Author Topic: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately  (Read 405514 times)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.

By 2015: ISS logistical carrier (both Orion-towed and independent flight versions with maximum commonality between them).  Likely flight-rate, two crewed and one robotic mission a year.

By 2018: Orion OML-derived short-duration orbital module, bolted directly to the upper stage, for BEO pathfinder missions to LLO & EML-1/-2.  Likely fliight-rate, once a year dual-launch (flight 1, mission module/EDS, flight 2 CRV & tanker to refill EDS).

By 2020: Either vacuum lander ('Altair-Lite') or long-duration hab module for NEO missions.  Whichever is chosen, the other becomes available in 2023-25.  Flight rate is dependent on exactly how you divide up the payloads but will likely be two or three launches per mission.

FWIW, with ISS to 2025 a serious possibility, I would say that the hab module is more likely to be required.  Running a BEO program in parallel with ISS operations, NASA is likely only going to want to fly one mission to NEOs a year (bigger instead of more frequent).  I would expect a flight rate of four per year minimum - two to support ISS and two for a single BEO mission. If lunar surface sorties are chosen intead, then a flight rate of six a year (two to ISS and two dual-launch BEO) is possible.


Any thoughts on Gravity and Radiation.

For me, AG experiments shouldn't really seriously start before 2025.  NEO flights are short enough not to need it (sometimes shorter than ISS expeditions and certainly within Mir-proven safety limits).

There are two obvious options: Hard and soft.  'Hard' would mean a 2001-style 'carousel' built inside the drum of a wide-body hab module (likely 10m or even 11m, requiring a 12m-diameter PLF).  'Soft' would use a tether/counterweight system with the hab module (plus emergency in-space manoeuvring system) rotating on the end of a long tether with the propulsion modules as the counterweight.

The radiation question is still unresolved and needs more data to even assess what protection is needed.  My favoured solution at this time is for a lightweight hull (perhaps a semi-rigid version of a transhab) with as much shielding on the outer layers as you can afford on the mass budget plus medical rather than physical mitigation.

IMHO, there is no way to effectively shield a crew totally or even against the majority of GCR so you will just have to settle for mitigation as far as practical and the admission that BEO flight simply isn't risk-free.  This is assuming no breakthroughs such as electromagnetic shields and the like.


[edit]
AG and radiation protection portion
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 10:29 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36864
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20186
  • Likes Given: 412

How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?

24

4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II
No, those are:
4 Titan IV
8 Atlas II
1 Titan II
11 Delta II

Nobody in 1997 was planning on launching payloads on a Delta IV, especially not the Delta IV Heavy... because there wasn't one.  You don't plan for a mission to use a particular solution until you have that solution available. 

Wrong, they were planning to launch payloads on Delta IV (It did exist conceptually in 1997)

The same payloads that flew in 1997, eventually flew on Delta IV
DSP
Trumpet/Mentor
GOES
DSCS
SDS (in early 98)
DMSP
GPS

Most of these payloads were in production or even built before Delta IV was given the production go ahead.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36864
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20186
  • Likes Given: 412
Launch vehicles are not designed or built unless there are payloads for them.  Every launch vehicle upgrade has been driven by payload requirements.  There is no "built is and they will come" wrt to HLV and payloads. 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Launch vehicles are not designed or built unless there are payloads for them.  Every launch vehicle upgrade has been driven by payload requirements.  There is no "built is and they will come" wrt to HLV and payloads. 
So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project.  It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet.  They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element. 

You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere.  But they are designed.  Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it.  But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36864
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20186
  • Likes Given: 412

1.  So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project.  It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet.  They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element. 

2.  You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere.  But they are designed.  Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it.  But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance. 

1.  It is not a "real" program then.  If it had a need, it would have the money to build a launch vehicle.  All "real" payloads have the money to develop a launch vehicle.  See RS-68A, Delta II Heavy, Atlas IIA, IIAS, EELV with solids, etc

2.  Atlas V Heavy is the same thing as a Delta IV Heavy, it was designed for the same payloads.  A duplication of effort, hence it wasn't developed past CDR. 
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 12:26 pm by Jim »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1

1.  So then, please explain where the 45mT launcher is for my former bosses project.  It's been 12 years, have not had a launcher show up yet.  They will not commit to the payload without the launcher, as it is an expensive element. 

2.  You are right that the launch vehicles are built per-order, not just sitting around on a shelf somewhere.  But they are designed.  Look at the Atlas V Heavy, never launched, as nobody has placed an order for it.  But it is there, ready to go whenever someone demands that level of performance. 

1.  It is not a "real" program then.  If it had a need, it would have the money to build a launch vehicle.  All "real" payloads have the money to develop a launch vehicle.  See RS-68A, Delta II Heavy, Atlas IIA, IIAS, EELV with solids, etc

2.  Atlas V Heavy is the same thing as a Delta IV Heavy, it was designed for the same payloads.  A duplication of effort, hence it wasn't developed past CDR. 
We can go around in circles here forever. 

By this logic, it sounds that since ULA, the russians, ESA, etc do not build the right launcher, nor have one designed, that the company should go into the rocket launcher business, for a single payload?  Or that company should invest the R&D money to one of the existing launch companies, who then turn around and sell off access to what you just paid to develop?  That is not good business there Jim, so I am trying to understand.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 12:47 pm by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36864
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20186
  • Likes Given: 412
  Or that company should invest the R&D money to one of the existing launch companies, who then turn around and sell off access to what you just paid to develop?  That is not good business there Jim, so I am trying to understand.

That is how it works,  the first user gets stuck with the costs.  This was true with Delta in the 1970's (RCA Satcom, I think with the upgrade from the 29xx to 39xx) and with Atlas G (Intelsat V), Delta II (GPS), Atlas II (DSCS), etc
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 12:54 pm by Jim »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
  Or that company should invest the R&D money to one of the existing launch companies, who then turn around and sell off access to what you just paid to develop?  That is not good business there Jim, so I am trying to understand.

That is how it works,  the first user gets stuck with the costs.  This was true with Delta in the 1970's (RCA Satcom, I think with the upgrade from the 29xx to 39xx) and with Atlas G (Intelsat V), Delta II (GPS), Atlas II (DSCS), etc
That is incredibly bad business sense and everyone knows it.  Which is why they (businessess) demand that the Government procures the R&D, so that it can be utilized afterwards.

You just made the case for why the US has to develop HLV.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15139
  • Liked: 8034
  • Likes Given: 1269
That is how it works,  the first user gets stuck with the costs.  This was true with Delta in the 1970's (RCA Satcom, I think with the upgrade from the 29xx to 39xx) and with Atlas G (Intelsat V), Delta II (GPS), Atlas II (DSCS), etc
That is incredibly bad business sense and everyone knows it.  Which is why they (businessess) demand that the Government procures the R&D, so that it can be utilized afterwards.

You just made the case for why the US has to develop HLV.
It was good business for RCA Satcom, which had first dibs on the more powerful Delta.  No one else used Delta 3000 for nearly two years.  The early Satcoms carried more transponders than other satellites, and thus were used to launch things like Ted Turner's superstation, the Weather Channel, and even CNN.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 01:30 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36864
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20186
  • Likes Given: 412

That is incredibly bad business sense and everyone knows it.  Which is why they (businessess) demand that the Government procures the R&D, so that it can be utilized afterwards.

You just made the case for why the US has to develop HLV.

It is smart business sense for launch vehicle producers.    RCA and Intetsat funded their own booster upgrades.    There can be an agreement as part of funding the upgrade that other users can pay back part of the development costs.

For aircraft, being a launch customer is almost the same thing.

No need for an HLV.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15139
  • Liked: 8034
  • Likes Given: 1269
56 mt. to LEO.

Could you elaborate on that number?

I've noticed that we tend to talk about the LEO number, but since the real mission is escape, perhaps we should discuss that capability.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
I've noticed that we tend to talk about the LEO number, but since the real mission is escape, perhaps we should discuss that capability.

Okay, let's talk about that. 

First, a history lesson: The figure for the ESAS system that eventually became Ares-I and -V were in many ways defined by Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct archetecture (something of which Mike Griffin was a fan).  That required an approximate performance of 50t through TMI.  When CxP was turned into a lunar archetecture, this was used to enable the justification of a simply enormous cryogenic-fuelled LSAM that we know as Altair.  Ares-V's TLI performance became reverse-justified by proposing an equally large cargo lander that required its performance to launch to the Moon without any post-launch rendezvous and calling the arbritary payload-to-lunar surface performance of this giant a 'minimum requirement'.  Various performance issues on Ares-I then forced the through-TLI performance of Ares-V to snowball, but that is another story altogether.

The point is this: Although I don't like many aspects of CxP, the concept of a single-shot cargo delivery to the Moon is a good one.  In my view, a modern lunar archetecture ought to have the requirement to launch a one-way cargo lander through TLI.  This does not have to be for lunar base support.  It could be cargo, pre-positioning for an extended-duration surface mission staging out of the lander.  Purely IMHO, whilst Altair was on the large side, a lander in the 30t-40t range is certainly a requirement if you are planning to put four astronauts on the lunar surface.  Remove the ascent stage and you have the capability to deliver perhaps 10t of cargo to the surface.

A secondary mission for this capability is that it would be able to launch a rescue lander or an uncrewed Orion to the Moon in case of failure of either the mission's lander or CRV.  IMHO at least, whilst propellent transfer and EOR assembly have reduced the need for a HLV and brought the ETO payload requirements down, the single-shot rescue launch is a good justification for requiring a capability of 25t through TLI for a replacement CRV or 30t to 40t through TLI for a replacement LSAM.

The fact that this would enable the launch to LEO of an entire lunar/low-dV NEO mission vehicle which could then re-fuel from a depot or tanker is a tertiary but welcome feature.

A good performance bracket, IMHO would be a maximum of 45t through TLI, unrefuelled.  This gives you a bit of margin for MCCs.  This would require a D-SDLV of the sort proposed by JSC and MSFC or the Atlas-V Phase 2 quin-core with the larger ACES upper stage.


[edit]
Added conclusion paragraph
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 02:01 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
I've noticed that we tend to talk about the LEO number, but since the real mission is escape, perhaps we should discuss that capability.

Okay, let's talk about that. 

First, a history lesson: The figure for the ESAS system that eventually became Ares-I and -V were in many ways defined by Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct archetecture (something of which Mike Griffin was a fan).  That required an approximate performance of 50t through TMI.  When CxP was turned into a lunar archetecture, this was used to enable the justification of a simply enormous cryogenic-fuelled LSAM that we know as Altair.  Ares-V's TLI performance became reverse-justified by proposing an equally large cargo lander that required its performance to launch to the Moon without any post-launch rendezvous and calling the arbritary payload-to-lunar surface performance of this giant a 'minimum requirement'.  Various performance issues on Ares-I then forced the through-TLI performance of Ares-V to snowball, but that is another story altogether.

The point is this: Although I don't like many aspects of CxP, the concept of a single-shot cargo delivery to the Moon is a good one.  In my view, a modern lunar archetecture ought to have the requirement to launch a one-way cargo lander through TLI.  This does not have to be for lunar base support.  It could be cargo, pre-positioning for an extended-duration surface mission staging out of the lander.  Purely IMHO, whilst Altair was on the large side, a lander in the 30t-40t range is certainly a requirement if you are planning to put four astronauts on the lunar surface.  Remove the ascent stage and you have the capability to deliver perhaps 10t of cargo to the surface.

A secondary mission for this capability is that it would be able to launch a rescue lander or an uncrewed Orion to the Moon in case of failure of either the mission's lander or CRV.  IMHO at least, whilst propellent transfer and EOR assembly have reduced the need for a HLV and brought the ETO payload requirements down, the single-shot rescue launch is a good justification for requiring a capability of 25t through TLI for a replacement CRV or 30t to 40t through TLI for a replacement LSAM.

The fact that this would enable the launch to LEO of an entire lunar/low-dV NEO mission vehicle which could then re-fuel from a depot or tanker is a tertiary but welcome feature.

A good performance bracket, IMHO would be a maximum of 45t through TLI, unrefuelled.  This gives you a bit of margin for MCCs.  This would require a D-SDLV of the sort proposed by JSC and MSFC or the Atlas-V Phase 2 quin-core with the larger ACES upper stage.


[edit]
Added conclusion paragraph
How would one calculate TLI, out of curiosity?  I have gotten decent in figuring out LEO with the Schillings system, and there is a manner for Earth-Escape, not nothing for TLI.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline MP99

Then the bait-and-switch from ESAS to CxP resulted in the reuse of only the orange foam, and the SRB casings, plus the many billions in cost overruns and delays since.

Note, a new foam will need to be qualified if any flights after STS-135 are to fly. From http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-refine-launch-dates-deadline-for-sts-135/:-

Quote
STS-136:

STS-136, which would likely be awarded to Endeavour, utilizing a spare tank located at MAF called ET-94, per L2 notes and recently reported by this site. A loss of upmass would be charged against the mission, given ET-94 is only a Light Weight Tank (LWT), as opposed to the Super Light Weight Tanks (SLWT) that have been used in recent years.

An alternative option of using one of the three part built tanks at MAF holds some potential to support a 2012 mission, providing a long-lead item of certifying the latest version the Thermal Protection System (TPS) foam (BX-265) is removed or advanced currently noted as a constraint to new tank production/completion prior to 2012.
(My highlight).

cheers, Martin

Offline JDCampbell

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
You seem to be struggling even worse now.  I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?

*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!

Don't really care about what that means Downix.

Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?

Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?

Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.

Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)

Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.


 
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 03:29 pm by JDCampbell »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
You seem to be struggling even worse now.  I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?

*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!

Don't really care about what that means Downix.

Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?

Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?

Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.

Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)

Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline MP99

How would one calculate TLI, out of curiosity?  I have gotten decent in figuring out LEO with the Schillings system, and there is a manner for Earth-Escape, not nothing for TLI.

Take payload (including any adapters) + burnout mass of the EDS + prop (after boiloff & any used during engine startup).

For the Jupiter vehicles, payload + burnout is around 47-48% of that total mass (IMLEO?).

Subtract EDS burnout mass to give payload. NB DIRECT rules include any adapters within that payload mass.

Of all Jupiter RL-10 vehicles, J-246a has the lowest T/W (which determines gravity losses) & Isp. See http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4003.08001_EDS_090606.pdf:-

Payload (inc ASE)79,053kg
EDS burnout12,962kg
usable post-ascent prop    99,896kg    NB this includes the engine startup prop

(79,053 + 12,962) / (79,053 + 12,962 + 99,896)
= 92,015 / 191,911
= 47.9%

This should be close enough for any EDS + payload with similar Isp & T/W. Actually, I tend to use 47% whenever trying to estimate a ballpark TLI figure.

cheers, Martin

PS J-241 has better T/W so only requires a net dV of 3175m/s vs 3215m/s for J-246a. Nevertheless, the lower Isp requires a higher prop fraction (53%):-

(79,729 + 13,924) / (79,729 + 13,924 + 103,399) = 47%

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J241-41.4002.08001_EDS_090606.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 03:45 pm by MP99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36864
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20186
  • Likes Given: 412

Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example lift.


Incorrect, look at the cost of the J-2X.  RS-68 has more use than F-1.  Same goes for RD-180
« Last Edit: 07/06/2010 03:43 pm by Jim »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4474
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1311
  • Likes Given: 173
You seem to be struggling even worse now.  I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?

*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!

Don't really care about what that means Downix.

Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?

Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?

Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.

Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)

Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
You seem to be struggling even worse now.  I cannot get any simpler than the cart and horse example, anyone else have one?

*edit* egads, I feel like Jim right now!

Don't really care about what that means Downix.

Q: Why did Ares 1 end up the way it did?
Oh well. Give it some thought Downix. Hint: Remember the Spruce Goose?

Why are you advocating this ridiculous Saturn C3 rebuild concept?

Ares one was a poorly designed logical fallacy from day one. SSME could have been used, but not with restart capability. Moot point: Atlas V should have been the lifter if they wanted to use two LVS (CLV/CaLV) instead of 1 CLV+CaLV like Direct.

Ares 1 was a crude attempt to duplicate existing EELV capabilites (presumably because Mike and Co. wanted it that way.)

Modernizing a F-1A and J-2 would be more cost effective in the long run than modifying a RS-68 for example. Those two engines would be standardized hardware for crew and HLV. Is was just using the Saturn C-3 as an example.
 
Finishing RS-84 and RL-60 would be even more cost effective than this. 

RS25e is more cost effective than this. Best option.
No argument there, but I was keeping with a kerolox first stage and hydrolox upper stage for the scope of the argument.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1