Author Topic: CLV Scale-Up  (Read 10694 times)

Offline Spacely

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
CLV Scale-Up
« on: 11/21/2005 08:30 PM »
In the somewhat likely event that the SDHLV never gets made, is there any contingency to simply scale up the CLV? As is, the design can hoist 25 metric tons up there. Would we be able to strap a couple of them together for greater launch capacity, or do you think this innovation would end up costing roughly the same amount as the SDHLV?

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #1 on: 11/21/2005 08:57 PM »
Quote
Spacely - 21/11/2005  3:30 PM
In the somewhat likely event that the SDHLV never gets made, is there any contingency to simply scale up the CLV? As is, the design can hoist 25 metric tons up there. Would we be able to strap a couple of them together for greater launch capacity, or do you think this innovation would end up costing roughly the same amount as the SDHLV?

There are plans that the CEV will have several configurations.  One as the crew transport (i.e., taxi) to the ISS, another with just cargo in the pressurized capsule, and another with a new unpressurized cargo module.  The service module would stay the same, and all versions would be autonomous... that is, be able to go to orbit, rendezvous, and dock while unmanned.  If it is decided not to go to the moon... and therefore not build the heavy lift launcher, then I'm afraid that will be it... stuck in LEO, servicing the ISS with the Stick CLV.  It would probably be cheaper for that purpose just to have more frequent launches the an existing CLV/Cargo with lower weight payloads, than to build a heavy lift launcher or radically modify the CLV... (though they could get a bit more out of it by going to a 5-segment SRB for cargo launches).

If its the case that the SDHLV isn't built and we don't return to the moon, then we will have to wait another ?? years for the mood to change, and someone to take up the "Vision thing" again in order to get a SDHLV... but by then, even that would not be feasible, since all the tooling and manufacturing capabilities to build ET's will have long since been abandoned.  What would be built in that case would be something else (for the same reason we aren't re-building a revised Saturn V).

-RedSky

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #2 on: 11/22/2005 02:49 AM »
Another interesting way to scale up the CLV is adding a third stage. Simcosmos included this "stretched" CLV in his SRB Launcher add on and it enabled you to shoot the CEV to lunar Orbit.

Offline Spacely

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #3 on: 11/22/2005 03:40 AM »
A lunar flyby vis-a-vis a stretched CLV might be just the thing to excite Congress and keep them from shuffling their feet on the SDHLV.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #4 on: 11/22/2005 05:09 AM »
Quote
Spacely - 21/11/2005  10:40 PM

A lunar flyby vis-a-vis a stretched CLV might be just the thing to excite Congress and keep them from shuffling their feet on the SDHLV.

Isn't that circular reasoning?  Congress would have to approve funds for a new third stage and any money for a lunar fly-by mission... so how could NASA do that in order to excite Congress?

What might prompt a return to the moon desire is the feeling like we're (the US) being left behind.  I really believe that once the Kliper is operational, the russians will quickly develop some continuous form of tourism (Kliper holds 6 persons, so that means 2 pilots + 4 paying passengers).  Regular orbital/ISS tourist trips would lead to developing a reusable habitation module with earth departure stage, and then circumlunar tourist flights would become a possibility.  They are actually proposing such a thing now using an upgraded Soyuz... but  that only allows for one paying passenger seat... and being pretty crowded in Soyuz for a week, I think such flights will wait for Kliper.  They were proposing $100 million for the Soyuz lunar flyby trip.  If they could get 4 passengers on Kliper for that fare each, then they'll really start bringing in some serious money.  More than enough to pay for the flight with enough left over for future development.  Two such flights a year would bring in $800 million, which is just about what their whole annual budget is now.  Then, there's China with its ambitions for an eventual lunar landing.  Its these type of things, unfortunately, that will prompt  the U.S. not to drop a return to the moon program.  It seems the only way to keep the U.S. public (and therefore Congress) excited is by some form of competition, and the fear of being left out.  Who knows, maybe by the 2020s, there'll be several private companies providing such services already.


Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #5 on: 11/22/2005 05:21 AM »
Th only way to keep Congress  from shuffling their feet on the SDHLV, is

1) Fear -national security
2) Loss - in any race i.e. national pride
3) Public opinion
4) Make sure everyone gets some of the pie ($$$) or at least a large majority.
5) Great PR --- good press

Then again, thats democracy, one selects leaders who do what they want, but most of the time not what they promised at election time...
 :(


Edit: not happy with any compromises to a human rated vehicle vis CLV... let it just do the job its intended to do... we dont need more risks, if anything we should have learned from the STS program, is keep it simple, both in design and requirements..  Let the stick be "the stick", want more lifting capacity, build a launch system for that purpose...

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 493
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #6 on: 11/22/2005 07:20 AM »
Quote
Avron - 22/11/2005  12:21 AM

Edit: not happy with any compromises to a human rated vehicle vis CLV... let it just do the job its intended to do... we dont need more risks, if anything we should have learned from the STS program, is keep it simple, both in design and requirements..  Let the stick be "the stick", want more lifting capacity, build a launch system for that purpose...

Totally agree.  :)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #7 on: 11/23/2005 03:46 AM »
Quote
Avron - 22/11/2005  1:21 AM

Th only way to keep Congress  from shuffling their feet on the SDHLV, is

1) Fear -national security
2) Loss - in any race i.e. national pride
3) Public opinion
4) Make sure everyone gets some of the pie ($$$) or at least a large majority.
5) Great PR --- good press

Then again, thats democracy, one selects leaders who do what they want, but most of the time not what they promised at election time...
 :(


Edit: not happy with any compromises to a human rated vehicle vis CLV... let it just do the job its intended to do... we dont need more risks, if anything we should have learned from the STS program, is keep it simple, both in design and requirements..  Let the stick be "the stick", want more lifting capacity, build a launch system for that purpose...

Excellent points all, Avron.

Yet, I can still easily see one upgrade path which the CLV will innevitably take - the 5 segment SRB's.   It's a logical evolution of the craft and I'd dare say somewhat innevitable considering the minimal costs involved in the "upgrade" vs. the extra performance they will offer.

If nothing else, I could easily see them used for unmanned cargo flights of the CEV-C.

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

Offline Spacely

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #8 on: 11/23/2005 06:51 AM »
Would a CEV-C cargo also be capable of launching unmanned probes?

Offline CuddlyRocket

RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #9 on: 11/23/2005 12:52 PM »
Quote
Spacely - 23/11/2005  7:51 AM

Would a CEV-C cargo also be capable of launching unmanned probes?
Yes. Pretty big ones as well! In fact any kind of satellite.

You may need some modifications to the guidance computer.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #10 on: 11/23/2005 04:49 PM »
There is no need for scaling. The CLVs could be used to launch the CEV, the LSAM, and an egress stage , along with fuel depot launches from the private sector, for an EOR. NASA would be satisfied that it had a safe launcher, without having to develop the Magnum/Longfellow, and business would thrive off of the new contracts to support a sustainable presence on the moon.


But that won't happen. We'll get maybe 4 or 5 SDHLV launches, if that, and then back to stationkeeping on Alpha. The current program is unsustainable, and IMO SDHLV is the key culprit.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #11 on: 11/23/2005 06:06 PM »
"Would a CEV-C cargo also be capable of launching unmanned probes?"

Capabilities aside, it would then be in direct competition with Delta IV and Atlas V. Boeing and LM would try to kill it.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #12 on: 11/23/2005 07:25 PM »
It will be hard for them to kill it, since NASA already has an agreement in place with the DoD on this. As I understand it, NASA will cease to use the Delta II and will try and use EELV's where they can, but they can use the CLV for whatever they like. With a 5 segment srb becoming available, I think that is pretty much the end of Delta IV Heavy (and Atlas V Heavy) for NASA payloads though.

