Author Topic: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures  (Read 53622 times)

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.

Online 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

Tags: