We should do Direct 3.0 Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launcher

[neutrino78x]

I think we should implement this:

Direct 3.0 Space Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launcher

Space Review Article endorsing it.

Note that doing the Direct 3.0 Launcher would not change plans to do private LEO shuttles. Those would still be there. Direct 3.0 is for beyond LEO, like going to the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. However, it allows us to "close the gap", for heavy lift, much faster.

(MeteorWayne can move this to another thread if he wants of course...I wasn't sure if it would be better in one of the existing threads)

--Brian

 

[rockett]

Looks a lot like Aries V to me.

 

[neutrino78x]

Looks a lot like Aries V to me.

Yes, it is very similar, although it is using more of the original Space Shuttle equipment. Note that, if they went with this Direct 3.0 launcher, they would still do the commercial LEO shuttles. Ares I would still be canceled. They would still do the Flexible Path, meaning sortie missions.

--Brian

 

[annodomini2]

Looks a lot like Aries V to me.

Basically this the 'internal' NASA engineers approach using the existing solid rocket motors from the shuttle.

Core of the External fuel tank remaining the same with structural mods to take motors on the bottom and payload on the top.

Its basically providing a heavier lift capability than the shuttle, because it doesn't have to lift the shuttle.

 

[edkyle99]

I think we should implement this:

Direct 3.0 Space Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launcher

Space Review Article endorsing it.

Note that doing the Direct 3.0 Launcher would not change plans to do private LEO shuttles. Those would still be there. Direct 3.0 is for beyond LEO, like going to the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. However, it allows us to "close the gap", for heavy lift, much faster.
--Brian

I'm all for having a big rocket, but I worry about the money shortage. If NASA can't secure continued funding for a 25 tonne to LEO Ares I, how can we expect it to get enough money to develop a much larger (70-100 tonne to LEO class), and therefore more expensive, launch vehicle? If the money can be freed up, fine, but if not let's use the rockets already in existence to fly lower-annual-budget lunar missions.

- Ed Kyle

 

[rockett]

I'm all for having a big rocket, but I worry about the money shortage. If NASA can't secure continued funding for a 25 tonne to LEO Ares I, how can we expect it to get enough money to develop a much larger (70-100 tonne to LEO class), and therefore more expensive, launch vehicle? If the money can be freed up, fine, but if not let's use the rockets already in existence to fly lower-annual-budget lunar missions.

- Ed Kyle

Too true Ed. If we have that to spend, keep the Shuttles flying for that matter. I have to agree, it's not a design problem as much as a money problem.

 

[Valcan]

I'm all for having a big rocket, but I worry about the money shortage. If NASA can't secure continued funding for a 25 tonne to LEO Ares I, how can we expect it to get enough money to develop a much larger (70-100 tonne to LEO class), and therefore more expensive, launch vehicle? If the money can be freed up, fine, but if not let's use the rockets already in existence to fly lower-annual-budget lunar missions.

- Ed Kyle

Too true Ed. If we have that to spend, keep the Shuttles flying for that matter. I have to agree, it's not a design problem as much as a money problem.

Ok this is going to sound like me being a a hole...because i am being one.

Rocket i think you missed the whole point of a heavy lift rocket.

Heavy lift.

Looks a lot like Aries V to me.

Basically this the 'internal' NASA engineers approach using the existing solid rocket motors from the shuttle.

Core of the External fuel tank remaining the same with structural mods to take motors on the bottom and payload on the top.

Its basically providing a heavier lift capability than the shuttle, because it doesn't have to lift the shuttle.

As anno said "becuase it doesnt't have to lift the shuttle." The shuttle is stupid for cargo. No its Criminal for cargo. Its going to cost you at least twice as much to launch something on a manned vehicle as a unmanned. Also Direct 3 wouldnt be as limited as the shuttle. Want to launch 25 tons? Call spaceX. Want to launch 100 tons use direct or another Heavy unmanned (key point here there is no reason to use the same launcher for people as heavy cargo. I think we have enough practice docking in space now.) launch system. Take People up on dragon or another light vehicle.

 

[Astro_Robert]

We urgently need to retire the shuttle money pit and move on already. Its been good, we have learned a lot from it but it is far too expensive. Shuttle Derived technology has no reason to be other than comparably as expensive. Its time to take our lessons learend and get more bang for our buck.

 

[rockett]

There are a number of problems with this idea.

1. The Shuttle fuel tank was never designed to be a structural support, let alone an engine mount. It was made as light as possible to allow the Shuttle more upmass. Remember, we are talking about withstanding a minimum of 3 G's acceleration here. Without a lot of reinforcement (reducing lift capability), it would collapse on takeoff with anything on top of it. You can't design a rocket by just photoshopping pieces together and expecting it to work. Not for the stresses they have to undergo.

2. The engines, count 'em, 14, that's all you've got, even raiding the orbiters. They haven't made any new ones in years. To start building them again would require rebuilding the manufacturing facilities to make them, from scratch.

3. The engines are VERY expensive, because they were designed to be refurbished and reused. An unnesseary expense for an expendable.

 

[neutrino78x]

There are a number of problems with this idea.
You can't design a rocket by just photoshopping pieces together and expecting it to work. Not for the stresses they have to undergo.

These guys are NASA engineers, they know what they are talking about.

3. The engines are VERY expensive, because they were designed to be refurbished and reused. An unnesseary expense for an expendable.

My understanding is that Direct 3.0 is a reusable technology, like SpaceX's rocket. Just because it is vertical launch does not mean it is not reusable...

--Brian

 

[rockett]

These guys are NASA engineers, they know what they are talking about.

It seems that other engineers disagree. As I said before look at the structure of the tank. Reinforcement will be necessary.

My understanding is that Direct 3.0 is a reusable technology, like SpaceX's rocket. Just because it is vertical launch does not mean it is not reusable...

None of the mission profiles I have seen on their site or elsewhere support this assumption. The reason the SSMEs were not used for the Aries V program is:
1. There are only 14 of them.
2. Cost. Here's a quote from Wiki:

Originally, the SSME was to see service in the post-Shuttle era as the main engines for the unmanned Ares V cargo-launch vehicle and as a second-stage engine for the manned-rated Ares I crew-launch vehicle. Although the use of the SSME seemed good on paper, as it would use current Shuttle technology after the Shuttle's retirement in 2010, it had several drawbacks:

-It would not be reusable, as they would be permanently attached to the discarded stage(s).
-It would have to undergo a flight-readiness firing (FRF) before installation – the so-called "Main Engine Test" that NASA conducted with each new Orbiter and prior to the STS-26 flight.
-It would be expensive, time-consuming, and weight-intensive to convert the ground-started SSME to an air-started version for the Ares I second stage.
With several design changes to the Ares I and Ares V rockets, the SSME will be replaced with a single J-2X engine for the Ares I second stage. The Ares V will use six modified RS-68 engines (which is based on both the SSME and Apollo-era J-2 engine) for its core stage. Hence the SSMEs will be retired along with the Shuttle fleet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

Same holds true for Direct 3.0 Jupiter.

 

[neutrino78x]

These guys are NASA engineers, they know what they are talking about.

It seems that other engineers disagree. As I said before look at the structure of the tank. Reinforcement will be necessary.

Well I thought they were talking about reinforcing the tank, but whatever...

My understanding is that Direct 3.0 is a reusable technology, like SpaceX's rocket. Just because it is vertical launch does not mean it is not reusable...

None of the mission profiles I have seen on their site or elsewhere support this assumption.

To be honest, I'm not sure, that's why I said it was my understanding. It does use the Solid Rocket Boosters from the Shuttle, which are definitely reusable. It also uses the SSMEs, which are reusable. That implies to me that it is at least a partially reusable rocket. It wouldn't be like a Rocket Plane, where all you have to do is refuel, but I thought it was considered a reusable rocket, as opposed to expendable.

Can you show me something where they state that it is an expendable rocket? I could be wrong.

The reason the SSMEs were not used for the Aries V program is:
1. There are only 14 of them.
2. Cost.

This is a little different from Ares V, it is intended to reuse as much of the Space Shuttle stuff as possible.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

I'm all for having a big rocket, but I worry about the money shortage. If NASA can't secure continued funding for a 25 tonne to LEO Ares I, how can we expect it to get enough money to develop a much larger (70-100 tonne to LEO class), and therefore more expensive, launch vehicle?
- Ed Kyle

I think they are saying that by canceling Ares I, you are saving enough money to do heavy lift, by reusing Space Shuttle tech, while funding the New Space providers also.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

To be honest, I'm not sure, that's why I said it was my understanding. It does use the Solid Rocket Boosters from the Shuttle, which are definitely reusable. It also uses the SSMEs, which are reusable. That implies to me that it is at least a partially reusable rocket. It wouldn't be like a Rocket Plane, where all you have to do is refuel, but I thought it was considered a reusable rocket, as opposed to expendable.

Can you show me something where they state that it is an expendable rocket? I could be wrong.

The simplest answer is, look at the pictures and vids:
http://www.directlauncher.com/

It shows quite clearly the main stage in orbit. Had they intended it to be reusable, it would have shut down sooner and a second stage boosted to orbit. Once it reaches orbit, it is doomed, no amount of shielding could protect it in re-entry, aerodynamics alone would destroy it.

Adding a second stage would require more complexity and cost (time you add the logistics of retrieving it, and the recovery system), and most likely negated any savings by making it recoverable. It would also reduce the total lifting capacity.

Everything says expendable.

 

[Polishguy]

We urgently need to retire the shuttle money pit and move on already. Its been good, we have learned a lot from it but it is far too expensive. Shuttle Derived technology has no reason to be other than comparably as expensive. Its time to take our lessons learend and get more bang for our buck.

I don't think so. It might be possible to create a hybrid of the DIRECT and Ares V. Use the RS-68 engines on the standard 8.4 meter Shuttle external tank, for example, instead of going back to SSME production (DIRECT plan) or building a new fuel tank (Ares V). The Michoud facility hasn't been retooled much since the last ETs rolled out, so we should be able to produce some more.

Anyway, I wonder why no one has proposed a revival of the Shuttle C Concept. It can launch almost 80 tonnes to orbit (close enough for two to nearly match Ares V), it uses mostly Shuttle technology (2 SSME per vehicle, an external tank, and SRBs), etc. The only drawback I can see is the narrow payload (standard Shuttle 5 meters width), which means no new super-wide (ten meter) orbiting telescopes.

 

[edkyle99]

We urgently need to retire the shuttle money pit and move on already. Its been good, we have learned a lot from it but it is far too expensive. Shuttle Derived technology has no reason to be other than comparably as expensive. Its time to take our lessons learend and get more bang for our buck.

I don't think so. It might be possible to create a hybrid of the DIRECT and Ares V. Use the RS-68 engines on the standard 8.4 meter Shuttle external tank, for example, instead of going back to SSME production (DIRECT plan) or building a new fuel tank (Ares V). The Michoud facility hasn't been retooled much since the last ETs rolled out, so we should be able to produce some more.

Anyway, I wonder why no one has proposed a revival of the Shuttle C Concept. It can launch almost 80 tonnes to orbit (close enough for two to nearly match Ares V), it uses mostly Shuttle technology (2 SSME per vehicle, an external tank, and SRBs), etc. The only drawback I can see is the narrow payload (standard Shuttle 5 meters width), which means no new super-wide (ten meter) orbiting telescopes.

I suspect it comes, as always, down to money. This White House doesn't want to spend the money to fly such a rocket. If it can lift 80 tonnes, then NASA would be required to pay to develop and fly 80 tonne payloads. Those payloads would cost much more than those rockets. Each 80 tonne to LEO mission would have cost multiple billions of dollars. NASA might have been able to build the rockets, but it wouldn't have been able to fly them, at least not under the limits of current White House direction.

- Ed Kyle

 

[Polishguy]

We urgently need to retire the shuttle money pit and move on already. Its been good, we have learned a lot from it but it is far too expensive. Shuttle Derived technology has no reason to be other than comparably as expensive. Its time to take our lessons learend and get more bang for our buck.

I don't think so. It might be possible to create a hybrid of the DIRECT and Ares V. Use the RS-68 engines on the standard 8.4 meter Shuttle external tank, for example, instead of going back to SSME production (DIRECT plan) or building a new fuel tank (Ares V). The Michoud facility hasn't been retooled much since the last ETs rolled out, so we should be able to produce some more.

Anyway, I wonder why no one has proposed a revival of the Shuttle C Concept. It can launch almost 80 tonnes to orbit (close enough for two to nearly match Ares V), it uses mostly Shuttle technology (2 SSME per vehicle, an external tank, and SRBs), etc. The only drawback I can see is the narrow payload (standard Shuttle 5 meters width), which means no new super-wide (ten meter) orbiting telescopes.

I suspect it comes, as always, down to money. This White House doesn't want to spend the money to fly such a rocket. If it can lift 80 tonnes, then NASA would be required to pay to develop and fly 80 tonne payloads. Those payloads would cost much more than those rockets. Each 80 tonne to LEO mission would have cost multiple billions of dollars. NASA might have been able to build the rockets, but it wouldn't have been able to fly them, at least not under the limits of current White House direction.

- Ed Kyle

That makes me wonder about another question. Might it be possible for a Shuttle-C to throw five different satellites into orbit at once, and just seperate them once it's up? That would provide some sort of market. It would also be useful for unmanned missions (Mars, Europa, Saturn-Enceladus-Titan).

 

[pathfinder_01]

We urgently need to retire the shuttle money pit and move on already. Its been good, we have learned a lot from it but it is far too expensive. Shuttle Derived technology has no reason to be other than comparably as expensive. Its time to take our lessons learend and get more bang for our buck.

I don't think so. It might be possible to create a hybrid of the DIRECT and Ares V. Use the RS-68 engines on the standard 8.4 meter Shuttle external tank, for example, instead of going back to SSME production (DIRECT plan) or building a new fuel tank (Ares V). The Michoud facility hasn't been retooled much since the last ETs rolled out, so we should be able to produce some more.

Anyway, I wonder why no one has proposed a revival of the Shuttle C Concept. It can launch almost 80 tonnes to orbit (close enough for two to nearly match Ares V), it uses mostly Shuttle technology (2 SSME per vehicle, an external tank, and SRBs), etc. The only drawback I can see is the narrow payload (standard Shuttle 5 meters width), which means no new super-wide (ten meter) orbiting telescopes.

I think human spaceflight’s need for heavy lift might be a case of the tail attempting to wag the dog. You could have developed shuttle C to put the ISS up, but then once it is up you no longer need the heavy lift for some time yet. The low flight rate dooms it and higher need for performance dooms it. This is why Soyuz has survived. The rocket can be used for other things than putting man in space.

I think human space flight probably should be sized to make maxim use of existing launch vehicles. That way you don’t need two separate production faculties and crews to handle the flight. At some point in the future either commercial or the military will need larger vehicles and civilian space flight can follow.

 

[edkyle99]

That makes me wonder about another question. Might it be possible for a Shuttle-C to throw five different satellites into orbit at once, and just seperate them once it's up? That would provide some sort of market. It would also be useful for unmanned missions (Mars, Europa, Saturn-Enceladus-Titan).

Prior to STS-51L, Shuttle lifted two or three commercial comsats at at time - launches that had to be priced to sell against early Arianespace competition. From a technical standpoint, Shuttle-C could do the same, but it couldn't do it under NASA control because NASA has not been allowed to launch "commercial" satellites in the post-Challenger era. There is the all-important question of cost, of course - could a Shuttle-C compete against a Proton or an Ariane, etc.? Note also that comsats have grown considerably in mass since 1986. Even Shuttle C wouldn't be able to lift more than three or so at a time. Each satellite would also need a heavy GTO insertion motor not required for Proton or Ariane launches.

I worked at KSC during the mid-1980s. One problem that cropped up continually was payload issues impacting schedules. Three satellites, for example, might be assigned to a mission. Shortly before the planned launch, a problem could crop up in one of the satellites, forcing an orbiter rollback and a delay, etc. NASA was forever shuffling shuttles back and forth at LC 39 to handle such delays, at great cost.

- Ed Kyle