New Mars Forums

BWhite

Member

From: Chicago, Illinois

Registered: 2004-06-16

Posts: 2,635

Re: A new HLLV essay

One take home message:

What we really need is all-American technology with Russian philosophy.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04zc.html]Link

Another quote:

The EELVs would continue the failed 'build it twenty-tons-at-a-time-and-they-will-come' mindset that left us with the ISS. This philosophy is even worse when it comes to exploration since hydrogen boil off will be even more of a problem when you adopt the pieces/parts.

If we want large production runs, then get the most bang for your buck. Using the Delta IV approach, you must expend 15 RS-68s to get 100 tons to orbit.

By launching five HLLVs with only three RS-68s apiece, you sell your 15 RS-68s but you have 500 tons in orbit in the same amount of time. Real Space commerce will only be successful if done in large scale - not by dropping ME-163 Komets out from under Learjets.

I enjoyed this:

Real Space commerce will only be successful if done in large scale - not by dropping ME-163 Komets out from under Learjets.

You go, dude!

Or this:

The key to lower launch costs is not launch frequency, but delivery in bulk. We do not see motorboats crossing the Atlantic with goods, but very large containerships plying the waves.

---

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

MMmmm the guy is about 50% right... he is correct that doing much of anything 25MT at a time besides medium satellite launch or light supplies is a bad idea, but how big a launcher you need STILL depends on what you want to launch...

The EELVs also have one advantage that the Russian Zenit/Proton/Angara really don't have so much: growth options. It is possible to roughly double the payload of either EELV, up to around 40-45MT, without a huge investment. This size of launcher should be plenty for anything the USAF needs and for a small-to-medium-scale Lunar program.

Also, launching people on an HLLV is clearly overkill, and EELV rockets are pretty reliable with their small number of engines, so they are probobly pretty close to ideal for launching small numbers of people or small amounts of supplies. An uprated EELV might be able to send up the LEO CEV with only two engines total.

That said, building large space stations, building Lunar infrastructure, and of course building Mars ships & bases clearly does demand heavy lift, possibly somthing even bigger than the old 120MT Saturn-V or Shuttle-Z rockets.

I find his dislike of the JSF, which is a DoD project, to be really irrelivent to this topic though as NASA and spaceflight has nothing to do with it really, and he is much too quick to heap unwarrented praise on the Russian rockets, particularly the old ones.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: A new HLLV essay

Also the second part to the question is where is it assembled for the destination not only matters but how much it can lift at one time for the starting point which may be in LEO instead of on Earth.

ANTIcarrot.

Member

From: Herts, UK

Registered: 2004-04-27

Posts: 170

Re: A new HLLV essay

There is also the slight matter of weight growth. A forty ton payload which is perfect for lunar exploration can quickly become a liability if the cargo gets too heavy; of if the new wonder widgets (R-68s, LiAl tanks etc) don't quite work out the way we expect.

And the russians got much closer than any western nation to aircraft like operations for their rockets. Historically they spent little time on the pad and launched in very bad weather.

True there is no obvious upgrade options for them, but there weren't for the current US ELV fleet before the engineers sat down and designed them. But in the meantime...

Speed. Durability. Low cost. What's not to like?

ANTIcarrot.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

Weight creep? No, I don't think so, not on a "Delta-IV-B" anyway... see, nothing is being changed other then using a different material for the fuel tanks, adding a regenerative loop to the RS-68, and a four pack of SRMs just like on the Delta-IV Mediums. Maybe use higher-density Slushed hydrogen. There isn't anything to creep, its just swapping out exsisting things for better things. The Atlas-V is a little more sketchy, but the Cube/Square relationship for bigger fuel tanks ought to make up for the few differences, as its really just bigger fuel tanks.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Euler

Member

From: Corvallis, OR

Registered: 2003-02-06

Posts: 922

Re: A new HLLV essay

I agree that heavy lift is probably the way to go to support future human exploration activities, but the article is not very good.  The article's author uses a lot of misleading arguments and dubious data to support his ideas.

Good idea, bad arguments.

ANTIcarrot.

Member

From: Herts, UK

Registered: 2004-04-27

Posts: 170

Re: A new HLLV essay

There isn't anything to creep, its just swapping out exsisting things for better things.

Then we just have that niggling little issue of man rating. Plus the upper stage needed for ISS docking. Plus no-one has ever built a cargo module that can carry a large part of its weight as useful payload. Compare the launch capacity of the soyuz rocket with the payload capacity of a progress spacecraft. The *useful* capacity of any rocket can quickly be reduced by all sorts of things.

And then of course there's cost creep. Or perhaps cost sprint would be a better phrase...

I may be over reacting, but I'm just a little too synical to count my chickens before they're hatched, and in either I simply do not support another burn-the-blueprints campaign at NASA.

ANTIcarrot.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

Man rating just means there is a small enough risk of dying, not so much reliability of the system working. With an effective escape system already in development and the small numbers of engines involved (three, perhaps only two, not counting OMS) I think that man-rating should not be a big problem.

There won't be any need for a brand new docking system, since the one developed for the CEV ought to work just fine for hooking up to TLI stages or ISS docking ports for either the manned vehicle or a cargo hauler. The old Big-Gemini was probobly going to have a cargo version that would ride on a larger rocket, and if drawings are to be believed, Lockheed has the same idea for a "CEV ATV" that could ride on a bigger non-man-rated booster to deliver real payload. No heat shield, no parachutes, no LSS system, no escape rockets, no instrumentation, etc ought to leave quite a bit of payload if launched on a EELV+.

It isn't unwarrented to be cynical about the supposed price tags, but there are two things:
1: NASA has to suceed this time without breaking the bank, or risk its own destruction. Hows that for motivation?
2: How could anything possibly be worse then Shuttle?

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Mark S

Banned

Registered: 2002-04-11

Posts: 343

Re: A new HLLV essay

I find his dislike of the JSF, which is a DoD project, to be really irrelivent to this topic though as NASA and spaceflight has nothing to do with it really, and he is much too quick to heap unwarrented praise on the Russian rockets, particularly the old ones.

Ditto.

Jeff Wright apparently believes that the fiscal pie is finite.  He would cut the JSF and NASA Discovery missions to pay for his HLLV.  But can't a case be made that JSF is a pressing need?  Or Discovery missions are a pressing need?

The pie is not really finite; our government rarely runs on a balance budget, and if a program can be justified the funds will be found.  NASA, for its part, should cut the fat.  Sean O'Keefe has done a prettty good job of this, but more can always be found.  Private money can also be added to the picture.  If United Space Alliance could get a commercial market for Shuttle C, maybe they could develop the rocket instead of NASA.  The key is not exploiting an existing need, it is creating a new need.

---

"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"

John Creighton

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2001-09-04

Posts: 2,401

Website

Re: A new HLLV essay

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/j … ac/jsf.htm

---

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

John Creighton

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2001-09-04

Posts: 2,401

Website

Re: A new HLLV essay

JSF sounds like it is a very useful project because it will reduce future military procurement costs by standardized parts and increased versatility in assembly lines. This will allow greater economies of scale.

---

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

Yang Liwei Rocket

Member

Registered: 2004-03-03

Posts: 993

Re: A new HLLV essay

It's hard to know where we are going, the Russians had plans for a kind of copy but different approach on the various alternative shuttle designs by NASA, I know the ESA are working on new stuff and so is NASA, plus China also looks to a new Heavy Launcher. Now the new European Ariane 5 ECA prepares for launch, the launch window opens on the evening of 11 February at 16:49 (20:49 CET) and will extend until 18:10 (22:10 CET).
Ariane-5 ECA will be able to place heavy payloads of up to 10 tonnes into geostationary.  The Ariane5 rocket could use some more successes. Ariane4 engine used has a very good record, so this new one might also be good. Could be an important rocket as some of their past ones already were, 12 years Ariane 1 to 4 had launched over half of the commercial satellites in the world. The more powerful Ariane 5 has now taken over, with the objective of confirming European dominance in the civil launch market, in spite of stiff competition from the US, Russia, China, Japan and now Brazil & India.

---

'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

The Chinese "heavy launcher" is only about as powerful as the Delta-IV Heavy, perhaps a little more. The Ariane-5 is also only about a third the power of the Saturn-V and only half as powerful as the smallest true heavy lifter.

An upgraded Delta-IV HLV with modern technology would produce a rocket just as powerful as Ariane or any "Super Long March."

Europe's Ariane-V also can't hope to compete with the Russian rockets on sheer launch price.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Yang Liwei Rocket

Member

Registered: 2004-03-03

Posts: 993

Re: A new HLLV essay

It's true I would not count on seeing the folks from Brazil or China to catch up very soon, I mean they have a lot of work to do and how can they go up against the experience and technology and skill of NASA or the Russians, but both nations are gorwing India is doing well and Chinese growing fast. Then they will move forward more and perhaps someday they will do something very good indeed. Well what are the rockets nowdays compared to the Saturn V capacity which can lift up massive loads to LEO, launching up over 100 metric tonnes. Now I've seen books and papers which look at Western rockets refer to  a launch that is Super-Heavy when it does a 5.5 t to GTO orbit. A big problem is failures, looking at smaller rockets and when you look at larger heavy the Russian launches, the payloads for NASA and the rockets for Europe like Ariane, the rates of accomplishments this will become important. I recall that most rockets that have gone in the past had a very high success rate well above 90% for lauches but there have been failures like Russian lifts, USA's Taurus, and I recall one of the European rockets failed after a software problem. Russians had good costs for launch, $35 million for dedicated GEO while the ESA did a $40-50 million for 1,600 kg lift with Ariane-4 but they later improved costs with newer rockets. The Delta IV could be upgraded for a stronger capacity, perhaps even send over 20,000 pounds to the Moon and in this time of small payloads and miniture equipment in space-probes, this is something that one shouldn't turn your nose up at. The Europeans are now working to get their Ariane-5 ECA moving, but as far as I understand they are also working on smaller rockets for buisness and commerical commsat launches but also looking into more powerful rockets of the future such as the Ariane-5ECS-B plus stuff written on Ariane6, this type of rocket would be more powerful again like the design for improvements in Delta or upgraded Russian Angara-5 , this time as I understood it the Ariane would put large loads beyond Leo into GeostationaryTransfer Orbits with lifts of perhaps 14,300 Kg to GTO or a payload of almost 15.0 tonnes from Kourou in Europe's South American port. I suspect there are 3 main factors in problems for Europe, one perhaps they are a type of divided nations so they don't put a lot of money into space or have much pride like Russia and the USA did, two the Europeans don't have big ambitions for manned missions so they usually only do stuff for discovery in science and new findings in astronomy like the planet Saturn/Titan mission with Cassini, and three the Europeans seem to be in it for the money why else do they focus so much on buisness satellite and commercial launches. The nation who invests in European rockets can get good combacks but there is much to loose, German scientists, UK business people, engineers from France, Holland will have much that can vanish if a new Ariane fails, and without the backing of a high percentage of sucessful launches nobody will stand behind the next generation of rocket. If you want to look at one of the most powerful rockets even built then perhaps it is the Russian Soveit Energia from the designers that worked in USSR, put on extra 8 boosters and you'll get way more than 100,500 Kg up there but look at the record of flight, it was only launched twice in the past twenty years ! Perhaps the most promising design from European space agency's is something called a ArianeM for the possible Mars mission of the future but it lacks backing and the green light for production. Perhaps this could do a 50t to a trans martian injection route, and maybe 100t to LEO orbits. There is a Pdf file for read on this, of course it isn't a reality just a kind of specualition and study concept but could become reality someday ?
http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedin … /Ferra.pdf
Some of it looks like it could do it, with MPS engines, main core LOX tank and Upper stage tank like the LH2 tank.

Everyone needs the USA and NASA to keep moving forward, the Russians need them for partnerships and work on the ISS, the Chinese want links to the US space for political gain and joint efforts and the Europeans seem to have a history of strong connections to NASA with things like Ulysses, the Hubble and the ESA/NASA Soho study of our Sun. Now there is the question on how to finsh the space science and with the focus on the return for shuttle, will NASA ask the Europeans or perhaps the Russians to help out more. How can you push the shuttle so much to perhaps go up and down and push the shuttle forward so much, perhaps 25 times for NASA's share of the huge up-cargo and down-cargo demands of the finished ISS ? Could the USA now go for the purchase of Soyuz flights, or maybe they need the Euros to help out some more. Much is to do on the ISS it is meant to be a kind of launch pad for other missions, it is supposed to start measuring 356 feet ( 109 M ) by 291 feet ( 89 metres ) in lenght , science, physics and bio-labs need to go up and without the spacesation many future missions will not go ahead. Should NASA ask Europe to help some more, they could but up some ATV cargo flights from Europe pads ? Is it time to get Europe to send up a person to help out on the ISS work and perhaps push the Spacestaion crew to do extra EVA work the next time equipment is launched up ? Although Russians can offer the best price for launch they ahve a problem in being not to humble, like US have their Eagle and stars n' stripes ....Russia they are the Bear nation and have a proud history with their mother Russia and sometimes the old communist ways means Russia isn't as open or connected to other space industry like Europe or USA's NASA. As for the current improvement on an upgrade launch for Ariane there are now new problems, the lauch window was to open on the evening of 11th of February but this will be gone. Launch of Euros new rocket has been postponed  for hours, an anomaly appeared on a ground equipment.  So if there is so much work needed, then what can be done to help out space projects move better in the near future ?

---

'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

Number one: "Much is to do on the ISS it is meant to be a kind of launch pad for other missions... without the spacesation many future missions will not go ahead."

Actually no, we don't need a space station. All we need are larger rockets, and to join only a few large pieces in orbit. In fact, the cost of operating the space station is fairly large, large enough to bleed Russia and the ESA dry, and ensure that they are no more then small parts of manned missions beyond Earth orbit. Also, the cost to NASA to keep the ISS running will severely hinder VSE.

The Energia rocket is also quite dead and buried. The main engines are no longer in production, the factory roof has collapsed, the launch pad abandoned to decay... Energia's day is over without a very large infusion of cash, which the US will not spend on a Russian rocket.

The Ariane-M is probobly the fastest route to an ESA heavy lift rocket, but it still is just an engineering concept, and would take billions of dollars to build.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: A new HLLV essay

JSF is not needed in this climate. It can no more shoot down an ICBM than a Curtis Jenny--and an F-4 with gun pods can down rogue airliners. Typical Blue-Suit waste.

The Delta IV has a lot of problems.

Let us say that you could double Delta IV to 40 tons by placing two more CBC's on it north-south as well as east-west.

The problem is that you save no money.

Whether you launch five three-core Delta IVs or three five-core Delta Vs at 40 tons a pop--you are still throwing away 15 RS-68 engines to put 100-120 tons in LEO in multiple flights of a rocket with no engine-out.

A rocket that is becoming a real pad-sitter like Titan IV.

Give me three RS-68s simpler SSME's under one ET, and I put 100 tons up there in one shot--with engine out. By the time I expend 15 RS-68s--I have 500 tons in LEO (five launches) not 100.

In other worlds, ISS would have been done in five HLLV flights that have no more RS-68s than a Delta IV heavy. Cancel one EELV and put HLLV in its place--for it will have similar cost.

Even if Shuttle derived were to cost a billion a shot (not likely) it still costs less than Delta IV heavy at 220 million or so.

One billion for 100 tons is 200 million for every 20 tons.

But HLLV still costs less. The real savings is in fewer high-energy upper-stages expended and less time on the pad.

HLLV is the way to go---Period.

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: A new HLLV essay

Take a look at this:
http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpB … ...#319079

"Whether any of the Delta or Atlas Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle options will be acceptable for the CEV manned role remains to be seen. "

"The Astronaut Office at the Johnson Space Center is not keen on any of these options (AW&ST June 14, 2004, p. 15). The astronauts have taken a position that "human rating should be designed in, not appended on." The Office is calling for an order of magnitude reduction in the risk of fatalities on ascent, and has expressed concern that an EELV--be it Delta or Atlas--may not be safe enough even with upgrades. "

One more time...

This is your brain on Delta IV:
http://www.aviationnow.com/media/images … ...5_L.jpg

--any questions?

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

The JSF is needed for one main reason... The F-16, F-18C, and Harrier are getting old. They will eventually need to be replaced, even if there were no question about them being obsolete. The JSF is a terrific bargain too because of its lower operating costs then the older planes thanks to built-in ease of maintenance and commonality. In fact, we will run out of Harriers just from attrition soon since they are so hard to fly.

Please list the factual problems of the Delta-IV that add up to the number "lots"

It saves money by not being the thrice-damned Space Shuttle. Save versus what?

"Give me three RS-68s simpler SSME's under one ET, and I put 100 tons up there in one shot--with engine out."

You would not have engine out in the basic Shuttle-C configuration, and as you have blindly overlooked, you would also be spending $50-60M per-flight on SRB reloads and another $60-70M on the external tank. Thats just for the hardware.

It is NOT clear that Shuttle-Derived will be cheaper, because of the temptation (or nessesity?) to employ huge numbers of ex-Shuttle engineers to fly it, which would actually make it more expensive. At least EELVs are a known quantity.

The Astronaut Office is, frankly, not an office of professional aerospace engineers. Plus, if astronauts are affraid to get on a rocket with a less then 1-in-a-few-hundred chance of failure, well, they sure have their priorities screwed up... VSE will be asking them to do things quite a bit more dangerous then ride on a rocket.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: A new HLLV essay

Energiya lives in its strap-ons--the Zenits, and in Atlas V and Sea Launch. The Energiya design is quite sound, as are the arguements for HLLV and against EELV:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/pdf/zubr … zubrin.pdf

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

Except that basically everything Bob says in it is wrong or a excessively negative assumption, obviously to make EOR look bad so he can have his precious rocket now now now.

For example, the outright lie that everything would have to be launched in a short window, which is absolutely untrue. Since everything is devided up, and the Lander/TEI fuels will be storables, there is no reason at all it has to be rushed.

Zubrin is also flat wrong that you can assume Shuttle-Derived will be "obviously" cheaper then EELV, nobody knows that for sure yet.

He also forgets that many things have to go right for the HLLV Saturn-style mission to work too, with multiple rendevous, multiple engine and stage burns, and so on. It is not radically safer then EOR.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

robcwillis

Banned

Registered: 2001-09-23

Posts: 71

Re: A new HLLV essay

My dear Mr. Revenger,

You disappoint me. I count you among those whom I rely on to challenge some of the more silly remarks sometimes posted on this site. Your technical knowledge is obviously impeccable, but you continue from time to time to make some extremely misleading statements. For example, your recent comment:

“The Energia rocket is also quite dead and buried. The main engines are no longer in production, the factory roof has collapsed, the launch pad abandoned to decay... Energia's day is over without a very large infusion of cash, which the US will not spend on a Russian rocket.”

As touched on earlier, and as you well know, the Energia HLLV strap-on boosters remain in commercial production in Ukraine in the form of  Zenit  and Boeing Sea Launch.  The RD-170/180 family of rocket motors remains in commercial production not only for these launchers, but also for Atlas 3 and 5. Energomash produces the latter jointly with United Technologies (Pratt & Whitney). 

As for  RD-0120, Kosberg states that in addition to the several motors already in stock, they are willing and able to deliver new units whenever solid orders are placed. Even if this never happens, some combination of RS-68 and/or Vulkain 2 could be substituted.

The factory roof has not collapsed.   Energia core tanks were produced at the same Samara Space Centre factory, which continues to build the Soyuz/R7.  At least two of the high bays of the gigantic MIK 112 did indeed collapse, either as a result of fatal errors on the part of the “repair crew” on the roof at the time, or industrial sabotage. The low bays continue in commercial operation. Even if MIK 112 is never fully repaired, there are other facilities available at Baikonur that could perform a similar function. 

Your claim that “the launch pad is abandoned to decay” is questionable.  There are no less than three Energia pads at Baikonur, including the unique UKSS full duration burn test/launch stand.  I have spoken to a few people who have visited Baikonur , and they claim that the pads were in no worse shape than the Vandenburg Shuttle facilities.

That said, your arguments are based on the absurd premise that an Energia derived HLLV could never fly because it would have to be built exclusively in Russia, by Russians, could only ever be launched from Baikonur, and that of the all the countries on Earth, the US is the only possible source of funding the development of any Mars launch.

If the Energia system could speak, I’m sure it would say something like “Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated”. It aint quite dead yet, and the best, most powerful HLLV ever built should not be buried alive.

Energia aside, why the tirade against Bob? I thought you favoured heavy lift?

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

I stand by my statements that Energia cannot be resusitated without a large (read: external non-Russian) investment to restore the needed infrastructure. Sure you could pay to re-do everything, it will just cost more money then Russia will ever have available for such a project.

The RD-0120 is out of production, and the Zenit rocket is not a copy of the Energia booster but a completly different derivitive vehicle. Their engines aren't identical either.

The factory that collapsed I was referred to was the one where the final vehicle would be integrated, basically the Russian analouge to the KSC's Vehicle Assembly Building. Paying to restore it back to useable condition will also not be cheap because of its sheer size. No other facilities at Baikanour are large enough to assemble the Energia, and definatly not big enough for Energia-M "super heavy."

"There are no less than three Energia pads at Baikonur"

None of which have been used in years. You cannot simply put a fresh coat of paint on it and call it "operational" again, it is not that simple.

