What changes abilities would you like to see in the new HLV?

[Valcan]

Basicaly what the title says what would you like to see if we do build a new Heavy.

Myself id like to see more reliability and a wider payload bay than the standard 5.3 m.

Maybe Nasa should take a hint from some of the civilian aerospace firms and see what works best instead of what is most advanced.

 

[rockett]

Basicaly what the title says what would you like to see if we do build a new Heavy.

Myself id like to see more reliability and a wider payload bay than the standard 5.3 m.

Maybe Nasa should take a hint from some of the civilian aerospace firms and see what works best instead of what is most advanced.

Build the Delta IV Heavy derivatives and next gen Delta, man-rate them and call it done.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/kits/d310_d4heavy_demo.pdf - page 51

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

If we stick to the HLV path, I would agree, a much larger diameter fairing is needed. Also, I would like to see a non hydrogen powered rocket or at least upper stage, so that they could refill in orbit from a kerosene and lox storage tank. To me, hydrogen needs to be too cold, takes up too much too much space and insulation. It isn't the cost of the actual hydrogen, its the transport and storage that keeps it from being ideal. But I doubt that NASA will go with a kerosene rocket after they have invested so much in hydrogen rockets. Also, I would like to see some sort of N2O/ethane or N2O/acetylene mix mono-propellant used instead of the hydrazine for orbital maneuvering. But that is more about the vehicle, not the rocket. I would also like it to use the existing shuttle launch pad (in an unaltered state) since I know that NASA can't build a new launch tower, etc without spending a massive amount of money. Reusability of at least the first stage would be nice. Liquid flyback booster would be even nicer (psh like that is going to happen :lol: ). What I do not want to see is ANY KIND OF SOLID ROCKET I don't care if it segmented like the shuttle one or whatever, I don't want to see it. ARE YOU LISTENING NASA??!!

 

[artemiit]

Reusability of at least the first stage , nucler powered third stage ( PBR of Isp 1000 ) , Booster of first stage or with SRB or with a Falcon 9 Heavy like strucuture . Two version a man- rated with at least 70-100 mT in LEO and a cargo 200-300 mT in LEO .Large payload , 10-15 meter of diameter . , refueling of third stage in space .

 

[NadeyMan]

Honestly... If you're going to outsource ferrying astronauts into LEO, why not just outsource the heavy lift of equipment too? The Falcon 9 Heavy configuration is practically ready to go now and it still costs a fraction of what the Shuttle does.

I think NASA should be focusing on designing a fully fledged ship parked in orbit that can take us between locations in our solar system, whenever we choose, in an efficient and timely mannor.
Announce contracts (and $$$) to private industry to solve the challanges of getting it into orbit and NASA can worry about how to fly it in deep space

 

[orionrider]

Like I said in another post: spare money, go for the heavy lift Energia/Vulkan rocket.
http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Hercules/vulkan.html

This is designed as man-rated, 200 ton capable, all-liquid engines, reusable seawater-resistant parts, flight-tested in Energia config. Zenith boosters are already in use by Boeing, main motors used by Lockheed-Martin on Atlas.

A solid, proven design that would (will?) make the dream come true with the current budget and still leave enough resources for the US to build the spaceship, habitat and landers. Produce the rocket locally, or just let the Russians do the lifting, and focus on the mission subsystems :idea:

 

[Polishguy]

Kerosene first stage. The SRBs on the Shuttle-derives systems make them so heavy that adding more strapon boosters is difficult without reworking your mobile launch platform.

8.4-10 meter diameter payload faring.

Nuclear thermal upper stage.

Reusable first stage, though if we go the Big Dumb Booster path the way the Russians do, this is optional.

Capability to convert empty fuel tanks into Wet Workshop space stations. This is also optional, though nice.

Make it a mass-produced vehicle. Establish as many production lines as possible to build dozens.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Kerosene first stage. The SRBs on the Shuttle-derives systems make them so heavy that adding more strapon boosters is difficult without reworking your mobile launch platform.

8.4-10 meter diameter payload faring.

Nuclear thermal upper stage.

Reusable first stage, though if we go the Big Dumb Booster path the way the Russians do, this is optional.

Capability to convert empty fuel tanks into Wet Workshop space stations. This is also optional, though nice.

Make it a mass-produced vehicle. Establish as many production lines as possible to build dozens.

Polishguy, onionrider, Nadeyman, artemiit, ZiraldoAerospace, and Valcan think about what you are saying.

The future course that has been charted is to rely more on fuel depots and resupply spacecraft, such as the European ATV and the Russian Progress for delivering fuel and cargo. These vehicles would be launched by ordinary commercial providers. Thus the need for a heavy lifter where 90% of the mass would be fuel is just a waste of money.

Commercial providers will also be able to provide crew transport to and from earth, thus making the need to man-rate such a vehicle unnecessary. Since man-rating a rocket usually involves adding much more safety like a crew escape option, making this heavy lift a manned vehicle you would decrease the performance, and greatly increase both cost and development time.

What we need and what we are lacking right now is a rocket with a large fairing. Right now the widest fairing available is the 6 meter fairing on the Ariane 5. Larger fairings would greatly benefit many aspects of both manned and unmanned exploration. For manned exploration larger fairing means larger modules for building spaceships, space stations, and bases. Bigelow aerospace talked about the possibility of a Big Bertha module using his inflatable technology and the Ares V. The module would inflate to have a living volume twice that of the ISS. As far as unmanned exploration is concerned a wider fairing offered by such a vehicle would allow for larger mirrors to be used on next generation telescopes.

As far as reusablity goes consider the launch rate of such a vehicle. If building bases, spaceships and space stations is all it is going to be used for than it probably is going to be used only once perhaps twice a year. Why spend all the money and time developing a reusable, nuclear powered vehicle that is going to be used sparingly anyway. IT makes no sense. What we need is something that can be developed and maintained a minimal expense.

To sum it all up what we need is a big dumb rocket. It needs to be cheaply developed and maintained. It should not be man-rated and it should not be reusable. Most important of all it needs to have a large fairing, because that is the capability that we need that we are not getting from the current rockets.

 

[rcsplinters]

What I suspect we're going to get is something quiet similar to SD HLV with some similarities to ARES V. The similarity I see most likely is 10m diameter.

What I'd like to see would be a highly reliable, 20 - 40 year design life booster, modular in design with a smaller in-line config with manned launch certification. If we don't need the smaller version due to commercial success, fine, it'll serve as test path to the bigger booster. If we do need it, we aren't left to cheer for our bold and intrepid cosmonaunts. I strongly agree with the 150 mt lift capability as I think that capability will be essential to the timely construction of modules for beyond LEO and the reactors that will be required for new space-only propulsion systems. I don't particularly care, but I strongly suspect we will see 4 - 5.5 segment solids as a lot of work has already been done in that area. They are here, they work, greatly enhance lift capablity and they are safe. I'd like to see a hardware only config that lofts a fuel module into orbit as large as possible for future refueling. I'd like to see a design that can transition to but is not dependent on dino burners.

Most importantly, I'd like to see a consolidation of designs. I don't believe the nation needs 47 different flavors each tailor made for some end. Only when we get the designs consolidated can we start to achieve any economy of scale. If that consolidation is ultimately private, then fine so long as it will throw a 10 meter diameter 150 mt payload into LEO with unprecedented reliability. We need a booster system that can do anything, not a myriad of booster that do a few things.

What I don't want to see is another design cycle followed by a development/fabrication cycle that is cancelled by the next idiot in the White House that tries to once again remake NASA to fit their own mental image and political purposes. We've lost years now. Whatever they settle on, the nation needs to move forward. No matter what the design turns out to be, it will have FAR FAR more lift capability than anyone's pet design that will never see a pad.

 

[Valcan]

.