I'm hoping that with the death of the Delta II, NASA free up some funding by launching on the much less expensive Falcon 9 by that point.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline HailColumbia

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #13 on: 11/23/2005 08:13 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 23/11/2005  12:49 PM

But that won't happen. We'll get maybe 4 or 5 SDHLV launches, if that, and then back to stationkeeping on Alpha. The current program is unsustainable, and IMO SDHLV is the key culprit.

Why? why does everyone assume the SDHLV will unsustainable?  Its more or less just the shuttle stack, but withtout the orbiter, which is VERY expensive to maintain.  A magnum launch should only cost as much as a shuttle launch, maybe less.  We launched shuttles at a much higher launch rate then what is planned for the magnum, and we did it for over 20 years, hardly "unsustainable"

Why would you assume that using 3 launches per mission, plus FUEL DEPOTS would be easier to sustain?
-Steve

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #14 on: 11/24/2005 04:14 AM »
Quote
HailColumbia - 23/11/2005  4:13 PM

Quote
bad_astra - 23/11/2005  12:49 PM

But that won't happen. We'll get maybe 4 or 5 SDHLV launches, if that, and then back to stationkeeping on Alpha. The current program is unsustainable, and IMO SDHLV is the key culprit.

Why? why does everyone assume the SDHLV will unsustainable?  Its more or less just the shuttle stack, but withtout the orbiter, which is VERY expensive to maintain.  A magnum launch should only cost as much as a shuttle launch, maybe less.  We launched shuttles at a much higher launch rate then what is planned for the magnum, and we did it for over 20 years, hardly "unsustainable"

Why would you assume that using 3 launches per mission, plus FUEL DEPOTS would be easier to sustain?


It is ... it all is with the right level of financing.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #15 on: 11/24/2005 06:16 AM »
Quote
Avron - 23/11/2005  11:14 PM

Why? why does everyone assume the SDHLV will unsustainable?  Its more or less just the shuttle stack, but withtout the orbiter, which is VERY expensive to maintain.  A magnum launch should only cost as much as a shuttle launch, maybe less.  We launched shuttles at a much higher launch rate then what is planned for the magnum, and we did it for over 20 years, hardly "unsustainable"

Why would you assume that using 3 launches per mission, plus FUEL DEPOTS would be easier to sustain?
[/QUOTE]

The shuttle program in its last decade was only sustainable due to pork politics and the ISS. ISS passed by (IIRC) a single vote, and then probably only because it was scene as a chance to give Russia peacetime busywork. Ergo, shuttle finally had a raison d'etre. By then the Russians had already figured out that downmass wasn't an adequate reason for using Buran in favor of Soyuz. They weren't racing to get Energya production restarted, and completing production of Ptichkin to service ISS. They did try to sell Energia, but the US wasn't interested in heavy lift enough to consider it, as it was in the process of backing away from Shuttle-C at the time. How many times would Shuttle-C or an American Energia have been used by now? Two? Three? Enough to build a one-up ISS and then the production line would have shut down again and Griffin would be wanting Magnum for the VSE by now, I suspect.

What is the SDHLV's reason? To get to the Moon and Mars? For what purpose? I'd like to see the next decade be the time when the first real attempts at space colonization began. There is no willpower for a federal program to do that, and it would doubtlessly fail if it did, due to being long term and reliant on the whim of an increasinly volitle congress.

I like the CEV design. (In fairness I work for N-G, but not on that project). I like the CLV. I'd love to see the CEV on top of a Falcon 9 even better. I even like Griffin's overal idea of needing the CEV/CLV as a great insurance policy against the failure of private companies, because he's taking steps towards a possibilitythat at least one private company, if successful, will get enough business to offer it's own manned access to space. It would be nice to not have all our eggs in one basket, so I am all for it. But I can't see wasting time and development money on the SDHLV when we could be planning dry-launch EOR now. We could be sending bulk cargo and shielding material to the moon in advance of the first missions at the same time the CLV/CEV is ready. Why aren't we doing this?

