CEV development cost rumbles

On or about 04 Mar 2004 13:42:46 GMT, Jorge R. Frank
made the sensational claim that:
This is similar to what Gen. Deal proposed in CAIB appendix D: a layer of
ablative in between the crew cabin and the forward fuselage shell. The
concept has some challenges. One, it makes the orbiter even more nose-heavy
than it already is. This is bad because the orbiter CG has to be in a
fairly small "box" in order for the flight control system to work (this is
a problem with many shuttle escape-system concepts, BTW). Two, there's lots
of wiring running in the gap between the fuselage and the cabin, and adding
ablative would make that wiring much less accessible for inspection/repair.
Aging Kapton wiring is a major safety concern for the fleet now. So this is
not an unmitigated win for safety.

Of course, you're talking about an OV-200 design while Deal was talking
about the existing orbiters.

Would you need an ablative in a Columbia type situation? I imagine other
improvements would mitagate such a repitition anyway. My major concern with
this approach is how to get the astros out in a semi-sane manner, i.e. I can't
imagine them crawling around in a falling, probably damaged cabin. I've got
visions of the entire aft bulkhead just going bye bye, but how do you ensure
that in a situation of the type we're talking about here? I'm not smart enough
to figure that one out, and I'm sure you're still going to be wanting to beef
up the suits to handle any debris in the area. But this is exactly the reason
I believe a 200 series is almost necessary. There are definately things which
could be fixed in a new build that can't be patched into an existing vehicle.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

rk wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

The first PEM missile was launched in August of 1968, the first
operational deployment was in 1971. (I was a bit overboard in my
claim of a 'decade'.) I'll have to dig around and see if I can find
what kind of RAM was used in the Polaris.

K. What was the memory capacity and wire size?

1k of 24 bit words. I don't have the wire size.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , Derek Lyons wrote:
Chris Bennetts wrote:

A fleet of OV-200s would be a fine idea. The price isn't bad, and the
vehicle would be based on a reasonably well-understood design.
Unfortunately, it'll never get up due to the lack of a launch escape
system.

Oh? Let me borrow the time machine you used to see the designs for
the OV-200 series, I need to check out some future stock prices.

Isn't OV-200 generally interpreted as 'shape, size, plugs, stay - but
make the rest better'? - which'd imply that the designs, at least as
regards LES and other such macro-changes, are pretty firm.

The concept of OV-200 has been interpreted in a wide variety of way,
from simply plug-compatible to plug- and moldline- compatible and
beyond.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(dave schneider) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
LooseChanj wrote:

Actually, Derek, many of those who have been shuttle supporters for a
long time have been slowly picking up on what the capsule people have
been saying: winged designs are hard, so lets put off doing another
winged design for a while, pick an easy design and see if we can get
the flight rate up. Have the research centers continue to work on TPS
designs, let DOD do a scram jet, and then revisit winged vessels when
we have better materials and/or design.

Putting it off won't make it easier, especially considering that the
real problems have nothing to do with TPS designs or scram jets.

Seperately, many of us who have been reusable space craft supporters
for a long time have been slowly picking up on what the expendable
people have been saying: reusable designs require high flight rates
to avoid being expensive (and worse, expensive up front), so lets
concentrate on making reliable expendables that can get the flight
rate up on a pay-as-you go basis, and then use those reliable
components in steps to getting back to reusable craft.

The problem is; expendables with any significant capability won't be
cheap either. All you are saying is Apollo was cool, the Shuttle
sucks, so let's avoid re-useables.

The key to lowering expenses is reducing the standing army, which
applies regardless of winged or not, expendable or not. The next key
is lowering capital expenses, which is difficult to do with
expendables unless you have a fairly high flight rate resulting in
mass production.

Ultimately, achieving CATS isn't about engineering, it isn't about
cheap spacecraft. It's about managing capital, it's about designing
systems and processes, it's about a metric buttload of things that
have nothing to do with bending metal or pumping fuel. CATS
supporters ignore this at their peril.

The shuttle is sexy, major impressive, and has done things that Apollo
designers would give right arms for. But it requires heroic efforts
to be usable. Apollo required heroic efforts. But the route to CATS
requires something where heroic is too much. The fabled "airliner
flight-line turnaround" is part of the discussion, and EELVs are a
step closer; DC-X was a step closer; Falcon-V and Spaceship One are
steps closer. Maybe Kliper is a step closer.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of things can happen between prototypes and
viewgraphs and an operational spaceline.

200-series orbiters are possible. But they would be only an
incremental improvement in design, and Big Bucks items as much as Buck
Rogers. Capsules designs on make significant advances over Apollo for
better bang for the Big Bucks.

And in the end, you wrap up with the same statement you started.
Apollo was cool, therefore capsules are cool, the Shuttle sucks,
therefore winged vehicles suck.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

jeff findley wrote:
Expendables didn't "get" popular. The only entity trying to reuse
launch vehicles is NASA (and perhaps the carrier planes used by
Pegasus), and they've had a very poor record of reducing costs by
using a "reusable" vehicle.

When a single instance can change your figure of merit significantly,
that means your figure of merit is not a reliable guide. This is true
whether analyzing safety statistics as in determining which approach
is better than another.

Or to put it simply; Once again, your argument can be reduced to
'Apollo was cool, Soyuz is cool, the Shuttle sucks. Therefore all
capsules are cool and all winged vehicles suck.'

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(dave schneider) wrote:
Hardware is irrelevant. A 386 is probably more than enough.

Perhaps, but there are a lot more navigational computations

Easily handled by a single 386 with a proper OS and application
software.

and a lot more systems to monitor on a vessel doing 18-month flights with aa
limited number of navigational buoys,

I find it unlikely that a space vehicle for an 18 month flight will be
more complex than a Trident submarine. Which submarine does all it's
monitoring, all it's combat operations, all it's everything with the
equivalent of about 6-8 386's.

so allowing more memory, faster processing, and more tasks may turn out
to be an important feature by 2020.

I find that unlikely. Most people use a wintel box and it's
increasing problems as their reference. Problem is, wintel systems
have almost nothing to do with what a properly designed system with a
proper OS and application software can do.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

rk wrote:

Here's a url for the 1967 Electronics Research Center report.

http://66.113.195.245/history/histor...224/d-4224.htm

Nice document.

Herb's earlier comment about design drivers;

The biggies for an SLBM are weight and size. Both tube volume and the
total weight of the bird have extremely hard upper limits. In
addition, the position of things like the access hatches and umbilical
connections are fixed. (This is what lead to the 3rd stage hack for
the C-4.)

In addition swappable components like a GS must be handleable within
the confines of the missile and must fit through existing acess
hatches.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) writes:

jeff findley wrote:
Expendables didn't "get" popular. The only entity trying to reuse
launch vehicles is NASA (and perhaps the carrier planes used by
Pegasus), and they've had a very poor record of reducing costs by
using a "reusable" vehicle.

When a single instance can change your figure of merit significantly,
that means your figure of merit is not a reliable guide. This is true
whether analyzing safety statistics as in determining which approach
is better than another.

That was my point. There is only one "reusable" vehicle, so how
could expendables "get popular" when they've been doing the bulk of
the lifting all along?

Or to put it simply; Once again, your argument can be reduced to
'Apollo was cool, Soyuz is cool, the Shuttle sucks. Therefore all
capsules are cool and all winged vehicles suck.'

That's not what I meant at all. I was replying to this:

Expandables got popular when the russians were able to offer a seat for 20
million bucks to tourists. And they got popular whenever the shuttle was
delayed (and now grounded) while Soyuz/Progress always launch on time.

Expendables didn't "get popular" because the Russians started selling
seats for $20 million. Besides the shuttle (and the aircraft which
lifts Pegasus), expendables are the *only* way to get anything into
orbit. Furthermore, you can't launch anything commercially, including
people, on the world's only "reusable" vehicle, so it was *never* in
commercial competition with those $20 million Soyuz seats.

Commercial launches on the shuttle were banned after Challenger. This
put a bad taste in the mouths of many who had to "go back" to
expendables. This has nothing to do with the shuttle versus capsule
debate. It does have something to say about the government monopoly
on human space flight issue (which will hopefully change soon).

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

rk wrote:

(snipped good stuff)

Yes, I'm very interested!

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
[...]
Putting it off won't make it easier, especially considering that the
real problems have nothing to do with TPS designs or scram jets.

So what are the real problems with winged vehicle design, and how can
we address them in a timely manner? [Also, don't be lead astray by my
mentioning scram jets -- in this context, they are just a way to test
TPS]

[...]
The key to lowering expenses is reducing the standing army, which
applies regardless of winged or not, expendable or not. The next key
is lowering capital expenses, which is difficult to do with
expendables unless you have a fairly high flight rate resulting in
mass production.

Which is the point about buying LVs that other people are buying;
Ariane and Semayorka aren't currently acceptable answers when NASA
pitches to Congress, but we do have a couple choices.


Ultimately, achieving CATS isn't about engineering, it isn't about
cheap spacecraft. It's about managing capital, it's about designing
systems and processes, it's about a metric buttload of things that
have nothing to do with bending metal or pumping fuel. CATS
supporters ignore this at their peril.


Indeed.

The shuttle is sexy, major impressive, and has done things that Apollo
designers would give right arms for. But it requires heroic efforts
to be usable. Apollo required heroic efforts. But the route to CATS
requires something where heroic is too much. The fabled "airliner
flight-line turnaround" is part of the discussion, and EELVs are a
step closer;

[...]

Look up above, where you said

The key to lowering expenses is reducing the standing army, which
applies regardless of winged or not, expendable or not.

Compared to the Shuttle, and probably to S-V, you'll find D4 and A5
are way ahead on this. And the Shuttle's standing army goes to
reusable components (TPS, SSMEs, and SRBs).


And in the end, you wrap up with the same statement you started.
Apollo was cool, therefore capsules are cool, the Shuttle sucks,
therefore winged vehicles suck.

No, I think the Shuttle is cool, and I'd join the ride to HST if I
could.

The Shuttle's ability to Bring Things Back is unparalled, and I'm
watching to see how this problem gets solved in the next generation.
It *will* be an important issue for serious Moon work, not to mention
sample returns from Mars.

The Problem with the Shuttle is that it is at the edge of things that
we know how to do, especially in terms of reentry, and (possibly from
being at the edge) requires a huge standing army.

A CEV using a capsule would have a much smaller standing army, part of
which would be shared by DOD and other customers, and the LV is much
closer to mass production.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing how a lifting body CEV might
measure up, like some of the Kliper-related pics, or HL-20. It seems
that the TPS issues are more manageable there because LBs have fewer
hot spots than winged vehicles do.

I'm definitely not having a knee-jerk reaction against WVs; it took a
lot of persuasion to get me to see the above viewpoint. It is true
that one design or the other goes in or out of fashion at various
times. In the long run, I think we need to do both (though not always
at the same time) in order to actually get past our current
limitations.

/dps