Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

GregM · 2005-06-23 23:10:22

I wont]http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/06/sdlv_finalist.html]won't argue.

Aw man - you beat me to it!

Looks like we will get the Magnum booster after all. You can say one thing about Griffin: he does things big, and by God decisively.

120MT lift. Big big booster.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima … ...038.jpg

Apparently the Shuttle army will live on!

RobS · 2005-06-24 00:26:54

"Note: The images displayed may not reflect the hardware and overall concept of possible visits to either the Moon or Mars. However, the art work represented here serves as a comprehensive study of various concepts and ideas developed as possibilities over a period of years. The renderings were accomplished by NASA and/or NASA-commissioned artists."

This is at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima … ages/mars/ and introduces the photo you cite.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2005-06-24 05:29:19

If orbiter cannot be retired until CEV flies - - how can we possibly afford EELV CEV?
If Griffin cancels 7 or 8 STS to ISS missions and flies a Thiokol CEV before 2010 we can get rid of orbiter without nasty fights from Texas and Florida senators.

There is also another way of looking at this bill in that it once signed does away with the control of who says when the shuttle gets retired giving it to the congress and not the president. Since congress controls the purse strings and some of them seem to want a mission to save Hubble. It would seem that they would also want to complete the ISS whether it requires more missions or not.

The looks of the Magnum booster shows a modular or stage style of build. In which the CEV could be placed on top or it could be a cargo pod just as easily.

clark · 2005-06-24 06:33:55

Let's see the reccomendations in July.

GregM · 2005-06-24 11:22:00

"Note: The images displayed may not reflect the hardware and overall concept of possible visits to either the Moon or Mars. However, the art work represented here serves as a comprehensive study of various concepts and ideas developed as possibilities over a period of years. The renderings were accomplished by NASA and/or NASA-commissioned artists."
This is at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima … ages/mars/ and introduces the photo you cite.
-- RobS

Sorry, I assumed that everyone would properly understand that it was just a concept drawing of Magnum, since there is no formal design for this vehicle in existance. However, it is very likley that the vehicle will resemble this in an overall general configuration. I just posted this to give people some idea of what sort of thing to expect.

I would be surprised if the vehicle would be as tall as illustrated though. What got me was the requirement for a lift capability comparable to a Saturn 5.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-27 11:23:08

Shuttle components could be used in next generation of rockets

Cost is an issue
The idea of using pieces of the shuttle as a powerful cargo launcher dates to the 1970s. The most serious effort was in 1987, when engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., started developing a concept called Shuttle C [cargo] in the wake of the 1986 Challenger accident.
The plan would have replaced the shuttle orbiter on some launches with an unmanned carrier to haul satellites and other items to space. The notion was abandoned in 1990, however, when it became clear that launch costs would be cheaper on expendable rockets.

Commodore · 2005-06-27 17:16:06

Can the VAB do the inline option?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 17:17:02

If a little trivial thing like raising the VAB roof a few feet, redoing the flame trenches, and building a new launch table are showstoppers then NASA has bigger things to worry about.

Commodore · 2005-06-27 19:46:11

If a little trivial thing like raising the VAB roof a few feet, redoing the flame trenches, and building a new launch table are showstoppers then NASA has bigger things to worry about.

The whole point of the SDV is to use the existing set up.

If were going to rebuild the pad and assembly buildings, it will lead to sticker stock.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-27 19:51:42

If NASA can't accomplish something so easy for a reasonable sum, then they have no business building their own rockets, and they should be forced to use Boeing/LockMart's fleet.

GregM · 2005-06-27 22:39:10

Very few physiccal changes are required to stack and launch a Magnum booster out of LC-39. At least one assembly bay of the VAB will have to be re-configured, and at least one launch platform will have to be partially rebuilt, as the flame contrail from the first stage core will be directly below where the stuttle ET is now located.
As for LC-39 itself, the concrete hardstand can remain essentially the same. Umbilical arms will have to be added to the LUT to service a second stage of the vehicle. On the flip side, the payload changeout room and associated structures can be removed at pad.

None of this stuff is anything resembling a showstopper.

clark · 2005-06-28 11:04:26

Don't know where else to place this:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/ … t_ina.html

DUDE!

SpaceNut · 2005-06-28 11:25:10

Yup saw Iran Nonproliferation Act, it was part of the hearings topics The future of Nasa that I posted in the other threads being held today.

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-06-28 12:16:50

For the "Stick" configuration. Is there an Option to place
Small-LOX Boosters on the sides? I am talking about
Boosters about 1/2 the size of the Solid Booster.

Would'nt that bring up the Launch Capacity to
something closer to 30MT.?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-28 15:16:06

In theory, the SRB launcher with a sufficently powerful upper stage could maybe hit 30MT... a cluster of new RL-60 engines have exceptional specific impulse, 25MT could probobly be achieved. Of course, using multiple RL-60 engines will be more expensive...

...Oh, and the Atlas-V "Mark-II" can theoretically reach 25MT with no booster engines.

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-28 23:07:08

What would happen to the engines of an SDV? Burn up in the atmosphere? Kind of wasteful, when you think about it (since they're inherently reusable).

BWhite · 2005-06-28 23:41:35

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archive … ro-Thiokol link linked by Rand Simberg.

Edited By BWhite on 1120023725

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-29 01:24:29

Very nice link Bill! If I didn't know, I would've thought you made that site, given your deep inclination toward SDV.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-29 05:50:15

More pro da stick:Griffin Favors Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster for Launching CEV

In an interview Monday at NASA Headquarters, Griffin said that, all things considered, shuttle-derived looks to be best choice for both heavy lift and CEV.

Another way to keep the shuttle army happy:

The single-stick approach also bodes well for ensuring safe operation of the space shuttle through the very last flight, he said. “You fly the last shuttle safely if the work force on the last shuttle feels there is a path to the future for them.”

Welcome back Josh:
The Srb booster would still be recoverable, the kick stage used to boost the cev to orbit may be made to be recoverable such as the techniques the Kilster was going to use and the re-entry capsule could be designed to allow for it to be reused as well. Leaving only the support piece of CEV that would not be reusuable or only could be reused if we end up always in the same place in orbit and collected them for reuse into something else though the process of salvage.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-29 07:56:08

Nooo! Say it ain't so! Griffin, Griffin, hast thou forsaken us?

Michael, Michael, don't you recognize how easily you could fall into temptation? The temptation of compromising the future (CEV) to help accomodate the dying present (Shuttle) that has been such a nightmare for your adult life?

At least half the Shuttle Army has to go. They have just plain simply have to be reassigned or gotten rid of, and thats all there is to it Mike. This is an expense that NASA cannot afford! If you can't bring yourself to do this Mike, then you need to be replaced by someone who can. The Army is a problem, not a solution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to technical stuff... Thiokol's glossy looks impressive, but I sense a hint of deception...:

-Comparing the costs of medium-to-heavy rockets with the likes of Pegasus and early Titan rockets. Delta-IV superheavy could reach $3,000lbs as well as Shuttle-C/Magnum could.
-Comparing only the standard Delta-IV/Atlas-V with SDV on cost
-No comparison of how severe the launch escape mechanism would be on the crew versus liquid fueled
-"Standard" 4-segment manned stick can't reach 30MT, only 25MT

and a few other things...:
-Both Shuttle-C options can't even hit 100MT, even with the "stretch" version?
-"Heavy" inline version only lifts 109MT? What happend to 120?
-Medium stick cargo version won't employ 5-segment SRB?
-Use the J-2S engine, with its lower Isp, as a TLI stage?
-Cost per unit and development of expendable version of SSME?
-Development costs of two or three different SDV vehicles versus "super EELV?"

also not considerd, but probobly wouldn't fit in a glossy...:
-How dependant on flight rate are these costs? An unqualified price sticker is meaningless.
-Cost comparison versus of joint USAF/NASA block purchase of EELV?

Engine information

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rl60 … s/rl60.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ssme … s/ssme.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2s. … es/j2s.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/shule … ulesrb.htm

They don't have anything about the 5-segment SRB model, but its reasonable to assume that the thing would have 25% more thrust for around 20% extra mass, with similar burn time and Isp.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

...but, if Thiokol's CEV scheme would work, and the big inline model could be built in different version built without too much trouble... then they might have me sold on the matter

Edit: Oh, and the upper stage wouldn't be reuseable. The Kistler plan only works with small upper stages that are built tough (read: heavy and burns kerosene) and may not work at all, and the Stick's bulky Hydrogen stage absolutely needs that extra mass. Besides there is no point in it, the upper stage isn't all that expensive, and recovering/refurbishing would be too much trouble.

And why would you want to re-rendezvous with the Service Module? Since the thing would have empty fuel tanks, it wouldn't do you much good. Hauling up fresh fuel, and the trouble of transferring it, would cost almost as much as bringing up a (more reliable) fresh copy anyway. Oh, and since it will be used as the TEI stage, the rocket that pushes the capsule from Lunar orbit back to direct Earth reentry, then there is no way to put it back into LEO without a big rocket burn... which you don't have fuel for.

Palomar · 2005-06-29 08:55:34

*Booo!

Bring back the Saturn V!! Saturn V forever!

--Cindy :;):

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-29 09:07:51

As impressive as the old Saturn-V was Cindy, the thing was EXPENSIVE ($2.5-3.0Bn a copy per inflation) and not all that reliable (F-1 engines failed twice, J-2 at least once, each time with a 20-30% chance of destroying the rocket).

Okay okay... after reading the description from the Thiokol glossy about SRB failure modes, I think I am offically sold on the idea. If Griffin can keep the Army's numbers down, then the Stick' would be acceptable.

Palomar · 2005-06-29 09:15:11

As impressive as the old Saturn-V was Cindy, the thing was EXPENSIVE ($2.5-3.0Bn a copy per inflation) and not all that reliable (F-1 engines failed twice, J-2 at least once, each time with a 20-30% chance of destroying the rocket).

*Yeah. I was just indulging in a bit of sentiment.

If it doesn't look like a Saturn V, it's not a rocket! Just kidding...

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2005-06-29 23:50:52

The top of the external tank of the Space Shuttle sits 56.0 metres above the MLP. Based on the image the axial configuration is 108.7 metres tall. The Saturn V that launched Apollo to the Moon was 102.0 metres including the launch escape tower. The MLP sits 25 metres high, so the axial SDV should be 133.7 metres as it passes through the doors. Each http://www.space-shuttle.com/shuttlelc39.htm]high bay door opening is 139 metres high. There's no problem fitting the axial SDV in the VAB.

GCNRevenger, where does it say that Shuttle-C can't even hit 100MT, even with the "stretch" version? Thiokols]http://www.safesimplesoon.com/heavylift.htm]Thiokol's web site lists Shuttle-C lift capacity as 170,000 pounds, but that version only has 2 SSMEs. My calculations show 104.7 tonnes to 185km orbit at 28.5° inclination using 3 SSMEs, 2 OMS pods, and including all the recovery hardware. That uses a pair of 4-segment SRBs and a standard ET.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 05:50:22

I not sure which thread it was but there was the question on the [url=http://www.atk.com/RocketMotors/rocketmotors_rsrm.asp]
SRB's weight to thrust so here is the link.[/url]

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-06-23 23:10:22

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#102 2005-06-24 00:26:54

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#103 2005-06-24 05:29:19

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#104 2005-06-24 06:33:55

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#105 2005-06-24 11:22:00

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#106 2005-06-27 11:23:08

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#107 2005-06-27 17:16:06

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#108 2005-06-27 17:17:02

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#109 2005-06-27 19:46:11

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#110 2005-06-27 19:51:42

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#111 2005-06-27 22:39:10

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#112 2005-06-28 11:04:26

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#113 2005-06-28 11:25:10

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#114 2005-06-28 12:16:50

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#115 2005-06-28 15:16:06

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#116 2005-06-28 23:07:08

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#117 2005-06-28 23:41:35

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#118 2005-06-29 01:24:29

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#119 2005-06-29 05:50:15

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#120 2005-06-29 07:56:08

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#121 2005-06-29 08:55:34

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#122 2005-06-29 09:07:51

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#123 2005-06-29 09:15:11

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#124 2005-06-29 23:50:52

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#125 2005-06-30 05:50:22

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

Board footer