest cost next to Orion itself. However, the cost doesn't have to be as high as it would initially seem. What I would like to do is take as many systems as possibly from the ISS and Orion and integrate them into the lander. The real development would be in the decent/accent engines (the same engines) and refueling system. These cost would also be spread out over the better part of a decade. It would also pay us back by reducing the number of launches to one, and not require us to build a new lander for ever mission.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28563
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8499
  • Likes Given: 5544
Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #25 on: 04/06/2010 04:58 PM »
Much better to develop a reusable lander than Ares, in my opinion. If we have Ares and no lander, we're still basically stuck in LEO. If we have a lander and no Ares, we can still use EELVs, or whatever you launcher of choice is.

Anyway, a lunar reusable single-stage lander (especially one that flies to and from EML1/2 and the moon) would have enough delta-v to work as a Mars lander/ascent-stage if you added a crasher stage (it'd need more thrust, but if you design it with more thrust than minimum for lunar, then you're good... still much less thrust than needed on Earth). Land your habitat and other equipment separately ahead of time.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Constellation 2.0
« Reply #26 on: 04/06/2010 06:46 PM »
This is my proposal to update Constellation with Constellation 2.0 ...
There are better more cost effective designs, as will be addressed. Orion should not be cancelled. Orion is a spacecraft capable of leading the US back to the Moon and then beyond....
Constellation 2.0 replaces the Ares I and Ares V rockets with the J-130, with possible future addition of the J-246. Furthermore, it continues development of Orion as is with plans to restore Orion to its pre-scaled down version incrementally over a period of years. ...
I'll agree that Orion should not be cancelled and Ares I & V need to be addressed, but I disagree that Jupiter is a viable alternative. It never has been.
Orion: Continue to develope the stripped-ISS and deep-space versions.
AresI: A scalable, inexpensive and domestic design that should replace AtlasV and compliments DeltaIV/H well. With varying SRM and upper stage lengths and J-2X throttling, I'd submit two new versions and a renaming.
AresI: Unmanned 3-seg design
AresII: ISS/Orion 4-seg design
AresIII: Existing 5-seg design
AresV: Staying with a 10m core diameter and crossbeam/SRB attatchment locations, but with a standardized 4/RS-68 base structure (periphrial mounted) that can accomodate 1-2 more RS-68s in the center. Base structure includes an ultralight composite shroud/spoiler to eliminate the need for regen RS-68s. Core comes in two lengths; Full-with the SRB crossbeam running through the intertank, and Short-that hangs below the crossbeam and contains a common bulkhead. With this, and the SRBs scalability, the design improves efficiency and flight rate, while new names are in order.
AresIV: 4/RS-68s, Short core, 3-seg SRBs with spacers
AresV: 4/RS-68s, Short core, 4-seg SRBs with spacers, J-2X upper
AresVI: 5/RS-68s, Full core, 4-seg SRBs with spacer, J-2X upper
AresVII: 6/RS-68s, Full core, 5-seg SRBs, J-2X upper

If we can't afford the Ares I and Ares V, what makes you think we can afford a whole stable full of them??? 

Somebody's been smoking the koolaid again...

Oh, BTW, you've always said that Direct/Jupiter never was a "viable alternative".  Specifically please, WHY?? 

Read my signature line for the first checkbox you have to hit to be considered a "viable alternative"...

OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Tags: