J130-AV2: Atlas 5 CCB+J 130 core for non-srb-SDHLV

[FinalFrontier]

This thread is to discuss in depth the AVJ130,i e the jupiter variant using 3 ssme, 2-4 atlas V CCB, and an assumed rl 10 b2 based upper stage.
The concept for this design began in the All Liquid SDHLV Options thread: ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21938.30 )

Things that should be covered in this thread:

Detailed preformance analysis: I would like to discuss how a detailed analysis can be done on this HLV concept

Bugs: Are there any bugs to work out? If so how can they be resolved?

Cost: Cost of modifiying LC 39 to have an RP1 tank+ and MLP with the capabilites to support two-four atlas v CCB and cost of modifications to FSS


IOC: How soon, VS the standard SRB jupiter, could this variant reach IOC?


Political: Can the political case be made for this variant?


Finally: Offical inclusion and recognition by DIRECT: Would the DIRECT team consider making baseball cards for this variant and putting them on the website, and thus, offically recognizing  this LV as another optional DIRECT HLV variant?


Edit: Designation for the rocket should probably be: J140-AV2 with the final three letters/numbers indicating the type of CCB and number of CCBs. (in the case of Delta 4 it would be D42 or D44)

Edit: Wanted to add one more thing: Once core stage/ccb design is verified, then we should discuss upper stages and preformance for BEO.


Disclaimer: the design reflected in this thread is NOT a DIRECT team design, nor does it reflect the offical reccomendation of the DIRECT team.

[FinalFrontier]

I have been following the All liquid thread and this option appears to be the front runner. There are obvious issues with using Delta so the purpose of this thread is to discuss the Atlas V CCB =J130 core idea as well as a possible expanded future model, such as a J246+4Atlas V CCB, in depth.

Baseball cards anyone?

[FinalFrontier]

Posting in from the all liquid thread:

here is a simple idea that is probably complex in its implementation, Why not "flip" the core stage? the only reason that the LOX tank is on top in the ET is due to the SRB attach point, and with the Kerolox booster this requirement goes away.

The attach point needs to be on the bottom of the ET, not in the intertank.

Delta IV has the LOX on top for stability reasons.

Alright, probably should have known that.  The core will require redesigning for an inline thrust from the new MPS system anyhow, so would imagine that would be the time and place to redesign the core for an aft attach point.

Correct.
Redesign the ET for a bottom attach mechanism and do the mods to the Atlas LRB at KSC after delivery.
That's the most efficient and least expensive approach.

Correct.  The ET would need modifications to remove the side-mounting support system anyways, so one can redesign it to retain as much of the existing tooling around this.  Part of this involves the use of the ET-redeux as the main support system, instead of the SRB, so this is not a deal breaker.  Frankly, the CCB's would be filling in the "shuttle" part of the equation, adding thrust but not supporting weight when on the pad. 

While it is not as SD as DIRECT, it is more than Ares, which did not retain much of the existing support structure or tooling.  I call it a compromise between DIRECT and EELV Phase II, both in design and cost (less R&D than Phase II would need).

I am in agreement with Chuck's assessment in regards to booster, the CCB just offers too much of an edge.  As for numbering, if the last digit is 0, would tell the stages there in a glance, wouldn't it?  But I'm ok with a three number as well, since it would fit with Atlas.  But I'd re-order them a bit.  CCB, then upper stage, then number of stages, so we'd have a 401 as the baseline, dovetailing with the Atlas numbering system.  Sounds more impressive than the 140.

If we wanted to sound really impressive, could just have a 1 number, for the number of CCB's. 

The name Caelus seems to not be warming on anyone.  Neptune is closely tied to water.  Perhaps as the "child of Saturn" and master of Atlas, we should look to the alternate name of Jupiter, and call it Zeus?  Funny way, it would have parts from A to Z. 

[FinalFrontier]

Preliminary Specs (courtesy Downix) :

Going to the ISS with my calcs, no fairing, no upper stage.  This way you get an idea of the gross capability of the system.  Adding on fairings, instrumentation, etc will suck from this, of course.

3 RS-68 + 2 Atlas CCB: 26mT
3 RS-68 + 2 Delta CBC: 29mT
3 SSME + 2 Atlas CCB: 56mT
3 SSME + 2 Delta CBC: 53mT

3 RS-68 + 4 Atlas CCB: 46mT
3 RS-68 + 4 Delta CBC: 47mT
3 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 88mT
3 SSME + 4 Delta CBC: 83mT

2 RS-68 + 2 Atlas CCB: 34mT
2 RS-68 + 2 Delta CBC: 32mT
2 SSME + 2 Atlas CCB: 60mT
2 SSME + 2 Delta CBC: 53mT

2 RS-68 + 4 Atlas CCB: 62mT
2 RS-68 + 4 Delta CBC: 60mT
2 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 91mT
2 SSME + 4 Delta CBC: 85mT

[Downix]

I have been following the All liquid thread and this option appears to be the front runner. There are obvious issues with using Delta so the purpose of this thread is to discuss the Atlas V CCB =J130 core idea as well as a possible expanded future model, such as a J246+4Atlas V CCB, in depth.

Baseball cards anyone?

Agreed, this does seem to be the front runner.

I have a half-finished baseball card set prepared.  I shall double my efforts to finish them tonight.

[2552]

Preliminary Specs (courtesy Downix) :

Going to the ISS with my calcs, no fairing, no upper stage.  This way you get an idea of the gross capability of the system.  Adding on fairings, instrumentation, etc will suck from this, of course.


3 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 88mT

..

2 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 91mT

Huh? How does removing an SSME here result in 3 tons more payload to ISS?

[Downix]

Preliminary Specs (courtesy Downix) :

Going to the ISS with my calcs, no fairing, no upper stage.  This way you get an idea of the gross capability of the system.  Adding on fairings, instrumentation, etc will suck from this, of course.


3 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 88mT

..

2 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 91mT

Huh? How does removing an SSME here result in 3 tons more payload to ISS?

This was with the engines running full-bore, 3 SSME use up fuel faster.  I had done no throttling up/down in my calculations.  What happened is, with 3 SSME, it ran out of fuel, which resulted in less payload to the ISS.

[Idol Revolver]

Preliminary Specs (courtesy Downix) :

Going to the ISS with my calcs, no fairing, no upper stage.  This way you get an idea of the gross capability of the system.  Adding on fairings, instrumentation, etc will suck from this, of course.


3 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 88mT

..

2 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 91mT

Huh? How does removing an SSME here result in 3 tons more payload to ISS?

This was with the engines running full-bore, 3 SSME use up fuel faster.  I had done no throttling up/down in my calculations.  What happened is, with 3 SSME, it ran out of fuel, which resulted in less payload to the ISS.

You run out of fuel anyway. With 3 engines it just burns it faster.
I would have thought the lost payload was due to the extra core weight.

[Downix]

Preliminary Specs (courtesy Downix) :

Going to the ISS with my calcs, no fairing, no upper stage.  This way you get an idea of the gross capability of the system.  Adding on fairings, instrumentation, etc will suck from this, of course.


3 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 88mT

..

2 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 91mT

Huh? How does removing an SSME here result in 3 tons more payload to ISS?

This was with the engines running full-bore, 3 SSME use up fuel faster.  I had done no throttling up/down in my calculations.  What happened is, with 3 SSME, it ran out of fuel, which resulted in less payload to the ISS.

You run out of fuel anyway. With 3 engines it just burns it faster.
I would have thought the lost payload was due to the extra core weight.

That is partially, but the extra thrust compensates.  But we are looking at 4 SSME on the core due to liftoff thrust issues.

[sdsds]

Detailed preformance analysis: I would like to discuss how a detailed analysis can be done on this HLV concept

I'd like to solicit feedback on the approach outlined below:

Start on a detailed analysis by performing a two-step cursory analysis using a comparatively simple mathematical model.  Choose a tool for this; a spreadsheet is probably adequate, especially if it is available to any contributor or reviewer, e.g. by using the Google Docs spreadsheet capability, so you can easily share and solicit comments on the work.

For the first step in the cursory analysis choose a target payload mass; ignore atmospheric and "gravity drag" losses; assume the LRBs are identical to existing Atlas V CCBs; assume the core leverages as much as possible of the ET tooling.  Finally, assume the maximum delta-v will be achieved by maximizing the propellant load for the high Isp engines on the core, but seek an optimum propellant load for the CCBs either using a spreadsheet "goal seeking" function or by successive manual trials.  Constraints for the optimization should include liftoff T/W and max G; ignore max Q.  Model the core engines as full thrust at lift-off, immediately throttled to minimum thrust until LRB separation.

For the second step adjust the payload mass higher or lower depending on whether the delta-v derived in the first step is more or less than the delta-v required for the target orbit.  Again seek an optimal propellant loading for the CCBs.  Perform this step for each orbit being analyzed.

[sdsds]

I would refer to these designs as Jupiter 130-A2 and Jupiter 130-A4, respectively.  The standard Jupiter 130 could then be described as a Jupiter 130-T2, and the naming scheme allows e.g. Jupiter 130-D2 and Jupiter 130-F2 as well.

A = Atlas
T = Thiokol
D = Delta
F = Falcon

The frankenrocket NASA will finally select might be a Jupiter 241-T2SHA

S = Stretch (long core tank)
H = Heavy (5 segment solids)
A = Ares upper stage

[Cinder]

Why can't they just go with the DIRECT plan?

[Downix]

Why can't they just go with the DIRECT plan?

If ATK refuses to switch off of Ares, they would torpedo both DIRECT and the side-mounted HLV, since both rely on ATK SRB's.  Rather than have Ares or nothing, work around the problem.

[John Duncan]

I like that you are pursuing this, Downix.

I'd rather have Direct unmodified but if ATK will not behave then we can try this.

[gospacex]

Preliminary Specs (courtesy Downix) :

Going to the ISS with my calcs, no fairing, no upper stage.  This way you get an idea of the gross capability of the system.  Adding on fairings, instrumentation, etc will suck from this, of course.


3 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 88mT

..

2 SSME + 4 Atlas CCB: 91mT

Huh? How does removing an SSME here result in 3 tons more payload to ISS?

Possible factors: (a) your 2nd stage is lighter now - one SSME less, (b) you didn't burn as much propellant in it before staging, thus better staging efficiency.

[Downix]

Well, let us discuss the configurations, sticking to the 4 SSME core.  With 2 CCB's, we are looking at about 50mT, which puts us close to the EELV Phase I level, but not quite.  With 4, 80mT.  With 6, 110 mT, with 8, 140mT.  The CCB's have less thrust than the SRB, but stage so much later that the core now functions more like a ground lit upper stage.  Unlike the Shuttle and DIRECT, this one sits on the pad with it's main weight supported by the core, with the CCB's supporting only their own weight.  This means better weight distribution on the crawler, especially if we do not have the main tower on the MLP.  We will need to have some kind of fuel-support for each CCB.  I imagine that this is embedded within the MLP itself, so that there is one common connection for fuel distribution to the tower.  Altho, in handling the LOX, may not work, I do not know.

About 3/4 done with the baseball card, no fancy picture with it, just stats.

[FinalFrontier]

Well, let us discuss the configurations, sticking to the 4 SSME core.  With 2 CCB's, we are looking at about 50mT, which puts us close to the EELV Phase I level, but not quite.  With 4, 80mT.  With 6, 110 mT, with 8, 140mT.  The CCB's have less thrust than the SRB, but stage so much later that the core now functions more like a ground lit upper stage.  Unlike the Shuttle and DIRECT, this one sits on the pad with it's main weight supported by the core, with the CCB's supporting only their own weight.  This means better weight distribution on the crawler, especially if we do not have the main tower on the MLP.  We will need to have some kind of fuel-support for each CCB.  I imagine that this is embedded within the MLP itself, so that there is one common connection for fuel distribution to the tower.  Altho, in handling the LOX, may not work, I do not know.

About 3/4 done with the baseball card, no fancy picture with it, just stats.

Thank you for your excellent efforts Downix! I look foward to Chuck's opinions on the concept thus far. For the tower: Seems to me most of the tower will be built on top of the existing FSS so that shouldn't be an issue.  Also:  looks like the quickest, two CCB design is best for ISS support with the 4 CCB design better for BEO.


Note: If we have a 4 engine core this is a Jx4x-xxx (last three xs signify type of CCB and number (ie. AV2 or AV4 for the atlas CCB).


Finally: If anyone has suggestions or can help in the work on this concept, your help/input is greatly appreciated Please weigh in on this design!!!!

[FinalFrontier]

Also: You could use this picture  (if you want one on the baseball card):

(note: this one appears to have multiple RD 180s or RD170s on each CCB, so its not entirley accurate but its close )

It also has 5 SSME core stage.

It would be better to simply take a picture of a j246, remove the SRBs, and photoshop in the CCBs.

Picture Courtesy: Simcosmos

[Downix]

ok, an incomplete baseball card, but I wanted to show what I've calculated out so far.  I do not know how to calculate Dynamic Pressure or Max G's as of yet.  I also have not optimized the burn-time for the engines, so I went very conservative on the performance.  Various attempts to configure the burn-times have given me a range from 76mT to almost 90mT, so, I feel confident in sticking with the most conservative figure in order to keep things safe.

[simcosmos]

Hello all,

Please allow me a few quick comments:


a) Discussion Thread(s): not sure but perhaps it would be better to keep all the discussion in one unique thread, at least for the moment, else there is the risk of posts and contents duplication.

I would then perhaps suggest moving the discussion to this thread (perhaps with a slightly modified and more accurate tittle and focus on preliminary performance analyses here) and reference the 'All-Liquid SDLV' thread by linking to it on this thread's first post (and also by linking to this thread somewhere in the All-Liquid SDLV thread).



b) Detailed Performance Analysis: please someone correct (Downix?) but the performance numbers so far were obtained by using Schilling's Online Launch Vehicle Performance Calculator (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19805.0 ). This might be OK for a very preliminary performance idea but... there are a number of limitations, I mean, this needs a more specific performance analysis than what Schilling's method can provide... (Edit: not sure if it is due to something on my end of the Net but it seems that sometimes the online performance source code, being a work in progress (?), is being updated and/or temporarily 'removed', with impacts on performance results analysis outputs / comparisons, but I might be wrong on that perception!)

... Some ground rules will also need to be better defined regarding things such as ascent events simulation (start of pitch program, maxQ, simulation and constraints regarding staging and jettison of components, etc, etc, etc), injection targets and so on...

This to write that a slightly higher degree performance analysis could be achieved with, for example, Orbiter Space Flight Simulator as long as the developer is fully aware about what he / she is doing with a given tool / method (and its constraints). I could perhaps try to implement a first iteration of such analysis in Orbiter which could be similar in nature to some other past texts that have shared here at nasaspaceflight forums (for example, when mused about Ed Kyle's AresIB or in my participation at the thread about some aspects of a conceptual Delta IV CLV).


In any case, it would also be strongly advisable to find someone to make a few runs on POST or even in other tools: the more the tools are used, the better it would be to achieve a better idea of conceptual performance possibilities...

...But again, even before doing that there is really the need to precisely define the input numbers for the launcher configuration(s)  as well some basic ground rules for a better comparative analysis of the results obtained with different tools...

… The provided baseball card might be a good start - thanks for sharing (when possible, will try to study it) - but there might be the need to refine and further agree about some of the numbers there (plus other things).



c) Visuals: I'm not currently very 'operational' (changing between development computers and some files are really scattered) but, on a later occasion, could perhaps grab one of my 3D models of a DIRECT 3.0 Jupiter core with 4 SSME and modify textures and a few extra details plus add some AtlasV CCB at its sides (have the AtlasV CCB basically ready, also from my own 3D archives, as can be seen in multiple past entries at my flickr space). But we aren't quite there yet (a number of details might still need to be properly discussed), unless the participants on this thread wish a first clumsy render of those 3D models - as they exist now - grouped together.



d) Note about my 'AresV with kerolox boosters', shared above by FinalFrontier (and with extra contextual information at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21938.15 and http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/4014041920/):  please note that the (Exploration) performance goal for such configuration (with J-2S powered 210t prop. upper stage doubling as EDS) would be a minimum of ~140t to 150t or so payload – including adapters - to at least ~240 km altitude, 29 inclination (conceptual performance might be higher than those values, haven't made optimisations yet and that would also depend of mission design, etc). It would perhaps not be as flexible for lower range payloads (achieved by removing the big upper stage... it would have a good heavy lift capability) but , on the other hand, could perhaps support even heavier payloads goals (super-heavy lift, with addition of two extra kerolox boosters and a number of extra assumptions at several levels; also note that those kerolox boosters have ~5.5m diameter and are powered by dual RD-17X... probably something similar in concept to RD-172 although could also use some kind of uprated RD-18X but... have tried to minimise engine count  to two per booster – also meaning less staging events - vs the specific performance goals that had in mind for that configuration).


Anyway, this all to write that there is no need to use that image for the current thread: if needed, I can then probably provide a quick render of what is effectively being discussed here: some kind of shuttle derived core (with prop. load similar to STS ET) surrounded by a number of AtlasV boosters. 

António