Liberty Re-Dux ?

[Prober]

Hypothetical Launch to the ISS.

.

1)   Goal Payload 15-18,000lbs, launch from FLA
2)   First stage use “Liberty” solid
3)   Replace 2nd stage with  ?
4)   How many pounds thrust needed on 2nd stage to make LEO?

Or I can put it another way……want to replace the Liberty 2nd stage with a Different 2nd stage the given payload.   Any ideas?

If someone can point me in the right direction on this so I can do it easy it would be appreciated.

=======
Second set of questions

We have a great deal of experience with solids from the shuttle program.   For storage in FLA what type of humidity, and temperature range would be the ideal and safe?

[Robotbeat]

What about a mini-ET and a single SSME on top? Then you could reduce the solid by one segment and...

Oh.

[Downix]

Upper stage using LR-91 engines, two nozzle configuration (tested and verified, technically a vac-optimized form of LR-87).  Proven system, solid reputation, and would give a ready launch ability lacking from Hydrolox setups.  Would eliminate biggest concern over hypergolic systems, as the engines would be lit at altitude.  System already man-tested with Gemini program.  Ran this though calc awhile back, could pull off with a 4-seg a 26 tonne to ISS orbit.  With 5-seg I'll need to re-calc it, but likely looking at closer to 30 tonne.  Would not be good for GEO, but substituting the Titan Centaur or SEC/DEC from Atlas and you would gain a GEO payload in excess of 13 metric tons, higher than the Delta IV Heavy.

[Patchouli]

Upper stage using LR-91 engines, two nozzle configuration (tested and verified, technically a vac-optimized form of LR-87).  Proven system, solid reputation, and would give a ready launch ability lacking from Hydrolox setups.  Would eliminate biggest concern over hypergolic systems, as the engines would be lit at altitude.  System already man-tested with Gemini program.  Ran this though calc awhile back, could pull off with a 4-seg a 26 tonne to ISS orbit.  With 5-seg I'll need to re-calc it, but likely looking at closer to 30 tonne.  Would not be good for GEO, but substituting the Titan Centaur or SEC/DEC from Atlas and you would gain a GEO payload in excess of 13 metric tons, higher than the Delta IV Heavy.

What about using a Two Merlin vacs or a single RD-120 and avoid the toxic propellant the EPA red tape nightmare that comes with a large hypergolic stage?
Both of these have higher ISP then the LR-91 and are in production.

The best engine might be the RD-0120 from Energia I believe this can be air started as it was proposed for the Energia EUS upper stage.

The RD-0120 should even outperform the SSME Ares I.

[spectre9]

Do I sense a lack of upper stage engines? 

Can't build the Ares 1 without the J2-X I guess.

[Jim]

Hypothetical Launch to the ISS.

.

1)   Goal Payload 15-18,000lbs, launch from FLA
2)   First stage use “Liberty” solid
3)   Replace 2nd stage with  ?
4)   How many pounds thrust needed on 2nd stage to make LEO?

Or I can put it another way……want to replace the Liberty 2nd stage with a Different 2nd stage the given payload.   Any ideas?

If someone can point me in the right direction on this so I can do it easy it would be appreciated.

=======
Second set of questions

We have a great deal of experience with solids from the shuttle program.   For storage in FLA what type of humidity, and temperature range would be the ideal and safe?

Why?

No, we have great experience from other programs.

[Prober]

Upper stage using LR-91 engines, two nozzle configuration (tested and verified, technically a vac-optimized form of LR-87).  Proven system, solid reputation, and would give a ready launch ability lacking from Hydrolox setups.  Would eliminate biggest concern over hypergolic systems, as the engines would be lit at altitude.  System already man-tested with Gemini program.  Ran this though calc awhile back, could pull off with a 4-seg a 26 tonne to ISS orbit.  With 5-seg I'll need to re-calc it, but likely looking at closer to 30 tonne.  Would not be good for GEO, but substituting the Titan Centaur or SEC/DEC from Atlas and you would gain a GEO payload in excess of 13 metric tons, higher than the Delta IV Heavy.

Will look into it, LR-87 is a rock solid engine.
Is this what your talking about?
http://heroicrelics.org/info/titan-i/titan-i-stage-2-engine.html



 Was reading the Liberty thread, how about an Aerojet NK43 (AJ26-59?).  Might be overkill?

[Prober]

Hypothetical Launch to the ISS.

.

1)   Goal Payload 15-18,000lbs, launch from FLA
2)   First stage use “Liberty” solid
3)   Replace 2nd stage with  ?
4)   How many pounds thrust needed on 2nd stage to make LEO?

Or I can put it another way……want to replace the Liberty 2nd stage with a Different 2nd stage the given payload.   Any ideas?

If someone can point me in the right direction on this so I can do it easy it would be appreciated.

=======
Second set of questions

We have a great deal of experience with solids from the shuttle program.   For storage in FLA what type of humidity, and temperature range would be the ideal and safe?

Why?

No, we have great experience from other programs.

WhY what?   I'm not a fan of solids but for this idea they have a few advantages. 

[Prober]

Upper stage using LR-91 engines, two nozzle configuration (tested and verified, technically a vac-optimized form of LR-87).  Proven system, solid reputation, and would give a ready launch ability lacking from Hydrolox setups.  Would eliminate biggest concern over hypergolic systems, as the engines would be lit at altitude.  System already man-tested with Gemini program.  Ran this though calc awhile back, could pull off with a 4-seg a 26 tonne to ISS orbit.  With 5-seg I'll need to re-calc it, but likely looking at closer to 30 tonne.  Would not be good for GEO, but substituting the Titan Centaur or SEC/DEC from Atlas and you would gain a GEO payload in excess of 13 metric tons, higher than the Delta IV Heavy.

What about using a Two Merlin vacs or a single RD-120 and avoid the toxic propellant the EPA red tape nightmare that comes with a large hypergolic stage?
Both of these have higher ISP then the LR-91 and are in production.

The best engine might be the RD-0120 from Energia I believe this can be air started as it was proposed for the Energia EUS upper stage.

The RD-0120 should even outperform the SSME Ares I.

1) SpaceX likes to keep their engines
2) Orbital wanted the RD-0120 and couldn't buy them.

Good ideas, keep'em coming

I do enjoy "brainstorming".

[edkyle99]

Hypothetical Launch to the ISS.
1)   Goal Payload 15-18,000lbs, launch from FLA
2)   First stage use “Liberty” solid
3)   Replace 2nd stage with  ?
4)   How many pounds thrust needed on 2nd stage to make LEO?

Or I can put it another way……want to replace the Liberty 2nd stage with a Different 2nd stage the given payload.   Any ideas?

Five segment booster is probably too much horse for only 8-9 tonnes to LEO.  Remove a segment, then top the booster with an RP/LOX stage powered by an RD-0120 or something like it.  That would do the trick, though the RD-0120 verniers would have to provide a good bit of the final delta-v to keep g-forces down. 

A Zenit 2/3 second stage would actually be about the right size for this application.  Topping it with a Centaur would turn this into an EELV Medium class rocket able to lift 15 tonnes to LEO or 6 tonnes to GTO.

Or, consider an alternative using all-U.S. engines.  Top a four segment booster with a new 60-ish tonne LH2 stage powered by six RL-10 engines.  That by itself would lift 15+ tonnes to LEO or 6 tonnes to GTO.

 - Ed Kyle

[Patchouli]

Seems the last flight of the LR-91 and LR-87 was in 2005 so the tooling may still exist and the engine may have been evolved to modern production techniques.

A two engine version burning hydrogen the LR-87lh2 might fit the bill.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/lr87lh2.htm

As far as cheapness goes it would be hard to beat the Zenit second stage which might actually make this a fairly cost effective LV.

[Downix]

Upper stage using LR-91 engines, two nozzle configuration (tested and verified, technically a vac-optimized form of LR-87).  Proven system, solid reputation, and would give a ready launch ability lacking from Hydrolox setups.  Would eliminate biggest concern over hypergolic systems, as the engines would be lit at altitude.  System already man-tested with Gemini program.  Ran this though calc awhile back, could pull off with a 4-seg a 26 tonne to ISS orbit.  With 5-seg I'll need to re-calc it, but likely looking at closer to 30 tonne.  Would not be good for GEO, but substituting the Titan Centaur or SEC/DEC from Atlas and you would gain a GEO payload in excess of 13 metric tons, higher than the Delta IV Heavy.

Will look into it, LR-87 is a rock solid engine.
Is this what your talking about?
http://heroicrelics.org/info/titan-i/titan-i-stage-2-engine.html

That's the LR-91, which is a single nozzle version of the LR-87 with altitude-optimized nozzle.  What I am saying here is a two-nozzle system with that nozzle extension on them.

Was reading the Liberty thread, how about an Aerojet NK43 (AJ26-59?).  Might be overkill?

I actually did a test of this, and it would have worked beautifully, even with the 4-segment shuttle solid.  A single AJ26-59 would have gotten it to 23 tonnes to ISS from a 4-segment, 25.5 tonnes with 5.

[Patchouli]

I actually did a test of this, and it would have worked beautifully, even with the 4-segment shuttle solid.  A single AJ26-59 would have gotten it to 23 tonnes to ISS from a 4-segment, 25.5 tonnes with 5.

That would even lift Orion though probably need to subtract some mass for carrying the LAS for the SRB burn but the five segment should still meet the payload requirement.

I'm surprised they didn't use that combination as it probably would be significantly cheaper then adopting the Araine 5 core.

[edkyle99]

Five segment booster is probably too much horse for only 8-9 tonnes to LEO.  Remove a segment, then top the booster with an RP/LOX stage powered by an RD-0120 or something like it.  That would do the trick, though the RD-0120 verniers would have to provide a good bit of the final delta-v to keep g-forces down. 

A Zenit 2/3 second stage would actually be about the right size for this application.  Topping it with a Centaur would turn this into an EELV Medium class rocket able to lift 15 tonnes to LEO or 6 tonnes to GTO.

Or, consider an alternative using all-U.S. engines.  Top a four segment booster with a new 60-ish tonne LH2 stage powered by six RL-10 engines.  That by itself would lift 15+ tonnes to LEO or 6 tonnes to GTO.

 - Ed Kyle

Either one of these concepts could have "skinnier" upper stages than either Ares I or Liberty.  Zenit/Antares are only slightly fatter than a five segment booster (3.9 versus 3.71 meters).    A smaller LH2 stage could be 5 meters or less in diameter.

 - Ed Kyle

[Patchouli]

Either one of these concepts could have "skinnier" upper stages than either Ares I or Liberty.  Zenit/Antares are only slightly fatter than a five segment booster (3.9 versus 3.71 meters).    A smaller LH2 stage could be 5 meters or less in diameter.

 - Ed Kyle

This shows Ares I with a different upper stage proposed as an LV for Dream Chaser before they settled on Atlas V.
Not sure if that's an in house hybrid second stage or some sorta liquid second stage but it appears to have a third stage as well.

The Zenit second stage looks to be a good fit as it is indeed very close to the SRB diameter.

[Prober]

Either one of these concepts could have "skinnier" upper stages than either Ares I or Liberty.  Zenit/Antares are only slightly fatter than a five segment booster (3.9 versus 3.71 meters).    A smaller LH2 stage could be 5 meters or less in diameter.

 - Ed Kyle

This shows Ares I with a different upper stage proposed as an LV for Dream Chaser before they settled on Atlas V.
Not sure if that's an in house hybrid second stage or some sorta liquid second stage but it appears to have a third stage as well.

The Zenit second stage looks to be a good fit as it is indeed very close to the SRB diameter.

Interesting pics with the Dream Chaser on there !  Might be a little too tall

Believe atm my thinking; we are closer to looking like the 4 seg + mesh interstate (close visual) needs more research and redo.

[Prober]

Five segment booster is probably too much horse for only 8-9 tonnes to LEO.  Remove a segment, then top the booster with an RP/LOX stage powered by an RD-0120 or something like it.  That would do the trick, though the RD-0120 verniers would have to provide a good bit of the final delta-v to keep g-forces down. 

A Zenit 2/3 second stage would actually be about the right size for this application.  Topping it with a Centaur would turn this into an EELV Medium class rocket able to lift 15 tonnes to LEO or 6 tonnes to GTO.

Or, consider an alternative using all-U.S. engines.  Top a four segment booster with a new 60-ish tonne LH2 stage powered by six RL-10 engines.  That by itself would lift 15+ tonnes to LEO or 6 tonnes to GTO.

 - Ed Kyle

Either one of these concepts could have "skinnier" upper stages than either Ares I or Liberty.  Zenit/Antares are only slightly fatter than a five segment booster (3.9 versus 3.71 meters).    A smaller LH2 stage could be 5 meters or less in diameter.

 - Ed Kyle

How about the same size or larger as the first stage.   Try to keep the height of the launcher down.

[Prober]

More cleanup needed but a start...

[edkyle99]

How about the same size or larger as the first stage.   Try to keep the height of the launcher down?

If the goal is to minimize height, and the payload goal is only 18,000 lbs to LEO (8.2 tonnes), a three-segment booster topped by a relatively small second stage would suffice.  The second stage could be a 120 tonne RD-0120 powered unit that would be about 13.8 meters long and 3.9 meters diameter.  The entire rocket would stand perhaps 40 meters not including payload, or maybe 55 meters including payload, just over half as tall as Ares I/Orion.  The big challenge would be matching the SRB thrust to the upper composite to keep acceleration tolerable.

Another alternative would be a 3-SB topped by a 4xRL10 LH2 stage that weighed about 44 tonnes.  Such a stage could be 4 meters diameter and probably 15 meters long.  This rocket would stand a couple of meters taller than the RD-0120 rocket, but would lift 10 tonnes to LEO.

Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

I'm still not sure what the goal is, but if the intent is to use five segment booster topped by a different upper stage, here are a couple of ideas. 

First, note that five segment booster shouldn't be used unless the payload is going to be heavy.  This is, after all, the world's most powerful rocket motor.  It shouldn't be used to lift just 8.2 tonnes to LEO.  Falcon 9 can do that.

Speaking of Falcon 9, a Merlin Vacuum powered second stage atop a five segment booster can be considered.  Four Merlin Vacs, perhaps with shorter nozzles than on Falcon 9, would result in 13 or more tonnes to LEO.  Adding a third stage very similar to the Falcon 9 second stage would result in a rocket able to lift 22 or more tonnes to LEO or 8 tonnes to GTO.  Not too shabby for a rocket that uses only low energy propellants.  This rocket would stand about as tall as Ares I if the upper stages were about the same diameter as the booster.

An all-solid alternative might use a 5-seg first stage, a 2-seg second stage, a Castor 120 type third stage, and a Castor 30XL type fourth stage to lift 17 tonnes to LEO.  ATK might call it "Athena V".    (oops, already used!  http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/GRMB&CISOPTR=194&CISOBOX=1&REC=17  )

 - Ed Kyle

[simonbp]

Another alternative would be a 3-SB topped by a 4xRL10 LH2 stage that weighed about 44 tonnes.  Such a stage could be 4 meters diameter and probably 15 meters long.  This rocket would stand a couple of meters taller than the RD-0120 rocket, but would lift 10 tonnes to LEO.

Hmmm... make that just a little bit bigger and you should be able to launch a CST-100 (especially of the LAS is used for the circ burn). I'm not sure why you would, but there it is...

[Prober]

I'm still not sure what the goal is, but if the intent is to use five segment booster topped by a different upper stage, here are a couple of ideas. 

First, note that five segment booster shouldn't be used unless the payload is going to be heavy.  This is, after all, the world's most powerful rocket motor.  It shouldn't be used to lift just 8.2 tonnes to LEO.  Falcon 9 can do that.

Speaking of Falcon 9, a Merlin Vacuum powered second stage atop a five segment booster can be considered.  Four Merlin Vacs, perhaps with shorter nozzles than on Falcon 9, would result in 13 or more tonnes to LEO.  Adding a third stage very similar to the Falcon 9 second stage would result in a rocket able to lift 22 or more tonnes to LEO or 8 tonnes to GTO.  Not too shabby for a rocket that uses only low energy propellants.  This rocket would stand about as tall as Ares I if the upper stages were about the same diameter as the booster.


An all-solid alternative might use a 5-seg first stage, a 2-seg second stage, a Castor 120 type third stage, and a Castor 30XL type fourth stage to lift 17 tonnes to LEO.  ATK might call it "Athena V". 


 - Ed Kyle

No around 18,000 lbs and the early ideas are best thus far.   The Merlin Vacs might work, but SpaceX doesn't play well with others.

Alot of the features I've been looking for just fall right into place, the more i search it out.    It may turn out to be more like a  "Titan V"  than "Athena V"

[edkyle99]

No around 18,000 lbs

For only 8.17 tonnes (18,000 lbs) to a 51.6 deg orbit, something shrunk down to only an "Athena III"-like 2.5 segment first stage topped by a 37 tonne gross liquid hydrogen second stage (powered by three RL10 engines) could work.  Again, this would stand about half as tall as Ares I or Liberty, and cost much less too.

 - Ed Kyle

[Downix]

No around 18,000 lbs

For only 8.17 tonnes (18,000 lbs) to a 51.6 deg orbit, something shrunk down to only an "Athena III"-like 2.5 segment first stage topped by a 37 tonne gross liquid hydrogen second stage (powered by three RL10 engines) could work.  Again, this would stand about half as tall as Ares I or Liberty, and cost much less too.

 - Ed Kyle

Think on this a bit Ed.  The Athena III uses the same segments as Liberty.  A smart solution would be a scalable solution from 7 tonnes to much more.  2 segment, 3 segment, 4 segment, 5 segment.  Utilizing another high-thrust second stage (Castor 120 would be ideal here) with a high-energy orbital maneuvering stage (Centaur or DCSS for instance) would work very well. 

[Prober]

Wow ED & Downix

Guess I better do more research on "Athena".

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20986.0    ah, wouldn't mind working with LM & ATK

 Got the Titan name cause they made very decent use of solids and there's alot of history and ideas available from them.

No way interested in their toxic fuels

[Jason1701]

No around 18,000 lbs

For only 8.17 tonnes (18,000 lbs) to a 51.6 deg orbit, something shrunk down to only an "Athena III"-like 2.5 segment first stage topped by a 37 tonne gross liquid hydrogen second stage (powered by three RL10 engines) could work.  Again, this would stand about half as tall as Ares I or Liberty, and cost much less too.

 - Ed Kyle

Think on this a bit Ed.  The Athena III uses the same segments as Liberty.  A smart solution would be a scalable solution from 7 tonnes to much more.  2 segment, 3 segment, 4 segment, 5 segment.  Utilizing another high-thrust second stage (Castor 120 would be ideal here) with a high-energy orbital maneuvering stage (Centaur or DCSS for instance) would work very well. 

Burn profiles have to be tailored for the number of segments and require static fires. Switching the segments is much more complicated and expensive than it sounds.

[edkyle99]

Burn profiles have to be tailored for the number of segments and require static fires. Switching the segments is much more complicated and expensive than it sounds.

Different motor set ups would need different nozzles too.  But some leeway seems possible if perfect optimization is not needed for every motor.  NASA and ATK were, just a few months ago, contemplating an SLS motor that would have used four segments from the five segment motor, removing the middle segment but leaving the others, including igniter and nozzle segments, "as-is".

 - Ed Kyle

[Downix]

No around 18,000 lbs

For only 8.17 tonnes (18,000 lbs) to a 51.6 deg orbit, something shrunk down to only an "Athena III"-like 2.5 segment first stage topped by a 37 tonne gross liquid hydrogen second stage (powered by three RL10 engines) could work.  Again, this would stand about half as tall as Ares I or Liberty, and cost much less too.

 - Ed Kyle

Think on this a bit Ed.  The Athena III uses the same segments as Liberty.  A smart solution would be a scalable solution from 7 tonnes to much more.  2 segment, 3 segment, 4 segment, 5 segment.  Utilizing another high-thrust second stage (Castor 120 would be ideal here) with a high-energy orbital maneuvering stage (Centaur or DCSS for instance) would work very well. 

Burn profiles have to be tailored for the number of segments and require static fires. Switching the segments is much more complicated and expensive than it sounds.

Only if you are aiming for perfect optimization.  They did tests of this as late as 2006, firing segmented solid motors with less than optimal segments.  While the burn was not 100% optimal, even with half the number of segments, they achieved 95% optimal burn.  They found that optimizing for the maximum segments would allow for a solid burn with less segments.  This is still good enough with the cost reduction that the lower payload lift vehicles would offer due to more production.  The nozzle would need to be different, but the nozzles are not the expensive part of the equation here.

[simonbp]

Utilizing another high-thrust second stage (Castor 120 would be ideal here) with a high-energy orbital maneuvering stage (Centaur or DCSS for instance) would work very well. 

A stage with 1x AJ-26 with altitude nozzle would make a nice second stage, and could probably get away without a third stage.

[Prober]

Believe we can make something work for the first and 2nd stages.  On to the next problem.

Getting back into the details and ran into the real major issue with this project, infrastructure.   The downside of Liberty was using the crawler and that huge 300 ft tower etc.   We dealt with some of those issues but some new ones have crept up.

The only real low cost way to deal with the infrastructure issues is with railroad tracks.  I’ve turned to Titan for some insight into how it was worked out at the cape.

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25799.0

Also have to deal with the weight issues and handling at a low cost of a 3-4 segment stage (safely) or the project is dead in the water.   Review of 30 years of shuttle experience will help here.  However, if an army of workers would be needed then liquids become more effective.

This video was an eye opener of the problem:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=74698561

 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/192935main_RRtrain08.pdf

Ideas….comments?

[Jim]

Forget the SRB all together.

[Prober]

Forget the SRB all together.

care to expand on that?  any input in this brainstorming is welcome and won't be used against you.

[edkyle99]

The only real low cost way to deal with the infrastructure issues is with railroad tracks.  I’ve turned to Titan for some insight into how it was worked out at the cape.

Also have to deal with the weight issues and handling at a low cost of a 3-4 segment stage (safely) or the project is dead in the water.   

Ariane 5 also uses rail both to roll out and to move the assembled boosters.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/334636/530wm/S2200073-Ariane_5_solid_booster_being_carried_to_test_stand-SPL.jpg

U.S. launch rates are so low that on-pad assembly is possible.  No need for a far-flung complex with separate assembly and launch sites. 

 - Ed Kyle

[simonbp]

Yeah, for a big solid first stage at <5 flights per year, stack-on-pad is best. If launching from the Cape, though, some sort of weather protection is required. So, a basic infrastructure like Delta II used would be good: a static pad and tower and a retractable stacking/assembly facility on rails. If the flight rate gets high enough then, like Delta II, you just build a second pad.

[simonbp]

So, playing around, I was able to get 8.26 tonnes (18.2 klb) to LEO delta v with a four-seg first stage and RP-1 second.

For the first stage, I assumed a direct 4/5 scaling of the Ares I first stage:

Loaded mass: 585.25 tonnes
Propellant mass fraction: 0.8575 (equal to Ares I FS)
Thrust: 12.5 MN
Isp: 267.4 s

For the second stage, I assumed basically a foreshortened Delta II first stage with RS-27A:

Wet mass: 100 tonnes
Propellant mass fraction: 0.934 (equal to Delta II first stage)
Thrust: 1.05 MN
Isp: 301 s
Diameter: 4 m
Length: 10 m

It would be a wild ride up, with almost 2g at liftoff, 7g at first stage burnout, 1g at second stage ignition, and 7g again at second stage burnout. That sounds bad, but isn't much worse than riding a Titan II.

The RS-27 would need to modified to air start, but considering it uses a hypergolic pack to self start anyways, that shouldn't be too hard.

EDIT: And a picture to show the relative size of the second stage.

[edkyle99]

So, playing around, I was able to get 8.26 tonnes (18.2 klb) to LEO delta v with a four-seg first stage and RP-1 second.

Since that stage has about the same mass properties as a Delta II first stage ....

I threw in a Delta 4 5-meter upper stage concept as well. 

Re:  end of burn g-forces, remember that the SRB thrust tails off significantly toward the end, by design. 
http://thespaceport.us/forum/uploads/monthly_08_2011/post-15-0-43420300-1312600815_thumb.png

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

So, playing around, I was able to get 8.26 tonnes (18.2 klb) to LEO delta v with a four-seg first stage and RP-1 second.

Re:  end of burn g-forces, remember that the SRB thrust tails off significantly toward the end, by design. 
http://thespaceport.us/forum/uploads/monthly_08_2011/post-15-0-43420300-1312600815_thumb.png

 - Ed Kyle

had an idea come to me.......has anyone ever had the solids reverse burn to "stage"?  Would happen when the burn reaches that point before burnout.

[edkyle99]

So, playing around, I was able to get 8.26 tonnes (18.2 klb) to LEO delta v with a four-seg first stage and RP-1 second.

Re:  end of burn g-forces, remember that the SRB thrust tails off significantly toward the end, by design. 
http://thespaceport.us/forum/uploads/monthly_08_2011/post-15-0-43420300-1312600815_thumb.png

 - Ed Kyle

had an idea come to me.......has anyone ever had the solids reverse burn to "stage"?  Would happen when the burn reaches that point before burnout.

Minuteman missile third stages had, and maybe still have, thrust termination ports on their sides to provide some level of cutoff velocity precision.  There may be other examples, but I'm not aware of any similar setup having ever been demonstrated (in flight) for a big solid motor like SRB.  The only reason to implement something like this on a booster stage would be as part of a crew escape system, and even then I'm not sure it is feasible.

 - Ed Kyle 

[Prober]

So, playing around, I was able to get 8.26 tonnes (18.2 klb) to LEO delta v with a four-seg first stage and RP-1 second.

Re:  end of burn g-forces, remember that the SRB thrust tails off significantly toward the end, by design. 
http://thespaceport.us/forum/uploads/monthly_08_2011/post-15-0-43420300-1312600815_thumb.png

 - Ed Kyle

had an idea come to me.......has anyone ever had the solids reverse burn to "stage"?  Would happen when the burn reaches that point before burnout.

Minuteman missile third stages had, and maybe still have, thrust termination ports on their sides to provide some level of cutoff velocity precision.  There may be other examples, but I'm not aware of any similar setup having ever been demonstrated (in flight) for a big solid motor like SRB.  The only reason to implement something like this on a booster stage would be as part of a crew escape system, and even then I'm not sure it is feasible.

 - Ed Kyle 

ahhh, interesting to chat about but might create more problems than its worth in this application.

focus now is Solid assembly, transport, storage. 

[Prober]

Horizontal assembly might be a better way to go?     Any ATK people around?    Do you assemble the test boosters horizontally?

[Prober]

Ok So maybe lease the VIB and assemble there, transport via rail to pad. 

 

[Jim]

Ok So maybe lease the VIB and assemble there, transport via rail to pad. 

 

VIB has been torn down.  And it was not sited for SRM's

[Prober]

Ok So maybe lease the VIB and assemble there, transport via rail to pad. 

 

VIB has been torn down.  And it was not sited for SRM's

That's a major loss and waste, looked to be a great building.    Let me guess what happened.   EPA cleanup, cheaper to take the bldg down than to clean it up?

[Jim]

Ok So maybe lease the VIB and assemble there, transport via rail to pad. 

 

VIB has been torn down.  And it was not sited for SRM's

That's a major loss and waste, looked to be a great building.    Let me guess what happened.   EPA cleanup, cheaper to take the bldg down than to clean it up?

EPA had nothing to do with it.  There was no other users and therefore the Tiran SPO has to depose it

[simonbp]

Yeah again, I doubt you can find a reason not to stack the segments vertically on a static pad. Then, the only special equipment that you need is a retracting gantry and a standard rail line to the pad.

Actually, now that Delta II is retired, SLC-17 might be best. You'd have rebuild the pad itself, and modify the gantry, but it's the minimal modification option.

[edkyle99]

Yeah again, I doubt you can find a reason not to stack the segments vertically on a static pad. Then, the only special equipment that you need is a retracting gantry and a standard rail line to the pad.

Actually, now that Delta II is retired, SLC-17 might be best. You'd have rebuild the pad itself, and modify the gantry, but it's the minimal modification option.

If I'm remembering correctly, plans call for no future launch complexes south of the Cape lighthouse, to provide more buffer for the public.  That means SLC 17 is no-go.  My recollection is that ATK was looking at Space Florida type sites at SLC 46 or 36 for "Athena III", which would have used 2.5 SRB segments.  There are other unused sites between SLC 36 and SLC 37 - miles of them - but any would have to be rebuilt from scratch.  Then there is LC 39A.  No one is using that one, and it already has a flame trench. 

This all begs the question "why"?  Nothing like this makes any sense unless it saves money, because other rockets already operate in this payload class (8.2 tonnes).  An EELV Heavy class rocket I could see, but I'm not sure I see the costs working out for a smaller rocket.   

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

Yeah again, I doubt you can find a reason not to stack the segments vertically on a static pad. Then, the only special equipment that you need is a retracting gantry and a standard rail line to the pad.

Actually, now that Delta II is retired, SLC-17 might be best. You'd have rebuild the pad itself, and modify the gantry, but it's the minimal modification option.

This all begs the question "why"?  Nothing like this makes any sense unless it saves money, because other rockets already operate in this payload class (8.2 tonnes).  An EELV Heavy class rocket I could see, but I'm not sure I see the costs working out for a smaller rocket.   

 - Ed Kyle

The real question can a Solid first stage give you a competitive edge?     Why did the military switch long ago to Solids for missiles and in use in subs?

In a sense this project has one of the same goals as the Stratolaunch.

Second set of questions (asked at the top of the thread)

“We have a great deal of experience with solids from the shuttle program.  For storage in FLA what type of humidity, and temperature range would be the ideal and safe?”

Your right why?    Fast turnaround is the market.   Having a 1st stage in storage on standby, with some flex on the 2nd stage might do the trick.  Darpa, and the AF still wish for a quick launch system, 72hrs or less.  IMHO, the ISS will also have this same need as time goes forward.

[wolfpack]

Yeah again, I doubt you can find a reason not to stack the segments vertically on a static pad. Then, the only special equipment that you need is a retracting gantry and a standard rail line to the pad.

Actually, now that Delta II is retired, SLC-17 might be best. You'd have rebuild the pad itself, and modify the gantry, but it's the minimal modification option.

This all begs the question "why"?  Nothing like this makes any sense unless it saves money, because other rockets already operate in this payload class (8.2 tonnes).  An EELV Heavy class rocket I could see, but I'm not sure I see the costs working out for a smaller rocket.   

 - Ed Kyle

The real question can a Solid first stage give you a competitive edge?     Why did the military switch long ago to Solids for missiles and in use in subs?

Because liquid fueled rockets require constant maintenance. You have to have some percentage of your missile fleet fueled and ready for launch at all times, and the rockets can't stay loaded for long periods of time. Thus, you have this manic schedule of silo crews fueling and defueling portions of the fleet all the time. Crazy work schedule, and prone to errors.

Second set of questions (asked at the top of the thread)

“We have a great deal of experience with solids from the shuttle program.  For storage in FLA what type of humidity, and temperature range would be the ideal and safe?”

Your right why?    Fast turnaround is the market.   Having a 1st stage in storage on standby, with some flex on the 2nd stage might do the trick.  Darpa, and the AF still wish for a quick launch system, 72hrs or less.  IMHO, the ISS will also have this same need as time goes forward.

I think the biggest issue with solids is aging. They should keep fairly well over a wide enivronmental range, but after some years you worry about cracks developing in the solid propellant. Shuttle SRBs had borescope inspections prior to launch.

[Jim]

Yeah again, I doubt you can find a reason not to stack the segments vertically on a static pad. Then, the only special equipment that you need is a retracting gantry and a standard rail line to the pad.

Actually, now that Delta II is retired, SLC-17 might be best. You'd have rebuild the pad itself, and modify the gantry, but it's the minimal modification option.

This all begs the question "why"?  Nothing like this makes any sense unless it saves money, because other rockets already operate in this payload class (8.2 tonnes).  An EELV Heavy class rocket I could see, but I'm not sure I see the costs working out for a smaller rocket.   

 - Ed Kyle

The real question can a Solid first stage give you a competitive edge?     Why did the military switch long ago to Solids for missiles and in use in subs?

In a sense this project has one of the same goals as the Stratolaunch.

Second set of questions (asked at the top of the thread)

“We have a great deal of experience with solids from the shuttle program.  For storage in FLA what type of humidity, and temperature range would be the ideal and safe?”

Your right why?    Fast turnaround is the market.   Having a 1st stage in storage on standby, with some flex on the 2nd stage might do the trick.  Darpa, and the AF still wish for a quick launch system, 72hrs or less.  IMHO, the ISS will also have this same need as time goes forward.

None of those attributes are applicable to a segmented solid.  A liquid booster can provide those atttributes.

Also, your concept has a liquid upperstage which mixes attributes.

Anyways, the issue for quick response isn't launch vehice, it is payload and spacecraft

[hop]

Your right why?    Fast turnaround is the market.  Having a 1st stage in storage on standby, with some flex on the 2nd stage might do the trick.  Darpa, and the AF still wish for a quick launch system, 72hrs or less.

DARPA expressing interest in the concept doesn't mean there is an actual market, it just means there's a market for studies. The actual requirement for this is dubious.

Plus it's not at all clear that something based on a shuttle SRB and a liquid upper stage would be faster turnaround than existing liquid LVs. If you wanted to keep a prepped F9 or Atlas or Delta sitting around, you could launch on pretty short notice.

IMHO, the ISS will also have this same need as time goes forward.

ISS has no need for this, and has so many other constraints that a short notice launch would be impractical even if the LV could support it.

[edkyle99]

Plus it's not at all clear that something based on a shuttle SRB and a liquid upper stage would be faster turnaround than existing liquid LVs. If you wanted to keep a prepped F9 or Atlas or Delta sitting around, you could launch on pretty short notice.

For "quick to launch" by something stored on standby for long periods, see images. 

ICBMs serve as the unparalleled model for long-term storage for launch on demand.  The U.S. has about 450 Minuteman III standing in silos right now, armed and ready.  They've been there for decades.

Something similar to Topol/Start could be done with Minotaur 1, but we're only looking at a half tonne to LEOx51.6 deg with that rocket.  Flexibility vs. Capability is a trade off.  And cost, always cost.   

Those Minuteman III missiles, BTW, may need to be replaced in a few years.  Perhaps launch on demand orbital capability as an adjunct to the primary mission could be a design consideration for whatever missile comes next.

 - Ed Kyle

[hop]

For "quick to launch" by something stored on standby for long periods, see images. 

Right, what I was getting at is that a shuttle SRB + liquid upper stage doesn't seem like it would meet this requirement much better than existing liquid LVs.

Something similar could be done with Minotaur 1.   

Indeed. This is what always struck me as odd about the "responsive launch" studies / projects focusing on LVs. If the DOD really needs on launch on short notice, they already have the hardware to do it, it's the payloads that are missing. OTOH, they would be limited to quite small payloads, if the requirement exceeded the capability of recycled ICBM, things could get expensive quickly. The Russians would be in a better position to do this kind of thing with Dnepr.

[edkyle99]

Indeed. This is what always struck me as odd about the "responsive launch" studies / projects focusing on LVs. If the DOD really needs on launch on short notice, they already have the hardware to do it, it's the payloads that are missing. OTOH, they would be limited to quite small payloads, if the requirement exceeded the capability of recycled ICBM, things could get expensive quickly. The Russians would be in a better position to do this kind of thing with Dnepr.

Another way to do this would be to launch the bigger, heavier satellite (maybe quietly and stealthily piggybacked with an announced payload) and store it for years - in orbit - until needed.  (It wouldn't surprise me in the least if something like that weren't t already up there.)

As for on-demand all-liquid rockets, the proven examples for cryogenic oxidizer rockets were Atlas, Titan I, and Thor.  Atlas and Thor were both stored in horizontal shelters (initially), then erected and fueled for launch within 30 or 15 minutes, respectively.  Satellites would have to be pre-tested, pre-fueled, charged, and ready.

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

Plus it's not at all clear that something based on a shuttle SRB and a liquid upper stage would be faster turnaround than existing liquid LVs. If you wanted to keep a prepped F9 or Atlas or Delta sitting around, you could launch on pretty short notice.

For "quick to launch" by something stored on standby for long periods, see images. 

ICBMs serve as the unparalleled model for long-term storage for launch on demand.  The U.S. has about 450 Minuteman III standing in silos right now, armed and ready.  They've been there for decades.

Something similar to Topol/Start could be done with Minotaur 1, but we're only looking at a half tonne to LEOx51.6 deg with that rocket.  Flexibility vs. Capability is a trade off.  And cost, always cost.   

Those Minuteman III missiles, BTW, may need to be replaced in a few years.  Perhaps launch on demand orbital capability as an adjunct to the primary mission could be a design consideration for whatever missile comes next.

 - Ed Kyle

Congress has an agreement for a new missile.  Bet it gets cut.   

But maybe I should sniff around for the Russian Rail launch system or the MX had a ton spent on a rail launch system.

We could just run the car near one of the launch sites pop open and launch.
Bet Jim spits his coffee on that one.

[Zed_Noir]

ICBMs serve as the unparalleled model for long-term storage for launch on demand.  The U.S. has about 450 Minuteman III standing in silos right now, armed and ready.  They've been there for decades.

It's my understanding the Minuteman require replacement of the rocket motors after several years.

[Prober]

Bunch of ideas.....

[Jim]

Still don't see the point of this thread.  What is trying to be accomplished?

[Prober]

Still don't see the point of this thread.  What is trying to be accomplished?

This is brainstorming about using the SRB’s for the first stage, and the positive features of Solids.
2) Rework the negative features of solids

The last couple of posts have shown a new direction of encapsulation of “assembled” solid boosters until needed, and methods on how they are handled.

Q.   Would you store in nitrogen?

Edit: Would also point out from today's news, China is working on a rapid-response launch system.

[Jim]

Segmented solids dont share the features of military solids and actually mutually exclusive.
SRB's exist for one reason, heavy lift.  They are not for rapid response or encapsulation.
Their design precludes encapsulation.  Encapsulated vehicles are ejected for launch?

[Prober]

Segmented solids dont share the features of military solids and actually mutually exclusive.
SRB's exist for one reason, heavy lift.  They are not for rapid response or encapsulation.
Their design precludes encapsulation.  Encapsulated vehicles are ejected for launch?

Encapsulation  = Corrosion resistance in dealing with outside elements, & increase safety in handling.

Rapid response = Solid and 2nd stage ready to go.  Only need to have payload added. 

Rapid launch = Move encapsulated pkg to launch pad remove encapsulation, fuel 2nd stage  and launch.

possible?
                     

[edkyle99]

Segmented solids dont share the features of military solids and actually mutually exclusive.
SRB's exist for one reason, heavy lift.  They are not for rapid response or encapsulation.
Their design precludes encapsulation.  Encapsulated vehicles are ejected for launch?

Yes, the Topol based vehicles are hot-gas ejected from their canisters prior to motor ignition. 

I can envision an alternative encapsulation method, at least for single-segment motor based rockets.  They could be stored ready-to-go in some type of canister (perhaps even a "box") until just before launch, like Topol.  They could then be erected (perhaps using the canister as part of that process) and then the canister could be opened and retracted, leaving the rocket on a launch stand, eliminating the hot gas ejection.  Note that the Pershing II missile used something a bit like this, since the erector-launcher also had a cover used to protect the missile until it was time to erect the missile.

With segmented SRB based motors, the only way I could imagine something like this working would be for the rocket to be pre-stacked and stored vertically inside a retractable enclosure (or canister), which would be a bit clumsy. 

And what is the purpose of launch on demand?  As I understand it, it is to provide quick replacement for satellites that either fail or are destroyed by the enemy during wartime.  Clearly, a big fat rocket sitting on a launch pad for years would also be a big fat target under that scenario.  The solutions are either 1.) launcher mobility like Topol and Pershing, 2.) hardened launch sites like Minuteman, or 3.) prelaunched stealthy satellites hidden and stored in orbit, waiting for power up.  I wonder which among those three would be least vulnerable?

 - Ed Kyle

[Jose]

Bring back the single casting space launch motors!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23718.msg677689#msg677689

[Robotbeat]

They never left: Atlas V, Delta II and IV, etc.

[Lars_J]

Cue realization that a giant first stage SRB (without the massive KSC infrastructure) for a LV is a really bad idea in 3....2....1....

But then again it really should have been realized a couple of pages back...

[Prober]

Bring back the single casting space launch motors!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23718.msg677689#msg677689

was looking at Titan IV and they used 7 segment SRB's.
Don't know much about Titan but the whole system they had is very interesting.

[edkyle99]

Cue realization that a giant first stage SRB (without the massive KSC infrastructure) for a LV is a really bad idea in 3....2....1....

But then again it really should have been realized a couple of pages back...

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

Cue realization that a giant first stage SRB (without the massive KSC infrastructure) for a LV is a really bad idea in 3....2....1....

You can't get away without infrastructure for launching rockets.  Don't care what anyone says,liquid, solid or even the Stratolaunch.

Look at the Stratolaunch infrastructure. 

[Prober]

Segmented solids dont share the features of military solids and actually mutually exclusive.
SRB's exist for one reason, heavy lift.  They are not for rapid response or encapsulation.
Their design precludes encapsulation.  Encapsulated vehicles are ejected for launch?

With segmented SRB based motors, the only way I could imagine something like this working would be for the rocket to be pre-stacked and stored vertically inside a retractable enclosure (or canister), which would be a bit clumsy. 


 - Ed Kyle

Kinda my thinking as well.   Designing a quick removal enclosure would be the real trick.  But its not impossible.

[deltaV]

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

Uh the Falcon Heavy design does all that yet uses no SRBs. Surely it's still paper enough to count as "create a new".

[Lars_J]

Cue realization that a giant first stage SRB (without the massive KSC infrastructure) for a LV is a really bad idea in 3....2....1....

But then again it really should have been realized a couple of pages back...

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

 - Ed Kyle

The only option? Lol... Don't tell Elon.

[Jason1701]

Cue realization that a giant first stage SRB (without the massive KSC infrastructure) for a LV is a really bad idea in 3....2....1....

But then again it really should have been realized a couple of pages back...

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

 - Ed Kyle

The only option? Lol... Don't tell Elon.

Doesn't PWR have some advanced kerosene engines that could be used for such a stage?

[edkyle99]

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

Uh the Falcon Heavy design does all that yet uses no SRBs. Surely it's still paper enough to count as "create a new".

I have tried and tried, but I still can't figure out how that proposed rocket would actually achieve its claimed capabilities.  The news that the first launches from Vandenberg will be basic Falcon 9 rockets seem a clue.  I'm also still wondering about the 28 engine design of the Heavy. 

At any rate, Mr. Musk owns all of his stuff unless the money runs out, so no one but him can use those engines, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

Doesn't PWR have some advanced kerosene engines that could be used for such a stage?

Nothing ready.  Any new engine would require a costly development effort that would take the better part of a decade.

 - Ed Kyle

[Jason1701]

What's the status of RS-84?

[MATTBLAK]

Lockheed-Martin and PWR should talk to EADS about providing a 2x RD-180 powered first stage (Atlas V Phase 2) for their upper stage. Heck, if they put swing-wings, canards and a set of landing gear on it; maybe it could be a flyback booster! Anything would be better than the concept that was most responsible for killing Constellation.

[edkyle99]

What's the status of RS-84?

NASA canceled it eight years ago this coming March.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lars_J]

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

Uh the Falcon Heavy design does all that yet uses no SRBs. Surely it's still paper enough to count as "create a new".

I have tried and tried, but I still can't figure out how that proposed rocket would actually achieve its claimed capabilities.  The news that the first launches from Vandenberg will be basic Falcon 9 rockets seem a clue.  I'm also still wondering about the 28 engine design of the Heavy.

Don't try to sidestep your original silly claim. Even if a FH only meets *half* of its performance claims, it will still match EELV Heavy capability. 

At any rate, Mr. Musk owns all of his stuff unless the money runs out, so no one but him can use those engines, etc.

Another dubious assertion. If someone offered him an engine contract at the right price, I have a hard time seeing how he would refuse it. Besides, SpaceX is through Astrolaunch already entering the market as a sub-contractor supplier of hardware, not just services. 

Now it just seems like you are being stubborn. When you have dug yourself into a hole, stop digging further.

[edkyle99]

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

Uh the Falcon Heavy design does all that yet uses no SRBs. Surely it's still paper enough to count as "create a new".

I have tried and tried, but I still can't figure out how that proposed rocket would actually achieve its claimed capabilities.  The news that the first launches from Vandenberg will be basic Falcon 9 rockets seem a clue.  I'm also still wondering about the 28 engine design of the Heavy.

Don't try to sidestep your original silly claim. Even if a FH only meets *half* of its performance claims, it will still match EELV Heavy capability. 

I did not "sidestep".  My original claim was that "you" couldn't create a new U.S. powered EELV Medium-Heavy launch vehicle without SRB.  You can't even try unless "you" are Elon Musk, but as I mentioned I'm not convinced that Mr. Musk has, or will have, that practical  capability either.  Note that Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 have not met their originally claimed goals.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lars_J]

It depends on the application.  If you wanted to create a new launch vehicle that could lift EELV-Medium to Heavy class mass to orbit, if you wanted to create it with components made in the U.S.A, and if you wanted to avoid a costly big hydrogen first stage, SRB would be the only option.

Uh the Falcon Heavy design does all that yet uses no SRBs. Surely it's still paper enough to count as "create a new".

I have tried and tried, but I still can't figure out how that proposed rocket would actually achieve its claimed capabilities.  The news that the first launches from Vandenberg will be basic Falcon 9 rockets seem a clue.  I'm also still wondering about the 28 engine design of the Heavy.

Don't try to sidestep your original silly claim. Even if a FH only meets *half* of its performance claims, it will still match EELV Heavy capability. 

I did not "sidestep".  My original claim was that "you" couldn't create a new U.S. powered EELV Medium-Heavy launch vehicle without SRB.  You can't even try unless "you" are Elon Musk, but as I mentioned I'm not convinced that Mr. Musk has, or will have, that practical  capability either.  Note that Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 have not met their originally claimed goals.

Oh come on.    Another qualifier to your claim? Unless you are Mr Musk, it can't be done? What does he have - some bizarre superpower that makes it impossible for anyone else to do something similar?

Just admit you made a mistake and move on. I expect better from you.

[Patchouli]

I did not "sidestep".  My original claim was that "you" couldn't create a new U.S. powered EELV Medium-Heavy launch vehicle without SRB.  You can't even try unless "you" are Elon Musk, but as I mentioned I'm not convinced that Mr. Musk has, or will have, that practical  capability either.  Note that Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 have not met their originally claimed goals.

 - Ed Kyle

Sure you could make an EELV class LV without the SRB one solution would be simply mount SSME's or RS 68s on the STS ET.
I'd go with an Atlas classic stage and a half design with the RS-68s boosters and using one or two sustainer SSMEs.

A second option the Atlas V CCB with a US engine in place of the RD-180.
The TR-107 and RS-84 got very close to being finished.
The new more powerful engine could be either detuned or the tanks stretched.
This is probably why PRW pitched a modernized F-1A for SLS as it could be marketed for use on other vehicles.
A single F-1A would be a perfect fit for Atlas phase II.
You also you could use a cluster of RS-27s on a new wider core for a Saturn IB class LV.

The main reason ATK is using an SRB is simply because that is what they already have on hand.
The tooling exists and they already have people experienced in handling them.
Much of the R&D was already paid for by Ares I.

[edkyle99]

Oh come on.    Another qualifier to your claim? Unless you are Mr Musk, it can't be done? What does he have - some bizarre superpower that makes it impossible for anyone else to do something similar?

Just admit you made a mistake and move on. I expect better from you.

I thought my original post was clear enough.  Until a 1 million+ pound thrust kerosene/LOX engine rolls out of a U.S. factory, my post remains an accurate statement.  Only SRB exists now and for the better part of the next decade at least.  It will continue to exist for at least as long as initial SLS is funded, and probably for as long as SLS flies, if it flies.

Mr. Musk's Merlin is fine for small to low-medium class rockets, but as currently configured it is out of its element on a heavy launcher, IMO. 

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

Sure you could make an EELV class LV without the SRB one solution would be simply mount SSME's or RS 68s on the STS ET.

Yes, but in my original post I was talking about a non-LH2 booster solution, using existing U.S. propulsion.   

 - Ed Kyle

[spectre9]

So what is the deal with solids vs RP/LOX?

Seems like RP/LOX rockets have made a big comeback recently.

Atlas V, Falcon 9 and soon Antares 

ATK just seem desperate to hang on to this market share.

Can somebody answer once and for all. Is there a future for these big ATK solids after the boosters for the first flights of SLS are completed?

Something like an expendable RS-84 will be required if NASA wants LRBs on the SLS.

[Patchouli]

Sure you could make an EELV class LV without the SRB one solution would be simply mount SSME's or RS 68s on the STS ET.

Yes, but in my original post I was talking about a non-LH2 booster solution, using existing U.S. propulsion.   

 - Ed Kyle

I covered that there are a few options the TR-107,the RS-84 a little far flung but not really that crazy a modern F-1A.
Then there's the Aerojet AJ26-500.

Existing there is the RS-27A which I believe can be used clustered and five would get you 1M lbs of thrust.
Supposedly the tooling for the RS-56-OBA  still exists four of these should produce the needed thrust.

There are supposedly around 20 F-1 engines left over from Apollo in storage somewhere that could be refurbished.
This should last long enough for a production line to be restarted.

[edkyle99]

Existing there is the RS-27A which I believe can be used clustered and five would get you 1M lbs of thrust.
Supposedly the tooling for the RS-56-OBA  still exists four of these should produce the needed thrust.

The last RS-27A was delivered nearly six years ago.  After its qualification test, Rocketdyne tore down the test stand and and sold off the entire test site at Santa Susanna.  The Atlas booster engines went out of production several years earlier, and their test sites have also been scrapped.  A few months ago, PWR was said to be considering disposing of Canoga Park, the entire Rocketdyne factory.  I haven't heard much about that lately.  There is an enormous "world's largest" autoclave there that was built specifically for F-1 production.  Once it is gone, it's gone.

Five or so RS-27A engines supposedly remain, but they are assigned to potential Delta II builds, if ULA ever wins business for them.  Even if many remained, they would have to be redesigned for clustering.

There are supposedly around 20 F-1 engines left over from Apollo in storage somewhere that could be refurbished.
This should last long enough for a production line to be restarted.

MSFC personnel were looking for F-1 engines to examine during the SLS RAC competition.  I'm not sure any really exist in good enough condition to consider flying.  Most are in museums, partially stripped.   Regardless, getting anything F-1-like running would require a serious development effort.  Just look at J-2X for an example.

The U.S. needs, and has long needed, such an engine.  Until it has one in hand SRB is the only alternative.

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

Existing there is the RS-27A which I believe can be used clustered and five would get you 1M lbs of thrust.
Supposedly the tooling for the RS-56-OBA  still exists four of these should produce the needed thrust.

The last RS-27A was delivered nearly six years ago.  After its qualification test, Rocketdyne tore down the test stand and and sold off the entire test site at Santa Susanna.  The Atlas booster engines went out of production several years earlier, and their test sites have also been scrapped.  A few months ago, PWR was said to be considering disposing of Canoga Park, the entire Rocketdyne factory.  I haven't heard much about that lately.  There is an enormous "world's largest" autoclave there that was built specifically for F-1 production.  Once it is gone, it's gone.

Five or so RS-27A engines supposedly remain, but they are assigned to potential Delta II builds, if ULA ever wins business for them.  Even if many remained, they would have to be redesigned for clustering.

There are supposedly around 20 F-1 engines left over from Apollo in storage somewhere that could be refurbished.
This should last long enough for a production line to be restarted.

MSFC personnel were looking for F-1 engines to examine during the SLS RAC competition.  I'm not sure any really exist in good enough condition to consider flying.  Most are in museums, partially stripped.   Regardless, getting anything F-1-like running would require a serious development effort.  Just look at J-2X for an example.

The U.S. needs, and has long needed, such an engine.  Until it has one in hand SRB is the only alternative.

 - Ed Kyle

I bumped up the sale thread with a link just found.....some decent history pics on it.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26718.15

[Prober]

Transfer from thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27051.165

That's the five-meter diameter DCSS.  It is the most-capable upper stage in the world right now!  It can hold up to 27.2 tonnes of LH2/LOX - nearly twice as much as the Ariane 5 ECA stage and nearly 1.3 times as much as Centaur - and much more than H-2A/B or CZ-3A or GSLV, etc.   It is powered by the 11.2 tonne thrust RL10B-2, currently the world's most efficient upper stage engine being used in flight at roughly 460 seconds specific impulse.

On this flight, the DCSS performed two burns, one 976 seconds long and a second that was 188 seconds long, give or take, for a total of roughly 19.4 minutes (although not all of that may have been full thrust RL10 propulsion).

 - Ed Kyle
=============================

Perk......OH! 

Ed you got me thinking again

[Prober]

Today I was reading the info on the Vega (great video). 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1071.msg856310#new

Made me think this exercise was on the right track and would work if the flight rates were there.