RS68 confirmed for CaLV

[nyarlathotep]

>>"but with an aggressive RS-68 uprating program to improve isp and thrust, not to mention restoring 2x J-2X to the Earth Departure Stage should make up most if not all of the CaLV payload capability"<br /><br />Hell, if NASA promised to buy a couple dozen EELV's for CEV launch, Boeing might even do the uprating to regen on their own coin.

 

[tap_sa]

I think N_L meant strapping CaLV with three or four 4-segment SRBs <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> 4x4 may be too much thrust and 3x4 means additional pad mods because of unusual SRB-core arrangement pattern.

 

[nyarlathotep]

If we're going to the extremes of modifying MLP's to allow a 4x4 launch, why dont we just go all out and strap on six Zenit boosters?

 

[j05h]

> If we're going to the extremes of modifying MLP's to allow a 4x4 launch, why dont we just go all out and strap on six Zenit boosters?<br /><br />Zenit? now that is a solution I can support. Pre-existing, designed for the job, flight-proven.<br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

After seeing this, I would have to ask some questions.<br /><br />Is it easier to design a 5 segment version of the SRB or<br />is it easier to come up with a 4 SRB or even 6 or 8 SRB version of the CaLV?<br /><br />Would it be possible to add flexability to the CaLV by changing out the number of strap on SRB's added?

 

[barrykirk]

What about just opening up the SRB redesign to open bidding and see what shows up.<br /><br />Set up the parameters needed, ie Thrust, burn time, ISP, and Thrust to Weight ratio required for the strap on boosters.<br /><br />Let industry come up with competitive proposals to meet those requirements.<br /><br />Other things that should be taken into consideration would obviously be safety and cost of design and cost<br />of manufacture and re-usability/refurbishability considerations.<br /><br />Another factor would be second or multiple sourcing. Why lock yourself into one manufacturer?<br /><br />If ATK wants to put $3 billion developement bid on the table, somebody may want to and be able to compete with that figure.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I'd love to see it opened up, too. I still like the idea of fly back boosters. It seems to me that 2 years ago we expected this to be mostly Shuttle type parts to save cost. But after we've really looked at it, it makes sense to use different/non-Shuttle parts that need to be developed and tested, and retested. With this "clean slate" state, do solids still make sense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Opening it up" at this moment in time is a great way to add another 5 years to the schedule. is this what people want?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[propforce]

Why? Are we in a hurry to go someplace? Is it more important to do things right rather than having to live with an incorrect design for the next 30 years? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

No particular hurry, except that I want to see people back on the Moon and on Mars in my life time. I have no desire to see the whole project go back to phase 1 just because some of people's predelictions for liquid fuels over solid, fly back over non-reusable. <br /><br />People have been designing paper HLVs in the US since the Saturn 5 went out of production. For the last 30 years in fact. Now that we are finally getting one people have the gall to whinge because it is not quite how they personally imagined it to be.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

>>Ed,<br /><br />Can you explain the rationale switching from HTPB to PBAN propellant going from 4-segment to 5-segment SRB? My understanding is that PBAN is a lower performing propellant than HTPB, thus I don't understand why NASA/ ATK choose to go this route. <<<br /><br />My understanding is that PBAN would have been less costly to produce than HTBP. I also understand (with some uncertainty in the rumor) that they have decided to go back to the HTBP propellant for the five-segment-booster.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Jon-<br />How does a redesigned booster save time? It's not a "bird in the hand" kind of thing is it? Because it's a whole new thing altogether. <br /><br />*EDIT*<br /><font color="yellow">I have no desire to see the whole project go back to phase 1 just because some of people's predelictions for liquid fuels over solid, fly back over non-reusable.</font><br /><br />what I'm trying to say is that we are still in phase 1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Are we in a hurry to go someplace?<br /><br /><font color="white">Yes! Lets get on with it already! The CaLV is 'good enough', we'll never figure out the perfect vehicle so let fly now and optermise the current components on the way.</font></font>

 

[j05h]

> My understanding is that PBAN would have been less costly to produce than HTBP. I also understand (with some uncertainty in the rumor) that they have decided to go back to the HTBP propellant for the five-segment-booster. <br /><br />Which sounds awfully close to a new design for the SRB: new grain, new fuel, new # segments, etc. Is Thiokol's solution the best at this point? Maybe we should be talking about treating the core CaLV stage as a Common Core, sort of MEGA DELTA. No solids, just 3 10m Cores with a whole pile of payload on top.<br /><br />I just want to compare apples here, the new $3 Billion SRB is as close to reality as any of the other concepts. EELV, Zenit/SeaLaunch and internationals are all viable rockets now. While I like the CaLV concept (everybody loves HLVs) I think we really do need to figure out ways of doing more with current infrastructure. I'd like to see a native US, 100ton+ launcher, but would prefer that evolve from demand instead of fiat. A lot of money seems to be going into a vehicle series that will get used in several dozen Lunar flights, leaving no infrastructure in any orbit, nor any useful lunar hardware. There is no talk of commercial access to the HLV, nor leveraging hardware in further ways. If you're going to the expense of flying something in space, it shouldn't be discarded after it's first usage. They aren't even talking about applications. Son of Apollo indeed.<br /><br />since they are closest to this type of HLV, I'd like to see Boeing make a Common Core based on lessons learned from the Delta and Shuttle programs. Imagine three Cores like a Delta IVH, except Saturn-sized. Yeah. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Yes we are still in phase 1. The basic specification is agreed, and the detail is being refined. <br /><br />Throwing the door open to all the possibilities that people want would put the whole sow back to before phase 1. To the sort of discussions that went on for 30 years. It has taken 30 years to get the CaLV, looking at and discarding the very options that people want here - flyback boosters, liquid fueled boosters, resuable boosters. <br /><br />This is unrealistic and harmful. IMHO. The CaLV will take us back to the Moon and on to Mars - if it gets built. If it does not get built it is another paper study. Some people seem to prefer to do nothing if it is not exactly as they want.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow"> The basic specification is agreed, and the detail is being refined. </font><br /><br />It doesn't look that way to me. We bearly know what kind of engines this thing is going to use. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Figuring out what engine your going to use RS-68 vs. SSME is a pretty big detail! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

The basic configuration of non resuable liquid core and resuable solid boosters is a first level detail. Which engines you use is a 2nd level detail. When people are talking about using Zenits (as if that will ever happen) or flyback boosters or resusables or even whether we need heavy lift at all they are basically wanting to revisit all the discussions that have been had for 30 years. The time for that discussion is over. The time to build something is now. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

The configuration can be figured out in a half hour and a pitcher of beer, it's what you call "details" that take years to devolpe. and the 5 segment SRB is 3 billion dollars and several years away in developement......just like the rest of the the rocket. 2014? That's eight years away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>The time for that discussion is over. The time to build something is now. <br /><br />I'm arguing mostly that the "thing" needed is sitting in front of us: a plethora of medium-lift rockets. It's already been built, can we focus on the deep-space hardware and leave the launch segment as-is? Let's figure out what can be done with those, using the already existing infrastructure (EELV, Soyuz, Zenit, Ariane). A lot of the payloads can be split into 20ton segments, especially if going to an assembly/storage location. I was really inspired by SpaceHab's trade study for ESAS, and think fuel depots are the way to go. <br /><br />I do think the NASA HLV effort is important, and the choice of RS-68 makes a lot of sense over SSME. I don't think it is the best route for achieving their goals, as it is not sustainable. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

OK, let us then assume that the original estimates (If there is somebody here that actually knows the actual original amount, perhaps it would be good to come forward with the actual figure) were even $1.5 billion. And now six months later that estimate is now some $3 billion.<br /><br />If my own mathematical abilities are not going sour through old age, then I think that is a 100% increase.<br /><br />Now, some six months ago gasoline where I live in the San Farnando Valley was some $2.70 per gallon. If we had experienced the same increase over the same time period gasoline would now be some $5.40 per gallon! IT has increased to $3.50 per gallon, and this along with all time high oil company profits has prompted a whole lot of people to begin to think that the oil companies might just be gouging the driving public some!<br /><br />Do you get the analogy here?<br /><br />Actually, for NASA the situation here is FAR worse. If only one contrator can get away with this, then why not the rest of them following along? The original estimates for the entire CEV/CALV system ( I think this was through some number of landings on the moon, but it would be better if somebody really in the know could tell us the truth here) was supposed to fund out at $107 billion. While congress wouldn't be happy with even this figure, it is low enough, over the years expected, to be fundable. However, if this were to double to $214 billion what do you think congress is going to do (in particular as there is a very good chance that future congresses and even presidents would not necessarily be interested in Bush's legacy here) to the funding for this program under this kind of contrator price run-ups....<br /><br />Even such supporters as myself and others on these boards would be liable to balk under these circumstances!<br /><br />Now Mike Griffin is easily as aware of this as anybody here is, so I can easily see why he is angry with ATK!<br /><br />This bassically imperils the entire future mann

 

[frodo1008]

You do have a very good point here. While I don't think that NASA is going to be able to overcome political objections to using Russian hardware for America's prime manned program here, as unfortunate as that may be, I do think that other contractors may now have an unprecedented opportunity to earn NASA's gratitude here. If anyone of these other prime aerospace contractors (I don't think that spacex and such are quite ready to take on such levels of effort yet, perhaps at some time, but not now) can find a legitimate way to accomplish NASA's prime manned nission here and cut the cost by a significant amount, I am certain that they will be big winners in the long run!

 

[frodo1008]

President Bush originally made his first speach proposing this entire program directional change to NASA at some point in 2004. It may not even have been two years yet. So your five year estimate is mathematically impossible!<br /><br />Start again.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So..... If ATK continues along this path I am almost certain that NASA is going to find another way!!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, with the ATK figure out in the public domain, who's to say that noises aren't going to come from others about a potential alternative? I don't imagine for a second that NASA would go away from ATK for this hardware, but I'm sure Griffin wouldn't mind if another manufacturer expressed some interest in order to force ATK to sharpen their pencil and review costings.<br /><br />The thing that brasses me off about this whole project is the increasing move away from the supposed cost benefits of using 'STS hardware'. Given the design changes being bandied around, not to mention the 'development costs' thereof, it's getting harder to see any benefits over a clean-sheet approach in either cost or performance/capability. <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>

 

[vulture2]

ATK already has a (sole-source) contract, even though the prime hasn't been selected. Griffin committed to using SRBs before he became Administrator. Why would they want to reduce cost?<br />

 

[frodo1008]

Because the real boss (congress) may insist on it. At the very least they would balk at a 100% increase in what they were originally told would be the costs.<br /><br />And without the votes in congress there will be NO program at all!