Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Heavy Lift Vehicle

Heavy Lift Vehicle

Posted by: Andy Hill - Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:02 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 252 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Heavy Lift Vehicle 
Author Message
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post Heavy Lift Vehicle   Posted on: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:02 am
In an effort to focus thoughts on a Heavy lft vehicle (circa 60-100 Ton payload) I thought it might be useful to create a new thread specifically for this topic. This will allow reference to this thread rather than repetition throughout the forum.

Griffin appears to be favouring a STS derived heavy lift vehicle and this seems to be a sensible approach with regard to use of existing infrastructure, personnel, time and resources (yes I know I argued these same points in the Delta IV Heavy thread but like I said I'm trying to focus the conversation here).

There are a few designs floating around of an STS derived HLV, notably the Shuttle-C side mounted payload canister and the top mounted ARES configuration (the one proposed by Zubrin). Does anyone have an idea which NASA might go with, I favour the top mounted version that has 3 or 4 SSMEs mounted under the external tank but that is just my guess. Anyone got any concrete information or article links tha might give a clue to NASA's thoughts?

EDIT:
As an additional thought since a new upper stage would probably be needed this could be designed as a scaled up version of the one that would be needed for a single SRB derived vehicle and then you would get heavy lift and meadium lift for cargo at the same time.

I think that it is a requirement to have a HLV of this size as it reduces risk caused by multiple launches and messing about with rendezvous in LEO, it also allows large one off missions to be planned more easily. For instance you could put a pretty useful sized base on the moon with only a couple of launches with enough supplies and fuel to allow a much smaller manned craft to make a landing for a long duration stay, maybe a month or 2. What does everyone think? Can you have a sensible exploration program like NASA's without a HLV or would it be just as easy to use smaller launchers in the 20 ton payload range?

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:09 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Austin, TX
Post    Posted on: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:49 pm
This is a good idea for a thread. In fact, here is an article on it.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:38 pm
I do have to point out here that considering the fact that the Saturn V had the lowest to-orbit cost per pound, the inline booster looks good. Of course, you could also develop some sort of super heavy-lift vehicle that has a huge cargo canister in the center with (possibly drop-away) booster engines underneath (yes, underneath. Why carry all the fuel in with your payload?) and larger main engines mounted in a ring around the canister. Not hard to picture. Not sure how it'd work, but I'm thinking along the lines of two ET's basically mounted one atop the other (the top of one and the bottom of the other sawed off and them bolted together to make one very big tank) with a few engines in the bottom for initial boost (not much fuel, but high thrust) and a whole crapload of SSEBs strapped around the outside.

With sufficient amounts of duct tape to help fair the EBs in, it should work. :wink:

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:50 pm
Sadly the in-line Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV/HLLV)inspired heavy lift launch vehicle is most likely--and is what we need to support. It is vary similar to the ALS/NLS concepts in the 80's that were to replace the Titans before AF man Moorman got two EELVs forced down our gullets. They seemed good at the time--and the comsat/DOT.COM bubble had not burst yet--when Teledesic and Iridium still had breath left in them.

You know the rest.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:47 pm
There are three HLLV programs being looked at:

In French
http://forums.futura-sciences.com/thread25593.html

1.) The Euro-HLLV (100 tons to orbit--not 41 as I thought before
http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedings/Ferra.pdf

2.) The American SDV/HLLV also known as Ares, Magnum, BMDO Launcher, etc.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040
www.safesimplesoon.com/heavylift.htm (click on charts and visit the media center)

3.) And the Angara 100.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara100.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks_followon.html


Most likely...ATK's shuttle derived heavy-lifter

Least likely...Angara 100

Dark Horse...Ariane M

Three choices for Heavy-Lift:
Ares, Ariane-M and Angara 100 The AAA of the future.


At least people are talking about more adequate rockets.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:36 pm
I think that Ariane-M would need a major change in European space policy to be built. Not nearly enough money is invested in space and there are no big European projects that would warrant it (unless something comes out of the Aurora program). Also it looks like ESA might be working with the Russians on Kliper and I dont see 2 major projects getting funded.

I think that a shuttle derived HLV is most likely, they might go for a cheaper option of side mounting a cargo canister with engines, this might at least have some download capacity but it is likely to reduce the payload to orbit.

Didn't Griffin initiate a study on this which is supposed to report back at the end of July or am I confused? :?

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:09 pm
He wants in-line. Needless to say--ATK is pleased. Boeing still wants to cram that lousy Delta IV down our throats, tho'.

Cowing is a hack for EELVs
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/ ... ers_w.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22323

But he has been debunked here.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/150/1
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04zc.html

He is taking shots at Griffin and Zubrin these days. I think Zubrin is right in going after O'Keefe (www.nasawatch.com) Nov 2006


Last edited by publiusr on Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:49 am
publiusr wrote:
He wants in-line. Needless to say--ATK is pleased. Boeing still wants to cram that lousy Delta IV down our throats, tho'.


Probably the best option but I think they need to simplify the design to many delays and faults on the STS as it is.

IMO Delta IV is a waste of space, which together with Atlas V, have been just another way to rip off the American tax payer. With the money that has been spent on these 2 rocket systems the US should have had a much better and cheaper launcher. I fail to see why the US wanted 2 systems anyway as there is no true competition between Lockheed and Boeing in the space industry (as seen by the recent merger of the 2 EELV programmes), contracts get shared between them to keep both dinosaurs in business. The US military and NASA should have down selected to a single supplier and let the other die long ago this would have encourage the loser to come up with something more inovative and cheaper.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:55 pm
Heh. Yeah, but just remember: the most likely reason that nobody's investigated LockMart yet for buying off top brass is that they're just a bit smoother at it than Boeing (or just own the investigation committee).

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:07 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
Heh. Yeah, but just remember: the most likely reason that nobody's investigated LockMart yet for buying off top brass is that they're just a bit smoother at it than Boeing (or just own the investigation committee).


I must admit Boeing does seem to be a bit clumsy, I'm surprised they didn't get all their pilfered documents uploaded onto their website with a special section labelled "Competitor Owned Information" or something with hyperlinks to the personnel who stole it they were so obvious. :)

I dont think for a minute Lockheed is any more scrupulous, they probably just have a better idea of who to bribe and how much to give them.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Yeah, well, for government operations, Lockheed's always been a couple steps ahead of Boeing.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:48 pm
Heres another article which appears to confirm that NASA will go with a shuttle derived vehicle.

http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... 007/news02

I can see them using it for a HLV but I'm not so sure that a SRB derived vehicle should be used for the main crew vehicle. Perhaps they are planing to lift the a much heavier CEV in a single launch rather than the modular craft designed by Lockheed. Could be another coffin nail for the EELV program.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:32 pm
I was thinking the stick was a bargaining chip.
One of the things I have heard is that some want to use EELV to put rovers and spent propellant tanks near ice-filled craters.

But those would have to be at the poles. It was all the Delta IV/Saturn IB-class proton could do to put simple craft on the surface.

In this weeks's issue of SPACE NEWS (July 18, 2005) is an article on page 4A (military space section) by Jeremy Singer: "Lockheed-Boeing Venture May Burden Taxpayers"

Victoria Samson from the Center for Defense Information is quoted:

"It's become a monopoly--call it what you want..."


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:01 pm
I think that if NASA uses a STS derived HLV to launch a large CEV unmanned it could use a smaller vehicle (something like the HL-20 possibly) to ferry the crew to it. Having a smaller ship docked gives the advantage of having a life boat if there is a problem.

In this configuration the CEV could remain in orbit and less costly launches could be used for the crew. I suppose that a stick could be used for this but I think that it is better suited to cargo flights.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:28 pm
It seems that some culprits have been identified which may have caused Discovery's current problems. Interference from the recently installed heaters or a new camera may be effecting the fuel sensor.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3275414

Perhaps I should have sent my CV in to NASA, it looks like they could do with some EMC engineers. :)

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 252 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use