Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

BWhite · 2005-06-09 10:44:10

So what is stopping them from developing there own launch pad if not here maybe in a more favorable nation, say french guiana where the russians are building one for them.
American export laws. Most rocket technology in the US is heavily regulated and controlled. You need federal approval for foriegn launches.

Bingo!

Kwajelien or other US equatorial possessions might work. But Thiokol won't rock that boat so long as NASA remains a potential customer.

That said, if NASA goes all EELV and purchases of Thiokol's RSRM are terminated then a private player might look into private acquisition of rudimentary crane and gantry launch tower for cargo launches of a 5 segment RSRM topped by an RL-10 cluster.

C M Edwards · 2005-06-09 13:26:11

I'm very emotionally devided about the prospect of Shuttle C.

I think there's some use in a shuttle-derived launch vehicle, and I don't consider it the impossibility that many seem to think it is.

Unfortunately, it would probably just end up yoked to the international space station. :bars2:

BWhite · 2005-06-11 09:31:44

http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/index. … ml]Michoud update.

= = =

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/weblog.html]New SDV link

The Stick, which has won support in some NASA offices, would use a new liquid hydrogen upper stage atop a recoverable solid rocket booster (SRB) much like the SRBs used on the current shuttle stack. The new upper stage could be powered by a space shuttle main engine (SSME), by a J-2S engine revived from an Apollo-era program, or by a cluster of RL60 engines now being developed by Pratt & Whitney. Varying numbers of SRB segments could be used in the first stage. Studies by Lockheed and ATK Thiokol have shown that such single-stick vehicles could orbit payloads ranging from 16 MT to 25 MT or more. The most powerful versions could actually match the payload capacity of the existing space shuttle system.

Edited By BWhite on 1118514468

Mad Grad Student · 2005-06-11 17:40:11

I'm very emotionally devided about the prospect of Shuttle C.
I think there's some use in a shuttle-derived launch vehicle, and I don't consider it the impossibility that many seem to think it is.
Unfortunately, it would probably just end up yoked to the international space station. :bars2:

Why would shuttle C wind up yoked to the ISS? As far as I can tell the two projects have no relation to each other at all. We don't have to worry about an SDV being tied to the hip to the ISS the same way the shuttle is.

The primary obstacle to SDV's usefulness is how efficiently the shuttle army can be disbanded or reassigned. At least half of the shuttle ground support can probably go, if not more. However, there are still the managerial questions of whether the politicians will allow so many engineers to loose their jobs or be reassigned and if Griffin will be willing to make the tough choices necessary. I'm confident that he can do this, but it will require a major break from NASA's paradigm of reflexively protecting the shuttle army from any harm. NASA is not terribly great at breaking long-standing paradigms.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-11 21:52:05

Amen to that MGS... Thats why I am wary about the whole SDV concept, that NASA won't be able to resist stretching the limits of "retaining key, nessesarry personell..." And so the decision should be renderd moot by eliminating all of them unless Griffin can prove he can make it happen.

BWhite · 2005-06-12 00:23:18

Amen to that MGS... Thats why I am wary about the whole SDV concept, that NASA won't be able to resist stretching the limits of "retaining key, nessesarry personell..." And so the decision should be renderd moot by eliminating all of them unless Griffin can prove he can make it happen.

The http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/stu … ]Planetary Society Report does call for shifting the burden of lifting an unspecified number of ISS heavy modules to foreign launchers.

See page 5 of pdf

= = =

How could I have forgotten this?

Pages 6-8 talk about using SDV HLLV to finish ISS.

Edited By BWhite on 1118557547

BWhite · 2005-06-16 13:11:51

http://www.boom.net/~jake/atk_docs/ATK_ … A.pdf]Data dump

136 page pdf on da' stick - - I haven't read it yet either. :;):

Apologies if someone else linked it first.

clark · 2005-06-16 20:28:26

I'm still digesting this... Thank you Bill, I find this interesting.

So, just throwing out some ideas, maybe some others can play along (please feel free to accuse me of being a cynic, paranoid, etc.). I'm going to dive in, all, please expand on the random pieces that seem relevant to you, no need to respond to everything.

What struck me in the report is that SRB is able to meet the current CEV spiral 1 weight requirements (performance), and the EELV's are not. Well, at least only an HV-EELV can meet the weight requirements.

Yet, the CEV could be cut down (they are looking for 25-35 tons for CEV, but Klipper, a nominal comparison is estimated in the 13-20 ton range), and if it is, then perhaps a non HV-EELV could be used. If a regular EELV can be used, then the 'complexity' difference for the comparison between EELV and SRB would be made moot. Right?

The SRB will still need to be modified, as it hasn't been used in the proposed configuration. Right now, it's all theory on what the expected failure rate might be. The same is true for EELV's.

So here is a thought- What if the CEV mass size was reduced to fit on a current EELV rocket? Then, at the same time, NASA invested in developing the SRB as an intermediate Medium launch vehicle? SRB can launch a considerable amount of tonnage, and this would fit in with the needs of being able to launch cargo into space (say the heavier CEV modules in spiral 2). Next, NASA later develops an inline SDV for the truly Heavy lift needs in the spiral 3 series (about Moon time... 2010-2025).

What this does is allow NASA to continue testing and developing the SRB (also retaining an inhouse ability to achieve mission objectives without relying on aerospace) and giving it more time to prove its saftey record in the new configuration.

This also allows NASA to utilize exsisting launch services without having to spend tons of money on developing the HL-EELV's. Just spend what is neccessary to vet a CEV on a current EELV.

Now, these are ideas, but here's some other considerations:

Lockeheed and Boeing both tendered radically different designs. If NASA were to choose the Lockheed design, would Lockheed be able to cut down their design weight to fit onto an exsisting EELV launcher? I'm guessing, but I don't think so.

Boeing on the other hand looks like it might be able to do it. Of course, I am guessing, but the capsule design seems to be easier to reduce extra weight (a bias I suppose).

Maybe neither could, or both could, I don't know. But what makes me wonder is that Steidle, the guy thatt was in charge of CEV from the begining has a job with Lockheed. Yet, Griffin and Steidle were rumored to have some conflicts, and CEV VSE implementation might be one of them.

Griffin is meeting with Rumsfeld to hammer out the whole SDV and ELLV issue. I'm of the opinion that Griffin dosent' have much chance getting the SDV approval authorized by Bush (National Space Transportation Policy requires that NASA head and Defense head make reccomendation to Pres). I think Griffin might realize the situation, assuming I'm right.

What if...

Griffin makes a deal. A deal where he trades CEV requirements to fit onto exsisting EELV's, thereby allowing him to get the support for developing the SRB and the SDV as I suggested?

That would give NASA a very light craft that can be launched on exsisting EELV's, a medimum LV, and a heavy LV. It would also mean a CEV that could quite possibly be launched by our space partners. We could beat Russia at their own game (not to mention China!). NASA would have incredible flexibility and choice in desiging mission size and scope (pay as you go).

Face it, right now, Russia and China are the only nations that can send people into space, and can be launched by other national LV's. They have an interoperability the US lacks and a heavy CEv will not rectify that situation.

So why the mention about Steidle and Griffin? Well, Steidle was privy to the previous plans- the intial assumptions of VSE. Those assumptions are in flux, but they don't turn on a dime. Lockheed snapped Stiedle up, one, because of his experience with the Joint Strike Fighter, but also because of his involvement with CEV planning.

I think the Lockheed design is favoured for HL-EELV, which DOD has an interest in seeing developed (not to mention the EELV support). Yet I think if Griffin made this deal, or this kind of argument was presented (say prior to the meeting, change the requirements on the CEV) then it might come off.

If SRB and SDV are green-lighted, I say invest in Boeing (I think they will have an easier time cutting weight). If EELV development is green-lighted, then I think Lockheed will win because of the superior design.

Anyway, I'm off to read some more.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-16 20:36:32

If you are talking a capsule not much bigger than Apollo and a service module made of modern materials powerd by Methane fuel with only enough delta-v for circulization & TEI then we're talking only 20MT or so total, which is within reach of an upgraded Atlas.

clark · 2005-06-16 20:40:33

What about the Delta series?

What's involved with upgarding the Atlas?

BWhite · 2005-06-16 22:09:12

More on clark's comments later, after some digestion.

Anyway, did you see the fins on the painting of the SRB?

:;):

SpaceNut · 2005-06-17 05:38:21

Have not had time as of yet to start to wade though the great references that you posted links to Bwhite but many thanks as always.

To answer clark:

Boeing on the other hand looks like it might be able to do it. Of course, I am guessing, but the capsule design seems to be easier to reduce extra weight (a bias I suppose).

Why yes we can. We did the opposite when we went from mercury to gemini and the to apollo though there developement stages so why not.

Griffin makes a deal. A deal where he trades CEV requirements to fit onto exsisting EELV's, thereby allowing him to get the support for developing the SRB and the SDV as I suggested?

Well the problem I see for the EELV's would be the addition weight for what is needed for the section the is not manned rated to make them safer at this time IMO would further reduce the capsule size for use on existing rockets. But this is something that both companies should do anyways in order to give more options for the future.

clark · 2005-06-17 05:53:13

Klipper is estimated in the 13 ton range. 6 people to orbit, 360 day on orbit status, with a two week (i think) ability to operate independantly. It has some pretty impressive abort options.

Why the hell don't we design CEV around similar guidelines?!

13 -15 tons should fit on exsisting EELV's. SRB can be used to launch bigger modules for the long range missions beyond LEO (they would dock in orbit).

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-17 07:27:16

Thats an easy one SpaceNut, because Klipper only has enough fuel to deorbit, but the CEV needs enough fuel to escape Lunar orbit and return to Earth or to turn around and come home during transit if there is a problem. This simply requires far more rocket fuel and more powerful engines then Klipper has or needs, since it is not intended for Lunar travel. This is why CEV will weigh around 20MT (preferably 25MT), since it should carry its own rocket (and not have to rely on another) powerful enough to bring it home unassisted. If you just wanted a CEV to get to LEO and back, it very well could weigh only ~12MT.

The SRB booster makes little sense as a medium payload vehicle, its too small to move anything heavy like a Earth departure stage, you'd need something in the 40-50MT range for that at least.

Upgrading Atlas will take some effort, but its possible. The main changes would be enlarged, strengthend fuel tanks (at least for the upper stage), more powerful upper stage engines (RL-60 instead of the old RL-10), and probobly switch to Lithium alloy to save on weight. Lockheed thinks that a single core stage could carry up to 25MT with no boosters... and probobly 40MT with by my estimation.

A tripple-barrel version of THAT rocket and you are getting close to Shuttle-C class payload capacity... Of Boeing's rockets, only the Delta-IV HLV is probobly large enough to launch CEV unfortunatly, but it could do it with the minimum of modification, just reinforce the structure, add crossfeed fuel lines for partial engine-out, and nessesarry safety sensors and you'd be in business. It would at least be a "plan C." Boeing has made some noises about taking a Delta Medium and strapping six little SRMs to it to make it powerful enough, but I am not real happy with that idea.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 08:23:58

Another Michael Griffin http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL20 … f]sighting - - its not looking like this guy has kept any of his preferences secret. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1119277487

clark · 2005-06-20 08:25:07

Big money is on guessing what Dr. Scott Pace thinks...

BWhite · 2005-06-20 08:30:26

Another Michael Griffin http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL20 … f]sighting - - its not looking like this guy has kept any of his preferences secret. :;):

Heck, design me a time machine and I would love to have taken this class. :;):

BWhite · 2005-06-20 08:31:56

Big money is on guessing what Dr. Scott Pace thinks...

http://www.tobackpodiatry.com/about_2.html]This guy?

clark · 2005-06-20 08:41:12

Try this guy...

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/pa … e_bio.html

Won't bore you with the details, but the guy is plugged in.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-20 09:07:04

What’s in and out in space

Besides the obvious of the who's leading Nasa there has been lots of changes.

clark · 2005-06-20 10:46:12

What I found interesting when researching Scott Pace is his long involvment with the various space programs throughout the government. He has been involved with DOD, NRO, NSC, NASA, and a whole slew of other alphabet soup.

He was part of the Bush transition team back in 2000, and was chief of staff for O'keefe. Now he is chief of staff for Griffin. This guy is the point person for NASA operations and a direct contact to the white house.

He is pro-buisness for launch services, at least from the testimony and policy bits I have found. I don't think it a big assumption to wager that he had a hand in crafting the VSE policy (in some capacity).

Scott also was charged for the last few months in reworking implementation of the CEV after O'Keefe left. Now, he is officaly in the middle of it all.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-22 10:41:52

Well here is an article on what Dr. Scott Pace is in charge of.
Helping Make The Right Decisions

The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) reports directly to the Administrator with responsibility to independently assess program performance, make programmatic and institutional recommendations, perform cost analysis, and conduct strategic planning activities.
PA&E will examine a variety of issues of strategic importance to the agency. The office will assure that all aspects of a major decision are considered and obtain the pertinent information required to assist the Administrator in making well-informed and timely decisions.
The long term goal of the office is to ensure a strong, objective, professional PA&E function exists to serve the agency, as NASA continues to pursue the Vision for Space Exploration.

What's on his plate of tasks:

PA&E currently has two major studies under way: the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team (SSCOT) study and the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS).
The SSCOT is examining configuration options for the International Space Station in the context of potential future flight rates for the Space Shuttle Program.
The study is operating under the decision to retire the Shuttle no later than 2010. Some of the topics the ESAS is reviewing include the requirements for returning to the Moon and extending human exploration to Mars, as well as possibilities for accelerating the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

All this on a policy of Consistent with PA&E's being of an advisory role, the office will have no budget authority or line responsibility for any agency programs.

Sort sounds like a safety committee with limited power to stop flights...

BWhite · 2005-06-23 13:34:34

If orbiter cannot be retired until http://www.space.com/news/050623_shuttle_bill.html]CEV flies - - how can we possibly afford EELV CEV?

If Griffin cancels 7 or 8 STS to ISS missions and flies a Thiokol CEV before 2010 we can get rid of orbiter without nasty fights from Texas and Florida senators.

clark · 2005-06-23 13:44:09

The House does not mirror the language. It will get resolved in confrence.

Too many people are going to make money on CEV and VSE to let the Shuttle get in the way. And, if they kept the Shuttle flying beyond 2010 that would mean we could continue to build the ISS.

Everything would start to fall apart...

I suppose we could ostenibly keep the Shuttle, but not fly it after 2010. That would meet the letter of the law, no? :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-23 19:35:16

I wont]http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/06/sdlv_finalist.html]won't argue.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-06-09 10:44:10

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#77 2005-06-09 13:26:11

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#78 2005-06-11 09:31:44

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#79 2005-06-11 17:40:11

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#80 2005-06-11 21:52:05

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#81 2005-06-12 00:23:18

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#82 2005-06-16 13:11:51

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#83 2005-06-16 20:28:26

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#84 2005-06-16 20:36:32

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#85 2005-06-16 20:40:33

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#86 2005-06-16 22:09:12

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#87 2005-06-17 05:38:21

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#88 2005-06-17 05:53:13

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#89 2005-06-17 07:27:16

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#90 2005-06-20 08:23:58

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#91 2005-06-20 08:25:07

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#92 2005-06-20 08:30:26

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#93 2005-06-20 08:31:56

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#94 2005-06-20 08:41:12

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#95 2005-06-20 09:07:04

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#96 2005-06-20 10:46:12

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#97 2005-06-22 10:41:52

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#98 2005-06-23 13:34:34

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#99 2005-06-23 13:44:09

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#100 2005-06-23 19:35:16

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

Board footer