A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

BWhite · 2005-02-07 08:45:29

A recent opinion on http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html]EELV v SDV.

Not Jeff Bell.

Bill Eoff also proposed similar HLLVs before leaving Marshall in disgust. One of my contacts in Boeing, has expressed to me in personal communication that he finds Heavy-Lift superior to EELV, but that pressure from above has kept him quiet.
There has been some scuttlebutt that even the heads of NASA centers at Johnson and Marshall have it in for any shuttle-derived HLLV, despite the fact that a CEV may experience as much as 23-27g loads upon the Delta IV, according to one of my engineer-contacts.

and this:

"Michael Griffin, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration from 1991-1993, says the most logical approach, all things considered, is to spend the $3 billion or $4 billion it would cost to build a shuttle-derived heavy lifter and forget about EELV-driven approaches. Griffin also said that ... he takes a 'dim view' of approaches that would rely on orbital staging and assembly operations," and how he doesn't "'think EELV is a competitive option...'"
Sadly, I fear his voice will be drowned out by the 'space libertarians' who drive to Washington on public highways to tell us how we don't need NASA and how wonderful Rutan's little plaything is, giving the Proxmire types all the excuse they need to savage future NASA budgets now in grave doubt.

= = =

All of which leads us here: http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … t=0]Russia leads space rocket boom.

Edited By BWhite on 1107787952

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-07 09:21:19

Twenty-three gees sounds pretty preposterous to me, something of a scare-quote. How exactly could any rocket like this produce that high of a load?

The Delta-IV can also be upgraded, the model that flew last month is not the ultimate end, and its payload capacity can be nearly doubled in theory. 40MT at a time would permit a Lunar sortie of only two launches, which is not unreasonable.

The cost is probobly the biggest factor... the cost of a super Delta-IV is pretty well known (not likly more then $250M each) while the cost for SDV is a big question mark. Shuttle costs almost $1Bn a flight, and if SDV cannot be launched for less then half that, then VSE isn't going anywhere. It is big enough of an unknown that going the EELV+ route may be superior.

EELV+ combined with a solar ion tug might present signifigant cost savings for Lunar cargo.

What I want to know is if Lockheed can pull a rabit out of their hat and come up with a third option... a clean-sheet HLLV in the 80MT range, kind of a "mini Saturn," which would avoid using the potentially fatal cost overruns of using the Shuttle Army, and would be a superior solution to Delta.

One idea for such a rocket... using the same construction methods as Atlas-V, except bigger around, 5m wide and ~45m tall tankage aproximatly... A trio of RD-180s under the tank, a pair of Shuttle SRBs flanking, and a trio of RL-60 engines under the upper stage. Perhaps employ a 6.5m faring like Delta-IV+ too.

There is a snowballs' chance under a running F-1A engine that we would EVER "go Russian" for our launch needs. It just isn't going to happen. The political possibility of Russia "vetoing" the American space program is unacceptable in the extreme, not to mention large swathes of NASA employees would be fired and infrastructure eliminated and to rely on their Russian counterparts. Ain't going to happen.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-07 09:22:00

Some very interesting points, particularly regarding CEV acceleration. I still like SDV, but it's too big to be the answer to our need for a CEV launcher. I was thinking that the manned CEV capsule would launch on an EELV while the bulk of the spacecraft would be launched unmanned on the SDV.

At the same time, EELV accelerations should not be a show-stopper. If the problem was fixed for the Redstone, Atlas D, and Titan II, there's no reason why it can't be done for Delta IV and Atlas V.

BWhite · 2005-02-07 09:53:41

As I have been posting for months, it still seems to me that a 5 segment RSRM with an RL-10 cluster or RL-60 upper stage can throw cargo to LEO at a lower cost than any other US option.

If you wish to abandon the standing army, well, okay.

If this rocket is cargo only, assemble it on a new pad (or a refurbished old pad) since all you really need is a flame trench, a rudimentary gantry and a big crane to stack the segments and then place the super-Centaur on top.

= = =

But it was the politics that seemed most interesting about the article.

As we dither with return to flight and looking for way to prop up Boeing, the Russians keep plodding along, consolidating their stranglehold on everything except what is paid for by the US taxpayer - - meaning DoD and NASA.

