-
#20
by
Downix
on 22 Mar, 2012 18:36
-
Well, D4H seems like the likely choice. My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does. Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon). If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser? Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even. Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying.
AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record. AV is already getting the things done to man rate. So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too.
I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage. That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights.
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser.
So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated? Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated. But that might not be the case....
Cheaper and faster to develop and fly AVH even before AV is man-rated. Note, ULA is already doing the work to allow DCSS to be used on the Atlas V per their development roadmap, opening up more options there.
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
-
#21
by
TomH
on 22 Mar, 2012 19:08
-
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility. If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
-
#22
by
Downix
on 22 Mar, 2012 19:14
-
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility. If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
-
#23
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Mar, 2012 19:40
-
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn. As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility. If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.
-
#24
by
QuantumG
on 22 Mar, 2012 20:40
-
Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability.
Tasked with? OMB beat to Griffin's drum, not the other way around.
-
#25
by
TomH
on 22 Mar, 2012 20:49
-
That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.
Understand and agree with both. OTOH, how practical would it be to set in place a man rated LV that can get the lighter version S/M Orion to LEO, but not the standard version? Would it not be more pragmatic to have an LV that could accomplish both?
-
#26
by
Downix
on 22 Mar, 2012 21:27
-
That depends on what role you are using Orion for. Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law. The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.
Understand and agree with both. OTOH, how practical would it be to set in place a man rated LV that can get the lighter version S/M Orion to LEO, but not the standard version? Would it not be more pragmatic to have an LV that could accomplish both?
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system. The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already. The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless, while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
-
#27
by
TomH
on 22 Mar, 2012 21:55
-
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...
Already knew this part.
The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?
-
#28
by
Downix
on 22 Mar, 2012 22:05
-
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher. From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas. It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...
Already knew this part.
The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?
You got it, although the 552 can carry the full Orion, but with reduced capability due to the use of the SM engine for final orbital burn. (good way to do a full test however) You can also carry the full Orion, without a crew (hence no LAS) without use of the SM for orbital burn. Handy for a reboost/crew rescue mission to the ISS.
-
#29
by
RocketmanUS
on 22 Mar, 2012 22:11
-
So AV552 for short term ( LEO ) and the possible future 5m single core Atlas phase II with or without solid boosters for BEO missions.
-
#30
by
TomH
on 22 Mar, 2012 23:38
-
Assuming Orion always went to EOR on something else, how much would be saved if SLS were cargo only and never had to be man rated?
-
#31
by
Downix
on 23 Mar, 2012 00:35
-
Assuming Orion always went to EOR on something else, how much would be saved if SLS were cargo only and never had to be man rated?
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
-
#32
by
QuantumG
on 23 Mar, 2012 01:07
-
Imagine the sunshine and rainbows* if commercial crew was on the critical path for deep space exploration.
* and moonbeams too I guess..
-
#33
by
TomH
on 23 Mar, 2012 01:41
-
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.
The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)
-
#34
by
Robotbeat
on 23 Mar, 2012 01:48
-
Imagine the sunshine and rainbows* if commercial crew was on the critical path for deep space exploration.
* and moonbeams too I guess..
The smaller commercial crew capsules (i.e. CST-100 and Dragon) would actually be a better fit in some architectures merely because they're smaller/less-massive than Orion.
Of course, Orion has different requirements (and thus capabilities) than the commercial capsules since Orion's requirements were driven by the Constellation architecture. For instance, Orion has a lot more innate delta-V capability than the other capsules. But it also is a heavier and more expensive spacecraft.
There may indeed be places in deep space exploration where the commercial crew vehicles (with beefed up heatshield) would fit better technically.
Of course, once commercial crew is already developed, the risk to putting it on the critical path for exploration is a lot less.
-
#35
by
RocketmanUS
on 23 Mar, 2012 01:56
-
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.
The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)
We are better off leaving SLS as is. Once it is flying then we could possible us another launcher available at that time to launch Orion for EOR.
-
#36
by
Downix
on 23 Mar, 2012 02:05
-
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.
And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.
The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch. Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)
We are better off leaving SLS as is. Once it is flying then we could possible us another launcher available at that time to launch Orion for EOR.
Correct. The less we change, the less delays will happen. I keep my AJAX stuff close now so as to not rock the boat. I may not like SLS as is, but I don't find it a critical failure waiting to happen either. And if there is an issue, AJAX is still waiting.
-
#37
by
TomH
on 23 Mar, 2012 02:33
-
I understand the rationale. Still, $2-3B for EDS/human rating is an astounding amount to spend when there is a way not only to save the money, but to do things better.
-
#38
by
sdsds
on 23 Mar, 2012 04:57
-
I understand the rationale. Still, $2-3B for EDS/human rating is an astounding amount to spend when there is a way not only to save the money, but to do things better.
You should be aware that from the perspective of many analysts there is
not a way to "save the money" and "do things better." Yes, there is a less expensive and higher quality
technical solution, but that solution doesn't solve the organizational and funding problems.
As regards Dr. Griffin: hate him if you must; hate his solution if you choose to do so. But recognize that at least he was trying to solve the problem in all three domains (technical, organizational, and funding) simultaneously.
-
#39
by
RocketmanUS
on 23 Mar, 2012 20:12
-
Looking back
We could have human rated the Atlas V similar to what we are for ISS crew and supply. ( Concentrate on shuttle LEO replacement first then equipment needed for BEO ).
Made a new VAB and launch pad that would work for both the new human rated Atlas V and future Atlas phase II ( single core Orion ISS, triple core BEO ).
That is looking back. As for now we could launch the Orion unmanned and use commercial crew to send to Orion in space. Orion is designed to stay in space for a long time ( more than most talked about lunar missions ). So how much does an Orion escape tower cost?
