Meet Stumpy, the sticks rival.

[nacnud]

NasaSpaceFlight has an article out on an alternative to the stick CLV (Ares I). Stumpy as it seems to have been nick-named uses ground support equipment essentially very similar to the shuttles, it also avoids alot of the issues with the sticks hight, and roll control issues. Currently this is no more than a concept, so don't expect the stick to change unless it meets unsurmountable problems.<br /><br />Check out the article for more: NASA has 5-Seg CLV Alternatives<br /><br /><br />

 

[geminivi]

First it was the story on rising costs of the CLV.<br />Then it was the weight issue driving significant changes to the CEV.<br />Now there is an alternative to an ATK first stage.<br />Does anyone get the impression that NASA is trying to pressure ATK to get reasonable on costs? <br />I do have to say, if after two years of work where the stick was the choice, if NASA doesn't have it right now, it never will. Especially since there is a delta heavy flying now that could do the job. <br />

 

[nacnud]

Stumpy still has an ATK first stage, 2 x 3 seg SRBs. The second stage has 2 air start J2-X. Stumpy is a KSC concept to reduce ground support costs. <br /><br />I.E. no new LUT needed, no new MLP needed, less changes to VAB, read the article for more.

 

[josh_simonson]

ATK gets paid a little over $400m/year no matter how many SRB segments they produce. SRBs have additional costs in assembly, integration and logistsics, but USA and NASA folk are paid for that. ATK probably doesn't care wether the stick or stumpy is chosen, but the USA and NASA guys see twice as many SRBs to assemble (most of the work is on the tip and tail) that might keep them as busy as they are with shuttle, which is politically convenient.<br /><br />Stumpy has one huge, glaring disadvantage over the stick - the 3 seg SRB will have a different casing, nozzle and grain geometry than the 5 seg. This will require a big dollop of R&D, though perhaps less than the 5 seg - but in addition to the 5 seg, and ATK, USA and NASA will require additional cash to carry two different types of SRB at the same time. <br /><br />Stumpy's core stage does closely resemble the EDS, at least in engine configuration and diameter, so it may save a modest amount of work on that part of the HLV. It's possible the structural strength needed to hold onto the SRBs might be close to that needed to support 130t of payload, in which case the EDS and stumpy core could be almost identical.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Stumpy still has an ATK first stage, 2 x 3 seg SRBs. The second stage has 2 air start J2-X. Stumpy is a KSC concept to reduce ground support costs.</font><br /><br />Would it be cheaper to use existing 4 seg SRBs and just add some ballast?

 

[mattblack]

Ballast!! On a rocket!? Other than some payload stabilising on the Shuttle, does that actually happen?<br /><br />Also: they wouldn't need two types of SRB if the Ares V used FOUR 3x Segment SRBs. And I like the idea that 'stumpy' might have the EDS as it's corestage; this would restore the Ares V to sensibly having 2x J-2X.<br /><br />'Stumpy' (how about HERCULES) could be ready by 2010, but a man-rated Delta IV would be ready even sooner... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

NASA should just go ahead with the CaLV design and leave the crew launch CEV on the EELV.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Ballast!! On a rocket!? Other than some payload stabilising on the Shuttle, does that actually happen?<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I remember reading that for Vostok missions the Russians would weld a chunk of railroad rail in the bottom of the capsule to get the CG right for reentry. Of course they did have those big honkin' boosters to play with.

 

[steve82]

I was involved in a transportation architecture study a number of years back addressing problems with using Shuttle to get humongous amounts of payloads up to the same orbit over a period of time with numerous launches. We looked at the various Recon activities involved with all the mission-to-mission changes on the shuttle and ground software and found that if you could keep the shuttle mass properties the same for each mission by using ballast you'd save a pretty good chunk of change.

 

[john_316]

Stumpy? No-Way!<br /><br />ATK? They need to drop the price!<br /><br />Delta IV Heavy? Thats the way to go!<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[publiusr]

"Delta IV Heavy? Thats the way to go! "<br /><br />Only if you want it to rain all over Titusville due to its disposal problams.<br /><br />No engine out.<br /><br />

 

[baktothemoon]

That is the most ridiculous rocket I have ever seen.

 

[vt_hokie]

More ridiculous than this?

 

[thinice]

Is that a converted gas stove? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[yoda9999]

All that just to launch the CEV? Looks like Space Shuttle on steroids.

 

[docm]

Nahh....it's from an amature rocketry competitions "WTF?" class. This one is a rocket powered outhouse.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Yeah, its ugly!<br /><br />but for some stupid reason the more I look at this the more I think that the operations stumpy and the Ares V may be simular....but will the astronauts dare to climb in it? Maybe at the cover of darkness so no one will see them? LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>Nahh....it's from an amature rocketry competitions "WTF?" class. This one is a rocket powered outhouse. <<br /><br />LOL...I wonder what the guy ate!!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Without a Methane engine it won't be getting far.<br /><br />LOL

 

[colchadisatlend]

I think the Stumpy rocket looks cute <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[holmec]

>I think the Stumpy rocket looks cute <<br /><br />HEY, HEY, we're not talking about personal relationships here.<br /><br />Keep it clean. lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Hey I believe that there's plenty of guys with a methane engine after some pork 'n beans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Aetius]

I think Stumpy's great! If this design can solve some of Stick's shortcomings, that's all that matters.<br /><br />I hope it doesn't get cancelled.

 

[holmec]

Its seems a good initial idea, but why make the central tanks so fat?? Why not slim it down and make it taller? That may improve aerodynamics on the beast. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[publiusr]

No--that makes control authority more iffy. I want a good 10 meter core. I could make do with the 80 ton Magnum HLLV with standard SRBs and only two RS-68s, however.<br /><br /><br />So what is it, gents? Should we go with the Stick and hope support holds for Ares V? Or do we forgo that booster, nix the Stick--and get the Magnum HLLV while we can?