Griffin comments on HLV, prizes, private sector involvement

[wvbraun]

Some highly interesting and encouraging comments from Griffin:<br /><br /><i> "On the NASA side we have the obligation to come forward to the leadership with our view of the launch architecture as well - and our requirements. Now our requirements are going to be in the range of several tens of metric tons for the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and notionally 100 metric tons for heavy life requirements for return to the Moon. Those are the requirements. I personally don't care how they get met. NASA needs to be more than just about getting up the first hundred miles. We've spent far too long trying to overcome that problem. So, as NASA Administrator today, I already own a heavy lifter. That heavy lifter is the Space Shuttle stack - it currently carries the Orbiter. So every time I launch, I launch 100 metric tons into low orbit which, of course, is what we need for returning to the moon. So as I have said often, tongue in cheek, from the point of view of the cargo, the shuttle is a payload shroud - a rather heavy one. But the intrinsic capability of the stack is quite impressive. It's not quite up to where Saturn V was - but it's close - and it's there. <b>So, I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because, it seems to me, any other solution for getting a hundred metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive than utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own.</b>"</i><br /><br />That sounds like a pretty strong endorsement of a shuttle derived vehicle...<br /><br /><br /><br />On prizes/private sector:<br /><br /><i>When asked about Centennial prizes, Griffin said: "I like the prize concept. I regretted from outside that we were as limited dollar wise as we were. Going forward, I am going to try to put some human capital behind it -- my own -- and get that elevated. I think it is a good idea. I think it is one of the best ways to encourage entrepreneurship."<br /><br />Asked how he'd approach his job with a background of both private and publ</i>

 

[grooble]

Thanks for the links.<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

Looks like Griffin was a good choice to head NASA...

 

[Aetius]

Sweet! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[summoner]

It is sweet. I appears that he's making up his own mind instead of pandering to others. Like the choices or not I'll take that anyday. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I'll bet everyone is dusting off their STS Payload Cannister designs as we type. The more I hear of Blinky Griffin, the more I like the cut of his jib. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Being quite young I wasn't paying attention during the early '90s when the first Bush came out with his moon/mars plans. For the people do remember (particularly those in the industry like shuttle_guy), how do you feel the current situation compares to what it was like then? Are we much closer to achieving the goal, or do you think everything will fizzle out like it did in the '90s?

 

[najab]

I'm not in the industry, but I can say one major difference is that the current Vision doesn't require the massive funding support ($200B) from Congress that the SEI did.

 

[nacnud]

or shuttle B or shuttle Z, choose a letter really.<br />

 

[henryhallam]

I'm not certain of this but I think for reasons of cost, Griffin is likely to go for a straight replacement of the orbiter with a cargo module including SSMEs (or similar), still mounted sideways on the ET + SRB stack. <br />Most descriptions of the "Shuttle-C" involve a highly modified ET with SSMEs at the bottom and a payload fairing on the top. This is rather more expensive in terms of new infrastructure and development, but it does net you an extra 15-20 tonnes or so to LEO.<br />I think the horizontally mounted version is probably what will be used because the launch complexes and VAB will need only minimal modifications. It isn't really right to call this the Shuttle-C, so as nacnud says pick another letter!

 

[nacnud]

The variants I have heard of are<br /><br />Shuttle C - wingless unmanned orbiter with increased payload<br /><br />Shuttle B - engine pod in the same place as the current engines but with a disposable cargo pod<br /><br />Ares - side mounted engine pod but with the payload inline<br /><br />Magnum - engines moved under the ET, payload on top<br />

 

[henryhallam]

Okay, I stand corrected.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Shuttle B - engine pod in the same place as the current engines but with a disposable cargo pod </font><br />Does this mean the engine pod is recoverable? If not, what is the difference between this and Shuttle C?

 

[najab]

No, Shuttle-C has recoverable engines since the entire payload module comes back, Shuttle-B (usually) does not.

 

[najab]

><i>BTW, the PL/upperstage on top of the ET is a Hugh change to the VAB, pad and requires a new MLP.</i><p>I can see the MLP having to be changed, but surely the VAB high bays are high enough and the cranes powerful enough - if they could fit a Saturn V, they should be able to handle a....Shuttle-T(all)?</p>

 

[najab]

Wow! I didn't know they had managed to shave that much off the cost of an SSME - they run about $30-40 million each now, right?

 

[najab]

Though, if they completely process and encapsulate the payload and upper stage "on the ground" and then lift it onto the ET/SRB stack, there wouldn't need to be as many high access platforms as there were for the Saturn Five.

 

[najab]

I understand entirely about the MLP. Hey, I forget, are the current MLP's the Apollo ones modified, or were they built new for the Shuttle? My memory says they were modified, but I just want to be sure.

 

[najab]

I understand about the need for access, what I was trying to get across is that by designing the payload module/ET interface smartly, and doing most of the payload/upper stage integration tasks <i>before</i> you hoist it 300+ feet into the air, you would (could) reduce (not eliminate) the need for access platforms at the 400' level.

 

[najab]

In fact (and this is an incredibly stupid question) is there any reason for the booster/upper stage interface to be anything more than a purely mechanical one? I can see the need for maybe one electrical connector - to allow the ground support equipment to 'see' the upper stage when the stack is on the pad. Okay, two, since the GNC computers would propably like to be able to talk to each other.

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow">you, I am sure. intended to say "parallel" not "horizontal" PL and upper stage on the side of the ET.</font><br /><br />Oops, yes of course... just imagining a truly horizontal PL attached to an ET is enough to make me start laughing!

 

[najab]

><i> There would have to be some sort of attitude control, and maneuvering system too, ...more complexity.</i><p>That would be the responsibility of the upper stage. Or perhaps a small third stage for orbit circularization and on-orbit operations.</p>

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow">Normally there are no electrical connections between stages if it is a 2 stage vehicle. All of the GN&C is normally performed by the computer in the second stage. </font><br /><br />I don't understand this - surely there must be some guidance during first stage ascent. Is there a separate computer in the first stage that just flies a pre-programmed trajectory?

 

[najab]

><i>Is there a separate computer in the first stage that just flies a pre-programmed trajectory?</i><p>That's one option. I know that with the Shuttle first stage guidance is basically performed by lookup from a canned table of values. Second stage guidance is closed loop and actually targets a velocity and altitude target. (Unless an ATO is declared, in which case it targets velocity only.)</p>

 

[henryhallam]

Ah, that makes much more sense.