2nd CLV giant problem: SINGLE 2nd stage SSME engine

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the first stage may have all the engines it need because it will be reusable<br /><br />after burning, an SRB is a giant piece of heavy metal, while, a iquid-engines' rocket with (empty) tanks (and additional "rocket-lifebelt"), may float on top of the ocean without any damage for engines<br /><br />I suggest to use the SSME because NASA (appear to) absolutely WANT to use them... but my (true) opinion is that the new (liquid-engines) CLV must have a completely different design (when it will be ready I will publish my proposal on my website and a link here)

 

[najab]

><i>...but my (true) opinion is that the new (liquid-engines)...</i><p>Make your mind up - in one post you criticise NASA because they aren't using an "existing readily available cheap rocket" and in another you propose developing a completely new engine.</p>

 

[strandedonearth]

No, he wants to use a cheap, existing engine, but won't suggest which one, if there is one which fits the bill. When he finds one, it'll need to be man-rated, so... 3+ years anyways.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the engine need 4 years... but, after, you need to... build the 2nd stage with tanks... test on earth... test alone... test with 1st stage for separation, etc... test with a dummy CEV/SM... thest all abort-modes... test with an unmanned CEV... test with crew... the first real flight may happen after 2015...<br /><br />GREAT PART of the CEV/CLV problems born from NASA decision to build a 23 tons CEV for six astronauts despite 99% of orbital and lunar flights will be with FOUR and launch in space an extra 33% of DEAD-WEIGHT!!!<br /><br />it's appear... (to me...) ...that is NOT the big CLV built for the CEV... but a "BIG CEV" (with 33% of unused space/weight!) built to "need" a BIG CLV... with SRB... SSME... Shuttles' tank... TWICE the money for R&D... three times the cost per launch... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc... instead of a low cost rocket...

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I don't suggest NASA to design a new engine (it's clearly a waste of time and money) but to use already available engines (or, BETTER, a ready available rocket and a 12 ton CEV)

 

[strandedonearth]

CEV usage is not set in stone. ISS missions can be for 3-6 crew. Lunar missions will have 4 crew, with the extra space for supplies, etc. Space and mass will not be wasted in any case. If there's space, it will be used.

 

[josh_simonson]

The numbers are out, everyone should visit spaceref and read the extensive information thats available on these systems: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19094 Anyone discussing this stuff without READING and comprehending (ahem) these documents will simply make a fool of themselves.<br /><br />Now as for gaetanos reliability complaints, the CLV is already 3x more reliable than the HLV - from NASAs own calculations. Notably they picked the most reliable vehicle for the crew and the largest reliable vehicle for the cargo. Gaetano proposes using an existing rocket, but as you can see, there is no existing man-rated rocket we can use. Man-rated EELVs are expensive and less reliable the the proposed shuttle derived alternatives. <br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>... but to use already available engines ...</i><p><b>WHICH</b> engine? You already suggested 2xSSME (which won't work) so what's your suggestion now?</p>

 

[josh_simonson]

Here's the HLVs and the reliability for various archetectures:<br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

Loss of mission as percent risk posed by various phases:

 

[najab]

How about a couple of F-1's?

 

[josh_simonson]

An loss of crew as percentage of risk in various phases: <br />As you can see, the risk to the mission from the CLV is only 4% and to the crew is only 3% of the TOTAL risk they're taking. This isn't a trip to the supermarket folks, and there's better places to focus on making the mission and the crew safer.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I suggest to use four/five ALREADY available engines for 2nd stage (NASA may choice the better engine for that purpose) </font><br /><br />WHICH engine that is ALREADY BUILT ????? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

Gaetanomarano, the full report on the ESAS is now available on-line. It lays out how the whole system will work, in detail, from launch abort tests, to Earth orbit, the Moon, and even some very interesting facts about Mars missions. It also reveals why the various elements of the system were chosen; why this engine, why that shape, and why others were not used. The whole program, from now to Mars, is a system where each piece is considered in its relationship to the whole scheme. <br /><br />This report is long, and it has a lot of acronyms. I do respect the fact that you are dealing with a tough language (English), but if you really care about the exploration of space, it would be worth your time to try to read this report. <br /><br />This report was not put together by politicians, although the engineers and scientists who wrote it knew that politics, money, and technology were all factors in how this system would be received. I believe they did a very good job. <br /><br />We all have things that we would like to see happen in space, someday. I have my own list, and some of it is definitely in the realm of science fiction. But, here in the real world, we have to deal with tough realities, and this report is how the United States proposes to accomplish space exploration for real during the next few decades, using limited funds and limited political will to achieve quite a lot. <br /><br />If you are not willing to acquire some good knowledge about the system you so constantly attack, you simply label yourself as just another crackpot. That word means "a person with crazy ideas that have no basis in reality" Gaetanomarano, and that word is already being used on other forums to describe you. <br /><br />Please. Take a break from the constant posting and read the ESAS report.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the time to design and test a bad or good rocket is similar<br /><br />using ready available engines you SAVE time since you can jump the "first step" (design the engine) and go NOW to the "second step" (design the rocket)<br /><br />with SRB and SSME (that need changes) the "second step" will start in 2008 (when the changes are made)

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />with this ISS and the planned LSAM I don't see so much missions for six... if there will be one or two, these (VERY RARE) missions can be made with two CEVs

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />if you really believe in these charts, you're too smart (as a contractors' PR man...) or (sorry) VERY INGENUOUS!!!<br /><br />this is "food for the press"... and for your Congress...<br /><br />compare the reliability of UNEXISTING rocket or rocket's design that have NEVER fly with (and, some, without crew... since they don't exist...) is like compare the reliability of Star Trek's Enterprise with Star Wars' Millennium Falcon!!!<br /><br />I've dozens of images like this with different (some very strange) pre-CLV NASA designs (before the "final choice") like the different pre-CEV design I've seen in the ESAS draft report<br /><br />but I've never posted them because they don't demonstrate absolutely NOTHING<br /><br />it's incredible that you use this image as the FINAL EVIDENCE that CLV is THE BEST<br /><br />do you (really) don't see the "trick"???<br /><br />ALL indistries (from food to cars to softdrinks) use it... put some products in a table and use the numbers to demonstrate that YOUR product is THE BEST and the others are sh...<br /><br />or... put two dozens of rockets on a chart with some numbers (that you MUST believe because they come from giant and respected agencies and companies... despite no one have tested them or explained the origin of that numbers...) and give the BEST SCORE to the rocket YOU want (the rocket you have ALREADY decided to build BEFORE you draw the "chart" for the sheeps...)<br /><br />do you want I demonstrate to you that this chart and its numbers are NOT true?<br /><br />you can see on the top of all rocket the LAS... it MUST be very reliable to save the crew also in the MOST catastrophic disaster... but if the LAS will save the crew in 99.999% of bad events...ALL configurations MUST have the SAME "LOC" because the "LOC" of the LAS is the "LOC" of the entire rocket+crew!<br /><br />if the LAS fails to save the crew is (e.g.) "1 in 3000"... ALL configurations MUST have a LAS of "1 in 3000" or better!<br /><br />a good "man-rated" rocket can only INC

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />NASA is able (much better than me and you) to do that choice... but, when I will have exact figures, I will give "my opinion" about it

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />as I've explained in other posts (please read them) two SSME may be sufficient with a 12 tons CEV (because also the 2nd stage is lighter) but, if they are not sufficient, NASA can use three SSME (the 1st stage is reusable) or other LIQUID engines' rockets that are ABLE to launch a capsule in orbit (do you remember... Gemini... Apollo... Soyuz...)

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">Here's the HLVs and the reliability for various archetectures:</font><br /><br /><br />ooooooh! this second image is really AMAZING!<br /><br />in the first image there are a pair of rockets that exist in some configurations and have made flights<br /><br />in this second image ALL rockets are UNEXISTING (and will NEVER exist) ...but have made hundreds flights in the NASA engineers' minds... so they know which rocket is the most reliable!<br /><br />I don't believe to my eyes!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">"...less reliable the the proposed shuttle derived alternatives..."</font><br /><br />it's incredible that, the same people who DON'T want the Shuttle (because is dangerous), WANT to build the new "reliable" rockets with the Shuttles' parts... and NOT the MOST RELIABLE part (the Orbiter) but the most DANGEROUS parts (SRB and Main Tank) that was the origin of the Challenger and Columbia disasters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />do you know that in the world there are dozens of different (working) rockets and ALL use "engines"?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I can't comment your last two "pies" because it need too time and too space on this thread (but you can imagine my opinion...)<br /><br />I only remember to you a story (thath probably you already know) I've read about the Shuttle (I've not a link but if I found it I post here)...<br /><br />I've read that one of the MAIN reason of NASA decisions to build the Shuttle (and to build it with that design) and of Congress' decision to give the funds, was NOT a good made scientific and engineering research with experiments, models, tests, prototypes, etc., but a (WELL PAID) "study" of an unknown private "space consulting agency" that (with lots of charts and figures) ASSURED to NASA managment that build a Shuttle can be done at low price, its servicing will be fast, easy and cheap, its flight may be up to 100 per year, the market is FULL of customers that wait to launch "things" in orbit and the entire Shuttle program will be so profitable for NASA to finance the public debt!<br /><br />I don't remember the exact words and figures I've read on internet... but the report was similar to this post in optimism...

 

[gaetanomarano]

six crewmen...<br /><br /><br />I've explained DOZENS of times my opinion about CEV launches with six astronauts for ISS and Mars... but, if you have not the time to (only) "read" ONE of these posts, I can't have the time to repeat them dozens times only for you

 

[dobbins]

/*ad hominem deleted*/