Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-01 17:59:38

Clark: You aren't making a great deal of sense... We need the HLLV to get to Mars without getting too silly, so you want to make sure its Not built any time soon?

If we are going to the Moon, I say we ought to at least not make it a total waste, and to get anything to the Moon besides people and supplies/habitats to support them, an HLLV is called for.

clark · 2004-04-01 18:06:34

We don't need HLLV to get to the Moon. And yes, without the HLLV, anything on the Moon will be small by neccessity. But what we get out of not going HLLV immediatly (via SDV) is more funds to do more lunar sorties. We get sustained activity beyond LEO.

I'm basing this off the pdf architectures as outlined.

By using EELV, we are forced to develop autonomus docking technology and on-orbit assembley- two capabilities we will defintely need for any future space activites. SDV removes much of that immediate neccessity, but we will need it for Mars all the same. EELV also allows NASA to get out of the launch industry immeditaely to focus on what it should, exploration. EELV use increases demand, which should bring the overall cost for the EELV down for everybody else. That means launch costs come down, and private industry can start making a buck on the waiting tourist market.

Most of what we need to do on the Moon can be handled by a few people, and a lot of robots and automated machinery. That's about all she is good for, and that's about all she should be used for. My worst nightmare is for us to get bogged down on the Moon, which I see happening if NASA is enabled to think "big".

You give them an SDV, and they will want to launch things to justify it's exsistence. Do it later, when we need it for mars, and we have some more matured technologies (can you say scramjet!).

RobS · 2004-04-01 18:12:09

Hey, don't call it my architecture! It was based on Michael Duke's "A Lunar Reference Mission" at the "Romance to Reality" website. Duke is still working on lunar water issues; the Spacedaily.com site has an article about him right now, with a picture. He's got a crew of students at Colorado School of Mines developing a robotic digger for digging up icy regolith.

Duke used to work at Johnson Spaceflight Center. He knew all the people involved in NExT. NExT developed a plan to use solar ion propulsion to L1; Duke then modifed it for the moon, adding lunar water; and he said a three times larger version would be the right size to send people to the moon. It's all on the Romance to Reality website.

The Congressional testimony has nothing new in it. There is water at the poles, but not sheets of ice. Duke is assuming regolith that's 1-2% ice. He figures 2% is exploitable; 1% is marginal. Sheets of ice at that temperature will be hard as concrete, but 2% icy regolith will not be, so it may actually be easier to use than an ice sheet.

All I've been doing for the last few years is identifying ideas that looked cheapest and most doable politically, not inventing my own! I have filled in some details, though. And then I've spun a novel around them for fun; I'm on volume 10 right now, by the way!

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-01 18:35:21

Little problem with that Clark... in order to build SDV, we've got until 2010 to start, and not much later, after which either SDV will have to built or the Shuttle-Z/Ares concept ditched. Its quite possible that SDV will be almost ready by the time the first reasonably small manned Lunar missions via Delta-IV HLV will be carried out if it were started right after the end of Shuttle's days, so I think its questionable if we ought to bother with "the little way" at all. If it takes four Delta-IV HLV shots to mount one Lunar mission, then the whole thing could ride on one SDV shot. And hey, we get to better refine the rocket for Mars travel.

Automated docking is also not a hugely important technology with HLLV, since you would only have two or three large modules (even one with Dr-Z's slightly hairbrained plan) they could probably be assembled easily enough by simple remote control guidance of one of the modules in LEO. Future HLLVs will be likewise limited by fuels as today's rockets. It doesn't get much better than solid+hydrogen, Scramjets are only really practical for horizontal RLVs, we'll have to start all over again when we don't need to.

Bill White · 2004-04-01 18:56:09

If we go EELV, why do we need Boeing? Dont forget a Proton launch was just sold for $50 million.

= = =

3 or 4 Protons assemble the Sabatier-nuke combo, a Mars Ascent Vehicle, and a surface TransHab based home for the preliminary mission.

Then 3 more Protons lift ISS-Zarya, 1 TransHab, and 2 off the shelf Soyuz descent modules. A centrifuge mounted universal gym is added to the TransHab for gravity training.

Fly to Mars. No tethers!

Land in Soyuz descent modules and migrate to the other facility. Later, MAV rendevouz with ISS-Zarya plus TransHab with Sabatier generated fuel for Earth injection.

= = =

I did this is about 5 minutes, so there are many errors I am sure.

Ad Astra · 2004-04-01 19:11:40

Despite NASA claims that an SDV decision won't be made until 2008, this decision has to be made sooner if SDV is used for the 2015-20 Moon program. In 1989, NASA estimated that Shuttle-C (the least radical SDV proposal ever advanced) wouldn't fly until 1995. A clean-sheet cargo/engine pod and 5-segment SRBs will only add to the development time, despite possible economic and performance benefits. SDV WILL NOT be ready before the 2010 shuttle phaseout and ISS completion. One can only hope it's ready by the time of human lunar return.

Bill White · 2004-04-01 19:16:19

Despite NASA claims that an SDV decision won't be made until 2008, this decision has to be made sooner if SDV is used for the 2015-20 Moon program. In 1989, NASA estimated that Shuttle-C (the least radical SDV proposal ever advanced) wouldn't fly until 1995. A clean-sheet cargo/engine pod and 5-segment SRBs will only add to the development time, despite possible economic and performance benefits. SDV WILL NOT be ready before the 2010 shuttle phaseout and ISS completion. One can only hope it's ready by the time of human lunar return.

How hard is shuttle C anyway? I have been told that complete engineering drawings already exist and the payload fairing can be built using existing orbiter tooling.

Why does it take 5 plus years?

= = =

Between 1989 and 1992 much development actually did occur, so five full years is no longer needed. Switch to RS-68 engines or Northrup Grumman engines (??-106 I think) will take a little longer.

2 SRBs + a cryogenic upper stage is the Zubrin/Baker Ares so a plain vanilla shuttle B/C is a meaningful step forward. Indeed, perhaps the ability to omit the upper stage and fly shuttle B (C with RS-68s) = OR = fly an upper stage Ares depending on mission would provide flexibility.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-01 19:58:52

Actually, Shuttle-C mechanical demonstrator/mockup faring was built.

I like this idea of a SDV with two sizes... the smaller one based off of Shuttle-C with two RS-68 engines with the new 5-segment SRBs and a target payload of 60MT and optimized simplicity and ease of mass production. This would accomodate a manned Lunar expedition in 2-3 flights, the first comprising the Lunar surface payload HAB/supplies (if desired) that would go direct, the second would be the Lunar Lander sent to Lunar orbit, and finally a CEV with its TEI return stage in the 3rd shot. No automated/remote docking or ISS rendevous needed, each flight with a stretch Centaur-G TLI.

For the future, three RS-68 engines would be placed under a modified Shuttle ET, and a upper cryogenic stage powerd by RL-60's (sucessor to RL-10) or single RS-68 engine would preferably side mounted with a target payload of 120MT.

I'd like add a note about EELVs, that the economic concept the "if you buy more, each costs less" effect varies depending on what the item or service is. For expendable rockets (EELV), this is what is called "very inelastic," that is, increasing the number of units does not substantially lower the price each. The USAF $75M deal is obviously one that Boeing wouldn't agree to if it were anybody but the USAF, since making rockets is expensive. Making more rockets won't make them much cheaper since they are so hard to make.

Ad Astra · 2004-04-01 21:24:45

My thought on SDV is that it's an interim solution until we really get serious about sustained lunar-Mars exploration. It would give us an 80+ tonne lift capability for a minimum amount of development funding.

Once we need to send really big ships to the moon and Mars, we should aim for a clean-sheet design that offers an improvement over even the Saturn V. I envision it as an EELV on steroids, with four engines on each of the three common core boosters. The scalability of the EELV designs is something I definitely like, because you can size it for different payloads and the economies of scale are a bigger factor when you're building multiple booster cores for the same rocket.

Bill White · 2004-04-01 21:39:46

My thought on SDV is that it's an interim solution until we really get serious about sustained lunar-Mars exploration. It would give us an 80+ tonne lift capability for a minimum amount of development funding.
Once we need to send really big ships to the moon and Mars, we should aim for a clean-sheet design that offers an improvement over even the Saturn V. I envision it as an EELV on steroids, with four engines on each of the three common core boosters. The scalability of the EELV designs is something I definitely like, because you can size it for different payloads and the economies of scale are a bigger factor when you're building multiple booster cores for the same rocket.

There is a Boeing vs Lockheed issue here. Do we want American access to space tied up with the patent rights of one company?

And, my worry is that a super augmented EELV might get delayed and delayed again and delayed again while shuttle C was darn close to flight status way back in the early 1990s.

