Changes to CaLV

[j05h]

Spaceref has an article on changes to the Cargo HLV. Maybe Shuttle_Guy or another pro can help, what does this mean? It says they've cancelled the new engine research contract. Does this mean they're changing to RS68 or other? Alternatively, are they dropping the entire HLV?<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20593<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Looks like their going for the RS-68 or at least not the expendable SSME (RS-25) as the cancelled contract was for those. This is a good thing, the engine already exists and is cheaper than the projected cost of the expendable RS-25. However due to the lower performance the core stage of the CaLV will have to get bigger, perhaps by expanding to a diameter of 10m.

 

[j05h]

So the CaLV goes from being Shuttle-derived to Delta-derived? Hey, it'll be a more modern design then.<br /><br />If we're talking about a truly heavy-lift vehicle, a wider base diameter makes a lot of sense. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Just imaging what a biglow habitat could look like if it's stating diameter was <= 10m <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[lampblack]

hmmm... I wonder if the CaLV with RS-68s would kick up flames all around the rocket's main body the way the Delta Heavy does? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Maybe, it's definatly something that needs looking at. The Start up of the RS-68 is fuel rich so there is a lot of gaseouse hydrogen around, hence the flames.

 

[j05h]

>Just imaging what a biglow habitat could look like if it's stating diameter was <= 10m <br /><br />That's just the start! Lunar landers, Mars entry and aerocapture craft, entire bases in one shot. I know it can be done in a base-5m HLV, but much more robust craft can be built around a 10m launcher.<br /><br />Let's see, Bigelow units more than double their base diameter, plus there is so much more space to pack into. You might be able to get a Mega-Nautilus that starts at 10meters and inflates to 25 or 30m wide. This in a module that is 20+m long, or it could be short and stout. Put two of those at L5 and you've got the start of decent orbitting town!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

I would be content with seeing the first Bigelow go up on a Falcon. Even then it would be a huge milestone. Lets get a Nautilus up and then see if we can borrow a CaLV to put an orbital city up. I wonder if NASA would even let Bigelow use one of it's rockets.

 

[frodo1008]

There are several problems with this scenario. One is that in order to establish that all important reliability that investors will demand (and Musk does NOT have the funding himself to go to larger vehicles, he himself has said that he needs investors for that) he will need far more than one good launch of the Falcon I. After an initial failure, he will need at least six or even more good flights.<br /><br />Also, building a Heavy EELV size of rocket is a whole new ball game. Just the handling equipment for such vehicles is many millions of dollars. And as for going on to Saturn V size? Even with all its experience and capabilities, I don't even think that NASA itself is thinking that size rocket (at least for now or within the next decade). Even the heavy launch vehcle that will be the material part of the CEV is not as large as a Saturn V was! <br /><br />Just take a look at the VAB, Mobile Launch Transporters and the actual size of the Launch pads! It is going to be a very long time before operations on that scale are going to be done by pure private interests, and even then it will take a whole lot of rich investors to do the job.<br /><br />And right now there is an excess in the number of heavy launch vehicles that the only real private industry effort uses at this time. That is the pure private satellite launch industry. This is why Boeing cancelled the private efforts for the Delta IV. There just isn't enough launch activity to warrent the expense (and they already have the excellent Sea Launch effort going anyway)!<br /><br />While I am perfectly happy to see spacex be highly successful, I have too much experience, and am far too much of a realist to as automatically expect their success as some on these boards.

 

[john_316]

I read that link but is says the CaLV will be RS-25 derived It doesn’t expressly say that it will other than RS-25. I don't know if they mean they are going to go to Rs-68 or not but that link as posted doesn’t say it will. <br /><br />It says that only PWR is qualified to determine if the RS-25 is capable of the needs for CSE (Core Stage Engine). However we also know that if we use RS-68 they will save money. However we also know that it will require more fuel.<br /><br />I wont speculate that RS-25 is dead for CaLV but perhaps in the interim it is on hold. It doesn’t specify RS-68 as the lead candidate.<br /><br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">The Core Stage Engine will be a highly affordable, expendable engine derived from the current Space Shuttle Main Engine (RS-25). </font>/b><br /><br />This doesn't say its been cancelled completely.<br /><br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">NASA/MSFC has baselined the use of a lower cost version of the Space Shuttle Main Engine as the Core Stage Engine (CSE) for the proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV). At this time, special studies are needed to evaluate and assess the processes and requirements necessary to develop and certify the CSE for the CaLV. The Core Stage Engine will be a highly affordable, expendable engine derived from the current Space Shuttle Main Engine (RS-25).</font><font color="red"><<<<<<<<<<< States that it will be SSME Derived (no clear answer) </font><font color="yellow"><br /><br />Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1, NASA/MSFC intends to purchase the special studies effort from Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), Inc., 6633 Canoga Avenue, Canoga Park, California, 91309-7922. The Rocketdyne organization, now a division of PWR, has designed and developed the RS-25 engine and has been responsible for its production, refurbishment, and improvements since 1972. Consequently, PWR is the only company that has the requisite expertise to perform these special studies, whi</font></b></b>

