Liberty Re-Dux ?

[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.