Return to flight slipping

Ad Astra · 2004-10-23 09:51:35

The remaining modules would probably be mated to appropriate-sized ELV's, rather than waiting for Shuttle C to emerge. They would probably need some modificatons (on both the module and the booster) before they could go into space, like some kind of Progress space tug docked to one end of the module.

Delta IV and Atlas V are good candidate boosters because they can fly different sized payloads by varing the configuration. But because this is an international program, Proton and Ariane 5 will probably get a slice of the action too. Hopefully these large boosters will only be used for appropriately sized payloads and not wasted on smaller modules that could go up on an EELV. Hopefully Ariane 5's reliability problems can be fixed before it is used for ISS missions.

ISS's robot arm will be essential to the assembly of the station in the absence of the shuttle. It will be the only work platform available to the astronauts and cosmonauts.

Commodore · 2004-10-23 10:11:15

ISS's robot arm will be essential to the assembly of the station in the absence of the shuttle. It will be the only work platform available to the astronauts and cosmonauts.

Kinda makes you wonder why they decided to send the cupola up last. ???

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-23 16:10:57

I'm not sure if I like the idea of launching a Progress as a space tug, there are center of gravity issues to worry about, and it would require sending up a perfectly good rocket just for tug duty. The payload itself may also be unstable after unmating from the upper stage without some sort of attitude control, plus some of the ISS remaining pieces are little parts and not big cylinder modules.

What I'm envisioning is using an uprated Delta-IV or an Ariane-V with a tug/cradle addon to carry the module to the station for rendevous.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-23 23:31:27

True, a new-design tug would probably be the best solution. What has been suggested before (by other individuals in the space community) is to mate an off-the-shelf Progress to the module and launch the two together on a larger rocket (perhaps a heavy EELV.) Not sure how well this would work. Didn't the Russians have tugs for this purpose when they built Mir?

Martian Republic · 2004-10-24 07:49:06

True, a new-design tug would probably be the best solution. What has been suggested before (by other individuals in the space community) is to mate an off-the-shelf Progress to the module and launch the two together on a larger rocket (perhaps a heavy EELV.) Not sure how well this would work. Didn't the Russians have tugs for this purpose when they built Mir?

Not to my knowledge do the Russian have a space tug. It like every thing else that they or we talk about. Yes, it would be nice to have space tug, but it going to cost billions of dollars or so. OK, so we don't build space tug today and we will do it some time in the future. I think that the way it been going as far as having a space tug in space.

Larry,

Rxke · 2004-10-24 09:41:12

Orbital recovery services (or something similarly sounding) is working on that, but it's ion-drive, so more suited for satellite juggling etc...
Pretty neat design, though, fits in Arianes payload-adapter, w/o taking up any free space....

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 06:15:51

yup orbital has been trying to design a space tug for some years now but with and piece that you would want to link up to each is unique and requires adaptation of the original concept for each since two two are alike.

As for launching remaining or future modules of the ISS none are design to take the atmospheric stress of launch and designing a shell casing for any to set within designed to take that stress. This would mean a much larger rocket would be needed to lift the module, each would also be very custom fitted for the module that it would contain and then you have the problem of removal from its casing or the decision to use it in that fashion. Which leads to more problems for placing the module into its proper place by the robotic arms.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-27 10:13:26

NASA Works to Lower Shuttle, ISS Flight Risk

More propaganda on why we need the shuttle for the ISS.

“If we’re going to complete the space station, we’re going to need the shuttle,” Pattison said. “It’s going to take a lot of resources.”

BWhite · 2004-10-27 13:53:22

Anything that gets rid of Shuttle earlier can't be a bad thing...
If Boeing went ahead and performed the upgrades to the Delta-IV, or even just strapped some standard GEMs to the HLV stack, the HLV model could likly lift station componets and a tug module for the rendevous maneuver.
With the uprated Delta-IV "EELV+" you could also launch the CEV with no solid rocket motors or send a pretty decent payload to the Moon with only two shots of the "HLV+" model.

Time to beat the drum again for RSRM plus LH2/LOX upper stages. If astronaut Scott Horowitz is correct a Thiokol SRB plus cryogenic upper stage can throw 40K or 50K to LEO.

This has been discussed for CEV but as GCNRevenger pointed out, crew escape would require a nasty high gee escape rocket.

But, isn't that thing big enough to throw an ISS payload to 51 degrees? What kind of launch pad do we need? Assemble the segments on the pad and launch multiple ISS payloads while an orbiter is already up there.

Use the orbiter to install 4 or 5 payloads per flight, fly it 5 more times and install 25 ISS components for a fraction of the cost.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-27 14:08:00

I think that those payload mass estimates are pretty optimistic, but anyway you cannot simply fling an ISS payload into orbit, there has to be some mechanism for attitude control and preferably rendevous guidence.

So, to launch an ISS payload without Shuttle, you must add the mass of the enlarged payload faring, the mass of the payload "tray" since they must be lifted from the sides or for loose bits, and you need some method for attitude control. All this combined, plus the mass of the ISS payload, and I doubt that the SRM launcher could reach the ISS high inclination orbit... An uprated EELV+ on the other hand, could loft as much as 80,000-90,000+ lbs.

In any event, the SRM will probobly be launched from where it is launched now, Pad 39 at the Cape', which will limit the launch rate and interfere with Shuttle launches. Not to mention cost a bundle using the Shuttle Army to fly the thing.

Finally, it will take time. The Shuttle has only around three weeks of supplies, and I have doubts that it could chase, capture, stow, deliver, rendevous, redock, maneuver, and assemble very many payloads in this fairly short window. Don't forget that it takes several days for a payload from the Cape' to reach the ISS rendevous orbit, and the payload may need to execute a breaking burn to keep from flying right by.

The SRM launcher will also take time to develop, and I doubt that it can be built fast enough to reach the desired Shuttle retirement deadline or before the rest of the ISS starts getting pretty old in five years from now.

I think if a no-Shuttle option is demanded, that modifying the EELVs and using a built-in tug vehicle is the best bet.

BWhite · 2004-10-27 14:23:29

I think if a no-Shuttle option is demanded, that modifying the EELVs and using a built-in tug vehicle is the best bet.

An "off the shelf" Delta IV Large lacks the throw weight to get ISS components and last mile guidance to 51 degrees.

Building a new EELV based HLLV may be a good idea or maybe not however that involves a laundry list of decisions compared with shuttle derived, etc. . .

An "off the shelf" Delta IVH also costs $170M per shot.

Heavy lift all-cryogenic launch vehicle using two Delta-4 core vehicles as first stage flanking a single core vehicle as second stage. A heavy upper stage is carried with a 5 m diameter payload fairing. LEO Payload: 25,800 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 10,843 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer, 27deg inclination trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 884,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 8,670.00 kN. Total Mass: 733,400 kg. Core Diameter: 5.00 m. Total Length: 70.70 m. Development Cost $: 500.00 million. in 2002 average dollars. Launch Price $: 170.00 million. in 1999 price dollars. Cost comments: Development cost is USAF portion only in cost-sharing arrangement for all Delta IV models. These funds were accompanied by an order for 19 Delta IV launches at a total price of $ 1.38 billion.

Seems to me its worth a test flight or two of a 5 segment Thiokol RSRM plus liquid upper (RL-60s or even clusters of RL-10s) because that will require relatively little R&D (compared with a super EELV) and the cost per flight will be below $100M.

= = =

Edit: How many segments does Thiokol have laying around already fabricated? Scott Horowitz also says a handful of J-2 engines still exist. Since Thiokol plus J-2 or RL-60 can conceivably loft a space hotel maybe Thiokol will donate 5 segments at a deep discount just to test the idea.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-27 15:02:09

I also think that unmanned orbiters and shuttle-derived vehicles deserve consideration for ISS assembly, although SDV admittedly would require gobs of funding and development time. I see no problem with flying an unmanned orbiter to ISS, then having a crew board it and attach the payload. Heck, with Endeavour entering its overhaul period, why not use this opportunity to automate it?

Ideally, we could shift from manned shuttle to unmanned shuttle operations once the solar arrays are assembled. Then we could transition from unmanned orbiter flights to true SDV flights once ISS was complete. That way, the shuttle work force is kept in place and there is no lull in operations as we transition between programs.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-27 16:27:17

I'm not talking about the regular Delta-IV HLV, I'm talking about one with a little more kick to it. The Delta, if you put a four-pack of the little GEM solid rocket boosters, swap out Li/Al alloy for tankage, denser cryogenic fuel mix... easy modifications which give Delta aproximatly equal payload as Shuttle. Throw in a regenerative coolant loop on the RS-68, and Delta is even more powerful then Shuttle, able to lift over 40MT to equitorial LEO, perhaps 45MT. Oh, and a 6.5m payload faring mass is accounted for too, leaving only the payload tray and tug/attitude equipment. Same factory, same Delta-IV lauch pad & VAB, same rocket design... it ought to be able to do the job.

As an added perk, it would be about the right size of rocket for a two-piece (payload + TLI) Earth Orbit Rendevous Lunar mission arcitecture, and this same rocket minus the extra cores flanking and solid rocket engines should be able to launch the Earth/LEO CEV with only two engines total. Earth to the Moon with useful payloads (four HLV+ & one Medium++) for about $1Bn worth of rockets. A quarter what we spend on Shuttle every year.

I really, really, really don't like the idea of modifying the Shuttle Orbiter at all. That thing is simply so complex that any serious change at all is an invitation to fiscal disaster even if it would work. Better to just build a tug vehicle with storable fuels then to fool with that kind of a project.

BWhite · 2004-10-27 17:36:48

I really, really, really don't like the idea of modifying the Shuttle Orbiter at all. That thing is simply so complex that any serious change at all is an invitation to fiscal disaster even if it would work. Better to just build a tug vehicle with storable fuels then to fool with that kind of a project.

No argument on that point from me. The more we spend on orbiter the harder it will be to retire it completely.

Did you ever stay on hold after calling in for tickets or waiting to talk to an account rep? After being on hold for 15 or 20 minutes its hard to hang up the telephone and walk away from sunk costs, even if logic tells you that you should.

That is why I simply do not believe George W. Bush is CREDIBLE with this 2010 orbiter retirement date = IF = we also go ahead and spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to keep the thing flying safely. It will be just too easy to find some excuse to keep the orbiter flying a few more years, then a few more after that.

Its a vampire sucking dry any real plans for space exploration.

The sooner its dead, dead, dead the better.

= = =

Super EELV versus SDV? Compared with the above issue, that is just details to me.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-27 19:47:31

I'm thinking of it a little differently, that come heck or high water the ISS is priority one for NASA and to get it done as quickly as possible. That means not waiting for "EELV+" to come around or building a tug and payload adapters.

Since Shuttle doesn't really have any unique qualities that make it indespensable except for ISS construction or HST servicing, I think that given Shuttle's extreme operational cost in money and blood that the administration would be all too happy to retire it.

The millions being spent now are still just a fraction of Shuttle's annual budget, so I think the reasoning is to spend what it takes now to get ISS finished as soon as we can, and dump Shuttle as soon as possible. 2010 is the soonest credible deadline, and I think that all efforts will be made to keep it...

At least by the executive, as far as the lower level management, it will be difficult to get them to break with the "maximum funding" goal... One reason I fear SDV, that it will turn into the next cash-cow for the Shuttle Army, the legion of thousands of people needed to operate the penultimate Golden Goose.

The new Soyuz M2 rocket being cooked up by the Russians... it requires only about thirty people to launch it. Thats a three followed by a zero with no decimal places... Even Elon is going to have a hard time beating that.

BWhite · 2004-10-27 20:26:16

CGNRevenger, you make good points. A nice sensible exchange compared with the ongoing Bush v Kerry scream-fest.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-28 06:00:59

What bothers most about the designs from existing delta, atlas and even sdv is that most have been on the drawing books of concepts some as much if not more than a decade. If any of them had take the steps needed to go from paper to reality we would have either probably already retired the shuttle and or reduced its flights to near zero or for special functions only. But instead all decided that with no contracts in hand to pay for it they all did nothing instead. Now closing in on being 2 plus years since a shuttle flight and still none have gone beyound paper still. When will this stupidity stop....

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-28 08:03:35

Paper? The Atlas and Delta medium rockets have already been flown, and this sure doesn't look like "paper" to me:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n040 … 4heavy.jpg

The Delta-IV Heavy rocket will be launched early next year most likly, after spending a good long time making sure everything is in working order. If you take this rocket and add the regular Delta-IV Medium SRMs to the central core, this rocket can give you similar payload lift as Shuttle and with minor to modest modifications could lift as much as 100,000lbs. No new factory, no new launch pad, no new rocket design, just improvements to what is already built.

As far as Shuttle Derived being a paper concept, you are right, but the engines for such a vehicle already exsist and if we go the Shuttle-C route the main tank already exsists, and we have the Pad 39/VAB complex already built too.

The stupidity of the situation goes back long before the EELV or SDV vehicles were ever considerd... Richard Nixon is president, and the people have stopped caring about spaceflight particularly in light of Vietnam. The pretty large costs of Apollo and follow-on perminant Lunar bases or Mars missions cost more then a bored & distracted public are willing to spend. Economists are predicting a space gold rush for communications satellites that will last for years. The USAF wants a spaceplane to spy on Russia and build space weapons with...

...NASA is plainly told that the big Lunar and Mars missions are not going to happen, and the big Kennedy/Apollo era funding it going to go away, so the justification for NASA's exsistence is cast into doubt. The concept of a space shuttle, a 100% reuseable vehicle with launch costs a fraction of conventional launchers is proposed... it would have to fill USAF needs and commertial launch needs as well as the accountants' desire for a low development cost vehicle.

Which of course could not be done today nor back then. The vehicle had to do too many things; orbital assembly, long cross range, polar orbit launch, etc and the development cost spiraled out of control. Late in the development, it became clear it could not meet Air Force demands, and they abandoned the project in favor of Titan-IV launchers. The commertial market for dozens and dozens of satelites per year never materialized. So NASA was left holding the bag, and had no future.

So NASA, fearing for its life (perhaps rightfully) had to come up with somthing for their unfinished Shuttle to do... which became Space Station Freedom, that later became the ISS. In this mindset, maximizing the cost of Shuttle became the true goal so as to employ as many engineers as possible, which as most things NASA tries to do suceeded beyond all expectation. Shuttle became fantasticly expensive with all the labor and had a project that would stretch on for decades but which was almost politically impossible to simply cancel as it should have been.

So, here we are today. A rocket which was designed to try and do too many things but does none of them well, which became NASA's goose that lays the golden eggs, attached at the hip to its evil stepchild the ISS, for the purpose of raking in as many tax dollars as possible for as long as possible to this day. Shuttle has been a fantastic sucess, just not for the reasons they say.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-28 08:55:35

GCNRevenger you are right about the standard versions of them (atlas v, delta IV) but neither will lift the real weight that we have been talking about in the 40 to 100 ton range.
Only the versions that we have been dreaming of can. Such as when you add the SRM's that you mentioned to the delta IV.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:57:45

Yup. The above history is close enough for me. Too many arguments elsewhere to quibble about this.

Its like a sweater with a loose thead. Start pulling and soon you have a real mess.

= = =

But form should follow function. "WHY" we are going into space should dictate "HOW" - - not Boeing has rocket X, what can we do with it?

Since I want to go out there to spread the human race (and have babies) my prejudices about HOW and WHAT should be pretty clear.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-28 11:32:34

NASA Chief: Public Approval, Independent Safety Group Key for Shuttle Return to Flight

Like in dah....

And then you get NASA trying to put a PR spin on everything these days.

NASA Selects PR Newswire as News Distribution Service

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-28 12:12:34

Ah but SpaceNut, the Delta-IV can lift 40MT without radical modification. The little SRMs are already in use on the Delta-IV Medium, and infact you can use the same mounts and control electronics.

The Lithium/Aluminum fuel tanks can be swapped out without too much trouble, it was done for the Shuttle main tank without fanfare or signifigant difficulty.

The fuel densification isn't even a rocket modification, its just a change in how the liquid hydrogen is produced...

The only signifigant change is the RS-68, which needs a new regenerative nozzle to increase the specific impulse, getting rid of the big black/tan ablative nozzle.

Same physical design of rocket, same control electronics, just modifying the main engine and exchanging old materials for new ones.

40MT to equitorial orbit for about $200M a shot...

As far as what and why, in order to place signifigant payloads on the Moon (a TransHab module, Lunar bulldozer, ISRU/LSS plant, telescopes, 4-6 man crew vehicles w/ TEI fuel) we need to deliver signifigant payloads, and we need to do this with as few flights as possible to minimize assembly costs, and hopefully avoid the other problem of development costs getting out of hand (Shuttle-Z?).

The Delta-IV "HLV+" could do this by launching the payload+lander in one launch, and a cryogenic TLI stage in a second launch, then have the two mate on orbit by remote/automatic. About $200M for each HLV+ and <$100M for TLI stage and we're talking the ability to put a >10MT payload on the Moon for under $500M without involving the Shuttle Army or the investment for development of a true HLLV.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-28 13:11:41

Would the tank alloy change have the same issue as the external tank on the shuttle with foam falling off or is there a protective casing or something that is part of the rocket design.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-28 13:55:07

Neither. The Shuttle tank has to be insulated to prevent ice from forming, falling off the tank, and striking the orbiter. Whatever Boeing does now seems to work just fine for protecting the SRMs on the Delta Mediums if any protection is nessesarry. Swapping out what the underlying metal is made of shouldn't make a big difference as far as thermal issues.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-28 19:48:34

I believe the newer alloy tank is made by Lockheed martin Michoud facility ( http://www.lmco.com/michoud/et/description.htm ) . So unless Boeing has the same metal alloy technology I do not think Lockheed would be willing to share that little secret.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-10-23 09:51:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

#52 2004-10-23 10:11:15

Re: Return to flight slipping

#53 2004-10-23 16:10:57

Re: Return to flight slipping

#54 2004-10-23 23:31:27

Re: Return to flight slipping

#55 2004-10-24 07:49:06

Re: Return to flight slipping

#56 2004-10-24 09:41:12

Re: Return to flight slipping

#57 2004-10-25 06:15:51

Re: Return to flight slipping

#58 2004-10-27 10:13:26

Re: Return to flight slipping

#59 2004-10-27 13:53:22

Re: Return to flight slipping

#60 2004-10-27 14:08:00

Re: Return to flight slipping

#61 2004-10-27 14:23:29

Re: Return to flight slipping

#62 2004-10-27 15:02:09

Re: Return to flight slipping

#63 2004-10-27 16:27:17

Re: Return to flight slipping

#64 2004-10-27 17:36:48

Re: Return to flight slipping

#65 2004-10-27 19:47:31

Re: Return to flight slipping

#66 2004-10-27 20:26:16

Re: Return to flight slipping

#67 2004-10-28 06:00:59

Re: Return to flight slipping

#68 2004-10-28 08:03:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

#69 2004-10-28 08:55:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

#70 2004-10-28 08:57:45

Re: Return to flight slipping

#71 2004-10-28 11:32:34

Re: Return to flight slipping

#72 2004-10-28 12:12:34

Re: Return to flight slipping

#73 2004-10-28 13:11:41

Re: Return to flight slipping

#74 2004-10-28 13:55:07

Re: Return to flight slipping

#75 2004-10-28 19:48:34

Re: Return to flight slipping

Board footer