NASA selects in-line SDLV

[shuttle_rtf]

I'm the nobody of the Shuttle_people <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

Shuttle_small furry creature from Alpha Centauri?

 

[nacnud]

GREAT! The more the merrier! Welcome <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[kane007]

Back to the issue at hand. Inline will be the way to go. Have read development expected to start 2010 and brought on line around 2014. That makes sense now. 4 years worth of savings from not flying the STS can be diverted into its development.<br /><br />5 segment/augmented SRB CEV/Cargo up and running on or after 2010. Yes the cargo unit would be a good idea first for shake out and delivery of goods to ISS.<br /><br />Wish that 60day report would hurry up and get released.<br /> <br />Decided on a tag line...<br /><i><font color="yellow">"Keep it simple, stupid!"<font color="yellow"></font></font></i>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />"So... do you work on the Shuttle?" <br /><br />Read his profile. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />I forgot that some actually put info in profiles... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_man]

Thanks. Good picture you found to up into the Skylab video thread on the nasaspaceflight forum.<br /><br />Yes, I work in the industry. Ex-Apollo guy, thus I'm no spring chicken.

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...... since the design, build launch will take 4 years or so. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><i>will</i> take 4 years? and you said this with a straight face?<br /><br />My stomach hurt....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...Yes, I work in the industry. Ex-Apollo guy, thus I'm no spring chicken. ...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hey S_M,<br /><br />Give us a flavor of what it's like working on Saturn vs. Shuttle, the goods, the bads, and the ugly ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_man]

Saturn V: Make it happen, you're part of something historic<br /><br />STS: Paperwork, Paperwork, Paperwork.

 

[ronatu]

Like this (1983!):

 

[ronatu]

Or like that (2005):

 

[toothferry]

The cryogenic engines will become disposable for sure, it appears. Is their anyway to retrieve them?

 

[ronatu]

no clue.. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mikejz]

That 1983 drawing seems to have them in recoverable pods

 

[mattblack]

This is by far the best design for flexible missions, but I'm worried that it's going to cost twice as much money and time to develop than a side-mounted design with 5-segment SRBs. The inline version would send 111 metric tons to LEO versus 95 metric tons for the side-mount. A clear advantage in payload, for sure. But some have said that the side-mount version would take about 3 years to develop and cost about $5 billion. The inline would take at least 5 years and up to $10 billion. <br /><br />How is this going to be paid for, in spite of the superiority of the inline design?<br /><br />I so much want Mike Griffin's new architecture to work. If the powerful and potentially very flexible Shuttle infrastructure is thrown away, this would be a loss nearly comparable to getting rid of the Saturn V.<br /><br />I've said it several times before in this forum: America, support your manned Space Program because it needs you now more than ever before. <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>

 

[dwightlooi]

I think most of the infrastructure will have to be thrown away even though NASA elects to go down the shuttle derived path. The only impact minimization is in terms of job preservation.<br /><br />The shuttle launch tower and integration facility is too short to handle even the SRB-CEV launcher, much less the inline SHLV. You cannot wheel the new rockets out using the shuttle's crawler either.

 

[nyarlathotep]

The VAB is probably going to have to be rebuilt as well if they dont want the roof to collapse in the next decade. Between hurricane damage and untreated reinforcing steel corrosion, it's in pretty bad disrepair.<br /><br /> Add another $5B to the budget for that.

 

[emerrill]

"You cannot wheel the new rockets out using the shuttle's crawler either."<br /><br />Why cant you use it? It moved the Saturn V, I'm sure it can move any of these derivatives. Remember, it doesn't hold the vehicle directly, there is a MLP in between (which were also modified from the Saturn V program). I would suspect the MPLs are capable of being re-purposed to a new role also, as well as the pads. Modification of structures like this (aka very large steel structures) is almost always cheaper then building new, even if they have to be heavily mod'ed.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"The VAB is probably going to have to be rebuilt as well "<br /><br />The VAB is another sort of structure where it is almost always cheaper to repair, not replace.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Question: Seeing that one of the SDLVs uses 3 RS-68 engines, is there that great an advantage to using a shuttle-based core as opposed to attaching the two SRBs to a delta 4 heavy?<br /><br />(I know, in all odds a delta 4-heavy with 2 SRBs is really really unlikely......)

 

[shuttle_man]

Jacob's have recieved $500m to help with the CEV -SDLV . Only a one year deal with options (more cash) for four more one year contracts. <br /><br />They will work with MSFC.<br /><br />Things amoving it would seem.

 

[shuttle_man]

Stoyr here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3555

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The cryogenic engines will become disposable for sure, it appears. Is their anyway to retrieve them? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It will be dropped at ~ 57 nMi altitude. Most likely will be partially burned and dropped in the ocean. <br /><br />You could hire divers and retrieve them I'd supposed but I doubt it'll be worth the money to refurbish them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The VAB roof is being repair now.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I stand corrected.

 

[john_316]

I am glad for the inline...<br /><br />I always suspected it would be the winner...<br /><br /><br />What will the new rocket be called? Any ideas? Will it be Magnum? What about a name like Kodiak? Or DY-100 Botany Bay?<br /><br />LOL<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />