NASA to build Saturn VI (in-line SDLV)

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">. . . but Mr Rutan has next to zilch experience with anything but composites. </font><br /><br />What he has is a mastery of aerodynamic shapes. His designs are in the A&S museum and you think all he knows about is composites? <br /><br />Little to offer the Aerospace industry? Can you say canard wing? Can you say homebuilt revolution? Did I mention the Smithsonian? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Oh, you mean <i>that</i> aerospace industry. The big two. Well perhaps not. Perhaps there's not a thing he has to say that they want to listen to. <br /><br />At their peril.<br /><br />t/space is about a lot more than Mr. Rutan. They have real live rocket scientists on the team and everything. Burt's just the front man and the brilliant accomplished aerodynamicist, the guy with the goofy sideburns and the brass tongue, that's all. But he's just another guy on the team.<br /><br />I can't imagine he ever considered using composites for re-entry shielding, except as a joke. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"I agree, Rutan is good at what he does but space flight is not what he does. The SS1 flights were nearly failures. That is why it is not being flown again."<br /><br />And that's why they're now developing SS2 plus a new, bigger mothership.

 

[cdr6]

Heat shields in the classic sense (Apollo/Gemini etc.) are metalic or ceramic and they have a much higher tollerance to heat , addititonally they are generally machined. While the base material for RCC and Grep are both made through a process beginning with pyroliticdegradation (flash burning) (in the case of Grep), it is a nylon fiber, the resultant material is only one step below diamond in hardness (Carbon). The resin in Grep is then sprayed into the fabric, which must be keept near freezing for storage. It is the resins which are at the root of the problem...part manufactureability being the prime most consideration for General aviation companies... EG. Rutan's Scaled Composites.

 

[cdr6]

The canard is an old concept used many times, some successfully some not, (dating back to at least the Wright Bros). Homebuilt aircraft and General Aviation are not the "areospace" industry in any way shape or form. Scaled's use of "plastic tooling" while making sense for light airplane builders is not very good for precision applications, where repeability is important...also each trip through the autoclave degrades the tooling.<br /><br />Rutan has style, and access to a big stack of money, with that he can get all else. Engineers, techs, and computer programs to do the aerodynamics. <br /><br />He is the home built guru of guru's and that is his only real ace. There are legions of tallented engineering types who will never be known, or have the chance to "make it", because they are simply not funded.<br /><br />

 

[starfhury]

I'm not going to make this too personal. but I suppose you're impling you know better. Well great. Do something about it. But, I serioulsy doubt your thoughts on the subject are any more original or relevant that mine. <br /> Let's just look at the idea of launching a "whole" space station with one HLV. Just how functional a "space station" would we have? Please come back to me when you can see the problems with that approach. And I'll leave it at that.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[starfhury]

Shuttle_guy:<br />"True however there is no way the Delya IV could take the loads od 6.6 milion pounds of thrust from the SRBs !!<br /><br />Plus the pad was not designed for that configuration. "<br /><br />Is this a purely mechanical problem? I mean are the Delta's so phyiscally weak that reenforcing at certain points or adding heavy payloads will not reduce the load problems? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Let's just look at the idea of launching a "whole" space station with one HLV.<br /><br /><font color="white">OK, why not.<br /><br />From astronautix:<br />Option C<font color="yellow"> was the most controversial alternative since it represented a radical departure from all previous Space Station plans. It featured a single large 28m long, 7m diameter pressurised 'can' that would be launched fully outfitted on a new Shuttle derived heavy-lift booster. The cost of the core module was estimated to be $3.19 billion; a total cost of $6.502 billion over five years excluding reserves, operations and the $1 billion Freedom termination cost. The Shuttle, ESA Columbus and Japanese Experiment Modules would all be docked to the Option C Space Station. This design would have given researchers more lab space and power than Freedom, and it could support a permanent crew from the start while requiring less external maintenance by astronauts.<br /><br />It would have included no fewer than 136 experiment racks - nearly three time as many as 'Fred' and far more than the Option C solar arrays could support. But its microgravity environment was comparatively poor since the Station would have to rotate to keep its solar panels facing the Sun or else the power would vary. The design made adding more solar panels very difficult. The Europeans, Japanese and Canadians disliked this option since would have to change the electrical, thermal control and data management systems of their modules - if they could be accommodated at all. The international contributions would also be rendered largely useless (e.g. Canada's robotic arm would also be of little value since little on-orbit assembly would required).<br /><br />The Option C Space Station would have been launched in one piece on a new unmanned Shuttle-derived heavy-lift rocket. The design was regarded as a very high-risk venture since the Station would have t</font></font></font>

 

[starfhury]

SG,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. With money almost everything is possible. We just never have enough of it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[starfhury]

Thanks Nacnud.<br /><br />I was expecting some one to bring up Skylab or even Bigelow's inflatable stations. Even the text itself comes of as negative towards the idea. Anyway, I'd like nothing better than to see Bigelow succeed. In order for us to succeed, we need to think big and long term. If Bigelow succeeds, then we will be well on our way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The space station option c might not have been great as a research platform or for the international partners but it does have some major advantages that you seemed to have glossed over.<br /><br />It would have been finished already.<br /><br />It only was projected to cost $6B over five years.<br /><br />I think that there is merit in the design. I posted the whole text to show all the good and bad points of the system, looking through the negatives a lot are no longer relevant, especially now that a SDLV is on the cards.<br /><br />The big advantage to a modular design that I can see is that commercial competing launch services could be used possibly giving lower launch costs and launch vehicle redundancy. However none of the current plans seem to be interested in generating a market in this way.<br />

 

[tap_sa]

So, he is a good showman and <i>marketroid</i>. I doubt there's ever been a contract in human history that has been won by mere technical merits.

 

[starfhury]

That's is why I brought up Skylab. Skylab was the model for what's being suggested. What did not burn up on re-entry is at the bottom of the ocean right now. NASA's job is to commision the vehicle and space infrastructure which private industry can lock on to and expand. We need NASA to provide the scoffold worked need, but so far they've fallen down on the job. I don't see how SDLV is going to get us there, if all we need are three or four launches per year. That's what we've been doing in the past and it's not netted us any significant progress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

I'm all for the SDHLV, but I think NASA should also look to develop a medium lift SDLV as well, mainly for LEO and ISS missions. You won't need a HLV to go to these places. <br />Also, has it been said that the CEV will go direct to the Moon? Or use LOR like Apollo? If not, and the CEV is being launched and then docking with the lander and propulsion stage in Earth Orbit, then a lighter LV will be needed. <br /><br />They should keep with the SDLV idea for a lighter lifter. One design that has caught a lot of attention is the SRB Launcher. I believe the Planetary Society supported it in their report on the VSE. Some modifications would have to be madeto make the ride a little less rough for the crew, but it a simple solution to the need for a lighter lift vehicle. The SRB has been launched the most, and it will still be used on the SDHLV. If you start mass producing them both for LEO missions for the SRB launcher, and for the SDHLV, NASA can start saving some mondey on them. And the fact that they are pretty much reusable adds to the benefits of this idea.

 

[crix]

That's a good question. Will the SDLV be man rated? I'm not sure that it's been made clear that the SDLV will launch a manned CEV.

 

[wvbraun]

All (well almost) questions will be answered in the first half of July. NASA will lay out their big plan.

 

[redgryphon]

I *really* hope that when they do reveal the big plan, they don't just say "Here's what we're going to do", but instead also show us their work, i.e. the reasoning and maybe even calculations for <i>why</i> they have chosen the architecture they have.

 

[yree]

Heavy Lift Carrier 2015 <br />Orbital launch vehicle. Family: Shuttle. Country: USA. Status: Design 2004.<br /><br />ATK Thiokol concept for a shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle with a lift equivalent to the Saturn V. The radical reconfiguration would put all elements in-line. Four SSME engines would be at the base of a stretched external tank, flanked by two shuttle RSRM motors with a fifth segment added. Atop this would be an 8.7 m diameter Lox/LH2 stage, followed by a 10-m diameter payload fairing. Availability would be ten years after go-ahead.<br /><br />Manufacturer: Thiokol. LEO Payload: 102,000 kg. to: 500 km Orbit. at: 51.6 degrees. Core Diameter: 8.70 m. Total Length: 127.00 m. Span: 10.00 m.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hear2015.htm

