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

Ad Astra · 2004-12-14 16:36:50

Lockheed Martin's people are no fools. They have a plan for the Atlas, but they're being secretive about it. After the suspension of Boeing in July 2003, Lockheed Martin decided to proceed with an Atlas V pad at Vandenberg and with a heavy version of the Atlas V.

The lifting cone may still be in contention, but most of Lockheed's artwork for VSE shows a stubby, truncated cone (which I call "circumcised Gemini") atop a service module with solar panels.

What does the future hold for the Atlas V? Perhaps an upgrade to the RD-171 engine, or two RD-180's, or four RD-191's. Maybe a 5m core, if they want to build a new infrastructure. More powerful upper stages are a given. Lockheed Martin's published (although uninspiring) plan for the VSE calls for a 70 MT booster, so one must assume that this booster is in the works.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 17:01:26

Well, Lockheed had better be more chatty and salesmenlike in evangelizing "Super Atlas" to NASA privatly then they are to us publicly, or they're in trouble... Boeing will run right over them, their rocket with reasonable upgrades is able to do the job and is available today.

BWhite · 2004-12-14 17:45:15

What does the future hold for the Atlas V? Perhaps an upgrade to the RD-171 engine, or two RD-180's, or four RD-191's. Maybe a 5m core, if they want to build a new infrastructure. More powerful upper stages are a given. Lockheed Martin's published (although uninspiring) plan for the VSE calls for a 70 MT booster, so one must assume that this booster is in the works.

Are these Russian engines made in America?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 18:33:11

I think that Lockheed is currently working on starting a RD-180 line in America, to make the USAF happy.

The 180 is about half the power of the old F-1 from days of yore, but with higher Isp.

Euler · 2004-12-14 18:52:19

I think that Lockheed is currently working on starting a RD-180 line in America, to make the USAF happy.

That date for when the production in America will begin keeps getting pushed back. The last I heard is that it would not happen until 2012.

What does the future hold for the Atlas V?

The administration has been thinking about downselecting one of the EELVs. If I were Lockheed, I would be worried as it would seem more logical to keep the Delta IV.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 19:02:32

Yeah... much less developed evolution strategy, more difficult to man-rate, and major componets made in Russia.

Lockheed should be worried.

BWhite · 2004-12-14 20:11:21

Yeah... much less developed evolution strategy, more difficult to man-rate, and major componets made in Russia.
Lockheed should be worried.

Looks like a political no-brainer to me.

Delta IV is a probably a lock for CEV and all the components. Which means some astronauts will visit the Moon towards 2020 and then, what?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 22:13:35

Well, I think that depends on if the Moon is good for anything. If its decided that Lunar precious metals or He3 or somthing are worth digging up, which I doubt, then the next step would be to establish a Lunar ice mining or oxide cracking operation and develop RLVs for both ends of the trip and reuseable TLI/TEI stages... As for when we think about "doing Mars," who knows.

For Mars, we can hope, NASA would get to building a new clean-sheet HLLV launcher in the 80-100MT range and do whatever advanced version of the DRM mission is in vouge at the time with the purpose of placing a "Martian McMurdro" planetside.

Ad Astra · 2004-12-15 01:06:49

The Air Force may end up selecting the Atlas V exclusively while NASA could go exclusively with Delta IV. The Air Force is miffed about Boeing's misdeeds, while LockMart has seemingly neglected NASA. If the two agencies pick separate launchers, there will be no competition between the two. Of course, the possibility of dropping one launcher in favor of the other will still inspire the contractors to perform at their best.

LockMart's secrecy doesn't surprise me. This is the company that gave us Kelly Johnson, Ben Rich, and the Skunk Works. When the time is right they will show their cards. Not a word will be spoken until then.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-15 05:33:03

BWhite:
Which means some astronauts will visit the Moon towards 2020 and then, what?

First why so long to go to the moon?

reply,GCNRevenger:
Well, I think that depends on if the Moon is good for anything. If its decided that Lunar precious metals or He3 or something are worth digging up, which I doubt, then the next step would be to establish a Lunar ice mining or oxide cracking operation and develop RLVs for both ends of the trip and reuseable TLI/TEI stages...

Then how many trips before we start mining or what would be insitu use processing?

SpaceNut · 2004-12-22 06:23:01

Well the Boeing's new Delta 4 Heavy rocket lhas finally ifted off for test mission

New Delta 4 Rocket Launches Succesfully in Flight Debut

This rocket had been though alot over the past year getting it ready for only a demostrator flight pay for by the Airforce at $140million.

Lots of details in engine types and such for both articles.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-22 09:52:01

"Then how many trips before we start mining or what would be insitu use processing?"

Fuel production could start in half a dozen missions or so... (HAB, reactor, digging/misc equipment, supply drop or two, a crew or two for assembly, and then the ISRU plant). As for if it should start that is another matter. At least one mission will probobly be sent to each pole and one or two to the dark side to set up telescopes run by RTGs. Likly a launch or two for communications satelites too.

The near-term goal for an ISRU setup, if there is water, would probobly be to eliminate expendable Lunar landers and replace them with medium-to-light reuseable ones. This way you could send signifigant payloads without having to use the biggest rockets, with the growth goal of eliminating the TLI stage... and to carry "Delta-II sized" He3 tanks or Pt bars back to LEO.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-24 11:52:01

Northrop and boeing have finally inked there deal for the CEV developement strategy that they will use.
Northrop Grumman, Boeing Finalize Space Exploration Teaming Agreement
My only concern with the term spiral is that we do not end up with a lot of demostrator vehilcles that could not even do what they are intended to do.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-28 11:08:56

While many approaches have been voiced as to how to design a rocket and crew section. Most start with what we have now and try to build what can be lofted by them rather than design what is needed for the crew to survive depending on mission stay and then trying to figure out what can loft it into space for its intended purpose of exploration.

Rocket design up in air, says Marshall chief

"We are looking at all concepts from a heavy-lift, Saturn V-like vehicle, to a shuttle-type vehicle, to using expendable rockets," Marshall Director Dave King said. "The truth is that we've got to pick what type of crew vehicle that's best for the exploration (plan), and then design a vehicle to lift it."

There are advantages and disadvantages to many designs. A Saturn V-like vehicle would place a lot of cargo into Earth orbit with just a few launches, but it would be expensive, space experts predict.
Another option would be to modify the shuttle's external tank and solid rocket boosters to lift an unmanned cargo package, and yet another one to launch multiple expendable rockets like the Boeing Delta IV or Lockheed Atlas 5 into orbit.
"We just don't know yet," King said. "I expect that within the next year the design (plan) will take shape and we will work toward that goal."

A new, large rocket could keep NASA plans to return to the moon on the ground. Dennis Wingo, Huntsville businessman and space expert, predicts a Saturn V-type design would bankrupt any space exploration plan.
"If they hold out for a Saturn V, then this will fall apart," Wingo said. "There's no money for a long development program to design and test a heavy-lift, Saturn V type vehicle."

Wingo said a promising option would be to develop automated docking systems and use Boeing's Delta IV expendable vehicles to assemble a crew vehicle in space. "This is all proven hardware and wouldn't take that long to develop,"

And it would seem that the cheapest is to do a SDV but we all have wondered how cheap.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-28 12:00:58

Nobody knows how much building SDV would cost, but if it cost a billion or two (or three) to develop the EELVs, then things don't look good for it. A brand new HLLV rocket depends on its capacity, if its a lighter 80-100MT rocket based on Atlas-V parts, it probobly wouldn't cost much more then SDV, but likly still too much. A super HLLV would cost at least $8-10Bn.

The Delta-IV with all the modern bells & whistles instead of 1990's technology can, in theory, lift 40MT and at a modest increase in CCB production to 26 per year could support a basic manned Lunar program with two manned trips per year, consisting of 40MT "chunks" launched on the tripple-barrel model.
-Four cryogenic TLI stages using single RL-60 engines
-Two fully fueled two-stage landers/surface habs
-Two TEI stages fueled by CH4/LOX
-Two single-barrel Delta-IV's carrying crew CEV capsules.

The TEI payload might not weigh the whole 40MT and could carry additional surface or Lunar orbit payload.

If you want to get to the Moon with the absolute minimum in development costs, then using an uprated Delta-IV would be the way to go. The cost for each however is not likly to be under $200-250M. which will take up a huge chunk of the VSE budget. An HLLV rocket with double that capacity could likly fly for less then double the cost and save hundreds of millions a year.

I am also very curious about what Lockheed could do with Atlas-V rocket technology to build a heavier rocket. Boeing has already given their answer to a "light" HLLV requirement, which is basically to keep strapping Delta cores together (seven of them) which is an ungainly and inefficent solution.

Could a heavy lift rocket in the 80MT range be built from Atlas style componets (swapping out RD-180 for 170 and RL-10 for RL-60) for under ~$3-4Bn?

Five meter core supporting two RD-170 engines and two Shuttle SRBs topped by a cryogenic upper stage with a cluster of RL-60s or a single RD-0120/simplified SSME?

Ad Astra · 2005-01-29 13:39:40

Elon Musk has hinted that SpaceX might build a heavy-lifter. At this stage, he has yet to fly the Falcon I mini-sat launcher, yet alone the Delta II-class Falcon V. Once they can demonstrate their ability to fly large rockets (and make a business case for a heavy-lifter) I would totally support a privately-developed heavy-lifter for the VSE.

But I agree that an all-government funded HLLV is not the way to go. I don't have a problem with an SDV as long as NASA finds some way to get private funding for it.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-29 14:10:29

Elon & Company don't deserve any serious VSE consideration until they can fly either a bigger engine (RD-180 for RP1 or SSME for H2 sized) or prove they can fly a multi-engine stage. As in, actual flight test.

The reality of the matter is that there is no possible way that private entities are going to come up with the billion of dollars needed to build a heavy-lift (80MT+) launcher, and even a 40MT one is highly questionable. There just isn't any good commertial reason for it except for NASA or USAF needs. Since NASA and the USAF want big rockets and have big money, private industry will be happy to let them pay for the development.

Even with Shuttle, NASA has never really had an entirely government-built space vehicle, that they have always used contractors as far back as the Gemini days all the way until today. Lockheed, Boeing, and Thiokol (to a point Rockwell) do almost all Shuttle work.

Ad Astra · 2005-01-29 17:08:28

I'm taking a "crawl, walk, run" view of SpaceX. Falcon I is their baby step. They certainly have a lot to prove, even before they get to the Falcon V inaugural launch. That being said, an incremental approach will eventually get them to the point where they can tackle the HLLV.

An HLLV operated and developed by private industry need not have a commercial market, aside from whatever launch contracts they can score from the Air Force and NASA. This is the business model I see for an SDV. I don't know if United Space Alliance would be willing to design and act as prime contractor for the SDV. If not, Boeing or LockMart would have to step in and take their place. I'd also like to see the total privatization of shuttle-related facilities at this point. If the launch processing can be streamlined (in a way that only private companies can get away with) there might be room to turn a decent profit with only USAF/NASA contracts.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-29 19:24:57

If Elon wants to get in the game for Lunar VSE contracts, then he better get to the "run" part, and fast, probobly like five years. Bolt together a trio of Falcon-V cores (with new engines?) and put an upper stage with a trio of RL-10's on top... oh and switch to Lithium alloy instead of regular Aluminum.

The Shuttle is already largely operated that way. Shuttle is basically run by United Space, which is Lockheed and Boeing jointly cooperating, the only real exception is that the government owns the orbiters, boosters, and launch facilities.

There is already plenty of profit... Boeing and Lockheed never do anything for charity... and is one reason Shuttle is so expensive. The trick is, that most large aerospace contracts have an assured amount of profit, and THAT is what needs to change.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-29 23:22:23

Refining the concept for a new light HLLV based on exsisting engines...

All new 6.5m by 45m core stage based on Atlas-V tankage, equipped with dual LOX feedlines to feed the two RD-170 (Zenit engines) or 3-4 RD-180 (Atlas-III/V) engines.

Two Shuttle solid rocket boosters, standard four-segment variety, instead of the cluster of smaller SRMs that the standard A-5 uses.

Full diamter cryogenic upper stage, powerd either by a trio of RL-60 engines or a single RD-0120/SSME style engine.

Target payload of eighty or ninety tonnes to orbit at a cost of no more then $400M each, and the rocket would not be man-rated with all crews launched seperatly on CEV.

BWhite · 2005-01-30 22:27:20

But I agree that an all-government funded HLLV is not the way to go. I don't have a problem with an SDV as long as NASA finds some way to get private funding for it.

Private funding needs a viable business model.

No profit? No private funding.

Got any ideas? ???

SpaceNut · 2005-01-31 05:17:13

Also in the same token that hold true for Nasa and why the current rockets are a bad business model to follow. Like the standing shuttle army and other areas that are sitting idle between launches. Not sure if moving all shuttle related functions for united space alliance to a new sight so as to trim the cost would even work.

The only thing close to a business model happens to by the Russian soyuz and progress for profitability. 20 million to make and 20 million for the third seat but even that is break even.

Until spacex actually launches they are an unknown even if they could get to much higher lift capability. They have some of there business model correct in that they are hauling in cost. SpaceX contains costs with simplified approach

The SpaceX Mission Control Center is an 18-wheeler.
Its Falcon rockets don't require huge mobile service towers or other complicated launch pad systems that are expensive to build and maintain.
Near launch-ready when they leave their California factory, Falcons roll up to a launch pad on an extended flatbed truck that also serves as a rocket erector with a built-in umbilical tower.
And the company's launch team is made up of 15 to 20 people, rather than hundreds or thousands of workers.
"My goodness, you can't sell rockets at low prices if you've got a standing army," said Gwynne Shotwell, the company's vice president of business development.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-31 06:07:18

NASA Sets Crew Exploration Vehicle Procurement Guidelines
Already there has been a few that have joined together to foster hopes in that they would be given the contracts to go forth with the CEV. This trend continues with the lockheed and EADS Space Transportation teaming up on the competition.

Lockheed Martin's Crew Exploration Vehicle Team Includes Top Industry Innovators

Key aerospace leaders - Lockheed Martin, EADS SPACE Transportation, United Space Alliance, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences and Hamilton Sundstrand - Combine strengths to design and build NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle

Here is what each brings towards the design of the next CEV as part of the team.

Lockheed Martin will lead the team as the system prime contractor. United Space Alliance will draw upon its extensive experience in large, complex systems integration, operation and maintenance of multi-purpose space systems and reusable space launch systems, including the Shuttle and numerous systems associated with NASA's human space flight program. EADS SPACE Transportation provides its expertise in the design and development of space transportation vehicles and manned space systems, together with its long experience of international cooperation in manned space programs. Orbital brings its strengths in integration of solid rocket motor systems and significant experience with spacecraft and small launch vehicles. Honeywell provides Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) technology, which elevates crew autonomy and systems management to a new level, and will provide avionics, guidance, navigation and control (GN&C), and mission and ground systems support. Hamilton Sundstrand provides its expertise in the design, manufacture and servicing of Space Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) and brings over 40 years of technical experience from its key participation in every major NASA human space program with Space Suits, critical Vehicle Life Support, thermal control and power management systems.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-01 20:01:19

The announcement of "Team Lockmart" has a lot of surprises in it. The list is so long that it's daunting. Unfortunately, innovators like Orbital Sciences will probably be stifled now that they're working for Team Lockmart.

The supporters of internationalizing the VSE will take heart that the Eurpoean aerospace giant EADS is part of Team Lockmart. It's unknown if they will use their clout to get the ESA involved, but it at least makes sure that Europe has a financial stake in seeing this project succeed.

Despite the large size of Team Lockmart, I still consider them to be under-dogs compared to Boeing-NorthGrum. After all, which companies were the prime contractors on all of America's manned spacecraft?

McDonnell: Mercury, Gemini
North American Aviation: X-15, Apollo CSM, shuttle orbiter
Grumman: Apollo LEM
Boeing: X-20, Lunar Rover

With all that experience on the Boeing-NorthGrum team, they certainly have the upper hand.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-01 20:46:54

Pretty much... Boeing is in a position to offer a "one stop shop" for most VSE needs too. Build the "super" Delta-IV to launch everything, build the capsule for the crew, build a mega Centaur for TLI stages, build the lander stage for Lunar landing...

Lockheed and company need to get their act together rather then getting more hands to pass the money around to onboard. They need to come up with a technically superior solution and convince NASA that it can be executed within cost.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2004-12-14 16:36:50

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

#277 2004-12-14 17:01:26

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

#278 2004-12-14 17:45:15

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

#279 2004-12-14 18:33:11

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

#280 2004-12-14 18:52:19

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

#281 2004-12-14 19:02:32

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

#282 2004-12-14 20:11:21

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

#283 2004-12-14 22:13:35

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

#284 2004-12-15 01:06:49

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

#285 2004-12-15 05:33:03

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

#286 2004-12-22 06:23:01

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

#287 2004-12-22 09:52:01

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

#288 2005-01-24 11:52:01

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

#289 2005-01-28 11:08:56

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

#290 2005-01-28 12:00:58

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

#291 2005-01-29 13:39:40

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

#292 2005-01-29 14:10:29

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

#293 2005-01-29 17:08:28

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

#294 2005-01-29 19:24:57

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

#295 2005-01-29 23:22:23

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

#296 2005-01-30 22:27:20

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

#297 2005-01-31 05:17:13

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

#298 2005-01-31 06:07:18

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

#299 2005-02-01 20:01:19

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

#300 2005-02-01 20:46:54

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

Board footer