-
#100
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Sep, 2013 21:36
-
Here's a question: How in heck are they going to test a 10m fairing? Even the little fairings on Skylab were a challenge, and that is only 6.6m. It's not like they're contemplating building a bigger thermal vacuum chamber, are they?
-
#101
by
RocketmanUS
on 06 Sep, 2013 21:50
-
Here's a question: How in heck are they going to test a 10m fairing? Even the little fairings on Skylab were a challenge, and that is only 6.6m. It's not like they're contemplating building a bigger thermal vacuum chamber, are they?
With Ares V or Direct they were looking at 8.4 or larger fairings.
How were they to be tested? That should be our answer.
-
#102
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 06 Sep, 2013 21:53
-
Shuttle payload capabilities aren't the only reason for diameter limits.
You are developing an annoying habit of replying to my posts with tangents that aren't particularly germane to my actual comments. Please go back and re-read: I was not arguing the points regarding the shortcomings or operational difficulty associated with the large open interior volume of Skylab (and there were a lot more - and more serious ones - than inconvenienced crew getting sort of stuck in the middle; think atmospheric mixing, trace contaminant and major constituent analysis, thermal gradients, smoke and fire detection, etc). For that matter, I was not discussing large volumes at all.
Rather, I was specifically responding to comments regarding the module layout of the ISS made by Lars_J, nothing more.
-
#103
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Sep, 2013 22:11
-
Here's a question: How in heck are they going to test a 10m fairing? Even the little fairings on Skylab were a challenge, and that is only 6.6m. It's not like they're contemplating building a bigger thermal vacuum chamber, are they?
With Ares V or Direct they were looking at 8.4 or larger fairings.
How were they to be tested? That should be our answer.
I've never seen that issue addressed, hence my question.
-
#104
by
joek
on 06 Sep, 2013 22:28
-
While you might want a fairing to encapsulate some payloads, do you need to do that for everything? I'm thinking specifically of hab modules or the like. That is, payloads that are cylindrical and might make do with a conformal coating, some punch-outs, and a nose cap. Other more delicate or not so aerodynamic components such as, e.g., trusses, solar arrays and radiators would likely need to be encapsulated in a PLF and thus require a separate launch and in-space assembly, but the trades are not obvious (at least to me).
-
#105
by
RocketmanUS
on 07 Sep, 2013 01:08
-
Here's a question: How in heck are they going to test a 10m fairing? Even the little fairings on Skylab were a challenge, and that is only 6.6m. It's not like they're contemplating building a bigger thermal vacuum chamber, are they?
With Ares V or Direct they were looking at 8.4 or larger fairings.
How were they to be tested? That should be our answer.
I've never seen that issue addressed, hence my question.
New infrastructure then?
While you might want a fairing to encapsulate some payloads, do you need to do that for everything? I'm thinking specifically of hab modules or the like. That is, payloads that are cylindrical and might make do with a conformal coating, some punch-outs, and a nose cap. Other more delicate or not so aerodynamic components such as, e.g., trusses, solar arrays and radiators would likely need to be encapsulated in a PLF and thus require a separate launch and in-space assembly, but the trades are not obvious (at least to me).
I was thinking something like that since the hab would be made from the SLS tank.
-
#106
by
baldusi
on 07 Sep, 2013 17:26
-
Here's a question: How in heck are they going to test a 10m fairing? Even the little fairings on Skylab were a challenge, and that is only 6.6m. It's not like they're contemplating building a bigger thermal vacuum chamber, are they?
Plum Brook can handle 15m wide stages. Since the fairing would have to separate for testing, I believe it's just big enough. And they've outfitted it with everything. The question is how would they transport the fairing from Michaud to Plum Rock. Not even a Beluga could.
-
#107
by
Robotbeat
on 07 Sep, 2013 17:46
-
Here's a question: How in heck are they going to test a 10m fairing? Even the little fairings on Skylab were a challenge, and that is only 6.6m. It's not like they're contemplating building a bigger thermal vacuum chamber, are they?
Plum Brook can handle 15m wide stages. Since the fairing would have to separate for testing, I believe it's just big enough. And they've outfitted it with everything. The question is how would they transport the fairing from Michaud to Plum Rock. Not even a Beluga could.
are you sure Plum Brook would work? They need a lot of clearance for sep testing. Having been to plum brook and watched videos of the SpaceX fairing test and other large fairing tests there, even 5m diameter looks tight. Skylab's smaller fairings were even more tight, and that was 6.6m. 10m, especially if also tall, seems nearly impossible, though I'll take the word of someone at Plum Brook who has done the detailed analysis. Not only do you have to have the separation work well, you also need to keep the fairing from slamming into the wall. It will definitely be a challenge.
And SpaceX's 5.2m fairing was quite close to the edge of what could reasonably be tested in the new acoustic testing facility at Plum Brook. 10m is completely out of the question: to test the acoustics of a 8 or especially 10m fairing would definitely require a new facility.
-
#108
by
Robotbeat
on 07 Sep, 2013 18:01
-
-
#109
by
BrightLight
on 09 Sep, 2013 20:42
-
Latest Bookout Prezi image confirms that there are at least three DSH simulators being fabricated at MSFC. Note that the SLS derived DSH does not appear to have a docking port for cargo, it does have a MPCV port and a airlock.
-
#110
by
BrightLight
on 09 Sep, 2013 21:07
-
Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
-
#111
by
Lars_J
on 09 Sep, 2013 21:18
-
Here
Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
Here is the PDF of the report, attached:
I have to say that the suggestion of a "Jumbo Logistics Vehicle" (resupply craft using SLS tank!) makes the paper somewhat less credible. ;-)
-
#112
by
Lars_J
on 09 Sep, 2013 21:19
-
Here
Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
Here is the PDF of the report, attached:
I have to say that the suggestion of a "Jumbo Logistics Vehicle" (resupply craft using SLS tank!) makes the paper somewhat less credible.
-
#113
by
BrightLight
on 09 Sep, 2013 21:52
-
Here Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
Here is the PDF of the report, attached:
I have to say that the suggestion of a "Jumbo Logistics Vehicle" (resupply craft using SLS tank!) makes the paper somewhat less credible.
Yes, quite the logistics module, the SLS derived logistics module would have supplies for 4 additional missions - how much does a SLS cost with the logistics module, and does the SLS have the throw weight to launch both the logistics module full of "stuff" and a manned MPCV to EM-2?
-
#114
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Sep, 2013 22:09
-
Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
I find that pretty hard to believe. I cannot believe that a space station module too big to be even tested at existing facilities let alone transported there will be more expensive than one which can essentially use existing parts, is small enough to be transported around easily and use industry-standard test facilities and transport methods..
It's ALWAYS easier to make a new solution look more attractive because all the little details (which is actually where the cost resides) can be hand-waved away. Skylab II clearly has thumbs on the scale, here.
-
#115
by
Khadgars
on 09 Sep, 2013 22:28
-
Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
I find that pretty hard to believe. I cannot believe that a space station module too big to be even tested at existing facilities let alone transported there will be more expensive than one which can essentially use existing parts, is small enough to be transported around easily and use industry-standard test facilities and transport methods..
It's ALWAYS easier to make a new solution look more attractive because all the little details (which is actually where the cost resides) can be hand-waved away. Skylab II clearly has thumbs on the scale, here.
You are assuming the two are mutually exclusive. Would not a lot of the technologies and procedures that were learned from ISS be utilized with Skylab II? The tooling for Skylab II is going to be produced regardless
-
#116
by
BrightLight
on 09 Sep, 2013 22:51
-
Skylab 2 seems like an excellent choice moving forward. Good to see some trade studies and work being done on this. Any early cost estimates?
The Griffin Skylab II on 3-27-13 FISO report (pg 15) quotes the ISS derived DSH cost as $4.175B versus the Skylab II cost of $2.0B.
the FISO reports can be found here: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
I find that pretty hard to believe. I cannot believe that a space station module too big to be even tested at existing facilities let alone transported there will be more expensive than one which can essentially use existing parts, is small enough to be transported around easily and use industry-standard test facilities and transport methods..
It's ALWAYS easier to make a new solution look more attractive because all the little details (which is actually where the cost resides) can be hand-waved away. Skylab II clearly has thumbs on the scale, here.
You are assuming the two are mutually exclusive. Would not a lot of the technologies and procedures that were learned from ISS be utilized with Skylab II? The tooling for Skylab II is going to be produced regardless
It's difficult to understand the pros and cons for either approach given the limited funding figures, nevertheless the argument in favor of Skylab II appears to be the cost for logistics ( SLS tooling exists while the ISS derived requires MPLM module build and LV costs). In theory, the Skylab will be packed for four missions before re-supply is necessary, reducing launch and MPLM costs - supposedly by $2.1B. I don't know the cost for a re-supply SLS module (I hope its not $2.1B
)
-
#117
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Sep, 2013 23:11
-
Skylab 2 is using just the fracking pressure vessel as the basis, then waves hands and says it will be much cheaper. The pressure vessel itself is a tiny portion of the cost.
-
#118
by
john smith 19
on 10 Sep, 2013 11:32
-
If NASA wants a real exploration programme then this is clearly a key element of it to move into long duration deep space, not just BEO but beyond Lunar orbit..
The question is where is the
budget for this?
-
#119
by
BrightLight
on 10 Sep, 2013 14:46
-
If NASA wants a real exploration programme then this is clearly a key element of it to move into long duration deep space, not just BEO but beyond Lunar orbit..
The question is where is the budget for this?
Even worse, the present simulation budget took a big hit so that long-lead items in 2014 will be delayed.
)
