Author Topic: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:  (Read 17448 times)

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #20 on: 08/15/2005 04:46 PM »
Is there another document in the works?
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Online Chris Bergin

RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #21 on: 08/15/2005 06:31 PM »
Yes, there is another to come relevant to the 60 day study.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #22 on: 08/25/2005 08:01 PM »
The name Magnum has been around. That was Bill Eoff's baby at Marshall--before the Dennis Smith/Dan Dumbacher crowd gave us X-33, the SLI make work fiasco--and the X-37/SLI nonsense that won't die. Lockheed's CEV is just a warmed over OSP.

Griffin is a tough man--and NASA is in good hands. I have been an HLLV supporter for years--and I am very happy.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #23 on: 09/03/2005 05:13 AM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 15/8/2005  2:31 PM

Yes, there is another to come relevant to the 60 day study.

What is the projected release date for the 60 Day study?

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 54

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #25 on: 09/11/2005 06:19 PM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 3/9/2005  1:13 AM

What is the projected release date for the 60 Day study?

I recall reading on NASAWatch that the 60 Day Study isn't a single document, and won't be released in one hit.   It's a series of docs, each with a specific target audience, and each one will be presented to the relevant teams.

Like you, I'm hoping to see the whole lot though - and I think sooner or later we'll get all the documents collected together somewhere.   I think NASA should collect them all together itself and put them all in the public domain ASAP.   But my opinion doesn't carry much weight...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #26 on: 09/11/2005 11:44 PM »
This problem is the media is not our friend. Until they get behind us, they won't get favors.

And people wonder why most of us talk here and not on older sites?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #27 on: 09/14/2005 05:55 PM »
Now to get MAF on track and pay for HLLV out of an "Aerospace Recovery Act" to get some of that $50 billion.
Best and brightest first--then levees.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5

Offline gyro2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #29 on: 10/03/2005 04:45 AM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 28/9/2005  2:17 PM

Here is an interesting image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/NASA_launch_vehicle_comparison.jpg

That's got to be the Magnum then cause the Longfellow is taller than a Saturn V I think?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #30 on: 10/04/2005 03:13 AM »
Quote
gyro2020 - 3/10/2005  12:45 AM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 28/9/2005  2:17 PM

Here is an interesting image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/NASA_launch_vehicle_comparison.jpg

That's got to be the Magnum then cause the Longfellow is taller than a Saturn V I think?

Magnum used SSME main engines, Longfellow used RS-68 main engines - so if Griffin's comments in his presentation are correct (no reason to suspect they aren't) - this SDLV would appear to be Magnum; just on steroids! ;)

The upper stage length was always somewhat variable for both Magnum and Longfellow.   Once you've decided on a stretched ET and a 35m long payload container, the upper stage length becomes the key factor to the overall height of the rocket.

I suspect that particular picture shows the final upper stage size which has been carefully calculated as the optimum for maximizing payload to the right orbits which NASA wants.

I'd guess they've already carefully "run the numbers" and decided that that particular capacity offers the best possible performance.

And that configuration sure looks a few feet shorter than a Sat-V.   Still around 100m tall though, which will be very impressive to watch fly.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 513
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #31 on: 10/04/2005 04:30 AM »
If they intend to continue to use the VAB for assembly (which it appears they're planning on) there will have to be an overall height limit (as long as the booster performance can be met).

It will be interesting to see what type of modifications might be planned for the Mobile Launch Platforms - will they go back to an Apollo-like tower on the platform(s), or modify the fixed service structure and continue to leave the MLP's bare of any large towers?


Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #32 on: 10/04/2005 04:45 AM »
Quote
MKremer - 4/10/2005  12:30 AM

If they intend to continue to use the VAB for assembly (which it appears they're planning on) there will have to be an overall height limit (as long as the booster performance can be met).

It will be interesting to see what type of modifications might be planned for the Mobile Launch Platforms - will they go back to an Apollo-like tower on the platform(s), or modify the fixed service structure and continue to leave the MLP's bare of any large towers?



Just wondering if there was a design life on the MLP's. If I recall a few STS flights back (got to be, 3 plus years ago) there was a rupture of the LH2 line.. So from a safety viewpoint, I was wondering if a new MLP was needed?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #33 on: 10/04/2005 04:28 PM »
Quote
MKremer - 4/10/2005  12:30 AM

If they intend to continue to use the VAB for assembly (which it appears they're planning on) there will have to be an overall height limit (as long as the booster performance can be met).

It will be interesting to see what type of modifications might be planned for the Mobile Launch Platforms - will they go back to an Apollo-like tower on the platform(s), or modify the fixed service structure and continue to leave the MLP's bare of any large towers?


Someone else asked that, and from my day-job I worked out the sizes.   Given the current height of the MLP deck, and the size of the high-bay door, the tallest thing which can go through is 124.6m.   I'd use that 0.6m for safety-margin though, so 124m max.

As for a tower, yes - for such a large beast some form of stabilisation tower will be necessary during the rollout.   Also access to the payload is likely required at the pad (unless every bit of the payload processing could be done entirely insde the VAB somehow?), not to mention fuel lines to the upper stage above the elongated ET stage.

All the MLP's had a major re-fit during the down-time after STS-107 and are in the best shape they've been in for probably 20-30 years.

The main structure would still be an ideal base for the new SDLV, although it will require some serious metal-bending to change the arrangement of exhaust chambers through the deck for the main engines to be located directly under the ET instead of hanging on the side on an orbiter.   Thats a job sizable enough for the Army Corps of Engineers I'd say.

Internally, all the equipment there now will probably have to be completely gutted before the re-engineering of the main structure can take place.   Then some of it would probably find a home in the re-designed MLP, but almost all of the plumbing and wiring internally would change radically from current design.

The Pad would need changing in many ways too.   I'd suspect that the old Saturn-V "Extensible Columns" concept of four extra support columns inboard around the edge of the flame trench will have to be revived for supporting such a heavy rocket, for a total number of 10 'legs'.

Also, more LOX & LH2 lines will need to be routed through the MLP to the rocket.   One set for the ET, another for the upper stage.

And venting off the gasses will need looking at too - there won't be a tip for a beanie cap...

I would think they'll probably go for a smaller tower than they had for Apollo though.   Something with a single elevator, and probably tapering to a point about three-quarters up the Payload canister would be my guess, and a real bit lightening mast atop that.

I don't think there will be such complex Service Arms as on the Apollo tower though - they aren't really necessary.

For my money, I'd like a simple system where the rocket and payload are COMPLETELY pre-prepared inside the VAB, rolled out, simple connections are made to the fuel and electrical lines, and then it is launched within just a few days.   But that'd be sensible and we all know that wouldn't do... ;)
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 513
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #34 on: 10/06/2005 07:11 AM »
I think it could end up being more efficient and cost-effective to build one or more new MLP's, depending on how much the current ones need to be modified.

Quote
For my money, I'd like a simple system where the rocket and payload are COMPLETELY pre-prepared inside the VAB, rolled out, simple connections are made to the fuel and electrical lines, and then it is launched within just a few days. But that'd be sensible and we all know that wouldn't do...
That's my thinking, too. If you consider the Apollo LM as the 'payload', the Saturn was completely integrated and tested while still in the VAB. The inline SDLV will probably be transported 'complete' to the pad - to do otherwise would require a massive (and very tall) pad support structure.

Offline cwal

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #35 on: 10/07/2005 07:27 PM »
Since most of the shuttle facilities need modified to support the inline SDLV (the MLP's, the VAB, pads 39a & 39b), I hope someone plans for future expansion and designs everything to support a four SRB inline vehicle. The 109 ton payload of the two SRB vehicle is sufficient for a return to the moon but the extra payload of a four SRB vehicle would be VERY useful for a lunar base or manned Mars mission

Offline JPL-Jones

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #36 on: 10/08/2005 06:20 AM »
I believe that will be the case. The biggest I've seen seperate to the AIAA document is a 4x5 seg SRB plus 4xSSME, in-line extended ET with payload upper and second stage holding 190 MT and 2x J2S (if I remember correctly) I think 190 MT was liberal on possible capability. Sure would be a monster.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #37 on: 10/08/2005 03:53 PM »
Quote
cwal - 7/10/2005  3:27 PM

Since most of the shuttle facilities need modified to support the inline SDLV (the MLP's, the VAB, pads 39a & 39b), I hope someone plans for future expansion and designs everything to support a four SRB inline vehicle. The 109 ton payload of the two SRB vehicle is sufficient for a return to the moon but the extra payload of a four SRB vehicle would be VERY useful for a lunar base or manned Mars mission

That has been my 'baby' for quite a while now.

There are no current plans for such an 11m lb thrust beast - however, the modifications to the pad are not really all that extensive and could be done relatively straight-forwardly once the mods are in place for the new SDLV anyhow.

Ultimately though, they won't go for it unless there is a very specific requirement to launch 240 tons in a single launch which can't be done by launching two 125 ton payloads separately.   I doubt there's that much requirement myself, but I sure would like to see such a massive vehicle fly.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #38 on: 10/08/2005 03:57 PM »
Quote
JPL-Jones - 8/10/2005  2:20 AM

I believe that will be the case. The biggest I've seen seperate to the AIAA document is a 4x5 seg SRB plus 4xSSME, in-line extended ET with payload upper and second stage holding 190 MT and 2x J2S (if I remember correctly) I think 190 MT was liberal on possible capability. Sure would be a monster.

I ran the numbers for launches myself, and I predicted that the ultimate payload for such a monster configuration was closer to 240MT, 51.6deg, 407km (ISS orbit).

I guess it all depends on whether they can make a small enough nuclear propulsion unit for Mars missions to fit on the 125MT SDLV.   If not, then this beast is waiting in the wings to fulfill that requirement.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: SDLV/CEV document comment thread:
« Reply #39 on: 10/12/2005 10:45 PM »
If it were up to me It would be under contract first--with the Stick coming later. I think JSF and DD/X--and the missile defense budget needs to go to HLLV until it is done.

Tags: