CEV PDQ

Ed Kyle wrote:



"http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/launch_abort.html"



Oh, that's pleasant! Did they tell the crew about the little fire problem?

Pat

Ed Kyle wrote:

Kliper, proposed as a Soyuz replacement, but able to carry
up to six, is projected to weigh 13-15 tons, but its
propulsion system will not be recovered (Lockheed has
proposed to make the CEV hardware recoverable). NASA has
listed the maximum liftoff mass of CEV, including escape
systems and fairings that would not go into orbit, to
be 20 tons. CEV doesn't have to weigh that much, of
course.



Kliper was too heavy for a Soyuz booster, and was to use an uprated
Onega booster- a Soyuz booster with a new LOX/LH2 upper stage. This was
later changed to the Zenit booster, which means you could theoretically
launch Kliper from a modified Sealaunch pad.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Still, how long would one have to get it all stuck together? Days or
weeks?
The Soviet's did a stage (Block D) that used an insulation sunshade
for
it LOX/Kerosene propellant on Proton-Zond and N-1:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/l1s_2.jpg
But do we have any experience with this sort of thing? The closest
we
came was the canceled Shuttle boosted Centaur stage.

I read somewhere that the original Saturn C-1 S-IV
stage internal insulation design was selected so that
the stage could eventually be used for earth orbit
rendezvous missions, where it would be parked fueled
in orbit for up to 30 days. The S-IV stage was to have
been the Saturn C-2 third stage and the Saturn C-3
third or fourth stage. The internal insulation design
carried over to the Saturn V S-IVB stage.

- Ed Kyle

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:


"http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/launch_abort.html"


Oh, that's pleasant! Did they tell the crew about the little fire
problem?

I'm almost certain they did, since emergency crew
evacuation (slide wire and all) was being considered.
But the potential seriousness of the whole event was
understated so much that I'm not even sure the news
media picked up on it. The abort itself was news
enough, because it fed into the "shuttle isn't working
- NASA isn't able to get it off the ground - can't
meet schedule" story of the time. (Which turned into
the "NASA is too schedule-driven" story after
Challenger disentegrated.)

- Ed Kyle

On Tue, 10 May 2005 09:19:45 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

" wrote in
message ups.com...

the DIV has to fly an odd trajectory (due to structural
concerns) that means that there are points in the ascent when abort is
*not* survivable.

Is that bad? Seems to me that it happens to STS as well.

Which is one of the several reasons that STS (to the surprise of many)
is not "human rated."

Alan Anderson wrote:

Yes. So? A lot of launches is not a problem. It's a *goal*.



It leads to a lot of assembly in orbit, more expense due to having to
design the vehicle in smaller pieces, and greater odds one component
won't make it to orbit, botching the whole assembly process- then there
is the turn-around time of the launchpad to consider.
Their is also the problem of how to get all the parts successfully
rendezvoused and docked in orbit- each must have its own guidance and
RCS systems to bring everything together in one spot in orbit- that
means that the assembled multipart spacecraft will have excessive
guidance and RCS systems and their weight attached to it...or at least
carried with it into orbit, like the way the Soviet Kvant module was
brought to Mir via the jettisonable FGB space tug:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kvant.htm

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Kliper, proposed as a Soyuz replacement, but able to carry
up to six, is projected to weigh 13-15 tons, but its
propulsion system will not be recovered (Lockheed has
proposed to make the CEV hardware recoverable). NASA has
listed the maximum liftoff mass of CEV, including escape
systems and fairings that would not go into orbit, to
be 20 tons. CEV doesn't have to weigh that much, of
course.

Kliper was too heavy for a Soyuz booster, and was to use an uprated
Onega booster- a Soyuz booster with a new LOX/LH2 upper stage. This
was
later changed to the Zenit booster, which means you could
theoretically
launch Kliper from a modified Sealaunch pad.

It's about time Russia accepted Zenit for what it
is - maybe the world's most perfectly conceived
(if not perfectly executed) space launcher. It is
the rocket that NASA would like to have for CEV -
kind of like an Atlas V on steroids - able to boost
a 14-15ish ton payload to low earth orbit with no
solid booster augmentation. It is the capability
Russia is trying, unneccessarily, to copy with its
Angara program. China and Japan would like to have
such a rocket, but they don't. Europe had to work
hard to get its Zenit (Ariane 5G) working.

Ukraine and Russia have had the perfect machine
for nearly 20 years. They just haven't used it.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in news:1115700375.069758.129750
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

It's about time Russia accepted Zenit for what it
is - maybe the world's most perfectly conceived
(if not perfectly executed) space launcher. It is
the rocket that NASA would like to have for CEV -
kind of like an Atlas V on steroids - able to boost
a 14-15ish ton payload to low earth orbit with no
solid booster augmentation. It is the capability
Russia is trying, unneccessarily, to copy with its
Angara program. China and Japan would like to have
such a rocket, but they don't. Europe had to work
hard to get its Zenit (Ariane 5G) working.

Ukraine and Russia have had the perfect machine
for nearly 20 years. They just haven't used it.

The Zarya 'super-Soyuz' would have been a great complement.
The FSU blew its budget on Buran instead.

--Damon

Ed Kyle wrote:

It's about time Russia accepted Zenit for what it
is - maybe the world's most perfectly conceived
(if not perfectly executed) space launcher. It is
the rocket that NASA would like to have for CEV -
kind of like an Atlas V on steroids - able to boost
a 14-15ish ton payload to low earth orbit with no
solid booster augmentation. It is the capability
Russia is trying, unneccessarily, to copy with its
Angara program. China and Japan would like to have
such a rocket, but they don't. Europe had to work
hard to get its Zenit (Ariane 5G) working.

Ukraine and Russia have had the perfect machine
for nearly 20 years. They just haven't used it.



I think it got sort of sidetracked when Energia went down the tubes,
followed by the Soviet Union going down the tubes.
It's a very impressive rocket looking for a very impressive payload to
carry.
Meanwhile, from far-off Hawaii, Jeffrey Bell looks at the CEV plan-
surprisingly, he doesn't like it ;-) :
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zl.html

Pat

On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:14:53 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .

Which is one of the several reasons that STS (to the surprise of many)
is not "human rated."

Well, it happens to airliners too. An abort (all engines out, no control
surfaces responding) is often not survivable. But they are still allowed to
fly.

Because, unlike a vehicle that has to be essentially rebuilt each
time, and only flies a few times a year (if that), they are reliable.