Polishguy, onionrider, Nadeyman, artemiit, ZiraldoAerospace, and Valcan think about what you are saying.
.

Look endarkened i am not really all intense for a heavy life right now either. But congress because its job is to do as its biggest supporters say jump or screw over another group or whatever is going to build a heavy lifter by god or there gonna sink the entire space program.

So we are getting one no matter what you or i or anyone else thinks.

So the question is sense we are getting one what do YOU want out of the basterd child of political compromise.

Which will of course be underfunded........

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

DarkenedOne, you are right, but the question was if there is to be a HLV, what would we want. I believe that it is a waste of time, but if the politicians are resigned to tread that path, then we might as well make a good one (which I doubt will happen).

 

[rockett]

What I suspect we're going to get is something quiet similar to SD HLV with some similarities to ARES V. The similarity I see most likely is 10m diameter.

What I'd like to see would be a highly reliable, 20 - 40 year design life booster, modular in design with a smaller in-line config with manned launch certification. If we don't need the smaller version due to commercial success, fine, it'll serve as test path to the bigger booster. If we do need it, we aren't left to cheer for our bold and intrepid cosmonaunts. I strongly agree with the 150 mt lift capability as I think that capability will be essential to the timely construction of modules for beyond LEO and the reactors that will be required for new space-only propulsion systems. I don't particularly care, but I strongly suspect we will see 4 - 5.5 segment solids as a lot of work has already been done in that area. They are here, they work, greatly enhance lift capablity and they are safe. I'd like to see a hardware only config that lofts a fuel module into orbit as large as possible for future refueling. I'd like to see a design that can transition to but is not dependent on dino burners.

Most importantly, I'd like to see a consolidation of designs. I don't believe the nation needs 47 different flavors each tailor made for some end. Only when we get the designs consolidated can we start to achieve any economy of scale. If that consolidation is ultimately private, then fine so long as it will throw a 10 meter diameter 150 mt payload into LEO with unprecedented reliability. We need a booster system that can do anything, not a myriad of booster that do a few things.

What I don't want to see is another design cycle followed by a development/fabrication cycle that is cancelled by the next idiot in the White House that tries to once again remake NASA to fit their own mental image and political purposes. We've lost years now. Whatever they settle on, the nation needs to move forward. No matter what the design turns out to be, it will have FAR FAR more lift capability than anyone's pet design that will never see a pad.

Dead on 'splinters! I think your forecast is not much different than what we will eventually see!

Further, I LIKE the Nelson plan because it demands IMMEDIATE ACTION! NOT spending millions contemplating our navels doing "design studies" for another five years on what we have already learned in the last fifty years and know how to do!

 

[Valcan]

What I suspect we're going to get is something quiet similar to SD HLV with some similarities to ARES V. The similarity I see most likely is 10m diameter.

What I'd like to see would be a highly reliable, 20 - 40 year design life booster, modular in design with a smaller in-line config with manned launch certification. things.

.

No. no, no. Dont mann rate it. Man rating it will simply mean alot more cost and that Nasa will be forced to use it for all its flights which will mean alot of wasted money.

I thought this was understood? Man rating a heavy lift vehicle is wasteful. Use the HLV to lift things to orbit then use a smaller launcher Falcon 9, manrated atlas 5 etc.

 

[Valcan]

.

.

Have to agree dont see the need for this vehicle to fly alot and as you said all the extras bring extra cost. Wide payload bay, 80-120 tons, non reusable.

Big dumb rocket.

 

[rockett]

Like I said in another post: spare money, go for the heavy lift Energia/Vulkan rocket.
http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Hercules/vulkan.html

Nice idea, but it's not gonna happen. If you read the Nelson Bill, it has a distinctly made in America slant.

As for any SHLV, yep we need a big dumb rocket, not much on brains, just heavy on brawn. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see some variation of Direct 3, nice wide faring too (10 m).
http://www.directlauncher.com/

 

[rcsplinters]

What I suspect we're going to get is something quiet similar to SD HLV with some similarities to ARES V. The similarity I see most likely is 10m diameter.

What I'd like to see would be a highly reliable, 20 - 40 year design life booster, modular in design with a smaller in-line config with manned launch certification. things.

.

No. no, no. Dont mann rate it. Man rating it will simply mean alot more cost and that Nasa will be forced to use it for all its flights which will mean alot of wasted money.

I thought this was understood? Man rating a heavy lift vehicle is wasteful. Use the HLV to lift things to orbit then use a smaller launcher Falcon 9, manrated atlas 5 etc.

Actually, we agree. I don't want to see a full heavy lift stack man rated. I never really understood the Augustine Report in this regard which seemed to favor a ARES V Lite (aka ARES IV) configuration. In my opinion, for the manned rated vehicle, it should be ultra safe, minimal energy with enough punch to put the CEV to LEO or whereever, the ISS and/or construction would take place on a BEO vehicle would occur. My comment was to suggest that one "ability" for the HLV "system" would be to have a small configuration of the components from the HLV to do the job. The thought is that it might be cheaper to manufacture and have common support and operational requirements. Frankly, I think it would help the commercial sector for NASA to have that option, strange as that may sound. Competition makes businesses stronger. NASA just having the potential might be enough competition. Either way, commercial or NASA, we win as the American public as the nation would have manned access to space in either outcome.

 

[Valcan]

.

Actually, we agree. I don't want to see a full heavy lift stack man rated. I never really understood the Augustine Report in this regard which seemed to favor a ARES V Lite (aka ARES IV) configuration. In my opinion, for the manned rated vehicle, it should be ultra safe, minimal energy with enough punch to put the CEV to LEO or whereever, the ISS and/or construction would take place on a BEO vehicle would occur. My comment was to suggest that one "ability" for the HLV "system" would be to have a small configuration of the components from the HLV to do the job. The thought is that it might be cheaper to manufacture and have common support and operational requirements. Frankly, I think it would help the commercial sector for NASA to have that option, strange as that may sound. Competition makes businesses stronger. NASA just having the potential might be enough competition. Either way, commercial or NASA, we win as the American public as the nation would have manned access to space in either outcome.

I agree but what i dont want to see is the Nasa rocket take away from the private sector. Government involvemnt has a nasty habbit of destroying the urge to innovate.
Thats like what we are dealing with now. Do you think a congressmen is going to do something that might hurt his votes even if it would help the nation atlarge a hundred times over? I have little faith in my fellow man when it involves logic and politics.

 

[rcsplinters]

Valcan, In my opinion, as far as the private sector, a government backup plan will not affect them one way or the other, IF (and that’s a big if) they have a sound business model. The business they are trying to enter is a harsh, expensive and extremely dangerous market. I think it’s without precedent in human history. The commercial sector needs to be able to proceed at their own pace and tolerance for risk. If forced into business (as will happen, as government will drive them like lemmings if it doesn’t have a means to put a man in orbit), they’ll make a mistake. Several deaths early in such a program will give CEO cold feet really quick. A commercial option will beat the daylights out of a government option pricewise, so if they are ready, they have a good product, the federal conveyance to orbit for humans would be pushed aside. Remember what FEDEX and UPS did to the postal service.

As far as innovation, recall NASA is the single most innovative entity the federal government has ever seen. They’ve walked on the moon, have robots trundling on Mars, dropped a craft on Titan for ESA and have two machines about to leave the influence of our solar system. They are the single most innovative organization on the planet when measured by unprecedented achievement. Our problem is that creativity is crushed through lack of funding. Commercial options will bring us changes to lower cost in operations and manufacturing, anything to improve shareholder value. However, unless there is profit, they are not going to build that interplanetary craft and there is no profit in one or two things like that. We need a strong, well funded NASA just as bad as we need the commercial sector.

My opinion is that we must have this heavy lift vehicle and it must be extremely capable. We need a lot of mass in orbit to do things beyond LEO. We need a lot of mass in orbit to commercialize it as well (I look at that as road building). We need a crew vehicle designed for operations beyond LEO. These are federal tasks. We also need a STRONG commercial influence, not one that is forced along a path because our government failed to step to the line. The proposal out of the Senate is far from ideal but it is not stagnation.

In closing, I think we’d both agree again that we believe research on orbital and beyond technologies for propulsion, radiation resistance and other such advancement is also grossly underfunded. Our country needs to resume its aggressive pursuit of those technologies concurrently with manned space flight, NOT at the expense of manned space flight. I think the bill falls short in that regard. That’s shameful, as the needed 1- 2 billion a year is nothing but would pay huge dividends to our children. That research could be done both commercially and federally. In my opinion, this is where Congress and the administration fail in total to understand what NASA has been about for decades.

 

[rockett]

I have to agree with rcsplinters.

First of all, Washington has never operated on a multi-year budget. Congress changes it at their whim, or by necessity year to year. If circumstances or technology makes significant changes before the 2012 or 2013 budgets are approved, I wouldn't expect these long term funding projections to hold. Even then, Congress can, and often has, amended funding bills. If Obama's initiatives have taught us anything, it should be that should there be a change in Administration or Congress, all of these plans are nothing but powerpoint presentations, and multi-billion dollar programs can be cancelled with no appeal.

What we also ALL need to realize is that immediately starting Super-Heavy Lift does not compete with Commercial. It is for a specialty launch capability, that simply is not profitable for them to pursue.

Some of you will argue the emphasis on SHLV competes for Commercial Crew funding, but if you look at the timeline it will take to develop Commercial Crew (2-3 years, minimum) and man-rate their rockets, the Senate Bill pretty much follows that expectation that there will not be anything available until 2013. It also makes provision for review and possible allocation of funds should they beat that timeline. One member of the committe actually said that they intend to match the Obama Plan funding, just not bringing it into play until the Commercial Crew companies have something to show.

The "multi-purpose crew vehicle" (aka the new Orion) does not compete either. It also is for an entirely different purpose, BEO missions. Again, this is not an area where commercial can make a profit, as they will be few and far between. Alternatively, if needed, it could be launched to LEO by Atlas V Heavy, Delta IV Heavy, or Falcon 9 Heavy provided they are man-rated. This capability could actually benefit Commercial launchers, and is inherent to them providing Crewed Services for NASA anyway, so is a necessary step.

What these initiatives DO give us, is a redundant, back-up human space flight capability until if and when Commercial Crew comes on line.

 

[Valcan]

I agree with both of you its just i worry what MIGHT happen. Say they cut the HLV again but put it in some BS program for welfare etc you name it. That leaves 90% of the budget for exploration gone...for nothing.

And while Nasa is innovative its not really in a senators best interest to allow such innovation unless he benefits. And if he is getting paid by existing aerospace unions and groups that want to use already inuse products and factories even if it hurts us so be it he got his votes.

Best example look at auto manufacturing.

In japan a entire factory can make they same amount of cars as a american one. But they can do it with just 100 employies because they allow such automation where as in the US or atleast up north they are against it because the unions have dictated that they cant fire all those workers.

So they have run themselves into debt we bailed em out now they will begin again.


BTW FORD is currently buiding alot of highly auto mated factories in areas where there isnt alot of unions and in south america.

 

[rockett]

I agree with both of you its just i worry what MIGHT happen. Say they cut the HLV again but put it in some BS program for welfare etc you name it. That leaves 90% of the budget for exploration gone...for nothing.

And while Nasa is innovative its not really in a senators best interest to allow such innovation unless he benefits. And if he is getting paid by existing aerospace unions and groups that want to use already inuse products and factories even if it hurts us so be it he got his votes.

That's how the system works, for good or bad, sometimes both. It's called democracy. Maybe we need to formulate some noisy special interest minority group that gets a lot of press and attention. That seems to get their ear. Call it the "Space Geek Federation" or something, elect a female, minority president of it, but I digress...