NASA Wants a Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle

[yree]

bomp<br />

 

[crix]

I agree, very interesting paper. I had always assumed that putting humans on top of any solid propellant was a big no-no, but this design looks great. Could this setup launch a 30ton CEV? If that's taken care of then we've got the SDLV for really big modules. Those two together should work great for all our infrastructure needs. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[najab]

><i>Could this setup launch a 30ton CEV? </i><p>As shuttle_guy has pointed out, the SRB inline concept <b>requires</b> that the CEV+upper stage weigh about 400,000lbs if the launch loads are to stay below 3Gs.</p>

 

[rogers_buck]

I had an idea for a shuttle sandwich. The basic idea is to bolt two ET, SRB stacks back to back seperated by a flat framework. The bottom of the framework would attach two SME reusable pods tucked underneath the respective ETs and the top of the framework (above the ETs) would provide fixtures for mounting a payload under a ferring.<br /><br />Seems like that would be an incredibly powerfull beast (4 SRBs + 2 SME clusters). The configuration would also do away with the absurd carefull crafstmanship involved in foaming the tank. It might pull too many G's for man rating, however...

 

[henryhallam]

I think that would require very extensive modifications to both the pad and the VAB. Not that that is entirely impossible but it's unlikely in the near future.

 

[botch]

Is there any scenario that would require a launch vehicle capable of that sort lifting capacity? (say 180-200t)

 

[najab]

><i>Is there any scenario that would require a launch vehicle capable of that sort lifting capacity? (say 180-200t)</i><p>Mars direct ascent.</p>

 

[botch]

Wouldn't that be like apollo missions: get to your destination without developing the infrastructure?

 

[rogers_buck]

Assemble the two halves seperately and bolt them together on the pad. A mobile crane could install the cargo module in-situ. The pad should be the least expensive part of the development.<br />

 

[yree]

Heavy Lift Launch for Lunar Exploration<br />http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf<br />Shuttle-Derived<br />Vehicles:<br />A Brief History –<br />A Long Future?<br />Greg Zsidisin<br />25 October 2003<br />A presentation to the New York City<br />chapter of the National Space Society<br />Edited 2 Nov 2003<br />http://www.gzspace.com/SDVs_GZsidisin.pdf

 

[yree]

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate<br />Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)<br />Overview<br />Exploration Transportation Systems<br />Strategic Roadmap Workshop<br />February 2005<br /><br />http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/apio/pdf/cev/07_constellation_aoa.pdf

 

[najab]

Well, you asked what would it be good for - you never said it had to be a <i>good</i> reason! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[botch]

lol

 

[spacester]

I can come up with scenarios for 200 MT to LEO but it's quite a stretch. The scenarios become more relaistic if they're 10-20 years after we get 80-100 MT to LEO.<br /><br />I've made lists before of what 80-100 MT would be used for . . . that was enough of a stretch for most people. Fortunately, Mike Griffin sees the light, I think. IIRC, he's talked about the SDHLV being that big.<br /><br />The killer with the 200 MT launcher is launch pad modifications. In the real world, IMO you're looking at a whole new pad from scratch, especially if you want this behemoth to provide CATS. That's not gonna happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

I never get used to lines like '200 MT to LEO' without first thinking "that's a <i><b>big</b> nuke</i>" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yree]

bump

 

[najab]

><i>I never get used to lines like '200 MT to LEO' without first thinking "that's a big nuke...</i><p>You too!</p>

 

[yree]

5/22/2005 GRIFFIN'S DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED<br /><br />Shuttle Derived Concepts (ATK Thiokol)In recent weeks it has become clear that Michael Griffin, NASA's new Administrator, is maneuvering to win support for development of a new series of "shuttle-derived" launchers. By stating that he expected the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) launch mass to grow beyond the capabilities of any existing launch vehicle, Griffin effectively leveled the playing field between shuttle-derived and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) options.<br /><br />In early May, in a speech at a meeting of Women in Aerospace, Griffin said that the Project Constellation CEV should weigh no less than about 30 metric tons, more weight than could be carried by any vehicle available to launch it today. Previously, NASA's CEV requirements had called for a launch mass not to exceed 20 metric tons, a weight that could be launched by current EELV (Boeing Delta IV and Lockheed Martin Atlas V) designs.<br /><br />On May 18, in a statement before a U.S. Senate subcommittee, Griffin mentioned two possible paths toward development of a CEV launch vehicle. The first path would be to develop a launch system derived from the Shuttle components, specifically a single Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) topped by a new upper stage. The second option would be to upgrade the EELV heavy-lift designs, an effort that he said would also require development of a new upper stage.<br /><br />During the same presentation, Griffin reiterated his previous commitments to both retire Shuttle in 2010 and to revise the CEV program to make the new spacecraft available soon after the Shuttle retires so that it could perform International Space Station (ISS) support missions. With these commitments, Griffin deftly added a sense of urgency to the CEV program - an urgency that seems intended to leverage Congressional support for shuttle-derived launch vehicle development.<br /><br />Griffin told the subcommittee that, "a key aspect of the Agency's

 

[cdr6]

Very interesting post, thankyou for pulling that one up.<br /><br />I am beginning to wonder a little about the new NASA chief though.<br /><br />First it was CEV (must have it quicker-fast track), then shuttle RTF, then new boosters from the soon to be defunct shuttle system, now CEV is to fly AFTER shuttle is retired? Say again?<br /><br />Maybe my paranoia is loose...but is he trying to be too many things to too many people? I mean this is what got us into this mess we have now. "Everything, for everybody, all the time..." <br /><br />Does the man even know he's got a limited budget to work with? (This ain't the Apollo days... an even they had milestones) Mercury Redstone (proof of concept), Mercury Atlas (prototype production), Gemini Titan (feasibility/functionallity), Apollo (production). Plus, enroute to that one small step we had a whole series of reconnisance orbiters, impact vehicles and landers to do the preliminaries pryor to sending a man to the moon. Likewise there, is nothing annouced in way of serious recon being planned. Are we going back to Tranquility maybe?<br /><br />As yet there have been no milestones laid out for launch vehicles, the cev and etc developement. (lots of spirals though...) <br /><br />Much is also being made about man-rating the boosters...for the love of Mike, we started the whole space program using an artillery rocket, and a couple of city killers...If we can man rate those puppies we can man-rate the current crop of expendables in at least a like time frame.<br /><br />Being an "old school dinosaur type", I would like to see some of this laid out in black and white. <br /><br />Or maybe I'm just overly worried/concerned or being paranoid... <br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>First it was CEV (must have it quicker-fast track), then shuttle RTF, then new boosters from the soon to be defunct shuttle system, now CEV is to fly AFTER shuttle is retired? Say again?</i><p>In order to have it ready before Shuttle retires would require developing an entire manned launch system in under 4.5 years. Remember, before Mike took over they were talking IOC in 2014+ - now he's talking "late 2010-early 2011", that qualifies as fast tracking to me.</p>

 

[yree]

Duo praise defense bill<br /><br />Bishop, Matheson tout funds Utah is to receive<br /><br />By Jerry D. Spangler and Leigh Dethman<br />Deseret Morning News<br /><br /> WASHINGTON — Utah-based defense and aerospace contractors could fare pretty well under provisions of a defense appropriations bill passed earlier this week by the House and now awaiting Senate action.<br /> Reps. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah, hailed the passage of the legislation, which includes a 3.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, $1.2 billion for protective field gear and $230 million for enhanced insurance and death benefits.<br /> "First and foremost, this legislation is about supporting our troops on the ground, from providing for more body armor to raising military pay," Matheson said.<br /> But the defense bill is also about bringing home the bacon, and both Bishop and Matheson were touting the millions that would be coming to Utah if the bill is approved by the Senate.<br /> Bishop helped secure $7 million to upgrade the Senior Scout system, a program solely supported by the 169th Intelligence Squadron of the Utah National Guard.<br /> <br /> The Senior Scout system is a collection of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment that provides capabilities to exploit, "geo-locate" and report signals of interest to air and ground unit commanders. The onboard electronic system can be loaded into the back of a C-130 military transport.<br /> The Utah Air National Guard doesn't have any C-130s in its fleet, said Lt. Col. Bill Siddoway, commander of the 169th.<br /> "We have to thumb a ride every time we deploy," which is about once every three months for a 30-day deployment, Siddoway said.<br /> However, the Senior Scout system can be deployed with the linguists and analysts of the 169th Intelligence Squadron, and the system can be installed on any premodified aircraft within 24 hours, according to the National Guard Bureau.

 

[wvbraun]

I hope Griffin goes for the SSRB-LV with a capsule (Northrop/Boeing design) on top of it. I mean, does anyone seriously believe Lockmart could have their lifting body with Atlas V/Delta IV as the LV ready by 2010/11? <br />If there are delays NASA will be in big trouble since the Shuttle program will be extended again and again sucking up the funds needed to develop the CEV and lunar hardware.

 

[yree]

SDLV Finalist<br /><br />Editor's note: Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has more or less settled on a 120 metric ton payload, in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System.<br />