Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-02 21:25:17

Part of the reusability question is the turn around time, what items are either out right replaced, work staff size to get the job done and a limit to what is the over all cost of refurbishment. I feel that the cost to build the new ship divided by the number of either flights or years is the base line for the refurbishment cost if we are in excess of that then what are the factors that are causing the increase that must be looked at. If a way can be found to make a minimum piece tps shield that would help. The fewer custom shaped pieces is another way to reduce cost. Then you can look at reusing the guts of the ship to be put into a new can option as a means to control new build cost replacements as well.

I know that I had created the topic of can it do all for the moon or mars lander. My concept was simular to the lockheed and the russian klipper designs.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-02 23:07:22

You could probably design the CEV capsule so the leeside doesn't get very hot, and it could be protected with some kind of composite skin. The heat shield would be an expendable metal disk with an ablative coat, and it would be jettisoned before the capsule fired its landing rocket.

But heat shielding isn't the only aspect of reusability. How would you maintain the computers or replace the batteries or the RCS thrusters or any systems that are only rated for one flight? The vehicle has to be designed for maintainability. The price of allowing easy access into the vehicle is more mass and volume.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-03 01:21:39

Reuseability versus refurbishment-per-flight costs definatly need to be considerd. If the thing soft lands on the ground, then I think mechanically the capsule section should be relativly easy to develop a reuseable vehicle, but how much it costs to go from recovery truck to booster integration, I haven't a clue versus the cost of building a new copy.

You generally want to avoid putting composits in high heating or the air/plasma stream coming off the heat shield, ceramic thermal blankets and a metal (titanium?) outter hull would be preferable.

I'm not so sure I like the popping off of the heat shield thing... Put expendable solid rocket motors around the outside of the vehicle instead of on the bottom. THey won't produce as much lift per-thrust as directly perpandicular, but it would be easy to mount. Maybe have air bags deploy around the perimeter of the heat shield too?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-03 06:44:47

Here is a reference article on the shell game that the large aerospace companies play.

Sundstrand gets role in NASA project

Sundstrand was tapped by Northrop Grumman Space Technology, the prime contractor on the first phase of NASA's $400 million Project Prometheus, to provide the power conversion and power distribution systems and propellant tanks.
Hamilton Sundstrand will design power systems for NASA's next-generation spacecraft -- nuclear-powered vehicles that will be capable of sending back more and higher quality data from the deepest recesses of space than ever before.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 09:21:52

Found thanks to another web blog site some one elses thought on the cev developement.
Labeled on the first page Journey to Mars and beyound is a movie of vessels for thought. Other pages contain space stations and other space ship.

http://www.bambam131.com/

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 13:38:52

Saw the unofficial release rumor earlier in the week but here is the official one now.
Northrop Grumman, Boeing Plan Space Exploration Team
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041109/northrop … ing_1.html
http://www.spacetoday.net/

The Northrop/Boeing team will most likely compete against Lockheed Martin for the DEV contract, which may not be awarded for several years: NASA officials have previously stated that they are planning a "flyoff" of two CEV designs in 2008, after which NASA will choose one for full development. Unmanned test flights of that CEV design are scheduled for 2011, with human flights beginning no later than 2014. That schedule is dependent on full funding of the program by Congress; initial versions of NASA's 2005 budget in the House and Senate have made significant cuts in the CEV program.

There's that budget word again a the years just seem so far away for getting the CEV built and useable.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-09 14:51:46

If NASA didn't have to fully fund Shuttle for another five years and ISS for who knows how long, then I think that schedule would be greatly accelerated...

Think about it, if Shuttle went away tomorrow and work on CEV started in earnest with a multibillion dollar budget next week, then I think CEV by the end of the decade would be quite plausable.

Shuttle is still a millstone around NASA's neck.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-09 16:49:13

The shuttle is a great white bird like an albatross that hangs around our necks, like the burden described by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

If we could find a way to reduce the number of shuttle flights from 28 to 22, it would relieve schedule pressures (only 4 flights per year to retire by the end of 2010,) or it could result in early retirement if a safe program of five flights/year was achieved.

Most surprisingly is the way tht Boeing and NorthGrum will switch roles as Project Constellation transitions from Spiral 1 to Spiral 2. Does Boeing trust NorthGrum enough to take their word on it that the switch will happen? The changing business climate may force the companies to rethink their alliance at some point down the line.

comstar03 · 2004-11-10 00:39:56

Everyone,

What about a 20th century delta Flyer designed crafted to replace the shuttle, and build it for only human movements into space, cargo to and from orbit done by capsule type designed crafts.

Use the technology we learned from the space shuttle to create a move advanced reusable vehicle for space movement of people. Because the craft is smaller than the space shuttle it could be lighter and could be launched from the back of 747 transporter or could be designed with jet aircraft that can fly outside the atomsphere.

Have a look at this design - We can design a smaller and better shuttle at a reduced cost.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-10 01:36:24

Everyone would like to see separation of cargo and crew. NASA intended the Shuttle to last 10 years, now it's 24 years since its first flight. Shuttle was designed for 100 flights per orbiter because it was supposed to have such a rapid launch schedule that 4 orbiters would accomplish 400 missions in 10 years. It didn't succeed.

Shuttle used the latest engine technology of the day. New engines that have higher specific impulse than any engine before, and no chemical engine has ever exceeded them to this day. The solid rocket boosters were cheap and the only reusable solid rocket ever made. The key point is engine technology. What engines are available to build your new shuttle? Many NASA contractors have given up and just want to use existing technology. That lead to the decision to redo Apollo and develop an expendable capsule. After all, the overhead expense of Shuttle ground support facilities is what really kills it. The per launch cost is lower than expendable rockets. So this lead some to think any reusable system HAS to have that much ground support. Burt Rutan proved them wrong.

NASA had hoped the second generation Shuttle would use SCRAM jet engines, which completely eliminate stored oxygen during atmospheric flight. After X-30 (the National Aeronautics Spaceplane) NASA realized it would not be ready for the 1990 retirement of Shuttle, in fact even after extended life of the Shuttle an integrated hypersonic aircraft would not be ready. So they inserted a new generation between Shuttle and the still-hoped-for hypersonic spaceplane. That intermediate Shuttle generation would be one of the contending design principles for Shuttle from the 1970s: two stage to orbit. Spaceship One is TSTO, although it doesn't try to run the carrier aircraft to high-supersonic speed.

One strategy I suggested earlier was to engage Scaled Composites to compete against Orbital Sciences as the prime contractors for an OSP. Scaled Composites is Burt Rutan's company, and he built the full-size prototype for X-38. Orbital Science was the prime contractor for X-38 and HL-20. However, Orbital Sciences has sold out to Boeing. Boeing has given up its bid for CEV and joined as a subcontractor to Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman is looking at an expendable capsule.

So how can you achieve a shuttle like the science fiction picture of Delta Flyer? First, you aren't going to achieve anything that small with chemical rockets.

One strategy is to continue development of SCRAM jets and integrated hypersonic aircraft. But NASA has cancelled X-43C. The turbine based combined cycle engine might be developed separately by the airforce, but if so it probably won't be available to commercial aerospace companies. Integration of a rocket based combined cycle engine with a turbine based ejector jet has not even been considered. Engineers are looking at only one or the other; the idea that the bypass duct of an ejector could have hydrogen fuel nozzles so it could be the combustion chamber in ram jet mode? This would permit the turbine engine to operate from a runway to mach 6, then hydrogen SCRAM jet mode could accelerate to mach 10. An RBCC engine can also supplement air with liquid oxygen, operating as an air augmented rocket; and another mode closes the intake completely to operate as a LOX/LH2 rocket engine. This would permit a single main engine to take off from runway to orbit. But it takes research.

Another strategy is nuclear. Environmentalists don't have much influence in George W's administration, so now may be the time to push nuclear further. If you really want something like Delta Flyer, consider a nuclear ramjet that can become a nuclear thermal rocket. This does mean using nuclear for ground launch. The nuclear reactor heats air to provide jet thrust. At high altitude where there isn't enough air, close the intake and inject liquid hydrogen. This design was developed under project Pluto in the late 1950s, but that design was for a nuclear cruise missile. We couldn't use an unshielded plutonium reactor for a manned vehicle, but a properly shielded uranium reactor could be safe. The jet exhaust would be mildly radioactive, but that radiation would decay in a couple days. The launch runway would have to be isolated. In case of catastrophe it would have to launch over ocean.

Which strategy do you want to take?

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-11-10 06:02:23

Conical capsule, with bolt on/off base heat-shield, parafoil, and landing skids. Built to be transportable via helicopter & airfreight. Same fuel used for fuel-cells & RCS. Build computers and lithium-ion batteries to last more than one flight.

If all you need to recover the capsule is a Chinook helicopter and a Hercules transport, then recovery costs will be minimal; even from California. If all you need to replace the metal heatshield is a set of car jacks, a crane to lift the capsule and a set of alan keys, that won't cost much or take long either.

Though I would extend GCNR's point somewhat. What's the point of reusing a $5M capsule/lifting-body when the launch and rocket itself cost $100M upwards?

ANTIcarrot.

comstar03 · 2004-11-10 07:20:00

I was talking about taking the existing delta flyer design and modifying it to meet todays technology, the specs on the vessels was designed for the story at 21m long, 9.5m wide and 4.5m in height. Using modern composites, alloys and other materials to limit weight and drag, Boeing has used bird and sea animals to increase performance we could do the same.

The main reason for this space vehicle is to open space up to the orbiting stations for scientists, engineers, and as orbiting platforms expand in orbit personnel needs will increase and then permanent resident stations and tourist will grow.

Another design below:

SpaceNut · 2004-11-10 07:25:51

Yup cheaper access to space for people, since we do not measure us in pounds as done for cargo and head counts are more important to the per price of the passenger to rocket cost.

comstar03 · 2004-11-10 07:44:41

Well, do it on business model, for orbiting platform personnel cost divided by the per head launch cost, just like seating on aircrafts, standard seat - for standard size person, to large seat based on larger person (1.5-2.0 times standard seat )

That would equate to the cost of launch as well. You only launch for full or near full capacity. But then the costs for Orbiting personnel are tax deductible as expenses to business.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-10 09:24:53

I was talking about taking the existing delta flyer design and modifying it to meet todays technology, the specs on the vessels was designed for the story at 21m long, 9.5m wide and 4.5m in height. Using modern composites, alloys and other materials to limit weight and drag, Boeing has used bird and sea animals to increase performance we could do the same.

Um, let's separate fact from fiction. Science fiction shows like Star Trek are great for inspiration, but that isn't real. You can't modify a fictional design. You can use it as inspiration to build a single stage to orbit reusable launch vehicle, but that's all. Don't try to take design elements from fiction.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-10 11:17:33

Ummm as soon as we invent a synthetic gravity drive and mass-reducing transdimentional force field with superhigh power fusion reactors to power them, I'm sure we will build somthing like the Delta Flyer.

"So this lead some to think any reusable system HAS to have that much ground support. Burt Rutan proved them wrong."

Burt Rurtan has done no such thing. He has not built a launch vehicle. A real live orbital vehicle capable of returning is a much, much more complicated proposition. It is possible to design a vehicle with limited ground support, but it is not easy.

The real key to true SSTO flight is not to try and fancy tricks to make a single engine do tripple duty, since the engines are not that big a componet of total vehicle weight, the trick is to squeeze more performance out of one type of engine. Lots more... Subsonic engines can't do the job, rocket engines have reached a zenith, but the Scramjet... the Scramjet could reach far higher mach numbers then just 10. They are the key to building a real SSTO.

Rocket, jet, and simple ram/scramjet engines or hybrids thereof may be just fine for intercontenental travel or a hypersonic bomber, but they are still just variations on a theme and not a super-engine that will make a big difference. The solution is the Scramjet, to power it not only by the combustion of fuel, but also to convert the friction heating of the vehicle into thrust too, as it became clear that the X-30 would have needed. Then it is safe to talk about speeds in the Mach-20 range, perhaps higher, where only a small nudge with a descrete rocket engine would be needed.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-10 16:50:07

Another future shuttle option is one I mentioned before. Instead of a pure reusable SSTO RLV, build a TSTO with an expendable external tank. Take HL-20 and scale it down to 4 astronauts instead of 10, drop the seat so it's as low to the floor as a sports car and tilt the seat back a little, and create internal bulges in the cheeks of the lifting body for arm rests. I know, this violates the pure cylindrical pressure hull design, but if it works use it. Then add a 20% size version of the RD-701 engine. To this add a tri-propellant expendable external tank, and launch from a 747. NASA already has two 747s to transport Shuttle, re-assign one as the mothership for the new space taxi.

Here are some numbers. HL-20 had a total mass of 10,884kg and was able to lift 545kg of payload (astronaut body weight, spacesuit, luggage). Reducing size will reduce hull area by the square of the reduction factor, but volume by the cube, so a vehicle designed for 40% crew will not mass 40% weight with 40% payload. So a rough rule of thumb: 1/2 launch mass and don't count on luggage. Assume total mass 5,000kg.

Add mass of the main engine, roughly 20% mass of RD-701: 3,670kg * .2 = 734kg. Total orbiter mass: 5,734kg.

MAKS-OS had an orbiter mass of 27 tonnes. The "second stage mass" including orbiter, external tank and propellant was 275 tonnes. A 5.734 tonne orbiter is 21.237% as large so make it 58.4 tonne launch mass. NASA's 747s can air-launch 109 tonnes from its back. The external tank will not scale to 21.237% mass, again because area does not shrink as quickly as volume.

I picked the RD-701 because it's a reusable tri-propellant engine. Its thrust is 408,200kgf so 20% would be 81,640kgf which is more than the 58,400kg launch mass.

Since the carrier aircraft would be a 747, it could launch from any airport that can handle a 747. That is one with cryogenic LOX/LH2 fuel handling facilities, or where you could set up a safe fuelling area with cryogenic fuel trucks. You would also need a crane to lift the orbiter onto the airplane's back, but there are many mobile cranes capable of lifting 5,734kg (6.32 tons).

These are real "back of the envelope" calculations, but shows it is possible. You could even consider expanding it to 5 astronauts to service an orbital hotel. (hint, hint, hint)

::Edit:: The MAKS-OS had an 11,000kg external tank so at 21.237% it would mass 2,336kg. The total dry mass would be 2336 + 5734 = 8,070kg so the tank is 28.9% of that. The empty mass of NASA's 747 is 177,000kg so if you include that the total dry mass is 185,070kg making the expendable tank 1.6354%. That's well within the 20% margin of America's Space Prize.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-11-10 17:30:01

A real live orbital vehicle capable of returning is a much, much more complicated proposition. It is possible to design a vehicle with limited ground support, but it is not easy.

Hmm. Consider an ICBM. It's esentially a rocket that goes 80% of the way to orbit before falling down again. It's multi ton payload is designed to withstand reentry and 'land' with a high degree of accuracy. And they are designed to complte their mission with almost non-existant ground support.

True there's a big difference between an ICBM and an SSTO, but it makes a good half way house and might tell us a little about what might and might not work. So what ground facilities would be needed?

Spaceport facilities of a typical Altspace startup:
i) Launch-pad and landing pad. The second can probably be built from simple poured concrete with an automated landing system. The first would depend on the size (read: noise) of the launch vehicle.
ii) A very long runway for HTOL operations, and for delivery of goods via cargo plane.
iii) Standard ATC tower. Used to make sure nothing is over flying your rocket at time of take off. Includes links to national network to obtain and monitor flight corridor. Also used for some 'ground safety' concerns.
iv) Launch control. Room full of computers; similar to sealaunch.
v) Rocket & payload storage/servicing hanger.
vi)Cryogenic oxidiser and (maybe cryogenic) fuel storage.
vii) Misc vehicle stoage.
viii) Altspacecraft.
ix) 24/7 security service. Plain common sense & likely requirement of insurance policy.

Aside from (ii) and (viii) this is all fairly standard stuff for a small comercial or ex-military airport. What isn't standard can be easily accomadated in pre existing facilities.

Between launch and landing orbital flight and manouvering is autonymously handled by the altspacecraft (via GPS & P486s) with brief and occasional checks with the ground. When required the altspacecraft can use the same satellites intended for the shuttle. Naturally, the altspacecraft is reliable enough that it doesn't require a telemetry downlink.

ANTIcarrot.

comstar03 · 2004-11-10 18:03:12

RobertDyck,

I think you don't understand designers, they take ideas, concepts and real life structures and design new products or improve on old products. We have computer programs that could provide design, and virtual testing ( including virtual windtunnel testing) before we go through building completed model for additional testing.

We have other programs that can provide detail weight, size measurements and thrust perimeters to make sure that the space vehicle can achieve orbit and return.

But starting with a science fiction design has some of the work done for you, then you modify the design to meet the physical perimeters of the mission requirements. The Space vehicle we are talking about is not a science platform , or cargo carrying platform , but a simple human transport vehicle from earth to orbiting platform / station.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-10 18:35:58

RobertDyck,
I think you don't understand designers, they take ideas, concepts and real life structures and design new products or improve on old products. We have computer programs that could provide design, and virtual testing ( including virtual windtunnel testing) before we go through building completed model for additional testing.
We have other programs that can provide detail weight, size measurements and thrust perimeters to make sure that the space vehicle can achieve orbit and return.
But starting with a science fiction design has some of the work done for you, then you modify the design to meet the physical perimeters of the mission requirements. The Space vehicle we are talking about is not a science platform , or cargo carrying platform , but a simple human transport vehicle from earth to orbiting platform / station.

Science fiction is based on what looks pretty. I know one 3D graphic artist who does work for TV ads and a couple low-budget movies. His work looks really good, but when we discussed a spacecraft he wanted to add multiple aerodyamic foils at odd angles just because it looks cool. Making streamlined and operationally efficient or realistic was not a concern. Science fiction designs don't have any of the work for you. I'ld rather start with an existing design from an engineering study or, better yet, flight vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-10 18:41:15

Excuse me Comstar? Are you trying to be funny?

Its science fiction. As in, "not being real"

The space ships on Star Trek are designed for only one reason: to look cool and believeable. Thats all. That is the ultimate purpose of the design. Since the vehicles on Star Trek are based on technology which is not real (synthetic gravity "inertial dampeners," transdimentional "subspace field" generators, "dilithium" catalyzed antimatter reactors), then it stands to reason that designs based on these technologies will not work with our level of technology at all.

It is clear that you must not have any real knowledge of engineering to suggest somthing so entirely unrealistic, are you being serious?

RobertDyck · 2004-11-10 19:46:17

Comstar03, since you like embedded pictures here is a model of MAKS-OS on an AN-225 aircraft
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm]
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm]the HL-20
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/h/hl20full.jpg]
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactS … C.html]and NASA's 747

Do you want me to draw a composite with the 747, the tank from MAKS-OS, and HL-20?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-10 20:18:50

I believe your mass estimates and how far you seek to shrink the basic lift body design are a bit too optimistic Robert. A vehicle close to what you are thinking of is the X-38 that NASA was going to build as an ISS lifeboat or possibly a proto-OSP. It would seat six (which the ISS will support with two Zarya modules that Russia has, and would be a good size for a Mars mission crew) and be absolutely bare-boned.

No cockpit, no windows, only 9hrs of supplies, no landing gear, no OMS engines, no communications system, bascially no nothing except what is needed to come back down. And it was projected to weigh over 8,000 kilograms. Thats before the OMS engine pack would be added, before the addition of a mini-RD-701, and before structural/plumbing additions for MAKS-like launch.

Its really a wonder that the HL-20 could perhaps have been built that light.

I think that the extremely small size for your vehicle is a bit too optimistic as well. It has to be big enough to be able to ingress/egress with a full suit on, and if you dump the cylinder pressure hull design, then the pressure hull will have to be much thicker.

And ultimatly, I don't think that a reuseable vehicle with an expendable external tank like that will be cheap enough per-flight for the kind of thing that Bigelow will need, and I am wary of how quickly tanks could be built and the vehicle turn around time.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-10 21:33:02

Robert,

I agree that a MAKS type spaceplane is long overdue. But the HL 20 cannot and should not be adapted to this mission. It lacks the pitch authority and low speed handling characteristics to perform the mission. Many papers have been written criticizing lifting bodies for their low speed handling. This is why Max Faget rejected Max Hunter's Starclipper. It's also why the last concepts we saw from Orbital Sciences' OSP depicted an HL 20 with true delta wings.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-10 21:40:56

I also suppose that in the X-38 lift body design, that low-speed control wasn't a problem, since it wasn't going to come back down to a runway... just plunk down with parachutes on White Sands or somthing.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-11-02 21:25:17

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#152 2004-11-02 23:07:22

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#153 2004-11-03 01:21:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#154 2004-11-03 06:44:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#155 2004-11-09 09:21:52

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#156 2004-11-09 13:38:52

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#157 2004-11-09 14:51:46

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#158 2004-11-09 16:49:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#159 2004-11-10 00:39:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#160 2004-11-10 01:36:24

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#161 2004-11-10 06:02:23

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#162 2004-11-10 07:20:00

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#163 2004-11-10 07:25:51

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#164 2004-11-10 07:44:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#165 2004-11-10 09:24:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#166 2004-11-10 11:17:33

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#167 2004-11-10 16:50:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#168 2004-11-10 17:30:01

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#169 2004-11-10 18:03:12

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#170 2004-11-10 18:35:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#171 2004-11-10 18:41:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#172 2004-11-10 19:46:17

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#173 2004-11-10 20:18:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#174 2004-11-10 21:33:02

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#175 2004-11-10 21:40:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

Board footer