Shuttle-C and CEV

john_316 · May 20, 2005

Okay we all seem to be on fire these days accept me I guess... Anyways I put the following questions forward and if there are any takers then tell me what you think. 1. Take funding and go ahead and design a STS Stack derived Shuttle-C like vehicle to lift 100 tons into LEO or 35 Tons+ into Lunar orbit. Perhaps it may save some jobs for another 10-20 years. Perhaps it can help transition over to the next generation SSTO or TSTO vehicle of the future. 2. Take the CEV/CRV/CTV and make it into 3 different configurations with the same CM (Crew Module) and SM (Service Module) aka Apollo like but 21st century built. Install and remove systems not required for specicific missions. Thus make each CEV outer shell and basic propulsion the same and change the insides for specific missions to the ISS, Lunar, and Maria. 3. Use the Boeing and or Atlas Heavy Lift variants for the CEV/CTV/CRV in all configurations allowable. 4. Use a shuttle derived system if you have too. Like a modified SRB with a Centaur Upper Stage or how about a Boeing or Atlas Core with two SRB's or Titan SRB's to launch the CEV. Make use of what you have now and continue to process upgrades in cycles. 5. Bring back the X-38 but enlarged if we going to goto a 30+ ton CEV thats going to be a lifting body. Side launch like the shuttle on a modified Heavy Launcher or a modified Shuttle stack. Use what you have now and make CEV launch sooner than 2014. My patience with this entire CEV ordeal has got me really to a point where I don't care anymore and thats bad indeed. Especially when we have to depend on Russia for all launches. And please dont make say that the entire CEV program is just another pass the buck to the next president program...

frak88 · May 27, 2005

Looks like Michael Griffiin wants to do something like that.. in yesterdays SpaceDaily's article he says that only the Orbiter is to be retired, not other parts of the launchsystem.. Shuttle -C variant in the making?? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

shuttle_rtf · May 27, 2005

That's new...given the contracts and processing of SRB materials has stopped or is stopping. I'm sure I wrote something on this, if I can find it. Anyway, interesting!

shuttle_rtf · May 27, 2005

Ah ha - end of March. So Griffin may reverse this then. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=5 />Steps have already been taken in a phased shutdown of the supporting contracts that are central to the Shuttle Program. NASA is ending of the contract for the supply of Al-Li used to construct the External Tank (ET) - the largest of the non-reusable elements of the Space Transportation System - with enough of the material already in stock to complete the launch mandate. No more Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) canisters will be produced for the same reason, with orders for the SRB fuel, Aluminium Perchlorate, ending in 2008.<

nacnud · May 27, 2005

I think that this is why Griffin is pushing hard for a SDV now, the STS is still in production (mostly) in 2-3 years or less this won’t be the case.

SpaceKiwi · May 27, 2005

From the comments I've seen Griffin make it seems clear that he wants to run with the bulk of the STS system, post Orbiter missions. He keeps talking about how it is easier to "stick with the Heavy Lifter he already owns" or words to that effect. Despite contracts being under review pending cancellation, or perhaps already terminated, I'd say a SDV is a cast-iron guarantee under Griffin's stewardship. We've all seen the result of loss of capability in various space programs. I think he's going to want to keep that launcher on the table as long as possible, until such time as it is decided it is not required moving forward. And, I would say that state will only exist in Griffin's eyes once he has another operational heavy lifter of equal or greater capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

rocketwatcher2001 · May 27, 2005

Man, oh man, I like the idea of SDV doing the heavy lifting, but I still think we ought to keep an Orbiter or two in ready mothball condition, because nothing on the drawingboards can do some of the things that the Orbiter can do, I don't see any sense in throwing it away. Boys and girls, we just might be getting a smart space program.......CEV's launched on Atlas V's and Delta IV's, SDV's launching the real big stuff. The hairs on the back of my neck start to tingle with optimism thinking of the possiblities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lycan359 · May 27, 2005

rocketwatcher2001, what would we need the Orbiter to do that an SDV, such as Shuttle-C could not?

rubicondsrv · May 27, 2005

bring large payloads back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lycan359 · May 27, 2005

/>bring large payloads back< For what reason?

rocketwatcher2001 · May 27, 2005

Also assembly, and it's a great servicing platform. There wouldn't be too many missions that would require an Orbiter, but the for few that would come up, an Orbiter on hand would be a Godsend. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lycan359 · May 27, 2005

Could the CEV be equiped with a remote manipulator system of some kind?

rocketwatcher2001 · May 27, 2005

Sure, you could build an assembly/servicing module, but once it was launched, it would be pretty much commited to that particular orbit. I'm guessing that something that big and complex would be cheaper to bring back and re-service on the ground, and then be re-launched into the required orbit for the next job, than to build and launch a new one each time. *EDIT* than to build and launch a new one each time. Actually, we'd be launching it again each time, anyway. It comes down to is it cheaper to simply replace it or to bring it back? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacefire · May 27, 2005

sure, because a small capsule performs best when overloaded with various systems. Capsules are perfect for complex operations in LEO, heck, capsules are perfect for everything! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

holmec · May 27, 2005

>My patience with this entire CEV ordeal has got me really to a point where I don't care anymore and thats bad indeed.< I am sorry you feel that way. There is a "best way" we can go with the CEV. But when all is said and done we will have a system with a team that is willing to work it and make it happen regardless of the design of the CEV. The encouraging part of the CEV for me is that NASA has seen the light that launching crew and large payload is probably not a good idea. And personnaly I am very thankful for that. Now I wished the CEV was going to be spacebased only, but it doesnt look like that is going to happen here (maybe in the next system). Now, after looking at pictures of the CEV and cut outs, I see that the return vehicle is like the X-38. It also has attached to it another module which can change or change out. Overall its not a bad system, and its lessons learned from the Shuttle program. Another point is that the Russians are also developing a reusable craft that is a lifting body. Infact, its the same basic operation as the CEV. This tells me that the CEV is a confirmed design, as least another team approves of it. In the future the CEV just might become our taxi to space. But probably not our only taxi. Let's see what the private sector can do to give us a cost effective taxi. Creating the Shuttle-C is probably a good way to go. Because we still need the ability to bring down satelites to work on them. It also might pave the way to new bigger unmanned launch and retrival systems because space junk will probably be a big issue in the future. Overall I am encouraged. You should be too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · May 27, 2005

>5. Bring back the X-38 but enlarged if we going to goto a 30+ ton CEV thats going to be a lifting body. Side launch like the shuttle on a modified Heavy Launcher or a modified Shuttle stack. Use what you have now and make CEV launch sooner than 2014.< This may be a step backwards. But if unmanned then not and if single stage then it would be a step forward. Hence the X-33 program. I still think heavy lifters and crew are too dangerous to put together. Its safer having the crew in a separate vehicle. PS By the way, this was the original idea for the Shuttle launch system. The Air Force wanted it to resemble a plane. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

rocketwatcher2001 · May 27, 2005

Holmec- Creating the Shuttle-C is probably a good way to go. Because we still need the ability to bring down satelites to work on them. It also might pave the way to new bigger unmanned launch and retrival systems because space junk will probably be a big issue in the future. Shuttle-C doesn't have any return capacity, the only thing that comes back are the SRB's and maybe the SSME's. Imagine a Space Shuttle without the Orbiter, but a big payload fairing with engines in the Orbiter's place. That's Shuttle-C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · May 27, 2005

"Wouldn't throwaway engines with a fairly similar performance aspect do just as well?" There's been discussion of using the RS-68 instead of the RS-24 (SSME). I'm not enough of a rocket-engine weenie to create a comprehensive list of the pros & cons. Stats from Astronautix: Manufacturer Name: RS-68. (Titan IV engines) Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1998. Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 337,807 kgf. Thrust(vac): 3,312.00 kN. Isp: 420 sec. Isp (sea level): 365 sec. Mass Engine: 6,597 kg. Manufacturer Name: RS-24. (SSME) Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1972. Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 232,301 kgf. Thrust(vac): 2,278.00 kN. Isp: 453 sec. Isp (sea level): 363 sec. Burn time: 480 sec. Mass Engine: 3,177 kg.

najab · May 27, 2005

Rocketdyne has designed a 'throwaway' version of the SSME - only about $20M a pop!

radarredux · May 27, 2005

> 1. Take funding and go ahead and design a STS Stack derived Shuttle-C like vehicle to lift 100 tons into LEO or 35 Tons+ into Lunar orbit. Perhaps it may save some jobs for another 10-20 years./i> As I have mentioned a several times, I think the most detailed view into Griffin's ideas can be found in the Planetary Society's report that Griffin co-led: "Extending Human Presence Into The Solar System: An Independent Study For the Planetary Society" link. The report talks about a shuttle-derived heavy-launch vehicle, and everything Griffin has said since becoming NASA's administrator has reaffirmed that position. IMHO, this is about as close as a "sure thing" as you can get in NASA's VSE roadmap right now. IMHO, the rest is up in the air right now. The biggest question to answer is: Should the same vehicle that puts humans into LEO and returns them to the surface of the Earth be the same vehicle that goes all the way to Lunar orbit and back? If the answer is "Yes", then you have an Apollo-style mission profile, and this is close to what the original CEV call for proposals requested. If the answer is "No", then you have a t/Space-style mission profile, where the crew transfers in LEO to a separate vehicle for the LEO to Lunar surface trip. IMHO, this is the most important question NASA will answer in the next year as it will shape NASA's manned space program efforts for the next 15-20 years.

radarredux · May 27, 2005

> Ah ha - end of March. So Griffin may reverse this then. I am fairly confident that Griffin will reverse this. I also think the shift to a Shuttle-C type system will occur sooner than most people think; although this belief is based on some dodgy analysis on my part <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (1) In almost every statement by Griffin, he says the shuttle will be retired "by/i>" 2010 and not "in/i>" 2010. This leaves the door open for a pre-2010 retirement. (2) Griffin has been very clear that (1) all 28 missions will probably not happen, (2) that the definition of "complete" with respect to ISS will probably be redefined, and (3) that some of the ISS components will be flown up in something other than the space shuttle. (3) By using a shuttle-derived HLV, Griffin removes most of the internal (NASA employees and contractors) and external (Congress people) objections to retiring the shuttle early. Griffin will be keeping a substantial percentage of the expertise, experience, jobs, and manufacturing capability for the current shuttle in place. This leads me to believe (and I admit, it is a leap of faith) that the current shuttle will be phased out earlier than planned and that a manned CEV and shuttle-derived HLV will be phased in earlier than expected.

elguapoguano · May 27, 2005

I just hope this time NASA has finally gotten it's head out it's arse. I'm just afraid that CEV will go the same route as, X-33, X-34, X-38, CRV, Venture Star, Dynasoar, NASP, and so on and so on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

john_316 · May 28, 2005

Thanx for the posts folks!!!!!!!!!

rocketwatcher2001 · May 28, 2005

Anvel- I don't know what's better, expensive reusable engines, that are expensive to build, service, and recover, or cheaper throw away engines that have to be replaced each time. I'm guessing the cheaper, disposable engines, but I could be wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · May 28, 2005

Some Henry thoughts on reusability (in the context of the RL-10) http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/rl10.html Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Shuttle-C and CEV

john_316

Guest

frak88

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

nacnud

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

lycan359

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

lycan359

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

lycan359

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

spacefire

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

najab

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

john_316

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page