Hercules Exploration system

[yree]

Hercules Exploration system <br />By Kevin J waldroup<br /> <br />Shuttle C = Hercules <br />Hercules is basically a Shuttle C design with a different name so it will be easier to sell to the US general public.Imagine Shawn O’ Keith at a press conference announcing a new launcher, in the proud tradition of the Saturn launcher and Titan launcher, here we have the <br />Heavy Hercules launcher and Medium Hercules launcher <br /><br /><br />Hercules Heavy Lift Vehicle (H.L.V)<br />The Heavy Lift Hercules Vehicle is two solid rocket boosters attached to the external fuel tank, and a cargo module is added to lift cargo. With this heavy lift vehicle you could lift payloads to low earth orbit of 160,000 pounds. It could be used to launch Lunar bases, and resupply the International Space station. When we finally get space hotels, it could be used to launch people to these hotel facilities. When we have a heavy lift vehicle; we can build space stations here on Earth and just launch it. <br /><br /><br />Hercules Medium Lift Vehicle (M.L.V)<br />The Medium Lift Hercules, or Little Hercules is a solid rocket booster with a second stage hydrogen-fueled J2-class rocket engine that can launch 40,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. It will able to launch the NASA spaceship Clementine and DOD Military Space craft will be a capsule design that will be launch on Little Hercules to Jimy doolittle class Space station and the Robert Goddard class station . The Little Hercules can be used by Russia to launch Spacecraft Soyuz or Kliper to International Space station or Russia Mir II Space station.<br /> The <br />Hercules External Tank Applications<br />NASA Robert Goddard Station <br />R & D to counteract zero gravity, by testing exercising and vitamin supplements. Creating artificial gravity by rotating space station also by using a small devise that spins the astronauts like a centrifuge. Also they will work on filtering devices, more powerful batteries that will powe

 

[yree]

Please Read & Comment

 

[blacknebula]

Could you please provide a link to the article you posted?<br /><br />I have never heard of these proposed space stations.

 

[yree]

Space Shuttle External Tank Applications<br />http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/ExternalTanks/<br />GEODE - Commercial Space Production Facility <br /> <br />Houston, Texas - U.S.A. <br />(O) 281-483-1317 <br />(H) 281-480-0608 Mark L Holderman <br />http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/geode_commercial_space_production_facility.shtml<br />Space Shuttle External Tank Used as a Space Station <br />Study Project Perun <br />Tomáš Svoboda, Tomáš Svítek, Jiøí Vackáø, Jiøí Bárta , Karel Vítek, Michal Kirschner, Milan Urban <br /><br />Munich 1979<br />http://staff.infima.cz/svoboda/perun.htm<br />Space Studies Institute<br />Report on Space Shuttle<br />External Tank Applications<br />http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/ExternalTanks/ssi%20et%20report/et_%20contents.htm<br />SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK APPLICATIONS<br /><br />REFERENCES AUTHORED BY TOM TAYLOR AND OTHERS<br /><br /> TECHNICAL PAPERS<br />http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/ExternalTanks/Research/references_authored_by_tom_taylo.htm<br />Space Studies Institute <br />Alternative Plan for U.S. National Space Program <br /><br />Excerpt copied with permission from Space Studies Institute<br />Entire article available: Alternate Plan<br /><br />http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/ExternalTanks/Policy/oneill_excerpts.htm<br /> <br /> <br />http://ww

 

[blacknebula]

I can't seem to find the article you posted by Kevin J Waldroup. It's a little late and I may just not be looking in the right direction. Could you please assist me?<br />

 

[yree]

Manned Orbiting Laboratory Horizon Station new Designation.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mol.htm<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/horation.htm<br />Space Station Freedom Space Station Options 1993 Skylab Modularised Space Station new Designation.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spas1993.htm<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/modation.htm<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/skylab.htm<br />STS External Tank Station<br /> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm<br />

 

[blacknebula]

Your last post is an ad and violates the TOS. Better remove it ASAP. <br /><br />Instead, could you please give me the links for the NASA Goddard Space Station, the Air Force Doolittle Space Station, and space plane ideas?

