Space Initive Launch Vehicle

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-09-05 18:42:09

Has there been any word on what NASA is thinking for HLVs for the space initive? I know along time ago in a galaxy far far away they were talking about a concept called "Magnum" which was supposed to use a composite version of the STSs external tank and the liquid-fly back boosters they were talking about pre-BSI. What are their leaning towards now, I know that LockMart/Boeing are pushing for EELV derived HLVs but I don't know exactly how much engineering would be involved in creating a larger diameter core stage.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-05 19:58:16

Last time I looked at what there thinking was on heavy booster was that they didn't have an opinion. They were still weighing the prospect of three or four types of booster.

Cargo shuttle, an Apollo type booster and one or two other types of heavy buster. But, that been two or three months ago or so.

They could also be weighting to see what kind of money to there going to have and what kind of mission they need to do too. Without either increasing there budget or canceling the both the current shuttle and International Space Station, NASA going to be relatively strap for money what ever type they choose for there heavy launcher.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-06 09:10:50

The Magnum is not such a good idea... it requires the development of entirely too much hardware for an SDV. New flyback boosters on top of the total transfiguration of the Shuttle tankage with engines, or a new cryogenic core alltogether? And isn't the Magnum payload a little low, like 80MT?

Magnum I believe was cooked up by Marshall SFC, a place notorious for eating up big money on big projects that aren't worth much... there has been talk of closing down their shop alltogether. NASA's premere make-work field office next to Shuttle/ISS.

With the word "privatize!" being tossed around in the Congress and NASA bound to spend almost all its money on Shuttle/ISS until the end of the decade, they don't have any money to go building any HLLV rockets. What will probobly happen is that NASA will use an uprated EELV to get us to the Moon and worry about an HLLV later, since thats about all they have the money for until the Golden Goose and its evil stepchild are gone.

Rxke · 2004-09-06 10:30:30

Wow... Count the engines... 1960's Russian rocketry revisited?

comstar03 · 2004-09-06 18:01:42

I don't see any reusable designs yet !!!!

We need to develop one-way large cargo transports from earth and two-way people transports ( with small cargo space) from earth. Hybrid spaceplane designs would be a better use of or time and resources, because the other uses could be high velocity / high attitude transglobal travel ( civilian / military )

Martian Republic · 2004-09-06 20:20:46

I don't see any reusable designs yet !!!!
We need to develop one-way large cargo transports from earth and two-way people transports ( with small cargo space) from earth. Hybrid spaceplane designs would be a better use of or time and resources, because the other uses could be high velocity / high attitude transglobal travel ( civilian / military )

I agree with you that we need to develop reusable shuttle design. But, the problem with that is they cost more to develop build and setup the infrastructure to support them for large scale use as people movers. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, rocket are cheaper for human access to space for a limited number of people to go to space.

We are in a Catch 22. If we go with the cheapest thing we can get to go in space, we limit our access to space. If we try and go we what we need to develop space, it will be so expensive that we probably won't go into deep space.

Such is life.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-09-07 06:34:55

While not the first time for a SDV it does have many of the features of an article I saw some time ago. A little search on magnum on space.com got this link
http://www.space.com/busines....er.html
date back in 2000 NASA Draws Up Big Booster for Mars
This concept did include flyback booster, more re-usuability of components and safer in design than the current srb's.
Engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center are working on designs for a new giant launch vehicle called Magnum. It would use a curious mix of Russian rocket engines -- derived from the abandoned Soviet Energia rocket program -- and newly developed strap-on, liquid-fueled boosters that would first be tested out on space shuttles.

The Magnum would use the space shuttle launch facilities at Cape Canaveral and could launch 80 tons (81,280 kilograms) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO). This compares with around 20 tons (20,320 kilograms) for the piloted space shuttle, and for un-piloted vehicles like the U.S.' Titan 4-B and the European Space Agency's Ariane 5. Its lift capacity, however, would be less than the 100 tons (101,600 kilograms) that the Saturn 5 and Energia could manage.

comstar03 · 2004-09-07 07:12:46

land and take off from a runway not vertical launch pad, work on the jet propulsion within atomsphere and rocket propulsion outside the atomsphere.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-07 08:43:14

Great picture but point me to the reference for the specifics. Please...
It reminders me of the SLI Venture craft under the x-33 I think possibilities.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-07 08:58:46

Until there is a large NEED to send huge numbers of people into space, then it doesn't make any sense to spend the many billions of dollars to make a fully reuseable ship. For cargo wise, an RLV might be okay for supplies and fuel at the moment built small, but a large Shuttle sized one for signifigant payloads thats good will certainly cost $20Bn, perhaps more. For launching large objects or small numbers of people, expendable rockets make more sense.

I have to say that I am really underwhelmed by the Magnum's performance, only 80 Imperial tons each?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-07 09:14:31

Why is work still being done on composite tanks which were slated for the X series vehicles that have been cancelled. Also the tanks are very small in comparison to the shuttles.

Northrop Grumman, NASA Complete Testing of Prototype Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank

Nine Months of Testing Proves Integrity of Tank Manufacturing Process, Boosts Confidence in Using Composite Fuel Tanks for Reusable Space Transportation Systems

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/040907/63264.html

Commodore · 2004-09-07 10:11:09

Until there is a large NEED to send huge numbers of people into space, then it doesn't make any sense to spend the many billions of dollars to make a fully reuseable ship.

Untill it can be done, people won't bother to think of ways it can be used.

We need to change the way of thinking from "If only we could do a, b, and c, we could do x, y, and z." to "Hey, now that we can do a, b, and c, we can not only do z, y, and z, but everything in between as well".

SpaceNut · 2004-09-07 11:02:16

Until there is a large NEED to send huge numbers of people into space, then it doesn't make any sense to spend the many billions of dollars to make a fully reuseable ship. For cargo wise, an RLV might be okay for supplies and fuel at the moment built smal

RLV have nothing to do with as you put it the need for huge numbers of people to be placed into space. Rather it is about lowing the cost per flight for any quantity of people and regardless of how many flights.

Nasa's Shuttle does poorly on both accounts. Refurbishment of tiles and on operationation launch costs.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-07 13:02:47

Until there is a large NEED to send huge numbers of people into space, then it doesn't make any sense to spend the many billions of dollars to make a fully reuseable ship. For cargo wise, an RLV might be okay for supplies and fuel at the moment built small, but a large Shuttle sized one for signifigant payloads thats good will certainly cost $20Bn, perhaps more. For launching large objects or small numbers of people, expendable rockets make more sense.
I have to say that I am really underwhelmed by the Magnum's performance, only 80 Imperial tons each?

That why I support a Kennedy type space plan, but only bigger like build a big base on the moon or small city. That by itself will generate the need to do the science to build those big next generation shuttle and also create the need to build fission powered rocket engines and maybe even the need to develop fusion powered rocket engines and power plants to be able to complete the national mission or goal. The U.S. Government is one of the few organizations that could pull this off. That the only way that I can see that this cycle can be broken.

But, otherwise your right.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-07 13:42:27

Why is work still being done on composite tanks which were slated for the X series vehicles that have been cancelled. Also the tanks are very small in comparison to the shuttles.
Northrop Grumman, NASA Complete Testing of Prototype Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
Nine Months of Testing Proves Integrity of Tank Manufacturing Process, Boosts Confidence in Using Composite Fuel Tanks for Reusable Space Transportation Systems
http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/040907/63264.ht … 63264.html

I think they pretty much explained it in the article. You will still get a 10% to 15% saving in the weight of the tank or the current Aluminum tank that NASA uses to launch the shuttle into orbit. But, working with Prototype Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank even if there not used on the current shuttle, NASA and there contractors will still develop the expertise to work with carbon fibbers, composite materials. These substances still have a theoretical possibility of reducing the weight of a future space ship or re-useable shuttle by 50% or more. If we also develop engines that also have a 20% to 50% percent more output to weight, then it might be possible to develop a one piece shuttle. Which should be our ultimate goal. Who knows, if they can develop some of the critical technology that there having problems with that force them to cancel the X-33 and X-34 they might choose to resurrect it even, because now they have the technology to build them in hand.

This is only a few possible reason that they may have for continuing the research to develop those tanks.

Or it could be that they found some interesting new technology that they wanted to pursue too. If they found something useful, you may choose to save it because you already got most of the money spent on it any way or are budgeted for it. So you may as well go for it.

Larry,

Vir Stellae · 2004-09-07 14:18:28

IMHO, the only thing that could put a a Single-Stage Shuttle is a nuclear(non chemical) rocket. and with the hippies with their heads in the sand spread all over earth that'll never happen.

without nuclear you need something like a 95% fuel mass for an SSTO... The thing would be like flying a Mach-1 Paper airplane in terms of safety.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-07 14:30:18

Nuclear or leverage the oxygen and free reaction mass of an air-breathing engine could reach high mass fractions, but the extra mass of a large nuclear reactor (gigawatts, not megawatts) plus large tankage needed or the aerodynamic structures & TPS for an airbreathing setup will nessesarrily cut into the higher Isp benefits.

I think that a chemical-rocket powerd SSTO is possible, but until there is a breakthrough with functionalized CNT composits, such a vehicle will be limited by its practical size to small payloads.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-07 16:42:35

IMHO, the only thing that could put a a Single-Stage Shuttle is a nuclear(non chemical) rocket. and with the hippies with their heads in the sand spread all over earth that'll never happen.
without nuclear you need something like a 95% fuel mass for an SSTO... The thing would be like flying a Mach-1 Paper airplane in terms of safety.

I think it could be done, but your going have to get real creative with your design and rethink physic again. As new technologies come on line, what you thought you knew has either has been eclipse with new physical principal or new technology.

But, I think we will see the two piece shuttle before we see the one piece shuttle though. Because, we already have the technology to build the two piece shuttle if we choose to do it. Build a carrier craft for the space ship shuttle and let the carrier craft take the space ship shuttle to a sub-orbital and release it. Then the rockets on this space ship shuttle will send it the rest of the way.

But, to combine those two into one ship will mean that it will have to have two set of engines to make that trip. I don't think we have that technology for that kind of operation. But, if NASA is allowed to chip away at the boundaries, I think it might be doable in 20 to 30 years. Then there always the possibility of developing new physical principle that we never knew before that may make it possible. But, I will admit, it will be a tough nut to crack though and I doubt it will happen all at once either.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-07 18:40:19

Nah, the physics we know. The engines we know, turbines and cryogenic rockets that can do it are contemporary technologies. The fuels and materials we know. Its just a matter of building a very BIG hypersonic-capable airplane and a decent LH2/LOX rocket lift-body upper stage that really is honestly and truely re-use-able and not the "refurbishable launch vehicle" like Shuttle.

Composits are good enough, including tankage, for most of the vehicle to keep weight down

Combined-cycle turbine engines, augmented with a little LOX are able to skirt the Hypersonic regieme at altitude for short periods

We're good enough at making TPS systems now to do away with the tile nonsense on the upper stage for a lift body

Modern thermal blankets and materials should protect the lower stage okay for the run-up to launch speed/altitude, especially in the thin air...

Not twenty years... eight, maybe half a dozen if it became top NASA priority, but a good one wouldn't come cheap... I think it would require at least a $20-25Bn budget, perhaps $30Bn.

Commodore · 2004-09-07 21:10:12

I had a crazy idea for launching passengers and light cargo by using blimps to send up a spaceplace carrying 10 passengers or the equivilent refrigderator sized consoles for experiments to a high altitude, as high as possible, then use disposable, or even reuseable Pegasus sized boosters to get into orbit. It would probably look like the old HL-20 plans.

Kind of combining a couple of the X-prize ideas. The big question is how high the blimps can go (it'd have to be huge to get something that big up), and if the boosters can get it up to orbital velocity. Scramjets might be needed.

The nice thing about it is thered be little to no atmosphere to cut through, and you could enter into any orbit you want, only being limited buy the altitude the fuel in your boosters could get you to.

For heavy cargo we just send up a heavy lifter once a month and auction off "mass space".

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-07 21:21:28

The Pegasus rocket is far from cheap, in fact, it is currently the most expensive launch vehicle per-pound in the world, except maybe Shuttle. Pegasus is designed for payloads under a ton, and the HL-20 would likly weigh in at 15-20 times that if it were scaled up a little, so the size of rocket needed would be kinda silly and not really economical.

Scramjets also won't work unless you are already traveling at least Mach-6. Since a blimp is not going to top 100mph, there is a liiitttle problem there.

comstar03 · 2004-09-08 00:07:12

OK, you don't understand the movement of people are the hardest for all. Cargo, droids, components and even supplies for humans in space are easy , but the transport of humans to and from space effectively and efficient is the issue.

we need a combination of aircraft / spacecraft to develop a combination craft that would service humans into and out of space ( low earth orbit ) or Mars up to 20 personnel.

We need a program first modelled on computers and virtual tested with all known data then a scale replica model to test, but as a drone powered craft, then build a full size vehicle for testing, could design this within the whole crew exploration vehicle program for short- long term expansion planning.

comstar03 · 2004-09-08 00:22:51

Look at this !!!!!!!!

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-08 04:39:41

I'm still not certian of the merits of sticking wings on rockets. Especially since the R&D costs are so much higher than for a VTOL design, with little operational benifit.

ANTIcarrot.

comstar03 · 2004-09-08 05:56:45

Anti-carrot,

it is for a reusable development not, 1960's rockets, I am working on some new research relating to a new combustion engine system, that has two factors - (1) Low fuel consumption and (2) high velocity that could bring a vehicle horizonitally off the ground and into space and then return and land on less than a full tank of fuel.

I have the concept worked out, Next is computer modeling and then need the funding to build a micro-prototype engine and the control systems to manage the high velocity exhaust. ( It will have move thrust then even the scramjet engine and less fuel consumption.

The best part of the application concept for the engine dynamics, they can be varied to develop high velocity interplanetary engines as well.

Still years off , yet, but I think, reusable space vehicles for humans are the way to go, not the 1960s-1970s man in the rocket trips.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-05 18:42:09

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#2 2004-09-05 19:58:16

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#3 2004-09-06 09:10:50

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#4 2004-09-06 10:30:30

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#5 2004-09-06 18:01:42

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#6 2004-09-06 20:20:46

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#7 2004-09-07 06:34:55

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#8 2004-09-07 07:12:46

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#9 2004-09-07 08:43:14

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#10 2004-09-07 08:58:46

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#11 2004-09-07 09:14:31

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#12 2004-09-07 10:11:09

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#13 2004-09-07 11:02:16

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#14 2004-09-07 13:02:47

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#15 2004-09-07 13:42:27

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#16 2004-09-07 14:18:28

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#17 2004-09-07 14:30:18

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#18 2004-09-07 16:42:35

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#19 2004-09-07 18:40:19

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#20 2004-09-07 21:10:12

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#21 2004-09-07 21:21:28

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#22 2004-09-08 00:07:12

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#23 2004-09-08 00:22:51

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#24 2004-09-08 04:39:41

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

#25 2004-09-08 05:56:45

Re: Space Initive Launch Vehicle

Board footer