= = =

Ad Astra writes:

Some very interesting points, particularly regarding CEV acceleration. I still like SDV, but it's too big to be the answer to our need for a CEV launcher. I was thinking that the manned CEV capsule would launch on an EELV while the bulk of the spacecraft would be launched unmanned on the SDV.

Fine by me.

Perhaps what we face is falling "in between" problem - - our ambitions are too skimpy to support a full up SDV program yet too ambitious to rely solely on EELV.

But then, I have long believed that a conscious undertaking to settle permanently is the only source of launcher demand sufficient to solve this chicken/egg problems.

Edited By BWhite on 1107791862

Euler · 2005-02-07 12:52:11

Some have also estimated that the Delta IV may inflict 25-27g loads upon any CEV.

Whoever came up with that estimate is clearly wrong. Based on engine thrust payload mass and stage masses, the CEV should experience a peak acceleration of around 3.5g at the first stage burnout.

While Jeff Wright makes some good points, he is clearly not an objective observer and many(or even most) of the figures he uses are exaggerated. Be skeptical about all of his claims.

As I have been posting for months, it still seems to me that a 5 segment RSRM with an RL-10 cluster or RL-60 upper stage can throw cargo to LEO at a lower cost than any other US option.

I think that that option will cost more than you believe it will. You need to consider all of the costs involved in actually launching a vehicle rather than just building it. It will also require a second stage that is much more powerful than normal to compensate for the low performance of SRBs. In addition, unlike with CEV the acceleration for the SRB vehicle could actually be enough to cause some major problems.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-07 12:55:29

Well another problem is how much is in the budget for the development of the CEV a mere 753 million for a demonstrator vehicle in 2008.

I would have expected a functional unit not some mockup by that date.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-07 15:01:02

Development costs are still the big problem. You could probobly man-rate whatever HLLV we want to build, but that could cost a great deal of money, particularly for the Shuttle-Derived option. So, if it is possible to build or modify only one rocket to "do the Moon," it would save alot of money.

Another strike against SDV besides the spectre of Shuttle-like cost, is putting people on a heavy cargo rocket which doesn't come in a "mini" size. Being able to send up intermediate sized payloads would also be a handy thing to have, like launching JIMO or sending a Lunar payload up to a waiting Solar/Ion tug so you don't need the monster HLLV.

Modifying the Shuttle SRBs to burn slower would be pretty expensive to test, given that the things absolutely must not blow up (where the crew would have slim odds of survival). The low specific impulse and high empty weight will also present a bigger and bigger problem the longer you have to keep bolted to it, that will take a bite out of the performance. A cluster of RL-10 engines could wind up costing almost as much as an RS-68 engine too.

The other issue is, that the SRB launcher simply cannot loft large enough payloads for a two-launch EOR Lunar mission. You would wind up needing several of them per sortie (4-5) to equal the same payload as a pair of Delta-IV+ HLV's or a single HLLV. Too risky, too much trouble.

I am evenly split between two options as ideal...
-Delta-IV+ "superheavy" able to lift 40MT, or lift the crew capsule with only two engines total. A modification, not a new rocket, so development costs will be fairly low.

-"Atlas-VI" with a wider core stage, three or four RD-180 engines topped by a multi RL-60 mega centaur, and the ability to lift up to 40MT without SRBs or 80MT with a pair of Shuttle SRBs. Fairly high development and infrastructure costs, but perhaps the best option. Man-rate the no booster version.

I am wary but willing to entertain the idea of going the SDV route as it would offer the most lift for modest development costs, but it could be too expensive to fly if the "save the Shuttle army" mindset can't be excised from NASA.

Commodore · 2005-02-07 18:23:37

Must we fight? Theres room for both.

EELVs for manned launches, resupply, small probe launches, ect.
SDV HLLV for large lunar and Mars ship components, surface bases, space stations, large nuclear powered probes, ect.

On a side note, what are the odds that if a SDV is used that they'll revive the old liquid fly back booster idea.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-07 18:56:01

Well, if we have the upgraded Delta-IV+, and it can do what Boeing claims, then we don't need the SDV, and the sizeable expense of keeping its launch facilities in operation can be avoided for only a modest increase in Delta-IV core production.

We are, unfortunatly, not going to Mars for a while. We don't need big 80-100MT launches for a Lunar program.

Liquid flyback boosters? Considering their price and the relativly low cost of the Shuttle SRBs, zero.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-07 21:18:31

If we are able to upgrade either of the delta or atlas rockets to heavy lift capacity, then why would down sizing a SDV any different.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-08 06:55:02

Downsize the SDV? That isn't very practical. The tank is quite large, and cryogenic engines get poor Isp at sea level, which would require lots of fuel... which in turn would slow down your acent.

SDV without boosters would also need to be structurally re-worked completly... if it could get off the pad at all.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 08:29:47

Not really you basically end up with a delta rocket but just of different dimensions with rather than 3 identical first stages strapped side by side you get 2 srbs for 2 of them around a new core. Take away or add segments as needed for bulk of lift. External tank would also change in size and shape with same boeing rs68 engines. Not really a clean sheet design but close.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-08 11:38:53

Changing the diameter of the Shuttle main tank will be difficult, it would bascially be a new rocket. You would need a modified launch pad and manufacturing facilities too.

Also, making smaller SRBs with fewer segments isn't going to reduce their price much, and you can't make them shorter because the structure that attaches them to the tank runs between the LOX and LH2 tanks, and can't be moved down the vehicle without piercing the LH2 tank... bad idea.

The Shuttle main tank with no boosters would also need signifigant launch pad changes, and is short on thrust.

The Detla-IV+ "super HLV" would come equipped with a four-pack of small SRMs to get off the pad quickly, the regular HLV takes a full 15 seconds to clear the tower!

Ad Astra · 2005-02-10 16:59:59

One important thing I noticed in the original posts is that Michael Griffin advocated an SDV. I believe that Griffin's name has been floated as a candidate for NASA administrator.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 18:27:32

I can't help but be wary of the SDV option... unless it can be operated and developed for a fraction of what Shuttle costs, then its a bad idea. We will need to make a modified EELV to carry the CEV anyway, since a low/medium cost SDV probobly won't be man-rated easily, so SDV should have a less frightening potential for fiscal ruin to make it more attractive versus "super-EELV" or clean-sheet alltogether.

Having the ability to launch ~40MT payloads might be nice too and not have to pay for a whole SDV shot.

Grypd · 2005-02-10 18:32:02

This is going into the region of what would have the most political clout. I can see an SDV vehicle being used not as it is the most efficient but that it will be a sop to all those who will loose out on shuttle cancelation. We will have to deal with what appears to be a pure non man rated SDV probably broadly similar to a Shuttle C type. At least it has a decent throw weight.

What might happen is that they also go for an EELV just to transport crew. Heres hoping.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 18:39:01

Yeah but that means we have to do two different vehicles to get to the Moon, making one of the EELVs man-rated and build the SDV for heavy cargo. If we built an intermediate rocket with boosters for heavy lift, that would be a much more flexible solution.

Also, if we are building SDV in order to retain the Shuttle Army, then that alone makes SDV a bad idea. The Shuttle Army's salery is what is holding back NASA.

Grypd · 2005-02-10 18:48:37

I do agree with you its the massive army that is needed to get a shuttle ready that is one of the prime factors that really makes it expensive.

But I still think that to get a new spacecraft it will come down to an SDV as it will be a bone to those senators whos states will be feeling the pinch. Especially as it will be election time again when a design will be ready.

Clean sheet has allways been the best option though not the cheapest I think we will see that realities never really effect how this one will sort out.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 19:14:31

I sure hope it doesn't go that way, the more politics got involved with post-Apollo NASA, the worse things got.

The multi-segment SRBs from Thiokol for instance, Thiokol actually lost the bid since their booster was less reliable and powerful... but they happend to be in Utah, so NASA was orderd to use them as a political favor. Their lower performance helped to scare the USAF out of the Shuttle program and less rugged construction was the technical cause for the Challenger disaster.

If the VSE turns into a horse to be traded in the halls of Congress, then its going to be another disaster.

NASA should get some spine and insist on the best option, at least for the most important pieces, reguardless of politics.

In such a case, the Shuttle Army and SDV present a terrible liability, and a clean-sheet rocket would be preferable with superior flexability and less sketchy probable costs.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-10 20:26:11

a clean-sheet rocket would be preferable with superior flexability and less sketchy probable costs.

Yes and the puts the total responsibility for crew loss with the company that would build it. Since none have manned vehicles now or in the past other than the joint venture of the shuttle. One can only feel that they do not want that responsibility otherwise IMO they would have already built a man rated unit and we would not be talking about SDV or of needing a CEV.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 20:38:44

Nonsense, the idea that Lockheed or Boeing would have "easily whipped up a manned ship or two" or some junk. These companies would be no more liable then Thiokol building their booster with lousy O-ring seals.

It is ultimatly NASA's decision to fly or not, and NASA would be ultimatly responsable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 22:56:30

I am wondering exactly what it would cost to build an brand new HLLV that could put 80MT on orbit for launching unmanned Lunar or Mars vehicles, but also have a "lite" model that could launch 40MT fairly cheaply and safe enough for people.

Something of a "Powerd Up" Atlas rocket... a five-meter core stage, a pair of RD-170's or 3-4X RD-180's, a cryogenic upper stage with a trio of RL-60's, able to lift ~40MT to orbit not unlike the old Saturn-IV concept.

The same core stage with a payload faring on top paired with two Shuttle-style SRBs in the "heavy" configuration, able to put up 80-90MT in one throw. Could perhaps require a more powerful upper stage engine if RL-60 can't be efficently clusterd... probobly wouldn't be more then the big RS-68. Enough for a sizeable Lunar payload + TLI stage, or big enough for a Mars ship and TMI stage seperatly.

The EELVs cost what, aproximatly four or five billion to develop both of them? They are basically new rockets, other then retaining the RD-180 and RL-10 engines... If the thing will be double the size (dimensions) and about double the complexity, could it be done for under $8Bn? $6Bn? Speculation welcome.

John Creighton · 2005-02-11 14:50:38

I am wondering exactly what it would cost to build an brand new HLLV that could put 80MT on orbit for launching unmanned Lunar or Mars vehicles, but also have a "lite" model that could launch 40MT fairly cheaply and safe enough for people.

That is a good weight range. Not only can it lift enough weight for a mars mission but it well suited for heavier robotic missions like JIMO.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-11 15:49:56

It would also be the appropriate size for launching supplies to the Moon, heavy equipment with the aid of an ion tug, or... heaven forbid... heavy cargo missions to the ISS.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-11 19:59:02

I would be interested to see a breakdown of the shuttle army to determine what percentage of those folks work exclusively with the orbiter. My guess is that over half do. I could only support an SDV if it meant a leaner shuttle army. Unfortunately, a lot of politicians would only support an SDV if it meant maintaining the status quo. Still, the imminent retirement of the shuttle orbiter means that none of the standing army will have jobs unless SDV is approved.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-07 08:45:29

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#2 2005-02-07 09:21:19

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#3 2005-02-07 09:22:00

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#4 2005-02-07 09:53:41

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#5 2005-02-07 12:52:11

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#6 2005-02-07 12:55:29

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#7 2005-02-07 15:01:02

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#8 2005-02-07 18:23:37

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#9 2005-02-07 18:56:01

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#10 2005-02-07 21:18:31

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#11 2005-02-08 06:55:02

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#12 2005-02-08 08:29:47

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#13 2005-02-08 11:38:53

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#14 2005-02-10 16:59:59

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#15 2005-02-10 18:27:32

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#16 2005-02-10 18:32:02

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#17 2005-02-10 18:39:01

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#18 2005-02-10 18:48:37

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#19 2005-02-10 19:14:31

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#20 2005-02-10 20:26:11

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#21 2005-02-10 20:38:44

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#22 2005-02-10 22:56:30

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#23 2005-02-11 14:50:38

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#24 2005-02-11 15:49:56

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

#25 2005-02-11 19:59:02

Re: A new EELV v SDV - A new spacedaily opinion piece

Board footer