How many tens of billions would a clean slate cost? It has been opined that to switch RS-68s for SSMEs and to design a payload fairing identical to the orbiter shape, merely out of lighter, cheaper disposable materials, would be only a few billion, at most and allows incremental steps up to Ares upper stage.

Very little new tooling would be needed, meaning faster and cheaper on the R&D front.

Ad Astra · 2004-04-01 23:19:58

But what if you wanted to put 150-200 tonnes in orbit? Not even Ares can do that. You can either have multiple SDV flights and assemble everything in orbit, or you can build a bigger rocket. A break-even point exists where it would be cheaper to just build the bigger rocket. Once that point is in sight, we will have no choice other than a clean sheet design.

Bill White · 2004-04-01 23:37:44

But what if you wanted to put 150-200 tonnes in orbit? Not even Ares can do that. You can either have multiple SDV flights and assemble everything in orbit, or you can build a bigger rocket. A break-even point exists where it would be cheaper to just build the bigger rocket. Once that point is in sight, we will have no choice other than a clean sheet design.

I agree with this completely. If a national consensus existed for launching permanent settlement, I would love to build boosters like that.

Yet I always come back to the same horse, for more flogging.

I believe the orbiter will prove too fragile to finish ISS by 2010 or 2011, so we either delay exploration, or abandon ISS, or find another way to finish ISS. Since shuttle C mock-ups have been built and we are close to completion, that just seems the most certain way to finish ISS within a reasonable time frame. Last mile guidance can be provided by an orbiter (if operational) or a Progress and the robot arm on ISS used for assembly.

And we leverage a 2 for 1 deal - - the cost of shuttle B (with RS-68) deployment can be charged to both ISS completion and the future exploration budget and once B is flying, we add upper stages later.

Cancel ISS this year and maybe we reconsider.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-04-02 00:00:23

If the shuttle hardware is scrapped, development of an all-new HLLV for Mars missions will only add to the cost of any future Humans-to-Mars program. NASA wants to gain space access step-by-step. I'm afraid that after the lunar program, the huge development cost of a clean-sheet HLLV, and the infrastructure needed to accomplish the Mars mission, might be a step too big. As Glenn stressed, we must plan for the future; a non-SDV lunar program is procrastination from the investment that is inevitable. It will only leave the Mars mission development decision for the next generation.

John Creighton · 2004-04-02 08:40:54

Not to digress too much, but I am just happy to see plans in motion, whether they are SDV, EELV, moon or mars.

clark · 2004-04-06 14:24:39

[http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 1655-8797r]http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 1655-8797r

I love it when I'm right!

Senior administration sources told United Press International that support in the House of Representative has improved chances to give NASA the full $16.244 billion it has requested for fiscal year 2005 -- an $866 million boost over last year's funding.

Sean O'Keefe, NASA's administrator, and several senior aides met with the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a group of conservative House members that included Charles Stenholm of Texas, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Robert "Bud" Cramer of Alabama and Gene Taylor of Mississippi, as well as other Democratic budget hawks.
The group vented their concerns about NASA's budget and got in return what one attendee called a detailed review of how the space agency plans to pay for the new space effort. The result was the Blue Dogs agreed to support an amendment to the House version of the budget resolution granting the full NASA request.

According to congressional sources, several House members complained Bush has failed to say anything more about the moon-Mars plan since his Jan. 14 speech, and his silence has been interpreted as a cooling of support. The group was told the White House was silent, not because Bush was rethinking his grand space plan, but was instead trying to avoid further politicization.
One source told UPI that Bush would "keep his powder dry until the myths, legends, and political barbs on this strategy subside," and the president probably would speak again about his space plan sometime late in his re-election campaign.

hehe... my wild one eyed man was right...

Ad Astra · 2004-04-12 17:04:53

It also looks like [http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … 40412.html]NASA is getting serious about its options for Moon and Mars boosters. It's a very informative read if you get a chanceto see it.

Bill White · 2004-04-12 17:33:30

From the article:

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.

John Creighton · 2004-04-13 07:57:02

Today’s most powerful launcher, the U.S. space shuttle, can lift about 27.5 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). The heavy-lift version of the Delta 4 expected to make its debut this year is designed to haul about 25 metric tons to LEO.

Some shuttle-derived designs could lift 80-100 metric tons to LEO, Sackheim said. Others would be designed to lift considerably less than that. Sackheim said NASA is studying about a dozen different shuttle-derived designs.

More radical approaches involving the EELV, Sackheim said, could include new and fatter core stages for the Atlas and Delta to yield as much as 40 to 60 metric tons of lift.

A Saturn 5-class lifter may not be necessary. NASA could opt to assemble and fuel spacecraft in orbit.
It could choose to launch astronauts and their gear separately, perhaps pre-positioning exploration equipment weeks, months or even years ahead of time.

It seems like there are alot of options on the table. Of course given budget constraints SDV seems the preferred choice.

clark · 2004-04-13 14:07:15

So I'll bite (seriously, I do ): Why the links to DC-X aka the Clipper?

It's perfect for a CEV, but it dosen't seem to have the attention of anyone in particular. of course, Scaled Composites was one of the builders, so maybe Rutan can talk to his backers...

SBird · 2004-04-13 15:27:37

The DC-X is hardly a secret - I'm not sure where you're going with all this 'hiding secrets in plain sight' business.

Anyway, the DC-X was a very interesting and promising idea. The politics that led to its cancellation were petty and rather tragic. However, the fact remains that it is not and was not a demonstration of a heavy lift vehicle or an orbital vehicle of any type. It got to 3200 meters of height. Furthermore, it had a lot or reliability problems - a hydrogen fire in flight, a cracked aeroshell upon a hard landing and the final destructive tipover that ended the program. While it's understandable that DC-X had teeting problems, it never reliably demonstrated that it had left those teething problems behind and never demonstrated anything even remotely resembling orbital flight. IIRC, the DC-X wasn't even capable of getting to orbit.

Even if the DC-Y had been made, it's cargo capacity was in the neighborhoor of 5-10 metric tons which is hardly heavy lift. It would have been great as a crew and fuel carrying vessel but rather useless for making big spacecraft.

Ad Astra · 2004-04-13 18:50:27

DC-X's supporters had wanted to build follow-on rockets like the five-engined, Mach 3 DC-XB and the enlarged DC-XC, but these common-sense proposals made little headway. The biggest show-stopper for a full sized Delta Clipper was the rotation maneuver that needed to be performed by the orbital craft before it landed. If DC-XC could pull this off at hypersonic speeds, I would be sold on the concept. Otherwise, I'd prefer the tail-first re-entry of most other vertical landers.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-13 21:28:59

Also a question if the DC-X style rocket could keep its dry mass down; the 40m long production model with its aerospike style engine was slated to haul 9-10MT to LEO.

If it can be held light enough, and the required maneuver pulled off, this seems to be the cheapest, easiest means of developing a practical SSTO light cargo/crew vehicle.

I wonder, if the production model is slated to use an aerospike engine, could the engine nozzles be coverd and the vehicle reenter tail-first?

Also like to note that the vehicle couldn't land on the Moon the same way as on Earth (no air to aerobrake) and it would be more delicate and difficult to operate on Mars with its thin air, plus required new CH4/LOX engines & tankage.

clark · 2004-05-24 09:26:39

Not CEV, but related...

This is a picture of the proposed patch for the Office of Exploration. I like it!

05.07.04.code.t.over.jpg

http://www.nasawatch.com/t/05.07.04.code.t.pdf]PDF- Exploration timeline

The above link will take you to a PDF with lots of timelines on the development of the CEV and the overall exploration envisoned by the current Vision for Space Exploration. Take a look, lot's of good info.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-04-01 17:59:38

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#127 2004-04-01 18:06:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#128 2004-04-01 18:12:09

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#129 2004-04-01 18:35:21

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#130 2004-04-01 18:56:09

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#131 2004-04-01 19:11:40

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#132 2004-04-01 19:16:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#133 2004-04-01 19:58:52

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#134 2004-04-01 21:24:45

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#135 2004-04-01 21:39:46

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#136 2004-04-01 23:19:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#137 2004-04-01 23:37:44

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#138 2004-04-02 00:00:23

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#139 2004-04-02 08:40:54

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#140 2004-04-06 14:24:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#141 2004-04-12 17:04:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#142 2004-04-12 17:33:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#143 2004-04-13 07:57:02

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#144 2004-04-13 14:07:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#145 2004-04-13 15:27:37

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#146 2004-04-13 18:50:27

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#147 2004-04-13 21:28:59

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#148 2004-05-24 09:26:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

Board footer