 

[cdr6]

The problem is not the carbon it's the resin as I said before. You can only spray so much into the fabric to achieve optium strength, beyond that it (the resin) becomes dead weight. At tempratures above 350 (approx) the resin begins to reflow. (Uesfull in manufacturing, but sucks the big one in flight) Starship One is built on this technology, it is limited to speed and temprature (see also skin drag) which will cause the resin to reflow and deform...This is regardless of the number of plys used in the lay-up of the part. <br /><br />As for what I know about compoasites, I built the first all composite business aircraft, the Lear Fan. (The honor of the first all composite aircraft goes to a dentist, Mr. Eindecker, it was called the Eagle.) I have taught composite manufacturing to a good number of people, including reps from the FAA, and I am also the coauthor of the first composite manufacturing handbook. So I know a little bit about such aircraft, composites and their limitations. <br /><br />Mr Rutan simply repeated roughly the same flight profile that the NorthAmerican X-15 did about fifty years ago. Only they (the airforce) did it with far more primitive technology. He also did not build the rocket engine for his machine, he bought it from a vendor..One of 2 competing for the job (not unlike the process used by the evil big guys to obtain their parts and equipment.) <br /><br />Some time back the areomechanics lab of the USAF did a study of advanced composites for use in aerospace vehicles, and identified the strengths and weakness of all composite structures. Their results showed that composites have some desireable qualities and some rather undesireable ones also. Vehicles used in this test include F4, F15 and F16 aircraft. <br /><br />Rutan has had the benifit of using the experience gained by the Aeromaechanics Lab, Lockheed, Boeing, North American, NASA and others. (Hindsight being 20/20 and all.)<br /><br />It is one thing to be an out spoken engineer, (because

 

[starfhury]

SG<br /><br />How confident are you about NASA's July 13th launch date? I want to be in Florida to see it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

A man rated "stick" CEV and a 120MT HLLV is going to be such an amazing combination! When I start thinking about what will be possible with this great leap in cargo launching ability I start singing the theme song from Team America in my head. haha! It's so big and bold. So American! I love it.<br /><br />And I can't wait to get the July update.

 

[cdr6]

OOPS!!!! (A truly beautiful aircraft!...The kind that make your teeth hurt just looking at it!!!) There was only a handful of us who knew what it was when it pulled up on the ramp, of course we mobbed out there and drooled serverly. I am pleased to recall that nobody put one finger/nose print on that machine...though we were temped!

 

[cdr6]

Being a "small" company Scaled Composites has the distinct advantage of being able to "turn" very quickly.<br /><br />(It's alot like like driving a Ferrari and a tour bus at 100 mph.) The Ferrari can accellerate, decellerate and manuver with good alacraty, Now the bus <br />on the other hand is good for straight lines, and is extremly difficult to manuver.

 

[drwayne]

Being maueverable can be a virtue or a vice. I have worked for a small company in which the manuverability turned into turning in a lot of circles as the boss came to work each day with "new ideas" some of which might be directly counter to the "new ideas" of yesterday.<br /><br />Its a delicate balance. To run a small company and the leading edge of something, you need to have rock solid confidence in your judgement to go with your good judgement. But that confidence can not go out of balance with the actual quality of the judgements.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I was lucky in the company I mentioned. I worked there right out of graduate school, when I was still relatively young, single and stupid. (or was that supposed to be idealistic) <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I did get to do some interesting work in the lab, and meet some people that that were the basis of my next job, after the company was in its sinking process.<br /><br />At that point in my life, there was no one to yell at me if I worked 6 - 7 days a week - 10 - 12 hours a day.<br /><br />Things worked out. In hindsight, some 12 years removed from the experience, my only regrets are that I didn't take more advantage of some things than I did.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gladiator1332]

With the SRB Launcher, are the current plans to use the stnadard 4 segment SRB, or will the new 5 segment SRB be used? <br />The 5 segment will be on the SDHLV, I can't see why it wouldn't be used for the SRB Launcher.