Griffin Favors Shuttle SRB for Launching CEV

[spacester]

I wonder if it's an option to use the same engine for launch abort and de-orbit burn? Just a random thought. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow">I wonder if it's an option to use the same engine for launch abort and de-orbit burn? Just a random thought.</font><br /><br />Mrmorris is the guy to talk to about that, I haven't been following his Gemini Mark II thread lately but I think it was discussed in some depth there a while ago.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I wonder if it's an option to use the same engine for launch abort and de-orbit burn?"</font><br /><br />Gemini did (in theory, anyway). The DO SRMs acted as part of the abort system in the later stages of flight. They weren't powerful enough to be used in the early stages. The problems are:<br /><br />1. The early stage LES dv is much higher than what is required for de-orbit. Once you're in orbit... what to do with that extra dv? The Kliper supposedly uses it for a late burn. I only wonder what kind of accuracy is possible. By the time you can use it -- you're high enough to be thinking primarily about rendezvous with the station... which means a need for great accuracy... which is not something solids excel at.<br /><br />2. LES thrust levels requirements and De-Orbit thrust level requirements are vastly different. Gemini got around this by firing the SRMs sequentially for de-orbit and (theoretically) salvo fired for LES.

 

[spacefire]

Griffin should stop being such a sissy-boy and propose something with the same capabilities as the Shuttle:<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

LOL!!! You guys are going to <b>LOVE</b> this one...

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"The early stage LES dv is much higher than what is required for de-orbit. "</font><br /><br />Earle stage here means anything from rocket standing on the pad to a minimum altitude where parachutes can be safely deployed, right? So airlaunching would solve it? Not speaking of stick-CEV here, just in general terms and obviously t/Space stuff.

 

[mikejz]

Hehe... Air Launching a SRB, that sure would be something! An AN-225 only can lift half the weight of one! That sure would be one big carrier plane!

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"You guys are going to LOVE this one... "</font><br /><br />Where's the music? It seems like there ought to be something majestic playing in the background. <br />Possibly "Jupiter" from Wagner's 'The Planets'.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"same capabilities as the Shuttle: "</font><br /><br />That ... <i>toad</i> is so ugly it hurts <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

it's boootyful!<br />sorry for the sketch, done it in paint. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

Wings don't belong in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[larper]

How much does that behemoth weigh, anyway? All that mass being put into orbit just to come back down again, what a waste.<br /><br />In the ultimately perfect manned launch vehicle, the passengers would jump out and parachute home. No use bringing any mass down other than your skin. As a compromise, a nice simple capsule is best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

you seem to mistake lifting bodies for winged vehicles <br />my configuration, returning to orbit with empty fuel tanks, should have such a low ...well... body loading, comparable to the early lifting body test airplanes from the 60s. As such it should be able to land just like the shuttle.<br />Not having wings means saving weight! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

There hasn't ever been a lifting body that did not have wings. Heck, even you pathetic drawing had wings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

I suggest a new banner for these fair forums...

 

[krrr]

"Not really, Kipler just uses it late in the burn and trims the velocity with the normal spacecraft motor." <br /><br />That short 5 to 6 G burn before orbit insertion must be quite special... Like an initiation rite before weightlessness.

 

[spacefire]

if you insist in calling control surfaces wings....then the vertical stabilizer on my Archer can also be called a wing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

hehe funny. sorry for hijacking the thread <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

It was Andrew's Space that included the SRB in their original CEV plans. <br /><br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/news/multimedia_gallery(200311).htm

 

[trailrider]

Shuttle_guy,<br /><br />I can't remember...is that a liquid injection TVC? Or are the nozzles deflected by hydraulic actuators? I am pretty sure I recall that Titan used LITVC, using N2O4 injected into the exhaust to cause a shock wave deflection in the exhaust stream of the Zero Stage SRM's. But I thought Shuttle SRB's had flexible nozzles.<br /><br />Been awhile...and I can't find my technical data describing the SRB's. Could you ellaborate, please?<br /><br />So far as using a single stack SRB to boost the CEV, I'm NOT in favor of it! Even though the Challenger disaster was caused by leaks, and two previous flights had leaks that went in directions that didn't cause any problems, I definitely recall a Titan SRM that suffered a case bond separation that blew it all to h##l! I don't like solids for high value (including manned) payloads! The in-line stack is an improvement over the "Navajo stack" used on Shuttle, but you still cannot turn off a solid, unless you redesign the front end to provide for thrust termination ports, and that would require recertification of the whole shebang (NO pun intended!). While catastrophic destruction CAN occur with liquid boosters, you can generally "see" something (on telemetry and on malfunction detection systems) happening in enough time to initiate the escape sequence.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br />Trailrider

 

[gunsandrockets]

Very interesting link there gladiator1332!<br /><br />I'm struck at how much the Andrews CEV looks like the Russian Kliper during orbit and reentry. The Andrews CEV looks like a lifting body with two modules attached to the rear, one a propulsion module, the other a solar-power+docking-adaptor module, both jetissoned before reentry of the lifting body. <br /><br />Also interesting is the lifting body crew module appears to have pop out airfoils, two tail surfaces in a V pattern and a high lift straight wing! (These airfoils probably pop out when the Andrews CEV reaches subsonic speed.) So the Andrews CEV is in some ways very like the Space Shuttle, vertical launch on SRB first stage and liquid second stage, high-lift hypersonic reentry, and gliding landing onto a runway using wings and conventional landing gear. I'm guessing the Andrews straight wing with flaps provides wildly superior subsonic gliding and landing qualities compared to the tailess-double-delta wing of the Space Shuttle orbiter.<br /><br />You know the Russians haven't settled yet on the method the Kliper will land. One version uses parachutes and retro-rockets another version has a shuttle-like stub-delta-wing and conventional landing gear. Maybe the Andrews idea of retractable tail and straight wing could be incorporated instead?

 

[vt_hokie]

Interesting! Reminds me a little of the X-37.

 

[najab]

Are you sure there wasn't one flight where the secondary O-ring was eroded almost all the way through?

 

[gladiator1332]

I like the Andrews design as well. <br /><br />It makes me wonder, why doesn't Lockheed just go the extra step to allow their CEV to land on a runway. If they had a capsule concept, I'd be fine with the parachutes, but since they are going with the lifting body, they might as well design it to land on a runway. <br /><br />The Andrews design does somewhat remind me of Klipper. It actually closely resembles a ship from the show Farscape.

 

[spacefire]

an even better way of popping wings for landing is the Spiral(check out last picture on the left side of the page)<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mig10511.htm<br /><br />I prefer lifting bodies that are a bit wider and don't need to deploy wings for landing, see the HL-42 or HL-20. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>