-
#220
by
LouScheffer
on 06 Oct, 2014 17:29
-
Finally, there is the concern that termination overpressure might shower people with broken window glass. Rather than prohibit solids, maybe the right thing to do is fix the windows. They could be replaced with safety glass, or there are films designed for just this purpose.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets-Products/Residential/Safety-Security_Window_Films/ that could be used to retrofit existing windows. If you needed to retrofit 100,000 windows (which seems really high) at $100 each, that is still only $10 million.
Not feasible. This constraint is for the surrounding communities. They are not for the launch site to fix nor to maintain. The range has no way of ensuring that every window is in compliance.
Everyone within 20,000 feet can already be forced to evacuate. From
http://www.accomackcojlus.com/Images/TAC%20Meeting%20Summary-11-7-13.pdf page 3:
Josh then explained the buffer zones for launches, including protection from debris (non‐essential personnel and vehicles must be removed) for the 10,000‐foot hazard zone. Controlled roadblocks are typically required. The 20,000‐foot hazard zone has to do with toxic gases for launch day specific risks and could require residents within the zone to stay in their houses, or perhaps, even leave the premises for the event. A risk analysis is conducted for every launch, including people, houses and window counts
I suspect if you told them "If you let us replace/film your windows, you won't need to evacuate for every launch" then a lot of them would take you up. The others would need to be evacuated, as they can be now.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41642all-solid-antares-would-require-changes-to-wallops-pad-safety-rules
How large is the worst case overpressure area? This article says only "many kilometers"
Good question. The largest overpressure distance to date was LADEE at 2.7 km (9000 feet).
A map (on page 62 of the document above) shows that NASA field verified every structure within 5 km (~16400 feet), showing it on the map as a purple dot. It would appear there are less than 100 of them, almost all farms. Retrofitting these does not seem an expensive project. It also shows the 20,000 foot (6.1 km) radius in which people can already be required to evacuate. This appears to contain (by rough count) perhaps 300 structures.
-
#221
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2014 17:46
-
Everyone within 20,000 feet can already be forced to evacuate.
I suspect if you told them "If you let us replace/film your windows, you won't need to evacuate for every launch" then a lot of them would take you up. The others would need to be evacuated, as they can be now.
Not the same boundary. Blast zone is larger than launch danger zone. Titusville is not evacuated for launches, yet there have been range no-gos for blast.
-
#222
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2014 17:48
-
Finally, there is the concern that termination overpressure might shower people with broken window glass. Rather than prohibit solids, maybe the right thing to do is fix the windows. They could be replaced with safety glass, or there are films designed for just this purpose.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Window_Film/Solutions/Markets-Products/Residential/Safety-Security_Window_Films/ that could be used to retrofit existing windows. If you needed to retrofit 100,000 windows (which seems really high) at $100 each, that is still only $10 million.
Not feasible. This constraint is for the surrounding communities. They are not for the launch site to fix nor to maintain. The range has no way of ensuring that every window is in compliance.
Everyone within 20,000 feet can already be forced to evacuate. From
http://www.accomackcojlus.com/Images/TAC%20Meeting%20Summary-11-7-13.pdf page 3:
Josh then explained the buffer zones for launches, including protection from debris (non‐essential personnel and vehicles must be removed) for the 10,000‐foot hazard zone. Controlled roadblocks are typically required. The 20,000‐foot hazard zone has to do with toxic gases for launch day specific risks and could require residents within the zone to stay in their houses, or perhaps, even leave the premises for the event. A risk analysis is conducted for every launch, including people, houses and window counts
I suspect if you told them "If you let us replace/film your windows, you won't need to evacuate for every launch" then a lot of them would take you up. The others would need to be evacuated, as they can be now.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/41642all-solid-antares-would-require-changes-to-wallops-pad-safety-rules
How large is the worst case overpressure area? This article says only "many kilometers"
Good question. The largest overpressure distance to date was LADEE at 2.7 km (9000 feet).
A map (on page 62 of the document above) shows that NASA field verified every structure within 5 km (~16400 feet), showing it on the map as a purple dot. It would appear there are less than 100 of them, almost all farms. Retrofitting these does not seem an expensive project. It also shows the 20,000 foot (6.1 km) radius in which people can already be required to evacuate. This appears to contain (by rough count) perhaps 300 structures.
Not the same boundaries. Blast zone is larger than launch danger zone. Titusville is not evacuated for launches, yet there have been range no-gos for blast.
Simply not feasible. The range has no way of ensuring that every window is in compliance even if they are replaced, there are other factors in play. There is no "configuration control".
-
#223
by
gospacex
on 06 Oct, 2014 19:42
-
like this comment left on that article 
"Four Years" my foot! Bet somebody could have something runable off the shelf in nine months or less ... if they were properly motivated.
The commenter you mention is obviously not aware of the process to certify a high pressure staged combustion engine. It took Glushko/Energomash nine years to get RD-170 from concept to flight (on a Zenit initially) and eleven years to fly it on Energia.
AJ doesn't need to develop a new engine from scratch. They need to only reimplement NK-33 with modern manufacturing techniques. Big difference.
-
#224
by
baldusi
on 06 Oct, 2014 20:25
-
like this comment left on that article
"Four Years" my foot! Bet somebody could have something runable off the shelf in nine months or less ... if they were properly motivated.
The commenter you mention is obviously not aware of the process to certify a high pressure staged combustion engine. It took Glushko/Energomash nine years to get RD-170 from concept to flight (on a Zenit initially) and eleven years to fly it on Energia.
AJ doesn't need to develop a new engine from scratch. They need to only reimplement NK-33 with modern manufacturing techniques. Big difference.
Doing that means a whole new certification process. But above all, it requires a new factory with modern tooling. AJ doesn't has anything like what's needed for making a new version of the NK-33. They would need a new factory. Part of the wonderful performance of the NK-33 is the corrugated metal construction of the nozzle and combustion chamber. It requires an extremely big and heavy press, with extremely expensive dies. Since the N-1 project required hundreds of engines, the manufacturing method was reasonable for the Soviets. I don't think it would be economical for Antare's needs.
BTW, you have to compare the certification of RD-180, since they already have the RD-191 done to base of the RD-181. It took 42 months from start to finish. And now the the RD-181 or RD-193 could be done much rapidly since the tooling at NPO Energomash is readily available, the test stands are there and certified and they would need just to adapt existing designs.
-
#225
by
LouScheffer
on 06 Oct, 2014 20:31
-
Simply not feasible. The range has no way of ensuring that every window is in compliance even if they are replaced, there are other factors in play. There is no "configuration control".
On the contrary, there *is* "configuration control" for civilian structures. They are called "building codes". With the cooperation of the local community, the building codes could be modified to state "every building within five (5) km of an active launch complex must employ non-shattering windows". Then after an initial inspection, it's the owner's job to ensure this.
This is exactly how safety critical stuff like smoke alarms and fire doors are implemented. If I, or a contractor, change something in my house it's our responsibility for following the rules.
-
#226
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2014 20:33
-
On the contrary, there *is* "configuration control" for civilian structures. They are called "building codes". With the cooperation of the local community, the building codes could be modified to state "every building within five (5) km of an active launch complex must employ non-shattering windows". Then after an initial inspection, it's the owner's job to ensure this.
Wrong, that is not "configuration control". There is no way to ensure all buildings are up to code. Building codes are not backwards enforceable. Municipal inspectors do not make regular visits to private homes. Codes only come into effect during new construction or sale of the property.
Also, cooperation of the local communities is not a given. Nor would NASA or range impose such requirements.
-
#227
by
LouScheffer
on 06 Oct, 2014 20:40
-
Titusville is not evacuated for launches, yet there have been range no-gos for blast.
Sure, but how often does this happen, compared to other weather holds? For Wallops, presumably the procedure would be to establish some fixed limit (it looks like NASA was contemplating 5 km, based on their map). Then the question would be how often the overpressure zone exceeds this limit. A delay every so often might be more acceptable than having to move the whole operation to a more isolated area.
-
#228
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2014 20:46
-
Doing that means a whole new certification process.
What certification? The vehicle has yet to go through any process for NASA or USAF.
-
#229
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2014 20:50
-
Titusville is not evacuated for launches, yet there have been range no-gos for blast.
Sure, but how often does this happen, compared to other weather holds? For Wallops, presumably the procedure would be to establish some fixed limit (it looks like NASA was contemplating 5 km, based on their map). Then the question would be how often the overpressure zone exceeds this limit. A delay every so often might be more acceptable than having to move the whole operation to a more isolated area.
That was my point. Trades will have to be done on the launch commit criteria and pad location. For Wallops, there will be a vehicle size limit due to the limited areas for pads and the close proximity of occupied residences.
Instituting a window upgrade is not in the trade space.
-
#230
by
LouScheffer
on 06 Oct, 2014 21:31
-
Also, cooperation of the local communities is not a given. Nor would NASA or range impose such requirements.
Have you been to a city council meeting lately? Where I live, if Orbital came to the meeting and said 500 jobs were contingent on some minor modification to building codes, that the change would affect at most 100 voters, that they would pay for the required changes, and perhaps some extra to the property owners for their trouble, then the ink on the changes would be dry long before the end of the meeting. And of course if this was needed, Orbital would make sure the changes were enacted before they signed any big contract.
Wrong, that is not "configuration control". There is no way to ensure all buildings are up to code. Building codes are not backwards enforceable. Municipal inspectors do not make regular visits to private homes. Codes only come into effect during new construction or sale of the property.
Although configuration control and building codes are different, they achieve the same objective - to make sure certain safety requirements are implemented and obeyed. There is nothing that prevents the city/county from making the changes backwards enforceable and subject to inspection for businesses (see smoke detectors or handicap accessibility for examples). Private homes that have not changed hands are typically unaffected by code changes, but this number should be small enough that negotiation, or even purchase, may be practical. And any holdouts that refuse retrofits can simply be evacuated, as they can be now.
-
#231
by
baldusi
on 06 Oct, 2014 21:33
-
Doing that means a whole new certification process.
What certification? The vehicle has yet to go through any process for NASA or USAF.
I was talking about the engine certification. Aerojet had to certify the AJ-26 for OSC. If they did a new version, they would have to redo it. Incremental, but new none the less.
-
#232
by
Antares
on 07 Oct, 2014 03:12
-
Man, telling people they have to retrofit their houses, even not at their expense, is the most statist thing I've read on NSF.
-
#233
by
gospacex
on 07 Oct, 2014 09:36
-
like this comment left on that article
"Four Years" my foot! Bet somebody could have something runable off the shelf in nine months or less ... if they were properly motivated.
The commenter you mention is obviously not aware of the process to certify a high pressure staged combustion engine. It took Glushko/Energomash nine years to get RD-170 from concept to flight (on a Zenit initially) and eleven years to fly it on Energia.
AJ doesn't need to develop a new engine from scratch. They need to only reimplement NK-33 with modern manufacturing techniques. Big difference.
Doing that means a whole new certification process. But above all, it requires a new factory with modern tooling. AJ doesn't has anything like what's needed for making a new version of the NK-33. They would need a new factory. Part of the wonderful performance of the NK-33 is the corrugated metal construction of the nozzle and combustion chamber. It requires an extremely big and heavy press, with extremely expensive dies.
Still, this doesn't require 5 years. It requires "only" money.
I did read the history of RD-170 development. It was so long because for a very long time, the engine prototypes they designed and tested, simply did not work. They experienced failure after failure. At some point, some engineers lose faith that it can ever be made to work.
AJ's situation is *far* easier. They *know* the engine can be made - they have a working example before their eyes.
-
#234
by
baldusi
on 07 Oct, 2014 15:53
-
like this comment left on that article
"Four Years" my foot! Bet somebody could have something runable off the shelf in nine months or less ... if they were properly motivated.
The commenter you mention is obviously not aware of the process to certify a high pressure staged combustion engine. It took Glushko/Energomash nine years to get RD-170 from concept to flight (on a Zenit initially) and eleven years to fly it on Energia.
AJ doesn't need to develop a new engine from scratch. They need to only reimplement NK-33 with modern manufacturing techniques. Big difference.
Doing that means a whole new certification process. But above all, it requires a new factory with modern tooling. AJ doesn't has anything like what's needed for making a new version of the NK-33. They would need a new factory. Part of the wonderful performance of the NK-33 is the corrugated metal construction of the nozzle and combustion chamber. It requires an extremely big and heavy press, with extremely expensive dies.
Still, this doesn't require 5 years. It requires "only" money.
I did read the history of RD-170 development. It was so long because for a very long time, the engine prototypes they designed and tested, simply did not work. They experienced failure after failure. At some point, some engineers lose faith that it can ever be made to work.
AJ's situation is *far* easier. They *know* the engine can be made - they have a working example before their eyes.
Time and money. It still, at best, a four years project. They have to specify, design, approve, build, install and commission a whole new factory. How long do you thing it would take? And first they have to know what they need. Which pieces can be 3D printed? Which pieces simplified? Which parts ar too expensive to do in small batched and have to be replaced with other construction version? Which materials are available in the US? Which test stands will they use for prototype development? The prototype engines are horrid test stand queens. And you still need to keep testing those AJ-26, and repairing the stand when one of those goes kaboom. Can you share it for burp tests, and stability tests?
Look at the RD-180 project. They had the preburner and thrust chamber done. They just needed to develop a new turbopump. With the factory that was already tooled and all the flow working. Aerojet doesn't have that. They only have the RS-68, RL-10 and (may be) the RS-25D/E line. How much of it can be applied without being a new development?
-
#235
by
Lars-J
on 07 Oct, 2014 16:01
-
Yep, rebuilding a rocket engine to match an existing one is not an easy thing. Manufacturing differences alone will make it difficult. Then you have the "why don't we improve it this way" feature creep - see J-2X.
No, I fully expect O-ATK to select a solid replacement of the first stage.
-
#236
by
edkyle99
on 07 Oct, 2014 16:21
-
Man, telling people they have to retrofit their houses, even not at their expense, is the most statist thing I've read on NSF.
Agreed. The glass thing is about preventing someone from being killed by flying glass in the event of an explosion. No one is going to sign off on a local ordinance or code that allows people to live under such conditions and requirements. Either NASA buys the surrounding properties and moves everyone out, or a big solid thing doesn't fly from Wallops. And why should it? KSC already has the site for such motors and it isn't being used much right now. Then again, I suspect Orbital is soon going to announce a liquid engine plan for future Antares.
- Ed Kyle
-
#237
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 08 Oct, 2014 17:19
-
OK. Reading some tea leaves here to posit ways that Cygnus CRS missions keep flying.
It is interesting to consider how far to take existing Antares (w/o modification). It is possible to extend the existing contract for the stretched Cygnus using all available NK33/43 engines, fed through AR to become AJ-26's. This would work for governments and existing contracts for many, many reasons I don't wish to get into. In fact, it is the most sensible way of postponing this issue indefinitely. The net effect of such would mean that CRS-2 would deal with the remainder of need, which would fit with Dragon 1 and commercial crew offerings for such additional need, which would be somewhat less than if CRS-1 concluded entirely before CRS-2 would come on. Also, Antares re engining would likely also be postponed.
As to Falcon 9 launching of Cygnus, it is true that both companies work together on other payloads already. This might be a fall back for the above coming off as well. But the idea of the CRS contracts is as a full up bid of vehicle(s) as a service that is supplied. Beyond contingency, things get screwed up as an economical business decision for both. Which is why it wouldn't happen for CRS-2.
A different way to read the tea leaves.
I think the original plan was either a) the Russians backed down geopolitically and things went back to the way they were before, or they didn't and you got special dispensation for flying a bigger solid stack off 0B at WFF.
Neither happened. Which is why I mentioned the above post. A way of temporizing the issue away.
There is no way to conveniently deal with launch facilities for solids that suit economic and timeline issues, either at WFF or CCAFS. The ATK EELV solid "option" is simply a disguised means to open up an avenue to press this issue hard.
There is no way to domestically re engine Antares in time for a CRS 2 bid, as well as other potential launch services. Best you can do is one big "salvage" deal to get all the NK-33ish you can in one spurt and stretch "what appears to work" as long as possible.
Which might explain why the imminent announcement of this from Orbital keeps getting put off. In the large scheme of things, it doesn't matter. To the degree that it does matter, one stretches the "old" deal, past the breaking point.
-
#238
by
Skyrocket
on 16 Oct, 2014 15:50
-
-
#239
by
arachnitect
on 16 Oct, 2014 15:59
-
Why so coy Orbital?
Smart money still on RD-181
