Author Topic: ULA and Boeing Unveil the Atlas V Configuration for the CST-100 Starliner  (Read 46391 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329

USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds.  Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan.   Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass.  What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?

That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.



More mumble jumble nonsense and linking to your own posts

The Ares I study has nothing do with this vehicle.


Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1

USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds.  Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan.   Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass.  What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?

That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.



More mumble jumble nonsense and linking to your own posts

The Ares I study has nothing do with this vehicle.

Do you consult, if not, you may want to consider it!

The code using Titan Data was applied to Ares I.   Could it also be applied to Atlas?

A20 destruct at MET=40s, so we all look forward to understanding how the teams have address the steps to certification with a 4x2 configuration that last flew when?

Quote from: USAF45thSpaceWingStudy
Conclusions a) Re-Confirm Codes. Re-confirm predictive codes & values for solid propellant motor fragmentation, comparing results of the late-1980's joint NASA/DOE/INSRP Explosion Working Group (and related) analyses of solid propellant rocket debris (particularly applied to the Titan and NASA SRB's), and verifying that code accuracy continues into the later 1998 Titan A20 destruct at MET=40s.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329

The code using Titan Data was applied to Ares I.   Could it also be applied to Atlas?


No, not the same size solids.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 474
  • Likes Given: 227
Why did the US adopt a space policy to prevent Atlas/Delta from launching crew?  Besides being a convenient way to maintain excess, expensive launch capacity, did anyone think that solids and crew would not be mixed in the future rockets? Since Earth departure is a very small part of LOC....perhaps yes.
I left the linked portion of that quote because it is relevant as seen below.

Quote
NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters  20 to 30 mT class

So no, there appeared to be no intent to separate crew and solids.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2016 02:49 PM by rayleighscatter »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Why did the US adopt a space policy to prevent Atlas/Delta from launching crew?  Besides being a convenient way to maintain excess, expensive launch capacity, did anyone think that solids and crew would not be mixed in the future rockets? Since Earth departure is a very small part of LOC....perhaps yes.

USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds.  Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan.   Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass.  What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?

That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.
I left the linked portion of that quote because it is relevant as seen below.

Quote
NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters  20 to 30 mT class

So no, there appeared to be no intent to separate crew and solids.
An how did that work out..LAS mass crew larger than the capsule!

You also left out a very import part of the policy: 

Quote from: 2004SpacePolicy
Recognizing the schedule burdens placed on unmanned payloads launched using human rated systems, we understand that the DOD and NASA believe that separating human rated space exploration from unmanned payload launch will best achieve reliable and affordable assured access to space while maintaining our industrial base in both liquid and solid propulsion launch systems.

2. NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters  20 to 30 mT class

a)  each LV would all have their "separate" task-  e.g. keep everything separate to retain excess capacity
     Ares I for LEO crew, HLV for BEO, Atlas Delta for DOD, sats.....very very convenient indeed....

b) Separating human rated space exploration from unmanned payload launch will achieve reliable and affordable space access  (e.g. no crew on Atlas/Delta in 2004...Falcon did not exist)
        - Falcon likely will show that common configurations without 3 engine product lines and no solids is one affordable and reliable way to fly Class A cargo and Crew...
        - 10 flights to reach $100M/flight with Vulcan...
   
c)  Ares I could not loft crew safely, so much for Crew LV with shuttle solids.. so how about that 422/CST-100?

Yes less energy in the Atlas solids creates a smaller debris field volume but really the same physics (F=ma include drag, etc) ....at what time can they explode wrt chute deployment?  Why even bother with all of this?  Oops i forgot, the USG cannot tell the private sector what to do (too many regulations and all) with taxpayer funds.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2016 04:18 PM by muomega0 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
2004SpacePolicy

No need to keep quoting this.  It has been outdated longer ( 8 years) than it was in affect (4years) That was under the previous administration and and no longer relevant.   


        - Falcon likely will show that common configurations without 3 engine product lines and no solids is one affordable and reliable way to fly Class A cargo and Crew...
       

No, it is hasn't


   
c)  Ares I could not loft crew safely, so much for Crew LV with shuttle solids.. so how about that 422/CST-100?

Yes less energy in the Atlas solids creates a smaller debris field volume but really the same physics (F=ma include drag, etc) ....at what time can they explode wrt chute deployment? 

Not even close to the same thing.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2016 04:25 PM by Jim »

Offline vapour_nudge

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Australia
  • Liked: 201
  • Likes Given: 302
Why is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket?
What I meant here was there's a big deal being made of this yet if I were an astronaut heading to space and the engineers said we need to add a skirt, I'd take it as a positive. They found something of concern and dealt with it, even though it adds cost, mass and maybe delay.
Full credit to them please
As for making the LV safer, the mini skirt reduces loads on the Centaur making the LV safer when this particular payload is launched.  You must expect changed conditions if you do away with the fairing. What would you expect?
The various kinds of Atlas vehicles haven't had an outright failure causing total loss of a payload since 93. That's got to count for something. Right now I myself wouldn't trust the F9 or Antares with the cheapest of payloads. With time, I expect I'll change my mind about that if they begin to show some reliability. I would have felt the same about Atlas back in 93. 23 years helps to allay my fears
I hope none of them suffer another launch failure

