new launch vehicle

skywalker01 · Aug 1, 2005

<< Not to break any bubbles here >> None broken. I view the RBCC or TRCC LV only as one possible canidate from a list of possible canidates for what comes after the SDHLV (see earlier posts). The whole point of this discussion being that NASA has stated that so far in their architecture studies of their 4 part plan for going to Mars that they have run into a cash flow problem in the planned expanding space operations. Since the two largest recurring cost items in that plan are the SDHLV and the TLI stage, this particular part of the discussion has to do with possible replacements for both (at least that is what it is about for me).

skywalker01 · Aug 1, 2005

<<How big ground team would be in operations, launch preparations and tracking ? Total sum of salaries for operating team ?>> These were included. Off hand I don't remember the size or the cost details as the totals for these were not large compared to some of the other items. For the most part these items were modeled after X-15, SR-71, and DC-X operations but adjusted for this vehicle. <<From where would it be operating ? I assume somewhere in US, otherwise the legal stuff would be immensely more complicated. />> You are correct, the continental US. Specifically, the desert in southern California. <<What are the insurance costs ? Third-party liabilities ? />> I don't believe that was included. At the time of the study that was all in flux because the X-33 people were working at getting the laws changed for their planned over land test flights of the X-33. << Worst-case failure modes ? />> Like any LV/aircraft, worst case is it goes boom. << How fast turnaround time and what ground equipment required for this ? />> This was all included. Initial planned operational flight rate was 36 flights per year using two vehicles ( approx. 18 day turn around for each vehicle). TPS was hi-temp metal honeycomb and thermal blankets ala the Shuttle except for leading edges and nose. For the most part turn around operations were modeled after X-15 operations minus the science experiments as it was also processed in a horizontal position. Operationally this vehicle was designed strickly as a reusable first stage with a pilot and mission specialist for handling the payload/upper stage. Ejection seats and SR-71 flight suits were included for the crew. The vehicles were to be built two at a time using soft tooling using preproduction prototype methodologies, with a redesign for lessons learned between each pair of vehi

skywalker01 · Aug 1, 2005

Big Dumb Booster is on the list. I have always thought the idea of a BDB built using shipyard methods to be extremely interesting and worthy of more research. Unfortunately it is so far outside my experience base that I have never had the time to explore it to the level necessary to get an answer as to how well it would work cost wise. Nor have I ever had the opportunity to talk with those who have done that study to get a better idea of the accuracy of their work. It is a very interesting concept.

no_way · Aug 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /><<What are the insurance costs ? Third-party liabilities ?>> I don't believe that was included. ... <hr /></blockquote> This could stop you right there. Because of the next item which is .. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /><< Worst-case failure modes ? >> Like any LV/aircraft, worst case is it goes boom. <hr /></blockquote> Simply going boom isnt nearly as bad as coming down crashing over densely populated area. And thats very important for insurance costs. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />( approx. 18 day turn around for each vehicle<hr /></blockquote> This would be pretty abysmal for operational vehicle, but i understand now you are talking sort of a research craft ? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As far as costs for all the inspection and repairs, my memory is that it was either 10 or 15 percent of the total vehicle cost per flight based on the operational experience of the X-15. <hr /></blockquote> Again pretty terrible for any operational vehicle, but for research craft tolerable. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The largest was the amortization of the initial investment. <hr /></blockquote> Obviously. But i grant you that, a lot of stuff that usually gets neglected has been covered in this study, and if its partly based on X-15 and DC-X data that makes it a bit more believable. Still, take a LOX/hydrocarbon two-stage VTVL rocket, do a similar study and you will end up with much much better results, especially in turnaround and liability departments. Investment ( and amortization ) will also probably be a lot smaller, because all involved technologies are basically mature, they just has to be integrated in a new way.

skywalker01 · Aug 1, 2005

In order to keep the initial investment down (and as a result the initial user cost down) the phased development idea was developed. Since the vehicle would be redesigned based on lessons learned between every 2 vehicles built this would have allowed for gradual improvement in all the numbers posted and would have allowed for the vehicle to evolve into a full up EMD vehicle over time. As for crashing in a populated area, it was assumed that there would be a flight test program prior to the vehicle going operational so that the risk of this happening would have been very low both due to the flight testing and the selected ground path. Flight testing that would have exceeded the test range would have been performed over water (the vehicle could self-ferry). << Still, take a LOX/hydrocarbon two-stage VTVL rocket, do a similar study and you will end up with much much better results, />> That study was done and it had one very difficult problem. Where to land the reusable first stage. Minimum user cost occured when the staging velocity was at 70% of orbital velocity. The down range distance for that puts you in the ocean or in another country. Making the reusable first stage so that it could self-ferry made the vehicle so large that it lost its economic advantage. This problem also put drastic limitations on the orbital inclinations that could be reached. So if you have a solution to this problem I sure would like to hear it.

propforce · Aug 1, 2005

Hi Skywalker01, I responded your post but did not read yours and No_Way's posts. Sorry if I had repeated some of the same issues you two have discussed. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /><<You are comparing a launch system on paper with a very mature launch system. Apples and oranges.>> How else would you perform a preliminary evaluation on a new concept to see if it was worth further development? <hr /></blockquote> You'll have to make key assumptions. That's why these assumptions need to be revisited from time to time to make sure they're still valid. I preform a preliminary evaluation of a new concept by the following: 1) Define my ConOps and see if the proposed system meets or exceeds my requirements (note: it's an iterative process). Is it a "better mouse trap" or is it a "cheaper mouse trap"? 2) Determine the maturity level of critical technologies assumed in the system/subsystems. Do they exist in someone's imagination only, or the prototype has been demonstrated in a relevant environment? If not, what are some key design/testings must be demonstrated before I will proceed with the next step of development. What would happen if key/critical technologies fail? Are there alternate development path and still make the system work? (plan B?). I then assign a risk factor and define how that risk factor affect my cost model (increase cost). This forms my nonrecurring cost estimate. I then track these risks throughout its design and development cycle and readjust cost model if necessary. 3) For recurring cost, I scrub carefully on the "projected" mission model as they're always very optimistic in order to "sell" the program. Then I look at key component MTBOH, MTBR numbers (as they are also optimistic, especially on key components not yet developed). For advance concept demonstrator, there are few key component available as COTS so your re <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

no_way · Aug 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That study was done and it had one very difficult problem. Where to land the reusable first stage. <hr /></blockquote> At the pad. IMO, VTVL isnt worth doing if it doesnt land back at the pad. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Minimum user cost occured when the staging velocity was at 70% of orbital velocity. The down range distance for that puts you in the ocean or in another country. <hr /></blockquote> I dont get the "minimum user cost" point. How can you calculate the user cost when such operational details as recovery are left open ? Please do explain this a bit. I havent done a similar study of course and im not much of a rocket engineer at all, but my gut feeling would tell the ideal staging velocity to be much lower. So the system basically operates like this : you have a upper stage with vacuum-optimized engines, high ISP, it has a task to get up to orbital speed, starting above the atmosphere at relatively low speed. And of course, reentry. Then you have the high-thrust lower stage whose only sole purpose is to lift the upper stage above the atmosphere and to impart perhaps 20% of orbital velocity only. And this big guy absolutely has to return to the pad or else you kill any prospects for sufficiently fast turnaround. If necessary, oversize it, so it has enough delta-V left to come back and land. You could operate such a system with only one lower stage and several upper stages, because the flight profiles for upper stages would often require staying at the orbit for several days, and you want a very high flight rate of launch a day or so. The catch here of course is that your upper stage has to have a near-SSTO performance and everybody knows that SSTO is tough, _but_ this one would start above the atmosphere, no launch aerodynamics issues, purely vacuum-optimized engines which makes it a lot simpler. This is basi

skywalker01 · Aug 2, 2005

<> The reusable first stage for this study had wings and landing gear. For this study it was assumed that there would be a landing strip within gliding range of the staging point. There was a lot of argument about how to get it back to the launch site. Some wanted to use a carrier vehicle, others a pair of strap-on turbines, others wanted built-in turbines plus fuel to fly all the way back, some wanted to put a string of launch site around the world so that it would fly from launch site to launch site with each mission, and some wanted to refuel with enough rocket propellant at the landing site for it to self-ferry via rocket motors. Another suggestion was to launch from the west coat of Africa so that it could land on the east coast of Africa (that only solved the landing site problem), but all of these suggestions were pretty much limited to a due east launch and didn't solve the entire problem. Also, most of the so-called solutions added so much cost to the concept that they made it non-competitive with the TRCC vehicle. In closing, the end result was to leave it out since it was being compared to the TRCC vehicle which did have self-ferry capability via the on-board turbines. In other words, we gave up on the idea. Looking at the problem again now after all this time, I can't help but wish I had thought to investigate a mini BDB launching from Kennedy (or from the ocean next to Kennedy) and either parachute or soft-landed the first stage at sea and then have it towed home by ocean going tug. <> Not when you are using a reusable first stage with exp

skywalker01 · Aug 2, 2005

Hey there Propforce, Good to see your answer. Yes you have covered some of the same ground but from a different perspective which I always find valuable. As for the differences in conceptual design approaches between you and I, I see the one you outlined as most appropriate for a mature industry like the aircraft industry. For myself, I don't see the launch vehicle business as being a mature industry at all. There are too many ideas out there that have never been tried out or fully studied that have the potential of drastically remaking the way things are done in the industry. For example, how would the design of SpaceShipOne come out using your method? Then there is the issue of the flight rate and the size of the current launch market. Does it really make sense to apply production aircraft technology maturity standards to what technology you are willing to use when the flight rate of any given vehicle is so low? In other words, does the application of these standards really help by either improving flight safety, or by reducing launch costs, or in some way add to the growth of the industry? From my perspective it doesn't look like it does to me. Due to the low flight rates of any given vehicle as well as the number of untried/uninvestigated ideas out there, I would much rather see a lot more prototyping and flight testing going on so that more of these ideas could be tried out. That is why I chose the evolving prototype method that I described in an earlier post. It is a method that has been used in the past by the aircraft industry before it matured or when dealing with outside the box concepts like the F-117 back in the 80's. As to the TRCC or RBCC vehicle. I agree with you that the technology is not mature enough for starting out with a full size vehicle. What I would like to see is a small demonstrator/test vehicle, either manned or unmanned, along the lines of the X-15, DC-X, or F-

no_way · Aug 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As a fully reusable TSTO? Again, I wouldn't know without running the numbers. <hr /></blockquote> Just to clarify, i was talking about VTVL TSTO all along.

skywalker01 · Aug 2, 2005

<<Just to clarify, i was talking about VTVL TSTO all along. >> I understand, VTVL TSTO, but with a reusable first stage and expendable upper stage, or both stages reusable?

dwightlooi · Aug 2, 2005

Three things... (1) IMHO, high costs of the US manned space flight program is not the result of the launcher but the result of excessive launch support infrastructure. It costs about $3 billion a year to man the launch complex, mission control and other infrastructure related to the shuttle even if no shuttles every flies that year. A lot of this stuff is inherited from the Apollo era and more was added during the shuttle's tenure. Unless cost reductions are made in the launch support arena, a twice a year launch of expendable rockets will cost $1.5 billion a pop even if the rockets cost $1 to build. Unless we are willing to make personel reductions and trim auxiliaries, affordable space flight will remain a dream. Personally, my belief is that the role of NASA should be to fulfill its mission of science, engineering and exploration, it should not be its role to provide employment. People who work with or for NASA has to adapt to it not the other way around. I know. (2) Based on the assertions made in (1) I believe that the question should not be whether the future launch vehicles in NASA's stable should be shuttle derived. That is not the important thing. The important thing is whether NASA can revamo the way it manages, operates and supports manned space flight. Even though Shuttle derivative systems will tend to encourage preserving the support structure and maintaining a status quo in NASA's habits, there is no reason to believe that NASA wouldn't implement a similarly cumersome and costly infrastructure around an all new launcher or that just because the boosters themselves are shuttle derivative designs that NASA cannot change its ways. (3) Having said the above, the more I think about it, the more a solid booster based medium lift system makes sense. Solids don't blow up as readily even if they cannot be turned off. Solids are simple and uncomplicated. Solids are dense and compact even if they are not efficient. I believe that NASA

spacefire · Aug 2, 2005

A dual mode scramjet SSTO could be built within 10 years if NASA commited to it. The payoff would be enormous. If NASA operated under the same rules as in the 60s, it would certainly be accomplished, but I doubt it would cost nearly as much as Mercury+Gemini+Apollo combined. It would probably cost less than the Apollo program by itself. Why? Because the subject has been investigated already, both theoretiaclly and experimentally. Data gathered during the HyperX flights and the X33/X38 programs would be put to good use. It would almost justify those two canvelled projects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

skywalker01 · Aug 2, 2005

Finally had a chance to check out those links to the 'Rocket Company' you posted. Chapter 4 was interesting reading. Thank you.

no_way · Aug 3, 2005

If you get the chance, read the entire book. It was freely available on web when published by Hobbyspace but went into print later and they removed it from there. And i meant fully reuseable TSTO, with both stages reuseable. IMO partly reuseable vehicles make little sense. Low costs can come with high flight rate, and there are two ways to achive that: fast production rate with mass-produced ELVs or fast turnaround with reuseable vehicles. When talking about partly reuseable you have to achieve _both_ which makes things much more complicated.

propforce · Aug 3, 2005

Since there is a lot of interests on hypersonics, here's a good article summarizing the current U.S. hypersonic activities (strangely enough, coming from a British magazine) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hyper Activity After test hits and flops, budget ups and downs, is US hypersonic propulsion development heading for oblivion or will a rallying call reinvigorate research? Flight International DATE:02/08/05 http://www.flightinternational.co.uk/Articles/2005/08/02/Navigation/200/200623/Hyper+Activity.html When NASA's diminutiveX-43A hypersonic demonstrator streaked across the skies over the Pacific at just under Mach 10 on 16 November 2004 it was hailed as a massive success for the agency and its Hyper-X partners. Yet, as with so many other areas of US aeronautics research, the funding for the next stage of the effort - the larger X-43C - had already been withdrawn, and as the last demonstrator plunged to a watery grave in the ocean it seemed NASA's entire hypersonic programme might soon follow it into oblivion. The Hyper-X effort was aimed at demonstrating airframe-integrated "air-breathing" engine technologies that have the potential to dramatically increase payload capacity for reusable space launchers and hypersonic aircraft. Hyper-X was originally intended to include two additional X-43 variants beyond the -43A, of which there were three individual test vehicles. Cancelled The X-43B was to have demonstrated a combined-cycle engine capable of operating as a normal turbojet at low speeds and switching to scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) mode at high altitudes and speeds. The first X-43B flights were set for 2009 onwards after the completion of another Hyper-X test vehicle, the X-43C. This was intended to demonstrate t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Search

new launch vehicle

skywalker01

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

no_way

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

propforce

Guest

no_way

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

no_way

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

dwightlooi

Guest

spacefire

Guest

skywalker01

Guest

no_way

Guest

propforce

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page