GRIFFIN'S DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED

GRIFFIN'S DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED

In recent weeks it has become clear that Michael Griffin, NASA's new
Administrator, is maneuvering to win support for development of a new
series of "shuttle-derived" launchers. By stating that he expected the
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) launch mass to grow beyond the
capabilities of any existing launch vehicle, Griffin effectively
leveled the playing field between shuttle-derived and Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) options.

In early May, in a speech at a meeting of Women in Aerospace, Griffin
said that the Project Constellation CEV should weigh no less than about
30 metric tons, more weight than could be carried by any vehicle
available to launch it today. Previously, NASA's CEV requirements had
called for a launch mass not to exceed 20 metric tons, a weight that
could be launched by current EELV (Boeing Delta IV and Lockheed Martin
Atlas V) designs.

On May 18, in a statement before a U.S. Senate subcommittee, Griffin
mentioned two possible paths toward development of a CEV launch
vehicle. The first path would be to develop a launch system derived
from the Shuttle components, specifically a single Solid Rocket Booster
(SRB) topped by a new upper stage. The second option would be to
upgrade the EELV heavy-lift designs, an effort that he said would also
require development of a new upper stage.

During the same presentation, Griffin reiterated his previous
commitments to both retire Shuttle in 2010 and to revise the CEV
program to make the new spacecraft available soon after the Shuttle
retires so that it could perform International Space Station (ISS)
support missions. With these commitments, Griffin deftly added a sense
of urgency to the CEV program - an urgency that seems intended to
leverage Congressional support for shuttle-derived launch vehicle
development.

Griffin told the subcommittee that, "a key aspect of the Agency's
analysis of alternatives will be to capitalize on existing technical
and workforce assets in a cost-effective and efficient way. NASA's goal
is to develop a CEV capable of operating safely soon after the
retirement of the Space Shuttle .... The existing Space Shuttle
infrastructure and workforce will be carefully evaluated, as their use
may enable more rapid development of crew and heavy lift capability
than other alternatives like Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles".

After reading the Griffin's statement, Boeing managers might be
clambering for a rebuttal hearing. While NASA is years away from
fielding a shuttle-derived launcher, Boeing has already launched Delta
IV Heavy. Able to boost 25 metric tons to low earth orbit (LEO),
Boeing's triple-barrel rocket is already the world's most powerful
expendable launch vehicle and would easily be able to launch a
reasonably-sized CEV. And contrary to Griffin's statement, Delta IV
Heavy could do it without needing a new upper stage.

Contemporary ballistic reentry manned spacecraft (Russia's Soyuz and
China's Shenzhou) weigh 7 to 8 tons. A new Russian lifting body concept
named Kliper, designed to haul up to six passengers with much more
internal space than Soyuz, would weigh 15 tons. The Apollo spacecraft
that were used to perform earth orbital missions weighed roughly 15-20
tons.

But Griffin's heavy 30 ton CEV has moved the bar up beyond what the
current Delta IV or Atlas V designs, or any other rocket in the world
for that matter, can carry, sending a clear message both to the EELV
manufacturers and to the U.S. Air Force, who funded much of the EELV
development effort.

What is the message? The message is that Griffin isn't planning on
using their rockets.

- Ed Kyle
"www.geocities.com/launchreport/weblog.html"

Ed Kyle wrote:

On May 18, in a statement before a U.S. Senate subcommittee, Griffin
mentioned two possible paths toward development of a CEV launch
vehicle. The first path would be to develop a launch system derived
from the Shuttle components, specifically a single Solid Rocket Booster
(SRB) topped by a new upper stage.

That's a very interesting idea; it gets rid of a lot of the time
problems associated with building a new booster (assuming they exceed
the Delta IV Heavy/Atlas V payload capability with CEV's weight), and
would be fairly simple and reliable to use... plus, the first stage now
becomes reusable.

Pat

Considering the likes of the Bigelow prize? What odds would people give
of a commercial manned capsule design getting to LEO first?

If this does happen, what are the odds of the NASA effort dieing a quiet
death?

With the requirement to also develop a new heavy launch vehicle, they
seem to be dealing themselves out of the race.

Pete.

"Pete Lynn" wrote in
:

Considering the likes of the Bigelow prize? What odds would people
give of a commercial manned capsule design getting to LEO first?

Not too likely. It's more than an order of magnitude greater in
difficulty of development and execution over a SpaceShipOne
suborbital hopper.

If this does happen, what are the odds of the NASA effort dieing a
quiet death?

If it's nothing more than three or four people up and down, with no
rendevouz/docking capability and no cargo capability, none.

With the requirement to also develop a new heavy launch vehicle, they
seem to be dealing themselves out of the race.

I do get the feeling Griffin's shooting himself in the foot.

--Damon

Pete Lynn wrote:

Considering the likes of the Bigelow prize? What odds would people give
of a commercial manned capsule design getting to LEO first?


A capsule capable of re-entry from an interplanetary trajectory... seems
the odds would be low.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

That's a very interesting idea; it gets rid of a lot of the time
problems associated with building a new booster (assuming they exceed
the Delta IV Heavy/Atlas V payload capability with CEV's weight), and
would be fairly simple and reliable to use... plus, the first stage now
becomes reusable.

The assumption that NASA needs a launch vehicle bigger than a Delta IV
Heavy/Atlas V Heavy is a terribly bad assumption. Launching components to
LEO and docking them together should allow the building of vehicles large
enough to return to the moon and go on to Mars.

Furthermore, NASA is supposed to be bound by law to buy commercial launches
whenever it is possible. Considering how hard of a time Atlas and Delta are
having, I'd hate to see NASA turn their backs on commercial launch vehicles
and build their own.

Lastly, any sort of shuttle derived vehicle is going to necessarily require
the retention of much of the shuttle ground infrastructure and "standing
army". Because of this, it also would retain the high cost of shuttle
launches. This is something that even NASA ought to be against. The low
flight rate and high cost of the shuttle should not be repeated by creating
a shuttle derived vehicle.

I hope that Congress realizes this and puts a stop to it now. They
certainly don't want a repeat of the shuttle/ISS experience (e.g. repeated
redesigns due to mounting costs).

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

The assumption that NASA needs a launch vehicle bigger than a Delta IV
Heavy/Atlas V Heavy is a terribly bad assumption. Launching components to
LEO and docking them together should allow the building of vehicles large
enough to return to the moon and go on to Mars.



But that way you end up with the parasitic weight of the rendezvous and
docking gear on each of the modules, plus the necessity of
interconnecting their control systems so that they function as one.

Furthermore, NASA is supposed to be bound by law to buy commercial launches
whenever it is possible.


NASA may have taken a dim view of the proposed LockMart-Boeing space
services merger and what it would mean in regard to pricing of
commercially bought boosters. If you are required to buy commercially,
and you have a sole-source supplier, then you have a situation where
that sole-source supplier can charge whatever it wants. Other firms may
get a slice of the action in the small booster field, but the 500 pound
gorilla that the merger will create is going to be awfully hard to beat
in the medium/heavy lift category unless one is willing to to look to
foreign manufacturers as able to bid on a launch on equal terms with
American companies.

Considering how hard of a time Atlas and Delta are
having, I'd hate to see NASA turn their backs on commercial launch vehicles
and build their own.

Lastly, any sort of shuttle derived vehicle is going to necessarily require
the retention of much of the shuttle ground infrastructure and "standing
army". Because of this, it also would retain the high cost of shuttle
launches. This is something that even NASA ought to be against. The low
flight rate and high cost of the shuttle should not be repeated by creating
a shuttle derived vehicle.


The SRB is a fairly low tech piece of machinery, and it could be stacked
right at the launch site from its component sections, eliminating the
need for the VAB and the crawler transporter, and then have the upper
stage and CEV put on it after it was assembled. That would cut down on
the manpower requirerments. It also has the fact that it is a proven
design going for it- if considered separately, we've had 216 SRB
flights with one failure; that makes it hands-down the single most
reliable large booster rocket ever built, with a failure rate of better
than .5%.

I hope that Congress realizes this and puts a stop to it now. They
certainly don't want a repeat of the shuttle/ISS experience (e.g. repeated
redesigns due to mounting costs).



Unfortunately, one can see that being exactly what happens based on
recent NASA experience in regards to new spacecraft design. The project
gets started, then around half way through, we decide that we don't need
what we are designing or run into a technical snag, and start all over
again from scratch.
They should have a real sit-down discussion and figure out exactly what
they want and what it's designed to specifically do before they go
rushing ahead with the design, like they seem to be doing now. The
Soviets carefully thought out Soyuz before they built it, and the fact
that they made the right decisions gave them a quite versatile
spacecraft that could be kept in use at a economical price for decades
to come.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jeff Findley wrote:
The assumption that NASA needs a launch vehicle bigger than a Delta IV
Heavy/Atlas V Heavy is a terribly bad assumption. Launching components
to
LEO and docking them together should allow the building of vehicles large
enough to return to the moon and go on to Mars.

But that way you end up with the parasitic weight of the rendezvous and
docking gear on each of the modules, plus the necessity of
interconnecting their control systems so that they function as one.

This is true, but you're assuming that the parasitic weight matters. It
doesn't matter so much if you're saving money by using commercial launch
vehicles instead of maintaining the shuttle launch facilities and paying the
standing army for a handfull of shuttle derived vehicle launches each year.

Also, some of the systems can be pared down to a bare minimum if you work on
*real* space infrastructure like a reusable LEO space tug. Many "modules"
would be very passive, like LOX or fuel tanks, and would be picked up by the
tug. The tug would then "dock" the module to the vehicle being assembled.
This way, the docking mechanism and control systems on a fuel tank would be
minimal.

Furthermore, NASA is supposed to be bound by law to buy commercial
launches
whenever it is possible.

NASA may have taken a dim view of the proposed LockMart-Boeing space
services merger and what it would mean in regard to pricing of
commercially bought boosters. If you are required to buy commercially,
and you have a sole-source supplier, then you have a situation where
that sole-source supplier can charge whatever it wants. Other firms may
get a slice of the action in the small booster field, but the 500 pound
gorilla that the merger will create is going to be awfully hard to beat
in the medium/heavy lift category unless one is willing to to look to
foreign manufacturers as able to bid on a launch on equal terms with
American companies.

If NASA build its own shuttle derived vehicle, it will own its own 500 pound
gorilla. From NASA's point of view, it would at least have some control
over its own gorilla. From the nation's point of view, that's one gorilla
too many.

Considering how hard of a time Atlas and Delta are
having, I'd hate to see NASA turn their backs on commercial launch
vehicles
and build their own.

Lastly, any sort of shuttle derived vehicle is going to necessarily
require
the retention of much of the shuttle ground infrastructure and "standing
army". Because of this, it also would retain the high cost of shuttle
launches. This is something that even NASA ought to be against. The low
flight rate and high cost of the shuttle should not be repeated by
creating
a shuttle derived vehicle.

The SRB is a fairly low tech piece of machinery

Surely you jest. It's got to the the most complex SRB ever built. The
thrust vector control system is pretty complex. You've even got a flexible
joint for the nozzle, which is very complex compared to your "typical"
strap-on SRB on the side of an ELV. There is also the recovery system,
which you don't have on other SRB's. Remember the joints aren't simple
either, and I'm talking not only about the casings, but the fuel itself.
Simple SRB's don't have segments and have their fuel cast in one piece to
eliminate joints, which are a possible point for burn through issues.

, and it could be stacked
right at the launch site from its component sections, eliminating the
need for the VAB and the crawler transporter, and then have the upper
stage and CEV put on it after it was assembled. That would cut down on
the manpower requirerments. It also has the fact that it is a proven
design going for it- if considered separately, we've had 216 SRB
flights with one failure; that makes it hands-down the single most
reliable large booster rocket ever built, with a failure rate of better
than .5%.

My gut feel is that if *any* shuttle derived vehicle is built, it will use
the VAB, MLP's, crawlers, and the shuttle pads. Are any other large,
segmented solids stacked at the pads?

I hope that Congress realizes this and puts a stop to it now. They
certainly don't want a repeat of the shuttle/ISS experience (e.g.
repeated
redesigns due to mounting costs).

Unfortunately, one can see that being exactly what happens based on
recent NASA experience in regards to new spacecraft design. The project
gets started, then around half way through, we decide that we don't need
what we are designing or run into a technical snag, and start all over
again from scratch.

For the station program, this was most often (always?) usually due to cost
overruns. Remember the year that NASA "discovered" $4 billion in overruns?

They should have a real sit-down discussion and figure out exactly what
they want and what it's designed to specifically do before they go
rushing ahead with the design, like they seem to be doing now. The
Soviets carefully thought out Soyuz before they built it, and the fact
that they made the right decisions gave them a quite versatile
spacecraft that could be kept in use at a economical price for decades
to come.

Now you're going to have Derek after you. ;-)

Part of the success of the Soyuz launcher is the fact that the
Soviets/Russians have figured out ways to use it without requiring it to
grow much, as US launchers seem to do over the years. You don't see the
latest Soyuz launchers sporting large segmented solid rocket boosters like
Titan III/IV.

Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy are plenty big enough. A real spacefaring
nation would figure out a sustainable LEO architecture capable of flying
missions with these vehicles rather than resorting to a shuttle derived
launch vehicle.

Firstly, an assembly space station at KSC's inclination would go a long way
towards this goal. It would provide power, cooling, consumables, airlocks,
robotic arms, and a reusable space tug to support assembly of interplanetary
craft in LEO. It would enable possible (eventual) reuse of components
returning from the moon (using tricks like aerobraking).

Such a station need not be as complex as ISS. After all, who cares about
the microgravity environment aboard an assembly station? Make it gravity
gradient stabilized and be done with nasty issues like active three axis
stabilization. If you're not doing science aboard it, who cares that you
dump your waste fluids and gasses overboard? The interplanetary craft can
keep its instruments behind protective covers until it leaves LEO.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

It doesn't matter so much if you're saving money by using commercial
launch
vehicles instead of maintaining the shuttle launch facilities and
paying the
standing army for a handfull of shuttle derived vehicle launches each
year.

Assumign you're using actual commercial vehicles with low cost, sure.
But we're talkign about EELV. Neither truly commercial, nor low cost.

If NASA build its own shuttle derived vehicle

NASA is not really in the business of building *any* vehicles.

It's got to the the most complex SRB ever built.

And even so it's vastly cheaper than an EELV core.

Jeff Findley wrote:

My gut feel is that if *any* shuttle derived vehicle is built, it
will use
the VAB, MLP's, crawlers, and the shuttle pads. Are any other large,
segmented solids stacked at the pads?

There were, but the last one may be on the pad now. That
would be the Titan IV stacked on Vandenberg SLC 4E.

India's PSLV and GSLV launchers, which have a core segmented
solid rocket stage that is about 1/3rd the mass of Titan's
SRMU (augmented by *liquid* strap-on boosters in the GSLV
configuration) were also stacked on a fixed pad, but this
practice also ended this year with the opening of a new pad
that features a rail-mobile launch platform. Ariane 5 rolls
on rails, of course, as does Japan's H-IIA (which now uses
single-segment SRBs). Delta IV and Delta IIH may be the
biggest SRBs (nonsegmented tho) that are actually still
attached to the vehicle while it stands on a launch pad.
(Atlas V's SRBs are attached in the VIF).

I can't think of any others.

- Ed Kyle