Reinventing the l(ight bulb)aunch vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Each year, the auto industry comes out with an updated version of their current models. This makes up the majority of cars manufactured. The 747 has been flying for the last 40 years but there have been variants to it developed, the latest being the 747-8. But with the space program, there seems to be a need to invent brand new launch systems rather than develop current ones. Couldn't the replacement of the shuttle been a redesigned shuttle? One that fit more closely its initial design before the Air Force screwed things up with the demands on the shuttle design only to bail out in the last minute to go with ELVs. In fact, imagine what would have happen if the shuttle was developed from the Saturn rocket. NASA could have saved billions by not developing brand new systems, many of which were canceled in the middle of the design phase.
 
H

halman

Guest
The reason that we keep having to design new launch systems is that we have yet to develop a launch system which was not screwed up by Congress turning the project into a jobs program, altering the required capabilities, or stopping funding at a critical juncture.

But look on the bright side: We have acquired critical knowledge of re-entry using lifting bodies, thermal protection systems which are (potentially) reusable, and applied the microprocessor to space flight, whence it came. We also have not gotten locked into an expensive program using outdated technology because the investment in it is too large to justify updating the system. We are in the position to meld several different disciplines in designing a next-generation space shuttle, one which will be totally reusable, safe, and reliable.

Our technology has advanced to the point where we can construct things out of carbon with a high degree of certainty, which offers the possibility of reducing weight while increasing strength. We know how to build highly efficient rocket engines which burn kerosene and lox. We have learned many things about working in space.

We must constantly remind ourselves that space exploration is in its infancy, that we could not even launch a tiny package into Low Earth Orbit 100 years ago. Yes, we have a long way to go, but we have also come a long way.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
That's just simply not true. The Delta vehicles have been improved and had more capacity added without a complete redesign, as has Arienne. Don't just make stuff up to make some kind of point.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Crossover_Maniac":34pc72bv said:
In fact, imagine what would have happen if the shuttle was developed from the Saturn rocket. NASA could have saved billions by not developing brand new systems, many of which were canceled in the middle of the design phase.

I disagree with your statements. Perhaps you should do a little research before you make out of hand accusations (it really didn't take much. hint:Google)

Two examples:

1. Reusing Saturn V technology was considered, but the solid boosters were cheaper.
Saturn-Shuttle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

2. Second stage of Aries I was to use an updated version of the J-2 engine design from the second stage of the Saturn V. It was also considered in early Shuttle designs, 5 for the Orbiter instead of the 3 SSMEs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2_(rocket_engine)
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
Crossover_Maniac":11biipln said:
... with the space program, there seems to be a need to invent brand new launch systems rather than develop current ones. ...

For many years, the United States did re-develop existing launch vehicles. The early IRBMs and ICBMs were gradually upgraded. Atlas became Atlas-Agena, and then Atlas-Centaur and Atlas 2. Titan 2 became Titan 3B-Agena, Titan 3C, Titan 34B/D, and Titan 4. Thor became Thor-Agena, Thor-Delta, and then Delta 2. Atlas and Delta (and Saturn I/IB) shared rocket engines. Upgrades were incremental and step-by-step, especially in NASA's Delta program.

Finally, however, the payloads outgrew the ballistic missile-based launch vehicle families. This led to the development of today's EELVs, which, if common sense prevails, will serve as the starting point for upcoming generations of gradual upgrades.

NASA's human spaceflight efforts are another matter entirely. Apollo and Shuttle were complete systems - launch vehicle and spacecraft - designed to work only with one another. Ares/Orion was an attempt to continue that methodology, which called for mostly new-everything (though using upgraded Shuttle SRB technology). With Obama's decision to cancel Constellation, the days of costly, all-new, stand-alone human launch systems appear to be history.

- Ed Kyle
 
R

rockett

Guest
edkyle99":2usyy4bs said:
Ares/Orion was an attempt to continue that methodology, which called for mostly new-everything (though using upgraded Shuttle SRB technology).

Don't forget the J-2X, Ed. ;)
See my last post.
 
H

halman

Guest
MeteorWayne":1bovdhud said:
That's just simply not true. The Delta vehicles have been improved and had more capacity added without a complete redesign, as has Arienne. Don't just make stuff up to make some kind of point.

You are correct, of course. I somehow had the impression that this discussion was limited to manned launch vehicles, and my statement was rather broad.
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
rockett":32bq6pd2 said:
edkyle99":32bq6pd2 said:
Ares/Orion was an attempt to continue that methodology, which called for mostly new-everything (though using upgraded Shuttle SRB technology).

Don't forget the J-2X, Ed. ;)
See my last post.

I was going to mention it, but didn't after I considered J-2X for a moment. J-2X ended up (or would have ended up) being essentially a new engine, hardly derived from J-2.

A real shame it has been canceled, especially when you consider the effort that has already been expended, for example, building a huge new test stand for it at Stennis.

391648main_CLT-09-147_1_946-710.jpg


- Ed Kyle
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
MeteorWayne":2rpj50m9 said:
That's just simply not true. The Delta vehicles have been improved and had more capacity added without a complete redesign, as has Arienne. Don't just make stuff up to make some kind of point.

I'm not making things up. I apologize for any confusion, but I'm not intentional lying to you.

edkyle99":2rpj50m9 said:
Crossover_Maniac":2rpj50m9 said:
... with the space program, there seems to be a need to invent brand new launch systems rather than develop current ones. ...

NASA's human spaceflight efforts are another matter entirely. Apollo and Shuttle were complete systems - launch vehicle and spacecraft - designed to work only with one another. Ares/Orion was an attempt to continue that methodology, which called for mostly new-everything (though using upgraded Shuttle SRB technology). With Obama's decision to cancel Constellation, the days of costly, all-new, stand-alone human launch systems appear to be history.

- Ed Kyle

This is what I was referring to. The Ares program was practically a new system. A shuttle-derived heavy lift would have much cheaper and easier to develop and probably would have saved many shuttle jobs. Someone also said that the SRB were cheaper. I doubt that. Maybe cheaper to develop, but not cheaper to fly over the long term.
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
Crossover_Maniac":3ju57xzp said:
This is what I was referring to. The Ares program was practically a new system. A shuttle-derived heavy lift would have much cheaper and easier to develop and probably would have saved many shuttle jobs. Someone also said that the SRB were cheaper. I doubt that. Maybe cheaper to develop, but not cheaper to fly over the long term.

The question has to be "cheaper than what"? During the latter stages of the design studies for Shuttle, solid rocket boosters were compared against liquid boosters (both pump and pressure-fed, and both expendable and recoverable, and both series and parallel burn types). The solids were cheaper by far to develop than any liquid design.

Although the solids were projected to cost more to fly compared to reusable liquid pressure-fed boosters, the liquids would cost more if any were lost during the recovery process. Losing a solid wasn't nearly as costly. As it turned out, NASA did lose a few solids during the course of the STS program.

- Ed Kyle
 
H

halman

Guest
It is long past time for NASA to develop a new launch system, and I mean NEW. Step rockets have been around for a long time, and there is little in the way of new technology involved in building them, apart from refinements in turbine technology, avionics, and composite construction. Isp values have not been substantially improved in years, as far as I know, in respect to chemical engines. The space shuttle was the last major breakthrough in technology to access space.

We know that a lifting body re-entry vehicle will work, reliably, and that it can be flown to a landing on a runway. We also have learned that our rockets cannot take-off straight up and accelerate as fast as possible, because they encounter the atmospheric turbulence known as max Q, or Max Q, or Max Headroom, (No, wait a minute...) Anyway, the space shuttle actually throttles the engines back as soon as it clears the tower, and runs them at about 60 percent thrust until the vehicle is about 70, 000 feet high, when they are returned to full power. It is at about this altitude that the space shuttle curves over to where it is heading towards the horizon, not straight up, because the air is thin enough at that altitude that max Q is no longer an issue.

Tremendous advances have been made in aerodynamics and engine technology in the last 30 years, and what was once thought impossible is now being considered, or achieved. A wing capable of lifting 1.5 million pounds to 50,000 feet is now within our reach, which would be like lifting our launch pad to a high enough altitude that our rockets would no longer have to take off straight up, but could launch heading towards the horizon, using every bit of the energy in their tanks to accelerate towards the goal necessary to reach orbit, about 5 miles per second, or around 17,500 miles per hour.

If you are interested in finding out more about such a launch system, please see my thread "A cheap and easy way into space" in this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts