NASA Wants a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle

[wvbraun]

From nasawatch.com:<br /><br /><br /><i>According to NASA sources, the Exploration Science Mission Directorate has recommended (internally) that NASA pursue development of a heavy lift launch system based, in part, on the current Space Shuttle. Such a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) would be capable of placing 80-100 metric tons of payload into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). NASA is expected to formally reveal its SDLV plans in the first week of July.</i><br /><br />So regardless of what launch vehicle will be used for the CEV there will be an HLV in NASA's future.

 

[mattblack]

GOOD!!! <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>

 

[grooble]

What will the benefit be though? I'm a noob to this.

 

[Aetius]

It's a politically viable super heavy-lift launch vehicle, because Florida is a battleground state in American politics. Nobody who wants to become President will want to alienate the many thousands who work for NASA contractors, or whose own businesses are dependent on NASA employees. Keeping a portion of the Shuttle stack as a going concern will keep those people happy...and thus indebted to the politicians who make it so.<br /><br />We need a super heavy-lift launcher if a return to the Moon is to be anything more pretty pictures. We can't rely on EELVs alone.

 

[grooble]

What could a Saturn 5 lift, how far off that capability would this new vehicle be ?

 

[blairf]

Saturn V was 130 mt to leo. Shuttle derived HLV is c100 mt (depends on exact details)<br /><br />The clean sheet vs Shuttle C arguement has been done to death - lets hope they just get on with whatever they decide to do. In any case SpaceX's rumoured 100 mt monster at $400 per lb will make it irrelevant

 

[grooble]

Another question is are they going to use it to lift people into space? Or will that be for a CXV vehicle, leaving the shuttle HLV purely for cargo? Wouldn't that make sense? It wouldn't need life support or anything then.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Saturn V can lift 118 metric tons to LEO.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm<br /><br />Shuttle C can lift 77 metric tons to LEO.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm<br /><br />Delta IV Heavy can lift 26 metric tons to LEO.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm<br /><br />Of these launch vehicles only the Delta IV Heavy is currently in service.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

The Shuttle C better be a hell of a lot cheaper in it's combined development costs plus operation costs compared to the cost of operating the current Shuttle or NASA won't be exploring anything. There isn't enough money. Shuttle + the ISS is bleeding NASA dry. <br /><br />That's why the original Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) anticipated a service date of 2014 for the CEV instead of any earlier. Until the retirement of Shuttle in 2010 there is hardly any money free to spend on the CEV (or anything else including developing some new heavy booster Shuttle C or otherwise).<br /><br />Griffin has been talking about bringing CEV into service by 2010 instead of 2014 and I don't see how it is possible. As long as Shuttle sucks up the money there isn't enough left for the CEV.

 

[grooble]

What is it supposed to do though, put a cev in orbit? It isn't sounding good anymore. I am thinking they want to do a Do-Everything CEV and launch each mission on this shuttle c, instead of having a space only vessel with a CXV transfer system. <br /><br />What exactly do you think the plans are now?

 

[gunsandrockets]

Well Griffin has said all kinds of things about heavy lift and the CEV but he hasn't made any official announcements yet. So by putting all the facts together I will try to predict what he will announce.<br /><br />Griffin wants a CEV or some kind of manned vehicle operational by 2010 to step right in when the Shuttle is retired. He doesn't want a gap like the original plan of a service date of 2014 would leave. He also has said he wants a simple reliable CEV using currently available technology.<br /><br />He also has said he can only see exploration and all the other jobs NASA wants such as access to the ISS done by a quite heavy vehicle, something heavier than the 30 metric tons of the Apollo CSM. Griffin also says he will not give up the Shuttle stack since it has the ability to lift heavy loads to LEO.<br /><br />Okay, but then plug into this the fact there is virtually no extra money for NASA to do anything before 2010 when the Space Shuttle retires. Where does the money come from to fly a CEV by 2010 or develop a heavy lift Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV)?<br /><br />I can see only one solution that might solve this jigsaw puzzle.<br /><br />The 2010 CEV will have to be a very simple, very light, and very cheap vehicle using an existing launch vehicle. It's the only way NASA could afford to do it within NASA's limited resources. That favors the Northrop Grumman Soyuz clone, which is less than 10 metric tons and launched by a modified Atlas V booster.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=230054&page=&view=&sb=&o=<br /><br />An SDV vehicle will begin development after 2010 when the shuttle retires. Only then could NASA afford to do so. Expect the SDV to take a few years of development before it is operational. So the SDV would finally put cargo into orbit aro

