Author Topic: "Heavy" CaLV performance figures  (Read 53938 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32576
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11394
  • Likes Given: 336
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: 119
  • 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: 20
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: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • 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: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • 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: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • 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: 4926
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 157
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...

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3137
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1256
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: 32576
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11394
  • Likes Given: 336
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: 4926
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 157
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: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • 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

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3137
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1256
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.

Tags: