OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

RobertDyck · 2003-10-28 14:22:00

Interesting letter. I can certainly relate to an elected politician wanting to ensure the hired administration follows the politician's direction. Did I mention a couple years ago I was elected president of the local community association? We had a problem that the coordinator refused access to the building for the citizen's patrol based on her feud with a couple members of that program. I overruled her and told her to permit access. She said that I can't give her orders; I was president of the organization that pays her salary and she said I can't give her orders. I got the board of directors to confirm the order, and she said the board can't give her orders either. We investigated the books and found she was embezzling money.

Embezzlement is not an issue with NASA, but controlling costs is. Furthermore, development work cannot proceed until you know what you are trying to develop. NASA and the contractors have been blaming Congress for cost overruns with the excuse that Congress keeps changing the requirements. This time Congress is saying development work should not start until those requirements are established. If NASA screws up the OSP budget, this time they will have no one to blame but themselves.

dgagauzov · 2003-10-28 18:39:31

Look what I found. This is Boyng?s capsule OSP variant. Looks a bit like Soyuz doesn?t it.

Boyng OSP capsule

Ad Astra · 2003-10-28 19:21:52

dgagauzov: Thanks for posting the pic, except that I can't see it. Can you put in the link to it, or post it again?

As far as the 5-seg SRB, the Air Force probably didn't have anything to do with it. It looks like it was mostly a Thiokol effort, with NASA supervising. With the shuttle grounded until Sept. 2004 at the earliest, it is premature to talk about integrating it with the shuttle. With the larger SRBs, the shuttle is a very different animal that follows a different trajectory and experiences different loads. All this must be carefully studied before the launch decision is given. The new SRB is still a wise investment, especially if this gathering sentiment for building a shuttle-derived vehicle materializes.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-28 22:55:32

Hmmmm but doesn't Nasa need the OSP if they are going to retire Shuttle when the ISS is complete? ...A thought, that if Nasa does retire Shuttle when the last few modules of ISS are launched, won't there need to be a new (EELV-launched ATV-derived) cargo tug to make up the difference?

Plus, since ISS may run low of money and will begin to show its age pretty soon (like 2016 soon by some accounts, perhaps sooner) then like Mir ISS will probobly require alot of expensive, heavy maintenance equipment/parts/etc to maintain a safe station beyond that nice round figure date. Sooo...

The solution to the problem is pretty simple. Scale back ISS to the three-man-crew maximum, keep Soyuz for the CRV, and... *gulp*...Stick with a limited manned Shuttle flight schedule for the remainder. With the ESA ATV or derivitive and Progress helping out, the Shuttle launch rate might be kept low enough to simply reduce the risk of another catastrophy to acceptable levels if ISS were to be scaled back. If the Shuttle program itself were cut back to accomodate a slower launch rate, there might even be savings over OSP and buying more ATVs considering the rapidly spiraling OSP cost since it must be built so quickly.

Plus, if the ISS isn't going to last beyond 2018 or so, which is thirty years since the first module was launched, that would be getting close to the date that Nasa wants to start talking Shuttle 2.0 and before Shuttle 1.X's airframes reach design life (in theory). So, with no destination after ISS to fly to, Shuttle 1.X running cargo anyway, and Nasa repeating their mistake of building a reuseable man-rated medium launcher with no mission the OSP would simply be redundant.

Back to topic...

Right now I don't think anybody knows what OSP will be like, as Boeing is probobly just now figuring out they don't have time to make a giant X-37... and had to slap up somthing. They also have pictures of an Apollo-style truncated cone capsule with OSP written prominantly on the picture. I forsee that OSP will follow one of three design strategies:
-The HL-20 PLS space plane
-The "Big Gemini" of the US capsule days
-The Zarya "Super Soyuz" from Russia
...all scaled down by about 75% for smaller crew loads and less launch mass. http://www.astronautix.com

As far as the new superboosters for Shuttle go, I thought I heard that the air force had a hand in it, but I could be mistaken... I am still not following the logic of building the thing unless Nasa intends to use them... Unless the decision has already been made to build an SDV, and they just haven't told us yet.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-28 23:01:29

Errr scaled down TO 75%...

Spacedaily had a thread concerning this that kind of branched off of the question if Nasa ought to design another space plane. A major issue for OSP that takes Apollo off the top of the list is that it has a very small internal volume, 6m^2, a third less than Soyuz even I think. Big Gemini/HL-20/Zarya have about 16m^2 each and seating for ten.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-29 00:32:53

...since ISS may run low of money and will begin to show its age pretty soon (like 2016 soon by some accounts, perhaps sooner) then like Mir ISS will probobly require alot of expensive, heavy maintenance equipment/parts/etc to maintain a safe station beyond that nice round figure date.

The Zarya module was launched on November 20, 1998. Zvezda was launched on May 19, 2000. Zvezda is the Service Module that has air and water recycling, astronaut sleeping quarters, etc.; in fact Zvezda was originally built as the core module for Mir-2. That is the important module; Zarya is the functional cargo block. If ISS can last 30 years, that takes it to 2030, not 2016. Mir was 15 years old when it was deorbited, but could have been extended by replacing the core module with Zvezda. The western corporation Mir-corp was planning to do just that, but... Well, the problems with the Mir core module were caused by the collision. I heard the media complaining that the computer on Mir was malfunctioning, but name one computer today that would not be adversely affected by a major power spike like that caused by the collision with Mir's solar panels.

dgagauzov · 2003-10-29 05:46:39

Here is one more.

Here

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-29 11:56:07

I don't mean to sound too incredulous, but thirty years sounds awfully optimistic. Other major componets, like the notoriously fragile US gyros and Russian batteries are also vital componets. I am not saying that ISS could not be sustained with sufficency maintenance until 2030 or so, but it will become an increasingly expensive and complicated endeavour that will require alot of mass to be brought up from the ground. More mass than can be reasonably launched without either Shuttle or an additional medium (~15 ton) cargo tug craft of some sort.

Hence, instead of spending the cash on developing OSP that has no destination outside ISS ATM and buying cargo tugs that might not have fuel for LEO/GTO work, plus the cost of maintaining a geriatric ISS, Congress might be suggesting to Nasa that they cut their losses by flying Shuttle until ISS gets too expensive to maintain, if the ISS can be repaired and flown for another decade or not. How much is an extra few years of zero-G science lab that hardly any voters care about worth?

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-29 11:58:00

Or... worst case senario... ISS is scaled back to a three-crew limit and forced to operate soley off of Soyuz/Progress/ATV flights with a greater focus on tending automated experiments rather than a large crew doing them by hand.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-29 12:33:09

To ensure ISS can actually do what it was built for, it will require a large crew: 6 or 7. I read an op-ed in Science that stated ISS takes 2.5 crew members to maintain, leaving only half a crew person's time to run science experiments. A crew of 7 would permit MUCH more science, so much more return on investment. A Soyuz with 3 crew members plus OSP with 4 would permit the full 7 crew complement on ISS. It's very hard to automate experimental science because the goal is to discover something you don't know before running the experiment. How do you alter the experiment after gaining the initial results? With a crew that is easy. Many biology experiments are easy by hand but complicated to automate. That is why the ISS was built.

Building a tug would be good. It could grab modules launched by Atlas V or Delta IV, then rendezvousing with ISS and dock. The ISS itself can take over the function of science missions. Soyuz could take over the crew taxi function. Progress/ATV could deliver equipment and supplies as well as reboost ISS. This combination would completely replace the Shuttle, but somehow I don't see Congress accepting reliance entirely on Russia to transport crew to the station. OSP together with the tug would be the last pieces to replace the Shuttle.

I still think OSP should be reusable, designed for crew only (no cargo), limited to 4 crew members, and constrained to launch on an Altas V or Delta IV with a single common core booster and no solid rockets boosters. Once Shuttle is decommissioned we can use its facilities for a Shuttle Derived Vehicle as a truly heavy lift launch vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-29 13:16:11

That would probobly be the ideal situation, and the course that Nasa ought to take I think, but the dollar signs are mounting at a frightening pace to build OSP and there is no talk of a orbital supply tug at all as far as I know.

I think one of the mounting questions if OSP should go forward is when or if Nasa intends to bring Shuttle-II online. I think the idea of a crewed reuseable medium launcher is a terrible idea to get us out of orbit. But if Nasa is bent on it, then it does become a question if its worth it to spend big money on OSP/cargo-tug when we have Shuttle 1.X already and the OSP/cargo-tug function would obviously be superceded with the advent of Shuttle-II. With room for three people each, its possible to modify Soyuz for longer on orbit life and send up two of them to fill the CRV role.

If OSP and a tug would wind up costing, say, $15-20Bn to develop and another $1.0-1.5Bn a year to operate when we are just going to turn around and throw them away after we're done with ISS, it may actually be less expensive to fly Shuttle two or three times a year.

This, combined with the huge army of people that would be layed off when Shuttle is retired, even if the Stack is modified into an SDV, then Congress may simply skip OSP/cargo-tug and wait for Shuttle-II that Nasa is going to build anyway.

As far as my take on OSP, having it able to take over entirely from Soyuz would be a nice ability to have, and adding room for six seats as opposed to four I don't think would be that hard. Even if all four seats aren't occupied, I am sure there are light-weight supplies and science gear that could fit in the extra space. In any event, even if OSP becomes a very small capsule like Apollo, the CTV version will probobly be too heavy to ride on the badly under-powerd Delta-IV single-core launcher without SRBs, and it is looking shakey if it could ride on the Delta-IV with the maximum number either. The no-SRB Delta-IV can haul around 7000kg I figure to an ISS orbit, and Apollo weighed around 6000kg for the capsule alone. No service module, escape rockets, or adapter.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-29 13:45:33

I would certainly hope NASA does not build another crewed medium lift shuttle. Shuttle-II should be just a replacement for OSP. A single-stage-to-orbit reusable-launch-vehicle sized to carry just 4 crew members and at most one piece of carry-on luggage each for personal items would be ideal. If you want to transport 7 crew members then send 2 OSPs. Most of the time the transportation requirement will be for 3 or 4 crew members, so keep the vehicle small. Small equals inexpensive.

As for the price, the news announcements so far indicate the OSP will cost somewhere between $11 billion and $13 billion. That is insane; the budget for X-38 including construction of 2 flight units was only $1.2 billion. Why has the cost increased 10 fold? I think someone is price gouging.

By the way, I calculate the lift capacity for Atlas V 401 to be 8.24 tonnes to ISS. Delta IV Medium would need an enlarged upper stage to accomplish that. The larger Delta 4H-2 might be enough, but we may have to admit that a single CCB version of Delta IV just can't lift as much as Atlas V.

Bill White · 2003-10-29 14:30:22

As for the price, the news announcements so far indicate the OSP will cost somewhere between $11 billion and $13 billion. That is insane; the budget for X-38 including construction of 2 flight units was only $1.2 billion. Why has the cost increased 10 fold? I think someone is price gouging.

Remind me (I think we discussed this once before) if we exclude the shuttle, what rocket system could be used to lift the X-38?

What would follow on costs be to buy additional X-38 copies?

$1.2 billion for the first two means it can't be more than $600 million each, probably much much less than that per unit if NASA bought, say, twelve of them. Why couldn't we stick the X-38 on an existing rocket and send it to the ISS? Rotate a new X-38 up to the ISS every year or 14 months for 12 - 14 years.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-29 15:01:33

The X-38 was designed to carry 7 astronauts in coveralls; no spacesuit. It massed 17 tonnes, so the only vehicle that could lift it to ISS would be Delta IV Large. The $1.2 billion budget was to include all development costs including scale model prototypes that were dropped from a B-52 to test their aerodynamics, flight controlls, and the parafoil. The vehicle itself should be reusable, although the deorbit module was expendable.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-29 17:49:17

I would really, REALLY hope that too, since I hope Nasa has sinced learned the folley of pairing crew and heavy cargo, as people don't weigh much and require a very high quality rocket, and cargo doesn't. But...

http://www.slinews.com/slifinal.pdf

...it looks a bit like Nasa thinks there should be a "reuseable" Shuttle-II flying before ISS expires, with vehicle development decisions starting in 2005... Phrases like "reuseable," "Space Station crew and cargo," and "satelite repair" are making me ill, but it doesn't look like a done deal. HOPEFULLY Nasa will come to its senses and abandon anything like Shuttle. Look at the artists drawings... http://www.slinews.com

What I would like to see is the creation of a fly-back liquid booster powerd by the RS-84 designed specificly to fit 2-3 on a Delta-IV or Atlas-V core able to lift 20-30 (perhaps 40) tons to LEO. Even if the flyback boosters were attached to a payload faring I still don't see an easy way to re-use the Centaur upper stage. Somthing like this could cut launch costs in half right per-ton there if the boosters could be reused easily.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, back to OSP/cargo tug concerns...

The X-38 has one fatal flaw that takes it out of the running for OSP, in that it only has the hardware to come back -down-, none for rendevous, docking, or enough life support. It is also has no landing gear, which would be awfully nice to make landing gentler and recovery easier. It also was totally automated, no manual controls whatsoever except for the parafoil. Along with no provision for any propulsion outside of a throw-away solid rocket deorbit engine, which won't be good enough for orbital maneuvering.

Hence, if OSP is to have wings, it ought to be a 75% scale of HL-20. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm HL-20 has room for ten, and had a launch mass (escape rockets, OMS fuel, booster adapters, etc included) of around 16,000kg. This would give you room for six and maybe a little time-sentitive (eg living tissues) or specialty replacement cargo. This would put you near the limit of the Delta-IV Medium 5,4 launcher's payload to the ISS but if there were any weight-creep then it would require the Delta-IV Heavy or an Atlas-V with four or five SRBs.

HL-20 would also be able to re-use its OMS engines, be able to land on a runway, and have a more benign (1.5G) re-entry that would subject the heat shield to lower temperatures making shield reuseability easier. A capsule of similar internal volume (Big Gemini, Zarya "Super Soyuz") would weigh a similar amount with all launch hardware, require more potential landing sites (low cross-range flight), and subject the crew to 3-5G decents.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-29 20:04:39

Capsules will be quicker, cheaper and safer to develop and use.
They'll be fine until the first space elevator is constructed in 2015!

Ad Astra · 2003-10-29 20:53:44

From looking at the Zarya (Super Soyuz) study, I've inferred that capsules are lighter primarily because 1) wings are heavy, 2) capsules are small and volumetrically efficient, and 3) heat shielding adds a lot of weight. Zarya came out too heavy because the entire capsule was surrounded in heat resistant tiles.

I like lifting bodies because the wings are kept small, and the fuselage can be made relatively small and volumetrically efficient (not as good as a capsule, but better than an aircraft.) The lifting re-entry minimized requirements on the TPS, making it ideally suited to reusability.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-30 14:37:44

A capsule design may be less expensive and faster to develop, but I am not so sure that it would be any easier or less expensive to -operate-. And perhaps I have erred in not making it clear that a winged craft can include a lifting body akin to X-24/38 or HL-20...

Anyway, back on topic as far as capsule designs of similar volume to HL-20 or Zarya will still be pretty heavy if it is to use almost-off-the-shelf hardware. The only capsule of similar volume and capability studied by America that I know of is the "Big Gemini" cooked up in the Apollo days. It had all the cargo volume and equipment that OSP would need and then some, but would have weighed around 16,000kg, similar to Zarya. It might be possible to reduce its mass down to the limit for the Delta-IV (which Nasa seems bent on at least having capability for) but to do it in only four-five years is questionable.

Plus, given the ISS orbital inclination, there will need to be many more emergency landing sites for OSP if Nasa wants fast emergency return capability, and if speed is a major factor (such as an injured crewman), then you have to also consider the time-to-recovery element. An HL-20 style OSP will also be able to re-use its OMS engines and its heat shield, whereas the former is impossible for a capsule and difficult for the latter, given its much higher temperatures.

It is even possible that HL-20 could use a mostly metal foam heat shield, which even if it wern't truely reuseable, would be very durable and very easy to replace. Bolts, not glue. Not to mention that a lifting body also experiences fewer G's on re-entry.

A HL-20 fifting body, reduced in size for six crew and lightend to ride on Delta-IV Medium+ 5,4, is the ideal outcome for the OSP project.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-30 14:51:57

I still think an HL-20 reduced in size for 4 crew and lightend to ride on Atlas V 401 is the ideal outcome for the OSP project.

Ad Astra · 2003-10-30 16:21:53

I prefer the Atlas to the Delta, but the goal of the project is an OSP that will use either booster. This is to preserve competition and to have a fallback in case one booster is grounded after some catastrophic failure.

An expendible Big G could be made even lighter if the payload module is reduced in size, of if the aft passenger compartment is shrunk. However, I think NASA would object to putting the docking port in the heat shield. Even if the concept worked on its single test flight, that's no guarantee that another breach wouldn't happen. Could Big G be modified with a docking tunnel in the nose?

Just imagine a Big G (the final descendant of Mercury) atop an Atlas V. A modern-day Mercury Atlas. John Glenn would be proud.

RobertDyck · 2003-11-01 08:18:22

I watched the video on C-SPAN of Robert Zubrin's testimony before the US Congress regarding the future of NASA. He argued for the Mars Direct plan and abandoning the OSP in favour of a capsule. Before Robert Zubrin spoke with the president of the National Space Foundation and a couple others, Sean O'Keefe and a couple others spoke. Sean O'Keefe said NASA now plans to separate humans from cargo; the OSP will not carry any cargo. The current plan is for Progress and ATV to carry cargo to ISS. Yea! He finally got it! The Senators who heard the testimony were concerned about the direction of NASA and whether NASA was actually going anywhere. It was very encouraging. Part way through the testimony of Robert Zubrin et al, the Congressmen took a break to vote on whether to scrap the OSP. They didn't announce their decision; we'll see what comes out of this.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-01 10:18:43

A vote on canceling OSP? Argh I can't stand the not knowing!

OSP wasn't going to carry any signifigant cargo from the outset I don't think, asside from a few kilos of speciality stuff or maybe an unmanned launching Progress style on a EELV HLV in the first place I hope... And its very encouraging that O'Keffe plans to do away with Shuttle, as least in its crewed form.

Buuut I still think a capsule is not the best choice. They still have less cross-range miles than I have teeth and will require a more involved and numerous costly recovery sites. Not to mention that they are harder on the crew during decent, cannot re-use their OMS engines, nor are much lighter than a lifting body. A X-38/HL-20 style lifting body with seats for six or four and 500kg of cargo might be just light enough to ensure single-CCB Delta-IV compatibility.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-11 14:44:38

In the Nov. 6 Aviation Week, there are some interesting tidbits about OSP that I'd like to share.

First, it was determined that a capsule would need additional fuel in order to meet the requirement that injured crew be taken to the hospital within 24 hours. The mass of this additional fuel makes the capsule just as heavy as the winged vehicle.

Second, the ESA believes that a capsule is better for crew rescue, but a winged spacecraft gives more room for growth and is a better vehicle for crew transfer. Some crew rescue capability will be needed by 2009, when the ISS is up to six people. The shuttle will probably be retired by 2013.

Third--does anybody remember Hermes, or feel a sense that OSP was much like a reincarnation of Hermes? Well, ESA is proposing a scaled down Hermes to become the new OSP. Part of the new Hermes is an ejectable crew cabin, which could be rushed into service as a stand-alone crew rescue vehicle by 2008. By 2012, the CRV would be the cabin of the new OSP. It's an interesting (and probably impractical) two-step solution to NASA's needs.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-12 10:28:19

Score points for a HL-20/X-38/X-24/BOR-4 style lifting body? Adding a load of fuel to the capsule would certainly reduce the number of extra landing sites you would need.

Does anybody know if a lifting body will suffer the same fuel mass problem? I would think that the lifting body's 1800mi crossrange would negate the need for it...?

Or I guess more importantly, has Congress decided to ace the program??

Ad Astra · 2003-11-19 17:38:23

Check out space.com for pics of LockMart's entry. I guess "lifting cone" would be the best way to describe it. The more I look at it, the more questions I think of.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-10-28 14:22:00

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#27 2003-10-28 18:39:31

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#28 2003-10-28 19:21:52

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#29 2003-10-28 22:55:32

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#30 2003-10-28 23:01:29

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#31 2003-10-29 00:32:53

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#32 2003-10-29 05:46:39

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#33 2003-10-29 11:56:07

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#34 2003-10-29 11:58:00

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#35 2003-10-29 12:33:09

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#36 2003-10-29 13:16:11

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#37 2003-10-29 13:45:33

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#38 2003-10-29 14:30:22

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#39 2003-10-29 15:01:33

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#40 2003-10-29 17:49:17

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#41 2003-10-29 20:04:39

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#42 2003-10-29 20:53:44

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#43 2003-10-30 14:37:44

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#44 2003-10-30 14:51:57

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#45 2003-10-30 16:21:53

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#46 2003-11-01 08:18:22

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#47 2003-11-01 10:18:43

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#48 2003-11-11 14:44:38

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#49 2003-11-12 10:28:19

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

#50 2003-11-19 17:38:23

Re: OSP: Capsule v. Wings - if you had to choose right now

Board footer