It's been stated elsewhere by those more eloquent then I, such as Mr. Goff, that doing so would give a huge boost in the arm to the american aerospace industry, not just BoeingLockMart and ATK, but certainly if they wanted a piece of the pie, they could bid on it. Multiple launch rates, competition, and better design will lower the cost of access, but the SDHLV is a real impediment to that.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline HailColumbia

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #16 on: 11/24/2005 02:39 PM »
ok, so your argument really isent that the program is unsustainable, its just that you dont like it.  

And space colonazation? You dont think we would need a heavy lift for that? building bases on the moon? What are we going to lift them with? hope?  Plus if you want colonies, it seems like having actual manned missions would be a good start.
-Steve

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #17 on: 11/24/2005 02:42 PM »
What Congress will or won't do is largely a matter of public opinion at the time. This is a place where space advocates can make a difference, but they won't do it by fighting among themselves on forums that are only read by other space advocates. It requires more than preaching to the choir, to talking to other space advocates.

I belong to a political forum that has over 4000 members. If I talked about space constantly on that forum all I would be is a spammer, but what I can do is put in a good word for NASA about once a month or so if some news event gives me the chance to bring it up. This sort of thing helps build support outside of the space community which is something that has to be done.

John B. Dobbins

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #18 on: 11/24/2005 07:06 PM »
Quote
HailColumbia - 24/11/2005  9:39 AM

ok, so your argument really isent that the program is unsustainable, its just that you dont like it.  

And space colonazation? You dont think we would need a heavy lift for that? building bases on the moon? What are we going to lift them with? hope?


No, with the infrastructure that makes sense; LEO embark-disembark stations, Lunar Cyclers, Mars Cyclers, and a robost space economy able to support them. We should be where 2001 had us, and we can't get there with two or three heavy lift launches per year. It simply won't bring about CATS. I'm not trashing the Griffin plan. My only objection to his plan is the SDHLV. If he does get it designed and built, I hope at least that private industry by that time has a good track record in putting humans in orbit and can then show a cheaper way to maintain a lunar base. If that's the case, fine, keep a few battleship Magnums around to do major chores like the launch of an elevator countermass or the hub of a torus station.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #19 on: 11/25/2005 08:16 AM »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 23/11/2005  8:52 AM

Quote
Spacely - 23/11/2005  7:51 AM

Would a CEV-C cargo also be capable of launching unmanned probes?
Yes. Pretty big ones as well! In fact any kind of satellite.

You may need some modifications to the guidance computer.

The CEV-Cargo module will not do that.   It will basically be a standard CEV capsule, just with no seats or equipment inside.   There will be another variant of CEV-C which will not be pressurized too, but ultimately they won't be ideal for launching satellites.

However, theres no reason why the launch vehicle couldn't launch satellites instead of a CEV on top.    If there's some sort of common fairing connection point (like the EELV) at the top of the upper stage, then it could easily be used as an unmanned satellite launcher even more powerful than the Delta-IV Heavy, and would fly for about half the cost too.

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #20 on: 11/25/2005 08:32 AM »
Quote
bad_astra - 24/11/2005  3:06 PM

No, with the infrastructure that makes sense; LEO embark-disembark stations, Lunar Cyclers, Mars Cyclers, and a robost space economy able to support them. We should be where 2001 had us, and we can't get there with two or three heavy lift launches per year. It simply won't bring about CATS. I'm not trashing the Griffin plan. My only objection to his plan is the SDHLV. If he does get it designed and built, I hope at least that private industry by that time has a good track record in putting humans in orbit and can then show a cheaper way to maintain a lunar base. If that's the case, fine, keep a few battleship Magnums around to do major chores like the launch of an elevator countermass or the hub of a torus station.

