Really ... BDBs ... how much would it cost?

[georgeniebling]

Honestly ... I read more and more:<br /><br />about delays to the Shuttle RTF (and yes, to err on the side of caution *is* a good thing but no system so complex will ever be 100% safe)<br /><br />about the gap between 2010 and 2014 (yes, the CEV vehicle is a good idea ... I saw a build up of it (I think or maybe it was something else) in Houston a few years ago ...<br /><br />about Moon, Mars, beyond, Hubble, ISS ... the list goes on.<br /><br />If the STS program closes in 2010 and CEV isn't ready to go before 2014 (at the earliest) ...<br /><br />what would the costs and liklihood be of redeveloping a Gemini or Apollo-like system using BDB (big dumb boosters) as a "gap-filler" or shucking the CEV and going back to the 60's/70's era lift technology?<br /><br />And forgive my ignorance but ... what *will* launch the CEV?

 

[jurgens]

about the 2010-2014 gap<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/050420_iss_cev.html

 

[georgeniebling]

yup. I read that before I wrote my questions .... heck, that article is what *prompted* my questions ....

 

[ve7rkt]

<font color="yellow"> And forgive my ignorance but ... what *will* launch the CEV? </font><br /><br />Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV's)... Atlas V and Delta IV. My guess is, it'll depend mostly on who wins the CEV competition. If Lockheed wins, you can bet they won't buy a Boeing Delta IV to push it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[jurgens]

Those rockets are so expensive though... would seem like a waste to use them for a crew only vehicle...

 

[tap_sa]

After STS is gone EELVs will lift both US cargo and crew. There's not much domestic options.

 

[jurgens]

I thought the whole point was to develop something new...

 

[tap_sa]

EELVs are something new! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Delta IV Heavy just made inaugural flight, Atlas V Heavy still hasn't. How about just trying to get the flight rates up, that would be more efficient way to drive the launch cost down than developing yet another ELV to replace two brand new perfectly good ones. (Private sector not included, let them try to make new stuff, they aren't burning tax money)

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<font color="yellow">If Lockheed wins, you can bet they won't buy a Boeing Delta IV to push it.</font><br /><br /><br />I thought part of the CEV mandate was to have multiple launchers (in reality Boeing and LockMart) available to boost it? Perhaps I misunderstood or imagined that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.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>

 

[ve7rkt]

It doesn't matter *what* you use to push the thing. Tie it to the top of an Atlas V or a Delta IV. Sell it to the ESA and they can strap it to an Ariane, a Soyuz, or whatever. If someone designs someting 5 years later that works better/cheaper/safer than an EELV (the SpaceX Falcon XXV, or Gates Brothers Rocketry decides to build a really, really, really big LDRS project), swap it over.<br /><br />[edit: *Lockheed* won't buy Boeing Delta IVs. If NASA decides to buy Lockheed CEVs and stick them on Boeing Delta IV boosters, or if they decide to buy Boeing CEVs and put them on Lockheed Atlas Vs, sure. But Lockheed and Boeing would much rather sell complete systems, I'm sure...]<br /><br />The CEV is about designing the spacecraft, not the launch vehicle.<br /><br />Mercury and Gemini used pre-existing rockets (missiles), and I would say they met the requirement of "develop something new"!. <br /><br />CEV isn't about "develop something new," it's about "get into space". If existing hardware does that well, use it. If new hardware would do it better, use it. If my 1975 Honda Civic could do it faster/better(safer)/cheaper than an Atlas V, my '75 Civic is the right tool for the job.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"If my 1975 Honda Civic could do it faster/better(safer)/cheaper than an Atlas V, my '75 Civic is the right tool for the job."</font><br /><br />Two out of three in favour of your Civic, not bad <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[redgryphon]

<font color="yellow">And forgive my ignorance but ... what *will* launch the CEV?</font><br /><br />EELV is likely right now, but Griffin did co-write a report advocating a Shuttle SRB as a CEV launch vehicle. (I don't want to start a solid vs liquid debate here. There's another thread for that. I'm just sayin'...)

 

[drwayne]

"Shuttle SRB as a CEV launch vehicle"<br /><br />Yep, that could get pretty hot, pretty fast...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[redgryphon]

Well, as they say, 176 flights with no failures since the modifications after Challenger. But yeah, if things get toasty, you'll need a <i>fast</i> escape system. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

And the thrust profile will leave you a more than a little....flat.<br /><br />Big <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>And the thrust profile will more [t]han like leave you a little....flat</i><p>I believe that I read that, unmodified, it would be pulling about 12 G's at burnout.</p>

 

[ve7rkt]

You can change the mixture, add inhibitors, etc. to change the burn rate on APCP solid fuel. So they could make a fuel load for an SRB that burned twice as long at half the thrust, or whatever else it takes.

 

[thinice]

Then forget about 176 successful flights, it will be another story.

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, the 176 successful flights would likely factor into any decision to use the new variant, but yeah, if you change the thrust profile and propellant mixture that much, it should really be treated as a totally new vehicle. Just like the Vulcain-2 engine made the Ariane-V into a new vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Just like the Vulcain-2 engine made the Ariane-V into a new vehicle.</i><p>It wasn't just the Vulcain-2, they also increased the length of the booster and uprated the solids. But anyway, it's not the same thing - the Vulcain-2 was a completely new engine, the modifcations that would be made the SRM in order to launch the CEV would be much less drastic.</p>

 

[elguapoguano]

Would one STS SRB be enough to place the CEV in LEO? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[najab]

1 SRB, plus an upper stage.

 

[georgeniebling]

sorry ... I know you were makign the analogy of the Honda to the *booster* but I can't get the picture out of my head:<br /><br />the '75 Honda strapped to the top of the Delta IV or Atlas V booster .... <br /><br />YIKES!<br /><br />Would that count as a Japanese Manned Capsule?

 

[ve7rkt]

New propellant, redesigned nozzle for the different thrust, maybe different components in the nozzle gimbal appropriate for the lower heat but for longer periods, get rid of the nosecone, and develop an upper stage (Tsiolkovsky's equation says that the original SRB, the current RSRM, and the ASRM designed in the early 90's, none of these can put themselves into orbit even when they're not pushing the Shuttle Orbiter & tank. It doesn't matter how light the CEV is, you NEED an upper stage)? Easy. Set the launch date for Tuesday, we'll have it done by then. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"1 SRB, plus an upper stage. "</font><br /><br />Wasn't the concept supposed to use the (developmental) 5-segment SRB? So do you mean a 5-segment SRB plus an upper stage, or a four segment plus an upper stage, or are you considering the fifth segment to be the upper stage?