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">" am thinking they want to do a Do-Everything CEV and launch each mission on this shuttle c, instead of having a space only vessel with a CXV transfer system. "</font><br /><br />You have to understand the difference between the CEV, and the CEV-related modules. The CEV is the <b>equivalent</b> of the Apollo Command Module. It's the vehicle that the crew is in for launch, return, and <i>possibly</i> the voyage from Earth->Moon. Then there's all of the CEV-accessories. There's an Earth Departure Stage (EDS), which provides the dv to get the CEV from Earth-orbit to the moon. There's generally a vehicle for landing on the moon (an LEM-equivalent). There may be a secondary crew quarters that provide more living space during the journey (optional on a Moon trip, but essential on a Mars one). More modules are also a possibility.<br /><br />The CEV <b>itself</b> can be launched on an EELV -- in pretty much any incarnation. However, this means that pieces must be joined up in LEO before heading out to the moon. While this means each <b>piece</b> is light enough to launch on an EELV, the system <b>as a whole</b> is much heavier than would be the case for an all-in-one launch methodology because each module must have the hardware and avionics to support on-orbit rendezvous/assembly/docking.<br /><br />The options then are launch multiple pieces-parts on EELVs or launch all the pieces at once on an HLV (in this case a SDHLV). Griffin prefers the second option -- and it makes sense. It also doesn't preclude launching *just* the CEV itself on an EELV for missions where that makes sense (i.e. if it's an ISS taxi run).

 

[gofer]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7345<br /><br />Griffin is saying THE CEV cannot be easily assumed to be less than 30 tonnes because of all the things I want it to do (paraphrasing)… I personally think he’s just fitting the payload to the rocket (a decided-on SDV heavy lift, both SRB and Shuttle-C) In other words, the rocket has been decided on and now the payload is being shaped to fit the rocket (exactly the wrong approach) The rocket has also been decided on for all the wrong reasons (political pork barreling mainly)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The CEV itself can be launched on an EELV -- in pretty much any incarnation. However, this means that pieces must be joined up in LEO before heading out to the moon. While this means each piece is light enough to launch on an EELV, the system as a whole is much heavier than would be the case for an all-in-one launch methodology because each module must have the hardware and avionics to support on-orbit rendezvous/assembly/docking.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. Looking at APAS/Kurs (talking heavy outdated 70's technology), the weight is trivial (under half a tonne)<br />2. Employing a space based tug- />berthing is another concept which negates any extra mass for auto rendezvous<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The options then are launch multiple pieces-parts on EELVs or launch all the pieces at once on an HLV (in this case a SDHLV). Griffin prefers the second option -- and it makes sense. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. How does it make sense to develop yet another rocket when the same thing is possible with existing ones for less money?<br />2. How does it make sense to put one's eggs in one basket (the SDHLV), and NASA developed and operated no less, in opposition to a WEALTH of options available in the commercial market?<br /> <br />

 

[bpcooper]

Keep in mind that a big factor in keeping it a Shuttle-derived system is not having to build a whole new launch pad, or severly modifying one of the ELV pads.<br /><br />This cuts down on time as well.<br /><br />I strongly think this is one of the factors. As for keeping it in Florida; there is very little chance of moving the program out of Florida to any extent (and they aren't going to be doing it from Vandenberg since that's for polar only) so I would not worry about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[gofer]

Well, an in-line SDV would need some heavy L39/8 pad/infrustrucutre tinkering. The Atlas pads(!) are ALREADY designed to take on an Atlas Heavy (my fav rocket design-wise: kerosene first stage + hydrogen upper stage), and it's simplicity itself (a "horse-shoe" so to speak like the Proton's 'plug interface') but I'm not sure anymore now that they've merged Lockheed with Boeing.<br /><br />And what about Orbit Cirularization? I've read things about SDVs that make it sound they push it onto the payload to achieve stable (LEO) orbit.

 

[scottb50]

I still think the quickest and safest way the proceed is a two stage design. A Shuttle based first stage, flyback tanks and SRB's combined with any number of second stages needed for a specific mission requirement. Use Shuttle facilities and launch pads as well as infrastructure already in place. <br /><br />I also think it is a big mistake to try to do too much with an CEV. A vehicle based on the X-37 would do a great job getting to and from orbit, using a second stage. Why make it more complicated than it has to be? If you want to go to the Moon you need a vehicle specific to that requirement, just as you need a vehicle specific to landing on the Moon and returning to Lunar orbit. The same with Mars. Didn't the Shuttle teach anyone this lesson?<br /><br />Using a common first stage and various second stages payloads could be easily adapted and carried, there could be any number of CEV's developed and flown and infinite low cost cargo containers developed to put items into orbit. Making the cargo containers and second stage tanks reusable would allow various vehicle combinations to be assembled in orbit for advanced missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Making the cargo containers and second stage tanks reusable would allow various vehicle combinations to be assembled in orbit for advanced missions."<br /><br />I admit that part of a SDHLV is tempting.

 

[scottb50]

If you use a Shuttle based first stage the entire second stage could be used to reach an orbit and thrusters and maneuvering engines on the stage could be used to reach a LEO Station, or transfer point. Detach the CEV, or cargo container, use the CEV to return people and cargo to the surface and the cargo containers as elements for future missions. You have perfectly good LH and LOX tanks as well as proven re-usable engines and Cargo Containers at a central location where they could be used for future missions beyond orbit. This, of course, assumes they are all the same basic Module. <br /><br />Using a Shuttle based first stage would also allow more robust Modules that could have multi-purpose uses, if every Module is man rated it would be a simple matter to outfit it as needed in orbit with equipment brought up in other Modules.<br /><br />Using the Moon as an example a three Module Vehicle, with cargo Modules attached could go from LEO to LLO and back on a scheduled basis. Once in LLO a landing vehicle could bring up cargo Modules and passengers and take down cargo Modules and passengers. It would be a lot more cost effective to base them on the Moon than bringing them from LEO on every mission.<br /><br />Think about it, once you are in LEO nowhere we could reasonably think of going needs anything beyond a simple cylinder, or Module. Attach them to one another like legos and you can build any configuration you need. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

They're planning on throwing away the SSMEs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

Shuttle_guy, do you think it would be possible or cost effective to recover the SSME's since they are designed for mulitple firings? OR would something like an RS-68 be better for the job on a SDHLV? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[najab]

Rocketdyne has said that they can offer an expendable version of the SSME.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Rocketdyne has said that they can offer an expendable version of the SSME.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />At what cost-saving though? Surely there would be a reasonable R&D component in manufacturing an expendable version? How many SSME's are there in the NASA inventory now? I assume it is considerably more than 9. If you already have a stockpile of SSME's, perhaps it would be more cost-effective to run through them as expendables and suppliment with manufacture of a few more made to the reusable spec? No messing around with getting an expendable version up and running.<br /><br />I guess it depends on how long you are going to run with a SDLV at the end of the day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Yes, this proposed architecture has "Temporary Fix" written all over it.<br /><br />I don't understand how you do high speed separation of cargo cannister and cargo.<br /><br />I'm really disappointed that the upper stages won't be re-usable, we need those things to provide on-orbit tug capability. They could even be combined into cargo landers for moon and Mars.<br /><br />Are there any proposals with three stages to orbit? This would let you carry exess dV capability to orbit with the upper stage and extend the operational capability tremendously. It's consistent with the innovations from t/space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Nobody knows yet (except for the people working on it). I suggest we just wait one more month, we'll get the answers soon enough.

 

[wvbraun]

You are "in the loop", it seems. Can you sum up how the sdv will look like from what you've heard? Please...? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />