News about CEV and heavy lift launchers.

[gpurcell]

Sigh.<br /><br />We have off-the-shelf technology that can handle the demands of the job.<br /><br />Where NASA gets into trouble is bleeding edge design. The shuttle is a complete kludge because NASA tried to do to much. Want to avoid that? Use technology we know works and strive for evolutionary not revolutionary improvements.

 

[j05h]

Prop - I've said it before, I'm not against the aerospace workers in the trenches at NASA or the primes. There is no arguing with the fact that Shuttle is outdated and dangerous, regardless of recent upgrades. Yes, decision makers in Congress, at HQ and the Primes are responsible for the mess. That still doesn't mean we should keep flying this pig until it kills more astronauts. <br /><br />I'd like to see a move away from Shuttle-Derived, too, but realize that the quickest route to VSE, ISS completion/write-off and making CEV is via pre-existing hardware. it is not, however, the cheapest route by a long shot. NASA is going make another run at breaking the bank with the new rockets. <br /><br />I still think t/space or another alt.space company will have manned orbital systems flying before NASA. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now if you selected F1As then you have a chance of getting a rise out of someone. <br /><br />Since you are an expert, they are saying that the escape tower will allow for egress at any level of the flight. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1207,<br /><br />Well... It's been so long, I'd believe they've lost the F-1/F-1A toolings. I don't even know if they still have all the drawings to make a F-1 anymore. <br /><br />I am not an expert on the launch escape system (LES) but I believe they will keep the LES on until after 1st and 2nd stage separation which should be around 300K feet. The LES should stay until after the 2nd stage rocket ignite before jetison. <br /><br />Shuttle_Guy may be more familiar with the SDHLV architecture.<br /><br />I'd imagine the most difficult requirement for the LES is to jetison at launch pad as it needs to go far enough away from an exploding rocket. I've also heard that they want a 6DOF control capability to steer it toward the ocean, depending on the altitude of escape. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I could not help but wonder if replacing the SRB with liquid LOx/RP boosters is a better idea. Put 2 RD-171s per booster and we'll have shut-down and throttling capability."</font><br /><br />Too bad NASA is unable to freely do whatever makes sense engineering-wise, but instead have to obey the winds of politics and lobbying. NASA needs another von Braun who has the backing of Whitehouse and charisma to tell any people trying to pull another Thiokol/Utah stunt to stfu and disappear.<br /><br />While back I daydreamed of even simpler SRB-replacement, pressurefed LOX/RP-1. Run some rough numbers how feasible it would be. Assumed the following<br /><br />- liquid booster has same GLOW than SRB<br />- liquid engine T/W 100 (gives engine weight)<br />- SRB Isp 250s liquid Isp 300s (both vary by altititude but difference remains about the same, used these to calculate theoretical deltaVs)<br />- liquid tank massfraction 0.90<br />- sandbag for recovery, pressurants, rest of the plumbing and whatnot 20 tonnes.<br /><br />Resulting liquid booster had more empty weight than SRB, 96.5t versus 86.2t, but liquid version was able to give much more dV, 5.6km/s versus 4.7km/s.<br /><br />Overhaul wouldn't require disassembly and transporting the parts across the continent, just hose down with fresh water, inspect that everything is nominal, reload sep pyros, attach, fill liquids, launch.<br /><br />Too bad the decision is already made <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"they've lost the F-1/F-1A toolings. I don't even know if they still have all the drawings to make a F-1 anymore"</font><br /><br />I doubt the blue prints are lost, similar urban legend to whole Saturn V schematics. Although the person who last filed (and remembers where they are) the corresponding microfilms to some NASA vault is probably long since retired.<br /><br />Too bad someone didn't allocate, say, one million per year, a drop in NASA budget ocean, to keep Saturn V and all related technology in some sort of minimal life support. One mil would have kept a small team of engineers busy updating the blueprints to match emerging technologies and simulations, run some CFDs to those F-1s to make sure all pogos are really gone etc. etc.<br /><br />Now it would be handy to take those updated plans into action, upload up-to-date files into CNC lathe/milling station and press the button. A bit simplified, yes, but still.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I doubt the blue prints are lost, similar urban legend to whole Saturn V schematics.</font>/i><br /><br />Given the importance these engines and the Saturn have had in America's history, I think it would be nice to "open source" the relevant documents. It would be nice if some money was allocated to scan in the information and create a website for it (Saturn.nasa.gov).</i>

 

[scottb50]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/space/02nasa.html?ex=1123646400&en=3d7bccc2dea5ec7d&ei=5009&partner=MSN_NYTHOME <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefrak]

The CEV in the pic looks a bit like Russian Clipper, only shorter, kinda doubledecker way.. What's that landing skid in there for? Why not put a airbag there too.. Ofcourse this is propably only just a teaser pic.. <br />http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/biconic.cev.l.jpg

 

[tomnackid]

> I doubt the blue prints are lost, similar urban legend to whole Saturn V schematics.<br /><br />As I understand it all of the blueprints were transferred to microfilm and now reside at the spaceflight center in Huntsville. Paper copies of the blueprints were destroyed after the Saturn V production was shut sown since they took up several rooms full of space. Hence the urban legend that NASA burned the Saturn V plans to protect the shuttle program.<br /><br />Actually I can't think of any good reason for rebuilding the Saturn V. Even if you wanted to you could not get most of the parts anymore. We know how to build big liquid fueled boosters--there's no "Saturn V secret formula" that you can only get from the original plans. We just haven't had the need for a Saturn V class vehicle after Apollo was canceled. <br />

 

[peterweg]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Interesting article.<br /><br />One thing, as a Brit, I noticed was that there was absolutely no consideration of international co-operation - either co-opting non-US technology or sharing the development costs. It's one thing for them to conclude there's no benefit to be gained, it's another to apparently have not even thought about it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Nasa have shafted their international partners with the ISS, I don't think they would be stupid enough to get involved with what may well end as another expensive failure. <br />Why give money to the US when everything costs four times as much as the Russians, for less reliability (politically and mechanically) and with designs driven by politicians voting needs.<br />The Russians are the leaders in space technology, so throwing money at losers is pointless.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The CEV in the pic looks a bit like Russian Clipper, only shorter, kinda doubledecker way.. What's that landing skid in there for? Why not put a airbag there too.. Ofcourse this is propably only just a teaser pic.. "<br /><br />No not a teaser, that biconic lifting body capsule is the reference design NASA came up with. And yes it is very similar to the Russian Kliper, even the mass is similar - 13 tonnes for the Kliper and 12 tonnes for the NASA biconic. But note the differences. The Kliper is more slender and seats the men on one deck. The NASA biconic capsule has a small fairing which shrouds the flat bottom of the capsule during launch. The Kliper has two vertical body flaps in addition to the horizontal flaps, while the NASA biconic capsule only has horizontal body flaps. There are plenty of other interesting details in that spaceref.com article, well worth delving into...<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055<br /><br />...Note how the NASA reference design is focused on moon missions only. That biconic capsule isn't intended to go any farther than the moon.<br /><br />There is more interesting news from this space.com article...<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050803_shuttle-derived_cev.html<br /><br />Get a load of the development costs! $5 billion for the CEV, $5 billion for the SDHLV, and $5 billion for the SRB derived CEV launcher! Maybe I can see $5 billion for developing a heavy lift vehicle, and maybe I can even see $5 billion for the CEV, but $5 billion to develop the CEV launcher? That's crazy! Is this how using shuttle derived hardware is supposed to save NASA money?<br /><br />What's really going on is that most of that development money for the CEV launcher is subsidizing the development cost of the heavy lift vehicle. The liqui