|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in message ... "HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa" wrote in message ... The Ruzicka Family a écrit dans le message : ... "Edwin Kite" wrote in message om... In deciding whether or not to fund NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane - a "space taxi" dedicated to crew transport, in contrast to the current "space truck" - Congressional mavens are making a faulty assumption. That is that because OSP will be launched on unproven Delta and Atlas-family rockets, it will be fundamentally no more By the time that OSP actually flys, both the Delta 4 and Atlas V will have flown many missions, with both commercial and government payloads. Both systems will be far from "unproven" by that time. In order to actually FLY the OSP, there will have to be some modifications made, especially with regard to avionics, adapter interface, etc. ALL of these mods will be made with the intent of actually making the launchers even MORE safe and reliable. Will they be 100% safe and reliable? No. No space launch system ever has been, nor ever will be 100% safe and reliable. But to say that the Delta 4 or Atlas V will be unproven by that time is not factually true. Remember that Ariane V is supposed to be Man-rated ( triple redundancy ). Would you take a flight on it at this time? Why would ANY Ariane be truly and fully man-rated. I can not imagine why this would be done, since it can be hideously expensive to man-rate a vehicle. And since Ariane is first and foremost a commercial launch vehicle, there is no economic incentive (as yet) to man-rate it. You guys may have forgotten this but in the late '80's the plan was floating around ESA to launch a manned space Shuttle, which looks remarkably similar to the OSP designs that NASA is currently studying. The plan was to use the Ariane 5 to launch the thing (called Hermes) so the Ariane 5 had to be man-rated at some point, and they probably designed it with manned flights in mind. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
Ultimate Buu wrote: You guys may have forgotten this but in the late '80's the plan was floating around ESA to launch a manned space Shuttle, which looks remarkably similar to the OSP designs that NASA is currently studying. The plan was to use the Ariane 5 to launch the thing (called Hermes) so the Ariane 5 had to be man-rated at some point, and they probably designed it with manned flights in mind. It got started with the Hermes in mind; but the Hermes suffered such weight gain during its design phase that it became less and less practical looking, and the modifications required to the Ariane V to carry it would have made it less than optimal for its commercial satellite mission- given the choice between a prestige spaceplane and a potentially money making booster, they went the commercial route, and ditched Hermes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we run into the same weight problem if we try to make an operational small spaceplane- I wrote a posting about this a few years ago: "They are hard to make from a mass-to-mission viewpoint though; I wrote a post about this around a year ago; here is the basic problem- any manned aerodynamic vehicle needs certain systems; for on orbit work it needs: Life support for it's crew, a means to maneuver itself, a means of radiating the heat created by it's crew and electronics, and sufficient space to carry a worthwhile mission payload (cargo, passengers, recon gear, death ray, etc.) Add to this, for landing: landing gear of some sort, heat shielding, aerodynamic control surfaces, fuel to deaccelerate from orbit, and avionics capable of both orbital and atmospheric control. Right from square one, it's obvious that is quite a bit to pack into a small vehicle- but it gets worse- the avionics for a thirty foot long shuttle will be about the same weight as a 130 foot long one...same with life support, control panel, seats, suits, and crew. Propellant storage tanks will be about the same thickness. Reaction control systems may be smaller, but will need all of the valves and pumping systems associated with a large system, and plumbing of equal tubing thickness to a large system. The amount of insulation to protect it during re-entry stays the same thickness and weight per square foot- and you have a lot fewer square feet to give you lift, so the mass of it goes up proportionately to that of the vehicle-the same applies to the skinning, and structural members of the machine. Then you hit the next thorny problem- heat dissipation- the material that keeps the heat out during re-entry tends to keep it in on-orbit; you need big radiators of some sort to make this work. We (the U.S.) thought this wouldn't be too difficult when we designed Dyna-Soar, and watched the weight steadily climb to where a Gemini capable on-orbit vehicle with a single man crew was going to need a Titan III or Saturn I to make orbit, all for the sake of greater cross-range on landing, and gliding in horizontally, the way that God, and the U.S. Air Force intended spacemen to land! With true Gaulic pride, the French tried the same idea twenty-odd years later with "Hermes"- and hit the same weight snag, as the vehicle got more and more complex, to the point where the payload had to be put into a jettisonable mission module on the back end along with the retrorocket and other vehicle systems- as it's original payload bay had to be given over to radiators. The Soviets took a crack at the problem with "Spiral"... and ran into the same weight-to-mission capability problem. We tried it again with the HL-20... this time it was going to take a Titan IV to get it into orbit! And all for some increased cross range on landing- you will notice that the semi-canceled ISS escape vehicle looks like a lifting body, re-enters like a lifting body, but floats down to earth under a parachute- which might make one ask... why not a ballistic capsule? The argument is "Greater Cross Range For Landing"- but a ballistic capsule could simply stay in orbit for a turn or two, until a suitable emergency landing site fell under it's orbital track." Pat |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Ultimate Buu wrote: You guys may have forgotten this but in the late '80's the plan was floating around ESA to launch a manned space Shuttle, which looks remarkably similar to the OSP designs that NASA is currently studying. The plan was to use the Ariane 5 to launch the thing (called Hermes) so the Ariane 5 had to be man-rated at some point, and they probably designed it with manned flights in mind. It got started with the Hermes in mind; but the Hermes suffered such weight gain during its design phase that it became less and less practical looking, and the modifications required to the Ariane V to carry it would have made it less than optimal for its commercial satellite mission- given the choice between a prestige spaceplane and a potentially money making booster, they went the commercial route, and ditched Hermes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we run into the same weight problem if we try to make an operational small spaceplane- I wrote a posting about this a few years ago: "They are hard to make from a mass-to-mission viewpoint though; I wrote a post about this around a year ago; here is the basic problem- any manned aerodynamic vehicle needs certain systems; for on orbit work it needs: Life support for it's crew, a means to maneuver itself, a means of radiating the heat created by it's crew and electronics, and sufficient space to carry a worthwhile mission payload (cargo, passengers, recon gear, death ray, etc.) Add to this, for landing: landing gear of some sort, heat shielding, aerodynamic control surfaces, fuel to deaccelerate from orbit, and avionics capable of both orbital and atmospheric control. Right from square one, it's obvious that is quite a bit to pack into a small vehicle- but it gets worse- the avionics for a thirty foot long shuttle will be about the same weight as a 130 foot long one...same with life support, control panel, seats, suits, and crew. Propellant storage tanks will be about the same thickness. Reaction control systems may be smaller, but will need all of the valves and pumping systems associated with a large system, and plumbing of equal tubing thickness to a large system. The amount of insulation to protect it during re-entry stays the same thickness and weight per square foot- and you have a lot fewer square feet to give you lift, so the mass of it goes up proportionately to that of the vehicle-the same applies to the skinning, and structural members of the machine. Then you hit the next thorny problem- heat dissipation- the material that keeps the heat out during re-entry tends to keep it in on-orbit; you need big radiators of some sort to make this work. We (the U.S.) thought this wouldn't be too difficult when we designed Dyna-Soar, and watched the weight steadily climb to where a Gemini capable on-orbit vehicle with a single man crew was going to need a Titan III or Saturn I to make orbit, all for the sake of greater cross-range on landing, and gliding in horizontally, the way that God, and the U.S. Air Force intended spacemen to land! With true Gaulic pride, the French tried the same idea twenty-odd years later with "Hermes"- and hit the same weight snag, as the vehicle got more and more complex, to the point where the payload had to be put into a jettisonable mission module on the back end along with the retrorocket and other vehicle systems- as it's original payload bay had to be given over to radiators. The Soviets took a crack at the problem with "Spiral"... and ran into the same weight-to-mission capability problem. We tried it again with the HL-20... this time it was going to take a Titan IV to get it into orbit! And all for some increased cross range on landing- you will notice that the semi-canceled ISS escape vehicle looks like a lifting body, re-enters like a lifting body, but floats down to earth under a parachute- which might make one ask... why not a ballistic capsule? The argument is "Greater Cross Range For Landing"- but a ballistic capsule could simply stay in orbit for a turn or two, until a suitable emergency landing site fell under it's orbital track." But most of these problems also apply to a capule as well, right? The short answer is: there ain't no easy answer. And the public perception is that going with a capsule would be a step backwards, so it ain't gonna happen. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
In sci.space.policy Ultimate Buu wrote:
But most of these problems also apply to a capule as well, right? The short answer is: there ain't no easy answer. And the public perception is that going with a capsule would be a step backwards, so it ain't gonna happen. ESA doesn't presently have a manned module - whetever winged or not - at all. How can anybody view having one over not having one as a step backwards? I could see reusability (trashing the entire module after each use sounds very wasteful) as being a goal, but why start with a bunch of prejudices as to how the manned orbit/reentry vechice should look like? -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
Am Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:28:46 CST schrieb "Pat Flannery":
As a conclusion the Ariane-5 can be seen as a principally man rated launcher by design, and it could "relatively" easy re-gain that "award" of actually BEING man rated. But the Hermes aspect got dropped well before the first one was built, were any of the man-rated design safety criteria relaxed in the interests of weight reduction and economy in the finished vehicle? .... I don't know for sure, but very much of developmental work was already done and set to "design frozen" status, even before "the first bolt was set". So it is possible (and will maybe be in fact so), that many safety features and redundancies were removed soon after that decision for weight and cost decrease. But IMO it is inherent in the launcher's design, principally thought to be man rated, so the re-gaining of real man rating should be much easier to achieve, than in a launcher that was never thought to be so, because many already developed design elements have 'simply' to be re-fit. I am not so a bloody non-technician to think it would be absolutely easy at all, but I am sure it should be a lot eas_IER_. And yes: I predict, that this will be done somewhen in a relative near future around 2005-2008 - maybe even accelerated by Columbia tragedy and the Chinese work that is done in the moment... cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / http://zili.de X No HTML in / \ email & news |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
Ultimate Buu wrote: But most of these problems also apply to a capule as well, right? The short answer is: there ain't no easy answer. And the public perception is that going with a capsule would be a step backwards, so it ain't gonna happen. The capsule is a lot less complex overall, particularly if it uses some sort of parachute/splashdown or parachute/landing rocket or impact bag system, as only the bottom surface really needs a heat shield of any great weight- if you can keep the size of that heat shield fairly small in diameter, as the Soviets did with Soyuz by using a separate on-orbit module for most of the crew activities as opposed to Apollo's large heatshielded CM, you can make some really impressive savings in vehicle weight; the complete Soyuz Earth orbital spacecraft weighed only 754 kg more than the Apollo CM, (Apollo CM-5806 kg; Soyuz 7K-OK spacecraft-6560 kg; the 7K-L1 Lunar-loop Soyuz variant reentry module was 10 kg lighter than the orbital variant's- 2800 kg vs the orbital one's 2810 kg; although the lunar one needed a better heat shield, the skip-style reentry profile and removal of the reserve parachute kept its weight down.) and actually has around 1/3 more internal volume for its crew (9 m3 vs. Apollo's 6.17 m3). The closer to a sphere the reentry module is, the more internal volume it has in relation to its external area; and the Soyuz "gumdrop" shaped small reentry module plus spherical orbital work area was a lot more efficient than the Apollo's conical "all in one" CM concept in this regard. Pat |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
h (Rand Simberg) wrote
(Allen Thomson) [sed] (Rand Simberg) wrote I think that he meant health monitoring the vehicle, so you know ASAP whether or not to abort. Oh. In that case, one can imagine a vast, multidimensional and nonlinear set of circumstances that need to be monitored and interpreted in realish time. Hopeless overall, but maybe you could pick out the major threats and try to identify predictive indicators. Yes, one of the many reasons that the concept of "man rating" is nonsensical in the twenty-first century. It would be interesting to review some previous accidents -- certainly the Shuttle and Soyuz ones, but also unmanned ones -- and ask what kind of vehicle health monitoring did or would have allowed the crew/ payload to punch out in time. Say the rescue system were just a capsule/escape rocket in the manner of Mercury/Apollo/Soyuz. What system(s) would have saved the crew/payload from, for example, the Titan 4 failures, Ariane 5, Proton, Zenit, etc? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On 14 Sep 2003 14:45:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, "The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Man-rating a vehicle also can entail modifying ground systems and such to enable a crew, on their own, to get out of the vehicle and away to safety in an emergency situation on the pad. If, as an example, there is no easy egress from the vehicle because the tower, or some other structure, has been rolled away, you might be in big trouble. That's not man rating a vehicle. That's designing a launch system to accommodate an on-pad abort. FWIW, NASA does include the ground systems in the man-rating concept. I'm finding this out through my involvement in launch facility studies for OSP. To me, man-rating boils down to one thing: increasing LV reliability to an acceptable number of nines. The trick is deciding how many nines one can afford or is willing to live with. Another area of man-rating involves modifying/adding avionics to enable health-monitoring of the crew. I've been told that that is NOT as easy or cheap as it may sound! That's the only vehicle change that I could see being worthwhile to add. Yeah, I'd agree with that, particularly if the spacecraft has a capable abort system. This issue is going to get *a lot* of discussion over the next year within OSP circles. -Kim- |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
reliability and survivability
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:49:08 CST, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: That's not man rating a vehicle. That's designing a launch system to accommodate an on-pad abort. FWIW, NASA does include the ground systems in the man-rating concept. I'm finding this out through my involvement in launch facility studies for OSP. To me, man-rating boils down to one thing: increasing LV reliability to an acceptable number of nines. The trick is deciding how many nines one can afford or is willing to live with. Then again, given the value of satellites, and the insurance rates, why didn't they design this way to begin with? -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|