Let me ask you, what would you want to put on a HLV (your call) in 7-8 years.
Any thoughts on Gravity and Radiation.
Quote from: Jim on 07/06/2010 01:54 amQuote from: Downix on 07/06/2010 01:42 amHow many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?244 Titan IV8 Atlas II1 Titan II11 Delta IINo, those are:4 Titan IV8 Atlas II1 Titan II11 Delta IINobody 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.
Quote from: Downix on 07/06/2010 01:42 amHow many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?244 Titan IV8 Atlas II1 Titan II11 Delta II
How many payloads for the Delta IV were there in 1997, exactly?
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.
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.
Quote from: Downix on 07/06/2010 12:20 pm1. 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, etc2. 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.
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.
Quote from: Downix on 07/06/2010 12:44 pm 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
Quote from: Jim on 07/06/2010 12:53 pmThat 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), etcThat 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.
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.
56 mt. to LEO.
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.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/06/2010 01:36 pmI'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
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.
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.
Quote from: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:02 amYou 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.)
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?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:18 amQuote from: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:02 amYou 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:27 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:18 amQuote from: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:02 amYou 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.
Quote from: Downix on 07/06/2010 03:29 pmQuote from: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:27 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 07/06/2010 04:18 amQuote from: JDCampbell on 07/06/2010 03:02 amYou 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.