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12814
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3805
  • Likes Given: 741
As for making the LV safer, the mini skirt reduces loads on the Centaur making the LV safer when this particular payload is launched.  You must expect changed conditions if you do away with the fairing. What would you expect?
In my view, a better solution would have been to properly position the payload to begin with, allowing a longer tapered fairing (or whatever solution solved the problem) that would have prevented the aero-loading in the first place.  This aeroskirt is a tacked-on fix to save schedule (re-positioning the payload would have meant rebuilding the service tower and redesigning umbilicals) for a problem that shouldn't even exist.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/16/2016 02:37 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline sewebster

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • British Columbia
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 134
Is there an extra separation event for the skirt, or was there going to be something similar anyway for some other fairing/adapter?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8401
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4801
  • Likes Given: 1520
As for making the LV safer, the mini skirt reduces loads on the Centaur making the LV safer when this particular payload is launched.  You must expect changed conditions if you do away with the fairing. What would you expect?
In my view, a better solution would have been to properly position the payload to begin with, allowing a longer tapered fairing (or whatever solution solved the problem) that would have prevented the aero-loading in the first place.  This aeroskirt is a tacked-on fix to save schedule (re-positioning the payload would have meant rebuilding the service tower and redesigning umbilicals) for a problem that shouldn't even exist.

 - Ed Kyle
Pardon me? Should not exist? This little problem with CST-100 is not the first time (and IMO it will not be the last either) that a given stack-design turns out to have aero-acoustic trouble identified late in the game.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12814
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3805
  • Likes Given: 741
Is there an extra separation event for the skirt, or was there going to be something similar anyway for some other fairing/adapter?
They've added a separation event for this skirt.  It likely will occur around the time that most Atlas 5 payload fairings separate, I'm supposing.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12814
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3805
  • Likes Given: 741
In my view, a better solution would have been to properly position the payload to begin with, allowing a longer tapered fairing (or whatever solution solved the problem) that would have prevented the aero-loading in the first place.  This aeroskirt is a tacked-on fix to save schedule (re-positioning the payload would have meant rebuilding the service tower and redesigning umbilicals) for a problem that shouldn't even exist.

 - Ed Kyle
Pardon me? Should not exist? This little problem with CST-100 is not the first time (and IMO it will not be the last either) that a given stack-design turns out to have aero-acoustic trouble identified late in the game.
I can't think of an example from any past vehicle that required such a substantial, and atypical, add-on to the design.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
there are some with Orion

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12814
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3805
  • Likes Given: 741
there are some with Orion
Orion itself, with the SM fairings, changes in SM design, etc, but I don't think that SLS itself has seen substantial changes - at least not visible hardware changes.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 579
  • Likes Given: 677
If the skirt is being built by ULA does that make it part of the launch vehicle rather than part of the spacecraft?
-- sdsds --

Offline GWH

Quote from Tory Bruno on reddit regarding skirt:
"The capsule is optimized for its in space mission. The skirt is not really there to make a smooth aerodynamic profile. Its primary job is to move the reattachment of the shock further down the rocket so it will not overload Centaur's soda can thin skin"

https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/57a382/united_launch_alliance_and_the_boeing_company/d8sh6qy?context=3
« Last Edit: 10/17/2016 04:29 PM by GWH »

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Liked: 394
  • Likes Given: 60
there are some with Orion
Orion itself, with the SM fairings, changes in SM design, etc, but I don't think that SLS itself has seen substantial changes - at least not visible hardware changes.

 - Ed Kyle
You're looking at the difference between designing a spacecraft to go on top of a pre-existing launch vehicle design that is outside of the original use concept vs contemporaneous spacecraft and launch vehicle design.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12814
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3805
  • Likes Given: 741
You're looking at the difference between designing a spacecraft to go on top of a pre-existing launch vehicle design that is outside of the original use concept vs contemporaneous spacecraft and launch vehicle design.
My question is, why did the original design of CST-100 with the stumpy adapter pass muster?  They wind tunnel tested it some time back and it was made the baseline design.  What changed, and why?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32378
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11065
  • Likes Given: 329
You're looking at the difference between designing a spacecraft to go on top of a pre-existing launch vehicle design that is outside of the original use concept vs contemporaneous spacecraft and launch vehicle design.
My question is, why did the original design of CST-100 with the stumpy adapter pass muster?  They wind tunnel tested it some time back and it was made the baseline design.  What changed, and why?

 - Ed Kyle

We don't know if it passed muster.  Nothing could have changed, just more testing was done

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 11

USAF 45th Space Wing Study released in 2009 concluded that the Ares I capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds.  Another conclusion is that it re-affirmed the predictive codes of the 1980s, where, to increase performance, solids were added to Titan.   Days after ESAS, and confirmed here, for example, about a year later Ares could not do the job because of LAS mass.  What are the range of times being studied for the destruct button in this 422 configuration?

That is why when Musk revisted Titan I with only one engine type, those who, even serendipitously, knew history, understood its merits.



More mumble jumble nonsense and linking to your own posts

The Ares I study has nothing do with this vehicle.

Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the CST-100 supposed to be designed as a sort of "Orion Lite"?

      Primarily for "shuttle" use to and from the ISS or any other manned facilities or craft that was put in orbit.  While it shared many of the basic lines of the Orion, but never really intended to be used beyond LEO

      Also, my impression was that it was supposed to be a sort of proof of principle craft, mostly to confirm the Orion design and be upgraded as it went.  Sort of a Block I, II, and then III evolution into an Orion-like craft.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags: