NASA Wants a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle

[wvbraun]

"I think they should concentrate on making the Soyuz into a heavy lifter."<br /><br /><br />To make Soyuz into a heavy lifter you'd have to modify the rocket in a such way that you might as well start from scratch. That makes the point you raise about reliability mute.<br /><br />A shuttle derived vehicle makes a lot more sense since the shuttle system alreay is a (super) heavy lift vehicle.

 

[yree]

6/10/2005 NASA's NEW LAUNCH FLEET<br /><br />Shuttle Derived ConceptsOn June 4, 2005, Keith Cowing's Nasa Watch reported that NASA will soon announce plans to develop a Shuttle-derived launch vehicle (SDLV) capable of boosting 80-100 metric tons (MT) into low earth orbit (LEO). The new rocket would presumably support NASA’s Project Constellation missions to the Moon and Mars.<br /><br />This report came as no surprise to those who have heard new NASA Director Michael Griffin repeatedly state his preference for Shuttle-derived launch architectures.<br /><br />What will these SDLVs look like? Only a few at NASA know right now, but plenty of clues are available that allow the rest of us to do some educated guessing.<br /><br />Two launch vehicles will be needed. The first will be used to launch astronauts on the yet-to-be-defined Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).This launcher will be able to boost 15-20 MT or more to LEO. The second launch vehicle will be a heavy-lift SDLV able to lift 80-100 MT to LEO.<br /><br />The Stick<br /><br />Projected CEV launchers include Boeing Delta IV and Lockheed Martin Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), along with a new single-stick shuttle-derived solid rocket booster (SRB)-based design proposed, and heavily promoted by, ATK Thiokol. Its designers call this concept “The Stick”.<br /><br />The Stick, which has won support in some NASA offices, would use a new liquid hydrogen upper stage atop a recoverable solid rocket booster (SRB) much like the SRBs used on the current shuttle stack. The new upper stage could be powered by a space shuttle main engine (SSME), by a J-2S engine revived from an Apollo-era program, or by a cluster of RL60 engines now being developed by Pratt & Whitney. Varying numbers of SRB segments could be used in the first stage. Studies by Lockheed and ATK Thiokol have shown that such single-stick vehicles could orbit payloads ranging from 16 MT to 25 MT or more. The most powerful versions could actually match the

 

[redgryphon]

Yree, great summary article. Good stuff. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />There's also a Space News article here on the competition between Lockheed and Boeing for the CEV lifter.

 

[nacnud]

w00t <br /><br />That configuration seems to be growing on me, now there is just the small matter of thrust termination to figure out fully. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />This is being used as a basis for recommending the <br />SDLV In-Line Medium launcher for the CEV.<br /></font><br /><br />In-line "medium", does this mean 3 SSMEs rather than 4? And presumably this would be for all-up moonshots rather than LEO missions.<br /><br />Sounds promising!

 

[holmec]

I guess were talking about the following article.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_050613.html<br /><br />I worry about a space shuttle derived system. Mainly because of the fuel tank that hopefully should be corrected by next Discovery flight.<br /><br />This article seems to infer that cost is an issue and that going with an EELV derived rocket will allow NASA to split the cost with the Air Force.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"This article seems to infer that cost is an issue and that going with an EELV derived rocket will allow NASA to split the cost with the Air Force."<br /><br />From the article: <i>With solid boosters and modifications to both the main engine and upper stage, Harvey said, the Delta 4-Heavy could deliver about 50 tons to low Earth orbit. Getting above 50 metric tons would require much more extensive modifications and a new launch pad and infrastructure. Getting above 100 metric tons would require building what Boeing considers a next-generation Delta with bigger engines and a wider first stage, which would require new production facilities.<br /><br /><b>Harvey acknowledged that the expense of such an approach would be substantial and likely NASA's alone to bear.</b> "The reason we prefer enhancing the existing heavy is that it takes advantage of existing infrastructure, which is a very big part of the cost," he said."</i> <br /><br /><br />The Boeing design sucks. Lockmart's Atlas V could reportedly be upgraded to lift 70-80 tons without the need to build a new launch pad: <br /><br /><i>Lockheed's Sowers said the current heavy-lift variant of the Atlas 5 - which has been designed but not built - lends itself to upgrades to meet NASA human and cargo launch needs. With a wider Centaur upper stage outfitted with one or more RL10 engines, the Atlas 5 could lift the 25-30 metric ton CEV. By combining the wider Centaur with a wider main stage, the Atlas 5 could lift 70-80 tons of payload and still operate out of its existing launch facilities, he said.<br /><br />"This is the option we've told NASA is the most attractive for human space flight because it's the simplest," Sowers said. "It's two stages to orbit, it's all liquid so you don't have the catastrophic failure modes and it has engine out capability. It comes the closest to meeting the exact letter of the human rating requirements of anything I've seen."</i><br /><br /><br />I still hope NASA goes with a shuttle derived vehicle

 

[wvbraun]

It makes sense to them. NASA is essentially asked to pay for a military program. Let's hope that Griffin has the guts to stand up to Rumsfeld.

 

[wvbraun]

"I don't think Rumsfeld is something that Griffin has to worry about. He has an agenda and I don't think he is worried about Rumy. The only way Rumsfeld could influence NASA is with $."<br /><br />Read the article. The decision on the HLV will be made by the White House based on a joint recommendation by the DoD and NASA. Griffin can't decide this on his own.

 

[yree]

NASA Selects Contractors for Crew Exploration Vehicle Work<br />Monday June 13, 4:25 pm ET<br /><br />WASHINGTON, June 13 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA today announced the selection of Lockheed Martin Corp. and the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and The Boeing Co. that will lead to an award to build the agency's Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The selection is part of NASA's plan to have two contractors compete in the design and production process for the Space Shuttle's replacement.<br /><br />ADVERTISEMENT<br />NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for the CEV to carry up to six astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit soon after the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010, and then on to the moon as early as 2015.<br /><br />The CEV acquisition strategy is a multi-phased project. Phase 1 called for industry to mature their crewed vehicle designs and demonstrate their ability to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of human-rated spacecraft development.<br /><br />Phase 2, covering final CEV design and production, was scheduled to start with a down-selection to a single industry team in 2008. To reduce or eliminate the gap between the Shuttle's retirement in 2010 and an operational CEV, the Phase 2 down-selection is planned for 2006.<br /><br />Results of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's Exploration Systems Architectural Study will be incorporated into a Call For Improvements later this year to invite Phase 2 proposals from the Phase 1 contractors.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

I think that a HLV is a mistake and unneccessary for VSE, but if NASA is determined to have it, than the Shuttle C design (77 tonnes to LEO) which maximizes the use of existing infrastructure is the way to go.<br /><br />On the other hand the idea of using a Shuttle SRB for a medium lift manned booster fills me with horror. It makes much more sense to fly with an existing booster such as the Atlas V or the Delta IV and avoid a ridiculous duplication of effort.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...the Shuttle C design (77 tonnes to LEO) which maximizes the use of existing infrastructure is the way to go."</font><br /><br />I agree. For the number of launches required -- it makes little sense to <b>hugely</b> increase the development costs and risks simply to get the additional capacity. In any event -- if the CEV itself is launched on a 'Stick' or an EELV, and the remainder launched on a 77-ton SDHLV, then the total launch mass approaches 100 tons. <br /><br />With this -- two SDHLV launches and one CEV launch could provide not only a moon landing but the beginnings of a lunar infrastructure.<br /><br />SDHLV Launch 1: Contains a lunar hab (a Bigelow inflatable?), food/water/oxygen supplies for an extended stay, the propulsion stages to get it to the moon and land on the surface, and anything else that will fit in the mass budget. In particular -- any additional mass budget might be used for tanks with propellant/oxidizer to refill a reusable lunar lander from the surface.<br /><br />SDHLV Launch 2: Contains an orbiting hab module (another Bigelow Special?) that will act as the foundation for a lunar space station, a reusable lunar lander, the propulsion stages to get this (plus the CEV) to the moon, a reusable lunar lander, and oxidizer/propellant tanks for refueling it in lunar orbit.<br /><br />A Stick/EELV launch to get the CEV to LEO to dock with the SDHLV launch 2 for the transit to the moon.<br /><br />I'm not sure about SDHLV launch 2. It may well be over the mass budget -- there's too many unknowns to be sure. Three SDHLV launches might be required. However, once those were in place, there would be safe harbors on both the lunar surface and in orbit -- and future launches could all be used to continue building the infrastructure to make the bases more self-sustaining (propellant/oxygen production, water mining, closed-loop ECLSS, a spare lunar lander, etc.) In any event -- the scenario wouldn't be dramatically improved

 

[najab]

><i>On the other hand the idea of using a Shuttle SRB for a medium lift manned booster fills me with horror. It makes much more sense to fly with an existing booster such as the Atlas V or the Delta IV and avoid a ridiculous duplication of effort.</i><p>How is there a duplication of effort? The Atlas and Delta would both need significant work to upgrade them to launch the CEV (the most recent issue to be raised is that they aren't structurally strong enough to meet NASA's requirements). OTOH, the SRB exists and is 'man-rated' <i>today</i>.<p>It's true that the SRB-inline configuration would require a new upper stage, but that is true of the EELVs too, so there's no net advantage for either one here.</p></p>

 

[drwayne]

I find the potential use of the J2 fascinating. It has proven to be a good engine for sure.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"Calling the CEV the replacement for the Shuttle does speak to the high possibility that the CEV will also take the place of the SDV"<br /><br />There is no such possibility. The SDV would launch the CEV and associated hardware. The CEV is going nowhere without a launch vehicle (either the SDV or one of the EELVs).

 

[crix]

We haven't seen for sure that anyone is planning on making a CXV. Without it, and assuming the CEV is launched in the SDLV, we would also have to assume that the CEV would be launched with a crew. Griffin has already criticized the Shuttle as an X-ton shroud for its passengers.... so I guess we can assume there will be a CXV! Is all this stuff going to be cleared up in 3 weeks? I still don't understand if "CEV" refers to a single craft or the sum of multiple modules. Dangit.

 

[rybanis]

This might have been asked before, but how much would it cost to build the pad and everything associated with that for the "stick"?<br /><br />Also, has the J-2 been used on anything other than the Saturn family? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I don't know of any other uses.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Also, has the J-2 been used on anything other than the Saturn family? "</font><br /><br />Looks like it was used for the Saturn family and proposed for several other boosters that never made it off paper (i.e. Nova & others).

 

[nacnud]

<font color="orange">"Also, has the J-2 been used on anything other than the Saturn family? "<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Looks like it was used for the Saturn family and proposed for several other boosters that never made it off paper (i.e. Nova & others).<br /><br /><font color="white">Interestinly from the Astronautix page:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Modestly improved J-2S was tested and provides [the] basis for [the] X-33 linear aerospike engine thirty years later.<br /><br /><font color="white">So it might not be that costly to restart production.</font></font></font></font></font>

 

[yree]

bump<br />

 

[rybanis]

Ohhh, they would probably just put it in the port side SRB mount on the pad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yree]

Reliability and Crew Safety Assessment<br />for<br />Solid Rocket Booster / J-2S Based<br />Launch Vehicle<br /><br />http://www.boom.net/~jake/atk_docs/ATK_Thiokol_SRB.J_2S_PRA.pdf

 

[drwayne]

Very interesting reading yree, thanks!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Very interesting reading yree, thanks!</font>/i><br /><br />I agree!! Thanks yree!<br /><br />This is an information-rich resource, and I encourage everyone interested in the VSE architecture to take a look at this. It is a 5.5 MB PDF file, and it provides lots of charts, graphs, simulation results, etc. on how they derived the risks to loss of life using an SRB-derived booster for crew access to LEO.<br /><br />If I were NASA King, I would (1) immediately start an SRB-derived launch capability for crew access to LEO (and ISS), (2) immediately start a Shuttle-derived HLV (side mounted like today's shuttle) for cargo, and (3) develop a LEO-to-Lunar Surface CEV.<br /><br />It seems to me that (1) and (2) provide (a) the lowest project risk because most of the elements are already well understood, (b) fastest turn-around time because much of the manufacturing capability, launch infrastructure, and expertise already exists, (c) cheapest because of 'a' and 'b', and (d) politically expedient because it limits America's down time with respect to independent access to space and preserves many of the jobs in key congressional districts.<br /><br />The big gamble is convincing Griffin that a CEV between LEO and the Lunar Surface is the way to go, but that is another story.<br /><br />Read the PDF report!</i>