Human Rated Atlas V for Bigelow Space Station details emerge

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5008

Presentation in downloadable pdf form on L2. Active updates on Atlas HR/Bigelow also in there.

[Smatcha]

Good, paper I was in the audience when they presented it.  Add Boeing’s ATV via Delta and it would seem we have ISS pretty well covered.  Maybe NASA could spend its limited resources on getting the SSTS, infrastructure and work force in place for Heavy lift.  Makes too much sense.  No let’s extend out the Ares I/V into to 2030 duplicating what we already with ELV’s developing a brand new ELV class rocket all while hacking up the Science and Aero sides of NASA.  Yah that’s the ticket, good idea.

Okay off the soap box and back to the paper.

The paper shows 20,000 lbs “Gross” for the Capsule or 9,071 kg.

First question what is “Gross”

Launch Mass?
Orbit - Non-Payload?
Orbit - Everything?

Also I think the capsule shape is superior to Orion’s in terms of natural reentry stability and volume to surface ratio.  Using the retro rockets for additional orbital velocity is also a creative touch.

I guess someone has run the numbers on the effectives of that vs. a tower that jettisons after successful 2nd stage ignition.

[Jim]

SMetch, I have to correct you, it is beginning to bother me.   It is either STS (space transportation system) or SSP (space shuttle program).  SSTS is not used by NASA (or anyone else).  SSTS is Space Surveillance and Tracking System.

[braddock]

SMetch - 31/1/2007  5:58 PM
Also I think the capsule shape is superior to Orion’s in terms of natural reentry stability and volume to surface ratio.

Looking back at the ESAS report, some of the Dr. Stanley Q&A threads, and other papers while researching this article, it was mentioned a few times that the somewhat less ideal CEV capsule shape had a significant impact on the performance penality in closing the black zones in ESAS.  But that is not an issue I am fluent with, perhaps someone here can speak to it with more expertise.

Even ESAS conceded that the heavy Atlas V could close the black zones with CEV.  The combination of ESAS's assumption of increased mass for structural improvements required for 1.4 Factor of Safety requirements with the capsule reentry characteristics during aborts and heavy CEV mass requirments led ESAS to conclude in their trajectory analysis that Atlas V could not easily pull it off.  At least that is my best understanding of it.

Lockheed/ULA and some members here strongly disagree.  Use of manned Atlas V was pretty heavily studied during OSP and early CEV.

Some references not in the article:
Astronautix an interesting writeup of the OSP/CEV history: http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm

Dr. Stanley Q&A thread with debate on the issue: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2330&posts=253&mid=34641&highlight=black+zone&highlightmode=1&action=search#M34641

Congressional Budget Office (leans towards Atlas V): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7635/10-09-SpaceLaunch.pdf

[Bill White]

Can LM's Atlas/Bigelow capsule handle atmospheric re-entry at the velocities that arise during lunar return?

[jongoff]

Bill,

Can LM's Atlas/Bigelow capsule handle atmospheric re-entry at the velocities that arise during lunar return?

That depends mostly on the heat shield.  Might have to thicken it up a bit for lunar return.  But honestly, I'm pretty sure if we
could figure it out 40 years ago that we could figure it out again.

~Jon

[Jim]

Bill White - 31/1/2007  6:41 PM

Can LM's Atlas/Bigelow capsule handle atmospheric re-entry at the velocities that arise during lunar return?

  it is a requirement that would have to be designed in.  This design hasn't progressed far enough to determine that.

[Bill White]

I understand it is "merely" a question of mass. Can the proposed Atlas V carrier rocket carry sufficient mass?

Also, is this vehicle roomy enough to offer ~10 to ~14 days of crew accomodation for a lunar trip?

[Jim]

Bill White - 31/1/2007  7:11 PM

I understand it is "merely" a question of mass. Can the proposed Atlas V carrier rocket carry sufficient mass?

Also, is this vehicle roomy enough to offer ~10 to ~14 days of crew accomodation for a lunar trip?

It can carry 20k lbs.   What the spacecraft designer does with this will determine what mission it can do.

Define accomodations?

But the basic LM concept is a LEO capsule, not a CEV.  No big engines, no long duration, no lunar entry

[Norm Hartnett]

Nice article Chris, one minor correction; the Genesis II is the same size as Genesis I although the payload mass maybe bigger since they are shipping customer items.

The next larger subscale BA module has had a lot of names but I haven't seen much mention of it recently.

Current name of the next module is Sundancer now,  180 cubic meters of habitable space.

[MySDCUserID]

OK, I guess I'm still not totally clear on the whole ULA agreement.  I thought ULA was only involved with government payloads.  Bigelow's launches are commerical, so what is ULA's involvement vs. Lockheed Martin's?

[Smatcha]

Jim - 31/1/2007  3:13 PM

SMetch, I have to correct you, it is beginning to bother me.   It is either STS (space transportation system) or SSP (space shuttle program).  SSTS is not used by NASA (or anyone else).  SSTS is Space Surveillance and Tracking System.

How about Rand Corp of CBO or OMB or etc. any of those ring a bell?  This is its historic description "Space Shuttle Transportation System".  It’s hard to keep up with NASA's acronym musical chairs sometimes.  Besides “Space Transportation System” would be better used to distinguish “Direct” from SSTS (Opps there I go again).

O’ and it looks like acronym finder agrees as well other than that “no one uses SSTS”

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

“Its too crowded no one goes there anymore.”

It’s important after all to leave the Space Shuttle part in the Space Shuttle Transportation System don’t you think?  After all without the Space Shuttle we could have shipped up to LEO seven times the mass at half the cost and 14 less astronauts.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Jim]

LM markets Atlas commercially and Boeing markets Delta commercially.  Both will get their boosters from ULA

[Jim]

SMetch - 31/1/2007  9:13 PM


O’ and it looks like acronym finder agrees as well other than that “no one uses SSTS”

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

That is like wikipedia, user input, not reliable

Rand or CBO are not the owner of the system.  It never was SSTS as far as NASA goes.  Just STS, NSTS or SSP

I wouldn't use the CBO as a reference,

[braddock]

MySDCUserID - 31/1/2007  9:06 PM

OK, I guess I'm still not totally clear on the whole ULA agreement.  I thought ULA was only involved with government payloads.  Bigelow's launches are commerical, so what is ULA's involvement vs. Lockheed Martin's?

The Memorandum of Understanding between Bigelow and Lockheed covered studying Atlas integration, and that technical work and the launcher human rating has fallen to ULA now.  That is how it has been explained to me.  Lockheed is still around for other aspects of the project.

[Far Reach]

Norm Hartnett - 31/1/2007  7:48 PM

Nice article Chris.......

Braddock wrote this one. Look at the top of the article (I know Chris writes most of the stories, easy mistake).

[jongoff]

Far Reach,

Braddock wrote this one. Look at the top of the article (I know Chris writes most of the stories, easy mistake).

Braddock did a good job on this one.  I also wrote up some of my own observations on selenianboondocks.com:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory_31.html

Some of that overlaps with what Braddock was reporting, but some of it should hopefully be new and/or interesting.

~Jon

[JIS]

SMetch - 31/1/2007  10:58 PM

The paper shows 20,000 lbs “Gross” for the Capsule or 9,071 kg.

That is less than the Orion's crew module alone (21,000 lbs). Actually use 18,200 lbs instead of 20,000 (10% margin ;-) )  

Of course, this new ship would compete with Soujuz or Dragon not Orion. (Forget toilet - wear nappy. Sorry, no changing facilities on board).

[meiza]

jongoff - 1/2/2007  7:10 AM

Far Reach,

Braddock wrote this one. Look at the top of the article (I know Chris writes most of the stories, easy mistake).

Braddock did a good job on this one.  I also wrote up some of my own observations on selenianboondocks.com:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2007/01/sundancer-orbital-trajectory_31.html

Some of that overlaps with what Braddock was reporting, but some of it should hopefully be new and/or interesting.

~Jon

Interesting times... will this be the egg that breaks the chicken and egg problem and we finally get cheaper and cheaper space launches?!
I have my skepticisims even about Bigelow flying tourists to orbit at all.. But we'll see.

[jongoff]

JIS,

That is less than the Orion's crew module alone (21,000 lbs). Actually use 18,200 lbs instead of 20,000 (10% margin ;-) )  

And LM wasn't trying to fly Orion on its Human Rated Atlas V 401, so I don't see what your point is.  However that's also 100% beside the point in my opinion.  If you can fly the crew up on a commercial vehicle, you no longer need a "World's Most Reliable Rocket Evar!!" CLV to put the CEV into orbit.  It could be launched either on an existing EELV heavy (without needing to closeout black zones because it's unmanned on the way up), or possibly on the CaLV itself, and eliminate the CLV entirely.

There's no reason you have to do things exactly like ESAS claimed.  

Of course, this new ship would compete with Soujuz or Dragon not Orion. (Forget toilet - wear nappy. Sorry, no changing facilities on board).

Actually they've been looking at courting SpaceX into flying their Dragon on Atlas V.  The "Human Rated" Atlas V is just the booster half of the equation.  They're still looking for a partner for the capsule side.

~Jon