NASA Wants a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle

[najab]

<i>...How many SSME's are there in the NASA inventory now? I assume it is considerably more than 9....</i><br /><br />Your assumption would be incorrect.

 

[spacester]

What I would ask for is the capability with the Heavy Lift to specify lower payload mass so I can take the ET and the entire cargo canister (with SSMEs) into orbit with me. The understanding is that I'm responsible for grabbing the ET and Canister with my tug (or some other means) to put them into high LEO good for 50 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Yes, I know what sdv means. I was wondering if there has been a decision yet, regarding the HLV, on whether the payload will sit on top of the ET (in-line configuration) or on its back or on how many SSMEs will be used (two, three, four), or on whether the SSMEs would be at the base of the ET or integrated into the cargo container...

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>this picture is what the SDLV heavy lift will probably look like.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Only if there's been an almighty problem at SRB sep! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /> <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>

 

[bobw]

I think he means that the whole stack looks like it is in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gofer]

Using a Shuttle based first stage would also allow more <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I apologize for a partial quotation, but ' man rating ' a rocket as it is given now is a misnomer and a political ploy. The olden Vostok and Gemini capsules-on-a-stick were MORE 'man-rated' than the current STS system (which has parts of the trajectory that cannot be aborted from altogether) Throttling down liquid engines vs. blowing up/rapturing the solids (watch that thing is gonna catch up with you as you attempt to escape), 'chutes vs. wings, etc... <br />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I do not understand that humor. What does that mean?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry SG. Yes, bobw is quite correct. I saw a small amount of personal humour in the fact that the entire stack appears to be in orbit in that NASA illustration. Moreover, the SRB's still appear to be boosting as well.<br /><br />I know you didn't attach the graphic in the context of how a STS-derived heavy lift vehicle would operate in reality, but only so that folks could get a feel for how such a configuration might look. Again, my apologies.<br /><br />One more serious question while I'm here. Do you think the six-segment SRB might be pressed into action on such a vehicle? I seem to recall you saying that aerodynamic forces during the early part of the ascent would prevent the more powerful SRB from being employed? <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>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Do you think the six-segment SRB might be pressed into action on such a vehicle?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I do not recall anyone proposing a six-segment SRB, the current booster is has four segments, and the proposed upgrade has five.

 

[henryhallam]

Are there any estimates yet for the payload capacity of the SDLV? (and into what sort of LEO). I mean, firmer estimates than the "70 to 100 metric tonnes" that is quoted in a lot of places.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"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)… "</font><br /><br />Let's not paraphrase. What he said was:<br /><br /><i>"The CEV, with all that I want it to do, in terms of its ability to service space station and, later, go to the Moon, cannot be easily assumed to weigh less than 30 metric tons - the weight of the Apollo Command and Service Module stack (leaving aside the Lunar Module). It is not reasonable to suppose that vehicle that needs to carry maybe twice that many crew on some Earth orbital missions or have some cargo for some minor cargo and consumables, and have other missions, will weigh much less than that. "</i><br /><br />Which is what I said in my post. The number he's using to derive the 30-ton figure is using the mass of the Apollo CSM -- the Command Module *and* the Service Module. He's also talking about the ability to go to the moon. For a lunar mission, there's going to be a lot more mass required than for an LEO/ISS mission. A CEV-system that can use EELVs for LEO missions and SDHLVs for Lunar missions will be considerably more flexible.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The rocket has also been decided on for all the wrong reasons (political pork barreling mainly) "</font><br /><br />I don't believe that anyone who has read many of my posts on the STS is under the impression that I'm a rabid shuttle supporter. However, I'm also not a rabid shuttle basher. STS has *lots* of flaws due to the massive number of compromises made during its design. However, the vast majority of those flaw is with the orbiter itself. I certainly believe that a clean-sheet HLV (CSHLV) could be designed and built that would have lower operational costs than a SDHLV. However, I don't believe that it could be done <b>quickly</b>, and I don't believe that the lower operational costs would make up for the increased development costs. In addi

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />The electronics are nothing. I'm taking about the hardware involved -- docking rings, etc. The APAS-89 docking ring as an example masses about 600 pounds. Take that as a very low-end figure because it's not designed to hold up under the stresses of accelleration/maneuvering that the assorted CEV modules would be put under. Of course you need two of them -- so 1200 pounds for every additional modular piece of the CEV system is a very low-end figure on mass addition. <br /></font><br /><br />Yes - not to mention that each module will probably require its own RCS system for attitude stabilisation at the very LEAST, even if the mythical space tug is available. If it isn't, figure some additional mass for extra rendezvous and docking propellant. Not an enormous amount, but it adds up. One large RCS for the whole vehicle weighs considerably less than independent RCS on each module.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...not to mention that each module will probably require its own RCS system for attitude stabilisation ..."</font><br /><br />Well -- except for the fact that I <b>did</b> mention it... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><i>"Ergo you also have to have at least minimal maneuverability on all modules. "</i><br />

 

[henryhallam]

See, that's why I need to drink more coffee in the mornings...

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">this picture is what the SDLV heavy lift will probably look like.</font>/i><br /><br />I still prefer "SDHLV", since there have been discussions for two shuttle-derived launch vehicles: the heavy lift for cargo and a lighter version for humans to LEO (consisting of a single SRB plus an upper stage).</i>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I do not recall anyone proposing a six-segment SRB, the current booster is has four segments, and the proposed upgrade has five.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Apologies, I seem to have had it in my head that the current Shuttle SRB is a five segment unit. I was referring to the modified Shuttle SRB that they test fired some time back. The one with a greater thrust output, as well as the additional (fifth) segment.<br /><br />I need to start writing more of this stuff down ...... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <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>

 

[mattblack]

Your big post is excellent, Mrmorris. Well done.<br /> <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>

 

[gofer]

(long post)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Let's not paraphrase. What he said was: <br /><br />"The CEV, with all that I want it to do, in terms of its ability to service space station and, later, go to the Moon, cannot be easily assumed to weigh less than 30 metric tons - the weight of the Apollo Command and Service Module stack (leaving aside the Lunar Module). It is not reasonable to suppose that vehicle that needs to carry maybe twice that many crew on some Earth orbital missions or have some cargo for some minor cargo and consumables, and have other missions, will weigh much less than that. " <br /><br />Which is what I said in my post. The number he's using to derive the 30-ton figure is using the mass of the Apollo CSM -- the Command Module *and* the Service Module. He's also talking about the ability to go to the moon. For a lunar mission, there's going to be a lot more mass required than for an LEO/ISS mission. A CEV-system that can use EELVs for LEO missions and SDHLVs for Lunar missions will be considerably more flexible. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I see nothing in the quote that supports your (implied) assertion that the CEV, as Griffin envisions it, can be broken into a 'Lunar' and a lighter 'LEO' variants (deliverable be the EELVs). In other words, what I'm getting from these texts is that the proposed CEV (in whatever configurations) will be NO LESS than 30 tonnes (the reason being "... all the things I want it do") *be it LEO OR translunar*. Perhaps I'm not reading between the lines?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't believe that anyone who has read many of my posts on the STS is under the impression that I'm a rabid shuttle supporter. However, I'm also not a rabid shuttle basher. STS has *lots* of flaws due to the massive number of compromises made during its design. However, the vast majority of those flaw is with the orbiter itself. I certainly believe that a clean-sheet</p></blockquote>

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I see nothing in the quote that supports your (implied) assertion that the CEV, as Griffin envisions it, can be broken into a 'Lunar' and a lighter 'LEO' variants (deliverable be the EELVs). In other words, what I'm getting from these texts is that the proposed CEV (in whatever configurations) will be NO LESS than 30 tonnes (the reason being "... all the things I want it do") *be it LEO OR translunar*. Perhaps I'm not reading between the lines?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Note that, from other texts (the Congress testimony for example), Griffin also favors the 'single stick SRB' as the 'light' CEV launcher. Coincidence? I think not. He appears to be deliberately putting it beyond *any* available launcher's capability OTHER than the suttle derived.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I see nothing in the quote that supports your (implied) assertion that the CEV, as Griffin envisions it, can be broken into a 'Lunar' and a lighter 'LEO' variants (deliverable be the EELVs). ... Perhaps I'm not reading between the lines? "</font><br /><br />Or perhaps you're just not connecting the dots.<br /><br />- It has been stated on many occasions that the CEV architecture is intended to have a modular design. This implies the ability to pick & choose which modules are used for a given mission.<br />- The quote from Griffin specifically referred to the CSM in getting his 30,000 kg figure. Of the Apollo CSM, the CM weighed in at ~5800kg and the SM at ~24,500kg (i.e. his ~30K number). The Service Module is *vastly* oversized for an LEO mission.<br />- Griffin <b>has</b> stated that he wants the CEV to be able to service the ISS.<br /><br />I'm fairly confident that Griffin is aware that the service module was the vast majority of the weight of the CSM, and I think he's probably cognizant of the fact that the SM would be huge overkill for ISS missions and I don't think he was kidding when he said that the US shouldn't have to rely on *anyone* to get to the ISS, and I'm pretty sure he's aware that NASA's budget is thinly stretched. All of this would tend to imply that a CEV 'crew module' with a much smaller propulsion capability would be the choice for ISS taxi/servicing missions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"A tug as a piece of an extensive LEO architecture<br />...together with a refueling depot, solar power generators, visited LEO/L1 stations, etc. <br />...NASA should be allowed to shop around for rides...<br />...SpaceX, Kistler, and others that are just waiting for a chance to enter the fray. </font><br /><br />Two things:<br /><br />1. We're working on distinctly different levels of reality. You're advocating what you'd really <b>like</b> to happen given a perfect world. I'm advocating what I see as the best case of

 

[yree]

Hercules Exploration System<br /><br />by Kevin Waldroup<br /><br />Hercules = Shuttle C<br />Hercules is basically a Shuttle C design with a different name so it will be easier to sell to the US general public. Imagine Sean O’ Keefe at a press conference announcing a new launcher; "In the proud tradition of the Saturn V and Titan launchers, here we have the Heavy Hercules and Medium Hercules launchers."<br /><br />Hercules Heavy Lift Vehicle (H.L.V)<br />The Heavy Lift Hercules Vehicle is composed of two solid rocket boosters attached to the external fuel tank, and a cargo module added to lift cargo. With this heavy lift vehicle you could boost payloads to low earth orbit of 160,000 pounds. It could be used to launch lunar bases, and resupply the International Space station. When we finally get space hotels, it could be used to launch people to these hotel facilities. When we have a heavy lift vehicle; we can build space stations here on Earth and just launch it (like we did with Skylab.)<br /><br />There could also be a Super Hercules...instead of having the cargo on the side of the external tank it is placed on top of it. Then connect 4 little Hercules to the external tank, and a payload beyond 200,000lbs. into low Earth orbit is possible.<br /><br />Hercules Medium Lift Vehicle (M.L.V)<br />The Medium Lift Hercules, or Little Hercules is a solid rocket booster with a second stage hydrogen fueled J2 class rocket engine that can launch 40,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. It will able to launch the new NASA spaceship I call "Clementine", and variant DOD Military Space craft. Clementine is a capsule design that will be launch on Little Hercules to Jimmy Doolittle class Space station and the Robert Goddard class station. (see below) The Little Hercules can be used by Russia to launch their spacecraft as well, Soyuz or Kliper, to International Space station or Russia Mir II Space station.<br /><br />The improved Little Hercules used a 5 segment solid rocket booster with an improved

 

[gunsandrockets]

" He [Griffin] appears to be deliberately putting it [CEV] beyond *any* available launcher's capability OTHER than the suttle derived. "<br /><br />Could be. I hope not. But I think it is too early to conclude just what Griffin will do. And I think some people try to read too much into some of the things that Griffin has said. Just like intrepreting the Oracle at Delphi, people will see what they want to see.<br /><br />http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/7_p1.html

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I DO NOT want my tax money to go towards a couple of Apollo styled flights per year for a handful of government employees and then be abandoned. We've done that already a while back.<br /><br /> The currently proposed architecture relying on the SDHLV and an SRB derived 'light' launcher, and Moon/Mars Direct, in my view, will lead exactly to that. I'd rather take a short-term hit in technical performance of an architecture but gain in economics and longetivity."<br /><br />Hear! Hear! <br />

 

[yree]

bump

 

[yree]

NASA Seeks to Develop Shuttle Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle<br />Keith Cowing<br />Friday, June 3, 2005<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1026<br /><br />NASA Wants a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle<br /><br />http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/06/nasa_wants_a_sh.html<br />

 

[gladiator1332]

Though I support the use of air launch for the CEV, if NASA does insist on going with the "throw everything on a heavy rocket and haul it up there" approach, I wish they would unify the launch vehicle development with Russia, and instead of bringing Energia back, I think they should concentrate on making the Soyuz into a heavy lifter. Sure the Russians are working on Onega, not sure if this is enough to shoot us to the Moon. <br />Even though Boeing, Lockheed, and NASA claims that their launch vehicle, (Delta IV, Atlas V, Shuttle) is the safest, most reliable, and most used vehicle, the only vehicle that can truly make this claim is the Soyuz. The Soyuz has launched over 1700 times, Boeing and Lockheed cannot make this claim. And the Shuttle, which has even hit the 150 mark, comes no where near the feat of 1700 launches. And lately, we haven't heard of too many Soyuz failures, hell I don't even know when the last one was. The SOyuz also has many variants. The heavy lift will be available for the Moon, but there are lighter versions for LEO missions. Thus, NASA will have a wide selection of possible launch vehicles for a given mission.<br />This will be a true test of the extent of the "not made here mentality" of NASA, and to see if they will forget that mentality when they are looking at a good deal. This is why NASA constantly frustrates me. It seems the private market goes with what ever is the best deal. They look to find the most innovatibe and cost efficient means to launch a vehicle. Just look at the T/Space design. However, NASA, when designing a new vehicle looks at one thing, how to keep Lockheed, Boeing, and the centers relying on the Shuttle happy. It doesn't matter if it is the most expensive, overall bad idea, if it gives business to Boeing and Lockheed, and keeps the Shuttle system going, NASA will go with it.