"...and that of the all the countries on Earth, the US is the only possible source of funding the development of any Mars launch."

Thats correct, I believe only America has the sheer reasources and technology to pull it off. The sum total of the ESA/RSA funding wouldn't be near enough to do much of anything... Getting to Mars is hard, and it will not be cheap.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I dislike Bob Zubrin, because he is so zealous in his desire to get people on Mars, that he bascially would do anything to see this happen, and will either ruin NASA or get astronauts killed in the process. His mission concept, MarsDirect, is clearly impossible in its unmodified form, and even if it did fly safely would lack reuseability or expansion options... his statement that VSE via EELV will require rapid launches and be excessively dangerous is not true, and is a good example.

Hence Bob is not stupid, he is quite intelligent, so he must be a liar and is trying to con Congress/NASA into starting a Mars mission concept that is far more expensive and less capable then he claims it will be, and Congress/NASA won't wise up until its too late to cancel it... He is as bad as the liars who claimed Shuttle could fly weekly.

I am for heavy lift, don't get me wrong about that, but I think that Shuttle Derived as the heavy lifter has the potential to be a huge mistake. I don't think we can trust NASA to cull enough of their beloved Shuttle Army to make SDV inexpensive enough to fly, and Shuttle Derived lacks flexibility if you want to do anything besides launch heavy payloads.

If we need heavy lift, we should start from scratch... a 5m Kerosene core with a pair of RD-170s flanked by a pair of Shuttle SRBs and topped off with an 8m upper powerd by a single heavy cryogenic engine or a trio of RL-60's. It would be little larger then the Delta-IV HLV with extended faring, and the engines are already available.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,936

Website

Re: A new HLLV essay

Russia could easily revive the Energia on their own. The only question is what’s the payload. You could claim that SSME is out of production because there haven’t been any built in quite a while, but reality is another could be built right now. Same with RD-0120, it’s available as soon as someone places a firm order. That’s according to my direct correspondence with Kosberg; I quoted the whole letter in a previous message.

The first stage of Zenit is the same as strap-on boosters for Energia. The only difference is the gymbal, not the engine. Either configuration uses an RD-170 engine, but Zenit uses a gymbal with 2 degrees of movement while Enerigia uses 1. Energia configures the boosters in pairs, one set has the gymbal oriented one way, the other pair oriented 90°. The flight computer coordinates them. Changing a gymbal does not make it a new engine. That gymbal is the only difference.

The vehicle assembly building roof collapsed, not a factory. You made another mistake; Energia-M is the scaled-down smaller version of Energia. The super-heavy rocket was Voolkan (or Vulkan depending how you translate that Russian letter).

All launch pads are in perfect working order. I know Americans don’t expect that; American equipment left that long deteriorates, but Russians design their facilities to remain functional for decades. After several years it may not look pretty, but it works. An example is a Russian Air Force airfield that American intelligence thought was abandoned for years when it was still in continuous use. The runway was cracked, but the Russian Air Force designed all combat aircraft to handle rough runways. The Russian military kept the Buran space shuttle ready to fly on 3 days notice until it was handed over to Kazakhstan on January 1, 2000. The pictures I have from a tour group (April 1997) show the pads in perfect shape, and the rails perfectly straight and flat with no rust, the concrete ties were in perfect shape with no chips. But weeds grew between the ties. Americans would think weeds make it non-functional, but reality is it only needs a kid with a weed-whacker.

robcwillis:
So that’s what happened to the external tank factory. Thanks, that sounds like it wouldn’t be hard to restore.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: A new HLLV essay

Nonsense,

The SSME is not an expendable engine, the comparison is not valid. The actual machines used to make the RD-0120 have been converted to make other things, the production line no longer physically exsists.

One of the nice cost-savings things about the RD-170 series and derivitive engines is that the whole engine assembly contains all the parts... the structure, the turbopump systems... and the gimbal systems. They are different engines, stating that the RD-170 and 171 are "otherwise" identical is simply not true since the 170-series gimbal systems are self-contained.

"All launch pads are in perfect working order."

You don't know that though, and I find it reprihensable that you "lemming" yourself to whatever the Russians say... or whatever you want to think. The biased notion that "oh, they're just fine, just need to sweep off the dust since its Russian, not like those stupid Americans" is crazy.

Why is it so hard to believe anything negative about Energia?

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: A new HLLV essay

Sadly, a clean sheet approach to HLLVs is out of the question, and scuttlebutt has it that shuttle-derived is gaining ground .

There are certain political realities that must be appreciated here. If, for instance, we were to go to an "all-Alabama" human-spaceflight stance, with CEV designed here, Delta IV built here, etc.--why would people in Louisiana support space with Michold out of the mix. With SRB's gone--why should Utah.

The one thing that will get us heavy-lift is the one thing we were all told was to be avoided--

"standing armies" to launch spacecraft.

Well, these standing armies vote, and have representatives. The folks in Michold don't think much of Atlas V and CEV putting their head on the chopping block, and are breaking rank.

Now that UTC has kerolox and hydrolox engines, an "American Energiya" will look pretty good to them

Shuttle-Derived is the only game in town. Saturn is a dead god. I am of the opinion that if shuttle architecture dies, we will NEVER  have heavy lift--and all we will be doing is building a pig of a CEV to service ISS and stay in LEO.

Expect the worst. I find Zubrin more truthful than the EELV hacks myself.

Here is what will sell politically. Huntsville/Marshall designs an "American Energiya" with an engine-equipped ET built in Michold with simpler SSMEs/RS-68s, ATK uses existing solids and builds five-segment solids, and EELV will be downselected to Atlas V ONLY unless Boeing pitches in some help with Heavy-Lift. They are vulnerable with all the scandals and will be tractable in McCain and others threaten Boeing contracts if they don't behave.

It will take both the carrot and stick approach. Once HLLV is flying, nix Delta IV and the Mars Discovery missions until heavy sample return probes are built. Finish ISS with HLLV, and sign it over for the Russians to operate.

This is the best we can hope for--like it or don't. It keeps jobs and will get better support from politicos.

the difference between Zenit and Energiya strap-on is not great.

Our problem is that we have used Russian tech, but kept bad American designs. We need the Energiya planform--but with all-American engines and build.

One reason I still like side-mount (like what the orbital version of Dream Chaser will be most likely) is that it reduces pitch loads/bending moments.

A side-mounted orbiter scale hypersonic boilerplate in place of a possible future Buran type orbiter will keep the 747 in air as a hypersonic test-bed release ferry. Large scale hypersonic boilerplates will be released from the side of an HLLV/ET to undergo re-entry tests  AT LARGE SCALE--so as to have room for active cooling technology that cannot be done with surfboard sized X-43s.

Side mount allows outsized objects to be taken to space--and X-33 was to evolved into external payload pods due to all its internal volume going to fuel.

Side-mount allows the entire width, length and height of an HLLV/ET to be used as a strongback, good for bulky payloads that otherwise would be under larger and more limber shrouds.

This won't be done all at once, but it allows HLLVs to have more payloads and most importantly--gives the hypersonics people a reason to support HLLV over an EELV that--outside X-37--won't help them a jot.

If the hypersonics people get behind HLLV with others, it will have a chance.

If you support heavy-lift, now is the time to do so.
I can't help it if Zubrin creeps people out. I disagree with him in that I still favor hypergolics for moonships, but SDV HLLVs are the best we can hope for.

He may seem impatient, but he has a point. if we don't get Heavy-lift now, we never will.

Imagine this scenario:

Shuttle is dead. EELVs loft capsules to ISS, which stays under construction.  NASA thinks that the shuttle-budget can now go to hypersonics or clean-sheet. The hypersonics people took a big hit, and need something to get behind with the Fighter-jocks at the Air Farce still against space spending.

Untill President X wages a war on Iran or has a new social program, etc.

And the Shuttle-budget goes back into HUD/VA, Homeland Security-and we all zip around in capsules in LEO no better than China, Russia (and maybe India, Japan and Europe).

And we stay in LEO or have Zond style circumlunar missions AND GO NO FURTHER.

Is that what you want?

X-33 wasted billions, and a HLLV could have used that money.

Zubrin is not the only one who understands the need for SDV HLLV:

http://www.starbooster.com/aquila.htm]h … aquila.htm
http://www.starbooster.com/TALAYPanel3F … 3FINAL.pdf
http://www.nsschapters.org/ny/nyc/Shutt … ...ied.pdf
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1 … icle/150/1

Hu Davis -of Apollo fame--supports this approach, as do many who think very little of Delta IV.

Push for HLLV--and you MAKE the need.

Or get ready to stay in LEO with sardine cans.