NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

On 09/16/2010 02:06 PM, Bill C wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:29 am, Robert wrote:
Just saw this:

NASA: Change of heart on new rocket that would reuse shuttle parts?
Design puts engines underneath familiar orange external fuel tank,
with solid rocket boosters on sides and capsule on top.

How will this compare with the Shuttle?

Will it cost less to operate?

Should be between 1/2 and 2/3 the shuttle cost, due to the absence of
the orbiter.

Will it have faster turn around between launches?

Are the capsules reusable?

The CM is in theory reusable while the SM is expendable. But in practice
the CM will not be reused for quite a while. So the turnaround depends
on how fast the production rate is. Right now there is no requirement
for more than two flights per year.

Would it be possible for NASA to buy Soyuz capsules for use with this
until they have a capsule of their own?

There would be no point, since it would be far more expensive than
buying launches of Soyuz capsules on the much smaller Soyuz launcher.

On 09/16/2010 03:58 PM, David Spain wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
The basic premise on shuttle was $10 Million/launch, 2 week
turnaround, 50 launches/year, much smaller ground crew than actual. So
I think you're saying - They're going with the same old bad approach
that hasn't really worked for the last 30 years - once more with feeling.

Right. The *really* interesting figures are the recurring ones ULA (or
whoever is doing the ground ops) charges to launch Direct

Would be USA doing the ground ops, not ULA. ULA does EELV, USA does
shuttle and would be prime for a shuttle-derived vehicle like Direct.

On 09/16/2010 08:14 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:06:29 -0800, Pat
wrote:

I just want to know what the payload is supposed to be, as we have
nothing in the pipeline that needs that much lifting capability.

I think they're simply biting the bullet to put an end to the chicken
vs. egg syndrome. "We'd build a big payload if we had a big rocket"
versus "we'd build a big rocket if we had a big payload." They're
assuming funding for an actual payload will come along later. "If you
build it, they will come."

Right. The reality is that the LV and the payloads cannot be developed
in parallel due to budget constraints, so serial development must be
accepted. It makes even less sense to develop payloads with no LV than
the other way around.

On 9/16/2010 12:42 PM, Rick Jones wrote:


Long-term orbital storage of paper copies of the Federal budget.

It's heavy lift...it's not a Sea Dragon.
Such a concept would require multiple launches per year, and assembly in
orbit. ;-)

Pat

On 9/16/2010 5:14 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

I think they're simply biting the bullet to put an end to the chicken
vs. egg syndrome. "We'd build a big payload if we had a big rocket"
versus "we'd build a big rocket if we had a big payload." They're
assuming funding for an actual payload will come along later. "If you
build it, they will come." In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with
flying an Orion and an MPLM on the same flight... we're still going to
be short on uplift to the ISS, even if Dragon and Cygnus meet their
goals (big if.)

Does this sound a lot like the Shuttle?
"If you build it, they will come."?
And as long as they forced the military to launch on it, or offered such
huge launch cost write-offs to commercial payloads that they were losing
millions or tens of millions of dollars per launch...they did indeed
_almost_ start having customers showing up in large numbers.

Pat

On 9/16/2010 3:53 PM, David Spain wrote:

Fine with me if Boeing wants to fund Marshall to develop Direct and pay
for the ground ops through ticket sales and expansion of the Disney
monorail eastward....

You know, Boeing did something like this twice before; first time around
it was getting government funding for the development of the KC-135
cargo plane/tanker and turning it into something called a 707; next time
it was getting government funding to design an entry in the C-5 heavy
cargo plane competition, moving the wing from the top to the bottom
after they lost that to Lockheed, and calling the result the 747.
I liked the part in the article where they state it could be launched on
a Falcon 9.
I imagine Elon Musk is thinking: "Yeah...and it could also be carried
into orbit by those winged monkeys that just started flying out of my ass."

Pat

On Sep 17, 2:57*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/16/2010 3:53 PM, David Spain wrote:

Fine with me if Boeing wants to fund Marshall to develop Direct and pay
for the ground ops through ticket sales and expansion of the Disney
monorail eastward....

You know, Boeing did something like this twice before; first time around
it was getting government funding for the development of the KC-135
cargo plane/tanker and turning it into something called a 707; next time
it was getting government funding to design an entry in the C-5 heavy
cargo plane competition, moving the wing from the top to the bottom
after they lost that to Lockheed, and calling the result the 747.
I liked the part in the article where they state it could be launched on
a Falcon 9.
I imagine Elon Musk is thinking: "Yeah...and it could also be carried
into orbit by those winged monkeys that just started flying out of my ass.."

Pat

The Falcon 9 'Heavy' masses 885 tonnes at launch and can lift 35
tonnes into LEO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

I have a launch vehicle that makes use of the External Tank as a
reusable airframe lifted by an aerospike engine built into the base of
the External Tank that produces as much thrust at 9 Merlin engines -
by making use of three RS-68 pump sets to feed the aerospike engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

Seven reusable External Tanks can loft 700 metric tons into LEO.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

A sub scale version of this system 1/20th the size, of the full scale
tests out all the procedures for the larger one, that makes use of
eight RL-10 pumps to feed a smaller aerospike engine

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/amps1.htm

The key to low cost space access is creating a highly reusable flight
system. One that doesn't take a lot of maintenance or support to fly,
one that doesn't throw away parts. This means that careful attention
is paid to details that drive up costs. No expensive tiles, no
sophisticated flight envelopes, no super-performing engines. Just
plain vanilla all the way through. This is how Max Faget wanted to do
a shuttle, and its how Werner vonBraun wanted to do a multi-staged
launcher.

Making all the flight elements the same size, and equipping them with
cross-feed saves money, because you're building and flying one air
frame. We are already building External Tanks at Michoud - so that's
a plus.

Making use of existing hardware like RS-68 pumps, and modifying them
to support operation of an aerospike engine also cuts costs.

Reusable inflatable thermal protection on the nose and base of the
External Tank, technology we've proven in flight hardware since 1962,
is another way to cut costs. Using fold-away wing systems that
deploy after the air frame reaches subsonic speeds and avoiding the
ability to maneuver significantly supersonically and hypersonically
saves money. Capturing the gliding air frame mid-flight downrange
with a tow plane like we did with Corona capsules in the 1950s and 60s
- saves money. Igniting the engine at the end of flight, and
producing only 60 tonnes of thrust (as opposed to 1,000 tonnes)
pulling from a glide into vertical and landing the airframe like a
tail sitter of the 1950s or like the LEM in the 1960s or DC-X in the
1990s also saves money.

Building a reusable airframe allows a flight testing program used by
airplane developers, and radically reduces costs by using the same
airframe in progressively more capable tests without having to build
more airframes.

A single airframe for example can complete almost the entire test
program. Two airframes can do the entire program before production of
the other five.

On Sep 17, 9:24*am, William Mook wrote:
The key to low cost space access is creating a highly reusable flight Making all the flight elements the same size, and equipping them with
cross-feed saves money, because you're building and flying one air
frame. *We are already building External Tanks at Michoud - so that's
a plus.


Do we have the technology to build a space plane that can bring access
to space within reach of the average "middle class" American? If so,
can we do it within say the next decade?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:29:32 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I think they're simply biting the bullet to put an end to the chicken
vs. egg syndrome. "We'd build a big payload if we had a big rocket"
versus "we'd build a big rocket if we had a big payload." They're
assuming funding for an actual payload will come along later. "If you
build it, they will come." In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with
flying an Orion and an MPLM on the same flight... we're still going to
be short on uplift to the ISS, even if Dragon and Cygnus meet their
goals (big if.)

Does this sound a lot like the Shuttle?

No. Shuttle was intended to handle an existing market of payloads
launched on Atlas, Delta and Titan, which would then be phased-out
(Atlas and Delta indeed were, only to be put back into production.)
There was already a market for Shuttle launches (just not enough to
justify the high-cost Shuttle.) This was in the pre-Ariane era,
remember. The US was launching the rest of the free world's payloads,
too.

But the government isn't forcing anyone else to use SD-HLV, which has
the objective of enabling future BEO exploration (whether SD-HLV is
the right way to do so is another matter). However, I wouldn't be at
all surprised if the DoD does express interest in a launch or two once
SD-HLV moves from paper to real world.

Brian