Shuttle-C and CEV

holmec · May 29, 2005

Retrieve satelites reasons 1. repairs 2. retrieve material to recycle 3. reduce space junk The Shuttle system has been the only functional system that can do this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

franson_space · May 29, 2005

What does a Shuttle C look like?

wvbraun · May 29, 2005

gunsandrockets · May 29, 2005

From the wvbraun provided astronautix.com link... "When this cost was taken into consideration, Shuttle-C was more expensive than the USAF Titan IV - therefore, NASA concluded, there was no reason to develop it. The decision was taken in 1990 to cancel Shuttle-C. " I'm surprised by this factoid. That means in the cost vs benefits comparison of Shuttle-C vs using a medium lift vehicle such as the Delta IV Heavy, the only advantage the Shuttle-C has is sending mass up to orbit in larger undivided chunks than using medium lifters. That seems like an awful lot of expense (development costs) to go to just to avoid additional LEO rendezvous. I'm more convinced now than ever that going the Shuttle-C route is a mistake.

radarredux · May 30, 2005

> the only advantage the Shuttle-C has is sending mass up to orbit in larger undivided chunks than using medium lifters./i> That may be true, but if you have a mission profile that requires "large undivided chunks", then a Shuttle-derived HLV makes sense. We will need to wait until mid-July when Griffin's team provides more detail on their Lunar mission architecture. The shuttle-derived HLV also has political advantage -- it keeps much of the current shuttle team intact. This helps (1) keep the expertise around through to the last launch of the Space Shuttle orbiter, (2) it makes it an easier sell to NASA employee and contractors whose jobs have depended in the Space Shuttle for nearly 25 years, (3) it makes it an easier sell to Congress, in particular, members of Congress who have shuttle operations in their districts (Marshall, Johnson, Kennedy), and (4) provides cover (see advantages 1-3) if Griffin decides to retire the Orbiter even ealier than 2010 in order to accelerate VSE.

gunsandrockets · May 30, 2005

"The shuttle-derived HLV also has political advantage " Those political pork advantages you mention are all true. But NASA already is drowning from the Shuttle millstone tied around it's ankle. If the new Shuttle derived vehicle just becomes the new white elephant that takes the place of the old Shuttle white elephant, NASA will still lack the resources to do any exploration. The money would still get sucked up by the pork spending.

smradoch · May 30, 2005

That's not true. Just see where most of STS recent problems are - orbiter. Even recent ET problems with heater, insulation etc. are only because of orbiter. Without orbiter and people aboard you can delete 75% of fixed expenses. Redesign of ET for inline SDV cann't cost bilions - there are so many companies which are able to do that. The only expensive thing would be cargo pod for Shuttle C or higher stage for inline configuration. Yes, there will be some pad modifications too. It gives more sense to design higher LHX/LOX stage for inline configuration, which can be used for EDS as well. Or just wait 10 years until Musk develops something really big.

mattblack · May 30, 2005

Well, if the Shuttle is perceived as a millstone, don't forget that its the Orbiter that crews were riding in when they were killed. The Shuttle "millstone" as you put it can be eliminated by converting the system into something that lifts even more worthwhile payloads, and has a crew escape system to boot. Also, I think calling any Shuttle derived HLV "NOVA" would be a cool name. It would literally be the HLV that followed the Saturn V, as was originally envisaged in the 1960's. Well guess what? If a Shuttle C-type launcher does go ahead, it will STILL be following Saturn chronologically, but 30 years late!! And did I mention that NOVA is a cool name? ************************************* As many of you know; there are 4x Heavy Lift options on the table: Shuttle, Delta 4 or Atlas 5 derived, or the "clean-sheet" approach. In a perfect world, we would be getting a complete retirement of all Shuttle elements and a "clean sheet" HLV, something with a capability to send 140+ tonnes to Low Earth Orbit. But that implies new or heavily modified launchpads, VAB and other facilities. And with Nasa's budget still relatively low, this wont happen. 5-to-7 core Delta 4 Heavy derivations would use a tremendous amount of LH2 and the resulting rocket would be immense, structurally heavy and risky to boot. It's unlikely any existing launchpad could take it. Still, the RS-68 is the second most efficient engine in the U.S. inventory, after the Shuttle Main Engine. The RS-68 is a big, powerful and relatively simple brute and would be best used on a Shuttle-derived HLV or the unmodified Delta 4 series. For the record, a 5-core Delta 4 augmented by small SRBs would loft about 50 tonnes into LEO. A 7-core version with all the trimmings would lift more than 70 tonnes. A 7-core Atlas 5 LOX/Kerosene-fuelled HLV would be a pretty capable machine: More compact (and safer) than the massive LH2 tankage required for a 7-core Delta 4, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mattblack · May 30, 2005

And of course, this concept picture shows the Earth Return/Ascent Vehicle version taking off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

najab · May 30, 2005

The problem is that at burnout, the 2-SRB stack will only be doing around 8-10,000mph or so - that's a long way from orbital velocity of 17,500mph.

smradoch · May 30, 2005

mattblack: I always didn't like this direct Moon landing of capsule. But there are some reasons to use that approach: a) easy abort from the Moon surface. b) similar platform can be used for cargo flights c) easier to refuel - sometimes in the future but it will be less efficient and modules must be quite universal. I would rather use highly specialised and efficient moon lander, common space-based crew module and specialised cargo (to Moon) - tanker (to LLO). Lunar module will be quite light and simple and it would be easy to have a spare one at the Lunar base. It can use hybergolics stored separately at refueling tankers, so it can have very long lifetime. But it won't be easy to decide what is actually better. Maybe later when there will be LEO capable CEV and some idea about HLV.

elguapoguano · May 30, 2005

I like the idea of a LEO to L1 transport. Right now we can get fairly sizable objects into LEO using conventional medium lift launchers. These are readily available and should be used. In the past few years I've seen drawings of a station at Earth/Moon L1. L1 is close enough to the moon to support crews on the moon with out the need for a moon orbiting portion of the space craft. The L1 station can be launched using the Shuttle derived HLLV. Here's where the LEO to L1 transport comes in handy. This could be a good test bed for Prometheous. Taking cargo from LEO and dropping it off to L1 the cycling back for the next load. In this orbit perhaps a SEP could be used. If the Nuclear part of NEP props scare people too much. It could be useful to build the mars ship at L1 if we can figure out how to make fuel and oxygen on the moon. Sending the Mars ship to L1 virtually unfueled could result in a more robust craft and mission objectives. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

radarredux · May 30, 2005

> Also, I think calling any Shuttle derived HLV "NOVA" would be a cool name./i> I don't like the idea of naming a rocket after an explodingstar. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> /> And did I mention that NOVA is a cool name?/i> Oh yeah, it also means "don't go" in Spanish. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

radarredux · May 30, 2005

> Mr Griffin, please keep it simple. Don't build Marships out of clip-together 20-tonnes segments launched on umpteen Medium Lift rockets. The Mission Architecture needs to be as simple as possible. Please launch a Moon mission on 1x 90 tonne blastoff, and a Mars mission on 2x (or 3x) 90 tonnes SDVs./i> I do not believe that such an approach is economically or politically sustainable, as Apollo showed. If your goal is only one or a handful of missions, I might agree with you, but if your goal is long-term sustained presence by a wide variety of people, I believe a different, more flexible architecture is needed. I like the t/Space approach: Web Page and PDF Slide Show

spacester · May 30, 2005

RadarRedux, was it you who proposed a SDV using two ETs with engines underneath each one? I liked that idea, you should re-introduce it here. Also, I'd love to see the follow-on versions of Shuttle-C explained and discussed here. Shuttle-Z and others were discussed in the 1990's and it just might be that their time has come. It's going to be very difficult to come up with something better than the t/space proposal, but what the heck, keep trying, folks! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

krrr · May 30, 2005

One of the best and simplest HLV designs is the Angara 100. Essentially an Energia without a LOX/LH2 core. Upper stage could however be LOX/LH2, RL-60 or something. Lockheed/Martin should try to obtain the RD-170 from Russia the same way they got the RD-180. An Atlas V core with 2 RD-170 strapons should lift 50 tons to LEO, an Atlas V (or RD-170) core with 4 strapons would easily lift 100 tons. No need for 7-core vehicles.

gunsandrockets · May 30, 2005

Looking at the First Lunar Outpost (FLO) plan of 1992 which uses the direct-Moon-landing+direct-Earth-return architecture, I am underwhelmed. The prime advantage of the plan is the ability to abort at any time from locations on the Moon which are at a high latitude. The prime disadvantage is a mammoth manned vehicle with a gross lift off weight of 95 tonnes! The high latitude abort advantage is only important if you plan on an Apollo style Moon exploration plan of dropping onto the Moon at different locations for temporary stays. The direct flight system is not efficient for moving people back and forth between the Earth and the Moon. You need efficiency for building a permanent human presence on the Moon. Even if the anytime-from-any-latitude abort feature was vital to you, there are easier ways to do it. Such as using the EML-1 Lagrange point as a rendezvous waypoint.

gunsandrockets · May 30, 2005

>>> Mr Griffin, please keep it simple. Don't build Marships out of clip-together 20-tonnes segments launched on umpteen Medium Lift rockets. The Mission Architecture needs to be as simple as possible. Please launch a Moon mission on 1x 90 tonne blastoff, and a Mars mission on 2x (or 3x) 90 tonnes SDVs. <<< "I do not believe that such an approach is economically or politically sustainable, as Apollo showed. If your goal is only one or a handful of missions, I might agree with you, but if your goal is long-term sustained presence by a wide variety of people, I believe a different, more flexible architecture is needed. " 100% correct! Hear hear!

gunsandrockets · May 30, 2005

As long as we are playing with mix and match, I have another idea. I wonder how a Delta IV core booster with two strap on Atlas V boosters would perform? I bet it would do better than the standard Delta IV heavy combination of three Delta IV core boosters. I wonder how much a Delta IV core sustainer with 4 strap on Atlas V boosters could lift to LEO? Would it exceed the gold standard of the Saturn V? In general RP-1/LOX is best for use in 1st stage rocket boosters and LH2/LOX is best for 2nd stage sustainers. Which is why that combo was used on all the Saturn boosters.

gofer · May 30, 2005

The largest expense for the STS is labor costs for the "standing army" of employees and contractors. I've read estimates of as high as 6000 people employed by the STS system (NASA and contractors) Even if the orbiter is 75% (which I'm not sure of since both SRBs and the ET are fairily sophisticated on their own) it's still 1500 people servicing a launch of the stack! There are 200 people at Michaud just to spray foam onto the ETs! (sorry I don't have the sources handy, these figures is something I’ve read in Internet magazines so someone with better info correct me if I'm wrong with figures) By contrast an EELV launch employs about 200 folks or so. If you go sea launch, ariane, proton etc... it's even less. A lot of STS is hand labor requiring high expertise (expensive), while EELVs factory lines are mostly automated (milling, welding, etc…) and less labor intensive. It does appear to be more of a job program rather than an efficient space related machinery. And so will be any "shuttle derived vehicle". This won't help in achieving the VSE goals any. I'm afraid any shuttle-derived *vehicle* will turn into a shuttle-derived *job program* and we are back to square one. (NO disrespect to the workers and employees of the STS meant, but we got to be blunt at this critical phase in NASA's activities or it'll sink) In addition, the necessity of an "HLV" is not a given, it’s arbitrarily set at 100 tones or more just because the Apollo was in that class, and is just one of the options. We will have to do orbital assembly anyway (I think Zubrin et al can’t be serious suggesting lobbing gargantuan earth mars stacks in one shot to Mars) So, no HLV altogether, until the dire need arises (and it won't for foreseeable future) or is developed commercially for profit, is another viable option.

gofer · May 30, 2005

Another thing is that the majority of the mass is fuel and life support consumables. You don't necessarily need a large one shot up mass for that. Well, perhaps nuclear reactors (30 tonn?) An attractive architecture is having "gas stations" type infrastracture in place (LEO, lagrange points, etc...) that can be serviced/replenished by the private sector whose competitive participation in the VSE would be a boon to NASA in itself.

lycan359 · May 30, 2005

Does anyone know what the performace would be if you strapped together 7 of the DeltaIV Common Booster Cores? I heard some talk about it awhile ago when Boeing was testing out the 3 core Delta IV Heavy.

gunsandrockets · May 31, 2005

"Does anyone know what the performace would be if you strapped together 7 of the DeltaIV Common Booster Cores?" from astronautix.com... http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delde67t.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delde70t.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delde76t.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delde87t.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delde94t.htm But there is a big problem with introducing any of these monstrosities... " Introduction would require new launch pads and booster assembly infrastructure. " So they are not a viable option for cheap development of a heavy lift vehicle.

gunsandrockets · May 31, 2005

First a refresher link to the Shuttle C... http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm "Generation 2 would have a new-design recoverable CE [cargo element], powered by 3 SSME's, and capable of delivering 77,000 kg in a 7.3 m x 29.3 m volume." The Shuttle C could use existing launch facilities. Here is a growth version of the Atlas V http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlhase2.htm It could also use existing launch facilities. It has a 5 meter payload shroud and could lift 72 metric tons to LEO.

rocketwatcher2001 · May 31, 2005

"When this cost was taken into consideration, Shuttle-C was more expensive than the USAF Titan IV - therefore, NASA concluded, there was no reason to develop it. The decision was taken in 1990 to cancel Shuttle-C. " What I heard was a little different. The Air Force wanted as little to do with NASA as possible, the Shuttle really drove a wedge between them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Shuttle-C and CEV

holmec

Guest

franson_space

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

radarredux

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

smradoch

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mattblack

Guest

najab

Guest

smradoch

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacester

Guest

krrr

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gofer

Guest

gofer

Guest

lycan359

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page