Status of Atlas-V Heavy? OSP the other way around?

Hi!

Would it make sense to set the OSP requirements after the available
launchers?

Begin with a simple Delta IV or Atlas V withouth solids and design a
service module with engines and fuel tanks and a reusable capsule with
all expensive electronics and as many seats as will fit and if enough
seats fit use the rest of the capacity for cargo or more fuel in the
service module.

Then design a freight capsule with a standard russina (or is it
ukrainian? ) auto-docking system for use with the same service module
and launch it with solid strap-ons or booster stages if that is the
most cost effective way of getting more cargo to ISS.

The cheapest freigtht capsule might be to have oversized fuel tanks in
the service module to ferry fuel to the ISS and make the OSP volume
larger then needed and launch it unmanned and packed with supplies.
This also gives the ability to soft land return cargo.

Any deficiency in cargo capacity is compensated by launching more
often and the economy is in using the simplest US launcher
configuration that is in series production.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

Magnus Redin wrote:
Hi!

Would it make sense to set the OSP requirements after the available
launchers?



Yes. So, we can be pretty sure that they won't do that.

My cynicism hit a new level when I saw that there was a very
nice webpage about osp called www.ospnews.com It had all sorts
of nice animations of what the OSP concept is like and how it
will work. Now, I was actually unable to find anything about
the technical requirements, but they had some nice graphics. I'll
take the position that the nicer the web page is earlier in
development, the less likely you are to produce something useful.
There should be some technical docs along the lines of "6 people,
1.5 tons of cargo" and not much else at this point in development.
They say they want Atlas V or Delta 4. If what Rand is saying is
true, they might be adding requirements that would eliminate any
existing launcher.

Begin with a simple Delta IV or Atlas V withouth solids and design a
service module with engines and fuel tanks and a reusable capsule with
all expensive electronics and as many seats as will fit and if enough
seats fit use the rest of the capacity for cargo or more fuel in the
service module.


You could get by on smaller launchers. Numerically, OSP is not
much of a step upwards in terms of capability than a number of other
concepts. It's a quesiton of "what precisely do you need" and "Is OSP
a stopgap measure before developing something else?"

Then design a freight capsule with a standard russina (or is it
ukrainian? ) auto-docking system for use with the same service module
and launch it with solid strap-ons or booster stages if that is the
most cost effective way of getting more cargo to ISS.


The main thing would be the automated guidance system for unmanned
docking. That has been batted around and needs to be looked at more
closely for that solution.

The cheapest freigtht capsule might be to have oversized fuel tanks in
the service module to ferry fuel to the ISS and make the OSP volume
larger then needed and launch it unmanned and packed with supplies.
This also gives the ability to soft land return cargo.

Any deficiency in cargo capacity is compensated by launching more
often and the economy is in using the simplest US launcher
configuration that is in series production.

Best regards,

Conceptually not a bad idea. Workable.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:22:44 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Would it make sense to set the OSP requirements after the available
launchers?

Yes. So, we can be pretty sure that they won't do that.

They are doing that. The program requirement is to use Delta IV or
Atlas V. The problem is that there are some other program
requirements that can't be met with those vehicles as designed.

My cynicism hit a new level when I saw that there was a very
nice webpage about osp called www.ospnews.com It had all sorts
of nice animations of what the OSP concept is like and how it
will work. Now, I was actually unable to find anything about
the technical requirements, but they had some nice graphics. I'll
take the position that the nicer the web page is earlier in
development, the less likely you are to produce something useful.
There should be some technical docs along the lines of "6 people,
1.5 tons of cargo" and not much else at this point in development.
They say they want Atlas V or Delta 4. If what Rand is saying is
true, they might be adding requirements that would eliminate any
existing launcher.

Well, that's inevitable if by "existing launcher" you mean completely
unmodified versions of those launchers.

OSP is not "just a payload," and anyone who thinks it is is fooling
themselves. At the very least, it will almost certainly require a
much better failure onset detection system than either vehicle
currently has. It will also probably require the capability to do
full thrust termination (not currently possible with Atlas solids).
It would also be very nice to be able to steer in the event of an
abort to keep the flight path closer to land.

There are no existing American launch systems that are designed to
launch a manned capsule with abort capability, and without the abort
capability, they don't get safety, which is the only justification for
the program, since it certainly won't save any money over Shuttle.

That's reality.

On 2003-12-21, Charles Buckley wrote:

There should be some technical docs along the lines of "6 people,
1.5 tons of cargo" and not much else at this point in development.

There is. Both Level 1 and Level 2 (summary only) requirements are
linked from that site. See:

http://www.slinews.com/ospreq1.html
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_rff.pdf


All the Best

Iain

Iain Young wrote:
On 2003-12-21, Charles Buckley wrote:


There should be some technical docs along the lines of "6 people,
1.5 tons of cargo" and not much else at this point in development.


There is. Both Level 1 and Level 2 (summary only) requirements are
linked from that site. See:

http://www.slinews.com/ospreq1.html
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_rff.pdf


All the Best

Iain

http://www2.msfc.nasa.gov/errors/not_found.html

That ospnews.com link did not work. was there a typo there?
It auto forwarded me to marshall to a bogus link. Where did
you find that link on ospnews?

The first link really is light on numbers. I did note that
terms of the reliability can be met fairly trivially without
worrying about atlantic abort. (If the vehicle has higher
then Shuttle reliability, then it meets the criteria. )

On 2003-12-21, Charles Buckley wrote:

That ospnews.com link did not work. was there a typo there?
It auto forwarded me to marshall to a bogus link. Where did
you find that link on ospnews?

Gack. try http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf

Hopefully I got the URL correct this time. Scroll down past the
news about the PAD tests, the next one should be "NASA completes
Orbital Space Plane design review"

The link is titled "OSP Level 2 Requirements Executive Summary"

The first link really is light on numbers. I did note that
terms of the reliability can be met fairly trivially without
worrying about atlantic abort. (If the vehicle has higher
then Shuttle reliability, then it meets the criteria. )

The Level 1 Requirements were meant to be able to fit on one
sheet of paper. More detailed requirements were to be posted
later (Level 2 Requirements summary is at the link above,
we are awaiting Level 3 to be posted)


Iain

Hi!

Charles Buckley writes:
If what Rand is saying is true, they might be adding requirements
that would eliminate any existing launcher.

But why would NASA sabotage their own project?
They will probably not get money for building a new launcher
and a new laucher would take years to develop.
They will probably not get money for building more shuttles.
They will probably like to stay employed and keep the manned space
program running even after a new shuttle accident.

You could get by on smaller launchers. Numerically, OSP is not much
of a step upwards in terms of capability than a number of other
concepts. It's a quesiton of "what precisely do you need" and "Is
OSP a stopgap measure before developing something else?"

Are there any cheaper US launchers with reasonable capacity?

I would find it reasonable to develop an OSP capsule that is sized for
todays ISS requirements with some upgradability. The surest way of
making it a stopgap system is probably to build a single batch and the
best way of making it a sustainable system is probably to keep it in
production. If it turns out to be a stopggap or not will be decided by
history. I hope it will be obsoleted by private enterprise but that
might not happen. If a winged OSP is significantly more expensive to
build or upgrade then a capsule OSP I find it more likely that the
winged wehicle will be a dead end.

You could for instance use it for moon missions by redesigning the
service module for longer flight times, increase the thickness of the
heat shield and dock it with a habitat module with stores, toilet etc
that is docked with the moon lander. The habitat module could even
have some fuel tanks and feed the service module via the fuel plumbing
used to refuel ISS. A four ELV moon mission, Moon insertion stage,
moon lander, habitat module and fuel, and the OSP with its service
module.

The main thing would be the automated guidance system for unmanned
docking. That has been batted around and needs to be looked at more
closely for that solution.

Why not buy the russina(ukrainian?) technology and perhaps redesign it
with the same specifications but US components?

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:05:58 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The first link really is light on numbers. I did note that
terms of the reliability can be met fairly trivially without
worrying about atlantic abort. (If the vehicle has higher
then Shuttle reliability, then it meets the criteria. )

But it doesn't. The advertised reliability for Atlas is 0.98...

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

Magnus Redin wrote:
Hi!

Would it make sense to set the OSP requirements after the available
launchers?

Yes. So, we can be pretty sure that they won't do that.

No. OSP is required to be compatible with both US EELVs.

My cynicism hit a new level when I saw that there was a very
nice webpage about osp called www.ospnews.com It had all sorts
of nice animations of what the OSP concept is like and how it
will work. Now, I was actually unable to find anything about
the technical requirements, but they had some nice graphics.

You must have not looked very hard:

http://www.slinews.com/ospreq1.html
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf

Those documents are linked on the OSPNews home page. I would have had to
try hard *not* to find them. In fact, they were right above the link to the
animations you mentioned.

There should be some technical docs along the lines of "6 people,
1.5 tons of cargo" and not much else at this point in development.

See the first link above. OSP as a system must carry a minimum of four,
though this is allowed to be split over multiple spacecraft.

The main thing would be the automated guidance system for unmanned
docking. That has been batted around and needs to be looked at more
closely for that solution.

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/n...03/03-145.html

That link was also on the OSPNews home page.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Magnus Redin wrote:
Hi!

Charles Buckley writes:

If what Rand is saying is true, they might be adding requirements
that would eliminate any existing launcher.


But why would NASA sabotage their own project?

Well, Rand is making a good case for some mods to existing
launchers. Mainly though, there has been a bias within NASA
towards certain technical solutions. For 30 years, you had no
hope whatsoever, of getting any funding for a manned vehicle
unless it was completely resuable and it looked a lot like
a plane. It would be very easy to tinker with the specific
requirements here to make certain that a specific tech
(lifting bodies, for instance) would be the only possible
vehicle. There have been a number of vehicles cancelled recently
and those teams need work. I can see this working out to get a
lot of jobs.

It isn't even a case of consciously sabotaging anything. It
is simply a case of applying what is now considered good
reasons while ignoring that they had certain criteria back
in 1960 that is still just as valid now.

They will probably not get money for building a new launcher
and a new laucher would take years to develop.

More likely mods, then make up the rest with the OSP itself.

They will probably not get money for building more shuttles.

Definately not.

They will probably like to stay employed and keep the manned space
program running even after a new shuttle accident.


Yep. But, that also means not having an accident with OSP. My
main concern with OSP is that it will not be allowed a realistic
test program and won't take any risks.


You could get by on smaller launchers. Numerically, OSP is not much
of a step upwards in terms of capability than a number of other
concepts. It's a quesiton of "what precisely do you need" and "Is
OSP a stopgap measure before developing something else?"


Are there any cheaper US launchers with reasonable capacity?


Depends on the hard numbers in crew and cargo. An Atlas IIIB could
manage it of the vehicle and cargo is down around 5000kg when it goes
to ISS. (Just eyeballing that, btw). There is only 2000kg difference
between an Atlas IIIB and Atlas V lift capability to LEO at 28.6
degrees., but about $70 million difference, if I am reading Astronautix
correctly.

I would find it reasonable to develop an OSP capsule that is sized for
todays ISS requirements with some upgradability. The surest way of
making it a stopgap system is probably to build a single batch and the
best way of making it a sustainable system is probably to keep it in
production. If it turns out to be a stopggap or not will be decided by
history. I hope it will be obsoleted by private enterprise but that
might not happen. If a winged OSP is significantly more expensive to
build or upgrade then a capsule OSP I find it more likely that the
winged wehicle will be a dead end.


Hard to say. Depending on how they go, it could be that OSP could
be staged off a carrier in 10 years, if it should be possible to
replace the ELV with something useful.

My money is on another development path. This is a stopgap. They
can get something from the learnign curve on building it and
some levergable tech.

You could for instance use it for moon missions by redesigning the
service module for longer flight times, increase the thickness of the
heat shield and dock it with a habitat module with stores, toilet etc
that is docked with the moon lander. The habitat module could even
have some fuel tanks and feed the service module via the fuel plumbing
used to refuel ISS. A four ELV moon mission, Moon insertion stage,
moon lander, habitat module and fuel, and the OSP with its service
module.


The main thing would be the automated guidance system for unmanned
docking. That has been batted around and needs to be looked at more
closely for that solution.


Why not buy the russina(ukrainian?) technology and perhaps redesign it
with the same specifications but US components?


Unless I miss my guess, the work is all in the software. That
really isn't that transferable to items that have different command
sequences and latency times.