The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

Grypd · 2005-04-23 15:28:29

Well it looks like the original thread has collapsed which is a pity as there was a lot of good notes there and of what could be and what was a load of rubbish.

Anyway time to stand back and let the fight start again. And though not in a an article I can show you it appears that ESA as part of its FLPP program are developing a new rocket to provide manned capacity to space. It also is very similar to what appears to be a Delta 4 heavy.

Its in the latest edition of the BIS spaceflight page 183

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-23 16:00:07

Looks like everything from page eight and afterwards is gone

Grypd · 2005-04-24 17:29:57

Yeah pity but at least its now locked

LtlPhysics · 2005-04-24 20:39:25

Locked meaning it is still viewable? Where? Some of you guys really put some time into it.

But so many more are unaware or dismissive.

Grypd · 2005-04-25 03:59:51

No by locked I mean that you can view up to page 8 but after that those posts are gone nor can you post more. So I started this thread.

It does seem when we get close to the 300 post numbers we tend to have thread collapses.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-25 05:19:27

Just for reference, the now locked original thread is stable up to page 8 and viewable http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2404]here.

Everything after that is lost to the void, I can't even salvage the raw text. :angry:

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-26 16:47:16

Erm, there seems to be a lot missing in the middle somewhere...

GCNRevenger Posted Mar. 31 2005, 22:19:

See, theres this great thing about message boards... the stuff that was written in the past doesn't disapear into thin air.

Well, apparently, sometimes it does...

publiusr · 2005-04-28 16:37:04

I think 'revenger and I both blew its gasket.

Bad ju-ju.

publiusr · 2005-05-05 11:50:17

To keep the debate alive:

NASAWATCH has a link to this article which is of interest:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … ml?id=1020

'Griffin replied: "I think it is probably a good thing for the EELV side of the launch industry. I think that the Air Force - and the companies themselves have come to the ... we have to start facing facts. There is not enough commercial traffic for EELV to sustain two - and there is not enough military traffic to sustain two. The original hope behind EELV was that there would be .. that if the government undertook the development of these new birds that between commercial traffic and military traffic you'd have enough to sustain two. I thank that it is recognized that that's just not there - at least not at present. So, if there is a certain amount of collapse of that business venture into one - and then letting the joint venture pick the right vehicle for the right flight - I think that's great. I think that would be a problem if that were the only launch option available to the nation. The President's space policy directs the DoD and NASA to work together to advance architectures for space flight. With a preference- but not a requirement - for EELV. The reason for the preference is obvious because you've already got developed systems." '

Here is the capper:

"...Now our requirements are going to be in the range of several tens of metric tons for the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and notionally 100 metric tons for heavy life requirements for return to the Moon. Those are the requirements. I personally don't care how they get met. NASA needs to be more than just about getting up the first hundred miles. We've spent far too long trying to overcome that problem. So, as NASA Administrator today, I already own a heavy lifter. That heavy lifter is the Space Shuttle stack - it currently carries the Orbiter. So every time I launch, I launch 100 metric tons into low orbit which, of course, is what we need for returning to the moon. So as I have said often, tongue in cheek, from the point of view of the cargo, the shuttle is a payload shroud - a rather heavy one. But the intrinsic capability of the stack is quite impressive. It's not quite up to where Saturn V was - but it's close - and it's there. So, I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because, it seems to me, any other solution for getting a hundred metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive than utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

ATK Thiokol still has muscle in the Pentagon--and so does Griff. But the EELV folks are getting nervous--and this does not bode well for them.

This could get ugly.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-05 13:28:06

"The reason for the preference is obvious because you've already got developed systems (EELV)"

"I personally don't care how they get met."

"it seems to me, any other solution for getting a hundred metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive than utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

And it seems to ME that Griffin seems awfully convinced that he can somehow make >2/3rds of the Shuttle Army "evaporate," and doesn't seem to understand the idea that if you make more of a rocket, that each one costs less... Come on Mike, we're waiting for the proof that you can make the Shuttle Army go away so that SDV will be as cheap as the rocket we already have.

If there is a risk that most of the EELV setups will be "downselected," Boeing/Lockheed will be even more willing to give NASA and the USAF (who will both buy rockets) a break.

publiusr · 2005-05-05 15:10:59

Getting rid of the orbiter is a big part in that. There are politics here too. Any HLLV is going to need both money and friends--and he cannot alienate too many folks for his plan to work.

The Earth Observation/robotics/aviation crowds are already squawking. Hubble servicing was a bone thrown to its supporters to keep them happy. He may keep the Voyagers alive for them to see the heliopause.

LtlPhysics · 2005-05-18 16:49:15

He may keep the Voyagers alive for them to see the heliopause.

Well, I hope so. We won't be back in that vicinity anytime soon.

This from Dr. Scott Horowitz, ATK Thiokol's spinster. He favors going with what you got.

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/tes … ...id=4270

Grypd · 2005-05-26 06:19:31

More on Griffins plans for shuttle orbiter retirement and use of the shuttle components as a "Heavy Lift".

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetra … Spacedaily article

Well it just leaves what sort of heavy lift will be made from the shuttle stack. A shuttle "C" or some over embodiement.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-26 07:25:55

Yup for real heavy lift some flavor variation.
I think the main piece of the stack that is being looked at is the SRB's though for medium cargo and for even quick crew delivery to LEO.
I wish those that want to use the pieces, would actually put them together and get them ready to fly sooner rather than later waiting for contracts.
Nasa needs lots of Items and if the the store to which Nasa can go is only though the contract, the store will always be bare...

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-26 07:33:46

I am beginning to grow quite wary of Michael Griffin's continued assertions to "I already have a heavy lifter" (thats good enough).

No Michael, you don't

Right now, you do not have a heavy lifter, all you have are the boosters, fuel tank, and engines that are too expensive to use (SSMEs cost ~$40-50M each). No design yet either, just some engineering studies and assertions from parties with vested interest that it'll be fairly easy.

No main engine arrangement, no avionics, no upper stage, no pad/VAB modifications... No no Michael, you only have half a heavy lifter. Don't you become a Shuttle-Hugger too on us (and kill NASA in the process).

The fact also remains, that unless you can summerly make about half the Shuttle Army "go away," then it doesn't matter how cool your SDV is, because the cost of flying it will bleed NASA dry. So far all we've heard about this are some vauge rumblings that "you'll do it" if you have to or something. Boeing on the other hand, already has a rocket in production that would be cheap enough: it already flies, and has been sold for an affordable price. The huge Delta factory and exsisting launch pad are more than large enough to accomodate Lunar VSE launch vehicle flight rate, and the USAF would be pitching in to buy a few flights themselves. If we are planning on DOING anything on the Moon besides looking at pretty rocks, then the number of rockets purchased would drive down the cost signifigantly... with SDV, even idealy, you won't be flying any more often then Shuttle did.

And the Thiokol launcher... you do know that you can't shut down the booster, right Michael? And that the acceleration thanks to its sheer thrust will be rougher on the astronauts, and make safe seperation in the event of trouble quite dangerous (8G+ acceleration). That is, assuming that the rocket doesn't explode before you can trigger the escape mechanism. Lockheed already has a rocket in hand that, with some improvements, would be more than powerful and safe enough to launch the CEV. Are you even considering this option? All we've heard about is that you "might," and in the same breath as extolling the virtues of Shuttle-Derived.

Its time to fess up Michael... are you a Shuttle Hugger in sheep's clothing? Merely paying lip-service to options besides the one that has been the millstone around NASA's neck for thirty years... which you deem to heel and reform with a single wave of your magic wand?

BWhite · 2005-05-26 08:51:06

Uncrewed shuttle derived, including medium lift 5 segment RSRM + LH2 upper stage for CARGO ONLY combined with t/Space crew taxis.

=NO= crew rating for cargo lifters.

clark · 2005-05-26 09:02:53

And NO money for CEV development...

BWhite · 2005-05-26 09:37:56

If t/Space works, its paradigm shattering, no?

And with a $400 million all included development cost, whats the downside of giving them some money to play with? If t/Space fails to deliver a test capsule by the summer of 2008 - - back to Boeing etc. . . and we are still well within the original 2014 timeline.

If it does work we could have some HUGE exploration vessels essentailly hanging "at anchor" in LEO. Build modular style with HLLV lifted building blocks.

Go do some explorin' stuff and then return to LEO and land via CVX, leaving the ship in LEO for future missions. How much can we do for $16 billion per year with that architecture?

= = =

The design work will overlap with the DoD AirLaunch system anyway so why not seek a two for one benefit?

Edited By BWhite on 1117122476

clark · 2005-05-26 10:32:57

Well, here is the bet *I* am not willing to make right now:

Will SDV get the green light.

I am not entirely convinced it will, and considering Rumsfeld has the final say (when giving the suggestion to Bush) on SDV versus EELV, I am inclined to believe that the project that employs EELV will win out.

t/space is wonderful, but it ain't NASA. t/space wants ownership, and Griffin has refused (systems integration is being handled by NASA, per Her Griffin's orders).

Sorry Bill.

BWhite · 2005-05-26 10:41:03

Well, here is the bet *I* am not willing to make right now:
Will SDV get the green light.
I am not entirely convinced it will, and considering Rumsfeld has the final say (when giving the suggestion to Bush) on SDV versus EELV, I am inclined to believe that the project that employs EELV will win out.
t/space is wonderful, but it ain't NASA. t/space wants ownership, and Griffin has refused (systems integration is being handled by NASA, per Her Griffin's orders).
Sorry Bill.

Very possibly true. That said, certain key elements of the t/Space architecture have been posted to the web and its not bleeding edge technology.

Self pressurizing propane plus LOX? Don't need the Skunk Works to build that.

Rutan's VLA would be more efficient but an old refurbished 747 would work.

That cool lightweight seat was designed by Auburn University undergraduates!

The heat shield materials are off the shelf (IIRC) and much of the elegaqnce in the design is from what is omitted not what is included.

My point? The t/Space concept is out of the bottle and someone, somewhere will do it making EELV CEV obsolete before it flies.

clark · 2005-05-26 10:46:53

Well, here is my 2 cents...

t/Space knows it isn't in the running. They know they haven't got a snowballs chance in hell (which is why they didn't go for the actual CEV contract). So why the hub-bub, bub?

Because t/Space knows it will do it.

Sheer publicity. Taking a page from ol' Bill.

They go to NASA, NASA refuses, or funds some small tests, and then come 2008, t/space can either say: "Look, we have a working model that NASA turned down, see how our model is better? Now give us the moon." or, "Elements of our private space ship were vetted by NASA. Come fly with us!"

Besides, if you want to sell a story, what better way than with a David versus Goliath about an underdog who showed up the big boys!

t/space will do this- afterall, 400 million is chump change for what we are taking about.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-26 10:48:18

Kind of like the order to not bother with the road maps.
Well they are available now for the science path.
I am currently reading the A Roadmap for the Robotic and Human Exploration of Mars

So things do not always go as Hier Griffin wants..

Use anything that you can place your hands on and build it; That would be my approach to ready made rocketry for the exploration of space.

If one could find the funds to build a full size prototype working unit and send the data for its flight to Nasa if a flight were approved. I would say that Nasa would file a purchase order post haste to make whatever was accomplished though the prototype.

Who needs to wait for CEV or anything else... build and Nasa will buy..

BWhite · 2005-05-26 11:09:20

OKay, here is a storyline.

Griffin said alt-spacers need to prove themselves with cargo flights. Fair enough. t/Space flies a CVX filled with cargo and after launch says, by the way we are 500 pounds short because we sent along a stevedore to help unload.

If NASA insists s/he stay aboard the CVX until the supplies are unloaded, so be it. By the way s/he has a video camera

Well, here is my 2 cents...
t/Space knows it isn't in the running. They know they haven't got a snowballs chance in hell (which is why they didn't go for the actual CEV contract). So why the hub-bub, bub?
Because t/Space knows it will do it.
Sheer publicity. Taking a page from ol' Bill.
They go to NASA, NASA refuses, or funds some small tests, and then come 2008, t/space can either say: "Look, we have a working model that NASA turned down, see how our model is better? Now give us the moon." or, "Elements of our private space ship were vetted by NASA. Come fly with us!"
Besides, if you want to sell a story, what better way than with a David versus Goliath about an underdog who showed up the big boys!
t/space will do this- afterall, 400 million is chump change for what we are taking about.

clark · 2005-05-26 11:14:19

To play upon that...

They launch the CXV without a contract, and deliver a bunch of packages to the ISS for Christmas. Did I mention the stevedore is dressed like Santa Claus.

You tellin me NASA is going to turn away Santa Claus?

BWhite · 2005-05-26 11:29:57

To play upon that...
They launch the CXV without a contract, and deliver a bunch of packages to the ISS for Christmas. Did I mention the stevedore is dressed like Santa Claus.
You tellin me NASA is going to turn away Santa Claus?

They get someone to publicly dis' the t/Space program.

Then they launch the CXV with a crew of two, flya few circlles around the ISS, do a spacewalk, then land.

= = =

Hmmm. . .

Maybe I should post $250 and run a short-short or flash fiction contest on this subject.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-23 15:28:29

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#2 2005-04-23 16:00:07

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#3 2005-04-24 17:29:57

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#4 2005-04-24 20:39:25

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#5 2005-04-25 03:59:51

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#6 2005-04-25 05:19:27

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#7 2005-04-26 16:47:16

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#8 2005-04-28 16:37:04

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#9 2005-05-05 11:50:17

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#10 2005-05-05 13:28:06

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#11 2005-05-05 15:10:59

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#12 2005-05-18 16:49:15

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#13 2005-05-26 06:19:31

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#14 2005-05-26 07:25:55

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#15 2005-05-26 07:33:46

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#16 2005-05-26 08:51:06

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#17 2005-05-26 09:02:53

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#18 2005-05-26 09:37:56

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#19 2005-05-26 10:32:57

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#20 2005-05-26 10:41:03

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#21 2005-05-26 10:46:53

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#22 2005-05-26 10:48:18

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#23 2005-05-26 11:09:20

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#24 2005-05-26 11:14:19

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

#25 2005-05-26 11:29:57

Re: The Myth of heavy lift 2 - (Let the fight find a new home)

Board footer