EOR with Stick

Here's a thought. If NASA finds Congress balking at
the cost of a shuttle-derived heavy lifter, might it
then propose use of the SRB-J2S Stick as an Earth
Orbit Rendezvous launcher? Some proposed versions of
this launcher could boost 25-30 tonnes to LEO, so two
or three Stick launches could do an Early Lunar Access
type mission (or four or five could do an Apollo-mass-
like mission). Unlike the EELV launch pads, which
would require substantial upgrading to perform a
rapid-fire multiple launch set, Complex 39 would be
able to handle a three-Stick salvo in a few days (it
could do two in one day if needed) using existing
assets.

I'm wondering if Griffin will have a fallback position
like this in his pocket.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Here's a thought. If NASA finds Congress balking at
the cost of a shuttle-derived heavy lifter, might it
then propose use of the SRB-J2S Stick as an Earth
Orbit Rendezvous launcher? Some proposed versions of
this launcher could boost 25-30 tonnes to LEO, so two
or three Stick launches could do an Early Lunar Access
type mission (or four or five could do an Apollo-mass-
like mission). Unlike the EELV launch pads, which
would require substantial upgrading to perform a
rapid-fire multiple launch set, Complex 39 would be
able to handle a three-Stick salvo in a few days (it
could do two in one day if needed) using existing
assets.

Another plus to this concept might be that the
SRB-based Stick launcher's second stage could
also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS).
NASA's 2004 mission architectures called for use
of two EDS stages per lunar mission. An Earth
orbit rendezvous mission using 5-segment SRB
Sticks would require four launches. The total
mission would use six second stages (two in
the EDS role). This dual use would increase
common production and lower per-unit costs.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Here's a thought. If NASA finds Congress balking at
the cost of a shuttle-derived heavy lifter, might it
then propose use of the SRB-J2S Stick as an Earth
Orbit Rendezvous launcher? Some proposed versions of
this launcher could boost 25-30 tonnes to LEO, so two
or three Stick launches could do an Early Lunar Access
type mission (or four or five could do an Apollo-mass-
like mission). Unlike the EELV launch pads, which
would require substantial upgrading to perform a
rapid-fire multiple launch set, Complex 39 would be
able to handle a three-Stick salvo in a few days (it
could do two in one day if needed) using existing
assets.

Another plus to this concept might be that the
SRB-based Stick launcher's second stage could
also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS).
NASA's 2004 mission architectures called for use
of two EDS stages per lunar mission. An Earth
orbit rendezvous mission using 5-segment SRB
Sticks would require four launches. The total
mission would use six second stages (two in
the EDS role). This dual use would increase
common production and lower per-unit costs.

- Ed Kyle

Explain this, I don't get it. An Earth Orbit rdv would require four
launches but the total mission requires six with two used as EDS? What
do you mean? Explain the concept. is it four launches to get up the CEV
and whatever?
Are some of the launches supposed to transfer fuel to the EDS's,
because the second stage has to be burned for a substantial time post
SRB sep to get the stage into orbit--or are you hauling multiple most
empty stages into LTO?

What would be the configuration of the stages?

Tom cuddihy

Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Here's a thought. If NASA finds Congress balking at
the cost of a shuttle-derived heavy lifter, might it
then propose use of the SRB-J2S Stick as an Earth
Orbit Rendezvous launcher? Some proposed versions of
this launcher could boost 25-30 tonnes to LEO, so two
or three Stick launches could do an Early Lunar Access
type mission (or four or five could do an Apollo-mass-
like mission). Unlike the EELV launch pads, which
would require substantial upgrading to perform a
rapid-fire multiple launch set, Complex 39 would be
able to handle a three-Stick salvo in a few days (it
could do two in one day if needed) using existing
assets.

Another plus to this concept might be that the
SRB-based Stick launcher's second stage could
also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS).
NASA's 2004 mission architectures called for use
of two EDS stages per lunar mission. An Earth
orbit rendezvous mission using 5-segment SRB
Sticks would require four launches. The total
mission would use six second stages (two in
the EDS role). This dual use would increase
common production and lower per-unit costs.

- Ed Kyle

Explain this, I don't get it. An Earth Orbit rdv would require four
launches but the total mission requires six with two used as EDS? What
do you mean? Explain the concept. is it four launches to get up the CEV
and whatever?

Two launches put up Earth Departure Stages (EDS)
partially loaded with high-energy propellant. These
EDS stages, are not used during ascent, but simply
ride along as payload and are parked in low earth orbit.
To get these EDS stages into orbit, the launchers would
expend their second stages, which presumably could be
identical to the EDS stages, during ascent.

The third launch puts up the lander, which docks
to one of the EDS stages, along with some additional
propellant that can be fed or transferred to the EDS
stage. The fourth launch orbits the CEV (and crew),
which docks to the other EDS and also brings some
transfer propellant for it.

And off they go.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Two launches put up Earth Departure Stages (EDS)
partially loaded with high-energy propellant. These
EDS stages, are not used during ascent, but simply
ride along as payload and are parked in low earth orbit.
To get these EDS stages into orbit, the launchers would
expend their second stages, which presumably could be
identical to the EDS stages, during ascent.

The third launch puts up the lander, which docks
to one of the EDS stages, along with some additional
propellant that can be fed or transferred to the EDS
stage. The fourth launch orbits the CEV (and crew),
which docks to the other EDS and also brings some
transfer propellant for it.

And off they go.


Something like this, plus or minus a few details, was proposed
as the baseline mission in the late and forgotten "Roadmap"
studies. A heavish EELV was used as the launcher, IIRC. I kept
the PDF and could look it up, were anyone interested.

The thing that bothers me about this scheme is that, after all
that fuss, it basically gives us Apollo 1.5.

Ed Kyle wrote:
Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Here's a thought. If NASA finds Congress balking at
the cost of a shuttle-derived heavy lifter, might it
then propose use of the SRB-J2S Stick as an Earth
Orbit Rendezvous launcher? Some proposed versions of
this launcher could boost 25-30 tonnes to LEO, so two
or three Stick launches could do an Early Lunar Access
type mission (or four or five could do an Apollo-mass-
like mission). Unlike the EELV launch pads, which
would require substantial upgrading to perform a
rapid-fire multiple launch set, Complex 39 would be
able to handle a three-Stick salvo in a few days (it
could do two in one day if needed) using existing
assets.

Another plus to this concept might be that the
SRB-based Stick launcher's second stage could
also serve as the Earth Departure Stage (EDS).
NASA's 2004 mission architectures called for use
of two EDS stages per lunar mission. An Earth
orbit rendezvous mission using 5-segment SRB
Sticks would require four launches. The total
mission would use six second stages (two in
the EDS role). This dual use would increase
common production and lower per-unit costs.

- Ed Kyle

Explain this, I don't get it. An Earth Orbit rdv would require four
launches but the total mission requires six with two used as EDS? What
do you mean? Explain the concept. is it four launches to get up the CEV
and whatever?

Two launches put up Earth Departure Stages (EDS)
partially loaded with high-energy propellant. These
EDS stages, are not used during ascent, but simply
ride along as payload and are parked in low earth orbit.
To get these EDS stages into orbit, the launchers would
expend their second stages, which presumably could be
identical to the EDS stages, during ascent.

The third launch puts up the lander, which docks
to one of the EDS stages, along with some additional
propellant that can be fed or transferred to the EDS
stage. The fourth launch orbits the CEV (and crew),
which docks to the other EDS and also brings some
transfer propellant for it.

And off they go.

- Ed Kyle

Ah, clarity. I get it now. Instead of a two-stage stick, it's a 5
segment solid three-stage stick, with the third stage being a second
J2S upper stage. So four launches puts up '6 second stages' because
it's actually using 4 J2S upper stages to put up 2 J2S upper stags to
be used as EDSs..ok, either way, I see what you mean now. Just calling
them EDSs and second stages at the same time got me confused.

Do you think all the requirement to transfer propellant would add
weight and complexity to the EDSs / CEV launcher? Wouldn't that be
putting cargo and crew on the same stick?

tom

Allen Thomson wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Two launches put up Earth Departure Stages (EDS)
partially loaded with high-energy propellant. These
EDS stages, are not used during ascent, but simply
ride along as payload and are parked in low earth orbit.
To get these EDS stages into orbit, the launchers would
expend their second stages, which presumably could be
identical to the EDS stages, during ascent.

The third launch puts up the lander, which docks
to one of the EDS stages, along with some additional
propellant that can be fed or transferred to the EDS
stage. The fourth launch orbits the CEV (and crew),
which docks to the other EDS and also brings some
transfer propellant for it.

And off they go.

Something like this, plus or minus a few details, was proposed
as the baseline mission in the late and forgotten "Roadmap"
studies. A heavish EELV was used as the launcher, IIRC. I kept
the PDF and could look it up, were anyone interested.

The thing that bothers me about this scheme is that, after all
that fuss, it basically gives us Apollo 1.5.

Which brings us to what might end up being the "Griffin
Variation" of the "Roadmap", a "First Lunar Outpost"/"Early
Lunar Access" type mission that uses direct descent and
lunar surface rendezvous, with the crew capsule going
right down to the lunar surface and returning directly to
Earth without orbiting the Moon. The ELA architecture
could be performed by 5-segment SRB based launchers -
or by slightly souped-up EELV Heavies.

- Ed Kyle

On 11 Jul 2005 19:01:06 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Allen
Thomson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The thing that bothers me about this scheme is that, after all
that fuss, it basically gives us Apollo 1.5.

Exactly. It's tragic, really.

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

Do you think all the requirement to transfer propellant would add
weight and complexity to the EDSs / CEV launcher? Wouldn't that be
putting cargo and crew on the same stick?

Cryogenic propellant transfer would add some
complexity and a bit of mass to the upper
stage. It would also add some "program risk"
because large-scale cryo transfer has yet to
be demonstrated in orbit. Russia routinely
transfers non-cryo propellants at the space
station, but a cryogenic transfer based
architecture would require at least one
precusor mission to prove the concept. Still
to be decided is whether propellants will
actually be transfered or whether quick
disconnect tanks will simply be connected.

As for crew and cargo, the crew will already
have just completed a ride atop tens of tons
of such propellant - and will be docking to more
tens of tons of it, so a few more tons shouldn't
matter as long as good safeties and escape
options are available.

- Ed Kyle

As for crew and cargo, the crew will already
have just completed a ride atop tens of tons
of such propellant - and will be docking to more
tens of tons of it, so a few more tons shouldn't
matter as long as good safeties and escape
options are available.

- Ed Kyle

yes, except for it goes directly against what Griffen has testified
multiple times to Congress, that crew should be separated from cargo.

cuddihy