New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#626 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-25 20:48:21
...quoted out of context...
ok
if they have only 15 engines, that means NASA must buy new engines from 2017 instead of 2018...
...as well as why it will cost you more in the long run...
in my articles/threads/posts I suggest to use only expendable engines
.
#627 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-25 20:35:42
...Simple Newtonian mechanics...
please... don't say to Prof. Isaac Newton you forget that CaLV/SLV's SRBs will be jettisoned at ~45km. ...and that its "empty dry mass" will never reach the orbit, but falls in the ocean...
also... don't say him that 3 SSMEs have 700,000 kbf of thrust in the vacuum... (maybe... he will say you my evaluation is right... and you're wrong...)
...isn't that much about simple engines that needs controlling...
engines will be only part of the CLV/CEV/SM system
I think you must only need to wait to SEE the REAL (and very complex) electronics/smart-sensors/computers that "system" will have!
...chemicals, materials, and techniques to make rockets haven't changed a whole lot in 50 years...
you're right, a solid rocket is very much simpler than a cellular phone and exists from many years
then, an SRB-like solid booster is the "perfect (mature) product" that many aerospace companies can easily manufacture in competition to fall its unit cost (maybe) under $10M in next 10 years to become very cheap within 2015, when the Super SLV will starts its launches!!!
...if companies can't make lots of money, then they can't afford to build space ships...
that was true only for the past "space-monopolies" age!
but to-day (and much more in the future!) there are many countries/companies able to design/build/sell/launch new rockets/vehicles/engines/parts at quickly falling prices
probaly your "CLV-love" keeps you away from realty...
NASA isn't modifying the four-segment...
NASA engineers will do the things they need, then, if they will evaluate and find as "better" an expendable-SRB, they will buy/use them!
.
#628 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-25 19:33:58
Simular argument in the recoverable engine pod thread.
the first reply on the thread you quote is mine and I repeat here:
***********************************
reuse the engines is an excellent choice since engines are the main cost of a rocket
the idea was first developed by Boeing for a cargo version of the Shuttle (not the Shuttle-C)
when this option will be available many billions can be saved
its main problem is that needs very much R&D time and money to do it, especially for manned launches
if it needs (e.g.) 3+ years and $3+ billion, great part of the advantage is lost
I think the better way is...
- develop a rocket with expendable engines
- use it for early launches
- develop a new version with retrievable engines
- use the new version only for unmanned launches
- if it will be proven safe and reliable, use it also for manned launches
these are the reasons I've suggested to use expendable engines in my design of the FAST-SLV (despite its drawings suggests the use of a retrievable engines' basket)
***********************************
...SSME... should be a total of 24 ready to go...
a very good news for the Super SLV
the figure I've had so far was of 15 ready available (and already paid!) SSMEs (nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts)
but your figure is BETTER
if NASA still has 24 SSMEs that means the first EIGHT Super SLV engines will cost only $0.oo each !!!
that is $20M less than the price of one RS-68......
with 24 SSMEs all the Super SLV (rocket/unmanned-moon-vehicles) test launches (maybe three) and the first FIVE moon missions' launches will costs less than $200M for each Super SLV 1st stage
with two moon missions per year (and only one the first year) from 2015, NASA don't needs to buy new engines before 2018 !!!!
.
#629 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-25 07:58:19
when the Shuttle will be retired, there are NO OTHER "international commitments" that need the Shuttle or the CEV
Actually there will still be the need to bring materials for repair and experiments back from the ISS of which can not fit into the soyuz or other ships such as gyros, solar panels ect..
not true
the Shuttle is the only vehicle able to send big/large cargo, but in 2010 it will be retired
the crew-CEV can send only "minimal cargo" (ESAS) to the ISS, then, it's useless to send experiments and gyros...
the unpressurized cargo-CEV was deleted from the ESAS plan in january
the pressurized cargo-CEV can lift about 3 mT of payload (was 3.5 before the CEV resizing) that is VERY CLOSE to the max payload of a Progress (2.4 mT)
the only difference between a cargo-CEV and a Soyuz is the launch cost... one cargo-CEV launch may cost 20+ times one Progress... then, YOU CAN BE SURE that ESA, Japan, etc. NEVER want NASA to "respect that commitment" (if it really exists...) to launch some cargo-CEVs at a price their space-budgets can't sustain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"send back" some ISS' hardware with a CEV will be so expensive that, use only expendable hardware, will result in saving THOUSANDS TIMES the price!!!
but, if in a few (rare) times it will be (absolutely!) necessary, it's simpler and cheaper to modify a Soyuz to send back a payload without a crew (it's easy, since the Soyuz re-entry, form early models, already is 99% automatic)
.
#630 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-25 07:08:46
Buying tickets/payload tonnes...
NASA/USA don't need to buy NOTHING
the NASA/USA international commitment is to "FINISH" the ISS and NOT to "VISIT" it!
the old and dangerous Space Shuttle must still fly 19 times because it is the ONLY vehicle available to launch and assemble the ISS' modules and finish it
when the Shuttle will be retired, there are NO OTHER "international commitments" that need the Shuttle or the CEV
from 2010-up the international partners DON'T NEED and DON'T WANT to use the CEV since they CAN'T SPEND 10+ TIMES the price of a Soyuz/Progress/Kliper/Shenzhou/ATV/HIIA for its crew rotation and ISS' re-supply !!!
from 2014-up the orbital-CEV will be used ONLY to send the american astronauts to the ISS, but NASA and USA are NOT "obliged" to send their astronauts to the ISS, it's ONLY THEIR OWN CHOICE to launch them or not (and how many)
since there are NOT international commitments to VISIT the ISS after 2010, NASA/USA are completely free to...
a) send 10 astronauts per year with many CEVs
b) send 2 astronauts per year with one CEV
c) send a few astronauts per year with the Soyuz
d) DON'T SEND any astronaut to the ISS and save the money of (both) orbital-CEV and CLV
if NASA finish the ISS with the Shuttle will not be obliged to VISIT it, then, the CLV (to launch the CEV to the ISS) is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY
...you can't explain how your rocket can lift those tonnes needed...
I've already explained it in my articles and posts
since you don't agree with me, I can't discuss of it endless
that, also, because it's unnecessary to know (now) the real payload of "my" rocket
I suggest to use a different ARCHITECTURE (the single-launch version) and NOT (only) a different rocket!
then, if my design needs some changes (but I don't think that) NASA can modify the base SLV to accomplish the FULL (non resized) missions with a SINGLE launch/rocket
99% of the advantages of my proposal come from the SINGLE LAUNCH and NOT from "my" rocket!
...the baseline LSAM carries ~5MT of equipment with an acent module...
if you don't include water, food, spacesuits, etc., the max LSAM's exploration-hardware will be of only 2.5 mT
then, with ONE cargo-LSAM will be possible to send on the moon the FULL "exploration & science hardware" for the next EIGHT manned missions !!!!
that choice has THREE main advantages:
1. less payload of ALL manned launches
2. the astronauts can use (from the FIRST mission!) the FULL lunar-hardware of EIGHT "standard" missions!!! With the "standard" ESAS' missions/architecture the same lunar-hardware will be available ONLY after EIGHT missions (then, around 2023...)
3. the (very very very expensive!) lunar-hardware (sent to a single moon-base) will be REUSED many times!!!
...NASA does...
no
they can "plan to buy" ,not "buy now"
many changes was made to the Shuttle and ISS plans and hardware in last 20 years
then, many changes may happen in the next years about the new plans/hardware/missions
.
#631 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-24 20:02:28
...Adding another engine will only give you a small change... since the force that it produces is from the consumption of fuel at a given rate, without adding more fuel as well as a larger heavier tank...
the rocket don't needs any "big changes" to reach the right payload, one or two engines may be sufficient (but some payload savings may come from resizing the full mission or part of it)
of course, extra-engines needs extra-fuel and extra-tank... but the final result will be POSITIVE (like with ALL "heavy" version of a mid or small rocket), not negative!
as I've said about the extra-SRB "dry mass"... ALL rockets are able to lift "its own weight" and "something more" (some tons of payload)
then, we can (seriously) discuss only about "how much" extra-payload it can lift, NOT "if" it can lift that extra-payload
.
#632 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-24 19:46:02
...dry mass.. gravitational losses...
the absurd deduction of your absurd claim is that "if we add more thrust to a rocket, it goes back instead of go up"
EVERY rocket (or booster) IS able to lift its own mass + "something more" (some extra-tons of payload)
we can seriously discuss about "the amount" of that "extra-payload" NOT if that extra-payload can be (or not to be) launched with one or more extra-engines/booster
all new and bigger rockets (including the ESAS' rockets) are based on "additional thrust" given with "additional engines/boosters" (but, probably, you've your own, new, physics' laws...)
...we will never know if SLV is safe...
exactly, we can't know (to-day) how much (really) safe and reliable will be a new rockets that, now, don't exist... like the CLV
...but no they will not need half a dozen or more local computers...
you're completely wrong
to-day, many "devices" are not simple "sensors" but have an internal processor and do some computations by itself
that happen in your car, DVD, PC, printer, scanner, elevator, watch, wash machine, etc.
all future vehicles/rockets will have hundreds "local" processors
...Just ditching the parachutes is not going to make a dozen-tonne difference...
mmmmh... it's very curious... (I think...) ...why the same "parachute" was so "heavy" when I've added a 3rd SRB to "my" rocket...??????
nobody but Thiokol has ever made an SRB like this...
15+years ago in Italy "nobody" was "able" to sell cellular phones and services like the telecom monopoly... the price of cell phones was $3,000 each and the cell-phones' bills was like the cost of a seaship-holidays
but, when the antithrust authority (and the government) liberalized the telecom market, MANY companies was "able" to sell these "too-high-tech" products/services... and, now, the cell phones' prices starts from $50 and each minute of call costs a few cents
the same change happen in America and Europe with other market liberalizations (air travel, trains, etc.)
MANY aerospace companies ARE (or will be) "able" to design and build rocket, engines, boosters, etc.
if the space-market will be liberalized from monopolies ALL space-components will costs 1/10 than now in future
...and will never happen again that a "monopoly" pretends $3 billion to (only) modify a very simple (and already existing) solid booster...
when NASA will be bored to pay TEN TIMES ITS VALUE every single bolt of their vehicles, their prices will fall quickly
.
#633 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-24 18:54:06
...Buying foreign launch vehicles indefinatly...
NASA don't (exactly) buys "foreign vehicles" but "seats" of "foreign vehicles" at about $20M per seat and that price is very cheap compared with $7 Billion planned (so far.........) to develop the CLV and the high price of each CLV/SM/CEV hardware
why spend 20-30 times for the same "service"?
the ISS is an "house for three" and these "three" are internationl astronauts, not only american
Russia will launch all its astronauts with the Soyuz
China (if will be a new partner) will use its Shenzhou
with its low budget, ESA can't buys the CEV "seats" then, they will use the Soyuz
other countries and space-tourists buy (and will buy) the very "cheap" (for rich people) Soyuz trips
also some americans astronauts will use the Soyuz (when a CEV will be not ready)
then... how many americans per year will use the CEV for an ISS missions?
probably 2/3 per year... at a very very very very high price!
but... if NASA... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... WHY BURNS ITS MONEY ???
...way to "fix" your rocket...
I've fixed "my" rockets and its specs are those explained in my article
but, you say, my evaluation is "some tons" higher then real
well, if I'm right the Super SLV will be sufficient for a full 4-astronauts mission
but, if you are right, that don't change so much my proposal and its advantages, because it can be done in two ways
1. add more engines to "my" design to reach the right payload
2. resize the missions to launch it with the real payload of the Super SLV
both solution can match the rocket with the mission
my proposal is NOT the rocket, my proposal is the ARCHITECTURE (the "single-launch" architecture)
no matter the changes the rocket/mission will need to match the s.l. architecture
...NASA will be buying up to 200 copies...
I don't see one company or government agency of the world that buys the products they need 20+ years away
NASA "plans" to buy, NOT "buys"... we will see "what" they buy (and "how many") only when that will (really) happen!
...starts Moon missions on time in 2018... three CaLVs anually... Mars missions start 20 years from now... seven launches anually... up to 164 between now and 2046... DRM-III Mars plan until 2050...
sorry, but (since I'm not american...) can you say me when your Congress have authorized NASA to print banknotes ???
NASA cuts the toilet-paper budget to launch (or "hope" to...) one Shuttle per year... but you're sure that NASA will buy 200 engines in the next 40 years to go Mars, launch seven missions per year...!!!
you're completely crazy... the only thing (already) gone on Mars is your head!
.
#634 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-24 15:14:57
You opinion is a policy, a policy of abandoning the ISS..
don't worry, I can't (nor want to) "close" the ISS
the very little and poor ISS can survive 20+ years with two Soyuz/Progress (and Shenzhou?) launches per year
the cargo/crew CEVs don't adds so much... they are only 10 times more expensive!
...maximum payload you cite is simply not possible...
it's is sufficient because it exceeds the specs of a moon mission
...about how good it is that SLV will use Shuttle parts...
an old shuttle is dangerous like an old car is equally dangerous
SRB and SSME are the most reliable parts of the Shuttle (don't forget that all ESAS vehicles are designed with them...)
...which I have estimated to be up to 200 flights, [b]that is the benchmark, not the first dozen Lunar flights. We will, of course, be using this rocket for Mars too...[/b]
with NASA (annual+extra) funds???
probably you've DREAMED this figure, NOT "extimated"... 
.
#635 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-24 08:30:18
... the combined mass of the CEV, LSAM, and EDS stage (after launch) is ~145MT...
the discussion about rockets' payload (esepecially about unexisting rockets) is potentially endless...
however...
the figure you quote "was" the moon missions' weight before the CEV reduction
your figure of only "500 kg." saved with the NASA-resized CEV is too little
too little as itself and too little since less weight on the top mean less fuel for EDS' TLI, LSAM's LOI and SM's TEI
less fuel mean less tank/structure weight (your loved "dry mass"...)
also, I suggest to send the exploartion-hardware for 5+ missions separately (and reuse it many times) than mean less payload, less fuel and less dry mass of the full system
last but not least... the main advantages of my proposal come from the single launch architecture NOT from the use of "my" rocket!
then, if "my" rockets' payload will be not sufficient, NASA can add more engines to fit the specs
...Thiokol's SRB all have a fantastic reccord of reliability...
don't seems when I suggest to use in "my" rocket...
however...
we can't discuss endless or compare unexisting rockets and vehicles
a TRUE comparison from old and new vehicle can be done ONLY when the new vehicles FLY (250+ times like Apollo, Soyuz, Shuttle, etc.)
...have a proven historical reccord of zero catastrophic failures over their hundreds of flights...
but if I use it on "my" manned SLV it will "work" like with Challenger...
...1-in-1000 level of safety...
only (optimistic) calculations, not the realty
...has at least two computers, Shuttle has several flight computers...
the multi-computers architecture are for double-triple redundancy, cross control of data, local computation, etc.
also the future vehicles will have redundant electronics
...Shuttle is STILL the most complicated machine ever made...
it's only your opinion
about the SRB...
I suggest that NASA will use only ONE "dumb" 4-segments version (like the Shuttles' version) and that evaluate the opportunity and costs of an expendable version (with the extra advantage of less "dry mass"...)
then, NASA can buy the SRBs from 4+ (competing) manufacturers
that choices may cut the SRB's unit price under $20 million!
.
#636 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-24 06:00:38
...you are selling a program...
no, I post/publish only my opinions
...current policy...
"current" is the right word about "policy" since it change every day
...your rocket simply can't provide the kind of payload needed...
the max payload of "my" rocket is about 10 mT more than the original SDHLV, then, if "my" rocket don't works, also the NASA design is wrong
...the ~150MT you need for a single launch...
no, the NASA "resized" (5mt. CEV, etc.) moon missions' hardware needs about 140 mT of payload, while, "my" version needs about 125 mT, then, the (evaluated) payload of the Super SLV exceeds the specs
...like Shuttle" then it will be hyper-expensive, unreliable...
the Shuttle is dangerous because it's an old vehicle, built with old technologies, then, it must be retired sooner (like all old vehicles)
also the stones know that its high costs are due to maintenance, work, one launch per year, extra-R&D (to solve its problems like "foam"), etc. while, its hardware costs per launch is under $150M (two SRBs, one ET, fuel, etc.)
...would cost an extra $160M each...
the cost of an expendable-SSME is higher than an RS-68 but it is evaluated around $40M each and you can't grow up this figure with tons of words only to push "your" RS-68.....
then, the total cost of the SSME for "my" Super SLV in the first 12 moon missions will be ( 3 x 12 ) -15 = 21 x $40M = $840 million
the total number is "21" (instead of "36") since NASA already has 15 (already paid!) reusable (once more...) SSMEs: nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts
that's incredible!
you (REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!) want to demonstrate that, build ONE rocket, costs MORE than build TWO rockets!
.
#637 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-24 05:21:00
More excuses...
Shuttle-C only gains about 10-12MT of capacity by trading four-segment for five-segment...
the extra-payload of the Super SLV vs. the SDHLV is (exactly) 10-12 mT, if "my" rocket can't lift 135 mT, that means the original NASA design is wrong
...simpler the calculation, the less true it is...
not true, since great part of the weight saved with a resized-mission is the resized-fuel for a resized-mass to lift/land/depart, also, with the Super SLV the hardware/mission don't need to be "resized"
...below 1-in-100's at least, preferably less then 1-in-1000...
the REAL flights of Apollo, Soyuz and Shuttle NEVER reached these optimistic evaluations about delays, failures and accidents... there are no reasons (to-day) to say that future vehicles (CEV, Kliper, ecc.) will be different
...modern computers, which are much simpler then the multiple antique 1970...
despite you use it, probably you don't know so much about "modern computers"
...Shuttle is still easily the most complicated machine ever built...
20 years ago... NOT to-day
.
#638 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-23 08:49:19
...will still not save the cost of the deletion of the CLV/CEV/EDS programs budget since those same dollars will end up in the bigger rocket which he proposes...
my evaluation of the money saved is based on NASA claims about R&D costs:
$5 Billion R&D for the early (4-seg. SRB 1st and 2nd stage) CLV...... SAVED
$2 Billion of extra-R&D for the 5-segments SRB ($3B in recent news)..... SAVED
$5 Billion of (optimistic!) "hardware" costs for the first 25 (ISS and Moon) CLV rockets..... SAVED
the three SRBs of the Super SLV don't increase its cost since three "dumb" SRBs will cost $120M in total, probably the same price of (or LESS than) two 5-segments SRBs
but the MOST INCREDIBLE MONEY SAVING may come from the TIME SAVED (5+ years saved with ONE rocket to build!)
don't forget that NASA is a big agency that costs many Billions "by itself"
it's "standard" budget exceeds $16 Billion per year, no matter if they launch one or ten Shuttles, one or ten probes, etc.
5+ years of time SAVED to launch the first moon mission, will be a money-saving so high no one can evaluate (nor imagine!) now !!!!!
maybe $5-10 Billions or more !!!
about "taller than the launch tower"... no, it is EXACTLY like the CaLV (I've used the NASA drawings of CaLV)
however, the Super SLV will need some changes to the launch pad to fit its 3-SRB shape
also, the Super SLV can be built larger, with a 10 mt. tank, like planned in the new version of the CaLV
.
#639 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-23 08:19:04
...but what are the chances that this will happen...
the real figure will be known only when they will fly, now you can do only optimistic evaluation
the only way to avoid ("by design"!!!) ALL possible missions' fail due to delay is the single launch architecture
...is the "strongest" point of your argument for a single launch...
no, it was only the first
now I think that there are MANY other VERY GOOD reasons for a single launch (but I don't repeat here because you can read them in this forum and on BAUT)
...your super-SLV can't possibly have the performance you claim...
if it's true, then, also the CaLV can't lift 125 mT...
...come up with the mass for your smaller CEV?
with a simple 3/4 calculations of weight (however, a real "resized" CEV, etc. will be not exactly 75% of a full-CEV, but, probably, around 80%)
...flag-draped coffins and a national moment of silence...
I don't think there is (nor will be) a rocket that can avoid this 100%
it's only your optimistic evaluation of CLV safety, since you (absolutely!) WANT it.........
...It will be simpler than Shuttle, by 15+ times, multiples simpler...
also if you consider ONLY the electronics of any future vehicle, you (absolutely!) can't claim that it will be "simpler" than past vehicles!
...because it is the most complex machine ever devised by man...
completely false (also if you compare it with a to-day's mid-airplane)
.
#640 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-23 07:52:51
...two segments will increase performance, but adding a third end cap, booster thrust vectoring, and parachute set will reduce it by about as much...
the main advantages to use the man-rated 4-segments SRB and the man-rated SSME is to save GIANT quantities of TIME and MONEY
if three SSMEs will be not enough to lift 135 mT (as you claim) NASA can add 1/2 SSMEs (like the early SDHLV) to the base Super SLV
that will cost more in the first 12 moon missions (about $1 billion) but they still save Billion$$$ and YEARS
.
#641 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-23 06:27:13
...a nice link to a much more thurough dismembering of the SLV over at the BA/UT forum, particularly on pages five...
about the BAUT forum... I suggest to read the full debate, not only the page you like...
about the 1.5 l.a... it's clear that too much delay of the second launch may kill the full mission, while, with a single launch it (simply) can't happen
about the CEV-light... the "light" moon missions' hardware for 3-astronauts was necessary only with the SLV (a man-rated CaLV) or with the FAST-SLV; with the Super SLV it's unnecessary to "resize" the missions' hardware since it can lift the FULL 4-astronauts' moon missions
about "challenge him"... please read the BAUT forum's posts... it was NOT a true "challenge" because the ESAS' figures posted was NOT detailed enough to do a resizing calculation... e.g. "structure mass"... but... which structure? which diameter? which thickness? which materials? etc. or... "thermal shield mass"... but... which material? which shape? etc. etc. etc.
it's impossible to do exact calculation if the original figures are too generic !!!
however, the "resizing" calculation is completely unnecessary with the Super SLV
about your "that gullible ignorant people"... please don't start insult (also) the NewMars' Users and Readers, like you've done so far against me, thank you
about the CaLV... if it so dangerous and unreliable to launch manned (due to turbopumps, fuel, etc.) many moon missions will fail...
about... "will not have this catastrophic failure rate due to launch delays. It will not, estimated probabilities have been a daily fact of life since the dawn of [color=violet]modern engineering, and NASA should be capable of building rockets with reliability at least as good as previous rockets which were good enough. All major systems on both launch vehicles will be fully checked before either vehicle is launched, and so the chance that there will be a long delay in the second launch is small[/color]...
"modern engineering": the same unable to launch a Shuttle without one year of delays?
"as good as previous rockets": the Space Shuttle?
"major systems on both launch vehicles will be fully checked": like the "foam" and ECO sensor" that delayed over six months the next Shuttle launch?
about SLV money-saving... it's clear that build ONE rocket costs less Billion$$$ than build TWO rockets!!!
about your "weak-minded" etc... again, please don't insult the Forum's Users and Readers, thank you
.
#642 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-23 05:45:59
Have found another blog site where gaetanomarano's SLV has been discussed in length with other sources of info and number calculations that will aid us all in not duplicating many of the same type of discusions as we have already noted.
the thread you quote was only about the 1.5 launch architecture but it goes off topic after the first posts, and now we talk only of rockets
.
#643 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-23 05:39:02
..."end of mission" mass is... and the two different types of fuel tanks permit bigger or smaller payloads...
what is important for my evaluation is not the max shuttle+payload for a safe abort of the mission, but the MAX payload that two SRBs, three SSMEs and the better ET can lift
it's incredible that you find "bad" the Super SLV since it's is very close to the original SDHLV of the ESAS plan
10 SRB's segments in total on the SDHLV, 12 SRB's segments on the Super SLV
4 SSMEs on the SDHLV, 3 SSME (but may be four, if necessary) on the Super SLV
if the ESAS plan's SDHLV can lift 125 mT, the Super SLV (with its higher thrust) can lift 135+ mT
why my design is "bad" if it's very close to (or better than) NASA design?
then, if you post critics to the Super SLV, it's (exactly) like post critics to NASA and its SDHLV
.
#644 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-22 09:58:50
.
just moment... both CaLV and Thiokol rockets can lift their (astronautix's) "100 mT" payload at... 500 km. 51.6 degrees!!!
it's the same ISS' orbit but 100 km. above it!
the Shuttle can lift up to 24 mT to a 200 km. orbit but only 12 mT to the 400 km. ISS' orbit!
the CaLV don't needs to put the EDS/LSAM to a 500 km. parking orbit but only to a lower (but safe) orbit, maybe 200-300 km.
and "my" Super SLV don't needs to lift its payload to a 300 km. parking orbit, but only to the MINIMUM orbit to start a safe TLI
then, ALL these rockets (CaLV, Thiokol and Super SLV) can lift in orbit the full payload for their missions!
.
#645 Re: Human missions » Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket? » 2006-05-22 09:01:24
...NASA managers estimated the RS-68 will cost about $20 million per engine...
the saving of time and R&D costs using standard (already man-rated) Shuttles' engines is so high that the real units extra-costs of the SSMEs for 12 moon missions (until 2025) don't matter if compared with the Billion$$$ saved!
.
#646 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-22 08:28:35
After reviewing a few SDV it would appear...
these are not the NASA figures for the CaLV ...but... if these figures are TRUE... the new moon missions will NEVER fly!
.
#647 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-22 08:18:21
apparently SSME is even more expensive
the SSME is expensive because it is reusable, then, made in a few units (with its very high R&D costs shared on few engines!)
the expendable-SSME may have a lower cost because it will be built in dozens units!
also, since the SSME already exist (and don't needs to be man-rated) its (further) R&D costs will be ZERO
.
#648 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-22 08:12:52
The Shuttle stack can't lift 115MT, Shuttle itself with payload weighs around 90MT even...
NASA Shuttle Basics... "End of mission: 104,326 kilograms" (without its payload and OMS fuel) http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/shuttle/re … index.html
STS-98 Atlantis Press Kit... "Orbiter/Payload Liftoff Weight: 254,694 lbs." www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-98/index.htm
The simple fact is that you get diminishing returns when you add more SRBs because of the added dry weight of each booster...
ALL rockets (and SRBs) are built to lift "itself" and "something more" (tons of payload...)
...five-segment boosters, we're building them anyway for (unnecessary) smaller CLV...
...thats just absurd. Plus, since you'll be burning expensive SSMEs...
the total number of moon mission until 2025 will be around 12 only (or 20 with the Super SLV thanks to the R&D+hardware Billion$$$ saved!) then, the total extra-costs of the expendable-SSME, will be around $1.2 Billion (for 20 moon missions) compared with $20+ Billion saved!!!
sorry GCNRevenger... my idea/design is PERFECT
.
#649 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-21 23:10:20
Insufficent performance, especially the added dry mass of non-propellant booster components would cause a pretty serious hit. No way it would lift much more then 100MT.
not true, since the (existing) "Shuttle version" (without the 3rd SRB) ALREADY lifts 115+ mT (the Shuttle and its payload) also, that figure is only the max abort-mode Shuttle's weight at lift-off (since the Shuttle must land with its cargo-payload and full OMS fuel) but the real max shuttle+payload weight may be (probably) 10+ mT more!
...the first NASA version of the SDHLV was with 4-SSMEs (only one SSME more than my design) with the 5th SSME as "optional"...
..."my" Super SLV design is VERY CLOSE to the NASA new CaLV (with two differences that mean $20+ Billion saved with my design: the Super SLV uses ready available, man-rated, standard Shuttles' engines while the CaLV uses NON-STANDARD parts NOT AVAILABLE yet NOR man-rated, also, my Super SLV is the ONLY rocket while the CaLV is one of TWO rockets) ...then... if the Super SLV can't fly... also the CaLV can't!!!
...the total lift-off thrust of three 4-segments SRBs is 20% more than two 5-segments SRBs
...the Super SLV 1st stage thrust (SSME version) is 10% more than the SaturnV 1st stage thrust (that was able to lift up to 147 mT of payload in the last Apollo missions)
...the CLV 2nd stage (after SRB's separation) will be able to put in orbit the 25 mT CEV/SM with only 130,000 kbf of thrust of its J-2x (the total thrust of three SSME in the vacuum reach 700,000 kbf, 5+ times one J-2x)
...the CaLV/SLV will have a 2nd-stage/EDS (very light if compared with the SaturnV's 2nd stage + 3rd stage + payload!) to reach the orbit with its 125 mT payload...
however... if the three SSMEs of my design will be not sufficient to lift the full payload, NASA can (simply) add a 4th SSME in the center of the rocket to reach (or exceed) the total payload... I don't think it's necessary, but, if NASA will add the 4th SSME, my design still keeps all its advantages vs. the CaLV: one rocket, made with standard engines, years of time and $20+ Billion saved!!!
sorry GCNRevenger... my idea/design is EXCELLENT
.
#650 Re: Human missions » "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV » 2006-05-21 18:03:37
.
In my previous articles and posts I've suggested two versions of a possible Single Launch Vehicle for a "resized" 3-astronauts-only moon mission with "resized" CEV, SM, LSAM, etc.
But, now, I've found the BEST solution to build a FAST-SLV with the ready available, man-rated, 110+ successful launched and cheap Space Shuttles' engines!
The new version of "my" rocket can be built also with the RS-68 but only for a the cargo-CaLV.
Full story of the Super SLV here: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html
What do you think about?
.