NASA selects in-line SDLV

[wvbraun]

Link<br /><br /><i>Agency opts for 100t launcher using Shuttle technology.<br /><br />NASA has decided to develop a 100t to low-Earth orbit (LEO) in-line heavylift booster using a highly modified external tank and new five segment solid-rocket boosters (SRB), Christopher Shank, special assistant to NASA administrator Michael Griffin, has revealed to Flight International. </i><br /><br /><br />Will it ever get build? Development starts in 2010, a lot can happen until then. Maybe they can get the program started with a small amount of money or start modifying the pads now?

 

[mikejz]

Saw that comming--hehe<br /><br />I just wish I saw the design being able to be extended more to support greater payloads (IE adding addition SRBs, etc) <br /><br />In a related matter, I did remember reading that recovery for reuse of the 5-Segment SRBs might be a problem due to OSHA standards for diving depths for the recovery teams.

 

[drwayne]

"In a related matter, I did remember reading that recovery for reuse of the 5-Segment SRBs might be a problem due to OSHA standards for diving depths for the recovery teams."<br /><br />Very interesting.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Glad to hear it...the inline configuration is definitely the way to go!

 

[no_way]

a full employment plan it is, then

 

[mikejz]

I wonder if NASA's next move will be to move foward the date for brinning the SDLV online in order to use it to finish off the ISS, assuming more shuttle delays...

 

[teije]

not sure if I like the idea too much.<br />It seems to me that a side mounted SDLV is so much easier to develop, therefore cheaper. Also, it needs a lot less pad modifications. True, it hasn't got as much capacity, but they might actually be able to fly it as soon as 2010. <br />Also, what will they launch cargo on between 2010 and the maiden flight of this vehicle. <br />I would guess that the side mount would be a perfect bridge between the shuttle and the in-line. <br /><br />Oh well, it might also explain why I don't work for NASA. :S<br />Teije

 

[kane007]

I strongly concur with this sentiment of using the side mounted as an intermediate vehicle. Yes it means very minimum infrasture modification, plus I’ve read it could be up and running within 36 months – that’s 2009 if NASA starts now. The inline I’ve read may take 50+ months, so starting in 2010 it won’t be ready till mid 2014. <br /><br />In the end however the inline is definately the most logical choice, what I want is my cake and to eat it too.

 

[mikejz]

What is the difference between a shuttle-C and taking the existing shuttles, striping them bare (including wings and TPS) and sending them up on their last mission?

 

[vt_hokie]

I'm sure that would not be a trivial task, and I think the "Shuttle C" cargo module would be much lighter than a shuttle orbiter, even sans the wings and aero control surfaces. However, I would think using the existing orbiters in an unmanned mode is worth exploring, perhaps as an interim solution until the "SDHLV" arrives. <br /><br />Also, I feel that the arbitrary "drop dead" date of 2010 should be modified. I would think that Endeavour, the youngest orbiter with the fewest flights, should maybe fly a few more missions beyond that date, after Discovery and Atlantis are retired.

 

[kane007]

hmm, flying the shuttles on autopilot with no crew may provide an interim solution for a minor saving.

 

[mikejz]

Well depending on how much of the man-rated related processing is elimiated with the unmanned option, the savings could be quite high. (the price could be losing an orbiter)

 

[chriscdc]

But you can still only carry the amount the shuttle can at the moment. You still need almost all of the infrastructure to prepare and fly the craft.<br />Also can you tele operate the robotic arm or get a robot to control it? Installing such a system would be a nightmare. Remember all the ideas of using a robot to repair the hubble.<br />Also you couldn't really perform any experiments whilst in orbit, which is meant to be the overriding purpose of the orbiter.<br /><br />Isn't this whole thread, in the slang of slashdot, a dupe. Shuttle_RTF posted a very informative thread on this subject a week ago.

 

[mikejz]

Well, you don't have to build an automatic system---remote control from the station could also work.<br /><br />You also don't have to dock it--just get it in range of the station's arm.

 

[kane007]

I was postulating the automated orbiter would be used from 2010, in order to meet the presidents requirements. HST service would be normal shuttle in 2007.<br /><br />Cargo of 15,000kgs to ISS is far superior to ATV's 7,000 or Progress's 2,230 and the 2 later are "usually" automated. <br /><br />STS could be moved to within several metres and then the stations robo arm could be used to pluck the cargo from its bay. By then the arm should have attained its full mobility. <br /><br />

 

[kane007]

Add to the cargo would be the mass taken up by 7 crew, consumables and life support - I'de guestimate an aditional 90-100kg pp x 7. Could be quite a bit more if someone has the numbers?

 

[mikejz]

You can also take out a few tons of life support systems, lighting, fans, displays, etc. Also you can cut back on the number of redundent parts. I would estimate that if you took away the pressurised volume (assuming that the hardware could operate in such a condition) I would estimate maybe 10,000 pounds saved.

 

[propforce]

It would be much easier just design a new cargo pod... and cheaper than to retrofit the orbiter <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I would guess that the side mount would be a perfect bridge between the shuttle and the in-line. "</font><br /><br />No -- then you're paying development costs twice. Not much of the development for the side-mount would transfer over to the in-line. Personally, I was leaning toward side-mount as well, but there are advantages and disadvantages to both routes:<br /><br />Side mount:<br />Pros:<br />- Faster/cheaper to develop. <br />- Uses more of the existing pad/etc. infrastructure.<br /><br />Cons:<br />- Less payload to orbit<br />- Corollary of payload -- larger cost/pound to orbit.<br />- Corollary of payload -- more on-orbit assembly required, increasing complexity, potential for failure, and redundant mass (i.e. module docking hardware, avionics, etc.)*<br /><br />The in-line is obviously the inverse of the above. The upshot is that the in-line will be more costly and time-consuming to <b>develop</b>, but should be cheaper (in theory at least) to <b>operate</b>. Considering the problem we have with the current system, which kept compromising on development costs... and ended up with an operational nightmare, I have a hard time thinking the in-line is a bad idea. Ultimately it will depend on how many flights it makes. The more flights, the more it pays for the increased development costs. If it makes only a dozen flights, then gets decommissioned, the side-mount would have been a better option. This is another reason to go with the in-line now or never (i.e. not making a pit-stop at side mount) -- we need to make as much use of it as possible to recoup the costs of development. <br /><br />Ultimately, we won't know if the decision was a good one until long after it's history. This of course pretty much describes <b>most</b> decisions. <br /><br /><br /><br />* Since there is less on-orbit assembly required, that means that any mission for which this assembly requirement has been eliminated now can be developed for less money. These s

 

[teije]

Yes I was thinking about it some more last night and came to more or less the same conclusion. The advantage of going with the in-line version immediately is that you only have to develop 2 new vehicles. Not 3. A cost saver no matter how you look at it.<br />On the other hand. There is the time lag. I can't see an inline BFR capable of lifting a 100 ton payload before 2014. (Unless Dr. Griffin has a few major trumps up his sleeve. Spossible)<br />So, there is the little issue of how to launch cargo in the 2010-2014 timeframe. Just use EELV's?<br />The CEV itself is also stated to fly from 2014. BUT, could they be capable of developing the 'stick' (or whatever it's called, can't remember at the moment. The single srb + upper stage launch vehicle) before 2010 and use it to launch cargo. This gives a double advantage. 20 or so ton cargo launch capability. And the chance to test the new vehicle for a few times without having to risk a crew. Then in 2014, along comes the in-line biggie, and the CEV. Hoopla! 4 astronauts and a 100 ton of supplies in 2 launches!<br />Am I missing something or is this the path that they are envisioning right now.<br /><br />Teije

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I can't see an inline BFR capable of lifting a 100 ton payload before 2014. (Unless Dr. Griffin has a few major trumps up his sleeve. Spossible) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I don't think they will <i>begin</i> to design the Heavy inline SDLV until 2014.... <br /><br />Perhaps Shuttle_Guy can shed some light on this?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_man]

It's a spiral development program.<br /><br />I can't see us moving up in the spiral on the Stretch ET / 2x5 seg SRB + 4xSSME + 2x J2S type of lifter till at least 2014.

 

[spacefire]

coming up next: shuttle_boy, shuttle_girl, shuttle_woman and shuttle_person <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[propforce]

Shuttle_Man? Must be a new guy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />So... do you work on the Shuttle? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>coming up next: shuttle_boy, shuttle_girl, shuttle_woman and shuttle_person <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I like Shuttle_Being .... Shuttle_Lunatic.... Shuttle_Bug.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>