Author Topic: A Possible Solution: Leveraging Exisiting Capabilities for Exploration  (Read 11211 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
There has been alot of talk now about the USAF supporting the idea of new booster, new engine development. And there also seems to be a prerequiste to make the engine reusable.
This after Obama announces that he will outsource most activitys to commercial providers when they are not ready and after shutting down the flailing Constellation Program. Certainly, building a brand new HLV and engine designed to be game changing and affordable seems counterproductive to outsourcing to commercial. Most likely the two will compete with each other.

But what happens so often is that it seems our leaders forget about what we already have. And that includes both sides of the aisle as the Ares supporters fail to realize that Ares is also brand new and expensive and the Obama supporters who fail to realize the many issues that could arise from building a brand new HLV.

It seems that CXP logic still prevails. Many ask what I mean by that. What I mean is the thought that all existing technology, engines, and launch vehicles are some how inadequate and impossible of being upgraded or modified to support new missions and to be made cheaper. That throwing away everything we have and devoting billions of dollars of taxpayer (and now apparently defense) money to simply recreating it all somewhere down the road. That "betting the farm" on totally new rockets that must be built FROM SCRATCH is some how the best way to go because its " a bold new direction and is gamechanging".

That logic is exactly what caused CXP to fail: Thinking that there was enough money and enough will to build TWO BRAND NEW ROCKETS, TWO BRAND NEW ENGINES (J2x and RS-68-B-REGEN( a more powerful and regeneratively cooled rs 68, essentially a new engine)) and a BRAND NEW SRB, rather than using what we have. Sounds alot like fy 2011 which proposes that we scrap everything and build a brand new HLV and engine for it. How much money will that cost? How far behind schedule will it fall? What design issues will crop up? (they always show up).
How can anyone logically explain that this will not result in the same exact failure as CXP 10 years or less down the road, with still more wasted time and money?


I propose that we use existing technology and scale it up in phases as needed, both from the government sector and the commercial sector. What I propose can reduce the gap, save us money, do exploration very soon, allow for game changing research and development funding in the immeadiate future, and leave the door open to build new engines or Launch Vehicles if they become needed.

Here is what I am thinking.
On  the commercial side Spacex is the biggest player in the room aside from ULA. But they are behind schedule and will need a good many flights to prove their designs and reduce costs. In the mean time we have perfectly good EELVS just waiting to be used. We also have a spacecraft, orion, that is slated to become a CRV in the bugdet. What I propose is the "capability gap reducer" as far as crew is concerned. Since STS extension appears to be slipping away, we will need something to reduce reliance on foreign nations. While dragon and Falcon 9 are certainly contenders, it could be a very long time before they are ready. If a failure occurs or there are delays, it could much longer than three years before they are ready.
So I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.
Also they should be directed to begin the development of an ACES 41 stage.
In the meant time, I recommend awarding a contract to Spacex to human rate Falcon 9 and to create a crewable dragon as soon as possible, with a target IOC of sometime in 2013.



 On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly. Also, since

When the time comes for exploration, towards the later of years of ISS that is, move to phase 2:

Build the second version of Orion for BEO.
If Atlas 5 cannot lift it, even with ACES (which is one reason for building ACES), switch to delta 4. If Spacex has a more powerful version of falcon 9 availble (such as f9h) that can lift it and is cheaper than EELV, use that. The chosen vehicle would be used to launch the Orion BEO exploration craft and its Service Module.

Meanwhile the SDHLV would be ready to come online. This vehicle would be used to lift the following things into LEO: EDS, Missions Module, Lander, Any other needed equipment. Additionalyl it would be used to lift the deep space propulison module as well as EDS (perhaps in a two launch configuration) for missions requiring signifcant in space propulsion beyond simply an EDS.  If propellant depots were used the HLV would also be used to lift them. Additionally, any other large or unsual payloads that the government (or DOD) may have in future, could fly on the HLV. The same goes for any heavy research or development test bed payloads, such as a space based solar power experiment, that might be around.

In this way, EELVs and other commercial lvs would be used to launch crew to the ISS. In future, they would be used to launch the crew up to a meet up point in orbit, where a stack launched by the HLV would be waiting. The HLV would not be human rated with this plan.


Thats one way to do it. If this situation is more constrained, then going with the EELV exploration plan that ULA proposed, using propellant depots as well as ACES and perhaps phase 2, would be more prudent. Then if in space propulsion is needed (i.e. this refers to non conventional propulsion, such as VASIMIR with a nuclear reactor, ect), a scaled EELV could loft the module. Also, if the EELVS did not have suffecient power in the future to accomplish exploration, then a new, EELV derived HLV, using a new domestic engine could be built. But only IF the scaled EELVS were not able to accomplish the tasks set to them.

Also, without a doubt the first destination BEO should be the moon. This is so the new spacecraft, and any and all new tech can be tested in Space and a destination that is farely easy to reach, that has been reached before, compared to something like EML 1,2 or a NEO ect. The moon should not, however, become the ONLY destination, it should be a stepping stone and a technology test destination, not the only or final destination.

There are many ways to leverage existing technology and what we have already paid for. The above is just one possibility. I would like to here your thoughts and ideas on this as well as other possibilitys for using what we have now, instead of throwing things away.

If we have learned anything, we should have learned that throwing away things that the money has already been spent on, things that have proved their salt, in the hope of building something new and grandiose that will "do a better job" somehow, is a sure way to failure.  CXP ought to have taught us that.

Open for debate.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2010 08:29 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
There is also plenty of room for new technology in this plan. By doing SDHLV at a slow pace rather than break neck, there should quite a bit of money avaible for R&D, payloads that could fly on HLV if required (i.e. one launch of HLV carrying many different payloads on one rocket.)

Plus if you went the route of the ULA plan there would potentially be even more savings.

Keep in mind that just like EELV, the SDHLV could also be scaled up into a variety of larger launchers if needed. (see the DIRECT threads for information on the Stretched Heavy variants, for example).
« Last Edit: 04/25/2010 08:30 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
So I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.
[...]
Open for debate.

What do you imagine a human-rated Atlas V looks like?  Does it have solids?  Is it one or three cores?  What kind of track record does it have?  How much does stripping down Orion to meet a launch vehicle's capability lead to a reduction in crew safety?  Isn't that a lesson learned from Ares I?

If you were to ask me, "What does a human-rated Delta IV look like?" I would respond: it looks exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy that's ever flown, because it would be exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy.  It can be human-rated based on its exceptional track record ... don't change a thing!
-- sdsds --

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 0
There has been alot of talk now about the USAF supporting the idea of new booster, new engine development. And there also seems to be a prerequiste to make the engine reusable.
This after Obama announces that he will outsource most activitys to commercial providers when they are not ready and after shutting down the flailing Constellation Program. Certainly, building a brand new HLV and engine designed to be game changing and affordable seems counterproductive to outsourcing to commercial. Most likely the two will compete with each other.

But what happens so often is that it seems our leaders forget about what we already have. And that includes both sides of the aisle as the Ares supporters fail to realize that Ares is also brand new and expensive and the Obama supporters who fail to realize the many issues that could arise from building a brand new HLV.

It seems that CXP logic still prevails. Many ask what I mean by that. What I mean is the thought that all existing technology, engines, and launch vehicles are some how inadequate and impossible of being upgraded or modified to support new missions and to be made cheaper. That throwing away everything we have and devoting billions of dollars of taxpayer (and now apparently defense) money to simply recreating it all somewhere down the road. That "betting the farm" on totally new rockets that must be built FROM SCRATCH is some how the best way to go because its " a bold new direction and is gamechanging".

That logic is exactly what caused CXP to fail: Thinking that there was enough money and enough will to build TWO BRAND NEW ROCKETS, TWO BRAND NEW ENGINES (J2x and RS-68-B-REGEN( a more powerful and regeneratively cooled rs 68, essentially a new engine)) and a BRAND NEW SRB, rather than using what we have. Sounds alot like fy 2011 which proposes that we scrap everything and build a brand new HLV and engine for it. How much money will that cost? How far behind schedule will it fall? What design issues will crop up? (they always show up).
How can anyone logically explain that this will not result in the same exact failure as CXP 10 years or less down the road, with still more wasted time and money?


I propose that we use existing technology and scale it up in phases as needed, both from the government sector and the commercial sector. What I propose can reduce the gap, save us money, do exploration very soon, allow for game changing research and development funding in the immeadiate future, and leave the door open to build new engines or Launch Vehicles if they become needed.

Here is what I am thinking.
On  the commercial side Spacex is the biggest player in the room aside from ULA. But they are behind schedule and will need a good many flights to prove their designs and reduce costs. In the mean time we have perfectly good EELVS just waiting to be used. We also have a spacecraft, orion, that is slated to become a CRV in the bugdet. What I propose is the "capability gap reducer" as far as crew is concerned. Since STS extension appears to be slipping away, we will need something to reduce reliance on foreign nations. While dragon and Falcon 9 are certainly contenders, it could be a very long time before they are ready. If a failure occurs or there are delays, it could much longer than three years before they are ready.
So I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.
Also they should be directed to begin the development of an ACES 41 stage.
In the meant time, I recommend awarding a contract to Spacex to human rate Falcon 9 and to create a crewable dragon as soon as possible, with a target IOC of sometime in 2013.



 On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly. Also, since

When the time comes for exploration, towards the later of years of ISS that is, move to phase 2:

Build the second version of Orion for BEO.
If Atlas 5 cannot lift it, even with ACES (which is one reason for building ACES), switch to delta 4. If Spacex has a more powerful version of falcon 9 availble (such as f9h) that can lift it and is cheaper than EELV, use that. The chosen vehicle would be used to launch the Orion BEO exploration craft and its Service Module.

Meanwhile the SDHLV would be ready to come online. This vehicle would be used to lift the following things into LEO: EDS, Missions Module, Lander, Any other needed equipment. Additionalyl it would be used to lift the deep space propulison module as well as EDS (perhaps in a two launch configuration) for missions requiring signifcant in space propulsion beyond simply an EDS.  If propellant depots were used the HLV would also be used to lift them. Additionally, any other large or unsual payloads that the government (or DOD) may have in future, could fly on the HLV. The same goes for any heavy research or development test bed payloads, such as a space based solar power experiment, that might be around.

In this way, EELVs and other commercial lvs would be used to launch crew to the ISS. In future, they would be used to launch the crew up to a meet up point in orbit, where a stack launched by the HLV would be waiting. The HLV would not be human rated with this plan.


Thats one way to do it. If this situation is more constrained, then going with the EELV exploration plan that ULA proposed, using propellant depots as well as ACES and perhaps phase 2, would be more prudent. Then if in space propulsion is needed (i.e. this refers to non conventional propulsion, such as VASIMIR with a nuclear reactor, ect), a scaled EELV could loft the module. Also, if the EELVS did not have suffecient power in the future to accomplish exploration, then a new, EELV derived HLV, using a new domestic engine could be built. But only IF the scaled EELVS were not able to accomplish the tasks set to them.

Also, without a doubt the first destination BEO should be the moon. This is so the new spacecraft, and any and all new tech can be tested in Space and a destination that is farely easy to reach, that has been reached before, compared to something like EML 1,2 or a NEO ect. The moon should not, however, become the ONLY destination, it should be a stepping stone and a technology test destination, not the only or final destination.

There are many ways to leverage existing technology and what we have already paid for. The above is just one possibility. I would like to here your thoughts and ideas on this as well as other possibilitys for using what we have now, instead of throwing things away.

If we have learned anything, we should have learned that throwing away things that the money has already been spent on, things that have proved their salt, in the hope of building something new and grandiose that will "do a better job" somehow, is a sure way to failure.  CXP ought to have taught us that.

Open for debate.

Here is the problem. The shuttle's systems are it's own and to create a new rocket out of it gives little advantage than to start from scratch.  For instance the shuttle's main engines are built for reuse and are more expensive than disposable ones plus there are only 15 or so left. You would need to build a new engine anyway(even if it were a cheaper disposable version of the main engine). You would also need to design a new fuel tank for an in-line configuration since the shuttle's fuel tank is not designed to be load bearing on the top.

The best thing if you are going to have to start from scratch anyway is to upgrade the EELV so that costs can be shared between the HLV and the EELV. That way you are not paying for two different launch crews for each rocket.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What do you imagine a human-rated Atlas V looks like?  Does it have solids?  Is it one or three cores?  What kind of track record does it have? 

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/HumanRatingAtlasVandDeltaIV.pdf

    For launching lighter-weight capsules, we've been given to understand around here that it looks like an Atlas V 401. Which has a pretty good track record. To answer your question: one core, no solids. Or, possibly a 402, where the Centaur has a second RL-10-A-4-2, much like many dual-engine Centaurs did in previous decades. Unflown, but one could say a proven variant.
   The addition that it would need is an emergency detection system for sensitive realtime monitoring of the engine health, and an interlink to the capsule and the LES, to pass on the message (if ever) that it's time to say bye-bye to the back end.
    If you want to launch Orion unmanned, try an Atlas V 551/552, and for full-size Orion, manned, you would presumably want the (three-core) Heavy.
Quote
If you were to ask me, "What does a human-rated Delta IV look like?" I would respond: it looks exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy that's ever flown, because it would be exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy.  It can be human-rated based on its exceptional track record ... don't change a thing!
     "Exceptional track record" of three launches? The Delta IV would need all of the above as pertains to the Atlas V, and also, perhaps, some reengineering. The document above goes into a bit more detail. The 1.4x safety factor is a matter of some debate.
-Alex

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
What do you imagine a human-rated Atlas V looks like?  Does it have solids?  Is it one or three cores?  What kind of track record does it have? 

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/HumanRatingAtlasVandDeltaIV.pdf

For launching lighter-weight capsules, we've been given to understand around here that it looks like an Atlas V 401. Which has a pretty good track record.

Yes, Atlas V is a great vehicle for launching taxis to LEO.  The Boeing capsule or the SpaceDev Dream Chaser are designed to be good fits.  The LM Orion?  Not so much.  I suggest there would be considerable resistance to (further) weight reductions to that design.

Why then does LM Orion deserve consideration?  Because the design is highly mature compared with the others.  Because tooling is in place and assembly methods have been tested.  Because the features provided by its mass mean ISS missions can provide meaningful flight history for eventual BLEO missions.

Quote
Quote
If you were to ask me, "What does a human-rated Delta IV look like?" I would respond: it looks exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy that's ever flown, because it would be exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy.  It can be human-rated based on its exceptional track record ... don't change a thing!
"Exceptional track record" of three launches?

At least it has flown, and has experienced no events that would have triggered an abort.  Here's a metric for "human rating": would any one of the Mercury Seven have hesitated to climb aboard?

Quote
The Delta IV would need all of the above as pertains to the Atlas V, and also, perhaps, some reengineering. The document above goes into a bit more detail. The 1.4x safety factor is a matter of some debate.

Some think those modifications are needed.  A modern astronaut would certainly expect engine health monitoring tied to the LAS.  I doubt any of the Mercury Seven would have required that, though.

N.B. I do not in any way mean to suggest NASA should be cavalier regarding astronaut safety.  But almost by definition it is the job of test pilots to take risks.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2010 07:06 AM by sdsds »
-- sdsds --

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32484
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333

Some think those modifications are needed.  A modern astronaut would certainly expect engine health monitoring tied to the LAS.  I doubt any of the Mercury Seven would have required that, though.

Mecury Seven had it.  ASIS - Abort Sensing and Implementation System

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
So I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.
[...]
Open for debate.

What do you imagine a human-rated Atlas V looks like?  Does it have solids?  Is it one or three cores?  What kind of track record does it have?  How much does stripping down Orion to meet a launch vehicle's capability lead to a reduction in crew safety?  Isn't that a lesson learned from Ares I?

If you were to ask me, "What does a human-rated Delta IV look like?" I would respond: it looks exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy that's ever flown, because it would be exactly like every other Delta IV-Heavy.  It can be human-rated based on its exceptional track record ... don't change a thing!
I agree with you. My definition of "human rated" merely means that the existing eelv (be it atlas or delta) is run through whatever tests nasa requires to meet human rating standards. If extra software or hardware is needed it is added, but were not talking about large things here, just something like, for example, a failure mitigation system, or a new sensor sweet, but only if those were needed and I'm not sure they would be.
So a human rated atlas or delta would basically be an atlas or delta that had passed whatever testing is required for human rating, with as little additional equipment added to the current LV as possible.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677

Some think those modifications are needed.  A modern astronaut would certainly expect engine health monitoring tied to the LAS.  I doubt any of the Mercury Seven would have required that, though.

Mecury Seven had it.  ASIS - Abort Sensing and Implementation System

Wow -- very cool!  Thanks for providing the search term.  Google's first hit is a 21 page dtic.mil document dated 1960.  Interesting to note the only health indicators that ASIS monitored directly related to the engines were "sustainer and booster engine fuel manifold pressures."  In total, it looks like ASIS monitored only 12 vehicle parameters, six of them the (redundant) pitch, yaw and roll rates.

I'm guessing that's an order of magnitude less than what's being proposed for Atlas V and Delta IV, but would be happy to learn otherwise.
-- sdsds --

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
Quote
Here is the problem. The shuttle's systems are it's own and to create a new rocket out of it gives little advantage than to start from scratch.  For instance the shuttle's main engines are built for reuse and are more expensive than disposable ones plus there are only 15 or so left. You would need to build a new engine anyway(even if it were a cheaper disposable version of the main engine). You would also need to design a new fuel tank for an in-line configuration since the shuttle's fuel tank is not designed to be load bearing on the top.

The best thing if you are going to have to start from scratch anyway is to upgrade the EELV so that costs can be shared between the HLV and the EELV. That way you are not paying for two different launch crews for each rocket.

Not exactly. There are 17-18 engines as of STS program end. So at 3 per flight (assuming j 130 and 18 ssmes) thats 6 flights. Far more than there are actual External Tanks avaible. Plus I said a delayed pace so the first non-test flight vehicle wouldn't fly until near the end of ISS, unless the vehicle was needed sooner to help ISS (if there was a shortfall of logistics). That would allow for a staged, and lower cost approach to restarting the ET and SRB production lines as well as giving time for SSME production restart, which would not occur until sometime after the first vehicle launches. According to DIRECT the only change to the engine would be a channel wall nozzel vs. building the engine with the existing and costly brazed tubing nozzel. There would be basically no change to the rest of the engine. Its alot different than say, going from ablative to regen nozzel (like cxp wanted for rs 68). Also the materials used to make the parts of the engine would not be designed to create resuasble parts, i.e. lower cost materials. Especially lower cost if you consider that in my plan the SHDLV is not human rated, its for cargo only. That leaves commercial the role of transporting crew, and any other small cargo that is not put on the HLV.

"The best thing if you are going to have to start from scratch anyway is to upgrade the EELV so that costs can be shared between the HLV and the EELV."

Agree. Which is why HLV development would be slowed down, though it would remain Shuttle Derived so as to avoid having to build all new hardware (not to mention building a totally new launch pad instead of simply adding on to the fix service structure.)





Note: I am refering to the Inline SDHLV (see DIRECT V 3.0) not any of the sidemount designs. Sidemount has been proven to be more expensive than ANY of the other options on the table, save for continuing with cxp and the overblown ares launchers.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2010 07:14 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159

Some think those modifications are needed.  A modern astronaut would certainly expect engine health monitoring tied to the LAS.  I doubt any of the Mercury Seven would have required that, though.

Mecury Seven had it.  ASIS - Abort Sensing and Implementation System

Thanks Jim. A question for you: apart from this, what additional systems would be needed for Atlas V in order to make it human rated (and orion-LEO capable)?
The sad thing is that it seems like this option seems to be getting almost no attention in Congress.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32484
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333

Some think those modifications are needed.  A modern astronaut would certainly expect engine health monitoring tied to the LAS.  I doubt any of the Mercury Seven would have required that, though.

Mecury Seven had it.  ASIS - Abort Sensing and Implementation System

Wow -- very cool!  Thanks for providing the search term.  Google's first hit is a 21 page dtic.mil document dated 1960.  Interesting to note the only health indicators that ASIS monitored directly related to the engines were "sustainer and booster engine fuel manifold pressures."  In total, it looks like ASIS monitored only 12 vehicle parameters, six of them the (redundant) pitch, yaw and roll rates.

I'm guessing that's an order of magnitude less than what's being proposed for Atlas V and Delta IV, but would be happy to learn otherwise.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AtlasEmergencyDetectionSystem.pdf

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159

Some think those modifications are needed.  A modern astronaut would certainly expect engine health monitoring tied to the LAS.  I doubt any of the Mercury Seven would have required that, though.

Mecury Seven had it.  ASIS - Abort Sensing and Implementation System

Wow -- very cool!  Thanks for providing the search term.  Google's first hit is a 21 page dtic.mil document dated 1960.  Interesting to note the only health indicators that ASIS monitored directly related to the engines were "sustainer and booster engine fuel manifold pressures."  In total, it looks like ASIS monitored only 12 vehicle parameters, six of them the (redundant) pitch, yaw and roll rates.

I'm guessing that's an order of magnitude less than what's being proposed for Atlas V and Delta IV, but would be happy to learn otherwise.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AtlasEmergencyDetectionSystem.pdf
Thank you Jim. Are there any other additions needed? It doesn't seem like it. Also, its seems like this system would make atlas v one of, if not the safest launch vehicle around. Period.

Atlas V (since  the EELV version began flight) has never failed correct?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 104
There was a slight underperformance of the Centaur on the NRO L-30 launch on June 15, 2007.
Douglas Clark

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Do you have the rockets reversed? [rhetorical]

The J130 is made up from previously man-rated parts with a great safety record and could be available quite soon (before the Orion by some accounts).

The EELVs are based upon currently non-man-rated components that require more development (for the three-core Heavy variants) and (I think) some serious launch pad improvements.

A Crew/Cargo J130 now (to replace the Shuttle's traditional role and support the ISS) and a slow development of the EELV-HLV (with launch pad upgrades and new technology) would seem a better fit under your plan.

When SpaceX (or whoever) can replace the J130, then the J130 can stand down. If the EELV-HLV proves too expensive (or underperforms or hits a back-to-square-one problem like the base heating issue), then the J130 can serve as a fall-back for a new J2xx (perhaps with Kerolox boosters if other programs bring them within the realm of practical).

[ADD: And if the J130 proves too expensive to maintain, the EELVs (not heavy) could still be man-rated to provide a cheaper replacement for crew launches.]
« Last Edit: 04/26/2010 09:11 PM by Arthur »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
There was a slight underperformance of the Centaur on the NRO L-30 launch on June 15, 2007.
Yes I am aware of that hence I said of Atlas V, not of Atlas+centaur. However that event did not result in LOM. Nothing since.

Further proving why EELV CLV ought to be the FIRST thing we did when CXP was initiated. Lol, just think we would already have Orion...........
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
Do you have the rockets reversed? [rhetorical]

The J130 is made up from previously man-rated parts with a great safety record and could be available quite soon (before the Orion by some accounts).

The EELVs are based upon currently non-man-rated components that require more development (for the three-core Heavy variants) and (I think) some serious launch pad improvements.

A Crew/Cargo J130 now (to replace the Shuttle's traditional role and support the ISS) and a slow development of the EELV-HLV (with launch pad upgrades and new technology) would seem a better fit under your plan.

When SpaceX (or whoever) can replace the J130, then the J130 can stand down. If the EELV-HLV proves too expensive (or underperforms or hits a back-to-square-one problem like the base heating issue), then the J130 can serve as a fall-back for a new J2xx (perhaps with Kerolox boosters if other programs bring them within the realm of practical).

[ADD: And if the J130 proves too expensive to maintain, the EELVs (not heavy) could still be man-rated to provide a cheaper replacement for crew launches.]
I do not have them reversed. I understand this, but it would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story. So perhaps then if SDHLV was built and we get to a point where, with BEO orion, atlas V even with ACES cannot lift the vehicle, then we simply stick it to the top of the SDHLV.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Do you have the rockets reversed? [rhetorical]
I do not have them reversed. I understand this, but it would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story. So perhaps then if SDHLV was built and we get to a point where, with BEO orion, atlas V even with ACES cannot lift the vehicle, then we simply stick it to the top of the SDHLV.

From the First post:
On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly.

Can a SDLV be built 'slow'?
With the tanks, SRBs and SSME out of production (or about to become so) time would seem to be the big enemy of a SDLV. Clearly the STS is too expensive to operate indefinitely just to keep spare parts available for a future program.

Although it may be that your 'slow' and the FY2011 'slow' are not even close to the same thing (in which case, I am tripping over semantics).

For what it is worth, I'd like to see a man-rated EELV and J130 both fly and generate some real vehicle and support cost and performance numbers, then fast track whichever plan would actually be more sustainable.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
it would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story.

The only thing needed to human-rate Atlas V is NASA giving ULA the green light to do so.  To human-rate Delta IV-Heavy, NASA needs to first convince ULA to human-rate what would be, in ULA's opinion, the "wrong" launch system.

I suspect (offering no evidence whatsoever) that ULA leadership thinks human-rating Atlas V is optimal because:

1A) Atlas has such stunning human spaceflight lineage.  You just can't buy PR value like, "Atlas launched the first American astronaut into orbit."  1B) Atlas V would really benefit from a second VIF to alleviate congestion, and ULA wants NASA to pay for it out of the comparatively huge human spaceflight budget.  1C) ULA leadership has an irrational fear of the gaseous hydrogen fireballs that form at the base of Delta IV rockets.  1D) Lockheed Martin always was the favorite child.  (Sniffle.  Sigh.)

The counter-arguments are:

2A) NASA wants EELV-Heavy lift capability for human spaceflight, and one EELV-Heavy system is enough. 2B) By the time DIVH lifts an Orion, there will have been even more DIVH flights, enough to form a meaningfully large experience base. 2C) The existing Delta IV integration facility is not congested, so NASA wouldn't need to pay for a new one. 2D) For dual-launch missions, Atlas V (with its hefty but dangerous solid boosters) can perform the CaLV role while DIVH (with its safe liquid boosters) performs the CLV role.  Reversing the assignments wouldn't work nearly as well.

All pure speculation of course.  Any resemblance to actual vehicles is purely coincidental.  YMMV.  Burn before reading.  Et cetera.
-- sdsds --

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 773
@ sdsds

The obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler to throw mission modules and propulsion modules into LEO.

I remember seeing a NASA graphic during the Augustine hearings of an Ares-I backed up by multiple Delta-IVHs as CaLVs.  I was impressed by that image but immediately turned the Ares-I into an Atlas-VH and put ACES-class common upper stages on the Deltas, turning tem into 50t-class launchers.

* Fully commercial launch services? CHECK
* Multi-vendor compatibility? CHECK (Dragon could be used as a crew launcher if you use aerocapture EOI rather than direct descent)
* Kerolox-core crew launcher? CHECK
* Propellent transfer-ready? CHECK
* BEO exploration capability? CHECK

It is a win-win scenario and I don't get why NASA isn't starting now.  Orion on A-VH could happen by 2014 and ACES by 2016 - We're looking at a lunar orbiter by 2016 and NEO by 2020.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
@ sdsds

The obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler to throw mission modules and propulsion modules into LEO.

I remember seeing a NASA graphic during the Augustine hearings of an Ares-I backed up by multiple Delta-IVHs as CaLVs.  I was impressed by that image but immediately turned the Ares-I into an Atlas-VH and put ACES-class common upper stages on the Deltas, turning tem into 50t-class launchers.

* Fully commercial launch services? CHECK
* Multi-vendor compatibility? CHECK (Dragon could be used as a crew launcher if you use aerocapture EOI rather than direct descent)
* Kerolox-core crew launcher? CHECK
* Propellent transfer-ready? CHECK
* BEO exploration capability? CHECK

It is a win-win scenario and I don't get why NASA isn't starting now.  Orion on A-VH could happen by 2014 and ACES by 2016 - We're looking at a lunar orbiter by 2016 and NEO by 2020.

Exactly. The only difference between this and my idea is that I would use SDHLV in place of Delta 4, but Atlas would be handling all the crew launch requirments.
Delta 4 is good vehicle but its expensive. And using it just for crew seems a bit too expensive (remember delta needs more modifications than atlas to be human rated.).

From earlier:
".........It may be that your definition of slow and fy2011's definition of slow are way different......"

They are. My "slow" actually has a development program with set milestones and goals. The only reason it would be "slow" is because in my plan the idea is only to have SDHLV when its really needed, which is when its time for BEO exploration, thus requirng less cash immeadietly and perhaps saving $$$ without losing capability.. Hence it would be at IOC towards the end of ISS. However, if a problem arose with commercial such that SDHLV was needed for ISS support (be it due to delays in the private sector or just a logistics shortfall), the SDHLV program could easily be sped up and the vehicle could be ready much sooner.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2010 06:54 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
Quote
I don't get why NASA isn't starting now.

1. Why they didn't start "then" (at the beginning of CXP): Micheal Griffin
2. Why they don't start now: Politics and a president who wants NASA off the grid.

Personally, even if Congress approves SDHLV and totally throws out the Obama erm......thingy (since its not really a plan)....., I don't think it will suceed. The reason is because NASA managment, at the upper level, is completley insane. Bolden has turned into Dr. Weepenstein and here we have Garver who is TOTALLY out of touch with reality.

Congress must do more than pass their own plan, they must throw out this lousy managment. Make Bill G. The admin and John Shannon the deputy Admin IMO.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2010 06:54 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 185
FinalFrontier, you proposed a solution. What is the problem you are attempting to solve?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
FinalFrontier, you proposed a solution. What is the problem you are attempting to solve?
The situation we are left with in the wake of the Cancellation of CXP and the imment end of STS. 
Any idea, frankly, that could better this mess would be welcome. I don't consider Fy 2011 a fix although I do like the idea of more R&D, I just think that it shouldn't be at the cost of HSF. Also, ISS crew and cargo logistics are a problem that ought to have already been fixed.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
The obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler
[...] Orion on A-VH could happen by 2014

Delta 4 is good vehicle but its expensive. And using it just for crew seems a bit too expensive (remember delta needs more modifications than atlas to be human rated.).

Either could be made to work.  If only the first three-core EELV to fly had been an AVH.  Then all of this would likely be moot.  But in actuality an AVH has never flown.  What's more, an AVH vehicle has never been assembled, processed in a VIF, nor handled at a pad.  Even given the launch complex facilities are "scarred" for the modifications to support these activities, they still add cost and uncertainty to the first flight.  Plus, even if the existing VIF could be modified to handle AVH, the schedule risk (and impact on the schedule of other missions) almost assures the "requirement" of a second VIF for NASA missions.

It's hard to believe that would be inexpensive.  For cost effectiveness NASA human spaceflight missions need to start using -- as much as possible -- the same launchers and facilities as other users.  The sensible requirement of all-liquid propulsion for the CLV combined with a "No new rockets" philosophy dictates the use of DIVH for that purpose.  Yes, there are modifications to both vehicle and launch complex needed carry crew, and they will make a DIVH CLV even more expensive than an unmanned DIVH.

But keeping that kind of modification to a minimum doesn't just save money.  Making fewer modifications leads to a greater likelihood that the first crewed mission enjoys the same success as all the prior uncrewed missions.

When "Leveraging Existing Capabilities for Exploration", why is it so difficult to "Just Use What Already Exists"?
-- sdsds --

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 773
@ sdsds

The obvious solution (to a lay-person like me) is to human-rate Atlas-V and use Delta-IVH purely as a cargo hauler to throw mission modules and propulsion modules into LEO.

Delta 4 is good vehicle but its expensive. And using it just for crew seems a bit too expensive (remember delta needs more modifications than atlas to be human rated.).

Which is the reason that Atlas-V is human-rated (under my suggestion), not Delta-IV.  D-IV cost issues might be partially mitigated by a higher flight rate if NASA were to select it as a cargo launcher.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32484
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
Plus, even if the existing VIF could be modified to handle AVH,

The VIF is alread modified for the Heavy.  Only the MLP needs to be outfitted.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
Plus, even if the existing VIF could be modified to handle AVH,

The VIF is alread modified for the Heavy.  Only the MLP needs to be outfitted.

If you were scheduling the first Heavy through the VIF, how many buffer days would you add for "first time" issues?  For follow-on Heavies, any guess at how many days they would require in the VIF above what a Medium takes?  In the past, how many days has the VIF sat idle between launch campaigns?
-- sdsds --

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Flying a simple capsule on a single stick no solids EELV was obvious around 2005 already.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6182
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
it would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story.

The only thing needed to human-rate Atlas V is NASA giving ULA the green light to do so.  To human-rate Delta IV-Heavy, NASA needs to first convince ULA to human-rate what would be, in ULA's opinion, the "wrong" launch system.

I suspect (offering no evidence whatsoever) that ULA leadership thinks human-rating Atlas V is optimal because:

1A) Atlas has such stunning human spaceflight lineage.  You just can't buy PR value like, "Atlas launched the first American astronaut into orbit."

Up to Atlas III, sure. Atlas V has far less in common with Mercury-Atlas than Ares I does with the Space Shuttle. (Though I'm sure that won't stop people from making that case for Atlas, but they'd be even more dishonest than those claiming Ares I is safest because of its shuttle heritage).
JRF

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 773
it would appear the only thing needed to man rate atlas V is that system Jim referenced. Delta 4 I would imagine is a different story.

The only thing needed to human-rate Atlas V is NASA giving ULA the green light to do so.  To human-rate Delta IV-Heavy, NASA needs to first convince ULA to human-rate what would be, in ULA's opinion, the "wrong" launch system.

I suspect (offering no evidence whatsoever) that ULA leadership thinks human-rating Atlas V is optimal because:

1A) Atlas has such stunning human spaceflight lineage.  You just can't buy PR value like, "Atlas launched the first American astronaut into orbit."

Up to Atlas III, sure. Atlas V has far less in common with Mercury-Atlas than Ares I does with the Space Shuttle. (Though I'm sure that won't stop people from making that case for Atlas, but they'd be even more dishonest than those claiming Ares I is safest because of its shuttle heritage).

It didn't stop ULA and NASA from drawing the link during the launch coverage of LRO/LCROSS. ;D

I understand from Jim that there is both Atlas and Titan heritage in the Atlas-V.  However, the point is confidence - if the name is familiar then the lay-person will feel safer with the investment.  That is why CxP kept on banging on about the alleged conceptual links between Ares-I/-V and Saturn-I/-V.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 14
If we're going to go with existing and proven tech, why not build new Apollo capsules?
     We could easily upgrade the avionics, environmental control systems and TPS with modern tech, go back to using the old J-2 motor for the Service module, again, based on the old 60's design but upgraded with modern tech, and with the mass savings, we should be able to go with lightweight seats, and add a fourth astronaut to the mix.
     As the capsule and service modules would be upgraded to modern specs, we should be able to park them in orbit around the moon for about 2 weeks sending all four astronauts to the lunar surface in a LEM using at least 50% composits, with an asscent stage that could be either mostly composit in structure, or using a Bigalow inflatable as the ascent stage.  By sending up experiment pallets up on an unmanned LEM that could self pilot to a landing site near where the manned lander would arrive, the manned LEM could carry extra fuel, and perhaps a four person version of the lunar rover, to allow easy access and transfer of equipment and supplies from the cargo lander to the manned lander.
     Each craft, the Apollo Command module, (Capsule & Service Module) the Lunar Excursion Module and the Lunar Cargo Module, would be launched on 3 flights using an Atlas V with a pair of 4 segment Shuttle SRBs.  The LCM and LEM could be sent on low energy trajectories, landing the LCM and leaving the LEM in Lunar orbit until the apollo craft would rendevous with it.  The command Module would be put into stand-by mode, (Mostly powered down execpt for communications and basic systems support.  A set of extendable solar panels would extend from the sides of the Service Module to provide electrical power to recharge the Lithium-ion batteries in the capsule.
     The manned craft would require a minimal additional booster to get to the moon, requiring a Centaur stage insted of the Saturn Ib.

     While these launches would be more than the Ares concept, the use of Man Rated proven hardware should allow a low cost and fast turn around for initial landings on the moon and base set up.  (The LCM could carry a Bigalow habitat or two to start the construction of a base, and, should the LEM and Command Module prove able to sustain month long stays on the moon, them upgrades to the Orion or Deep Space version of the Dragon Capsule.

   It should be noted that either a special docking adaptor for the ISS or reconfiguring the LEM and the Apollo Capsule to use the CBM for the ISS would be required for ISS servicing missions.

Jason




My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32484
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
If we're going to go with existing and proven tech, why not build new Apollo capsules?


That is Orion.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32484
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
LEM using at least 50% composits, with an asscent stage that could be either mostly composit in structure, or using a Bigalow inflatable as the ascent stage. 


The LM was light for its construction and composites are not always a weight saving.  Bigelow inflatables are not good for active spacecraft.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12987
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4092
  • Likes Given: 769
I propose that we use existing technology and scale it up in phases as needed, both from the government sector and the commercial sector. What I propose can reduce the gap, save us money, do exploration very soon, allow for game changing research and development funding in the immeadiate future, and leave the door open to build new engines or Launch Vehicles if they become needed.
....
I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.

Also they should be directed to begin the development of an ACES 41 stage.

In the meant time, I recommend awarding a contract to Spacex to human rate Falcon 9 and to create a crewable dragon as soon as possible, with a target IOC of sometime in 2013.

 On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly.
...
Sorry, but haven't seen this thread until now.  Here are my thoughts.

You've proposed paying to develop two distinct crew launch spacecraft and launch vehicles *and* a super heavy lifter.  The Constellation cancellation tells me that there's no money for this much development effort.     

I like the idea of using existing launch systems.  Without money, that's clearly a given.  I don't like the idea of doing Orion Lite *and* Dragon or something else.  NASA should have just one commercial human launch competition and be done with it.  Lowest bidder wins.  Winner take all. 

Unfortunately, NASA is being forced to continue Orion via CRV while also opening bidding for another crew spacecraft.  Unless Orion wins the commercial crew launch contract, the Agency will end up wasting money on two spacecraft efforts.  IMO

A super heavy, shuttle derived or otherwise, would be nice, but it isn't going to happen as long as current conditions (i.e. Obama in the White House) prevail.  The only remaining path to heavier lift is to gradually improve existing launch systems.  The Aces 41 stage you mention, for example, would dramatically increase EELV Heavy LEO performance.  But even that would take major bucks not currently available to develop.

I'm convinced that in the current budget climate, LEO depot is the only way left to go anywhere but ISS [1].  Unfortunately, NASA is making no such plans.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle

[1] www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html
« Last Edit: 05/02/2010 12:21 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
I propose that we use existing technology and scale it up in phases as needed, both from the government sector and the commercial sector. What I propose can reduce the gap, save us money, do exploration very soon, allow for game changing research and development funding in the immeadiate future, and leave the door open to build new engines or Launch Vehicles if they become needed.
....
I propose to HR the Atlas 5, and direct Lockheed Martin to build a stripped down, Orion Lite leo crew taxi, specifcally designed for ISS to reduce our crew launch capability gap.

Also they should be directed to begin the development of an ACES 41 stage.

In the meant time, I recommend awarding a contract to Spacex to human rate Falcon 9 and to create a crewable dragon as soon as possible, with a target IOC of sometime in 2013.

 On the government side we already have an HLV: Two srbs, 3 SSMES, and a core (external fuel tank). So lets go ahead and simply put the pieces together. Build a SDHLV inline HLV, but not the largest one possible. Start with the j 130 and consider building a 5 diameter second stage. Since funding is limited, the pace will be slow, but the vehicle will not be needed for BEO exploration immeadietly.
...
Sorry, but haven't seen this thread until now.  Here are my thoughts.

You've proposed paying to develop two distinct crew launch spacecraft and launch vehicles *and* a super heavy lifter.  The Constellation cancellation tells me that there's no money for this much development effort.     

I like the idea of using existing launch systems.  Without money, that's clearly a given.  I don't like the idea of doing Orion Lite *and* Dragon or something else.  NASA should have just one commercial human launch competition and be done with it.  Lowest bidder wins.  Winner take all. 

Unfortunately, NASA is being forced to continue Orion via CRV while also opening bidding for another crew spacecraft.  Unless Orion wins the commercial crew launch contract, the Agency will end up wasting money on two spacecraft efforts.  IMO

A super heavy, shuttle derived or otherwise, would be nice, but it isn't going to happen as long as current conditions (i.e. Obama in the White House) prevail.  The only remaining path to heavier lift is to gradually improve existing launch systems.  The Aces 41 stage you mention, for example, would dramatically increase EELV Heavy LEO performance.  But even that would take major bucks not currently available to develop.

I'm convinced that in the current budget climate, LEO depot is the only way left to go anywhere but ISS [1].  Unfortunately, NASA is making no such plans.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle

[1] www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html

In my idea not all of these things are done at once, nor are their development efforts funded at once. Efforts are funded in stages (once oine is finsihed the next one starts). Some would be funded at the same time, but not enough that it would break the bank.  Also, at any point in the game the decision remains open to: only build SDHLV and HR that, onr HR atlas 5 and go the EELV exploration route and drop sdhlv.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
Also I would like to revise my orginal idea. Instead of building ACES for an upper stage (be it for EELV or SDHLV), if the Ares 1 second stage was not used as an upper stage (and IMHO it shouldn't be), instead I would propose to use the Centaur EDS style upper stage (in various configurations it would fire as a true upper stage and also burn for EDS, in others it would only fire as EDS and thus be "payload" not an upper stgae). I would recommend using this "mini aces" as an upper stage on the J 130, or using it in an EELV based exploration program. Please see the Centaur EDS thread for details on this.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 677
To be fair, foregoing the ACES technologies means the payload must already be in orbit and capable of prompt rendezvous with the Centaur departure stage.  ACES assumed the stage might be called upon to provide propulsion a few dozen days or a few dozen weeks after launch.  Centaur might only be able to provide propulsion a few dozen hours after launch.  Thus the need for prompt LEO rendezvous, and the need for some other means of providing LOI or lunar flyby propulsion.
-- sdsds --

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 185
The extended duration mission kit would mitigate these issues. IIRC the Centaur would be capable of several days of operation with it.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 437
  • Likes Given: 159
The extended duration mission kit would mitigate these issues. IIRC the Centaur would be capable of several days of operation with it.
Exactly.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags: