OSP requirements

I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

"Flying, like the sea, is not inherently dangerous... just extremely
unforgiving"

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?

I am kind of torn between large and small.

A simple capsule would require over a dozen launches a year giving some
needed volume.

A larger space plane would need only 3 or 4 launches a year but help to
develop heavy lift.

A capsule should be both cheap and quick to develop.

A large space plane while more expensive to develop has better follow on
when a reusable first stage is developed.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:00:23 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:


"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?

I am kind of torn between large and small.

A simple capsule would require over a dozen launches a year giving some
needed volume.

A larger space plane would need only 3 or 4 launches a year but help to
develop heavy lift.

A capsule should be both cheap and quick to develop.

A large space plane while more expensive to develop has better follow on
when a reusable first stage is developed.



Which launch facilities will an OSP use? Is NASA going to use Pads 37
& 40 for an OSP, or will it be assembled in the VAB and ride the
crawler to Pads 39A & B? It's kind of the same dilemma that NASA faced
with the Saturn IB for the Skylab project.

Now where did that Milk Stool go? ;-)

I favor a capsule system. But I don't think any one vehicle type is
the complete solution to orbital access. There is a place for both
planes and capsules. Now if we only had the money for both.

With a capsule system you can start out simple and add complexity as
needed. A capsule is a basic Crew Return Vehicle. Add a Service Module
and you have a Crew Transfer Vehicle. Add an Orbital, Cargo or Boost
Module and you have a Space Station supply and reboost vehicle.

Start out with a parachute or parasail landing system. Later, add a
rotor or roton type landing system if possible or practical. Or as
Henry mentioned a hot air balloon!

A capsule launch escape system has already been designed, tested, used
and proven to work.

You just can't land on a runway or return large objects from orbit
with a capsule.

But, wings are not much use on the way to the moon or Mars. ;-)

"Rusty Barton" wrote in message
...
Which launch facilities will an OSP use? Is NASA going to use Pads 37
& 40 for an OSP, or will it be assembled in the VAB and ride the
crawler to Pads 39A & B? It's kind of the same dilemma that NASA faced
with the Saturn IB for the Skylab project.

That's the subject of several trade studies going on right now (and which
I'm lucky enough to participate in - seems that USA pad rat experience was
good for something, after all). A number of interesting options are in play,
involving SLC 37A & B, 39, 40, and 41. Imagine being asked to design a pad
that can handle two different launch vehicles - that's the challenge of the
Cx 39 study. Add to that the confusion of being given three generic shapes
for OSP and having to accomodate them in the design. Not knowing where the
crew hatch is going to be adds more uncertainty These are just studies,
providing ROM numbers and lots of ideas, but I don't know how the decision
process will flow after the studies are done.

But, wings are not much use on the way to the moon or Mars. ;-)

Chesley Bonestell thought they were!

-Kim-

"Kim Keller" wrote in message m...
"Rusty Barton" wrote in message
...
Which launch facilities will an OSP use?

That's the subject of several trade studies going on right now (and which
I'm lucky enough to participate in - seems that USA pad rat experience was
good for something, after all). A number of interesting options are in play,
involving SLC 37A & B, 39, 40, and 41. Imagine being asked to design a pad
that can handle two different launch vehicles - that's the challenge of the
Cx 39 study. ...

With currently planned EELV launch rates averaging only 2
per year per vehicle and with neither EELV agressively
competing for commercial launches, an all-new launch pad
is the last thing NASA needs to pour money into, IMO.
When Shuttle is retired, NASA should scrap LC 39 to save
money.

- Ed Kyle

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
With currently planned EELV launch rates averaging only 2
per year per vehicle and with neither EELV agressively
competing for commercial launches, an all-new launch pad
is the last thing NASA needs to pour money into, IMO.

The EELV launch rate will go up. The current doldrums are just an interlude.
Everything - a new pad (actually, two new pads - one Delta , one Atlas),
modified pads, and modifying 39 are all on the table and being traded
vigorously.

When Shuttle is retired, NASA should scrap LC 39 to save
money.

Personally, I don't see 39 coming out on top in this. Making it - and the
integration facility - compatible with two different vehicles is just such a
complex engineering problem.

-Kim-
*my opinions, not my employers'*

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

With currently planned EELV launch rates averaging only 2
per year per vehicle and with neither EELV agressively
competing for commercial launches, an all-new launch pad
is the last thing NASA needs to pour money into, IMO.
When Shuttle is retired, NASA should scrap LC 39 to save
money.


If we use Delta and Atlas for supplying the station along with launching the
OSP you add 10-25 launches a year.
15 rockets a year for each launcher would be a good jump start.

Dholmes wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?

I am kind of torn between large and small.

A simple capsule would require over a dozen launches a year giving some
needed volume.

A larger space plane would need only 3 or 4 launches a year but help to
develop heavy lift.

A capsule should be both cheap and quick to develop.

A large space plane while more expensive to develop has better follow on
when a reusable first stage is developed.


Most of those questions are the same ones we asked at the beginning
of shuttle development.

We ended up settling for a system that was (allegedly) cheaper to
develop, but more expensive to operate. Not that NASA didn't want the
TSTO all flyback stage designs that would have been the reverse, but it
soon became clear that Congress wouldn't pony up the higher up-front
costs, and there was much controversy over what the expected traffic
models were most realistic. The more traffic to orbit you expect, the
more a vehicle with lower operating costs (in spite of higher
development costs) make sense.

However, one of the opposing arguments was that a Mars mission would
be one of the projects for which this shuttle would be used for (NASA
would still be only user, after all), and this was a way of pulling the
rug from beneath the idea.

Similarly, you have to ask what an OSP will be used for. Mostly ISS
servicing? Do you dare suggest it might have the capacity of also
supporting another large manned project? (Moon/Mars/Near Earth Asteroid,
take your pick) Some people still don't want to hear that....

And are its payload capacity (volume and weight) and operating costs
such that there might be a commercial interest? NASA has long said it
wants a vehicle that is a convergence of the two. Others say (and I'm
strongly inclined to agree) that the needs are so different that such a
one-size-fits-all convergence may not be possible.

Joann Evans wrote:
Dholmes wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?


I am kind of torn between large and small.

A simple capsule would require over a dozen launches a year giving some
needed volume.

A larger space plane would need only 3 or 4 launches a year but help to
develop heavy lift.

A capsule should be both cheap and quick to develop.

A large space plane while more expensive to develop has better follow on
when a reusable first stage is developed.



Most of those questions are the same ones we asked at the beginning
of shuttle development.

We ended up settling for a system that was (allegedly) cheaper to
develop, but more expensive to operate. Not that NASA didn't want the
TSTO all flyback stage designs that would have been the reverse, but it
soon became clear that Congress wouldn't pony up the higher up-front
costs, and there was much controversy over what the expected traffic
models were most realistic. The more traffic to orbit you expect, the
more a vehicle with lower operating costs (in spite of higher
development costs) make sense.


I will point out that it was necessarily Congress' fault. NASA
deliberately underestimated the costs and expected Congress to
pony up the funds later.

NASA had a number of projects they could have gone with. A much
smaller Shuttle, such as Faget's proposal, were fundable. And
a number of proposals for leveraging off the Saturn V line would
have been partially expendable, but would have kept the US Heavy
launch capability.


However, one of the opposing arguments was that a Mars mission would
be one of the projects for which this shuttle would be used for (NASA
would still be only user, after all), and this was a way of pulling the
rug from beneath the idea.

Similarly, you have to ask what an OSP will be used for. Mostly ISS
servicing? Do you dare suggest it might have the capacity of also
supporting another large manned project? (Moon/Mars/Near Earth Asteroid,
take your pick) Some people still don't want to hear that....

And are its payload capacity (volume and weight) and operating costs
such that there might be a commercial interest? NASA has long said it
wants a vehicle that is a convergence of the two. Others say (and I'm
strongly inclined to agree) that the needs are so different that such a
one-size-fits-all convergence may not be possible.

"Bob Martin" wrote:
I'm interested in seeing what you guys would come up with if you were
writing the requirements for the OSP. Any takers?

I would not work it as a contract but as a prize / purchase.
Set a date along with performance and cost requirments and
announce that NASA will most definitely buy a certain
quantity of services or vehicles that meet the requirments
on that date from whichever company (or whichever two
companies perhaps) provides the cheapest and best.

Though it might be easier and better to work it as a prize.