t/Space CCDEV2 Concept

[Jim]

Do you know if or when t/Space's web page will open up out of under construction?
web page: http://www.transformspace.com/Welcome.html

I believe HXMHXM said that there isn't going to be anymore work under that company name.

[NotGncDude]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

[HMXHMX]

Do you know if or when t/Space's web page will open up out of under construction?
web page: http://www.transformspace.com/Welcome.html

I believe HXMHXM said that there isn't going to be anymore work under that company name.

At least for NASA or other government business.  I do keep the company  in hibernation against the chance that something interesting might present itself in the future.

[HMXHMX]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

I'm asked this question a fair amount, but I really don't have a comprehensive answer. 

My "smart-ass" reply is perhaps nobody should try to get into this business.  It's a bit like the now tiresome joke: "How do you make a small fortune in the rocket business?  Start with a big one..."

But if one is really determined to learn systems design, I don't think you can do it from texts.  Essentially design is the sort of skill taught via apprenticeship.  We may call them "mentors" today, but it's the same thing.  Attach yourself to someone whose work you respect and learn from them.

In my case, I couldn't find a way to work with such a person on a full time basis, so I did the next best thing.  I befriended many freethinkers in the industry – Rudi Beichel, Bob Salkeld, Phil Bono, and many others – but spent the most time with Max Hunter, who was the designer of Thor and Saturn S-IV stage and the early Starclipper.  I learned a good deal from contemporaries such as my friend and business colleague Bevin McKinney and also Burt Rutan.

Yet in the end, the only way you learn is by making mistakes (and in this business those tend to be big, expensive and in the public eye).  The downside of this process is that you are the recipient of continual, and often brutal, criticism.  You develop a tough skin to deflect those criticisms, but you'd best also learn from them. 

This reply is probably too introspective for your question, but I really don't have any better suggestions.  If others reading this want to offer alternative ideas, have at it.

[RocketmanUS]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

Start with using the search engines for free books on PDF's.
See if you library has any books on rockets, college libraries might be a better choice.

Some sites have a preview of the books they are selling. Most I've seen are in the $100 range for rocket design.

See if there is a local rocket club in your area to at least talk to and maybe join. Best if they deal with liquide powered engines not just the solids.

[RocketmanUS]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

Why is there no chance of the 2005 CXV being built?
A ) t/space no longer interested in it
B ) found it would not work for what price they thought the CXV would cost to build or refurbish per flight
C ) no funds to make it happen private or goverment
D ) other, if so what would that be
E ) if private funds did come about at least as a cargo version to start on a EELV would they build it then

[Jose]

It's too bad the "COTS D minus" discussions never went anywhere...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14358.msg315634#msg315634

[HIP2BSQRE]

It's too bad the "COTS D minus" discussions never went anywhere...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14358.msg315634#msg315634

How much would this capability cost???

[Robotbeat]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

Start with using the search engines for free books on PDF's.
See if you library has any books on rockets, college libraries might be a better choice.

Some sites have a preview of the books they are selling. Most I've seen are in the $100 range for rocket design.

See if there is a local rocket club in your area to at least talk to and maybe join. Best if they deal with liquide powered engines not just the solids.

Get just about any edition of Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton (except for maybe the first version, a lot was added in the second). That teaches the very basics of rocketry. Really excellent. You can get it for pretty cheap used online, and I recommend getting a hard copy.

As far as systems engineering... The best resource I've found is this:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/

But this is all likely too beginner-level for you.

[RanulfC]

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

Despite some in the US's viewpoint that racing begins and ends with NASCAR, Formula 1 is a bigger sport, and would be far more open to such a proposition.

Rotating seats? In THOSE little things? Besides which we're going for a "targeted" audience here... NASA, Huntsville, Alabama... :::;grin:::

(Note that the only car racing event I ever attended was a Can-Am classic so NASCAR is NOT my idea of racing )

Randy

[RocketmanUS]

With China's Shenzhou spacecraft they had a plan on leaving the orbital section at one of their future space stations to add usable volume to the station.

The new t/Space XV "Transport Vehicle" with the OM " Orbital Module".
Would the OM have a similar roll to slowly add usable volume to a space station or even the main blocks to make a station with nodes and added solar panels?

OM looks to have ports on both ends and main engines on one end. Does it have a RCS? Is there any more public information on the OM?

[RocketmanUS]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

[HMXHMX]

With China's Shenzhou spacecraft they had a plan on leaving the orbital section at one of their future space stations to add usable volume to the station.

The new t/Space XV "Transport Vehicle" with the OM " Orbital Module".
Would the OM have a similar roll to slowly add usable volume to a space station or even the main blocks to make a station with nodes and added solar panels?

OM looks to have ports on both ends and main engines on one end. Does it have a RCS? Is there any more public information on the OM?

The intent was to use the OM to build station volume.  It would have had an RCS.  No further info is available publicly.

[HMXHMX]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

[Prober]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

impressive......know of your work with H2O2 engines in prior projects.  Did any of the H2O2 engines or RCS translatle into your future projects?

[HMXHMX]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

impressive......know of your work with H2O2 engines in prior projects.  Did any of the H2O2 engines or RCS translatle into your future projects?

Thanks.

About H2O2. No, not really.  While H2O2 may have its uses, I haven't found it makes sense for RCS due to storability and cat pack life issues.  I like the minimum impulse bit of cold or warm gas for prox ops, and the ultra-long term storability and simplicity of gas-gas RCS/OMS for low delta V missions (i.e., LEO ISS rendezvous).  While the mass fraction isn't good, such a gas-gas system is pretty simple, requiring no propellant management devices, is useable as a hot, warm or cold gas thruster depending on mix ratio or by switching off one propellant, and makes a very nice integral abort solution for ascent.  I favor GOX and CNG (methane) for those propellants.  (See JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS, Vol. 48, No. 4, July–August 2011 or AIAA 2010-8839.)

[RocketmanUS]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

Thanks for that, that answered even more on the heat shield with the hydrogen cooling.

What was the thrust and ISP of the engines? Were there to be eight of them? Did the CEV have RCS and if so what was their thrust?

Could a docking port be put on the side of the crew model were the hatch would be for crew to exit on the moon instead of the bottom of the CEV were the engines are?

[HMXHMX]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

Thanks for that, that answered even more on the heat shield with the hydrogen cooling.

What was the thrust and ISP of the engines? Were there to be eight of them? Did the CEV have RCS and if so what was their thrust?

Could a docking port be put on the side of the crew model were the hatch would be for crew to exit on the moon instead of the bottom of the CEV were the engines are?

I frankly don't recall the main engine thrust; I seem to remember the Isp in the 440 range.  The details are not readily available any more, stored away.  RCS was 100 lbf, based on a GOX-CNG thruster that we tested.

I don't see any reason why a docking port couldn't be side mounted, but we also didn't see much need for that.

[RocketmanUS]

What would it cost to day to develop the CXV throw 1st flight? ( not including the launch as the launch cost would be unknown till a launch vehicle was selected )

Same question for the CCDEV2 concept , however assume the use of F9 v.v as the launch vehicle?

[HMXHMX]

What would it cost to day to develop the CXV throw 1st flight? ( not including the launch as the launch cost would be unknown till a launch vehicle was selected )

Same question for the CCDEV2 concept , however assume the use of F9 v.v as the launch vehicle?

I have no idea what it would cost for the original CXV air-launch concept today.  In 2004, we thought the project was under $500M based on an estimate from Scaled for the a/c that was much lower than what the current a/c is rumored to cost (I know of no data on Stratolaunch a/c price but at the SL press conference Allen said that he was prepared to spend ten times what he spent on SS1, which was about $25M.).

I don't recall exactly what our bid for CCDEV2 was, but w/o the LV, I think we were in the $200M range for non-recurring for the spacecraft.