 

[yree]

Manned Orbiting Laboratory Horizon Station new Designation<br />Military Spaceplane <br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/msp.htm

 

[nacnud]

It seems that Kevin J waldroup comments on Project Constellation.<br /><br />Here is an article he has commented on:<br />http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/archives/2004/06/05/out_of_town_this_week<br /><br />And a Science Fiction author:<br />http://www.short-story-stats.com/sffsf_short-story/1737_alclad_.htm<br />http://www.ewpub.org/messageboard/viewforum.php?f=43<br /><br />And a member over at bad astronomy:<br />http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4480&sid=9c37a497f4b5d1fefa9a48a77c723ed2<br /><br /><br />but I can't find the original source of the article.

 

[yree]

http://www.ewpub.org/scripts2/libraryframes.php?auth=kjw&story=360 <br /><br />Hercules Exploration system <br />Kevin J. Waldroup Short Story 2004-07-14

 

[nacnud]

So this is a fictional representation of an article posted here as a fact?

 

[yree]

<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />Aenae wrote: <br />I'm afraid that I don't understand what you were trying to convey here. This reads like a press release; simple bullets of information. <br /><br />- Aenae <br /><br />It is a Science article. <br /><br />_________________ <br />http://www.ewpub.org/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=810<br /><br /><br />

 

[halman]

yree,<br /><br />This concept seems to me to be identical to the other shuttle derived launch vehicles. They all would certainly be useful, but none of them will be adequate to meet the needs of an expanding Lunar economy. Utilizing the Space Shuttle Main Engines in a throwaway booster means a very expensive launch vehicle.<br /><br />We could easily develop a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle using state of the art engines which would be capable of at least 250,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit, and a 500,000 pound launcher is very possible. Lead time on any new launch system is several years, and the potential benefits of a 'clean sheet' approach far outweigh trying to justify using technology from the 1970's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[scottb50]

The Shuttle vehicle and payload weighs nearly 225,000 pounds, why does the Hercules only carry 60,000 pounds? That's what a standard Et and standard boosters can deliver. If all you intend to do is discard the tank and engines I see no reason to have a payload container that weighs as much or more than the Shuttle vehicle.<br /><br />I would suspect a true Shuttle C configuration could probably put at least 150,000 pounds, and probably more into orbit. Just a quick guess, don't quote me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Um, the article states Hercules would lift 160,000 lbs to LEO.<br /><br />If they keep the standing army, they won't do CATS.<br /><br />If they don't do CATS, private BDBs will eventually eat their lunch in the marketplace.<br /><br />Maybe this Shuttle C derivative can get things going enough to create a proven market for private BDBs, though. Or maybe even they can do it right and get us CATS in the near-term, that is a possibility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

spacester,<br /><br />As someone has pointed out, the 'standing army' is primarily to service the orbiter.<br /><br />But a shuttle-derived launcher is not going to be the cheapest available, if I understand the concept properly. It will merely be the quickest (perhaps), and will keep certain contractors (Morton Thiokol) busy building hardware that they already build.<br /><br />And I have not seen any shuttle-derived launchers which are capable of launching 250,000 pounds or better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[yree]

"This concept seems to me to be identical to the other shuttle derived launch vehicles. They all would certainly be useful, but none of them will be adequate to meet the needs of an expanding Lunar economy. Utilizing the Space Shuttle Main Engines in a throwaway booster means a very expensive launch vehicle. <br /><br />We could easily develop a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle using state of the art engines which would be capable of at least 250,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit, and a 500,000 pound launcher is very possible. Lead time on any new launch system is several years, and the potential benefits of a 'clean sheet' approach far outweigh trying to justify using technology from the 1970's."<br /><br />A clean sheet design has several problems, it would take time and money to develop. Most of the technology will be based on early 90's technology. We will have to test a clean sheet vehicle a lot longer to get it man rated. There would probably be delays that could increase the time to over 15 years. Also with higher funding necessary it increases the likelihood of congress or a future president cutting funding. <br />A shuttle derived vehicle is a known quantity, so we know most of the problems that could pop up, and most of the negatives have been addressed. <br />Personally I would like to see a clean sheet design, but my pragmatic side says it will probably be a shuttle derived vehicle.

 

[yree]

Shuttle C (Cargo) Cost Analysis<br />http://www.orbit6.com/rockets/shc_tom.htm<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...or 203,000 pounds for a payload on top of the ET. "</font><br /><br />On <b>top</b> of the ET?! Dang. Next they'll be putting the engines up top ala Goddard-style rockets.

 

[blacknebula]

Why is that such a shock? Almost all von-Braun era rockets had payload on top of the fuel tanks.

 

[najab]

Top mounting the payload is the optimal position. It means that the centre of thrust, centre of mass and centre of pressure all lie along the same line - which also happens to be the axis of the vehicle.<p>Although mounting 'doggie style' (payload on the side) does make handling a little easier, missionary position (payload on top) makes the thrusting more efficient.</p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Why is that such a shock?"</font><br /><br />It's not a shock in the sense of 'Why would they do that'. It is the first time I've ever seen it suggested. That's suprising to me, as I thought I'd seen most of the Shuttle-C concepts at one time or another. It also seems strange to treat the shuttle concept as a set of Legos... pull <b>this</b> piece off... put <b>that</b> piece over there... move <b>these</b> bits around to the bottom and 'voila' -- a brand new HLLV.<br />

 

[blacknebula]

The Ares concept<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm<br /><br />The only problem with mounting the payload on the top is that the current shuttle launch towers are not capable of supporting this rocket, unlike the Shuttle-C with a cargo module attached to the side.

 

[halman]

yree,<br /><br />I am an optimist, I guess, becuase I am always pushing for the approach that seems like the best in the long term. In the case of a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, I believe that the period of maximum utilization will fall in the 2030 to 2050 period. Even if, as you say, it would take 15 years to get a clean-sheet HLLV flying, that still would make it available about 2020, right when the goal to return to the Moon falls.<br /><br />By using such a HLLV as cargo-only at first, man-rating is not a concern. Supposedly, the Crewed Expedition Vehicle will fly on an ultra-heavy variant of an existing booster, either the Delta or the Atlas, so there is no immediate pressure for man-rating anyway. Having a booster capable of putting a Lunar shuttle in orbit intact would vastly accelerate Lunar exploration plans, versus having to make multiple launches to orbit sections of such a vehicle, and then more launches to support assembly and fueling.<br /><br />Once development of a Lunar base is underway, cargo for the Moon is going to increase dramatically, with earthmoving equipment, self-contained Lunar rovers, nuclear power plants, beer, (won't THAT have an impact on a closed-loop life support system!) glass, (for the hydroponics facilities) La-Z-Grrl recliners, electron microscopes, refrigerators, ovens, kitchen sinks, generators, etcetera.<br /><br />Shortly thereafter, the private sector is going to get in the act, with additional development, and more orbital platforms will be in demand. Along about this time, NASA (or whatever the agency is called at that time,) will be starting construction of the first manned Mars expedition ships, which are very likely to be BIG. So 10 to 15 500,000 pound payloads to Low Earth Orbit a year by 2035 is not inconceivable. Doing that in 150,000 pound lots will mean a lot more launches.<br /><br />Plan ahead, I say. Waiting until 2025 to realize that existing launch capacity is not adequate seems short-sighted, to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[yree]

Space Combat capsule design <br />http://www.deepcold.com/deepcold/gem_main.html<br />Apollo LM CSD <br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolmcsd.htm<br />Soyuz VI <br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuzvi.htm<br />Shenzhou - Divine Military Vessel <br />http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sheessel.htm<br />Combat Spaceplane <br />Bomi <br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bomi.htm<br />Brass Bell <br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/brasbell.htm<br />Uragan Space Interceptor <br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm<br />