Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > It's time to "standardize" the space hardware

It's time to "standardize" the space hardware

Posted by: gaetanomarano - Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:49 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 39 posts ] 
It's time to "standardize" the space hardware 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon May 15, 2006 12:14 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
he simply wants standardization regarding payload-geometry and -weight as well as regarding the stages/booster/vehicles for sea level launch OR vacuum operations


true

using the same (already available, man-rated and cheap) 4-segments SRBs and earth-started SSMEs of the Shuttle (and the same launch pad, factories, assembly facility, etc.) to build the SLV already is a good standardization and a GIANT saving of time and R&D + hardware costs (many years and MANY BILLIONS saved, not a few millions!)

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
In so far he might be also right regarding the Single Launch Vehicle for Crew and Cargo - I don't understand that as if he wants both crew and cargo to be launched together.


I suggest to launch a (resized) 3-astronauts moon mission with a single SLV to save much more time and money, launch up to 4 missions per year and avoid the risk of missions' fail due to a (possible) "sum of delays" of the second launch (like happen, for months, at every Shuttles' launch)

however, a scaled-SLV (with less SSMEs for less payload's weight) may be built (despite they need extra time and R&D money)

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Posts: 213
Post    Posted on: Mon May 15, 2006 1:56 pm
Let us be practical, I don't think anyone can standardize a entire spacecraft simply because operational requirements, technological levels are different across the board.

But I think components might be practical. Things like electrical ratings, and docking collars. Perhaps even down the road, life support.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue May 16, 2006 7:01 am
I am suspecting that the problem is that nearly all project-designers and/or -planners are used to non-standardized vehicles and payloads.

This is may be is one of the main reasons why there is no standardization.

Project-designers and -planner also may be "enemies" of standardization because then projects too would have to be standardized to some degree then - it reduces the design- or planning-freedom of the designers/planners then who may want to unfold their complete creativity. I have experienced this already at my job - and it really turned out that those designers/planners were the cause(s) of nearly uncontrolled/uncontrollable cost overruns. It took some time until the management above those people got rid of them..

In the informatics business this also has been experienced three decades ago - I am informed about the history of design methods and principles I needed to make use of during the the recent nearly 20 years of my job. I personally knew people not accepting - not completely accepting at least - standards, standardizing, principles and the like.

Of course - not each standard is a reasonable, a useful or a positive one and over-standardization urgently has to be avoided.

The standards to be used have to be chosen diligently and precisely.

But it mustn't be that projects hinder, prevent or avoid standardization - the operations have be designed and planned so that standardization is possible. And design and planning have to be ruled by standards also - these standards should or merely must include taht standardized vehicles etc. are to be used.

ESA already experienced advantages of standardization - Mars Express and Venus Express use several instruments etc. that are initially developed for Mars Express and are adjsuted only for the purposes of Venus Express.

The advantages were... - cost savings/reductions. The cost savings were forced by budgets constraints - the standardizations were driven by the desire to keep the Venus mission even under the constraints.

Result: gaetanomarano is completely correct and NASA should learn from ESA.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:54 pm
Posts: 16
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:32 am
gaetanomarano wrote:
Quote:
physics' laws hasn't changed from apollo era

the EDS don't needs to be four times the CM/SM/LEM system but only (about) 55% of the total CM/SM/LEM/EDS weight

in the ESAS plan the total weight of EDS/LSAM/CEV/SM is about 150 mT (25 launched with the CLV and 125 launched with the CaLV)

the 4-astronauts' CEV/SM is 25 mT, the 4-astronauts' (+ 2 mT of moon hardware) LSAM is 45 mT and the EDS for TLI is 80 mT

with a 3-astronauts' mission, resized vehicle/fuel and the exploration hardware sent separately (for 5+ missions) the total weight of the system may be around 110 mT


Yes, it's true that the physics haven't changed since Apollo

I believe your mistaken a bit about the comparsion of the CaLV to the Saturn V.

The Saturn V had three stages plus the LM+CSM. The first two stages (S-IC and S-II) were used to launch the third stage (S-IV) into LEO, then the S-IV is used to put LM+CSM in TLI.

The EDS on the CaLV does the work on both the second and third stages (S-II and S-IV) . It helps launch the LSAM into LEO and puts the CEV+LSAM into TLI. That is why the EDS is so big (227 mT).

By comparsion, the S-II and the S-IV of the Saturn V was 611 mT combined.


Now, the problem with sending the LSAM and other hardware is the propellant needed, both the type and how much.

If you use cyrogenics (i.e LH2/LOX), then you have the problem of boiloff before the manned craft gets there.

If you use hypobolics (i.e N2O4/UDMH like Apollo), then you have extra mass to deal with.


I think that trying to resize the CaLV to 110 mT instead of keeping it in the 125 mT range is a mistake because you'll need that extra margin to deal with each of this problems.

For cryogentic propellent, you will probably need extra insallation/ re-liquidification equipment to keep boiloff to a bare minimum, which will be extra mass, which means extra lift capibillty.

For hypobolic propellent, you would need the extra lift for the extra mass of said propellent.

As to what this may have to do with standardization of components, remember one size does not fit all.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:10 am
offsprey5 wrote:
...your mistaken a bit about the comparsion of the CaLV to the Saturn V...


the only difference between SaturnV and CaLV is that the latter is a two stage rocket while the first is a three stage

the last stage of both rockets works the same, they burns part of the fuel to reach the earth orbit and the remain for TLI

the EDS on the CaLV does not work EXACTLY like the SaturnV 2nd+3rd because the EDS' engine will be of the same family of the 3rd stage of the SaturnV, then, the 1st stage of the CaLV must work like the 1st+2nd stage of the Saturn to reach (about) the same altitude where the 3rd stage of the SaturnV burns

I suppose (but I think I'm right) that NASA figure of CaLV "payload" doesn't include the burned fuel but only the weight of the LSAM+EDS+TLI fuel

however, to avoid critics about my proposal of rockets/vehicles/missions "resizing", in my next article I suggest to use a different version of SLV with all the advantages of the FAST-SLV to save time and money (4-seg.SRB and SSME, both already available, reliable, tested and man-rated) but with more payload to accomplish the full 4-astronauts' mission: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html

if you have some doubts about the max payload of the SuperSLV please compare the 4-SSMEs SuperSLV version with the Shuttle...

...the SuperSLV is EXACTLY (less half-SSME) like an "1.5 Shuttle" with 50% more SRBs, (about) 50% more SSMEs, 50% more ET, 50% more fuel, 50% more empty mass, 50% more thrust... and 50% more payload (the weight of one and half Shuttle + one and half Shuttle max payload - the weight of the SSMEs)

also, the SuperSLV has TWO more advantages vs. the Shuttle

since the SuperSLV has an in-line design, it offers (about) 40% less front surface (then less resistance to air) than a side-mounted Shuttle and it doesn't need to reach the 400 km. orbit of the ISS but only an orbit good for TLI, that means: more net payload

the EDS' extra-fuel is NOT a "dead weight" to launch, because, when burned, it give extra acceleration to the rocket

about the "standardization".... the SuperSLV is MORE standardized than CLV and CaLV since it uses EXACTLY the same (standardized) engines/boosters of the Shuttle, without any changes

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:54 pm
Posts: 16
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:58 am
gaetanomarano wrote:
offsprey5 wrote:
...your mistaken a bit about the comparsion of the CaLV to the Saturn V...


the only difference between SaturnV and CaLV is that the latter is a two stage rocket while the first is a three stage

the last stage of both rockets works the same, they burns part of the fuel to reach the earth orbit and the remain for TLI

.



Duh! All that is basically what I said in my previous post. What the heck did you I said? This is not the way to make yourself look smarter.

Quote:
the EDS on the CaLV does not work EXACTLY like the SaturnV 2nd+3rd because the EDS' engine will be of the same family of the 3rd stage of the SaturnV, then, the 1st stage of the CaLV must work like the 1st+2nd stage of the Saturn to reach (about) the same altitude of the 3rd stage of the SaturnV


Actually, Gaetano, the 2nd and 3rd stage of Saturn V did share the same family of engine, the J-2:

The 2nd stage (S-II) had 5 J-2
The 3rd stage (S-IVB) had 1 J-2

The EDS take the LSAM to LEO and then put the whole manned stack into TLI, after SRBs+ CaLV core stage boost it up to high speed and altitude The EDS has 2 J-2S, which are descendents of the J-2.

You're the one that talks about standardization. Well there you go.

Of course, I was talking more about the size of the rocket,anyway.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:48 am
Hello, offsprey5,

it might fit into the standardization-discussion or not plus into the size-consideration: One point is clear - if the astronauts would be carried together with the EDS and LSAM then prpellant could be saved. If they - on the other hand - wouldn't be carried together withe the EDS/LSAM but by using the same lower stages and engines then this would save the development of one vehicle.

This makes me point to the circumstance that the LSAM is carried by the CaLV. Why not carry it by the CLV? The CLV nonetheless carries a crewed vehicle. If that would be done then the use of the lower stages for both launches - EDS and crew - would be justified the more since the payload weights of the EDS and the LSAM/CLV/astronauts are a bit close to each other.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:41 am
offsprey5 wrote:
...All that is basically what I said in my previous post...


not exactly

if you talk of the weight of the 2nd stage it is like say that "my" SuperSLV must lift the same weight, while (both) the SuperSLV and the CaLV need only one (1st) stage to accomplish the same job of the 1st and 2nd stage of the SaturnV

we must look at the 1st and 2nd stage of the SaturnV like a single stage and calculate the weight/fuel/payload to lift from the 3rd stage

offsprey5 wrote:
...the 2nd and 3rd stage of Saturn V did share the same family of engine, the J-2...


I know it, but I don't talk about this standardization since the CaLV will not use three stages

use ready available parts (like the SAME 4-segments Shuttles' SRBs) already IS a "standardization" since it don't need "more" parts nor "new" parts

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed May 02, 2007 11:54 am
As a by-product of other thoughts and "exploration" of mine I prefer to view at standardization more generally.

This means that one and the same stage should be usable for very much different purposes, very much different weights, very much different distances and it should be reusable.

It's looking as if the Lunar Soyuz-thread in the Financial Barriers section will offer results that are of use under this aspect although they are all experimental approximations but no designs, no forecasts and ideas merely.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: topspeed and 30 guests


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