But without some sort of HLLV, how do you get any of that infrastructure you mention up there in the first place?

I'm sure not in favour of doing it the slow, expensive, arduous and over-complicated 'lego brick' approach like we've done with ISS.   If we'd had an HLLV-class launcher capable of putting 120MT up each shot, we could have finished the whole ISS in just three flights and been on to doing something else just two years later.

If you have to build a house, you don't try to bring in all the soil, wood, concrete bricks, roofing parts etc in the back of your family car, you get a lot of it delivered on the back of a big honking truck, don't you?   Same basic principle applies here.

Until we have *built* all that infrastructure already you need a way to put it up there, and right now the cheapest way is on a BIG rocket.

There is no rocket in the world capable of putting more than about 5 tons of stuff into Lunar orbit right now.   None.   And if you try building a space station 5 tons at a time, you'll probably be at it for a hundred years!

Even the Magnum SDLV can only put about 60 tons into Lunar orbit.   That's about three ISS modules - maximum, and you need dozens of them for even a relatively simplistic space station like ISS is.   If you want an extravagant spinning wheel, you're probably looking at 1000 tons.

Nobody has the capability to launch anything really large right now, so we have to build a simpler infrastructure early on just to start the building of the infrastructure you're on about.   And that's what's going on right now.   These are merely the first steps, but the key is that NASA is *finally* back on the path it should have been following since Apollo.   At last, we can pick up again after Nixon dropped the ball entirely.   Sure there's been a 30 year break in progress, but at last we have an opportunity to continue the progress once again.

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

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #21 on: 11/26/2005 07:57 PM »
Incremental building failed because it relied on a transportation system that may cost somewhere between $500,000,000 to a gigabuck to launch. Incremental building would have worked fine (and in a manner of speaking it did work fine despite the costs), had we had cheaper access to space, and not relied soley on the shuttle for some of the components.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #22 on: 11/27/2005 01:58 AM »
Quote
bad_astra - 26/11/2005  3:57 PM

Incremental building failed because it relied on a transportation system that may cost somewhere between $500,000,000 to a gigabuck to launch. Incremental building would have worked fine (and in a manner of speaking it did work fine despite the costs), had we had cheaper access to space, and not relied soley on the shuttle for some of the components.

And the reason that expensive LV was used was two-fold: because it was *thought* it would be a lot cheaper than the Saturn-V it replaced, and because the crew required for assembly was also launched at the same time - and there were NO alternatives to that when ISS was announced.

What's done is done, and history can't be changed.   The only thing we can do is create our future from this point on.

To build a large-scale infrastructure we're talking about here (and I'm in favour of it), the simple fact is that you have to lift a LOT of heavy metal and other items from the Earth's deep gravity well into space, and as you point out, that really costs.

As the table below will show, the Magnum SDLV is the most cost effective launcher we're ever going to get.

NASA's current plan on the table to make the SDLV will finally open up the possibility to launch materials into space for just $2,800 per kg ($1,269 / lb).

That's about a quarter the cost per kg of ANY US launcher, past or present!

Only the Russian Proton can get even close to that cost/performance figure, but it can only loft 1/6th of the payload the Magnum will be able to.

If anyone can show NASA another realistic option, and I'm sure NASA will talk to you.

Booster:               Max Payload to LEO:     Launch Cost*:   Cost per kg / lb to LEO:
=======================================================================================

US:
Atlas II AS              8,600kg /  19,000lb   $134 million    $15,563/kg / $ 7,053/lb
Atlas V 551             20,050kg /  44,200lb   $254 million    $12,668/kg / $ 5,747/lb
Delta II 7925            5,089kg /  11,200lb   $ 69 million    $13,559/kg / $ 6,160/lb
Delta IV-Medium          8,600kg /  19,000lb   $102 million    $11,860/kg / $ 5,368/lb
Delta IV-Heavy          25,800kg /  56,900lb   $254 million    $ 9,845/kg / $ 4,464/lb
Space Shuttle           16,500kg /  36,400lb   $800 million    $48,485/kg / $21,978/lb
Saturn-V               118,000kg / 260,000lb   $2.4 Billion    $20,339/kg / $ 9,231/lb

