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

publiusr · 2006-05-19 12:21:27

I'm just worried we we get so bogged down with CEV/Stick that HLLV will have no chance--and we go from 100 ton orbiters in LEO to Capsules in LEO and never get out of Earth Moon.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-20 15:12:43

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

Six months ago I've suggested to use the Shenzhou as low cost (and ready available!) capsule for moon missions in my article www.gaetanomarano.it/LSAMshenzhou/lsamshenzhou.html but, when I've posted my idea on a space-forum, I've received lots of critics, insults and irony.

But, only a few months after my article/posts... NASA decides to build an adaptor to dock with the Shenzhou for emergency or co-missions, Griffin accepts the invite of the China's space agency and will go in China this year, China asks to be an ISS' international partner and to docks it ...and all these things happen only this year...

I think that the Shenzhou is better than Soyuz because it is made with to-day's technology (like the future Digital-Soyuz), has a 15% larger internal volume, its life support time is sufficient for the moon-earth travel and each launch (capsule+rocket+support) costs only $110 million (about 1/10th of a 2014's CEV launch!)

of course, it need some changes for a moon mission: a new earth-moon-earth navigation system, a remote-controlled (from earth or LSAM) flight control and an ugraded Service Module with 2.5 tons of extra propellant for Trans Earth Injection

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-20 20:32:00

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

Your plan as wanted but what Nasa has planned is to finance all the developement cost as well as to build the first few prototypes by the 2010 and then to switch over the funding for its operations from shuttle less ISS to the CEV useage.

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
.

Nasa's plan is to use as many parts as possible but they will all need some modifications in order for them to be used in there new configurations.

The cost is way off since you have not figured in the rest of your rocket.

Pricing engines 5 SSME's at even 65 million a piece is closure to the reality, a new ET at even 50 million or more since it needs to be bigger and with a thicker outer jacket and then 2 SRB's of the 4 segment type being roughly 40 million each. This will then put then the cost of what would be the first stage at more than 400 million since you still need all the support structure and hardware to make it work.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-20 21:30:58

CaLV/Soyuz to the MOON now--then CEV later.
Six months ago I've suggested to use the Shenzhou as low cost (and ready available!) capsule for moon missions in my article www.gaetanomarano.it/LSAMshenzhou/lsamshenzhou.html but, when I've posted my idea on a space-forum, I've received lots of critics, insults and irony.

First not a crazy concept but it is a stretch for the hardware duration of use.

This thread Soyuz: Fly Me to the Moon does cover some of the topic and use of the russian soyuz.

There are many issues docking ships with solar panels so close together if they are already extended once the soyuz gets to orbit before parking with the LSAM. Which is launched to orbit on yet another variation of either your SLV or by Nasa CaLV. Still needs the EDS stage to get to the moon once the 2 ships are docked to the LSAM.

But, only a few months after my article/posts... NASA decides to build an adaptor to dock with the Shenzhou for emergency or co-missions, Griffin accepts the invite of the China's space agency and will go in China this year, China asks to be an ISS' international partner and to docks it ...and all these things happen only this year...

This is the diplomacy part of getting another nation up to speed for long duration use of the ISS which needs this mating collar.

I think that the Shenzhou is better than Soyuz because it is made with to-day's technology (like the future Digital-Soyuz), has a 15% larger internal volume, its life support time is sufficient for the moon-earth travel and each launch (capsule+rocket+support) costs only $110 million (about 1/10th of a 2014's CEV launch!)
of course, it need some changes for a moon mission: a new earth-moon-earth navigation system, a remote-controlled (from earth or LSAM) flight control and an ugraded Service Module with 2.5 tons of extra propellant for Trans Earth Injection
.

Shenzhou is still out with regards to how good of a ship it is. As for compairing there ship costs and not adjusting it for real wage differential no claim to a savings should be suggested as the web page does.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-21 07:27:02

Pricing engines 5 SSME's at even 65 million a piece is closure to the reality, a new ET at even 50 million or more since it needs to be bigger and with a thicker outer jacket and then 2 SRB's of the 4 segment type being roughly 40 million each. This will then put then the cost of what would be the first stage at more than 400 million since you still need all the support structure and hardware to make it work.

we can do many discussions about engines' costs but they are completely useless for two reason

1. we don't know the REAL costs of these parts

I read different prices on different forums/articles, also, we don't know if an expendable engine will cost less than a reusable one (and how much), if the engine can falls its price of 10, 20, 30 million (since it will be built in dozens units) or if its price will grows due to inflation, R&D costs, etc.

2. the low cost of the engines/tanks is NOT the main advantage/saving of the single-rocket-single-launch architecture

the MAIN advantages are: the giant saving of time to build one rocket instead of two, launch the first moon mission sooner, launch 50% more missions per year (and in total) with the same funds, etc.

and the GIANT money saving of the FAST-SLV (with 4-seg. SRB) don't come from the use of one or another engines, but from:

no CLV to build = 7-10 years of (part of the) NASA budget saved, $5 billion of the (base) R&D costs of the CLV, $2 billion of the (extra) R&D costs for the 5-segments SRB (that my FAST-SLV don't need), $300+ million of hardware, assembly, earth support, etc. multiplied by 20+ CLV launches, etc.

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-21 07:48:15

There are many issues docking ships with solar panels so close...

my article/idea is not a "project" but only a "concept" that (of course) needs MANY changes in a real flight

it's only a way to suggest to don't "reinvent the wheel" and spend 7+ years and many billion$$$$$$ to build something of already available

about the SLV... if the Shenzhou will be used for the moon missions a single capsule can simply fly on the top of the SLV (since, now, I suggest a 3-astronauts moon mission while, in december 2005, I've only suggested to use the Shenzhou with the 4-astronauts mission/LSAM)

Shenzhou is still out with regards to how good of a ship it is. As for compairing there ship costs and not adjusting it for real wage differential no claim to a savings should be suggested as the web page does.

you know that the Shenzhou don't come from the zero... it derives from the Soyuz and use its simple, but reliable, technology and navigation system that works well in 100+ Soyuz and Progress launches (also ESA and Japan will use the russian navigation system for their ATV and HIIA) updated with to-day's technology

about the launch price... if China sells one Shenzhou launch for $110 million, this IS the price of a Shenzhou launch for every country will buy it!

why this rule is valid when buying a PC "made-in-China" while it is NOT to buy a Shenzhou?

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-22 07:48:53

Pricing engines 5 SSME's at even 65 million a piece is closure to the reality, a new ET at even 50 million or more since it needs to be bigger and with a thicker outer jacket and then 2 SRB's of the 4 segment type being roughly 40 million each. This will then put then the cost of what would be the first stage at more than 400 million since you still need all the support structure and hardware to make it work.
we can do many discussions about engines' costs but they are completely useless for two reason
1. we don't know the REAL costs of these parts
I read different prices on different forums/articles, also, we don't know if an expendable engine will cost less than a reusable one (and how much), if the engine can falls its price of 10, 20, 30 million (since it will be built in dozens units) or if its price will grows due to inflation, R&D costs, etc.

Well here are some real numbers:

Engine may be moon-trip choice RS-68 chosen over main shuttle motor for cargo launch

The final price tag for the shuttle engines also would have depended on production and design changes to lower its current cost of $80 million per engine, Cook said.
NASA managers estimated the RS-68 will cost about $20 million per engine, Cook said. The shuttle engine was estimated to have been about $40 million per engine if used on the new launch vehicle, which won't fly until after 2010.

See other threads for developement costs when using shuttle hardware...

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-22 08:10:21

Wow! The cost of the stock SSME is high... what would we have to give up to build the expendable $40M model? If it had lower specific impulse, then thats not a much better deal either since you'd need more engines and fuel tanks.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-22 09:01:24

...NASA managers estimated the RS-68 will cost about $20 million per engine...

the saving of time and R&D costs using standard (already man-rated) Shuttles' engines is so high that the real units extra-costs of the SSMEs for 12 moon missions (until 2025) don't matter if compared with the Billion$$$ saved!

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-22 21:07:57

Have found another blog site where gaetanomarano's SLV has been discussed in length with other sources of info and number calculations that will aid us all in not duplicating many of the same type of discusions as we have already noted.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-23 00:30:16

Now that I have had time enough to rest my eyes between fits of gaetano's hideous text styles...

I'm only going to go through this once more, since SpaceNut provided a nice link to a much more thurough dismembering of the SLV over at the BA/UT forum, particularly on pages five and following:
BA/UT thread

Of special note, is gaetanos' incessant habit of making wild statements and absolutes - CEV can scale down linearly, ESAS 1.5 launch scheme is inherintly too unreliable, CLV/CaLV are too complex but SLV isn't, etc etc but when people try and challenge him on his shtick, he makes excuses. For instance, he claims that the CEV can be made much lighter (and even provides an estimate), but when pressed for details on how, he claims that its not possible to predict the mass because there is no data. This is also true for the only pole in his tent, the reliability of the 1.5 launch scheme. Or my favorite, claiming that hyper-advanced technology will save the day for his rocket, but won't bennefit NASA's plan.

Infact, the depths of your obtuse and implacable attitude pretty much makes debate with you futile, you have your mind made up, and the only reason you came here was to show off your precieved "genius" and hope that gullible ignorant people without the same hero-complex would heap praise on you. The sheer bredth of the litany of your infantile delusions and falsehoods dispells anyone with half a brain making such a mistake fortunatly.
___________________________________________

-NASA is building two rockets, but only developing one set of engines, and all the facilities to make both rockets already exsist. The added cost of the development over SLV is made up for by the superior performance of the ESAS plan. NASA is going to make some way to launch CEV only into LEO to fulfill political commitments to the ISS project, and modifying EELV for this role would be expensive, redundant, and less safe.

-CLV will always be safer. Putting a "1,750,000lbs thrust" SRB under a capsule is far safer then putting the capsule on top of a million pounds of LH2/LOX between two SRBs and on top of half a dozen superhigh pressure/temperature/performance turbopump engines. Faster acent with better abort options.

-The ESAS plan will not have this catastrophic failure rate due to launch delays. It will not, estimated probabilities have been a daily fact of life since the dawn of modern engineering, and NASA should be capable of building rockets with reliability at least as good as previous rockets which were good enough. All major systems on both launch vehicles will be fully checked before either vehicle is launched, and so the chance that there will be a long delay in the second launch is small. The simplicity of CLV, being the least complex rocket of its class ever built in America and possibly the world, will be very reliable. And if it is not, NASA has enough time to prepare a completly seperate redundant CLV booster to perform the mission if a major fault is found.

-SLV cost saving figures are all, to be charitable, hot air... you keep on repeating that huge money will be saved by not having to develop new rockets or engines even though the SSME engines are expensive, but you have no reference whatsoever of how many missions will be flown, and so the added expense of SSME may infact exceed the added development cost, yeilding a lower performing Moon program that costs more money and deprives America of LEO access. You are making an assumption without calculations again here, but when pressed about it you weild the lame retort: "we don't know the REAL costs of these parts." If we don't know, then neither do you, in which case you can't say how expensive SLV is.

You pull the exact same excuse for the mass of the CEV, the reliability of launch vehicles, and so on. Your posts in BOTH forums are so laced with lies, things that aren't true, and flimsy links/"things you read" that you insist are canon fact that its clear your aren't seriously trying to invite criticism or debate... You are just preaching, and using this board as your pulpit to try and convert the weak-minded to your "prefect" plan.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-23 05:45:59

Have found another blog site where gaetanomarano's SLV has been discussed in length with other sources of info and number calculations that will aid us all in not duplicating many of the same type of discusions as we have already noted.

the thread you quote was only about the 1.5 launch architecture but it goes off topic after the first posts, and now we talk only of rockets

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-23 06:27:13

...a nice link to a much more thurough dismembering of the SLV over at the BA/UT forum, particularly on pages five...

about the BAUT forum... I suggest to read the full debate, not only the page you like...

about the 1.5 l.a... it's clear that too much delay of the second launch may kill the full mission, while, with a single launch it (simply) can't happen

about the CEV-light... the "light" moon missions' hardware for 3-astronauts was necessary only with the SLV (a man-rated CaLV) or with the FAST-SLV; with the Super SLV it's unnecessary to "resize" the missions' hardware since it can lift the FULL 4-astronauts' moon missions

about "challenge him"... please read the BAUT forum's posts... it was NOT a true "challenge" because the ESAS' figures posted was NOT detailed enough to do a resizing calculation... e.g. "structure mass"... but... which structure? which diameter? which thickness? which materials? etc. or... "thermal shield mass"... but... which material? which shape? etc. etc. etc.

it's impossible to do exact calculation if the original figures are too generic !!!

however, the "resizing" calculation is completely unnecessary with the Super SLV

about your "that gullible ignorant people"... please don't start insult (also) the NewMars' Users and Readers, like you've done so far against me, thank you

about the CaLV... if it so dangerous and unreliable to launch manned (due to turbopumps, fuel, etc.) many moon missions will fail...

about... "will not have this catastrophic failure rate due to launch delays. It will not, estimated probabilities have been a daily fact of life since the dawn of [color=violet]modern engineering, and NASA should be capable of building rockets with reliability at least as good as previous rockets which were good enough. All major systems on both launch vehicles will be fully checked before either vehicle is launched, and so the chance that there will be a long delay in the second launch is small[/color]...

"modern engineering": the same unable to launch a Shuttle without one year of delays?

"as good as previous rockets": the Space Shuttle?

"major systems on both launch vehicles will be fully checked": like the "foam" and ECO sensor" that delayed over six months the next Shuttle launch?

about SLV money-saving... it's clear that build ONE rocket costs less Billion$$$ than build TWO rockets!!!

about your "weak-minded" etc... again, please don't insult the Forum's Users and Readers, thank you

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-23 07:51:27

Haha, I pointed out something that you keep on doing, making wild assumptions followed by excuses, and then you proceed to do it again in the following post. Wow... I did read the full debate actually, and it confirms everything I've said about you, that you are trying to get us to believe in your handwaving while steadfastly refusing to defend any of your calculations because "we don't know" even though you provide a "concrete" figure.

Of course the mission will be lost if the CLV can't launch on time, you are stating the obvious and trying to use this as a talking point... but what are the chances that this will happen? Again, once more, both rockets will be assembled and tested before the CaLV flies and ground testing will probably find any problems that could cause long delays. They found the fuel sensor problem with a ground check. Even if a major fault was discoverd on the pad the day of CLV's launch, there would be enough time to ready a second CLV within the month. Even being very charitable and assuming there is a 10% chance of a delay lasting at least one month, having a second CLV handy gives you a 99% chance of a timely launch.

Since this is the "strongest" point of your argument for a single launch, I think its fair to demand that you defend it. Is the possibility of a delay a signifigant problem? Whether it is possible that a long delay happens is irrelivent, only the probability of it occuring. There is a 00.000000000001% chance your house will fall on you and kill you right now, but I doubt you'll run screaming out of the building... Defend your reasoning, or shut up.

Next up, as explained elsewhere, your super-SLV can't possibly have the performance you claim. You will be supremely fortunate to get a payload over 100MT.

"because the ESAS' figures posted was NOT detailed enough to do a resizing calulation"

Disreguarding your "plan" for the super-SLV, I cited this as an example of your flawed and dishonest reasoning, that if the itemized list of CEV components cited on the BAUT forum are not good enough for calculations, then where did you (on the BAUT forum) come up with the mass for your smaller CEV? ...It would be really annoying if it weren't so pitiful and funny.

"about the CaLV... if it so dangerous and unreliable to launch manned (due to turbopumps, fuel, etc.) many moon missions will fail"

Its all about acceptable risk... the ~0.5% chance the CaLV will fail is probably good enough since it will never carry people, and if something does go wrong NASA is only out some money/time instead of flag-draped coffins and a national moment of silence. For people, the bar is much higher, preferably less than 0.1%, which the CLV can probably provide. No varient of CaLV could deliver this safety easily.

""modern engineering": the same unable to launch a Shuttle without one year of delays?

"as good as previous rockets": the Space Shuttle?

"major systems on both launch vehicles will be fully checked": like the "foam" and ECO sensor" that delayed over six months the next Shuttle launch?"

I am only going to say this once more, there is no point in correcting you again because you are too dumb and thick to come up with any real reasoning and just throw up straw men as excuses. Maybe if I break this down into smaller words it will be easier for you to understand:

The CLV is not like Shuttle. It will be simpler than Shuttle, by 15+ times, multiples simpler. A simpler vehicle is less likly to be delayed. The CLV will be well tested before the CaLV is launched. Other rockets of similar class (Atlas-V, Delta-IV Medium, Proton) don't often suffer huge delays, and they will be more complicated than CLV. Why will the CLV be different? Even Shuttle launched on time for most of its launches, save for the weather, that CLV will be less sensitive to.

Shuttle is a special case, because it is the most complex machine ever devised by man, not simply because of its literal millions of parts, but because these interact in so many ways. Its not defenseable, in fact its STUPID to compare Shuttle with CLV, and I flatly state that you are stupid for making the comparison. These are all reasons why this is not a problem, but you won't defend your statements, because you can't. If you can't defend your argument, its time for you to shut up.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-23 08:19:04

...but what are the chances that this will happen...

the real figure will be known only when they will fly, now you can do only optimistic evaluation

the only way to avoid ("by design"!!!) ALL possible missions' fail due to delay is the single launch architecture

...is the "strongest" point of your argument for a single launch...

no, it was only the first

now I think that there are MANY other VERY GOOD reasons for a single launch (but I don't repeat here because you can read them in this forum and on BAUT)

...your super-SLV can't possibly have the performance you claim...

if it's true, then, also the CaLV can't lift 125 mT...

...come up with the mass for your smaller CEV?

with a simple 3/4 calculations of weight (however, a real "resized" CEV, etc. will be not exactly 75% of a full-CEV, but, probably, around 80%)

...flag-draped coffins and a national moment of silence...

I don't think there is (nor will be) a rocket that can avoid this 100%

it's only your optimistic evaluation of CLV safety, since you (absolutely!) WANT it.........

...It will be simpler than Shuttle, by 15+ times, multiples simpler...

also if you consider ONLY the electronics of any future vehicle, you (absolutely!) can't claim that it will be "simpler" than past vehicles!

...because it is the most complex machine ever devised by man...

completely false (also if you compare it with a to-day's mid-airplane)

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-23 21:24:33

More excuses

All problems are a matter of degree, and in this case, chance: Atlas, Delta, and Thiokol's big SRB have had excelent track reccords, and CLV should be even more reliable: historically speaking the same people with the same parts can make a reliable rocket, and this is a fact. So it is based on fact that past rockets work, so the methods used to build them have been proven to work too. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to assume CLV will be even more reliable.

And you compare your rocket to the CaLV, even though the old version of CaLV is similar to the SSME-powerd 8.4m SLV and the new version is similar to the RS-68 powerd 10m SLV, but somehow has 20-25MT more payload just because you've added two SRB segments? And this does not include the extra mass of the additional SRB endcap/nozzle/parachutes nor the inferior SRB fuel nor the structural adapter to put short SRBs on stretched fuel tanks nor the increased air drag. It makes no sense at all, Shuttle-C only gains about 10-12MT of capacity by trading four-segment for five-segment boosters, but adding two more to CaLV minus the extra mass/drag will increase it by 20-25MT? You simply don't know what you are talking about.

"with a simple 3/4 calculations of weight (however, a real "resized" CEV, etc. will be not exactly 75% of a full-CEV, but, probably, around 80%)"

More hand-waving. The simpler the calculation, the less true it is. The assumption CEV's mass scales linearly with size is obviously not true, but you claimed it was valid anyway, when this is clearly not the case.

"I don't think there is (nor will be) a rocket that can avoid this 100%

it's only your optimistic evaluation of CLV safety"

You ignored what I said completely. Thats not discussing or debating, thats just preaching, trying to preach loud enough (and brightly colored and persistantly enough) that you simply drown everyone else out.

There is an acceptable amount of risk involved with human spaceflight, which NASA generally wants to keep the risk of casulty below 1-in-100's at least, preferably less then 1-in-1000. Since you can't fly 1000 times to prove that its safe, engineers look at all the possible ways that a rocket will fail, and either design the systems so this is unlikly or not very dangerous. This can be done reliably as is done with any other manned aerospace project, and does work. There are always failure modes that the engineers didn't think of, but on a simple rocket like this, the chance they missed any that won't show up during testing are insignifigant.

And yes, CLV will be simpler. It will have only two engines, both of which are very simple by comparison to other rockets with comperable performance. CLV will also use modern computers, which are much simpler then the multiple antique 1970's computers distributed throughout Shuttle. And so on and so forth.

"...because it is the most complex machine ever devised by man...

completely false (also if you compare it with a to-day's mid-airplane)"

A bald-faced lie, Shuttle is still easily the most complicated machine ever built. The number, the tollerances, and the interdependance of its literal millions of parts puts all other machines of any kind - nuclear submarines, air liners, whatever - to shame.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 05:21:00

More excuses...

Shuttle-C only gains about 10-12MT of capacity by trading four-segment for five-segment...

the extra-payload of the Super SLV vs. the SDHLV is (exactly) 10-12 mT, if "my" rocket can't lift 135 mT, that means the original NASA design is wrong

...simpler the calculation, the less true it is...

not true, since great part of the weight saved with a resized-mission is the resized-fuel for a resized-mass to lift/land/depart, also, with the Super SLV the hardware/mission don't need to be "resized"

...below 1-in-100's at least, preferably less then 1-in-1000...

the REAL flights of Apollo, Soyuz and Shuttle NEVER reached these optimistic evaluations about delays, failures and accidents... there are no reasons (to-day) to say that future vehicles (CEV, Kliper, ecc.) will be different

...modern computers, which are much simpler then the multiple antique 1970...

despite you use it, probably you don't know so much about "modern computers"

...Shuttle is still easily the most complicated machine ever built...

20 years ago... NOT to-day

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-24 07:51:19

The more you wave your arms, the more dishonest and obtuse you seem to become...

"the extra-payload of the Super SLV vs. the SDHLV is (exactly) 10-12 mT, if "my" rocket can't lift 135 mT, that means the original NASA design is wrong"

Your rocket can't, because you are not just adding segments like Shuttle-C. How many times do I have to explain this to you? You are adding all these things to your rocket, but your calculations do not take any of this into account, this is why your need even more payload to make up for these items:

-Extra booster endcap/nozzle/parachutes weigh tonnes
-Main tank will require structural adapter to use short boosters on a stretched tank, weighing tonnes.
-Increased air drag with larger cross-section
-Lower performance HTPB fuel versus new PBAN

"not true, since great part of the weight saved with a resized-mission is the resized-fuel for a resized-mass to lift/land/depart, also, with the Super SLV the hardware/mission don't need to be "resized""

You can't even keep your own numbers straight, the combined mass of the CEV, LSAM, and EDS stage (after launch) is ~145-150MT, which you say your rocket can do without having to "resize" anything. But THEN you say that your rocket only needs 135MT of payload to do the same job. Thats a large 7%+ difference, where did it come from? Its so hard to read your terrible page that you heard us to, but even it does not explain how you will save 10-15MT.

"Resizing the CEV" from 5.5m to 5.0m obviously can't produce this change, making the capsule a mere 9% smaller is not going to make a multi-tonne difference in its mass. For every tonne of capsule, you need about 2.0-2.5MT tonnes of fuel to come/go from the Moon, and lets say an optimistic 500kg difference in service module dry mass. That only adds up to 3.5-4.0MT, not 10MT+. Again, you should justify this big 10-15MT payload difference, or you should be quiet.

This is a big deal, 7% difference in payload mass is big when talking rockets, but you just kind of gloss over it, wave your hand, and say that it is so. If you want to discuss your rocket, then answer challenges against it, or else all you are doing is preaching and you've already done THAT with your ugly web page.

Not that it matters, because your rocket can't lift either one, because of all the performance penalties noted above. Shuttle-C, which is more thrust limited then CaLV, only gains ~10-12MT with two extra SRB segments, and so even if you got an extra 10MT of payload it would be counteracted by the penalties from the extra booster and it could lift barely a few tonnes more than the 125MT CaLV, if any!

"the REAL flights of Apollo, Soyuz and Shuttle NEVER reached these optimistic evaluations about delays, failures and accidents... there are no reasons (to-day) to say that future vehicles (CEV, Kliper, ecc.) will be different"

Saturn-V was a special case, when NASA was willing to trade safety to get to the Moon faster. But other rockets, Saturn-1B, Atlas-II/III/V, Delta-II/IVM, and Thiokol's SRB all have a fantastic reccord of reliability, and between them have a proven historical reccord of zero catastrophic failures over their hundreds of flights. Infact none of these rockets save for Delta-II have ever failed, not even once, with the few Delta failures due to their cheap upper stages. All with the same engines that NASA wants to use, Saturn-IB's J-2 engine, Thiokol's SRB, and Delta-IV's RS-68 (on CaLV).

Actually, save for the cheap missile-derived Delta-II, they DID reach these optimistic levels of reliability, and they did it (except for SRB, which is just a stage) all while being even more complex then the CLV will be, which will have only ONE liquid fueled engine. These are the same people, the same parts, the same methods with a rocket thats even less complex. That is plenty of a reason to say that NASA's rockets should work just fine, and equipped with a launch-escape system CLV should be able to reach the 1-in-1000 level of safety. There is no possible way SLV can.

"despite you use it, probably you don't know so much about "modern computers""

You don't seem to know much about modern computers, do you? Each SSME has at least two computers, Shuttle has several flight computers the size of dish washers. Shuttle also has hydraulics all over the place (wing surfaces, landing gear, bay doors, engine gimbals, etc). CLV will have none of this, just one or two central redundant computers, and probably no hydraulics at all. And a fraction of the engine complexity.

"20 years ago... NOT to-day"

Yes, even today! Shuttle is STILL the most complicated machine ever made, no other machine has so many parts that interact in so many ways and have to operate under so much punishment. There is no comparison, nothing else is even close.

Edit: Oh, and your rocket will need a hydraulic system too for the SSMEs, since they have to have one to start up and gimbal. I bet the smaller J-2 on the CLV could get away with an electromechanical system like RL-10B.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 08:30:18

... the combined mass of the CEV, LSAM, and EDS stage (after launch) is ~145MT...

the discussion about rockets' payload (esepecially about unexisting rockets) is potentially endless...

however...

the figure you quote "was" the moon missions' weight before the CEV reduction

your figure of only "500 kg." saved with the NASA-resized CEV is too little

too little as itself and too little since less weight on the top mean less fuel for EDS' TLI, LSAM's LOI and SM's TEI

less fuel mean less tank/structure weight (your loved "dry mass"...)

also, I suggest to send the exploartion-hardware for 5+ missions separately (and reuse it many times) than mean less payload, less fuel and less dry mass of the full system

last but not least... the main advantages of my proposal come from the single launch architecture NOT from the use of "my" rocket!

then, if "my" rockets' payload will be not sufficient, NASA can add more engines to fit the specs

...Thiokol's SRB all have a fantastic reccord of reliability...

don't seems when I suggest to use in "my" rocket...

however...

we can't discuss endless or compare unexisting rockets and vehicles

a TRUE comparison from old and new vehicle can be done ONLY when the new vehicles FLY (250+ times like Apollo, Soyuz, Shuttle, etc.)

...have a proven historical reccord of zero catastrophic failures over their hundreds of flights...

but if I use it on "my" manned SLV it will "work" like with Challenger...

...1-in-1000 level of safety...

only (optimistic) calculations, not the realty

...has at least two computers, Shuttle has several flight computers...

the multi-computers architecture are for double-triple redundancy, cross control of data, local computation, etc.

also the future vehicles will have redundant electronics

...Shuttle is STILL the most complicated machine ever made...

it's only your opinion

about the SRB...

I suggest that NASA will use only ONE "dumb" 4-segments version (like the Shuttles' version) and that evaluate the opportunity and costs of an expendable version (with the extra advantage of less "dry mass"...)

then, NASA can buy the SRBs from 4+ (competing) manufacturers

that choices may cut the SRB's unit price under $20 million!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-24 10:32:10

No it won't go on forever, because you are obviously wrong, and can't support your wild claims. All you can do is repeat them, which is just noise that clutters the board.

My point is that the ESAS Lunar hardware will not be signifigantly lighter due to the slight reduction in the CEV's size. It simply can't be a whole lot lighter, a tonne or so at the most. Using the 2.0-2.5X fuel aproximation, thats still under 5MT. No where close to the ~15MT you need for SLV. Because the LSAM and EDS hold so much fuel, on the order of 100MT, saving only 1-2MT of LOX/LH2 fuel will not reduce their dry mass at all. Its simply not enough. This are not figures out of thin air, it takes about 1MT of LH2/LOX fuel to push 1MT to TLI, a few hundred kilos of fuel for LOC, and another tonne of fuel for TEI. Its just not enough.

You keep on trying to make it sound as if your plan is beyond reproach because its "your opinion," which is rhetorical rubbish, not all opinions are equal, and your opinion is patently false. My opinion is based on estimates from actual calculations by professional engineers, while yours are whatever you can come up with to make your plan work. Again, all opinions are not equal, your least of all.

Beyond simply being false, its obvious that you don't know anything about rockets. Now on three seperate occasions, you state that simply boosting thrust increases payload alot, when this is simply not the case, as gravitational losses are a small portion of the total delta-V.

"a TRUE comparison from old and new vehicle can be done ONLY when the new vehicles FLY (250+ times like Apollo, Soyuz, Shuttle, etc.)...

...only (optimistic) calculations, not the realty"

Then by your own reasoning, we will never know if SLV is safe enough to put people on top of unless we fly it hundreds of times. Does this not strike you as the least bit stupid? How obtuse can you get?

"the multi-computers architecture are for double-triple redundancy, cross control of data, local computation, etc.

also the future vehicles will have redundant electronics"

These two statements aren't connected. Yes they will be reundant, but no they will not need half a dozen or more local computers like Shuttle does.

"about the SRB...

I suggest that NASA will use only ONE "dumb" 4-segments version (like the Shuttles' version) and that evaluate the opportunity and costs of an expendable version (with the extra advantage of less "dry mass"...)

then, NASA can buy the SRBs from 4+ (competing) manufacturers

that choices may cut the SRB's unit price under $20 million!"

Is your stupidity without bound? Just ditching the parachutes is not going to make a dozen-tonne difference in the payload!

And nobody but Thiokol has ever made an SRB like this, and suddenly multiple competitors are supposed to learn how? That would take years and huge money to set up production facilities, which they won't if they are only going to bring in a measly $20M each. Which is another figure you pulled out of thin air, which convienantly makes your rocket look better then CaLV.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-24 19:43:12

...will still not save the cost of the deletion of the CLV/CEV/EDS programs budget since those same dollars will end up in the bigger rocket which he proposes...
my evaluation of the money saved is based on NASA claims about R&D costs:
$5 Billion R&D for the early (4-seg. SRB 1st and 2nd stage) CLV...... SAVED
$2 Billion of extra-R&D for the 5-segments SRB ($3B in recent news)..... SAVED
$5 Billion of (optimistic!) "hardware" costs for the first 25 (ISS and Moon) CLV rockets..... SAVED

Simular argument in the recoverable engine pod thread.

I never argued that we should somehow "save" the extra money in bank someplace, maybe "saved money" is a bad choice of phrase if it leads you to thinking down this path. What would instead happen is that NASA would have to spend less on the VSE and could spend more (or lobby for more money more succesfully) to spend on other productive endevors.
The trouble is congress directs how much money Nasa gets and seeing it can operate with less would mean that they would simply budget less money for Nasa to use...

This is a poor argument against saving money, even if it was true. NASA and the US Goverment at large would be better off not wasting money if they could avoid it, even if this means NASA wouldn't get to spend the saved money. Wasting money is simply bad, no matter how you cut it.

As gaetanomarano put it with his projected cost saving by not building the clv of 7 billion. I would rather go by Austin Stanley "Wasting money is simply bad, no matter how you cut it." But since we have the ISS and will not buy more than we need to of the Russian soyuz, it is up to Nasa to build the CLV for this reason.

gaetanomarano lets put your thought process to a test with how shuttle is managed. We have been idle for approximately 3 years and in those years Nasa has collected $3.5 billion give or take with only 1 shuttle launch. There should have been at least 3+ flights per year for a total of 9 launches and more.

We should using this approach to save nearly $3.5B x 3yrs= $10.5B less $1.1B approximate for the 1 shuttle launch, leaving in savings $9.4 billion in some Nasa account just waiting to be used. Otherwise congress would have given them this much less for those 3 given years worth of no shuttle flights. But wait ...

Now looking at it from another way in terms of what should be waiting for use in some warehousing area. There should be at least 8 External tanks (I think $40 million each) of which Nasa return maybe 3 from KSC back to Michoud to be redone and maybe 3 partials there still in build (will need to check on this). The SSME fully refurbished at a cost of roughly 200,000 per engine to refurb should be a total of 24 ready to go thou I do not have a figure for how many of those engines would be new for $80 million. There would be at least 16 SRB's (40 million each)to be mated to these to loft all we can to the ISS. But this is not the case if parts cost is itemized for these then we have spent on hardware not in use of only $320 million for tanks max, $4.8 million for ssme and $640 million a total sum of $968.6 million dollars of hardware. What happened to the remaining $8.43 billion dollars?

The way the Nasa contracts and contractors work is just not what we all would want. They are setup to keep the contractors getting as much as they can while providing the least to support the need over the life of the programs minimum to maximum quantities of need by Nasa.

As GCNRevenger has put it, the shuttle program has become a workfare program to keep Nasa's staff employed unfortunately the wool has been over our eyes for way to long..

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 19:46:02

...dry mass.. gravitational losses...

the absurd deduction of your absurd claim is that "if we add more thrust to a rocket, it goes back instead of go up"

EVERY rocket (or booster) IS able to lift its own mass + "something more" (some extra-tons of payload)

we can seriously discuss about "the amount" of that "extra-payload" NOT if that extra-payload can be (or not to be) launched with one or more extra-engines/booster

all new and bigger rockets (including the ESAS' rockets) are based on "additional thrust" given with "additional engines/boosters" (but, probably, you've your own, new, physics' laws...)

...we will never know if SLV is safe...

exactly, we can't know (to-day) how much (really) safe and reliable will be a new rockets that, now, don't exist... like the CLV

...but no they will not need half a dozen or more local computers...

you're completely wrong

to-day, many "devices" are not simple "sensors" but have an internal processor and do some computations by itself

that happen in your car, DVD, PC, printer, scanner, elevator, watch, wash machine, etc.

all future vehicles/rockets will have hundreds "local" processors

...Just ditching the parachutes is not going to make a dozen-tonne difference...

mmmmh... it's very curious... (I think...) ...why the same "parachute" was so "heavy" when I've added a 3rd SRB to "my" rocket...??????

nobody but Thiokol has ever made an SRB like this...

15+years ago in Italy "nobody" was "able" to sell cellular phones and services like the telecom monopoly... the price of cell phones was $3,000 each and the cell-phones' bills was like the cost of a seaship-holidays

but, when the antithrust authority (and the government) liberalized the telecom market, MANY companies was "able" to sell these "too-high-tech" products/services... and, now, the cell phones' prices starts from $50 and each minute of call costs a few cents

the same change happen in America and Europe with other market liberalizations (air travel, trains, etc.)

MANY aerospace companies ARE (or will be) "able" to design and build rocket, engines, boosters, etc.

if the space-market will be liberalized from monopolies ALL space-components will costs 1/10 than now in future

...and will never happen again that a "monopoly" pretends $3 billion to (only) modify a very simple (and already existing) solid booster...

when NASA will be bored to pay TEN TIMES ITS VALUE every single bolt of their vehicles, their prices will fall quickly
.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-24 21:31:43

"the absurd deduction of your absurd claim is that "if we add more thrust to a rocket, it goes back instead of go up""

You don't seem to understand much about rockets. For a rocket to enter or leave orbit, it has to reach a certain speed, at least orbital velocity. There is nothing about this velocity that requires you to reach it quickly, it will require the same amount of fuel if you acend fast or slow. A rocket must not only reach this speed however, but must also burn fuel to counteract gravity while it is building up this speed so that it doesn't fall down again. Increasing thrust decreases the time it takes to reach this velocity, thus reducing how much fuel you burn to counteract gravity, but does not affect the minimum fuel needed to reach orbital velocity.

Lets say if you have a rocket with infinite thrust, it will spend zero fuel counteracting gravity as it acends. But it will still need a huge minimum amount of fuel to speed up to orbital velocity. Simple Newtonian mechanics... Thus, no matter how much thrust your rocket has, it cannot increase payload beyond a certain point.

So, if by increasing thrust you also increase the dry mass of your rocket by more then the gravity-countering fuel saved, you will actually DECREASE your total payload. Modern rockets by and large already acend pretty quickly, Shuttle gets to orbit in about eight minutes, so the amount of fuel it burns to counteract gravity is a fairly small fraction of the total fuel. Hence, if you add lots more thrust, you get a smaller return. Infact, since the SRBs are so heavy when empty, you will probably decrease the payload.

"you're completely wrong

to-day, many "devices" are not simple "sensors" but have an internal processor and do some computations by itself

that happen in your car, DVD, PC, printer, scanner, elevator, watch, wash machine, etc.

all future vehicles/rockets will have hundreds "local" processors"

You don't seem to know that much about rocket engines either. There isn't that much about simple engines that needs controlling, so it won't have lots of local processing. Shuttle's SSME is unique, because its so complex, its easily the most complex engine in the world by far.

"mmmmh... it's very curious... (I think...) ...why the same "parachute" was so "heavy" when I've added a 3rd SRB to "my" rocket"

Few of the pieces of the SRB alone make a huge difference, but lots of little masses together do. Getting rid of one of the little masses will change nothing.

"15+years ago in Italy "nobody" was "able" to sell cellular phones"

You are comparing chemical rockets with computer technology, which is usually used as an example of how NOT to compare different technologies. Your analogy is irrelivent, and frankly, it really shows how you don't know anything. Computers have become ten times as cheap in the past 15 years and hundreds of times more powerful, and its obvious that chemical rockets cannot do the same. The chemicals, materials, and techniques to make rockets haven't changed a whole lot in 50 years. I could tell you why and point out the base physical and chemical reasons of the universe, but that gets kind of long.

"if the space-market will be liberalized from monopolies ALL space-components will costs 1/10 than now in future

...and will never happen again that a "monopoly" pretends $3 billion to (only) modify a very simple (and already existing) solid booster..."

Haha, they won't, because there is no money to be made if they do. Space ships are expensive and risky propositions, if companies can't make lots of money, then they can't afford to build space ships. If companies can't charge as much money due to competition, then they can't afford to build the rockets for their customers, there will be no profit. Your ignorance of economics is almost as great as your ignorance of rockets.

NASA isn't modifying the four-segment SRB, the five-segment SRB will be essentially an all-new rocket. The present one for instance uses a star-cut HTPB fuel grain, but the new one will need a different cut and burn the superior PBAN fuel. The nozzle system is not just a big hole in the bottom of the booster either, but rather a hydrazine-fueled jet turbine that operates the hydraulic systems that vector the nozzle for steering. This probably needs redesign for better control (preferably eliminating the hydrazine too), as will the parachutes which will have to be bigger to accomodate the heavier booster. Oh, and sensors to trigger the CEV escape system if something goes wrong.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-25 19:33:58

Simular argument in the recoverable engine pod thread.

the first reply on the thread you quote is mine and I repeat here:

***********************************

reuse the engines is an excellent choice since engines are the main cost of a rocket

the idea was first developed by Boeing for a cargo version of the Shuttle (not the Shuttle-C)

when this option will be available many billions can be saved

its main problem is that needs very much R&D time and money to do it, especially for manned launches

if it needs (e.g.) 3+ years and $3+ billion, great part of the advantage is lost

I think the better way is...

- develop a rocket with expendable engines

- use it for early launches

- develop a new version with retrievable engines

- use the new version only for unmanned launches

- if it will be proven safe and reliable, use it also for manned launches

these are the reasons I've suggested to use expendable engines in my design of the FAST-SLV (despite its drawings suggests the use of a retrievable engines' basket)

***********************************

...SSME... should be a total of 24 ready to go...

a very good news for the Super SLV

the figure I've had so far was of 15 ready available (and already paid!) SSMEs (nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts)

but your figure is BETTER

if NASA still has 24 SSMEs that means the first EIGHT Super SLV engines will cost only $0.oo each !!!

that is $20M less than the price of one RS-68......

with 24 SSMEs all the Super SLV (rocket/unmanned-moon-vehicles) test launches (maybe three) and the first FIVE moon missions' launches will costs less than $200M for each Super SLV 1st stage

with two moon missions per year (and only one the first year) from 2015, NASA don't needs to buy new engines before 2018 !!!!

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-25 20:07:55

...SSME... should be a total of 24 ready to go...
a very good news for the Super SLV
the figure I've had so far was of 15 ready available (and already paid!) SSMEs (nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts)

Miss quoted out of context, it was in the mind set of what should be on hand since the 8 shuttle flights never happened...

Simular argument in the recoverable engine pod thread.
the first reply on the thread you quote is mine and I repeat here:

Actually this why it is not so easy.. as well as why it will cost you more in the long run.

Engines do not like landing in the ocean and will add to the cost depending on how long they are in the water before recovery occurs.

I'd like to add to this. Not only would you have a ater landing, but a salt-water landing. You would then be introducing galvanic corrosion along with all the inherent (if applicable) damage to the electrical system.
If you alternately chose to do a parachute landing to a land location, even if one could devise a softer landing method, there are still some nasty side effects associated with the shock of the landing.
The SSMEs are less expensive to refurb due to a nice, controlled, soft landing with little exposure to the unsavory elements of shock and/or saltwater.
Not trying to discourage you, just pointing out a few challenges.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2006-05-19 12:21:27

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

#102 2006-05-20 15:12:43

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

#103 2006-05-20 20:32:00

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

#104 2006-05-20 21:30:58

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

#105 2006-05-21 07:27:02

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

#106 2006-05-21 07:48:15

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

#107 2006-05-22 07:48:53

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

#108 2006-05-22 08:10:21

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

#109 2006-05-22 09:01:24

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

#110 2006-05-22 21:07:57

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

#111 2006-05-23 00:30:16

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

#112 2006-05-23 05:45:59

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

#113 2006-05-23 06:27:13

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

#114 2006-05-23 07:51:27

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

#115 2006-05-23 08:19:04

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

#116 2006-05-23 21:24:33

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

#117 2006-05-24 05:21:00

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

#118 2006-05-24 07:51:19

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

#119 2006-05-24 08:30:18

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

#120 2006-05-24 10:32:10

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

#121 2006-05-24 19:43:12

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

#122 2006-05-24 19:46:02

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

#123 2006-05-24 21:31:43

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

#124 2006-05-25 19:33:58

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

#125 2006-05-25 20:07:55

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

Board footer