Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-12 21:13:10

"about An under 1% chance of failure... this is only your optimistic evaluation (as CLV-fan), there are rockets that, in real launches, are not so reliable... we will see in next year... "

There you go again... Is it possible to make a particular airliner +99.999% reliable? Can it be done? How about a bridge that has to safely support cars with >99.99999% reliability? How do you know that it can unless you drive a million cars across it? Its all engineering... and so is building rockets.

"about Six billion out of a... the evaluation may change and may be more or less, but, build two rockets (or two cars or two computers or two buildings, etc.) clearly costs TWICE...

...$300M for each CLV... NASA evaluates at $800M/year only the costs of the CLV structure (employers, etc.), no matter if the CLV will fly 1 or 10 per year... each CLV launch will probably cost more than $300M... we will see when it will fly"

No, actually developing the five-segment SRB and the J-2X engine and the avionics will reduce the development cost of the CaLV, which won't need any engine development at all. The SRB, the modified J-2, and the off-the-shelf RS-68 will all be ready to go. Your arm-waving about the costs of the rockets is ignorant.

And where do your cost figures come from, the current cost of the Shuttle program? Even if did cost $800M, that would still not be much more expensive then the CLV's only competitor, the Delta-IV Heavy.

"some assembly structure can be reused for different vehicles but this is only the last part of rocket assembly, the single parts need (many) single factories"

Lets see...
~Five segment SRBs, same factory
~CLV and CaLV tankage both from Michoud
~J-2X engines both from same assembly line
~Both rockets would share similar avionics
~Both rockets would share the same assembly building
~Boeing already has a factory for RS-68 set up

You were saying?

"after all problems are solved"

NASA managed to launch the Saturn-V manned after only a few test flights with 100% sucess. The CLV will be ten times simpler then Saturn and twenty times simpler then Shuttle, your pessimism has no foundation in fact.

"your timing is so "real" that NASA have changed the planned orbital LSAM/EDS loither time from 30 to 95 days"

Says who, says a batch of stolen powerpoint slides from a NASA briefing that were intentionally doctored to make NASA look bad? Those documents? Please.

The CLV will be the simplest rocket of its class ever built by America, perhaps the simplest ever versus its contemporaries (Zenit). It cannot take more then a week to assemble the booster, so this gives NASA at least three tries with completly seperate rockets to launch in a one-month window, or at least six or seven with a two-month window.

As long as NASA has a spare CLV handy, the risk that a Lunar mission will fail due to a CLV processing delay is simply very low. Even if NASA spent several days scratching its head trying to fix a problem, that would still leave enough time to pull a completly seperate booster out of storage and put the crew on it and go in the one-month deadline.

And remember, launches won't occur totally in series, that when the CaLV flies the CLV will surely be assembled and ready to go shortly thereafter. Assembly and most of the testing could be completed on both rockets before the EDS stage is launched, which will make the chance of failure due to delay even lower. And if there were a delay? You've got about a month to fix it, in that time frame you could pull a spare CLV out of storage if it you had to and deal with the problem later.

The CLV will fly on time, and your ignorant scare-mongering is unfounded gaetano.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-12 21:24:28

"while, the SLV, with many engines"

Only the first stage, and thats only the RS-68s, if either of the boosters fail thats it. The upper stage on the CaLV (just like the CLV) only has one J-2X engine too, unlike Saturn.

I have flipped through your page you cite, and its full of silliness...

~You want to use the stock 8.4m Shuttle tank with some supports bolted on, but you also state that the tank would have to be modified. To put the engines on the bottom of the tank and cargo on top means substantial modification is unavoidable despite being the same size, so which is it? Modified or unmodified?

-You have absolutely no clue about how hard this "basket" for the SSMEs would be to build. You have no idea how much trouble the plumbing, power, hydraulics, pressurization, controls, and so on are that the SSMEs need to operate.

~You'd still have the danger of the SRBs leaking and igniting the fuel tank, resulting in a huge explosion and the likly death of the crew. You'd still have to develop the J-2 in some form or another, since SSME really isn't suited for the task. Speaking of SSME, going this route will cost more in engines then the five-engine + five-segment SRB CaLV would! The SSME is really expensive.

~Even 110MT wouldn't be enough for a really effective Lunar program, your astronauts might be able to get there, but they wouldn't be able to bring anything with them to work with. You can't send it seperatly, because the chances that you could land close enough together anywhere on the Moon are too low, radically decreasing the reliability of the mission.

Moon: "Uh, mission control, we set down 25km from our cargo vehicle. That would be within the range of the rover."

CapCom: "But the rover is on the cargo vehicle"

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-13 01:57:16

Sorry but the ET can not be used since it was not design to push verticle weight as it is. A new tank would need to be design to allow for the SSME to be mounted to the end.

you're right

my drawing only explain a "CONCEPT" (see the note at the end of my article) since the payload, engines, etc. need a support

but this change can be made in one-two years, then, the "FAST-SLV" will be ready for its first test flight in 2007 !!!

the CLV needs 7 years (and $7 billion) to fly, while the CaLV needs 12 years (and $10 billion)

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-13 02:14:36

.

Dear GCNRevenger,

if you want, I can post again my answer to the points of your last posts, despite, after my new article, I think its unnecessary

that because, if NASA uses to-day's Shuttle' hardware (with some changes, of course) to build the SLV, all (my and yours) calculations and predictions make no sense

the time, costs, R&D, etc. of the new rockets can be argument of a dispute... the time, costs, etc. of EXISTING parts CAN'T

we already know the cost of an SRB, the time to assemble them with the tank, how to launch a shuttle, etc.

NASA already has all the experience, enginneers and employeers to do this job

that overcome all the discussions about the future, the new rockets, the timeline, the costs, the % of failure, etc. etc. etc.

the SLV made with (exactly) the same parts of the shuttle, can fly 100+ times like the shuttle, can be reliable like the shuttle, already is man-rated like the shuttle, can launch safely 600+ astronauts like the shuttle, etc.

the only differences (in favour of the new stacked design) are: no "foam" problem, a safer capsule with LAS on the top, less costs, etc.

now (if you REALLY want that NASA goes again on the moon SOONER and at REASONABLE costs) you can only SUPPORT my proposal, because it's the FASTEST and CHEAPEST way to accomplish the new mission!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-13 05:24:12

You want to use the stock 8.4m Shuttle tank...

the tank would have to be modified but it don't need 15 years and $25 billion of R&D and tests like two new rockets

the engines' basket is LESS complex than to-day's Shuttle system, then, easy to design and build

the problem of SRB's leaking is solved from '87 but some additional modification can be made to be safer

110mT are sufficient but with one-two more SSME can be increased

about..."Uh, mission control, we set down 25km from our cargo vehicle. That would be within the range of the rover"... if NASA (with to-day's and 2020's technology) is not able to land exactly its vehicles on the moon, I suggest they move from space-travels to holidays' sea-travels, because, land the LSAM 25 km. away from planned site, means a big risk to lose the CREW, not the rover!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-13 09:10:57

"but this change can be made in one-two years, then, the "FAST-SLV" will be ready for its first test flight in 2007 !!!

the CLV needs 7 years (and $7 billion) to fly, while the CaLV needs 12 years (and $10 billion)...

...the tank would have to be modified but it don't need 15 years and $25 billion of R&D and tests like two new rockets."

10+7=17, not 25, can't you at least try to be consisent?

Ad you are complely out of your mind if you think that a Shuttle-derived heavy lifter could be built in only one year. It simply can't be done in that short a time frame.

"the engines' basket is LESS complex than to-day's Shuttle system, then, easy to design and build"

You didn't listen to a word I said, it won' be any simpler because the engine compartment of the Shuttle is alread as simple as it gets. There isn't any reason to build it more complex, so it really isn't. It won't be any simpler, you can't make it any simpler.

"the problem of SRB's leaking is solved from '87 but some additional modification can be made to be safer"

The Atlantis SRB burnthrough occured after Challenger if memor serves.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-13 10:40:57

10+7=17, not 25, can't you at least try to be ...

only the planned R&D costs of the two rockets are "10+7" but you must add the billions of annual budget that NASA will spend for nothing waiting 13+ years to launch the first moon mission; if the first moon missions will happen 5+ years before than planned, the money saved is very high... probably MORE than $8 billion!

the first test flight can happen in 2-3 years (instead of six with the CLV) because the FAST-SLV needs only a new tank with and engines' basket (same SRB, same launch pad, same engines, already man-rated, etc. etc. etc.)

the first manned orbital launch may be in 2010 and the first moon landing (if they start now to buìld the LSAM) in 2012

the tank-engines system of a Shuttle is MORE complex, because the tank and the engines are in two different places and they must be well connected when the engines work while must separate perfectly and fast when the fuel ends... very complex

the SLV engines are fixed inside the basket that is fixed with the tank, like common rockets... very simple

if the SRB's leaking is a problem the entire VSE moon missions must be DELETED NOW because the (very expensive and indispensable!) CaLV will use the SRBs!

if so many CaLV-SRBs may leak... no astronauts will risk their life... but MANY moon missions will fail.................

SpaceNut · 2006-05-13 20:41:05

the CLV needs 7 years (and $7 billion) to fly, while the CaLV needs 12 years (and $10 billion)

Actual CLV unmanned was planned for 2008 when the flyoff was the mode of down selection between the 2 contenders. This changed and I believe is now an unmanned test in 2010 instead. As for the cost if on used 2 years of shuttle budget I think that covers the build and operational launch of these first few test units.

but this change can be made in one-two years, then, the "FAST-SLV" will be ready for its first test flight in 2007 !!!

As slow as they have been solving the foam problem I have little faith that Nasa can do a new tank design in that time frame anymore.

the SLV made with (exactly) the same parts of the shuttle, can fly 100+ times like the shuttle, can be reliable like the shuttle, already is man-rated like the shuttle, can launch safely 600+ astronauts like the shuttle, etc.
the engines' basket is LESS complex than to-day's Shuttle system, then, easy to design and build

Does that mean that the engine basket is to be retrieveable for re-use?
This would add to the complexity. The ET and engine basket would be dropped before reaching orbit. This would either mean that they would burn up or crash as well and smash into the ocean making them not recoverable.

If you mean by basket to dicribe it as engine mounting system well that is alot different and is intended to be disposable. That is one of the reasons to see if they could come up with a low cost SSME but that is not going to happen anytime soon. These engines are very expensive and is while Nasa is going with the RS-68's to power the Calv's first stage. They are by far cheaper as well as intended to be disposed of. Yes this does mean a larger ET to cover the performance differance.

the tank-engines system of a Shuttle is MORE complex, because the tank and the engines are in two different places

That just plumbing but that does bring up the center of balance in that the orbit is no longer on the side of the tanks. This would mean that the engine would need to probably gimble more than a shuttles would to keep it flying on course.

110mT are sufficient but with one-two more SSME can be increased

Do not forget the more engines that you have the larger the fuel tank needs to be to allow for the amount of fuel burned for the stage. This means the rocket now does not get to the 110 or more that you will need since the SRB's deliver about 80 % of the lift for the current shuttle but this only lasts until they burn out at about 24 miles up.

the first test flight can happen in 2-3 years (instead of six with the CLV)

This could only happen if cash was give up front to begin bending metal. Thoses corporations in the running to build for Nasa never invest there own cash until they have garrantied contracts. The financing of the new rockets are accumilated over several years before the first ones are paid for.

What bothers me most about the developement costs and utilization is that Nasa is not using sharing it with those that would want to be COT's providers.

Austin Stanley · 2006-05-14 00:48:49

Does that mean that the engine basket is to be retrieveable for re-use? This would add to the complexity. The ET and engine basket would be dropped before reaching orbit. This would either mean that they would burn up or crash as well and smash into the ocean making them not recoverable.
If you mean by basket to dicribe it as engine mounting system well that is alot different and is intended to be disposable. That is one of the reasons to see if they could come up with a low cost SSME but that is not going to happen anytime soon. These engines are very expensive and is while Nasa is going with the RS-68's to power the Calv's first stage. They are by far cheaper as well as intended to be disposed of. Yes this does mean a larger ET to cover the performance differance.

I have been convinced that a recoverable SSME may be a bad idea for the present time, but in the future creating such an item could reduce the per-unit costs dramaticaly (as well as increasing the performance). As the SSME apparently only cost a couple hundread thousand to re-use.

This illustrates one of the advantages of expendable rocket designs in my mind. It's much easier to upgrade their designs. The engines and system we use now we use in the CLV now we don't necessarily have to use 10 years down the road. We can gradualy introduce upgrades to the system, unlike the shuttle which is pretty much a dead end.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-14 06:51:38

Actual CLV unmanned was planned for 2008...

the original timeline was:

1st CLV launch with dumb upper stage in 2008

1st CLV/CEV launch in orbit unmanned in 2011

1st CLV/CEV manned launch in 2012

1st CaLV test in 2017

1st moon mission in 2018

but, since the CEV choice has one year of delay and other delays will happen, I think that we must add 2+ years to all dates

As slow as they have been solving the foam problem...

the foam problem don't exist with the SLV or the FAST-SLV because...

1. the tank must be re-designed, then, the foam problem can be solved in the new design

2. the foam is dangerous for the side-mounted Shuttles and its wings and tiles, with the stacked design the foam can't damage nothing

Does that mean that the engine basket is to be retrieveable for re-use?...

no

not in my design of the FAST-SLV

I've not suggested this option for two reasons:

1. to avoid critics about complexity, risks, design problems, etc.

2. because the FAST-SLV already is so cheap (also with expendable SSME) and so fast to build (with a giant saving of time and R&D costs) that don't needs to add nothing

however, if NASA will build the FAST-SLV able to reach the orbit and retrieve the SSME for re-use (an idea developed over 10 years ago in a Boeing concept of a possible cargo-Shuttle), the further saving of money will be FANTASTIC !!!!!!!

NASA has 15 (already paid!) SSMEs (nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts) and all was designed to fly 50+ times

with these SSMEs, it's possible to build three reusable "baskets" with five engines each (or five baskets with three SSME) and use them to launch up to SIX FAST-SLV per year WITHOUT BUY ENGINES FOR THE NEW ROCKET !!!! (no RS-68s or new, expendable, SSMEs)

each FAST-SLV flight may costs only $200 million of hardware (two SRBs, one tank and fuel) while, the total money saved with the first 30 orbital/moon launches will be of $60 million x 5 x 30 = $9 Billion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the engine would need to probably gimble more than a shuttles would to keep it flying on course

the FAST-SLV is a rocket (like THOUSANDS rockets already launched!), so, it CAN'T HAVE any new or complex problems to design, build and launch

the rocket now does not get to the 110 or more...

by comparison with the Shuttle, the FAST-SLV can lift up to 110 mT in orbit with the 3-SSMEs design (but a 4-SSME with a redesigned tank and more fuel may be better)

This could only happen if cash was give up front to begin bending metal...

no, because the hardware is the same of the Shuttles (SRB, SSME, launch pad, etc.), then, the first launch with dumb upper stage may happen in 2-3 years and the first unmanned launch in the same time of the CLV/CEV or less (since the FAST-SLV don't need the time and the money to design the 5-segments SRB)

What bothers me most about the developement costs and utilization is that Nasa is not using sharing it with those that would want to be COT's providers.

this parallel program may be useful for cheaper orbital vehicles only to be used with the ISS

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-14 21:06:31

"but you must add the billions of annual budget that NASA will spend for nothing waiting 13+ years to launch the first moon mission; if the first moon missions will happen 5+ years before than planned, the money saved is very high... probably MORE than $8 billion!"

NASA isn't going to be sitting on its hands for the next four or five years, they've got the ISS to finish in a "sprint" of Shuttle missions up until the 2010 deadline. You can't consider this in your $25Bn scare figure.

"the first test flight can happen in 2-3 years (instead of six with the CLV) because the FAST-SLV needs only a new tank with and engines' basket (same SRB, same launch pad, same engines, already man-rated, etc. etc. etc.)

the first manned orbital launch may be in 2010 and the first moon landing (if they start now to buìld the LSAM) in 2012"

You want to build this huge brand new rocket in only two years, but its going to take NASA longer to make the little simple CLV? And the Moon in under six? You're nuts, NASA could hardly do that if the Shuttle program were gone tomorrow, which it won't be most likly.

"the tank-engines system of a Shuttle is MORE complex, because the tank and the engines are in two different places and they must be well connected when the engines work while must separate perfectly and fast when the fuel ends... very complex"

Well thats stupid. They will be in "two different places" on your rocket too, just like Shuttle, but without the disconnects. Basket and tank are seperate structures. Thats the only difference, it wouldn't be the least bit simpler on that account.

You still need seperate power generators, hydraulics pumps, control computers, and pressurization hardware and associated equipment for the SSMEs. The SSME is a much more complicated engine then its contemporaries, which often have support hardware built in, and requires a somewhat more complex interface. Also, since people will be riding it, it will have to have redundant systems like Shuttle does, plus you can't simply copy the back half of the Shuttle and stick that under your rocket, its all the wrong thrust vector and plumbing. Its also got to be cheap enough to throw away, which means it will have to be redone from scratch, but its got to have all those parts too... Not simple and expensive.

The RS-68 on the other hand, its support hardware is largely built in, and its assembly can be bodily copied from the Delta-IV, simple and cheap. This is one reason why the rocket, irrespective of the engines, would probably be more expensive. And you DO know that the SSME costs tripple what RS-68 does, right? You are the one living in a fairy-tale world about how "simple and cheap" SSME would be.

"if the SRB's leaking is a problem the entire VSE moon missions must be DELETED NOW because the (very expensive and indispensable!) CaLV will use the SRBs!

if so many CaLV-SRBs may leak... no astronauts will risk their life"

Burnthrough igniting the CaLV tank is not very likly, but its likly enough that I wouldn't want to put people on top of it. Its good enough for cargo, but no men. And no humans will ride on the CaLV under the ESAS plan.

"because the FAST-SLV already is so cheap (also with expendable SSME) and so fast to build (with a giant saving of time and R&D costs) that don't needs to add nothing"

It won't be. It will be expensive, just as expensive as the CaLV since its engines will be developed under the CLV program. Even if it didn't, your rocket will cost more in the long run because it uses those infernal SSMEs, which are very complex and can't really be simplified without killing their performance or an expensive, lengthy, radical redesign. The expendable SSME is just a paper concept (one that isn't likly practical) you know not a real engine like RS-68.

But if you go with the fully reuseable SSME concept, you are talking about building a completly seperate autonimous space capsule bigger then even the ESAS CEV and bolting it to the bottom of your rocket. This mega-capsule will have to be fully independant, complete with power, telemetry, RCS, OMS, heat shield, parachutes, floatation gear, avionics, and all that on top of the SSME-related hardware (fuel cells, pressurization, hydraulic system) plus you have to route the large-diameter fuel lines around or through the heat shield. Not to mention reducing your payload capacity by tonnes thanks to all that hardware not needed for launch.

It would be harder to make then the CEV would be, and cost several billion dollars to make. A billion dollars would buy you 65 RS-68 engines, which don't need any development and have no technical risk, and wouldn't have to be recoverd or risk recovery failing.

"so, it CAN'T HAVE any new or complex problems to design, build and launch"

Absolutely it can, no engine is as complex as SSME, and any rocket that its attached to will likewise have to be complex too, which means lots of ways for it to fail unlike other rockets with simple engines. You'll be bringing alot of the nightmares about Shuttle with your rocket, cheifly the fact that the SSMEs and their support hardware have to be PERFECT and have no tollerance for failure.

Oh! And if you only have three engines on your SLV, it won't have engine out ability!

The river of your ignorance that spills across this thread grows ever deeper and wider, gaetano.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-15 07:15:47

NASA isn't going to be sitting on its hands for the next four or five years, they've got the ISS to finish in a "sprint" of Shuttle missions up until the 2010 deadline. You can't consider this in your $25Bn scare figure...

my evaluation is only the ESAS funds (and time) saved with the FAST-SLV

if NASA stops now the Shuttles' launches the saving may be higher

the first test flight can happen in 2-3 years...

not the rocket with the CEV, etc., only the main stage with SRB, tank, engines and a dumb upper stage

Basket and tank are seperate structures...

my drawing is only a "concept" (see the note at the end of my article); the real FAST-SLV needs a redesigned tank and the final SLV will be like all rockets

seperate power generators, hydraulics pumps, control computers, and pressurization hardware and associated equipment for the SSMEs...

true, the FAST-SLV needs its own computer, etc. like the "stick" and all rockets, nothing new, nothing NASA is unable to do

the SSME costs tripple what RS-68 does...

use an expensive engine on a cheap rocket/system (made in less time and money) is a giant money saving

with the (minimum) $15 Billion saved (only of less R&D) with the FAST-SLV you can buy 250 SSME or build 42 FULL FAST-SLV!!!!!! (the entire rockets' fleet for the next 20 years of moon missions!!!!)

And no humans will ride on the CaLV under the ESAS plan...

the humans have made 112 safe launches with an SRB-based vehicle (the Shuttle) and, if something goes wrong, the CEV has its LAS

It will be expensive...

no, because great part of the hardware is the SAME of to-day's Shuttles

The expendable SSME is just a paper concept...

no, it's only an SSME that don't come back to earth......

But if you go with the fully reuseable SSME concept...

this is only a possible (future) option, my design of the FAST-SLV don't needs reusable SSMEs

no engine is as complex as SSME...

if the SSME have made 112 successful flights with the old Shuttles' hardware, computers, software, etc., they can do the same job with to-day's technology

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-15 09:16:59

You still aren't listening

First you are trying to compare your rocket where Shuttle is thrown away tomorrow versus NASA's rocket where we keep flying until 2010 and using this as an argument that your rocket will be cheaper. This is stupid and dishonest.

"not the rocket with the CEV, etc., only the main stage with SRB, tank, engines and a dumb upper stage"

No, I still meant even the dumb rocket with no payload. You can't build such a radically different rocket so fast, only two or three years isn't going to happen for any reasonable sum of money, Shuttle or no Shuttle.

"my drawing is only a "concept" (see the note at the end of my article); the real FAST-SLV needs a redesigned tank and the final SLV will be like all rockets"

More redesign means more time and money. The less your "basket" is like Shuttle's engine compartment, the more time and money will be needed to develop it.

Again, SSME is not like an engine on "all rockets," most rockets have the majority of their support hardware built-in, but SSME doesn't. The support hardware has to be added and designed seperatly. RS-68 does not have this problem, you can copy it straight from the Delta-IV.

All this means "FAST-SLV = SLOW-SLV"

"nothing new, nothing NASA is unable to do"

Yes new! All new! Your "basket" isn't the engine compartment of Shuttle, and if it were built like that it would drive up the cost of each launch because of how expensive it is. Sure NASA can do it, but they can't do it cheap, and they can't do it fast. It will cost much more then simply copying the RS-68 assembly from Delta-IV.

"use an expensive engine on a cheap rocket/system (made in less time and money) is a giant money saving

with the (minimum) $15 Billion saved (only of less R&D) with the FAST-SLV you can buy 250 SSME or build 42 FULL FAST-SLV!!!!!! (the entire rockets' fleet for the next 20 years of moon missions!!!!) "

Again, this savings is a lie, it is based on doing away with Shuttle now instead of 2010. Even if it wern't, it would still be a lie, because it can't possibly be much harder to build NASA's CLV with its simple engines then your rocket with its complex ones. The main tank will be bigger, yes, but it will be the same size as the Saturn-V so NASA can use the same factory and pad with minimum modification.

"the humans have made 112 safe launches with an SRB-based vehicle (the Shuttle) and, if something goes wrong, the CEV has its LAS"

NASA is having to lower its own safety threshold below what I consider safe for manned launch to continue to fly Shuttle, since the government and NASA see it as worth the risk as there is no other way to save the ISS or Hubble. For the Moon, that risk isn't nessesarry, so we would be stupid to live with it if we didn't have to.

One booster out of 228 sufferd dangerous burnthrough, so if a burnthrough has a ~1-in-5 chance of igniting the tank and blowing up, thats a 0.18% risk factor per-launch. This is acceptable for cargo I think, but not acceptable for people, and it can't be fixed on the SLV nor CaLV.

"no, because great part of the hardware is the SAME of to-day's Shuttles...

...no, it's only an SSME that don't come back to earth."

Shuttle is the most expensive rocket ever made. Each SSME, not counting support hardware, costs almost $50M. Its expensive BECAUSE its the same as Shuttle, not inexpensive, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool like you.

The SSME can do the job, it just can't do it anywhere near as cheaply as RS-68, either the complexity of the rocket (w/ support hardware, the complexity of development, or the complexity of the engine itself.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-15 09:52:03

First you are trying to compare your rocket..

stop the Shuttle is only an extra-saving, the main saving come from build a single rocket in less time and with many ready available parts

I still meant even the dumb rocket with no payload...

the timeline to lauch the first (dumb-payload) FAST-SLV is similar to CLV but the FAST-SLV is the ONLY rocket to test, not the FIRST of two...

More redesign means more time and money...

true, redesign the tank/basket needs time and money... but not $17 Billion and 13 years, like design, build and test TWO and greatly NEW rockets

Again, SSME is not like an engine on "all rockets...

the SSME was the first choice for the SDHLV in the ESAS plan, then, it can work

All this means "FAST-SLV = SLOW-SLV"...

probably, but NEVER so slow (and expensive!) like build TWO rockets...

It will cost much more then simply copying the RS-68 assembly from Delta-IV...

do you sell the RS-68s?

Again, this savings is a lie...

no, because NASA must though build a rocket like the FAST-SLV: the CaLV

but, while the CaLV is the first of TWO rockets (= twice the costs) the SLV will be the ONLY rocket (= save money)

that risk isn't nessesarry...

all rockets and all missions are risky

Each SSME, not counting support hardware, costs almost $50M...

the figure I know is $60M each, but one FAST-SLV with FOUR expendable SSME may costs only $400 million of hardware

it's twice to-day's EELVs but the FAST-SLV can lift 110 mT !!!!

Its expensive BECAUSE its the same as Shuttle, not inexpensive...

each Shuttles' launch costs so much due to its maintenance and problems, not due to its hardware costs

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-16 10:58:18

"the main saving come from build a single rocket in less time and with many ready available parts "

But they won't be, you said yourself that the main tank will have to be modified, the upper stage with its J-2 engine wil have to be built anyway, and a brand new engine compartment for the complicated SSME engines developed. The CaLV on the other hand, can copy the RS-68 assembly from Delta-IV easily.

"but not $17 Billion and 13 years"

There you go lying agian. Those 13 years will include flying Shuttle and probably performing ISS missions for a while. Either compare rockets or compare programs, but don't compare your rocket to a program.

"the SSME was the first choice for the SDHLV in the ESAS plan, then, it can work"

But it was thrown away when it became clear that NASA couldn't afford to use standard SSMEs and couldn't afford to make a simplified "cheap" SSME. It can work, but each SLV will eat up >$200M worth of engines and support hardware, while the CaLV will be half that, saving a hundred million dollars per flight.

"It will cost much more then simply copying the RS-68 assembly from Delta-IV... "

It is well known that the RS-68 is built to minimize complexity and expense, so it has much of its hardware built into the package, and even then only costs a third what SSME does. SSME is built to power Shuttle, it was never intended for anything else, and since Shuttle had all the power, hydraulic, and control systems there was no need to build them into SSME. Also, because of SSMEs superhigh performance, its engineering tollerances are much tighter, which makes them inherintly harder to build.

And you still can't get it through your thick skull that NASA won't be "building two rockets" from scratch! The most expensive part of the rocket is its engines, but for the CaLV these will already be available, no development required. Also the avionics, the factory, most of the ground support, and other hardware will already be available. Building the CaLV will be easy, it will mostly be structural work, with just slapping the engines from Delta-IV and CLV on it off-the-shelf.

"that risk isn't nessesarry...

all rockets and all missions are risky"

That statement makes me sick, how dare you say such a thing! You are so enamored by your pet idea that you've taken on a barbaric attitude about the safety of the astronauts. Its a big risk to put them on either the CaLV or the SLV, and this risk can't be fixed.

"it's twice to-day's EELVs but the FAST-SLV can lift 110 mT"

This is a stupid straw-man, NASA isn't going to use the EELVs!

"each Shuttles' launch costs so much due to its maintenance and problems, not due to its hardware costs"

Wrong. Building the Shuttles cost billions of dollars even back in the 1980s, much of which obviously went to the compact and complicated engine compartment since most of the rest of the vehicle is pretty low-tech. Easily several billion each in today's dollars even with blueprints. And your rocket seeks to do the same thing, except you engine compartment will have to be much different and will have to be developed from scratch, making SSME an even more expensive option, unlike RS-68.

Its time for you to give up, all you can do is lie and tell us things that aren't true.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-16 17:42:55

But they won't be..

it's not my problem, I post only my opinions

websites, forums, blogs, etc. exist to discuss different opinions

big companies and agencies already have their press offices and LOTS of (paid) PRs and supporters

Those 13 years will include flying Shuttle...

no, but, build one rocket (instead of two) is a GIANT saving of time and money

But it was thrown away...

but, if the SSME was the first choice, that means it is a good engine for that job

each SLV will eat up >$200M worth of engines...

one giant FAST-SLV (with 4 SSMEs) may costs only $400M of hardware (like two EELV)

SSME is built to power Shuttle, it was never intended for anything else...

not true... NASA's first choice for the CLV's 2nd stage was an SSME...

NASA won't be "building two rockets" from scratch!

if all is so easy, why the will spend $17 Billion of R&D (NASA claim) to build two rockets so "simple"?

Where will go that money? (maybe... PR...?)

on a barbaric attitude about the safety of the astronauts. Its a big risk to put them on either the CaLV...

the CLV 5-segments SRB's 1,500,000 kgf thrust under the astronauts don't seems exactly like do a bicycle's tour

NASA isn't going to use the EELVs!

the FAST-SLV costs "LIKE" two EELV but don't "IS" an EELV

Building the Shuttles cost billions of dollars...

the Shuttles costs about 3$ billion each, but it's cost is already damped in the past NASA budgets

now, each Shuttle's launch costs about $600 million and only $200 million of them are for its hardware (two SRBs, one ET, fuel, etc.)

the main costs are for maintenance, assembly, astronauts' training, earth support, "foam" problem research, etc.

your insults are useless

we have two completely different opinions

you don't change your opinion and I don't change the mine
.

Austin Stanley · 2006-05-17 04:21:40

Those 13 years will include flying Shuttle...
no, but, build one rocket (instead of two) is a GIANT saving of time and money

A good point. Eliminating the Stick would save a great deal design money. But this leaves us without a way to service the ISS post shuttle. While I agree whole heartedly that doing away with the ISS would be a good thing, it is not aparently politicaly acceptable to the powers that be.

But it was thrown away...
but, if the SSME was the first choice, that means it is a good engine for that job

Certianly the SSME is an excellent engine in many respects, it has excelent performance, reliability, and is refurbishable. This doesn't mean that it is the ONLY acceptable choice for a first stage engine. Particularly if you do not recover the engine, it is extreamly costly.

SSME is built to power Shuttle, it was never intended for anything else...
not true... NASA's first choice for the CLV's 2nd stage was an SSME...

A role it was rejected for because it realy wasn't suited for it. The SSME is an excellent cryogenic, recoverable, first stage engine. If you need an engine that fits those requirments (like the shuttle) it is without a doubt the best choice. I still think it could play an admirable job in our HLLV if it is recovered, especialy if it is paired with the SRB like it is in most designs. It's playing essentialy the same role it does on the shuttle. But it has to be recovered to be economical.

on a barbaric attitude about the safety of the astronauts. Its a big risk to put them on either the CaLV...
the CLV 5-segments SRB's 1,500,000 kgf thrust under the astronauts don't seems exactly like do a bicycle's tour

This seems to be a big bone of contention, but I agree with GCRN. No rocket is safe, but the CLV is most likely going to be much safer the the CaLV. Simply put, there are very few ways in which the SRB could fail that would endanger the crew. The SRB just don't have the explosive potential that the liquid ones do. The danger on the upper stages is similar, and unavoidable.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-17 04:59:20

without a way to service the ISS post shuttle...

as explained in my article, the SLV can be used for mixed cargo+crew launches to the ISS (it's like launch one CEV and ten Progress with the same rocket)

This doesn't mean that it is the ONLY acceptable choice for a first stage engine. Particularly if you do not recover the engine, it is extreamly costly.

if NASA builds the SLV the SSME is the only choice because it is already man-rated

the SSME costs more but not so much like the giant saving of time and money of the SLV

A role it was rejected for because it realy wasn't suited for it. The SSME is an excellent cryogenic, recoverable, first stage engine. If you need an engine that fits those requirments (like the shuttle) it is without a doubt the best choice. I still think it could play an admirable job in our HLLV if it is recovered, especialy if it is paired with the SRB like it is in most designs. It's playing essentialy the same role it does on the shuttle. But it has to be recovered to be economical.

the SSME was rejected due to the time/costs problems to develop and air-started version

right, in my design the SSME is used exactly like with the shuttle

my proposal of FAST-SLV already is a big EELV that can be used to launch big satellites, probes, ISS' modules, etc.

recover the SSMEs adds saving but also many problems and risks (especially in the manned launches)

.

Rxke · 2006-05-17 08:05:07

we have two completely different opinions
you don't change your opinion and I don't change the mine[/color]
.

Then stop going back and forth, if no-one is going to agree anyway, this is a waste of time (and bandwidth, keyclicks and emotions )

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-17 08:36:43

we have two completely different opinions
you don't change your opinion and I don't change the mine[/color]
.
Then stop going back and forth, if no-one is going to agree anyway, this is a waste of time (and bandwidth, keyclicks and emotions )

the "different opinion" is (mainly) with GCNRevenger and (I suppose) with you

the other users/guests that read this thread may have other opinions about my proposal or (simply) want to read the different posts/replies about this argument

however, since I've already explained my proposal here and in my website, now I post only my replies to questions and critics about my idea

.

Rxke · 2006-05-17 11:58:24

I'm only reacting because I 'diagonally' scanned the discussion and it seemed an endless yes/no/yes/no/yes/no... And there seemed to be no 'fruitful' conclusion in sight

But don't take me too seriously, I'm sometimes too grumpy when posting, in fact, come to think of it: disregard my comment. Discussion is Good (TM)

SpaceNut · 2006-05-17 20:16:28

Those 13 years will include flying Shuttle...
no, but, build one rocket (instead of two) is a GIANT saving of time and money

Nasa's choice is to finish the ISS with shuttle.
Nasa does plan to use every dime that matches the shuttles for the 2 rocket approach in yearly budgets.
But once shuttle stops flying who is to say that Nasa will stop requesting the funds to still remain in there budget?

each SLV will eat up >$200M worth of engines...
one giant FAST-SLV (with 4 SSMEs) may costs only $400M of hardware (like two EELV)

You do not have anywhere of a complete rocket and to do so will probably cost the price of a shuttles flight.

SSME is built to power Shuttle, it was never intended for anything else...
not true... NASA's first choice for the CLV's 2nd stage was an SSME...

Actually that was one of the reasons for switching to the J2x for the ssme could not work in that location of flight due to low air pressure start.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-19 04:49:31

Nasa's choice is to finish the ISS with shuttle...

finish the ISS and build the new rockets are two different, but parallel, projects

if the latter (parallel) project needs to build only one rocket, there will be a clear (and big!) saving of time and money

You do not have anywhere of a complete rocket and to do so will probably cost the price of a shuttles flight...

$400M is only the FAST-SLV cost of the "hardware" per launch

it may be less than this figure... yesterday I've read that an expendable-SSME costs only $40M, not $60M, then, the 4-SSMEs version of the FAST-SLV may costs about $320M of hardware

of course, all rockets costs "n" billions of R&D, but, building one rocket using many ready available parts, is a giant saving of, both, R&D and hardware

.

publiusr · 2006-05-19 12:02:37

Those 13 years will include flying Shuttle...
no, but, build one rocket (instead of two) is a GIANT saving of time and money
A good point. Eliminating the Stick would save a great deal design money. But this leaves us without a way to service the ISS post shuttle. While I agree whole heartedly that doing away with the ISS would be a good thing, it is not aparently politicaly acceptable to the powers that be.

Thats why we give it to the Russians. We have a way to service ISS right now. CLV/CEV is just duplication of effort. Do HLLV first, get the hardest thing out of the way first, then fool with CLV down the road. Let the Air Force actually support its hybrid, (with no cuts to NASA funds) then use that down the road.

Yes we use Soyuz a bit longer than we really want to, but we will be paving a way towards real space access: Heavy Lift for exploration, manned moon-mission, Europa landers Mars Sample returns, JIMO) and hybrids for LEO, with that craft using the orbiter processing plant.

The HLV/HLLV plan would thus be very similar to a scenario called for in the book SPACEFLIGHT IN THE ERA OF AEROSPACEPLANES where stations are HLLV launched and HLV serviced.

Soyuz is good enough for now--and you cannot get cheaper than something that already exists. Nix the stick and get CaLV done NOW. Then Soyuz can be your orbiter and all you need is a lander. The first return to the moon will be spartan, yes--but with the CaLV finished the worst part of it is done, and Apollo style capsules can be built later, at leisure. Soyuz was a dedicated moon ship first, after all. With an extensive lander insertion stage, the Soyuz just needs an androgynous dock on the headlight/capsule, with the lander being the spherical living compartment. You just ride a Zond back.

Otherwise I doubt any of us will ever live to see a return to the moon.

CaLV/Soyuz to the MOON now--then CEV later.

Thoughts?

cIclops · 2006-05-19 12:16:01

Thats why we give it to the Russians. We have a way to service ISS right now. CLV/CEV is just duplication of effort. Do HLLV first, get the hardest thing out of the way first, then fool with CLV down the road.

I'm sure the Russians would like and use such a mulitbillion dollar facility for free, and continue to charge for non Russian access to space.

CEV / CLV is harder to do, it's man rated. And what use is the HLV with no CEV to support? Its whole purpose is to lift EDS and LSAM to dock with the CEV to take 4 crew to the Moon and beyond and bring them home. Building the CLV first develops the 5-seg SRBs and the J-2X, both of which are needed for the HLV. On the current schedule the CEV won't fly people until 2014, delaying it significantly later has the risk of grounding NASA for a long time, perhaps permanently.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-05-12 21:13:10

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#77 2006-05-12 21:24:28

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#78 2006-05-13 01:57:16

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#79 2006-05-13 02:14:36

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#80 2006-05-13 05:24:12

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#81 2006-05-13 09:10:57

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#82 2006-05-13 10:40:57

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#83 2006-05-13 20:41:05

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#84 2006-05-14 00:48:49

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#85 2006-05-14 06:51:38

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#86 2006-05-14 21:06:31

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#87 2006-05-15 07:15:47

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#88 2006-05-15 09:16:59

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#89 2006-05-15 09:52:03

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#90 2006-05-16 10:58:18

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#91 2006-05-16 17:42:55

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#92 2006-05-17 04:21:40

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#93 2006-05-17 04:59:20

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#94 2006-05-17 08:05:07

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#95 2006-05-17 08:36:43

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#96 2006-05-17 11:58:24

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#97 2006-05-17 20:16:28

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#98 2006-05-19 04:49:31

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#99 2006-05-19 12:02:37

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#100 2006-05-19 12:16:01

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

Board footer