 

[j05h]

At the top of the page it says:<br />"This is a modification to the synopsis entitled "CARGO LAUNCH VEHICLE CORE STAGE ENGINE", which was posted on February 23, 2006. You are notified that the following changes are made: The requirement is hereby cancelled."<br /><br />Note the "cancelled" part. This is what brought up my question, because it looks like they just cancelled to single-source RFP to Pratt & Whitney. That would indicate either a free-bid or other action instead of a definite Shuttle-derived engine for the CaLV. The part John posted is the section that was being modified, that is, cancelled.<br /><br />Am I right, or reading-comprehension impaired?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Hey, Josh... your reading comprehension skills appear intact. Or -- if they're kaput, then mine are, too. For all the world, it looks like they're dumping the modified shuttle main engine -- and opening the door wide open to other options.<br /><br />Of course, given that fact, the main candidate then becomes the RS-68 -- unless something TOTALLY unexpected is lurking on the horizon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Unexpected: Like the RD-0120?

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Unexpected: Like the RD-0120?</font><br /><br />Now, that WOULD be unexpected -- especially in the current political climate.<br /><br />Although by all accounts, they're fine engines that actually improve somewhat on the SSME. But if it ain't built in America, NASA won't use it (one suspects). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Well maybe a deal could be made with Russia on the whole Iran thing that might include including the the US buying some of them.

 

[j05h]

I thought Pratt&Whitney was trying to build the RD-0120 in the USA? For the Atlas IV.<br /><br />I do like the concept of the 10m CaLV with a giant cluster of RS-68s powering it. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I thought Pratt&Whitney was trying to build the RD-0120 in the USA? For the Atlas IV. </font><br /><br />Do you mean the RD-0120 or the RD-180? Also there's no Atlas IV. There's only Atlas III and Atlas V but no IV.<br /><br />There is a Delta-IV but no Delta-V yet, although many could confused that with "Delta-Vee" which is often referred as the "ideal" velocity, or "impulsive" velocity, but not "actual" velocity.<br /><br />Atlas V is already using RD-180 which is a LOX/Kerosene engine. RD-0120 is a LOX/LH2 engine.<br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

yeah, Rd180 and Atlas "5". I've got so many TLAs in my head that I get confuzzled once in a while...<br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

No problem <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Actually there maybe a rationale to bring RD-0120 back to the CaLV scheme.<br /><br />The RD-0120 is Russian's version of SSME. Both engine are very similar in terms of thrust and Isp, except the RD-0120 would be much cheaper thanks to the low exchange rate of Russian currency, so the RD-0120 would be a much higher performing engine (Isp) than the RS-68 for CaLV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

I don't think NASA will ever make their lunar efforts dependent on Russian equipment or economy.<br /><br />Going to the moon is not just a question if Isp and Newtons, but a question of national and international politics and economics as well.<br /><br />So even if the best technical engine solution may be in Russia, the best political solution is not. Who knows what the exchange rates of Russian currency will be in 2018 or 2030? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>So even if the best technical engine solution may be in Russia, the best political solution is not. Who knows what the exchange rates of Russian currency will be in 2018 or 2030?<br /><br />I'm talking about a "russian" engine that Pratt & Whitney are trying to manufacture in the USA. The exchange rate is irrelevant. The economics are by far the most important factor: how do you make a buck?<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

Right. The only reason to launch people to the Moon or Mars at this point in history, given the cost and technological limitations, is for national prestige. Exploration for exploration's sake, if deemed necessary, could be done better and for less money with robots. <br /><br />If the U.S. uses non-U.S. hardware to send people to the Moon, the national prestige thing will backfire and the massive U.S. expenditures will only serve to improve the national standing of another country. <br /><br />Like ISS, for example, which has been a national embarrassment for the U.S. while serving as a worldwide exposition of Russia's currently unmatched space prowess.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[propforce]

I can not disagree with what both of you are saying. So this could mean Delta IV may have advantage over Atlas V, should NASA consider an outside chance of using the EELV for CLV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

Now it has been officially cancelled.... <br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[frodo1008]

As Pratt & Whitney has now bought Rocketdyne from Boeing, then they also produce the RS68, so the problem becomes somewhat moot. The RS68 was designed around cost. So it is competitive with any other engine. At least those made in the USA, and if P&W was originally going to produce the Russian engines under license here in the USA we are talking about USA costs and not Russian costs!<br /><br />Besides on another thread the RS68 is evidently the winner already.