side mounted payloads

[j05h]

side mounted payloads on rockets make no sense. Side mounted payloads that include living, breathing people are even stupider. Inline rockets with launch-escape towers don't have to worry about falling foam or other debris hitting brittle cutting-edge materials. Spacecraft should be delibrately robust, not fanciful and unnecessarily dangerous. <br /><br />So, NASA, you proved the point. If enough money gets thrown at the problem, yes, anything can fly. Even pigs and white elephants. <br /><br />The count as I understand it: one debris strike knocked off a piece of wheel-well tile, one bird got skewered on the ET during liftoff and the huge chunk of foam narrowly missed the right wing after SRB separation. Any other "anomalies"?<br /><br />I just hope that Discovery makes it back safely. After she returns, let's put the Orbiters in museums for a well deserved rest. It's been a good run, but these birds are done. <br /><br />If you've read my other posts here, you know my solution to the "ISS needs Shuttle" line.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[sequencor]

Here's an excerpt from a NYTimes article sort of addressing this matter ...<br /><br />Dr. Griffin, the NASA administrator, predicted Friday that the foam problem would be quickly repaired and said engineers would consider options that had not been tried before. But he added that the next generation of spacecraft would place cargo and crew members atop the tank and not on its side, where falling foam and ice invite disaster.<br /><br /><br />I assume Mr. Griffin when referring to 'the next generation of spacecraft' -- was referring to the CEV-SRB concept ....<br /><br />But I wonder if this could also mean that the inline heavy lift vehicle has a better chance of being developed, rather than a side-mounted version?<br /><br /><br />Anyway, here's a link to the full article: <br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/science/space/31foam.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5094&en=f35a8f54ae5625aa&hp&ex=1122782400&partner=homepage<br />

 

[drwayne]

Of course, the return to azimuthal symmetry make pogo more likely.<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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I assume Mr. Griffin when referring to 'the next generation of spacecraft' -- was referring to the CEV-SRB concept ....</font>/i><br /><br />Actually I am fairly certain he was talking about the HLV. There is an ongoing debate about the SDHLV: side-mounted vs. inline. Side-mounted pretty much means no crew capability in the future. Inline means it can also launch crew.<br /><br />Griffin really wants an inline, but it is more expensive and time consuming. I think he is going to use this current problem to support his argument that the investment for inline is worth it.</i>

 

[sequencor]

"Inline means it can also launch crew"<br /><br />I see now. I wasn't aware that the heavy lift vehicle would launch people, as well as cargo. That's why I just assumed he was referring to the SRB-CEV. <br />My bad. <br /><br /><br />-Mark

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I wasn't aware that the heavy lift vehicle would launch people, as well as cargo.</font>/i><br /><br />Nothing official has been said about what the SDHLV will do, only that we need it. We will have to for the the "60 day" reports to come out.<br /><br />However, the rumors are that Griffin wants a Lunar Surface Rendezvous (LSR) architecture, where the CEV launches on the inline SDHLV and goes all the way to the Lunar surface. Here is a previous thread: New AW&ST CEV article (Pow! Zoom! Straight to the Moon!).<br /><br />Also, from a 1999 presentation Griffin gave, he included the following point in his summary: "<i>Robust lunar base development will require LSR no matter what else is done. </i>" PDF of slides<br /><br />Zubrin's architecture also has the crew launching to Moon and later to Mars on an inline SDHLV. His argument is that if you want to go to Mars, this is the best way to do it. So you might as well develop the booster now instead of waiting until 2015 or later to start the development. PDF of article</i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"However, the rumors are that Griffin wants a Lunar Surface Rendezvous (LSR) architecture, where the CEV launches on the inline SDHLV and goes all the way to the Lunar surface. "<br /><br />That no longer appears to be the case. Check this out...<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=287940&page=6&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That no longer appears to be the case. Check this out...</font>/i><br /><br />The Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) architecture would still have the astronauts riding into space on a SDHLV. Only an Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) architecture would have humans <i>not</i> riding up to space on the HLV. Also, "The Space Review" article you reference talks about a "125 metric tons" capability; I think only the inline approach can do that. If you have a 125 tonne lift capability, you don't need EOR.<br /><br />I think the main problem is that inline is very expensive to develop compared to side-mounted, and Griffin is going to have to work hard to (1) ask for more money or (2) kill other efforts to free up money.</i>

 

[john_316]

Well I think inline is also the way to go and worth it as well...<br /><br />We can use the SRB derived vehicle for the current CEV and then the HLV for the Mars and Lunar vehicles..<br /><br />Worth the money and worth the time. Though they could speed it up a little....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Only an Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) architecture would have humans not riding up to space on the HLV.</font>/i><br /><br />Current rumors are for a combined EOR + LOR. See the thread: "Sneak Preview of Moon/Mars Architecture"<br /><br />Or go straight to the article:<br /><br />Orlando Sentinel Article: link<br />Architecture diagram: link<br /><br />In this article the architecture is slightly more complex than the original Apollo: (1) two rockets are launched for each mission, and (2) and extra docking in Earth orbit is necessary.<br /><br />One other major change from Apollo: no splashdown. Landing will be Soyuz-style on land.</i>

 

[scottb50]

I think an HLV based on an inline design would be less cost effective than a side mounted design, especially if the first stage was a fly-back vehicle. <br /><br />The downside to a side mounted payload boils down to impact from debris from the carrier vehicle, that could be eliminated by not using foam type insulation and instead using a solid faring on the fly-back part. As for crew safety if you use the side mounted container, being a second stage the engines could be used for escape from the carrier as well as providing thrust for launch, allowing increased payload capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[soccerguy789]

I personally doubt that the CEV itslef, with cre onboard would be launched on anything other than the SRB Griffin has made that clear, and I like it. but what that means is that we can feel free to launch cargo on a side mounted shuttle-C setup until a proper replacement is made available. Griffin may be about getting it done, but he's also about getting it done on budget, and that is what side mounted does. I agree that inline is vastly superior and should be developed, but we shouldn't hold up a return to the moon that is already long overdue just because we know better equipment will show up eventually. Thats like having Columbus waiting around for a 747 to take him to the America's (or India if you want to fight over history) the reason the foam has been a problem is because it takes of reentry tiles. but there are no reentry tiles on the shuttle-C cargo system. it doesn't need them. on top of that, they are surly going to solve the foam problem before the next launch, so surely tthey don't need to worry about the foam damaging anything on a shuttle-C cargo pod that might be damaged.

 

[kane007]

My thoughts exactly Soccerguy.

 

[j05h]

(wow, I thought my thread was just a dead rant...)<br /><br />I don't think that NASA is going to be able to "solve" the foam debris problem - it is simply a fact that objects fall from the sides of rockets, ice foam or other debris. That is why I oppose side-mounting payloads with people. I agree that cargo launches are fine for now, but the inline should be developed. I support the ATK plan for now. <br /><br />Columbus was following other's maps - he knew where he was going navigationally. There is a possibility that he was on a 1470s expedition to Iceland, Greenland and maybe Vinland under the Norwegian and Portugeuse crowns. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[john_316]

I dont forsee any first stage flyback vehicle on the HLV. As it seems to be either method will be used but we wont know for sure until the 60 day report comes out. I have hopes that Inline will become the new HLV because it makes the designers work and look foward to something. Shuttle-C is alright but I dont see the growth potential that Inline does...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[kane007]

I mean it all comes down to money, time, and money.<br /><br />I think the side mounted cargo arrangement uses the most of existing hardware/systems and requires the least new hardware/systems. Thus I hope this is the tack NASA will take. I believe this will provide the needed capacity to reduce the number of shuttle flights. One Side mounted should be able to deliver the cargo of 2 or 3 shuttle flights.<br /><br />I think they should reduce shuttle missions to no more than 2 per annum. Thus ISS completion could be speed up, crews rotated by a combination of Soyuz/Shuttle missions and the Hubble serviced. Savings made could be funnelled to CEV and evolutionary growth/development of the larger inline SDLV, and later, a 2nd generation Shuttle.<br /><br />Ultimately the 60 – 80 tonne side mounted could be up and running by mid 2007 with 2 missions per annum that’s 120 - 160 tonnes to the ISS through 2010. This means completion of the entire ISS. Also could mean very large interplanetary missions and heavy lunar pre cursers through to 2015. By then NASA will have had at least 60 months (post 2010) to get the larger in line units and their associated infrasture up and going.<br /><br />I wish I was truly clairvoyant, but my hopes are for the 2nd generation between 2020 and 2030.<br />