Magnum SDLV            125,000kg / 275,750lb   $350 million    $ 2,800/kg / $ 1,269/lb
"The Stick" CLV         25,900kg /  57,135lb   $100 million    $ 3,861/kg / $ 1,750/lb


Russia:
Soyuz ST                 7,800kg /  17,200lb   $ 50 million    $ 6,410/kg / $ 2,907/lb
Proton 8K82M            21,000kg /  46,300lb   $ 65 million    $ 3,095/kg / $ 1,404/lb
Energiya                88,000kg / 194,000lb   $1.3 Billion    $14,772/kg / $ 6,701/lb


ESA:
Arianne 5G              16,000kg /  35,300lb   $198 million    $12,375/kg / $ 5,609/lb


Concepts Vehicles:
Shuttle-C               77,000kg / 170,000lb   $500 million    $ 6,494/kg / $ 2,941/lb
Shuttle-Ares           121,000kg / 267,000lb   $650 million    $ 5,371/kg / $ 2,434/lb

* - All figures adjusted for inflation to equivalent in 2004 US Dollars.


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

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #23 on: 11/27/2005 05:48 PM »
Nice table.  Where'd you get it?


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #24 on: 11/27/2005 07:32 PM »
Quote
realtime - 27/11/2005  1:48 PM

Nice table.  Where'd you get it?

I collected the info mostly from Mark Wade's Astronautix website.   But his website unfortunately does not provide consistent information for comparing payloads to the same orbit for each launcher.

I had to search a number of other (all official) sites to try to get the correcy payload information to compare payloads to the same orbits for each launcher.

I've tried to calibrate for payload capacity to an ISS-compatible orbit - 51.6deg, 220nm.

I've also tried to validate all the data somewhere else too, just to ensure Mark's figures are right.   And they are :)

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

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #25 on: 11/30/2005 05:49 AM »
I still have a feeling that the books are already cooked  on SDHLV launch prices. Will they take into account the standing army that may well remain mostly intact from the shuttle days? If it is then the actual price/kg to LEO is going to depend very much on the flight rate. If we're going to build it, we'd better REALLY use it.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #26 on: 11/30/2005 04:02 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 30/11/2005  1:49 AM

Will they take into account the standing army that may well remain mostly intact from the shuttle days?

The "standing army" is primarily for Orbiter processing, the Orbiter goes away in 2010.

Offline Super George

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #27 on: 11/30/2005 04:54 PM »
Although that will start to go down from 2008 when one orbiter is retired and then in 2010 there's a whole host of workers due for retirement.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: CLV Scale-Up
« Reply #28 on: 11/30/2005 09:41 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 30/11/2005  1:49 AM

I still have a feeling that the books are already cooked  on SDHLV launch prices. Will they take into account the standing army that may well remain mostly intact from the shuttle days? If it is then the actual price/kg to LEO is going to depend very much on the flight rate. If we're going to build it, we'd better REALLY use it.

Griffin recently addressed that with his 'takes only 6 people to launch rocketss on a submarine' comments.

He wants to super-streamline the processing of the new LV's, to massively reducethe number of people needed to do the launches.   The people he frees up will be re-directed towards other jobs such as developing CEV, CLV, LSAM, Lunar Rovers, Lunar Habs, Lunar mining equipment, Lunar experiment, Lunar Telescopes, Lunar power systems, and then creating all that Lunar stuff over again, but this time suitable for Mars, along with a spacecraft for the crew to spend 6 months in on a journey there and back too.

NASA has a *HUGE* amount of work to do for this program, and they want to do it with the current workforce numbers.

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

Tags: