Author Topic: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures  (Read 53872 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
"Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« on: 04/14/2006 08:28 pm »
Okay, I've run the figures properly at last for the QUAD-SRB derivative of the CaLV launcher.

Basic Vehicle Configuration:

4 x 5-segment SRB (PBAN propellant).   SRB sep @ 132s.
4 x RS-68 LOX/LH2 Engines on wider 33ft/10m diameter, shorter Core Stage.   Separation @ 500s.
2 x J-2X LOX/LH2 Engines on wider 33ft/10m diameter, shorter Upper Stage.   MECO @ 704s. (2nd J-2X provides 100% redundancy for TLI)

33ft/10m wide payload shroud would be standard width.   Aero-fairing jettison ~450s, dependant on flight profile.

GLOW: 10,800,000 pounds
Liftoff Thrust: 10,750,000 pounds


Lunar Mission Target Orbit:   30x160nmi 28.5deg LEO.
Max G: 2.42g
Max-Q: 24,400kPa (ESAS Limit: 28,700kPa) @ ~52s
Total Lifting Capacity: 200.2mT including 22.2mT EDS (210.2mT total, inc. 5% reserve)

Precisely the same vehicle can also do:-

ISS Delivery Mission Destination Orbit:   125x220nmi 51.6deg LEO (Note: 20,000lb propellant provided for circularization burn to be performed by EDS).
Max G: 2.58g
Max-Q: 24,450kPa (ESAS Limit: 28,700kPa) @ ~50s
Total Lifting Capacity: 178.4mT plus 22.2mT EDS (187.8mT total, inc. 5% reserve)

I'll also do an artist's impression shortly...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #1 on: 04/14/2006 08:33 pm »
I would actually recommend a config with a fifth RS-68.   It'll reduce payload by ~6mT, but would provide single-engine-out redundancy on the core stage.

R.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 20
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #2 on: 04/14/2006 08:40 pm »
Are you assuming CaLV ISS construction?  Because 4 boosters just to get to the ISS is a bit overdoing it.

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #3 on: 04/14/2006 08:57 pm »
wow, that 200 tons figure is impressive, now what about the feasibility of attaching 4 SRB's to the CalV ?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #4 on: 04/14/2006 09:03 pm »
Quote
hyper_snyper - 14/4/2006  4:40 PM

Are you assuming CaLV ISS construction?  Because 4 boosters just to get to the ISS is a bit overdoing it.

Not necessarily an issue though.   It would simply allow NASA to fly more useful ISS-payload on each flight than CaLV currently could be done.

Doing a quick check, I'd estimate that you could boost about five or six current payloads of ISS construction elements up, in a customised cradle mounting system like I've suggested before, in just three or four launches of this monster.   Say each of these boosters cost the same as the hugely expensive Shuttle to fly at $1Bn each, you'd be saving about $14Bn in flight costs in order to complete ISS - or nearly a complete year's worth of NASA's entire budget.

But that's only really just a bonus.

This booster would be able to deliver about 80mT to Lunar Orbit.    And that's a real nice amount of 'surplus' capacity available compared with the current CaLV's capacity of about 60mT.   And payload capacity to LOI is the overwhelming primary concern for this booster.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #5 on: 04/14/2006 09:18 pm »
Quote
mong' - 14/4/2006  4:57 PM

wow, that 200 tons figure is impressive, now what about the feasibility of attaching 4 SRB's to the CalV ?

CaLV's core stage is going to be an all-new design booster anyway, so choosing to do this sort of configuration at this early stage adds very little to the costs for development.

You need to re-design the large "bracing" structure located between the LOX and LH2 tanks in the ET-derived stage, where the forward attachment points are today on the ET.   It has to be redesigned anyway to cope with the change to 5-segs anyway, so changing it isn't a big deal.   Then add another set of aft attachment points to the LH2 tank structure, near-enough exactly the same way as is done currently.   The structure then needs to be designed to suit the loadings, but that's all going to have to be done anyway (adding engines under the ET is a much more significant change to the design), so it's not that big of a deal.   Add all the necessary wiring, avionics and other misc. items for the new configuration and it should be hot to trot.

I can't see much reason why you couldn't fly a "Heavy" CaLV with just two boosters though - assuming all your software can handle the differring configs.   There would be a slight payload penalty, probably around 5-10mT for flying a quad-SRB config with just 2 SRB's, but it could be done.

But if you re-design the ET now for just two boosters, and try to upgrade it later, you'd have to pretty-much start the whole design process over once again.

Another benefit of this design, is that you have a much 'wider' footprint for the booster sitting on the Pad - which means it'll be a far more stable arrangement.   A quad-SRB booster like this, I believe, would NOT require a large umbilical tower to help steady it during rollouts and in high winds.   With four 'legs' instead of two, it should be sufficiently stable to support itself.   A significantly smaller umbilical tower on the MLP could be made far more cheaply, which reduces infrastructure costs noticably too.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Hotol

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 425
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #6 on: 04/15/2006 08:40 am »
Can the vehicle survive such thrust? An inline SaturnV is hard to mirror through payload and thrust, when you're strapping the boosters around the side?

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #7 on: 04/15/2006 09:28 am »
Quote
kraisee - 15/4/2006  12:28 AM
 
GLOW: 10,800,000 pounds
Liftoff Thrust: 10,750,000 pounds


In order to actually get off the pad the Liftoff Thrust should exceed GLOW, no? ;)

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • London
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 7
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #8 on: 04/15/2006 12:29 pm »
I guess it would have to sit on the pad, burning propellant until it's 50,000 pounds lighter :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32550
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11343
  • Likes Given: 334
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #9 on: 04/15/2006 03:26 pm »
Quote
Crispy - 15/4/2006  8:29 AMI guess it would have to sit on the pad, burning propellant until it's 50,000 pounds lighter :)

That is a show stopper

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #10 on: 04/15/2006 05:18 pm »
Quote
Tap-Sa - 15/4/2006  5:28 AM

Quote
kraisee - 15/4/2006  12:28 AM
 
GLOW: 10,800,000 pounds
Liftoff Thrust: 10,750,000 pounds


In order to actually get off the pad the Liftoff Thrust should exceed GLOW, no? ;)

Thanks for spotting that.

I work all my figures in kg, and manually convert to lb for posting info to y'all American viewers ;)

My conversion math between kg and lb was erroneous...

The Liftoff Thrust is actually 7,693,487 kgf, which is actually 16,961,000 lbf

Ross.
(reserving the right to be stupid!)
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • New York City
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #11 on: 04/17/2006 03:12 pm »
Thread moved into CaLV section.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #12 on: 04/17/2006 07:05 pm »
I hope this is the plan that NASA goes with. The extra money that it will take to add two more boosters is well worth it, as it will pay off later. Why settle for a lesser mission to the Moon, and lets just count Mars out when we use the normal CaLV.

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 266
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #13 on: 04/18/2006 12:28 am »
Saw that one too... and had a good chuckle.....

It does save little bit on not needing hold down clamps....

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 266
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #14 on: 04/18/2006 12:30 am »
With all of that lift capacity, we could still have a useful cargo landed on the moon even if they use hypergols....

Bad thought, Bad thought.... Must shoot myself in the foot before thinking that one again....

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #15 on: 04/18/2006 01:43 am »
Quote
BarryKirk - 17/4/2006  8:30 PM

With all of that lift capacity, we could still have a useful cargo landed on the moon even if they use hypergols....

Yes - and some.   I figure you could ADD about 10mT to the spec above and beyond the baseline LRA lander.


Quote
Bad thought, Bad thought.... Must shoot myself in the foot before thinking that one again....

No, VERY VERY GOOD THOUGHT :)

R.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #16 on: 04/18/2006 02:45 am »
In terms of development costs, how much extra are we talking? And that really doesn't matter, as the current plan with the "Walmart lander" just isn't worth it.

And more importantly, what are the chances of this actually happening? Is there a high probability that as we speak some NASA engineers are crunching numbers and putting together a report?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #17 on: 04/18/2006 05:47 am »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 17/4/2006  10:45 PM

In terms of development costs, how much extra are we talking? And that really doesn't matter, as the current plan with the "Walmart lander" just isn't worth it.

And more importantly, what are the chances of this actually happening? Is there a high probability that as we speak some NASA engineers are crunching numbers and putting together a report?

Well, I'm guessing that there are two primary areas where you will have to spend extra money to develop.   First, there is a large structural 'brace' inside the External Tank today, between the LOX and LH2 tanks.   It is the brace which supports the SRB's forward attachment point, and transfers all the forces to the tank structure.   It is one of the most critial pieces in the entire design.

It is going to have to be re-designed anyway to support significantly greater forces from the 5-segment SRB's, but it would require more extensive changes in order to attach two extra SRB's and to handle the enormous power of four SRB's.

The tanks structures are going to have to be radically re-designed anyway, but we're going to be increasing the diameter from 8.7m to 10m, and extending the length by about 1/3rd over the current ET, so there's no "additional" expense if the choice for quad-SRB's is done at this early stage of the design.   Changing from a dual-SRB to quad-SRB system later would be extremely costly though, so it's better to do it now if there's any chance it will go that way.   Best to just develop it once.

The other critical place where significant additional costs will come in the design phase is going to be in software development.   I can't quantify that myself, but it will take a while to do, and that'll cost a pretty penny.

I don't think either of those will be enormous additional charges, and are not even close to being show-stoppers.

The only issue is the final operational costs for the SRB's.   I figure that a regular CaLV is going to cost about $1Bn.   This variant increases payload capacity by about 1/3rd extra.   So, if two SRB's cost less than ~$333m per mission, this makes a lot of economical sense.

As for whether NASA is considering it - I just don't know.   I know there are guys working on the problems here reading this message, so I know the idea has been read by them.   I also know that a quad-SRB heavy lifter was considered in the early ESAS 60-day study (they called it the ILC-3), so they know about the idea for sure.   I also know that Scott Horowitz, the guy in charge of the whole ESMD, knows about it too because I have mentioned it personally to him just before he took that job, while he still worked at ATK.

Whether anyone will do anything about it is a whole other issue though...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32550
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11343
  • Likes Given: 334
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #18 on: 04/18/2006 11:55 am »
Quote
kraisee - 18/4/2006  1:47 AM

The other critical place where significant additional costs will come in the design phase is going to be in software development.   I can't quantify that myself, but it will take a while to do, and that'll cost a pretty penny.I don't think either of those will be enormous additional charges, and are not even close to being show-stoppers.



Software isn't the issue.  Avionics is.  The CLv and CLaV will have a all new avionics architecture.  All new boxes with associated s/w.  This is one place that is not Shuttle derived.  Fortunately (in current planning), the avionics for the CLV (stick version) 2nd stage will be the same as for the EDS.  The current plan is to have a Avionics contractor, who supplies the avionics to the CLV upperstage contractor and EDS contractor

Offline simonbp

RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #19 on: 04/18/2006 01:11 pm »
Will they be in separate IU rings, like Saturn, or intgrated into the structure?

Simon ;)

Tags: