Author Topic: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures  (Read 53625 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 18
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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 0
  • 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: 596
  • London
  • Liked: 56
  • 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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 261
  • 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: 261
  • 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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • 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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
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 ;)

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #20 on: 04/18/2006 05:16 PM »
Hi all.

kraisee, one other cost change you aresn't taking into account with 4 SRBs is that the existing pad infrastructure can no longer support the design.  As long as the launcher is in the same form factor as STS, the existing launch pads, flame trenches, etc. can be used.  If we strap on two more SRBs, you'll have to revamp the pads as well as the launchers, which will incor even more costs.

I'm not saying it's a bad plan, but it certainly is another cost to consider in the system design.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #21 on: 04/18/2006 08:16 PM »
Quote
BogoMIPS - 18/4/2006  1:16 PM

Hi all.

kraisee, one other cost change you aresn't taking into account with 4 SRBs is that the existing pad infrastructure can no longer support the design.  As long as the launcher is in the same form factor as STS, the existing launch pads, flame trenches, etc. can be used.  If we strap on two more SRBs, you'll have to revamp the pads as well as the launchers, which will incor even more costs.

I'm not saying it's a bad plan, but it certainly is another cost to consider in the system design.

The form factor for the MLP has to change anyway.   On STS, the main engines are not between the SRB's, they are offset by quite a large amount.

The MLP's are going to have to be thoroughly re-built in order to allow the main core engines to fire straight down between the SRB's.

If you're doing that change anyway, the holes through the MLP for SRB's today are actually long enough to support quad-SRB's right now.   Two extra SRB's is actually relatively simple and offers very little infrastructure cost differences.   All you really have to do is upgrade the water deluge system, and just another full set of SRB hold downs.   But neither of those are show-stoppers.

Here's an image demostrating the different locations...

http://65.33.118.71/Public/MLP_Locations2.jpg">

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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #22 on: 04/18/2006 08:22 PM »
Actually, I just realised something...

If they are changing to a 33ft wide core for the CaLV, that arrangement is going to change things even more radically than just changing to quad-SRB's.

Actually, changing to quad-SRB's would also seem to allow the overall width of the vehicle to remain about the same as at present...

I'll re-work that diargam for y'all...

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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #23 on: 04/18/2006 08:32 PM »
Ok, revised now...

http://65.33.118.71/Public/MLP_Locations3.jpg">

-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 #24 on: 04/19/2006 12:07 AM »
It really seems that they have nothing to lose. The only hurdle this plan has to clear is that fact that operating costs may go up. However, it seems that the only changes to the facilities already have to happen, this plan would just cause us to take them one step further at some points.

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #25 on: 04/19/2006 12:52 AM »
Don't you see... I can't let them off the hook... Sure we upgraded to 4 SRB, but that isn't an excuse to get lazy and just use hypergols on the LSAM....

RP1 and LOX would be substantially better.

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #26 on: 04/19/2006 12:57 AM »
Actually, I'm liking what I'm hearing.  A super heavy launch vehicle will have margin.  Margin to lift more than we need.  People will get creative with the using the extra
capability.... Mars anyone?

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #27 on: 04/19/2006 01:14 AM »
I agree, extra is always good, that way we won't trap ourself into launching one type of mission. The current CaLV just barely gets two men on the Moon for an Apollo repeat. If we upgrade to 4 SRBs we can finally explore the Moon in detail. Astronauts can stay on the Moon for longer than we ever thought possible and truly train for a Mars mission. In the current plan they can stay for one week. How is that preparing us for long stays on another world?

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #28 on: 04/19/2006 02:18 AM »
kraisee, good point about having to re-do the pad for the CaLV footprint anyways... Hadn't thought about that enough, I guess.

Assuming the pad logistics are thought about appropriately from the outset, I can now see a 4-SRB, "Block-II" CaLV as a reasonably possible scaling of the design.  That would be a nice payload margin to be able to keep in the pocket for moon and mars launches.

I'd also love to see a 200 metric ton "Skylab on Steroids"... :) :) :)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #29 on: 04/19/2006 08:53 AM »
Quote
BogoMIPS - 18/4/2006  10:18 PM

I'd also love to see a 200 metric ton "Skylab on Steroids"... :) :) :)

Yeah, with something like this available NASA could have launched two or three really huge modules into LEO and made a bigger, better space station for everyone.   Too late now of course...   But it opens up new options for the future.

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

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #30 on: 04/19/2006 09:42 AM »
It all looks really nice, and big, but the thing about an HLV based architecture is, at some point we say "this is big enough" and we just build it.  Period.  

...then, we find that it cannot accommodate our payload and mission requirements (and this is what I value the most, including costs).  What do we do?  Scrap it and build a bigger rocket?  Or, is our overall architecture (and I do NOT take this (buzz)word lightly), robust to withstand the ripple in up mass?  If we put our eggs, as it were, into this one basket from the onset, do we forgo a more flexible and robust approach?  (i.e. if we decide we want to do orbital assembly, have we wasted time and money?)  I have no fixed attitude based on factual knowledge about the merits of either, but doubts started to creep in after the latest discussion about changes in ESAS)

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #31 on: 04/19/2006 09:42 AM »
(weird post duplicate deleted)

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #32 on: 04/19/2006 12:24 PM »
Quote
lmike - 19/4/2006  1:42 PM
  If we put our eggs, as it were, into this one basket from the onset, do we forgo a more flexible and robust approach?  (i.e. if we decide we want to do orbital assembly, have we wasted time and money?)  

Well, not quite. The ongoing question is where goes NASA's orbital assembly 'pain threshold'. IOW at which point do they bite the bullet and accept it as nominal part of the mission. It is inevitability and in a way it's already part of moon mission anyway. LSAM and CEV has to assemble, twice, for a succesful mission. What's the fundamental difference of that compared to, say launching EDS LOX in multiple tanks using smaller launchers and connecting them in orbit? IMO none, one requires just more launches than the other.

Mars mission would require orbital assembly of several CaLV payloads. I doubt there will be ~500t superheavy vehicle to launch it in one go and not even in two. To develope such for just a couple launches per decade would be extraordinary costly. I don't see manned Mars missions happening at faster rate than that for a very long time.

People (Zubrin being among the most vocal) object orbital assembly and claim it dooms any mission if single failure happens during multiple launches. IMO this reasoning is wrong. Each part launched should have a backup standing by. If EDS LOX tank #4 launch fails, tuff, send another. You ought to have at least one spare already built because AFAIK the idea is to keep going to the moon, not just stick another flag there once or twice.

Above scenario would require such thinking that the failed LOX launch would not ground the launch vehicle for two years to investigate what went wrong. Of course you investigate but while doing that you keep launching because you have to accept the fact that these things aren't perfect. If you use an established EELV class launcher with maybe 100+ successes under belt and then the #4 oxygen tank flight fails, it does NOT denote that the vehicle suddenly became a miserable death trap and next launch without any modifications would fail with 99% certainty. The mission would require only one extra flight.

Propellant transfer/storage is a major issue in true orbital assembly for lunar or Mars mission. Waiting months with LH2 boiling in the tanks is not a good deal. Intermediate solution might be to launch and assemble LOX tanks first, and LH2 in last shot or just before the crew. Proper permanent solution is to have an orbiting garage/fuel depot where you assemble your craft and fill her up when ready.

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #33 on: 04/19/2006 01:12 PM »
It rings true, but the current ESAS (seemingly?) is in opposition to the old advocated assembly plan.  Multiple launches==bad, as I read it.  One more screw to tighten on orbit is bad, if we can launch it all in one piece.  That's what they gear up for.  "1.5 architecture" and no step back.  If they are establishing the 'pain threshold', why deliberate on the exact amounts?  Do it with it in mind from the beginning.  And that involves additional planning and infrastructure. (bad or good, I don't know)

[edit] just to explain myself, it seems to me this *is* a fundamental point to the 'architecture'  LSAM/EDS to CEV assembly is 'just' a thing they can't avoid, but they'd like to.   Maybe, they shouldn't be afraid of this.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #34 on: 04/20/2006 05:54 AM »
Quote
lmike - 19/4/2006  9:12 AM

It rings true, but the current ESAS (seemingly?) is in opposition to the old advocated assembly plan.  Multiple launches==bad, as I read it.

Not quite.

Minimal amount of assembly=good.

Some assembly required - always, though.

The ESAS was basically trying to make sure that we have a 120+mT lifter available for the future.   That means that when we decide to eventually go to Mars and need a 500mT vehicle in LEO, we don't spend 15 years building it on 400 EELV-sized flights.

They've learned that a station as big as ISS could have been launched on just three Heavy Lifters, instead of the 50-60 flights of Shuttle, Proton, Soyuz and eventually Ariane flights it actually is going to require.

The practical limit is between 100-200mT for a Heavy Lifter.   That's also a good area on the ol' price:performance curve too.   While a super-heavy would be cool, it's just not necessary.   A handful of plain Heavies can loft 500 tons - which is enough to get us truly going 'out there' without additional expense.

But without a heavy of reasonable performance, we're going to languish in LEO forever.

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

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #35 on: 04/20/2006 12:02 PM »
At some point NASA needs to decide if they want affordable access to space.  Having two dedicated NASA only rockets (CLV & CaLV) flying a few times a year is an extremely expensive venture, both recurring and non-recurring.  NASA is planning on spending over $20B through 2018 developing these 2 rockets.  And once they are built they won’t be cheep at $476m for the CLV (price quoted to the RLEP program at MSFC) and around $1B for the CaLV.  

If a lunar mission required 150 mT this would require ~6 Atlas or Delta HLV’s (25mT for Delta or 28 mT for Atlas).  For a Mars mission of 500 mT this would require 20 launches, not the 400 Kraisee refers to.  For the $20B non-recurring NASA already has planned one could purchase 100 EELV HLV launches, not including rate discounts.  The combined Atlas/Delta production capability was initially designed around 50 annual launches, plenty of capacity to accommodate a very robust exploration program.  Competing these launches would also open the opportunity to new launch providers.  NASA needs to maintain the flexibility to accommodate future agency needs.  A super heavy, exclusively geared to lunar missions will lock NASA into an infrastructure that can’t satisfy its needs.  I’m not convinced that CaLV effectively can support Mars seeing as NASA still hasn’t figured out how to use the CaLV to go to the moon and hasn’t really started looking at Mars

Beyond the incredible cost savings, Tap-Sa had it right. The Atlas and Delta rockets will have built up dozens of launches by the time the CEV is ready to fly, demonstrating their reliability.  At 1 or 2 launches per year how reliable will either the CLV or CaLV really be? I personally am tired of paper studies on reliability, shuttle was supposed to have only 1 failure in 10,000.  Actually demonstrated reliability is much more meaningful.  Atlas is currently at 78 successful launches in a row, including Atlas II, III and now V.

If there is a failure on one of these launches you still have the other and really the rest of the world (Ariane, HII, Long March, …) to fall back to.

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #36 on: 04/20/2006 02:20 PM »
Falling back on the rest of the world isn't a viable option.  There no guaranteeing that countries the U.S. has good relations with today will be willing to partner up tomorrow.  

In a perfect world, you are quite correct.  However, geopolitics trumps logic, as usual.  Domestically-building a foreign design might be an option, but won't get past the politicians, either.

The U.S. needs a domestic solution, be it EELVs or SDLVs.  It's beginning to look like neither can do exactly what we want in their current incarnations, so you've got to spend the money somewhere. :)

I lean towards the SDLV solutions (as I'm sure everyone knows by now), but it's certainly a topic that should be debated.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12935
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3994
  • Likes Given: 759
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #37 on: 04/20/2006 02:34 PM »
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  7:02 AM  Atlas is currently at 78 successful launches in a row, including Atlas II, III and now V.

Atlas V, the only currently operational Atlas, has only flown seven times.  
Its RD-180 main propulsion system has only performed 13 missions.
The SRMs are still on a learning curve too.  The program is flawless so
far, benefiting from past Atlas experience, but it is still early.  Flight No. 8
may happen this afternoon.

- Ed Kyle

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3084
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 1206
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #38 on: 04/20/2006 03:26 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 20/4/2006  12:54 AM
They've learned that a station as big as ISS could have been launched on just three Heavy Lifters, instead of the 50-60 flights of Shuttle, Proton, Soyuz and eventually Ariane flights it actually is going to require.

The practical limit is between 100-200mT for a Heavy Lifter.   That's also a good area on the ol' price:performance curve too.   While a super-heavy would be cool, it's just not necessary.   A handful of plain Heavies can loft 500 tons - which is enough to get us truly going 'out there' without additional expense.

But without a heavy of reasonable performance, we're going to languish in LEO forever.

Ross.

Didn't they stay away from the HLV 2 or 3 launch ISS model because it looked too much like Skylab and it left nothing for the shuttle to do?  I would have launched the empty station in a few pieces and spent some year outfitting the inside with shuttle flights and you would have had an operable station 10 years ago.

A agree that a modest sized HLV (relative term right) used multiple times is far more practical than a 400 mT launcher used once a year or once every two years.  

Would still like a liquid fly back first stage.  a half billion to launch CEV is plain crazy talk.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline R&R

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #39 on: 04/20/2006 04:05 PM »
Quote
Kayla - 21/4/2006  6:02 AM

If a lunar mission required 150 mT this would require ~6 Atlas or Delta HLV’s (25mT for Delta or 28 mT for Atlas).  For a Mars mission of 500 mT this would require 20 launches, not the 400 Kraisee refers to.  

Beyond the incredible cost savings, Tap-Sa had it right. The Atlas and Delta rockets will have built up dozens of launches by the time the CEV is ready to fly, demonstrating their reliability.

Both the Delta IV and Atlas V Heavies can be given minor modifications which can get to 50 mT, that won't cost much and can work with existing Pads (maybe slightly modified) and will have the demonstrated reliability neither of the new NASA vehicles will.  I don't care if CLV and CaLV are derived from Shuttle and Apollo they'll really be very new and untried.

I'd propose that NASA go with the modified EELVs and use both.  This would allow them to launch faster and put up the 3 to 4 pieces needed for whatever it was they were going to put up in one piece at 150 mT.  In fact I'll bet what they end up with weighs barely 100 mT total.  The launches could be accomplished in 3 to 4 months.  The first two could be only days apart.  Delta IV even has an edge in that they can up to 4 Heavies ready to at the same time, 1 on the Pad and 3 in the HIF assembled and ready to go to the Pad.  Atlas can have all the parts ready to stack in the VIF for probably 2 or 3. :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #40 on: 04/20/2006 05:04 PM »
Quote
R&R - 20/4/2006  12:05 PM
Quote
Kayla - 21/4/2006  6:02 AMIf a lunar mission required 150 mT this would require ~6 Atlas or Delta HLV’s (25mT for Delta or 28 mT for Atlas).  For a Mars mission of 500 mT this would require 20 launches, not the 400 Kraisee refers to.  Beyond the incredible cost savings, Tap-Sa had it right. The Atlas and Delta rockets will have built up dozens of launches by the time the CEV is ready to fly, demonstrating their reliability.
Both the Delta IV and Atlas V Heavies can be given minor modifications which can get to 50 mT, that won't cost much and can work with existing Pads (maybe slightly modified) and will have the demonstrated reliability neither of the new NASA vehicles will.  I don't care if CLV and CaLV are derived from Shuttle and Apollo they'll really be very new and untried.I'd propose that NASA go with the modified EELVs and use both.  This would allow them to launch faster and put up the 3 to 4 pieces needed for whatever it was they were going to put up in one piece at 150 mT.  In fact I'll bet what they end up with weighs barely 100 mT total.  The launches could be accomplished in 3 to 4 months.  The first two could be only days apart.  Delta IV even has an edge in that they can up to 4 Heavies ready to at the same time, 1 on the Pad and 3 in the HIF assembled and ready to go to the Pad.  Atlas can
have all the parts ready to stack in the VIF for probably 2 or 3. :)

The HIF doesn't have the room for 3 Heavies, only 2.  The south side is not for LV's.  Also they only have one LMU for a heavy.  Additionally, they can't perform any testing in the HIF, which is why they don't have the next vehicle (a heavy) ready to go to pad after GOES.

Atlas only has room in the ASOC for 1 equivalent Heavy


My take is both EELV's for CLV and a SDLV for CaLV

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #41 on: 04/20/2006 06:22 PM »
I think we're actually generally on the right path now.

CLV/CEV for launching crews after STS is retired (which I'd prefer happen sooner rather than later, but is the subject for a different thread).

Then get a Heavy Lifter like the CaLV flying. The largest possible booster at a reasonable price would be my criteria.   The more it can lift, the more options it opens up for us.   I believe lofting between 150-200mT to LEO is the ballpark we should aim for.   CaLV is at the lower end of that scale, the 'Heavy' CaLV which I have proposed is at the upper end.   If the larger booster is cost effective, it should be built.

Then start going back to the moon.

All the while, we should be using the EELV's for launching the unmanned science probes.

But once were into regular CLV/CaLV flights, some cash needs to be put aside to begin man-rating one of the EELV's to be used as a backup for launching CEV's into orbit.   CLV will one day have a disaster - we all know it's innevitable given enough launches.   I'd like a backup available for that time to allow the US to continue its manned access to space.

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

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #42 on: 04/20/2006 09:47 PM »
I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???  The EELV’s in the 25 mT class are nearly available today. Finish qualification of the Delta, and the final integration of the Atlas HLV (95% of which is flying on the other Atlas variants).  Lockheed is willing to foot the bill to finish the Atlas HLV with a single HLV launch contract, meaning that NASA doesn’t have to spend a dime on development, just order one.  Minor changes are required for both Delta and Atlas to launch crews, health monitoring to let the CEV know if it should abort, and crew access at the pad.  Once again with orders, both companies probably will foot this bill as well.

Because of NASA’s desire to “own” a rocket, NASA is diverting money away from real needs including science and the rest of the lunar exploration effort.  If NASA were really focused on their mission, they wouldn’t develop the CLV and CaLV, freeing up the funds to fully fund the science missions (recover the $5B that was recently diverted).  The robotic lunar exploration program (RLEP) could consist of more than 2 missions between now and 2012, truly paving the way for human exploration. The in-space and LSAM stages and lunar habitat development could be started immediately.  We could be ready to land people on the moon in 2014, about the same time NASA currently is planning on launching the first people on the CLV/CEV.

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #43 on: 04/20/2006 09:57 PM »
Welcome to the site, Kayla.

 What's your opinion on the rejection of the Atlas X from the ESAS report?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #44 on: 04/20/2006 10:18 PM »
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  5:47 PMI think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???  The EELV’s in the 25 mT class are nearly available today. Finish qualification of the Delta, and the final integration of the Atlas HLV (95% of which is flying on the other Atlas variants).  Lockheed is willing to foot the bill to finish the Atlas HLV with a single HLV launch contract, meaning that NASA doesn’t have to spend a dime on development, just order one.  Minor changes are required for both Delta and Atlas to launch crews, health monitoring to let the CEV know if it should abort, and crew access at the pad.  Once again with orders, both companies probably will foot this bill as well.Because of NASA’s desire to “own” a rocket, NASA is diverting money away from real needs including science and the rest of the lunar exploration effort.  If NASA were really focused on their mission, they wouldn’t develop the CLV and CaLV, freeing up the funds to fully fund the science missions (recover the $5B that was recently diverted).  The robotic lunar exploration program (RLEP) could consist of more than 2 missions between now and 2012, truly paving the way for human exploration. The in-space and LSAM stages and lunar habitat development could be started immediately.  We could be ready to land people on the moon in 2014, about the same time NASA currently is planning on launching the first people on the CLV/CEV.

They aren't minor changes unless $1billion each is small changes

Offline R&R

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #45 on: 04/20/2006 11:24 PM »
Quote
Jim - 21/4/2006  11:04 AM


The HIF doesn't have the room for 3 Heavies, only 2.  The south side is not for LV's.

The 3rd bay in the HIF is big enough to hold 3 Boosters and the Second Stage, maybe not mated but that's a minor delay in that they would need to move them over to another bay when it opened up..  They would just have to clear out all the stuff being stored there.  

Quote
Also they only have one LMU for a heavy.

More could be built in short order.

Quote
Additionally, they can't perform any testing in the HIF, which is why they don't have the next vehicle (a heavy) ready to go to pad after GOES.

Testing has nothing to do with it.  They eliminated testing in the HIF becuase it just cost a lot of time any money for no gain.  
The Heavy there now is not ready because there's no rush, the strike kept them from getting ahead on it and it still would be a couple of weeks after GOES launches before the Pad would be ready.

Quote
Atlas only has room in the ASOC for 1 equivalent Heavy



That's too bad but I'll bet they could find someplace in all those leftover Titan facilities to put more if they needed to.

Quote
My take is both EELV's for CLV and a SDLV for CaLV

Any use of EELVs would be a good ting and real progress for the exploration initiative.

 :)

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #46 on: 04/20/2006 11:36 PM »
If your launching that much equipement, then maybe the first thing to launch is a chiller system for recondensing your LOX and or LH2.  Yes, that is expensive and heavy,
but it improves your loiter time in orbit substantially.  Also, it will save fuel in the long run.  If you don't need the chiller system on board the mars bound rocket and leave
it in LEO than it can be the basis of your "Space Station" which acts as a fuel depot.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #47 on: 04/20/2006 11:45 PM »
Quote
R&R - 20/4/2006  7:24 PM
Quote
Jim - 21/4/2006  11:04 AM

The HIF doesn't have the room for 3 Heavies, only 2.  The south side is not for LV's.
The 3rd bay in the HIF is big enough to hold 3 Boosters and the Second Stage, maybe not mated but that's a minor delay in that they would need to move them over to another bay when it opened up..  They would just have to clear out all the stuff being stored there.  
Quote
Also they only have one LMU for a heavy.
More could be built in short order.
Quote
Additionally, they can't perform any testing in the HIF, which is why they don't have the next vehicle (a heavy) ready to go to pad after GOES.
Testing has nothing to do with it.  They eliminated testing in the HIF becuase it just cost a lot of time any money for no gain.  The Heavy there now is not ready because there's no rush, the strike kept them from getting ahead on it and it still would be a couple of weeks after GOES launches before the Pad would be ready.
Quote
Atlas only has room in the ASOC for 1 equivalent Heavy


That's too bad but I'll bet they could find someplace in all those leftover Titan facilities to put more if they needed to.
Quote
My take is both EELV's for CLV and a SDLV for CaLV
Any use of EELVs would be a good ting and real progress for the exploration initiative. :)


Having vehicles on site and not being able to integrate them doesn't buy you anything.  So what if the south side can store CBC's, so can Decatur or the Delta Mariner for that matter.  Also the second stage nozzle needs to be kept vertical as much as possible.

 Mating is not a minor delay.  It has been taking a lot more time than was thought.

The Delta IV  program has said under its breath, that it wishes that it could do HIF testing.  The DSP booster could be nearly all checked out now. But since it is only mechanically mated, they have to wait until the pad is free and do the checkout, which always finds problems.


Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #48 on: 04/20/2006 11:49 PM »
Thank you for the warm welcome Chris, very interesting forum and topics.  I’m an incredible fan of space development, exploration and eventually colonization.  I’m just sick of the constant excuses that the use of space can only begin if we develop this next rocket.  Starting with the promise of the Space Shuttle in the 70’s; NASP & ALS in the 80’s; RLV, Venture Star & the various startups of the 90’s; and now again with CLV & CaLV.  We have an opportunity here with VSE to actually start the fun & benefit of exploration now.  If a launch market really appears in the future companies will invest and it will be survival of the fittest, good luck to Elon and the others!  Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin lost their shirts investing in EELV.

With regard to the Atlas X…
This is somewhat similar to the Lockheed Martin proposed Atlas phase 3B, consisting of an 8.4m core with 5 RD180s and 0, 2 or 4 dual RD180 LRBs.  
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2108&start=1
The LRBs are common with the proposed Atlas dual RD180 CLV.  This was found to be a good compromise if one had to have large performance, 140 mT to 220 nm circ.  

The Atlas X suffers from lack of lift-off thrust and the inability to accommodate an engine out in either LRB.  NASA also proposes a new US engine, where as all of the Atlas evolution options can use the RL10s. This use of existing engines was specifically planned to take full advantage of the existing engine history.  ESAS started down this road with the SRB and SSME.  However, ESAS tried to use the engines in manners for which they were not built, such as air lighting.  This led to all sorts of issues & redesigns, leading NASA’s current plan which includes arguably entirely new engines in the J2X and 5 segment SRB.

 An independent analysis conducted by the CBO in a soon to be released paper shows the Atlas 3B to be 20% cheaper through 2018 than NASA’s proposed CLV/CaLV, even docking Atlas for the shuttle termination costs.

However, the biggest problem with either of these super heavy lift solutions is the required dedicated, NASA only, infrastructure required by the 8+ m diameter cores.

The Atlas Phase 2 was the favored approach.  This looks like today’s Atlas, replace the current Atlas & Centaur tanks with 5.4m diameter tanks. Single or dual RD180s on the booster & 1 to 6 RL10s on the Centaur.  Basically Atlas Evolution is a new tank and reintegration of existing subsystems.  Atlas Phase 2 provides over 25 mT to 220 nm circ (not sub-orbital) with a single core booster or 70 mT in a 3 body configuration.  Best of all these rockets are also able to launch NASA robotic, DoD and commercial satellites to LEO, GTO, GSO, Earth Escape or anywhere in between.  The proposed CLV can just about launch itself to GTO, no payload.  This commonality ensures a high launch rate, reduced costs and high demonstrated reliability.  And if NASA’s mission changes in the future, NASA is not anchored by a huge infrastructure that it must maintain. The same CBO report mentioned above shows that the Atlas Phase 2 solution is half the price of NASA’s current plans (once again accounting for shuttle termination).

This was a long winded way of saying that the Atlas X was not the best Atlas solution.


Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #49 on: 04/20/2006 11:51 PM »
Jim,
To finish the Atlas HLV is a very small fraction of $1B.  The Cadillac version of flying Astronauts on an Atlas does approach $1B, but many options exist for much less.  These low cost options are being developed to support commercial tourism, where investment $ actually is important.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #50 on: 04/21/2006 12:03 AM »
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  7:51 PMJim,To finish the Atlas HLV is a very small fraction of $1B.  The Cadillac version of flying Astronauts on an Atlas does approach $1B, but many options exist for much less.  These low cost options are being developed to support commercial tourism, where investment $ actually is important.

I meant to manrate the vehicle and mod the launch complex.  

The Atlas X, Chris is refering to (I believe), is the Phase 2,  5.4m single core for crew launching.

Offline R&R

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #51 on: 04/21/2006 12:12 AM »
Quote
Jim - 21/4/2006  5:45 PM

Quote
R&R - 20/4/2006  7:24 PM
Quote
Jim - 21/4/2006  11:04 AM

The HIF doesn't have the room for 3 Heavies, only 2.  The south side is not for LV's.
The 3rd bay in the HIF is big enough to hold 3 Boosters and the Second Stage, maybe not mated but that's a minor delay in that they would need to move them over to another bay when it opened up..  They would just have to clear out all the stuff being stored there.  
Quote
Also they only have one LMU for a heavy.
More could be built in short order.
Quote
Additionally, they can't perform any testing in the HIF, which is why they don't have the next vehicle (a heavy) ready to go to pad after GOES.
Testing has nothing to do with it.  They eliminated testing in the HIF becuase it just cost a lot of time any money for no gain.  The Heavy there now is not ready because there's no rush, the strike kept them from getting ahead on it and it still would be a couple of weeks after GOES launches before the Pad would be ready.
Quote
Atlas only has room in the ASOC for 1 equivalent Heavy


That's too bad but I'll bet they could find someplace in all those leftover Titan facilities to put more if they needed to.
Quote
My take is both EELV's for CLV and a SDLV for CaLV
Any use of EELVs would be a good ting and real progress for the exploration initiative. :)


Having vehicles on site and not being able to integrate them doesn't buy you anything.  So what if the south side can store CBC's, so can Decatur or the Delta Mariner for that matter.  Also the second stage nozzle needs to be kept vertical as much as possible.

 Mating is not a minor delay.  It has been taking a lot more time than was thought.

The Delta IV  program has said under its breath, that it wishes that it could do HIF testing.  The DSP booster could be nearly all checked out now. But since it is only mechanically mated, they have to wait until the pad is free and do the checkout, which always finds problems.


I'm not sure what you mean by integrate them?  They can mate the CBCs and SS any time they want and that's all they need.  The SS Nozzle can sit a lot longer on its side than they let on.  Who ever said they wish they could do HIF testing has no idea what it was.  They don't have any hydraulics GSE there so they can't slew the engine which is harder on the side anyway and they don't have the SRMs yet for those configurations so nothing to test there.  Even Dacatur only had enough GSE to test one booster at a time for the Heavy.  All they could do is power on the avionics and not even all of that; the CRDs are not installed until the rockets on the Pad because of the short shelf life of the bench testing.  They never could do "all the testing" for DSP or any other mission in the HIF.  The testing they do on the Pad especially things like simulated flight before the spacecraft and flight program verification with it can only be done there.  As for problems even if they were found in the HIF some of the boxes can't be replaced until the vehicle gets vertical.  If they had put the testing done at Dectur in the HIF instead of the Factory that may have been something worth the effort and might have even reduced the Pad testing some.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #52 on: 04/21/2006 01:08 AM »
I was referring to interface testing CBC with the second stage and/or with strap on CBC's.  
Testing like in DMCO but not as intensive as you mentioned.

The pad flows are not going to be the 7-10 days that they planned.  Minimum is looking like 30 days.

Atlas can also do spacecraft interface test (abet with a spacecraft simulator) horizontally in the ASOC.

It was local Boeing that wished for it

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #53 on: 04/21/2006 01:09 AM »
Quote
Jim - 20/4/2006  9:08 PMI was referring to interface testing CBC with the second stage and/or with strap on CBC's.  

Atlas can also do spacecraft interface test (abet with a spacecraft simulator) horizontally in the ASOC.  

It was local boeing that wished for it

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #54 on: 04/21/2006 03:08 AM »
Quote
Jim - 20/4/2006  8:03 PM

Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  7:51 PMJim,To finish the Atlas HLV is a very small fraction of $1B.  The Cadillac version of flying Astronauts on an Atlas does approach $1B, but many options exist for much less.  These low cost options are being developed to support commercial tourism, where investment $ actually is important.

I meant to manrate the vehicle and mod the launch complex.  

The Atlas X, Chris is refering to (I believe), is the Phase 2,  5.4m single core for crew launching.


You know $1B, in this game is really not a lot of cash... when you think $2B is sent of to MSFC a year... ( still dont know for what?) ... I would go with the manrate on the Delta or the Atlas and fund the other to come up with the next gen... let the contractor do the design.. or, if that wish work together... who cares, as long as, NASA, the public, the boys on capital hill are happy and the folks in the business have work to do ( the part that worries me the most, and I am not in the business), moving forward (attracting new talent), but at the same time flying... We really need to get out of the analysis paralysis stage...

Offline HailColumbia

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #55 on: 04/21/2006 05:02 AM »
Quote
Avron - 20/4/2006  11:08 PM




You know $1B, in this game is really not a lot of cash...

It is when the total NASA budget is like 14B

-Steve

Offline ericr

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #56 on: 04/21/2006 09:03 AM »
Quote
HailColumbia - 21/4/2006  12:02 AM

Quote
Avron - 20/4/2006  11:08 PM
You know $1B, in this game is really not a lot of cash...

It is when the total NASA budget is like 14B

1/14th of ONE years annual budget and in return we get the next manrated LV and the pad needed upgrades.

Sounds like a bargain to me.  In fact let's allow for the typical problems and cost overuns in this business and say it may end up costing upwards to $2 Billion.  It still sounds like a bargain to me.

Offline ericr

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #57 on: 04/21/2006 09:08 AM »
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM
... Finish qualification of the Delta, and the final integration of the Atlas HLV (95% of which is flying on the other Atlas variants).  Lockheed is willing to foot the bill to finish the Atlas HLV with a single HLV launch contract, meaning that NASA doesn’t have to spend a dime on development, just order one.  ...
Wow, is this really true?  We managed to pay for the launch of the dummy sat for the first Delta heavy.  Why not do the same for Atlas? What would this single launch contract cost?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #58 on: 04/21/2006 12:03 PM »
Quote
ericr - 21/4/2006  5:08 AM
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM... Finish qualification of the Delta, and the final integration of the Atlas HLV (95% of which is flying on the other Atlas variants).  Lockheed is willing to foot the bill to finish the Atlas HLV with a single HLV launch contract, meaning that NASA doesn’t have to spend a dime on development, just order one.  ...
Wow, is this really true?  We managed to pay for the launch of the dummy sat for the first Delta heavy.  Why not do the same for Atlas? What would this single launch contract cost?

No existing requirements for it.  Only enough missions to support one contractor

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #59 on: 04/21/2006 06:16 PM »
Jim,
The ESAS report specifically refers to an Atlas X which is not equivalent to any of the final solutions coming from the Atlas folks.  This consists of an 8.4m diameter core with 5 RD180s, 2 of the existing Atlas V LRB’s (single RD180) and a very large upper stage with 4 J2S’s. See page 24 & 80 of the ESAS report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140637main_ESAS_06.pdf

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #60 on: 04/21/2006 06:32 PM »
Quote
Kayla - 21/4/2006  2:16 PMJim,The ESAS report specifically refers to an Atlas X which is not equivalent to any of the final solutions coming from the Atlas folks.  This consists of an 8.4m diameter core with 5 RD180s, 2 of the existing Atlas V LRB’s (single RD180) and a very large upper stage with 4 J2S’s. See page 24 & 80 of the ESAS report:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140637main_ESAS_06.pdf

Sorry, I was getting mind meld.  They are right next to each other.  I like the phase 2 for CEV and take a little more time for the HLLV configuration.

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #61 on: 04/21/2006 09:20 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 17/4/2006  10:47 PM
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.

This is a new tank by any definition of the word.  Why not just start over with an updated SaturnV? Back to the Future.

Shuttle-C is the only true SDHLV on the table at present all others are tanks painted orange to look like the original but almost +90% of the part cards will be different.  

If you’re going to design a HLV from scratch anyway why limit yourself to something that kinda looks like a shuttle tank?



“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #62 on: 04/22/2006 12:27 AM »
WLooks aren't everything, and besides, the current CaLV has some resemblance to the Saturn, take a look at the bottom with 5 engines, looks just a like the Saturn. Strap some SRBs on a Saturn 5 and you'd end up with something that looks very much like the CaLV.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #63 on: 04/22/2006 01:19 AM »
Just imagine...

(Please excuse my crappy MS Paint / Gimp skills)

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #64 on: 04/22/2006 01:22 AM »
And one more:


Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #65 on: 04/22/2006 01:38 AM »
From a study of space colonies done in the 1970s:

Here's the link.

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 18
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #66 on: 04/22/2006 04:05 AM »
If you used 4 boosters would that get you out of having to extend the core stage because of the lower specific impulse of the RS-68s?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #67 on: 04/22/2006 05:12 AM »
It could, but why?

Extending and widening the core stage provides you with much more fuel.   In general, the more fuel you have, the more you can burn to get the reaction needed to put more payload up - at least to a point anyway :)   As long as your thrust is always noticably more than the total mass of the vehicle, you should be good to go.

The optimum possible design for the CaLV 'type' of vehicle seems to be 140% fuel capacity compared to the original ESAS CaLV, in a tank actually a little taller, but 10m wide instead of 8.7m, with an upper stage a little shorter, but 10m wide again, surrounded by 4 x 5-segment SRB's.

That is capable of putting about 210mT up using the same launch pad infrastructure already being designed for CaLV, just modified to suit an extra set of boosters too.

The design can start out using a quad of 4-segment boosters and putting about 162mT up each flight, and the 5-segs can be developed more slowly, when funds and requirements require them.

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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #68 on: 04/22/2006 05:16 AM »
Gladiator and Vanilla - thanks for the drawings.   I haven't had time to whip up my ones yet :)

One change though - to keep the Pad modifications down to the simplest possible changes (less cost), the boosters would not be perfectly square.   They would form a rectangle, with the longer axis running across the MLP like Shuttle does today.   That way the current SRB posts could actually be re-used, and just an extra set installed in the current exhaust chamber.   At that point it's just about making a big hole between the two current SRB exhaust chambers...

Oh, and re-routing a bigger water suppression system in and around there too, but that's going to be integral in the design this time - not an afterthought like happened after STS-1.

Ross.
"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 #69 on: 04/22/2006 02:58 PM »
So something more like this:


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #70 on: 04/23/2006 02:38 AM »
Actually a middle-ground between the two.  :)

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

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #71 on: 04/24/2006 01:27 AM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/4/2006  10:58 AM

So something more like this:


Plus...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?attachmentid=4536

sold...:)


Anyone want to have a guess at the costs...

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3084
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 1206
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #72 on: 04/26/2006 12:07 PM »
Quote
Avron - 23/4/2006  8:27 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/4/2006  10:58 AM

So something more like this:


Plus...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?attachmentid=4536

sold...:)


Anyone want to have a guess at the costs...

Countless Billions and the workforce would be larger than STS
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #73 on: 04/26/2006 12:21 PM »
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but surely 4x4 seg is cheaper than 2x5seg?
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #74 on: 04/26/2006 01:08 PM »
Quote
FransonUK - 26/4/2006  8:21 AMSorry if this sounds dumb, but surely 4x4 seg is cheaper than 2x5seg?
Can't really answer that.4x4 might have more VAB and MLP mods 4x4 might have a more expensive ET.2x5 has more development costs (but then can be offset if the Stick uses it)

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #75 on: 04/26/2006 02:45 PM »
Quote
Jim - 26/4/2006  9:08 AM

Quote
FransonUK - 26/4/2006  8:21 AMSorry if this sounds dumb, but surely 4x4 seg is cheaper than 2x5seg?
Can't really answer that.4x4 might have more VAB and MLP mods 4x4 might have a more expensive ET.2x5 has more development costs (but then can be offset if the Stick uses it)

Jim... wanna have a guess at the cost of the 4x4?  if the VAB is a no-no.. stack at the pad?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #76 on: 04/26/2006 05:45 PM »
I know a lot about the infrastructure changes going on for CaLV.

If the changes are made at this stage to 4x4, the cost differences are really negligable.

The VAB highbays are going to have to be heavily modified anyway to suit the CaLV, and so are the MLP's.

Changing them to handle quad SRB's in the current design phase of the program now, virtually doesn't change any of the overall costs for re-manufacturing all that hardware - AND if NASA did that they could still launch 2x4 and 2x5 variants on the same system which will loft about 100-120mT.

Designing for 4x4 now does not preclude upgrading to 5-seg solids whenever they are required/ready to fly.

Retrofitting the infrastructure designed for 2x5 to 4x5 later would be a multi-billion dollar alteration again and would take VAB highbays out of service for a number of years.

So, in short: Design for 4x4 and 4x5 now and that allows any combinations.   Design just for 2x5 and that's all we get without some serious extra expenditure.

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

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3084
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 1206
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #77 on: 04/26/2006 11:57 PM »
I can only imagine the cost of 4x4 or 4x5 but the payload capacity would be great.

If this is even a growth option than it has to be considered now.

Looks insane and the lift off thrust would be out of thise world but what the heck.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #78 on: 04/30/2006 02:38 AM »
And it is deffinatly worth it in the long run.  :)

Offline cwal

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #79 on: 04/30/2006 03:56 AM »
Kraisee,

I agree that the quad SRB should be desgined for from the start but I have some questions:
Would the Crawler Transporters be able to handle it?  Just how much can they carry?
From what I've been able to find on the web, The MLP ( ~8.8 milloon lbs) and shuttle stack weigh
around 12 million lbs. The MLP + Sat V + LUT was ~12.6 million lbs. Using the figures from the ESAS report (pg 431)
a 4x5 CaLV would have a dry mass of ~7.2 million lbs + 8.8 million lbs MLP = 16 million lbs.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #80 on: 04/30/2006 06:15 AM »
The Crawlers were originally designed to be able to carry 18 million pounds.   In practice they actually transported the Mobile Launcher, LUT tower and Saturn-V massing at most about 12.6 million pounds during the Apollo program.

The Shuttle MLP today actually masses more like 9.25 million pounds.

The Shuttle Stack masses 2.75 million pounds, when empty of payload and liquid propellant, making about 12 million pounds during rollout.

A standard 2x5 CaLV (new RS-68 version), including 125mT payload, will mass about 3.95 million pounds without the liquid propellants on board., making for about 13.2m lb.

The "Heavy" 4x5 CaLV, including 210mt payload, will mass about 6.95 million pounds, for a rollout mass of 16.2m lb.

So, the Crawlers should be able to handle the mass without problems, and there's sufficient headroom to allow for a new umbilical tower on the MLP massing ~1.8m lb too.

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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #81 on: 04/30/2006 06:16 AM »
Duplicated message. Oops.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #82 on: 04/30/2006 09:59 AM »
Hello,

Slightly related with a few past discussion points and just as a side note, this is what I have been preparing for whenever I release a next version of my NASA VSE SC Orbiter add-on: a common (heavily modified / new) MLP + launch pad for all CLV and Heavy Lifter variants. This is still a very early WIP screenshot, a few 3D parts will be reworked or added, there are missing textures, etc. For now just testing pad integration and preparing all for a smooth match between all the required launcher variants that I have here.

I'm not saying that this will happen in real life, same for the 4xSRB booster but, on an ideal world, it would be great that something like these launchers could really become serious workhorses (next 50 years or so) for an aggressive space exploration initiative and, as we see from Russian examples, it seems wise to adopt some modular concepts (in the launchers themselves and in all what surrounds them) regarding medium and heavy launcher interaction and possible upgrades, right from the design phase. I know, we do not live in an ideal world and this would require more money in the start of the program... But, at least in virtual world, I can dream a little more :)

António
my pics @ flickr

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #83 on: 04/30/2006 12:57 PM »
There is a down side to a super heavy launcher, all the eggs are in one basket.  1 failure and not only do you loose the EDS, or the LSAM or a signficant piece of a lunar base, you loose it all.  With the increase in engine count (without engine out) and staging events the reliability goes down.  

With smaller mass launches you do add the headache of orbital rendezvous, but each launcher is more reliable.  You build in the to the proces backups so that if a launch failure occurs you keep going.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #84 on: 04/30/2006 03:05 PM »
The multiple launch does have its drawbacks, for one, your taking several launches to do what a Heavy CaLV can do in one shot. And think about the Mars missions later on. It is going to take multiple launches of a CaLV to prepare for that. Can you imagine the number of smaller launches it will take?

The Shuttle and ISS have proven that the multiple small launch idea is not the way to go, as it drags things out much longer, increasing the chance for problems to occur. A CaLV could have launched the components of the ISS in much fewer launches, and we would have a complete station by this point.

In both plans, backups will be needed. If you are launching 3 pieces of a base on the CaLV and you lose everything, you will have to replace it all. However, with the multiple launch plan, you don't know which launch could fail. Launch one might fail, therefore you would need a backup Piece 1, but 2 or 3 could fail as well.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #85 on: 04/30/2006 03:17 PM »
Quote
Avron - 26/4/2006  10:45 AM

Quote
Jim - 26/4/2006  9:08 AM

Quote
FransonUK - 26/4/2006  8:21 AMSorry if this sounds dumb, but surely 4x4 seg is cheaper than 2x5seg?
Can't really answer that.4x4 might have more VAB and MLP mods 4x4 might have a more expensive ET.2x5 has more development costs (but then can be offset if the Stick uses it)

Jim... wanna have a guess at the cost of the 4x4?  if the VAB is a no-no.. stack at the pad?

They stacked Gemini spacecraft at the pad.
Stacking at the pad is possibly a very good idea, possibly for the CaLV, but even better for the CLV. In another thread one of the people against the CLV stated that it could not get taller (no third stage could be added), however, if we add everything that won't fit through the VAB doors at the pad, we could possibly add a Third stage to the CLV and make the CaLV taller. Simcosmos had a three stage version of the CLV in one of the SRBLauncher SC add ons.

The only problem with this is, that if a problem develops, then you have to destack and then bring the entire thing back to the VAB. However, this was not a show stopper during Gemini, so I don't see why it would be now.


Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #86 on: 04/30/2006 04:31 PM »
I don't think STS/ISS disprove the orbital assembly approach.  I think, if anything, the STS/ISS is an excellent example that tying missions (ISS construction in this case) to a single one-of-a-kind launcher is a bad idea.  Which is incidentally what's going to happen with the CaLV.   Protons, Atlases, Deltas, Sea launches, Ariannes, etc... would have finished the station a long time ago, and then some.  ... if the *architecture* allowed for it.

We'll have to do orbital/lunar/martian assembly, that's a given.  We simply cannot deploy capable structures/spacecraft with single launch.  The question is "What chunks are optimal?"  5mt, 15, 25, 70, 100, 120... etc?  Where is the objective metric?  Why shouldn't we wait for a 1000 tonne launcher?  On the other hand, why is a 15mt launcher not enough?  We'll do the assembly either way, except we have the smaller launchers now, but will have to wait for HLVs.  Note that even the current HLV based ESAS plan has abandoned the single launch Apollo style and switched to 2 launches with assembly.  Perhaps the smallest single launch weight is the smallest 'rescue' mission to the Moon?  The 'safe' amount of assembly/docking operations?  I don't know, how did the shipping, construction, etc... companies arrived at their optimal capacities?  I don't have a 'pet plan', and I thought the ESAS was pretty good, all I care about are mission capabilities, just some questions that spring to mind.


Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #87 on: 04/30/2006 05:10 PM »
I agree with you about the ISS, the components were designed to fit only the Shuttle. The CEV on the other hand can fit other launchers. NASA is going to go with their own launchers, the SDLVs, it is wishful thinking to hope for the EELVs to become the primary launch vehicles. At some point you have to narrow it down to one or two vehicles. There are not enough funds to manrate every single EELV.
I've heard it elsewhere that "manrating" is a joke. Well either way NASA is going to go through this costly process, even though it doesn't guaruntee a manrated EELV is any safer than an "unmanrated" one. You can rule out launching the CEV on Proton, Ariane, or Soyuz, it just won't happen. Spaceflight is still about national pride, and congress will not allow NASA to go to the Moon using someone else's rocket. So that basically leaves us with Atlas and Delta.
I support the SDLVs because I am a fan of the Shuttle and I like the appearance of the SDLVs. The "Stick" is really just cool looking. However, that is not a reason to say that it is the best choice. I am happy with whatever NASA thinks it best, which right now is the SDLV. If for some reason they switch to EELVs, I'll silently mourn the loss of the SDLV and support the EELVs.
At some point we hav eto give up the wishful thinking, as we can go on forever with, "I wish they did this, this would have worked better..." The history of spaceflight has shown that the best design doesn't always win, and no matter what we do politics and money will always play a role in the final selection. For NASA, the best political choice is the SDLV. The Shuttle is their baby, and they want it to live on in another form. ESAS was done by NASA so of course they are going to pull for the home team. If Lockheed controlled ESAS, we would have seen Atlas as the final selection. Boeing would have chosen the Delta IV as the best choice. There is no perfect design. The EELVs have their problems as do the SDLVs.
As Kraisee is showing in this thread is that our concern shouldn't be about EELV vs. SDLV, but getting the best out of the SDLVs. Unless something new comes out in the next few weeks, it appears the SDLV has won the battle. Now let's make sure they are designed in a way that doesn't box them in to one configuration like designing for 2 X 5 segment boosters will. We need the capability of a 4 X 5 segment booster version of the CaLV.

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #88 on: 04/30/2006 05:44 PM »
I. Heavy vs Medium / SDLV vs EELV, etc

This is most probably a kind of philosophical discussion (heavy vs medium and derivates and all what is between).
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.


On my humble opinion I think that something between and similar to what Old Soviet Union did with Energia / Zenit would be a great way to go:

a) A good medium lifter with capability for upgrades such addition of a 3rd stage… There were also studies for smaller extra boosters and / or extra cores (see Atlas V plans as example… See also what Russians are planning for Angara…)

On a related note, I also have here a few 3D playtime concepts that mix RD171 cores (some could also think in cores having twin RD180) with my SRB launcher's second stage… hummm, if someone is interested in seeing renderings of these please say and I will happily make / post a picture in the Alternatives to The ESAS thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2320&start=1



b) An heavy lifter that uses components (or derived components) of the medium lifter as its boosters, upper stages…

From this perspective, I'm glad to see that NASA is, at least in part, following a similar strategy for the new launchers.

The only thing that is "missing" and that "bothers" me is that, at least until any word in contrary, the CLV's design is static in the sense that it will only be used to launch the CEV when, with a few more of effort and passing over other non-technical constraints, the SRB launcher could become a great and very capable launch vehicle for many other missions as well a much better complementary vehicle to the heavy lifter. This (and possible CaLV performance upgrades, as long as planned from root) would mean a lot more freedom when thinking about LEO assembly of bigger structures and exploration goals!

I know, money, politics, blablablabla play a major role in all these choices… Maybe I'm being a bit naïve but with a little of effort from all parts I believe that VSE would be a perfect opportunity (one in a life time) to make a great and versatile launch system by using:
- 5 segment SRB
- RD180 derived cores
- ET core (with current diameter) and, yes, still the SSME derived and expendable engines (not the RS68)
- improved CLV upper stage + derivate (EDS)
- Centaurs

Where parts of these items could be exchanged to form up specific launcher variants operated by different entities, accordingly with NASA's, military and the private market needs. But, of course, I'm not that naïve… People are running against time and it seems hard to seat all potential parts at the same table to make something like this crazy idea happen :)

So, looking at all options, it seems that NASA's heavy lifter plans are a good choice IF properly supported by one or even two medium (and medium-heavy) launchers. Even if ISS was not extremelly dependent of STS it would have still required lots and lots of launches. Heavy lifter is a fast way to assemble something big. As for the risk of loosing a big payload if the heavy lifter fails: one of the "solutions" - in lack of better word - would be to mass produce that payload and this would lead the discussion to modularity issues and planning / building and integration strategies (perhaps something for another topic).  


II. On-Pad Assembly

Gladiator I think that stacking things on the pad is not quite what NASA might have in mind. Else the pad could end up being a bit cluttered. If possible, the best thing to do is to just leave a big tower in the LC39 pads and a smaller umbilical one in the MLP, and find a way to fully assemble the launcher(s) before moving it to the launchpad, I guess.



III. Related with what I wrote in the first point and about the 3 stage version of my SRB launcher concept Orbiter add-on(s), please let me open a parenthesis here: that particular variant might be (or perhaps not) what I call by "creative liberty".

So, forgetting the performances of the currently available add-on(s) (I’m tweaking those numbers to make all be a little more realistic on a next release), the 3 stage SRB launcher variant might be (or not) a creative liberty due to possible control / load issues, I mean:

a) I do not know what is the maximum load that one SRB can support on its top. I suppose that it would be possible to integrate a ~50t class upper stage (single J-2S+) on top of my "in development" 155t dual engine 2nd stage plus 25t payload (and LES or fairings) because I saw somewhere (early studies) pictures and data about the CLV having a second stage with a mass as high as 200 or even 300t… but I also seem to remember something about load issues, must check.

Perhaps a more feasible concept would be to be a little more conservative in the 3rd stage and add something Centaur related: this would still result on a good launcher for beyond LEO duties.


b) By other hand, that 3 stage version will end being as high as the heavy lifter: not sure about issues related with air flow, control, etc. But it is fun to think that a single launch of my 3 stage "CLV" version (+ a Service Module) could perhaps send ~8 to 10tons into a low Moon's orbit in just one shot. By the way, from what I see here, this heavy SRB launcher would perfectly fit in the VAB doors.


António

my pics @ flickr

Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #89 on: 04/30/2006 06:42 PM »
Personally, I think "lots and lots of launches" is a good thing.  Isn't it what we all want?  Bustling activity in LEO, then the Moon, then Mars.  Plus, we get some real assembly training/technologies for those Mars missions.  The question is the granularity and the efficiency of those launches.  I know the ESAS is sort of pre-conditioned against multi-launch (although it can't help but fall back to it), and would like to do everything in one shot if it could...  But, economies of scale, and realities of rocket propulsion, and all that.  I agree it's (the multi-launch) more complex and statistically error prone, but perhaps, it's a hurdle we *just can't avoid* but overcome if we are ever to become space-faring?  And the sooner we do it the better?  Of course, NASA will do as it will, and I'll be content as long as the mission capabilities are preserved, but as a matter of discussion...

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #90 on: 04/30/2006 07:04 PM »
Quote
Kayla - 30/4/2006  8:57 AM

There is a down side to a super heavy launcher, all the eggs are in one basket.  1 failure and not only do you loose the EDS, or the LSAM or a signficant piece of a lunar base, you loose it all.  With the increase in engine count (without engine out) and staging events the reliability goes down.  

With smaller mass launches you do add the headache of orbital rendezvous, but each launcher is more reliable.  You build in the to the proces backups so that if a launch failure occurs you keep going.

Yes, I do agree with that.   More complication does add more things to go wrong.

This design was in response to the incomplete LRA-0 stuff a couple of weeks back, when NASA appeared to be struggling to send enough mass to the moon.   That LRA stuff was incorrect though, so the premise that we needed a more powerful launcher really seems to have evaporated.   The regular CaLV looks sufficient after all.

But if there's a requirement where 125mT is not sufficient, and for some reason we find a requirement to loft about 170mT in a single shot - this concept is a feasible solution which would be based on the same CaLV NASA is already planning to build.

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

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #91 on: 04/30/2006 09:39 PM »
Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM

I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???

You are missing the point. The LACK of new vehicles is holding exploration hostage! The EELV only apologists are holding exploration hostage. 120 tons to orbit atop CALV needs only one launch with engine out. You will have to expend 15 to 18 such RS-68s on five Delta IVs to do what CaLV will do in but one launch. EELV will cost **more** over time. Five CaLVs and you still have your RS-68 engines produced--but you will have 500 tons in orbit in only five launches.

THAT is REAL exploration!

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #92 on: 04/30/2006 11:52 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 30/4/2006  4:39 PM

Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM

I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???

You are missing the point. The LACK of new vehicles is holding exploration hostage! The EELV only apologists are holding exploration hostage. 120 tons to orbit atop CALV needs only one launch with engine out. You will have to expend 15 to 18 such RS-68s on five Delta IVs to do what CaLV will do in but one launch. EELV will cost **more** over time. Five CaLVs and you still have your RS-68 engines produced--but you will have 500 tons in orbit in only five launches.

THAT is REAL exploration!

SDLV plans to spend ~$20B on non-recurring prior to the first lunar mission.  I’d be a hero if I could get NASA to buy 100 Atlas V HLV’s for $20B!  At 5 HLV’s per lunar mission this is 20 lunar missions using HLV’s before SDLV is ready to start launching the first one.  Explain to me how the EELV crowd is holding exploration hostage?

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #93 on: 05/01/2006 12:30 AM »
Quote
Kayla - 30/4/2006  6:52 PM

Quote
publiusr - 30/4/2006  4:39 PM

Quote
Kayla - 20/4/2006  4:47 PM

I think that Kraisee is missing the point.  Why hold exploration hostage to development of new rockets???

You are missing the point. The LACK of new vehicles is holding exploration hostage! The EELV only apologists are holding exploration hostage. 120 tons to orbit atop CALV needs only one launch with engine out. You will have to expend 15 to 18 such RS-68s on five Delta IVs to do what CaLV will do in but one launch. EELV will cost **more** over time. Five CaLVs and you still have your RS-68 engines produced--but you will have 500 tons in orbit in only five launches.

THAT is REAL exploration!

SDLV plans to spend ~$20B on non-recurring prior to the first lunar mission.  I’d be a hero if I could get NASA to buy 100 Atlas V HLV’s for $20B!  At 5 HLV’s per lunar mission this is 20 lunar missions using HLV’s before SDLV is ready to start launching the first one.  Explain to me how the EELV crowd is holding exploration hostage?

~$20 billion on non-recurring? How is that itemized, again?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #94 on: 05/01/2006 12:44 AM »
The latest numbers that I’ve heard put the CLV development at $10B (including launch complex and a few demo flights) and the only development cost I’ve ever heard for CaLV is another $10B.

Actually, If I were NASA and placed a buy for 100 EELV HLV’s, my question would be could I have them for $15B or  even $10B. A large bulk buy like that would really put NASA in a bargain position.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3084
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 1206
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #95 on: 05/01/2006 01:55 AM »
Okay, I have had my fun commenting on the short comings of the ESAS.  But unless W wakes up one morning and starts caring about space more than any president since Kennedy the plans aren't going to change.

For better or worse we are all going to end up getting the CLV for the CEV.  So perhaps we should discuss things other than EELV this and SRB that.

Some good comments but rather repeatitive.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #96 on: 05/01/2006 01:56 AM »
Ar ethe pads for said EELVs ready for manned flights? Do they have a crew accessway, ya know, so were not hoisting them up there in a cherry-picker. The EELV option doesn't mean we are just going to slap a CEV on top of the thing and boom were ready to go. There are going to be development costs to ready the EELVs. You are dremaing if you don't think NASA is going to spend a couple billion "manrating" these vehicles.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #97 on: 05/01/2006 01:58 AM »
Quote
wannamoonbase - 30/4/2006  9:55 PM

Okay, I have had my fun commenting on the short comings of the ESAS.  But unless W wakes up one morning and starts caring about space more than any president since Kennedy the plans aren't going to change.

For better or worse we are all going to end up getting the CLV for the CEV.  So perhaps we should discuss things other than EELV this and SRB that.

Some good comments but rather repeatitive.

Well since he isn't too popular these days, and just about everything he supports ends up in the tank, I hope he just shuts up about the VSE and leaves it to NASA to handle.We all need to just pray that the guy who takes over in '08 doesn't axe the VSE.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #98 on: 05/01/2006 02:01 AM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 30/4/2006  9:56 PMAr ethe pads for said EELVs ready for manned flights? Do they have a crew accessway, ya know, so were not hoisting them up there in a cherry-picker. The EELV option doesn't mean we are just going to slap a CEV on top of the thing and boom were ready to go. There are going to be development costs to ready the EELVs. You are dremaing if you don't think NASA is going to spend a couple billion "manrating" these vehicles.

They were ready to for OSP.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #99 on: 05/01/2006 07:46 AM »
Yes, they were.   But they've changed their opinion because they believe they can make something better using Shuttle-derived solutions instead - for whatever reasons.

I have said often that I like the new systems.   But I would still like to see at least one of the EELV's eventually man-rated as a second, completely independant, launch vehicle for launching crews - we can't afford to be stuck without a launcher when the next accident happens.   Not if, when.

Also, I would like to see a replacement liquid powered design for the SRB at some point too.   That's where I think the EELV guys should really be focussing their energy now that they are out of the running for this now.   A direct upgrade for the SRB's will be needed whenever the EPA finally get their teeth into the perchlorate issues, and if LM/Boeing/ULA have an alternative ready in the wings at that point they'll get a real lot of attention from NASA then.

I'd like to see a 3m+ lb booster, designed to burn for about 135 seconds.   Probably fuelled by RP1/LOX, with something like 3 x RS-84's under it, or four RD-180's (assuming legal stuff is okay) or maybe brush off the old F-1A designs and create an X version of it to go with the J-2X!   Just two of those would be needed.   At an average 3m+ lb, it would increase the payload capacity too, which is always advantageous.

The real key would be to design such a booster to be the exact same height as a standard SRB, and fit the same mountings too, so it can basically be swapped straight out.

I think the EELV teams would be perfectly suited to undertake that sort of replacement at some point in the not-so-distant future.

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

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #100 on: 05/04/2006 07:21 PM »
And there is nothing to say that costs can't come down with repeated CaLV launches with heavy probes. I would rather have my eggs in one basket that has engine out as opposed to having several baskets with holes in them.

Last I heard, they don't sell cartons with one egg in them apiece. CaLV is a step forward to increased human capability in space. It is a superio Mars ship, and with larger segments assmbly is reduced. With five CaLVs ISS would have been done. With five STS you launch one CaLV load. If we can afford five STS missions, we can support CaLV the same way. CaLV should be our Number One goal as I see it. It will also give you a good supply of engines. I see no reason why it cannot be used as a new Titan IV.

Even if CaLV cost a billion a shot--some defense payloads were of similar amounts--and 1 billion for 100 tons equals 200 million for every 20 tons.
 
Plus you reduce the cost of multiple pad delays upper stages, assembly time.

One cannot talk about how little CaLV launches and talk about how EELVs are cheaper due to being launched more--when that just gives you ISS assembly delays and multiple upper stages. When CaLV has the same institutional inertia behind it as STS, it will prove its worth.

Offline copernicus

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #101 on: 05/11/2006 04:02 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 1/5/2006  2:46 AM

Also, I would like to see a replacement liquid powered design for the SRB at some point too.   That's where I think the EELV guys should really be focussing their energy now that they are out of the running for this now.   A direct upgrade for the SRB's will be needed whenever the EPA finally get their teeth into the perchlorate issues, and if LM/Boeing/ULA have an alternative ready in the wings at that point they'll get a real lot of attention from NASA then.

I'd like to see a 3m+ lb booster, designed to burn for about 135 seconds.   Probably fuelled by RP1/LOX, with something like 3 x RS-84's under it, or four RD-180's (assuming legal stuff is okay) or maybe brush off the old F-1A designs and create an X version of it to go with the J-2X!   Just two of those would be needed.   At an average 3m+ lb, it would increase the payload capacity too, which is always advantageous.



Ross.


     I would like to pursue this idea of using RS-84's for the CaLV first stage.  From what I gather, it was planned
to have a thrust of 1 million pounds, with Isp of 335(?).  
     For all of you rocket scientists out there, would a RP1/LOX CaLV 1st stage make more sense than
the current H2 design?  
    Would Michoud still be able to use ET tooling to manufacture such a stage?  
   
    What would be the ideal thrust for the CaLV 1st stage if it does use RS-84's?
   
     What would the demensions of such a 1st stage look like?


 I think that now is a good time to discuss this, as the final CaLV system is a long way
from having its design frozen.  Griffin would still be able to use the 5-segment SRB's,
as well as the J2X on the EDS, as well as the people and facilities at Michoud (I assume).






Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #102 on: 05/11/2006 07:18 PM »
It's not as simple as just replacing RS-68's and LH2 fuel for sufficient RS-84's and RP1 fuel to get the same thrust.   There are an awful lot more factors to consider which effect the overall performance.

I've run some simple tests here and the vehicle can't fly successfully just replacing the CaLV's core stage with similar power from RS-84's and the different fuel config.   It actually runs out of gas far too early for the Upper Stage to successfully insert the payload into orbit.

If the vehicle were radically changed, you could get something to fly which would be "interesting", but the RS-84 is not ideal for this sort of application.   RS-84's are most ideally suited to be used as first stage booster engines with a relatively short burn-time early in the flight.

To get into the ballpark of a fairly ideal 1.3:1 liftoff thrust:weight ratio using the RS-84, you end up putting enough fuel on board which will get you only around 170 to 200 seconds of burn time.

The RS-84's burning that long could offer considerable extra power if used as boosters for the CaLV (the SRB's burn out around 135s), but they get nowhere close to the massive burn time of 450 seconds the CaLV core stage will provide so that the EDS can take over increasing the launch velocity for just the final few minutes of the flight.

For my money, the CaLV core is pretty good as it is.   Higher Isp from a "Block-II" RS-68 should be looked at to increase performance though.   And I'd replace the SRB's with RS-84-powered flybacks.   But I'm happy to leave both of those "upgrades" until later on in the program and get us flying ASAP with the hardware they're already planning to fly.

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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #103 on: 05/11/2006 07:24 PM »
studies of RS-68 upgrades are being funded as we speak, with the idea of incorporating them once they mature

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 293
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #104 on: 06/01/2006 08:45 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2006  2:05 PM

For my money, the CaLV core is pretty good as it is.   Higher Isp from a "Block-II" RS-68 should be looked at to increase performance though.   And I'd replace the SRB's with RS-84-powered flybacks.   But I'm happy to leave both of those "upgrades" until later on in the program and get us flying ASAP with the hardware they're already planning to fly.

Ross.

Agreed.  The CaLV core seems to be a very good core with respectable performance that can be built with today's technology.  I like the idea of eventually dropping the SRBs in favor of some other strap on (and preferably four of them at that).  As long as the CaLV core is designed correctly with room for future improvement via different strap ons then I am a pretty satisfied camper.

Not that I have anything to do with the space program.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #105 on: 06/01/2006 10:51 PM »
Agreed.

I'm also quite liking some of the ICES stuff which came out from Lockheed recently.   I could see some advantages to using some of the technology for the EDS.

While you'd pay a mass penalty for having the stage inside the payload shroud (like a Centaur), you'd get a mass benefit in return because you could reduce the boiloff rate significantly.

I'm curious whether LM will bring that proposal to the table when the EDS RFI eventually comes out of NASA in a few years time.

One thought I had was that you could probably lengethen the stage considerably and still fit it inside the shroud - and with two J-2X's under it, it might make for quite a nice EDS for Mars Missions, with extremely low-boiloff rates, allowing liquid fuel to be used for braking maneuvers at Mars too.

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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #106 on: 06/01/2006 10:58 PM »
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2006  3:11 PM

studies of RS-68 upgrades are being funded as we speak, with the idea of incorporating them once they mature

Interesting to hear it confirmed.

I know that the RS-68 is being examined from the PoV of man-rating it, and also to reduce the huge gout of flame at launch too.   Not sure if those studies are combined in with the upgrade studies, or if they are separate.   Should be interesting to watch how this develops.

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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #107 on: 06/01/2006 11:22 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 1/6/2006  6:38 PM

While you'd pay a mass penalty for having the stage inside the payload shroud (like a Centaur), you'd get a mass benefit in return because you could reduce the boiloff rate significantly.

Not really, shroud is only on for a short time.  It is jettision as soon as the free molecular heating drops below a certain level, which in the 200k feet range.  There is no difference in the Centaur for a 4 vs 5.4 meter fairing on Atlas.

Also additional hardware is required to keep the stage "centered" in the fairing (see Atlas 5XX and Titan IV Centaur)

Quote
I'm curious whether LM will bring that proposal to the table when the EDS RFI eventually comes out of NASA in a few years time.


MSFC has an upperstage already in mind (see the  CLV upperstage RFI and just make it bigger).  LM is not going to give up info that will provide an edge to other contractors.  


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #108 on: 06/01/2006 11:41 PM »
They should approach NASA directly about it, before the RFI.   They'd be daft not to propose that technology to NASA for use on the EDS.   With the J-2X under it, I think they could win the contract for the EDS outright.   I think that would retro-backwards ('scuse my phrasing) and create an automatic "win" for the contract for the CLV Upper Stage too.

Unless Boeing can do better of course...

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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #109 on: 06/02/2006 12:25 AM »
They have no way of knowing that they would win.  Anyways it is a production contract.  Somebody like Chrysler could win it and they would get nothing.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #110 on: 06/02/2006 10:28 PM »
The bid process should offer them a chance to propose alternatives though.   The contents of the final bids are kept secret.

They put a bid together to produce precisely the right thing for NASA, and also a secondary bid in with it for their customised alternative for review.

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

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #111 on: 06/09/2006 10:29 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2006  2:05 PM

It's not as simple as just replacing RS-68's and LH2 fuel for sufficient RS-84's and RP1 fuel to get the same thrust.   There are an awful lot more factors to consider which effect the overall performance.

I've run some simple tests here and the vehicle can't fly successfully just replacing the CaLV's core stage with similar power from RS-84's and the different fuel config.   It actually runs out of gas far too early for the Upper Stage to successfully insert the payload into orbit.

If the vehicle were radically changed, you could get something to fly which would be "interesting", but the RS-84 is not ideal for this sort of application.   RS-84's are most ideally suited to be used as first stage booster engines with a relatively short burn-time early in the flight.

To get into the ballpark of a fairly ideal 1.3:1 liftoff thrust:weight ratio using the RS-84, you end up putting enough fuel on board which will get you only around 170 to 200 seconds of burn time.

The RS-84's burning that long could offer considerable extra power if used as boosters for the CaLV (the SRB's burn out around 135s), but they get nowhere close to the massive burn time of 450 seconds the CaLV core stage will provide so that the EDS can take over increasing the launch velocity for just the final few minutes of the flight.

For my money, the CaLV core is pretty good as it is.   Higher Isp from a "Block-II" RS-68 should be looked at to increase performance though.   And I'd replace the SRB's with RS-84-powered flybacks.   But I'm happy to leave both of those "upgrades" until later on in the program and get us flying ASAP with the hardware they're already planning to fly.

Ross.

WELL SAID!

Offline JulesVerneATV

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #112 on: 09/09/2006 06:28 AM »
Quote
Tap-Sa - 19/4/2006  7:11 AM

Quote
lmike - 19/4/2006  1:42 PM
  If we put our eggs, as it were, into this one basket from the onset, do we forgo a more flexible and robust approach?  (i.e. if we decide we want to do orbital assembly, have we wasted time and money?)  

Well, not quite. The ongoing question is where goes NASA's orbital assembly 'pain threshold'. IOW at which point do they bite the bullet and accept it as nominal part of the mission. It is inevitability and in a way it's already part of moon mission anyway. LSAM and CEV has to assemble, twice, for a succesful mission. What's the fundamental difference of that compared to, say launching EDS LOX in multiple tanks using smaller launchers and connecting them in orbit? IMO none, one requires just more launches than the other.

Mars mission would require orbital assembly of several CaLV payloads. I doubt there will be ~500t superheavy vehicle to launch it in one go and not even in two. To develope such for just a couple launches per decade would be extraordinary costly. I don't see manned Mars missions happening at faster rate than that for a very long time.

People (Zubrin being among the most vocal) object orbital assembly and claim it dooms any mission if single failure happens during multiple launches. IMO this reasoning is wrong. Each part launched should have a backup standing by. If EDS LOX tank #4 launch fails, tuff, send another. You ought to have at least one spare already built because AFAIK the idea is to keep going to the moon, not just stick another flag there once or twice.

Above scenario would require such thinking that the failed LOX launch would not ground the launch vehicle for two years to investigate what went wrong. Of course you investigate but while doing that you keep launching because you have to accept the fact that these things aren't perfect. If you use an established EELV class launcher with maybe 100+ successes under belt and then the #4 oxygen tank flight fails, it does NOT denote that the vehicle suddenly became a miserable death trap and next launch without any modifications would fail with 99% certainty. The mission would require only one extra flight.

Propellant transfer/storage is a major issue in true orbital assembly for lunar or Mars mission. Waiting months with LH2 boiling in the tanks is not a good deal. Intermediate solution might be to launch and assemble LOX tanks first, and LH2 in last shot or just before the crew. Proper permanent solution is to have an orbiting garage/fuel depot where you assemble your craft and fill her up when ready.

Isn't that what the ISS was supposed to be at one time, an orbital garage/depot that would serve as a pit stop for Mars missions

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #113 on: 09/11/2006 08:00 PM »
>Isn't that what the ISS was supposed to be at one time, an orbital garage/depot that would serve as a pit stop for Mars missions

Yup, then it needed access from Baikonur...

All that fuel related stuff might also disrupt the microgravity environment on ISS.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #114 on: 09/13/2006 05:55 AM »
Von Braun's plans for a space station were to use it as a fuel depot, and orbital crew transfer station.

But ISS was never designed for that purpose - it was designed as a US scientific laboratory initially, and then later got the international partners involved to try to reduce the cost to the US taxpayer, although it didn't quite manage that... :(

We could certainly use a transfer station and orbital fuel depot in space for the new program.   And even if ISS could perform the job, it is also going 17,500mph in completely the wrong direction to be useful for Lunar or Martian missions.

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

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #115 on: 10/13/2006 04:29 AM »
how much mass can the CALC put into LEO at 28 degrees or equaterial orbit with a plane change burn?
I am a member of the side mount fanboy universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture fanboy universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline vda

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #116 on: 10/25/2006 10:46 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 13/4/2006  11:01 PM
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.

Does it make sense to have slightly different designs of ETs, one with two-SRB-only thrust structure (a bit lighter) and another which can take either two or four SRBs?

This makes me wonder - by the same reasoning, shouldn't we look into six-SRB heavy configuration?
Not planning to actually build it anytime soon, just make sure that factory tooling, pad, etc will not be prohibitively expensive to modify for such a thing.

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #117 on: 10/27/2006 03:29 PM »
One thought does occur to me about CaLV's with more than 2 SRBs--has anyone looked at the acoustical loading placed on the engines in the Core stage? The heat flux alone with 6 SRB's burning should be mighty--but the sound waves ought to be absolutely horrendous...I'm not sure that you can add enough acoustical insulation to help?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #118 on: 10/30/2006 04:09 AM »
There are actually a lot of problems with 4xSRBs.

The Crawlers can't shift that much mass for a start.   The Pads, VAB and MLP's would all need extensive re-design work.   And NASA would need two more very expensive SRB Recovery ships.

That lot would cost many many billions to change.   Probably about $10Bn on top of designing, building and operating the new launcher.

A far more cost effective solution is to keep pretty much everything we have today in place and reuse it as closely to 'as is' as possible, to launch about 70mT on every flight.   DIRECT-ly.

For that same $10Bn, DIRECT could launch about 70 launches!   That's 4,900mT in LEO for the same money as the very first 4xSRB booster flight.

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

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #119 on: 10/30/2006 11:20 AM »
The 4 SRBs growth option would be expensive but how does that compare with the performance/development cost of the 2 x 5 segments SRBs + 3 RS-68R on the core tank growth option proposed by Kraisee?


PaulL

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #120 on: 10/30/2006 12:09 PM »
The 5 segment SRB is less.   The 4 SRB affects too many ground systems and a complete ET redesign (fwd attach system massive redesign)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #121 on: 10/30/2006 06:45 PM »
Quote
PaulL - 30/10/2006  7:03 AM

The 4 SRBs growth option would be expensive but how does that compare with the performance/development cost of the 2 x 5 segments SRBs + 3 RS-68R on the core tank growth option proposed by Kraisee?

PaulL,
The new VAB work platforms, Crawlers, MLP changes and two new recovery ships would probably total about $10Bn, plus about $3Bn more for re-qualification of the LV itself.

DIRECT's "Growth Options" would cost about $4Bn for the 5-seg boosters, plus similar LV re-qualification costs.   If planned from the start as a "probable upgrade", the infrastructure changes should be minimal.

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

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #122 on: 11/03/2006 09:10 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2006  10:52 PM


A far more cost effective solution is to keep pretty much everything we have today in place and reuse it as closely to 'as is' as possible, to launch about 70mT on every flight.   DIRECT-ly.

For that same $10Bn, DIRECT could launch about 70 launches!   That's 4,900mT in LEO for the same money as the very first 4xSRB booster flight.

Ross.

Five thousand tons to orbit!

Those are impressive numbers. Your plan is very similar to Bill Eoff's Magnum LV, which was also called the "BMDO launcher" by some.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/magnum.htm

Only you don't have the expense of the liquid fly-backs, which could come somewhat later on.

Offline vda

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #123 on: 11/13/2006 12:49 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2006  5:52 AM

There are actually a lot of problems with 4xSRBs.

The Crawlers can't shift that much mass for a start.   The Pads, VAB and MLP's would all need extensive re-design work.   And NASA would need two more very expensive SRB Recovery ships.

I think that Direct is a great proposal and should be pursued instead of what NASA is currently doind.

But 4xSRB makes sense for Direct too - as a possible future upgrade, if we will ned _significantly_ larger payloads.

Pad and MLP would all need re-design work, true, but it is not THAT extensive (exhaust holes for SRBs are already big enough IIRC). VAB, crawlers - probably more extensive, yes. Although I always wondered why NASA uses custom-built huge tracked vehicles where a small stretch of special railroad (with most parts being standard, COTS-style cheap ones) will work wonderfully.

"Very expensive SRB Recovery ships" - give me a break. If space program cannot afford buying two more tugboats, then we'd better stop pretending that we have space program at all.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #124 on: 11/13/2006 01:15 PM »
"where a small stretch of special railroad "  
Too heavy for rails and too short of runs (turn radius problems)

"Pad and MLP would all need re-design work, true, but it is not THAT extensive "

Yes, they are

"Very expensive SRB Recovery ships" - give me a break. If space program cannot afford buying two more tugboats, then we'd better stop pretending that we have space program at all"

the issue is manning.  Labor costs are the issue.  


Offline vda

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #125 on: 11/14/2006 09:22 AM »
Quote
Jim - 12/11/2006  2:58 PM
"where a small stretch of special railroad "  
Too heavy for rails and too short of runs (turn radius problems)

Baikonur seems to have rails made of neutronium, I guess.
Seriously. If two rail tracks can't hold the weight, build four. Six. A dozen. It is still cheap.

Where are those places with turns too steep?

http://wikimapia.org/index_pak.php#y=28605095&x=-80627460&z=14&l=0&m=a

On this map I see that all turns are rather gentle, especially considering that LVs are not going to move there even at city tram speed.

Quote
"Very expensive SRB Recovery ships" - give me a break. If space program cannot afford buying two more tugboats, then we'd better stop pretending that we have space program at all"

the issue is manning.  Labor costs are the issue.

What, those ship's crew is on payroll all year round just for 3-5 recoveries per year, max? I didn't know that... Dream job, that one. Do nothing ~300 days a year, get paid for it.

Is it possible to do it some other way?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #126 on: 11/14/2006 11:55 AM »
Baikonur trains never carried solids.  Only unfueled vehicles.  Shuttle is heavier than the N-1
If you were have a railed vehicle, those curves are too sharp especially around the VAB.  The switching would be too complex also

Now you know the problem of low launch rates.  Skills have to be retained no matter what the flight rate is. (there are also union issue)

Easy was to solve the problem, it don't use SRB's

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #127 on: 11/14/2006 02:45 PM »
Hmmm....it sounds like a good case for an LRB program.

Offline vda

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #128 on: 11/14/2006 07:35 PM »
Quote
Jim - 13/11/2006  1:38 PM
Baikonur trains never carried solids.  Only unfueled vehicles.  Shuttle is heavier than the N-1
If you were have a railed vehicle, those curves are too sharp especially around the VAB.  The switching would be too complex also

Or rather, only turns around VAB are too sharp. But why on earth do you need to haul fully loaded stack around VAB? You don't need that. And if you don't need that, you can have rails only between VAB and launch pads. Everywhere else you use other means of transporting components.

Anyway, it's theoretic discussion, nobody will replace crawlers _now_.

Quote
Now you know the problem of low launch rates.  Skills have to be retained no matter what the flight rate is. (there are also union issue)

Unbelievable.


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #129 on: 11/14/2006 08:25 PM »
Actually the biggest problem isn't even the turns around LC-39 area.   It's the gradient up to the Pads.

Because the water table is so close to the surface in this area of Florida, the massive flame trench has to be above ground.   That means the Pad must be above that, and the mobile launcher platform must somehow get above that.

The Crawlers can climb the gradient.   A locomotive on a rail would find extreme problems getting traction when pulling/pushing these sorts of loads.

I've seen a study which demonstrates that even if the gradient were extended the three/four miles from the Pads all the way back to the VAB, it would still not be possible to move a Shuttle stack using four locomotives on four different rail lines (2 left of the flame trench, 2 right).

LC-39 would basically have to be re-built from the ground up to support such an approach.

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: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #130 on: 11/14/2006 10:55 PM »
Quote
vda - 14/11/2006  3:18 PM

Or rather, only turns around VAB are too sharp. But why on earth do you need to haul fully loaded stack around VAB? You don't need that. And if you don't need that, you can have rails only between VAB and launch pads. Everywhere else you use other means of transporting components.


There are high bays on the west side of the VAB.....  You have to go around the VAB to get the pads from there

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #131 on: 11/15/2006 02:19 PM »
Quote
vda - 14/11/2006  2:18 PM

Or rather, only turns around VAB are too sharp. But why on earth do you need to haul fully loaded stack around VAB? You don't need that. And if you don't need that, you can have rails only between VAB and launch pads. Everywhere else you use other means of transporting components.

They almost needed it back in September and they DID need it in 2000.  STS-106 Atlantis was rolled back into High Bay 2 around the VAB because one High Bay on the East side of the building was undergoing maintenance and the other East HB had the STS-92 stack inside (I think those facts are accurate).  So they had to roll it around the VAB into HB2.  At the end of August when they rolled off the pad to avoid Ernesto, the plan was to roll it into HB2, as the STS-116 stack was occupying HB3 and HB1 was undergoing maintenance.  So they do, in fact, need that sometimes.  Plus, it would be way too costly to implement a rail system now.  Not to mention you'd be cutting through the wildlife refuge to make it straight to the pad.
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline imfan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #132 on: 11/15/2006 07:27 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 14/11/2006  10:08 PM

Actually the biggest problem isn't even the turns around LC-39 area.   It's the gradient up to the Pads.

Because the water table is so close to the surface in this area of Florida, the massive flame trench has to be above ground.   That means the Pad must be above that, and the mobile launcher platform must somehow get above that.

The Crawlers can climb the gradient.   A locomotive on a rail would find extreme problems getting traction when pulling/pushing these sorts of loads.

I've seen a study which demonstrates that even if the gradient were extended the three/four miles from the Pads all the way back to the VAB, it would still not be possible to move a Shuttle stack using four locomotives on four different rail lines (2 left of the flame trench, 2 right).

LC-39 would basically have to be re-built from the ground up to support such an approach.

Ross.

what about having a reel on pad  and when the train comes to foot of that hill, they would attach a rope to the cart transporting rocket stack and with help of locomotives it gets up? just an idea

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #133 on: 11/18/2006 01:18 AM »
Quote

what about having a reel on pad  and when the train comes to foot of that hill, they would attach a rope to the cart transporting rocket stack and with help of locomotives it gets up? just an idea

The issue would then be the forces pulling on the load...the MLP currently is held level by the crawler with huge jacks.  You'd wind up pulling the MLP off the crawler or (most certainly) breaking the cables and wiping out everything within reach of the flying cables.

-John
"We'll remember the Shuttle days with fondness 20 years from now when we still don't have a replacement.  The something we had was better than the nothing we wound up with."


www.apollosaturn.com

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #134 on: 11/18/2006 03:18 PM »
This all goes away if you stack at the pad.. and move the assembly building out of the way... 4xSRB becomes a non issue... no more crawlers.. MLP etc... yes it costs to build said mobile structure.. but look at what is saved and what other options open up.. hell you could move the mobile structure from pad to pad... I would assume it would not be heavier than 2 SRB's.. and you could use rail .. anyone know waht it would cost to rebuild the RSS in todays money?

Offline imfan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #135 on: 11/18/2006 06:03 PM »
Quote
John Duncan - 18/11/2006  3:01 AM

Quote

what about having a reel on pad  and when the train comes to foot of that hill, they would attach a rope to the cart transporting rocket stack and with help of locomotives it gets up? just an idea

The issue would then be the forces pulling on the load...the MLP currently is held level by the crawler with huge jacks.  You'd wind up pulling the MLP off the crawler or (most certainly) breaking the cables and wiping out everything within reach of the flying cables.


I am well aware of that terible mess broken cables would cause, but one would say the rocket men from NASA can do proper calculations to put there cables that would be strong enough :-) in order not to pull MLP out of crawler just attach the cable to crawler. anyway this is going to lead nowhere, its just intellectual exercize.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #136 on: 11/20/2006 12:39 AM »
Quote
Avron - 18/11/2006  11:01 AM

This all goes away if you stack at the pad.. and move the assembly building out of the way... 4xSRB becomes a non issue... no more crawlers.. MLP etc... yes it costs to build said mobile structure.. but look at what is saved and what other options open up.. hell you could move the mobile structure from pad to pad... I would assume it would not be heavier than 2 SRB's.. and you could use rail .. anyone know waht it would cost to rebuild the RSS in todays money?

The MST's at SLC-40 and SLC-37 weigh 11 and 14 million lbs respectively,   These MST were/are for servicing not assembly. The one for the ARES V would be bigger.  It would be 1/4 of the VAB (one high bay) and could not able move from the pad to pad . Your way is the "old" way like Delta II and Atlas II.  The "new" way is what Saturn and Titan did and Shuttle, Atlas V and Delta IV are doing.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #137 on: 11/22/2006 04:26 AM »
Quote
Jim - 19/11/2006  8:22 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2006  11:01 AM

This all goes away if you stack at the pad.. and move the assembly building out of the way... 4xSRB becomes a non issue... no more crawlers.. MLP etc... yes it costs to build said mobile structure.. but look at what is saved and what other options open up.. hell you could move the mobile structure from pad to pad... I would assume it would not be heavier than 2 SRB's.. and you could use rail .. anyone know waht it would cost to rebuild the RSS in todays money?

The MST's at SLC-40 and SLC-37 weigh 11 and 14 million lbs respectively,   These MST were/are for servicing not assembly. The one for the ARES V would be bigger.  It would be 1/4 of the VAB (one high bay) and could not able move from the pad to pad . Your way is the "old" way like Delta II and Atlas II.  The "new" way is what Saturn and Titan did and Shuttle, Atlas V and Delta IV are doing.

Old ways are good sometimes.. humm Saturn and Titan "new" way is old..  1/4 of the VAB..  so its large but empty.. not like there is any issues with lateral support.. if the whole STS stack can move so can a MST that is designed for assembly... it could be built in two parts i.e. 1/8 of the VAB that moves and you don't have to move both parts at the same time.. all that is needed is money.. and there seems to be more than enough to waste on projects like the ( name your favourite MSFC/NASA manned project)  ... no narrow that down.."Stick"..

How I would love to see  4xSRB on a LV at launch.. :)


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #138 on: 11/22/2006 11:33 AM »
Quote
Avron - 22/11/2006  12:09 AM
1/4 of the VAB..  so its large but empty.. not like there is any issues with lateral support.. if the whole STS stack can move so can a MST that is designed for assembly... it could be built in two parts i.e. 1/8 of the VAB that moves and you don't have to move both parts at the same time.. all that is needed is money.. and there seems to be more than enough to waste on projects like the ( name your favourite MSFC/NASA manned project)

There you point out the problem, money.  It is more expensive than the existing systems.  

It can't be split because of the the bridge crane.

This has been look at over and over.  Assembly at the pad is the wrong way to go.

Also being closer to the ocean is worse wrt O&M costs

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #139 on: 11/22/2006 02:37 PM »
I would also add that the flame trench and water deluge sound suppression systems would almost certainly be 'overloaded' by the jet blasts from a 4 SRB+Core LV.  I used to think that it was more or less pretty easy to just hang a couple of extra SRB's off of an inline vehicle for extra thrust--but 4 segment SRB's are very heavy.  A 5 segment SRB is even heavier (closer to 1.6-1.8 million pounds each.) By the time redesigns ripple throughout the system, you end up with almost a completely different vehicle (that may deceptively have the same moldline--but the changes are interior!) And the crawler/transporters are showing signs of age and wear--and spare parts are almost non-existant for them.

An even larger vehicle may even overload the gravel beds of the crawler roads...which would require 'rebuilding' a good chunk of all of the launch infrastructure.

So it would seem that in order to go bigger than CaLV would require assembling a fully liquid vehicle, with liquid boosters...

It is difficult to create a new vehicle within the constraints of the existing infrastructure--thus I tend to think that CaLV is just about as big an LV as one can get without building a new VAB,  new transporters, and a new Launch Complex--and that is a BIG chunk of change right there...not to mention the realestate needed...


Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #140 on: 12/01/2006 02:55 PM »
Quote
TyMoore - 22/11/2006  9:20 AM

I would also add that the flame trench and water deluge sound suppression systems would almost certainly be 'overloaded' by the jet blasts from a 4 SRB+Core LV.  I used to think that it was more or less pretty easy to just hang a couple of extra SRB's off of an inline vehicle for extra thrust--but 4 segment SRB's are very heavy.  A 5 segment SRB is even heavier (closer to 1.6-1.8 million pounds each.) By the time redesigns ripple throughout the system, you end up with almost a completely different vehicle (that may deceptively have the same moldline--but the changes are interior!) And the crawler/transporters are showing signs of age and wear--and spare parts are almost non-existant for them.

An even larger vehicle may even overload the gravel beds of the crawler roads...which would require 'rebuilding' a good chunk of all of the launch infrastructure.

So it would seem that in order to go bigger than CaLV would require assembling a fully liquid vehicle, with liquid boosters...

It is difficult to create a new vehicle within the constraints of the existing infrastructure--thus I tend to think that CaLV is just about as big an LV as one can get without building a new VAB,  new transporters, and a new Launch Complex--and that is a BIG chunk of change right there...not to mention the realestate needed...


All that would be needed for the MAX design is a new pad, which the Ares V is going to need anyway.  The MAX four segement design comes from one of the original Von Braun (American) team members who worked the Redstone/Saturn1/Saturn V vehicles.  The MAX two segement design would not need a new pad (or even significant mods to the existing pad) and would allow for the stretch out in funding for the new pad.  The DDT&E for the four booster system would have been mostly amortized by the two segement version, no two completely separate developments as is today and would be cheaper to implement than Direct.


Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #141 on: 12/15/2006 08:50 PM »
It is now my understanding that for the two SRB version of the Max a new pad is not needed.  The diameter of the main stage is still 27 feet and the footprint on the MLP is exactly the same as for the STS.  It is only when you go to the four booster version that a new pad is needed.  Also, the avionics are exactly the same as is the Earth Departure stage, creating significant commonalities of design and flight heritage between the various versions of the system.


Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #142 on: 12/17/2006 12:43 PM »
What about overloading the crawler/transporters? Won't a MAX four, 4-segment SRB configuration vehicle exceed the maximum load carrying capability of these machines? (About 8 or 9 million pounds.)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #143 on: 12/17/2006 01:26 PM »
Quote
TyMoore - 17/12/2006  8:26 AM

What about overloading the crawler/transporters? Won't a MAX four, 4-segment SRB configuration vehicle exceed the maximum load carrying capability of these machines? (About 8 or 9 million pounds.)

there are going to be new ones for the CaLV anyways

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #144 on: 12/17/2006 06:42 PM »
I wasn't aware that NASA would replace the crawler transporters: it makes sense, though; the old ones are getting difficult to find parts for. Is there a link to the specs for the new machines?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #145 on: 12/17/2006 06:45 PM »
Quote
TyMoore - 17/12/2006  2:25 PM

I wasn't aware that NASA would replace the crawler transporters: it makes sense, though; the old ones are getting difficult to find parts for. Is there a link to the specs for the new machines?

Too early for that.  Need to design the CaLV first

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures
« Reply #146 on: 12/24/2006 05:27 PM »
Quote
TyMoore - 17/12/2006  7:26 AM

What about overloading the crawler/transporters? Won't a MAX four, 4-segment SRB configuration vehicle exceed the maximum load carrying capability of these machines? (About 8 or 9 million pounds.)

The crawler/transporter is based upon a strip mining drag line frame and propulsion system.  Those things are much bigger today and there are plenty of them in operation and you can place an order any time you want.

Also, the MAX/2SRB initial design would fit just fine on the existing STS footprint, which is one of the reasons to use it.  It is only when the heavier lift is needed that you go to for segments.  Also, you have amortized 85% of the development costs of the four or six segement versions when you built the first one.  


Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2

Tags: