Liberty Re-Dux ?

[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?