ULV: the Ultra Heavy Lift Vehicle

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>true, but if you want to put massive loads on orbit, it really comes down to a huge booster or a space elevator. Scramjets and spaceplanes can put stuff on orbit cheaply, but it still locks us into this limitied fits-through-the-cargo-doors architecture that made the ISS a disaster where Skylab had been a success. If we want to put huge single peice stations and vehicles on orbit (ground construction is much cheaper and safer than orbital construction, we know this) we need an elevator or a super-rocket. i love elevators, but super rockets are more practicle, sadly Nasa has thusfar opted to build missions around rockets instead of building rockets around missions. Look at the way we are scaling down orion to fit the stick. Posted by ruff_houseI wouldn't characterize ISS as a disaster. Its just not very economical in the way it was developed mostly. It took over a decade of design and redesign before its final architecture was finally approved and that had little to do with LVs. But when one looks at the construction of ISS so far from just a technical standpoint. Its impressive to say the least. Not bad at all despite poor economic planning.The problem with huge single piece stations is that there is currently no demand for them.Another problem would be to spend a decade developing one only to have the gigantic 450T or higher payload capacity rocket explode on the pad or at sea and loosing a decades worth of payload. There are pros and cons to doing it regardless of what method is chosen to get payloads to orbit.It is definetily cheaper to build on the ground and you could have a station cluster of individual Skylab sized modules propelled to orbit on Shuttle Derived Vehicles (SDV) or Delta super heavys that could be derived from present heavy Deltas.Eventually, assuming low orbit is teeming with all sorts of human activity in a decade or so. It will become more economical to build hardware on orbit and at that point, a huge LV would probably be the more cost effective choice for getting payloads to support that activity to orbit.&nbsp;At the moment, Bigelow is taking a chance just by putting his eventual space hotel up in the hopes that someone else will provide regular tourist access to it. In effect, creating a demand. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Have to agree with QSO, space elevators are not the solution in the near-term, if ever. Rockets work really well, it's the economics of getting to the next stage of access that is a high hurdle. There appears to be a two by two matrix of best solutions: Very Small vs Ultra-Lift and throw-away vs high reusability. Flight frequency is major indicator. Medium-lift, ELV or STS, is always going to be expensive, or at least until it's an automated-assembly, fly-every-day ELV or RLV. Partial reusabilty in a stage (STS) is wicked expensive. Looking toward far-future launch such as elevators or laser-launch is interesting, but we've been able to build a ULV since the 70s. What is needed now is a business case - QSO is right on that, too, because Bigelow could enable it.&nbsp; </p><p>The 450t payload might take a decade and cost a $G but will only cost somewhat more than a current payload - for science payloads they are fairly flat and scale like rockets (the decision to do it is the most expensive part). More likely science payloads become part of general frieght heading upstairs, then are staged from a station or brought along as components of larger (human) expeditions. For crew/base/expedition payloads, a mega-booster enables use of normal/modded Earth equipment instead of aerospace-expensive gear. The economics demands that there be something to sustain a launcher that large, which would mean entail order-of-magnitude drop in the cost of launch. It makes sense to ship a Catepillar or standard climbing gear instead of cutting-edge hardware - this especially effects what constitutes a rover or spacesuit. This drop in cost and increase in volume opens up huge new markets, creating a virtuous circle. &nbsp;</p><p>Bigelow's attempt at creating a demand for crew and cargo launch is especially important. He is talking about a doubling in human-centered launch (Soyuz-class ie. Dragon in USA) just to open the first station - with plans for several more over the next decade or so. He has the money to do it and is so far succeeding: he has two mini-stations in orbit right now. That is putitng money and skill where your mouth is.&nbsp; </p><p>If I was building the ULV - it would be TSTO with the upper stage being usable as a Ship or depot-storage. Even if the upper stage is only good as tankage, there are tons of uses. In this regard it might make sense to build a reusable first stage and recyclable/wet-lab upper stage. </p><p>Other people (w/ Google money backing them no less) are talking about creative uses of ocean SPAR technology:</p><p>http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seasteading</p><p>Check out Devil's Tower while you're at it. The hackers have the right idea, but this structure actually has serious living space and could start as an aquaculture farm:</p><p>http://www.jraymcdermott.com/projects/devils-tower__108.asp</p><p>Josh&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p>If I was building the ULV - it would be TSTO with the upper stage being usable as a Ship or depot-storage. Even if the upper stage is only good as tankage, there are tons of uses. In this regard it might make sense to build a reusable first stage and recyclable/wet-lab upper stage.....</p><p>That has been my idea from the beginning. TSTO with the upper stage propellant Modules reused as structural elements of stations and vehicles. Upper stage engines would be re-used to power vehicles, before being returned as cargo for overhaul. </p><p>My plan is to use the same design for everything, two structural parts that form Sections. Two, or more, Sections and a single piece Tube make a Module. Various diameter or length Segments could be produced depending on their function, but the same design would be used throughout the system.</p><p>As an example the same Segments would be used for the Launcher and the Upper Stage and would be the initial building blocks for Space development. The design of the Segment let it serve any number of duties throughout the Vehicles, cccumulators, hydraulic cylinders. Modules the size of a pencil would be exactly the same as those used by the Launcher, just on a different scale.</p><p>Design comes down to milled metal End Adapters and identical, but smaller Auxillary Adapters. The metal structure is connected by high strength fibers, as well as integrated conduits and wiring, assembled in a mold, resin is poured in and the Segment is cured. The Tube uses a variable length mandril. Various fibers, depending on the use of the Module, combined with resins form the Tubes. The idea being containment. In Space you want to keep whats inside inside. A Module that would carry propellant would be over qualified to be a component of a manned Station, but thats a good thing.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[keermalec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I was building the ULV - it would be TSTO with the upper stage being usable as a Ship or depot-storage. Even if the upper stage is only good as tankage, there are tons of uses. In this regard it might make sense to build a reusable first stage and recyclable/wet-lab upper stage.....That has been my idea from the beginning. TSTO with the upper stage propellant Modules reused as structural elements of stations and vehicles. Upper stage engines would be re-used to power vehicles, before being returned as cargo for overhaul. My plan is to use the same design for everything, two structural parts that form Sections. Two, or more, Sections and a single piece Tube make a Module. Various diameter or length Segments could be produced depending on their function, but the same design would be used throughout the system.As an example the same Segments would be used for the Launcher and the Upper Stage and would be the initial building blocks for Space development. The design of the Segment let it serve any number of duties throughout the Vehicles, cccumulators, hydraulic cylinders. Modules the size of a pencil would be exactly the same as those used by the Launcher, just on a different scale.Design comes down to milled metal End Adapters and identical, but smaller Auxillary Adapters. The metal structure is connected by high strength fibers, as well as integrated conduits and wiring, assembled in a mold, resin is poured in and the Segment is cured. The Tube uses a variable length mandril. Various fibers, depending on the use of the Module, combined with resins form the Tubes. The idea being containment. In Space you want to keep whats inside inside. A Module that would carry propellant would be over qualified to be a component of a manned Station, but thats a good thing.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>Interorbital's Neptune&nbsp;concept follows precisely this idea of using the second stage as an habitable orbital station.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interorbital's Neptune&nbsp;concept follows precisely this idea of using the second stage as an habitable orbital station.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I hadn't seen that before but some things are similar. The pressure feed of propellant and as you point out the re-usable tank are similar.&nbsp; Beyond that it is pretty different.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I hadn't seen that before but some things are similar. The pressure feed of propellant and as you point out the re-usable tank are similar.&nbsp; Beyond that it is pretty different. <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV><br /></p><p>Massive TSTO with recyclable upper stages makes sense. The question is how a single, per-unit scalable component can make the majority of structures proposed? Materials display different properties depending on scale. A common shape/scaled tube + tankage will have much different compression strength at 1m diameter than at 10m. Recommend checking out ROMBUS, LEO and SeaDragon designs.</p><p>One advantage to planning on using the upper stage further in space is that there is no need for reentry/recovery hardware. Minimal protection is needed. On hardware that scale the operating crew could be inside a docked capsule serving as command module. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;All rockets use solids, and ARES V throws less junk in the sea than Delta IV heavies with not a jot of engine out capability. If you launch a lot of smaller rockets with Solid augmentation--thats equal to a few Ares. <br /> Posted by publiusr</DIV><br /></p><p>Plenty of rockets have been liquid-only. ARES V does not exist, so comparing it to D-IVH is unfair and inaccurate. Lots of small launches are a valid approach for crew exchange and possibly volatile delivery. Small-launch heavily limits other activities - hence this discussion of Ultra Lift. ARES, Delta, etc don't particularly have growth options to ULV-class. The heaviest throw-mass proposed is around 160t for evolved-Delta and no one is talking about evolved-A5 since they are still working on just the booster. Direct's Jupiter proposal has ULV growth options but may not be a credible proposal.&nbsp;</p><p>Josh </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>