A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle Derived Launchers - Safe, Simple, Soon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 26th 05, 07:53 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
...He said that the Northrop/Boeing's CEV
design could be launch by *existing* Delta IV vehicles.
That does not jive with pronoucements made by both
Griffin and ATK officials that the EELVs would need
new upper stages (just like "The Stick") to lift CEV.


It could be that the Northrop/Boeing CEV design is not as elephantine as a
certain other contractor's design.

ATK is hardly a disinterested observer. Griffin is harder to call -- he
may just be assuming worst-case CEV mass, or he (like ATK) may have a
preferred solution in mind and may be picking the numbers which support it
best.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #23  
Old June 26th 05, 09:22 PM
Douglas Holmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Murray Anderson" wrote in message
...

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian Thorn wrote:
Well, these pretty pictures are all definitely for public relations
and politics, not engineering. But you can easily make the same claim
about the LockMart Atlas-5 based heavy-lifter in this week's AvLeak.
At least for the SDLV, all the essential elements have either been
tested or are in service, even the 5-segment SRB. The Atlas 5 Super
Heavy seems to require new tooling for a wider core stage and a new
pad to launch it from.


That part of that AWST issue that I found most
interesting was the statement attributed to Boeing VP
Chuck Allen. He said that the Northrop/Boeing's CEV
design could be launch by *existing* Delta IV vehicles.
That does not jive with pronoucements made by both
Griffin and ATK officials that the EELVs would need
new upper stages (just like "The Stick") to lift CEV.

- Ed Kyle


If it's a 20 ton CEV Delta IV should have no problem, with 25 tons it
would
probably need twin RL10's and an upper stage with more propellant than the
small Delta IV upper stage, but less then the large upper stage.
It's the same with the SRB launcher, the 20 ton might get away with a J2
engine, but 25 tons would require an SSME. This is a bait-and-switch type
situation, whereby a nonexistent launcher with J2/SSME is proclaimed
better
than an existing launcher that needs a comparatively minor upgrade to the
upper stage - then we learn that only the SSME (with extended nozzle, and
altitude start capability) will work, and the lower stage will require a
bit
of work to make the steering function in a highly unstable design.


You hit the nail on the head.
The Stick is basically the Ariane 5 without the upper stage.
Except the Ariane 5 can not out lift the Atlas or Delta Heavies.



  #24  
Old June 26th 05, 09:24 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Kyle wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:

Well, these pretty pictures are all definitely for public relations
and politics, not engineering. But you can easily make the same claim
about the LockMart Atlas-5 based heavy-lifter in this week's AvLeak.
At least for the SDLV, all the essential elements have either been
tested or are in service, even the 5-segment SRB. The Atlas 5 Super
Heavy seems to require new tooling for a wider core stage and a new
pad to launch it from.



That part of that AWST issue that I found most
interesting was the statement attributed to Boeing VP
Chuck Allen. He said that the Northrop/Boeing's CEV
design could be launch by *existing* Delta IV vehicles.
That does not jive with pronoucements made by both
Griffin and ATK officials that the EELVs would need
new upper stages (just like "The Stick") to lift CEV.

- Ed Kyle



Yes. The original CEV requirements were written so that
existing launchers could be used. That was kinda the point
of OSP and CEV. Limit the development costs by focussing on
one area and examine exactly what they need, not necessarily
what they want. Even then CEV was a lot heavier than other
manned vehicles in roughly the same class. (To date, IIRC, the
only operational manned vehicles to weigh in over 10
tons is Shuttle and the lunar lander. That is separating Apollo CM from
the Service module. I count the lunar module with its lander as one
piece as it was the minimal mass for its job, whereas the Service
Module in the CSM varied greatly in mass dependant upon its mission. I
*think* they might have used ASTP as the planning mass for the CEV).

Looking at http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cev.htm

The CEV requirements included:

* Support a minimum crew of four from the Earth's surface through
mission completion on the Earth's surface.
* Mass less than 15 to 18 tonnes (the precise value to be
determined in preliminary contract studies).
* Abort capability during all phases of flight. Preferably such
abort capability would be available continuously and independent of
Launch Vehicle (LV) or Earth Departure Stage (EDS) flight control.
* Integrate with the Constellation Launch Vehicle (LV) to achieve
low earth orbit.
* Integrate with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) to achieve lunar
orbit.
* Integrate with the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) to achieve
lunar surface mission objectives. Preferably the CEV would be capable of
transferring consumables to and from the EDS and the LSAM.
* Maximum use of existing technology.
* Open Systems Architecture. Referral common hardware and software
between equipment built for acceptance testing of the flight system and
the ground support equipment used to process the vehicle at the launch site.
* Simple interface between the CEV and Launch System to optimise
integration.
* Certification by test to the maximum extent possible.

seriously, the requirements are approximately identical to the one
for the Apollo CM with a LEO Service Module component. The ASTP
Apollo CSM massed about 15000kg, and there is a oof of weight that
could be trimmed off that. When you start to see numbers double
demonstated technologies 40 years old, alarm bells start ringing.
These guys have an agenda that is not on the paper in front of them.

Flat out: The SDLV being proposed for CEV violates the maximum
use clause. The requirements originally put out there as well as
historical evidence is that this can be done in the EELV range.
If you can do the CEV proposal on all existing launch hardware and be
able to concentrate additional development on the CEV itself, then
you have very little ancillary costs and those would be associated with
mating issues. But, to build both CEV and launch vehicle splits the
money available. It also fudges quite a bit on that "abort on all
phases" clause as SRB's abort stages tend to be "but the crew was
killed" type aborts.

Nah, I think politics won. They have a predetermined technical
solution and they are going to make sure it wins.
  #25  
Old June 26th 05, 09:24 PM
Douglas Holmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian Thorn wrote:
Well, these pretty pictures are all definitely for public relations
and politics, not engineering. But you can easily make the same claim
about the LockMart Atlas-5 based heavy-lifter in this week's AvLeak.
At least for the SDLV, all the essential elements have either been
tested or are in service, even the 5-segment SRB. The Atlas 5 Super
Heavy seems to require new tooling for a wider core stage and a new
pad to launch it from.


That part of that AWST issue that I found most
interesting was the statement attributed to Boeing VP
Chuck Allen. He said that the Northrop/Boeing's CEV
design could be launch by *existing* Delta IV vehicles.
That does not jive with pronoucements made by both
Griffin and ATK officials that the EELVs would need
new upper stages (just like "The Stick") to lift CEV.


Based on Boeing's program proposal at:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/cer_reports.html
Which may or may not be accurate reference for Northrops CEV.
The CEV comes in at 20 tons including 7.8 tons of fuel and an escape system.
With only the fuel needed for ISS that would be about 13 tons including
an escape tower. That is a Delta IV 5,4.
Even 20 tons can be done on single stick models if you use 2 RL-10s.

The entire thing seems to way in around 45 tons which a 125 ton LEO
vehicle with an upper stage can put in Lunar orbit.




  #26  
Old June 26th 05, 09:38 PM
Reed Snellenberger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rand Simberg wrote:

Yes, I suspect that the only thing that they can really use from the
existing ET program is the barrel sections. Otherwise, it's really a
new tank.


They just need enough structure to transmit the thrust to the intertank
area, which is designed to handle the combined thrust loads from the
orbiter and both solids. The LH2 tank essentially "hangs" from the
intertank during launch -- the rear orbiter and SRM supports don't see
any significant thrust loads. It may be as simple as a change in the
milling that's done on the ET skin sections (removing less) to add (or
strengthen) the existing truss-like structure in the LH2 skin.

Another, "Goldbergian" solution could be to add a lattice structure that
extends from the thrust "module" and extends the length of the LOX tank
to the intertank. Since you can also reduce the SOFI thickness (you no
longer care so much about ice, but just boil-off), the weights may trade
off.

Propellant lines can remain essentially the same -- just re-direct them
to an interface on the (likely) thrust assembly below the ET that holds
the SSMEs. The lines are obviously large enough for a 3 SSME booster --
since you've eliminated the pressure drop caused by the current sharp
right-angle turn into the orbiter, the lines may actually be adequate
for a 4 SSME booster.

Add a lengthened cylinder above the intertank that rises above the LOX
tank, and you're done -- assuming that you add a "droppable" interstage
like the S-II's to compensate for the length of the upper stage's
engines & the exhaust bells.

Since the booster's SSME's no longer have to fit in the re-entry shadow
of the shuttle, do you change the nozzle and/or bell geometry? Do we
need to air-start the SSMEs (a la Titan III & IV), or just light
everything off on the ground the way we do now?

Reed
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com
  #28  
Old June 26th 05, 09:54 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Well, these pretty pictures are all definitely for public relations
and politics, not engineering. But you can easily make the same claim
about the LockMart Atlas-5 based heavy-lifter in this week's AvLeak.
At least for the SDLV, all the essential elements have either been
tested or are in service, even the 5-segment SRB.


Well, except for the ET. The current ET is designed to absorb loads along
the side through the intertank (orbiter and SRB forward attach points) and
the aft ring (orbiter and SRB aft attach points). The SDLV ET will have to
take thrust loads through the bottom of the tank, and to take the weight of
the payload from the top (which will also necessitate redesigning the LOX
tank ogive).


That depends on which version of the SDLV you look at. The first two
on the chart[1] use standard ET's, only the third requires
modifications.

[1] see:
http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets.../evolution.jpg
from http://www.safesimplesoon.com/media-images.htm

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #29  
Old June 26th 05, 09:59 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 26 Jun 2005 10:01:14 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Brian Thorn wrote:
Well, these pretty pictures are all definitely for public relations
and politics, not engineering. But you can easily make the same claim
about the LockMart Atlas-5 based heavy-lifter in this week's AvLeak.
At least for the SDLV, all the essential elements have either been
tested or are in service, even the 5-segment SRB. The Atlas 5 Super
Heavy seems to require new tooling for a wider core stage and a new
pad to launch it from.


That part of that AWST issue that I found most
interesting was the statement attributed to Boeing VP
Chuck Allen. He said that the Northrop/Boeing's CEV
design could be launch by *existing* Delta IV vehicles.


That was their original design goal.

That does not jive with pronoucements made by both
Griffin and ATK officials that the EELVs would need
new upper stages (just like "The Stick") to lift CEV.


They obviously have different notions.
  #30  
Old June 26th 05, 10:05 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


From: Reed Snellenberger


They just need enough structure to transmit the thrust to the intertank
area, which is designed to handle the combined thrust loads from the
orbiter and both solids. The LH2 tank essentially "hangs" from the
intertank during launch -- the rear orbiter and SRM supports don't see
any significant thrust loads. It may be as simple as a change in the
milling that's done on the ET skin sections (removing less) to add (or
strengthen) the existing truss-like structure in the LH2 skin.


Another, "Goldbergian" solution could be to add a lattice structure that
extends from the thrust "module" and extends the length of the LOX tank
to the intertank. Since you can also reduce the SOFI thickness (you no
longer care so much about ice, but just boil-off), the weights may trade
off.

Propellant lines can remain essentially the same -- just re-direct them
to an interface on the (likely) thrust assembly below the ET that holds
the SSMEs. The lines are obviously large enough for a 3 SSME booster --
since you've eliminated the pressure drop caused by the current sharp
right-angle turn into the orbiter, the lines may actually be adequate
for a 4 SSME booster.

Add a lengthened cylinder above the intertank that rises above the LOX
tank, and you're done -- assuming that you add a "droppable" interstage
like the S-II's to compensate for the length of the upper stage's
engines & the exhaust bells.

Since the booster's SSME's no longer have to fit in the re-entry shadow
of the shuttle, do you change the nozzle and/or bell geometry? Do we
need to air-start the SSMEs (a la Titan III & IV), or just light
everything off on the ground the way we do now?

Reed


This is going to need a fair bit of re-engineering anyway, it sounds like...

Why not go all the way and put the oxygen tank on the *bottom*?

Phil
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY Times Blockbuster: NASA Officials Loosen Acceptable Risk Standards for Shuttle. Andrew Space Shuttle 10 April 24th 05 12:57 AM
STS-114: Space Shuttle Return to Flight: For NASA's Jody Terek, 'Technical Conscience' Equals Shuttle Safety Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 April 19th 05 10:00 PM
No New Shuttle Flight Unless Rescue Mission Can Be Guaranteed Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 11 March 30th 05 10:22 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 4 March 2nd 04 08:00 AM
The wrong approach Bill Johnston Policy 22 January 28th 04 03:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.