Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Delta IV Heavy suitability as a booster for a manned craft

Delta IV Heavy suitability as a booster for a manned craft

Posted by: Andy Hill - Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:56 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 126 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Delta IV Heavy suitability as a booster for a manned craft 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat May 07, 2005 10:17 am
publiusr,

you are missing the point completely.

I never used Bigelow's Nautilus as a criterion - it simply can serve as a base for a construction crew in space and for training that crew. Nautilus explictly will be open to all - tourists, scientists NASA-members and much more. This includes private astronauts who live there, leave from time to time by an orbital space vehicle to train or do construction in space and return to Nautilus.

And only Bigelow as the constructor, builder and owner of Nautilus could interdict it.

Nautilus and a vehicle that won the America's Spce Prize are the only things required to make it possible. If there is a private orbital vehicle which cannot win the ASP but dock to Nautilus it would enable private construction space based on living in Nautilus too.

If the Space Elevetor will be built then no big tankage is required anymore to go to Moon or to Mars. And NASA seems to be interested in the Space Elevator technology because they are assisting an elevator prize and set a Centennial Millenium Prize for a tether that could be used by the Space Elevator.

All this is meant only to describe possible alternatives to Heavy Boosters.



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


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 May 11, 2005 9:30 pm
And Griffin--who is an engineer--understands that there is no viable alternatives to heavy lift. Heavy lift is the alternative to other options and people have been falling all over themselves to keep from building it.

We don't use rowboats to transport goods in bulk--we use containerships.

Engineers like Griffin understand that will be true in space as well. Too bad economists don't.

As far as that Space elevator is concerned--like private orbital spaceships--I'll believe it when I see it.

You can call this hostile if you like--but I've received plenty of hostilty here from people who think all criticism shold be one way--against NASA. I can take it as well as I dish it out. Just don't pretend to the the one attacked because you can't tolerate dissent.

Griff is a better politician than I--and has to keep a lid on it. But he has a bit of fire needed to fight Steidle types. I am here simply to let you know that there are those of us who support institutions with every bit as much passion as those who enjoy public benefits.

But I digress.

Griffin is NASA Chief Administrator. You aren't. He is an engineer. You are not. Therefore I find his arguements light-years more credible than yours.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:47 pm
Posts: 7
Post    Posted on: Wed May 11, 2005 9:41 pm
This thread appears to have become about the benefits of building Heavy Lift First vs market forces deciding size of vehicle (Ekkehard Augustin). People rarely change their opinions on this. For my opinion I'd have to go with Ekkehard on this. The market forces approach may appear more expensive and difficult in the short term (athough this is debatable especially on costing Heavy Lift), however in the longer term (years not decades) the market forces approach would win out as you just can't beat competition for reducing cost. This method would at least force companies to evaluate costs over the lifecycle of a vehicle not just the costs once it is built since they would be footing the bill. As use of space increases Heavy Lift probably will prove its worth, but it would be privately funded, would be evolved from lessons learnt using smaller vehicles and will be less labour intensive, it would also have a decent flight rate >20 a year. As Ekkehard has posted before this probably belongs in the Financial section but since the subject has altered slightly I thought I'd give my opinion and only time will tell on this debate.


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 May 11, 2005 9:51 pm
You are at least being decent on the subject--which is appreciated.

The idea that heavy-lift is more expensive just doesn't stand up under closer examination

If I want to launch 100 tons to space for a Moon return--I can do so with 3 or at most four RS-68s on an SDV HLLV. To do so with Delat IV would mean launching five Delta IV 'heavies' and throwing away 15 such engines.This is not including the costs of upper stages, pad time--and other problems related to EELV launch and assembly.

Remember--ISS was a pain because of its 20 ton-at-a-time assembly.

Boeing and LockMart are just trying to create anti-HLLV bs to sell their EELVs that they also need public assistance on.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 8:21 am
Hello, broyale,

you understand it correct.

Since in the private sector there is competition smaller vehicles, Heavy Boosters and other technologies can coexist, they can be specialized for special purposes and the purposes they are used for can shift depending on the economic situation as well as on the market(s) situation.

And the method to lift something separated into components and elements can coexist with the method to lift it by a heavy booster, with a possible future space elevator or with futurely producing the "something" on the moon and getting it there.



publiusr,

in this section there are links to articles about the space elevator and at the homepage of NIAC the results of Bradley C. Edwards' study on the space elevator is published - and Edwards is a NASA member. His work is funded and in the laboratories the methods for the production of nanocarbontube-cables have been developed that far that mass production of nanocarbontubes is very near - as the scientists say themselves.

And as you can see in much of my posts I refer to scientists and engineers - so I behave correctly by quoting them and using their issues and results as basis for arguing, asking, thinking etc.



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


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 8:45 pm
You have done your homework well. Bradley's attempts at lofting a Space Elevator will certainly be eased with ture HLLV production. I am just glad that heavy-lift finally has a voice in a real enginner at NASAin the guise of Mr. Griffin.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat May 14, 2005 10:53 am
What the article "t/Space Offers an Option for Closing Shuttle, CEV Gap" ( http://www.space.com/spacenews/business ... 50509.html ) is reporting could mean that in future a concept would be applied which I would prefer to each heavy-lifter-only-concept:

1. Manned orbital flight by small passenger-only vehicles.

plus

2. Interplanetary vehcile waiting in Orbit.

plus

3. Interplanetary vehicle being a Heavy Lifter in principle.

plus

4. Interplanetary vehicle never landing on Earth.

Regarding 4. there seem to be people - in Germany at least - who imagine the heavy interplanetarvehicle to land on Earth and launch again later but each launch and each landing being unmanned.

This would be a combination of heavy lift with light lift.

And it might be based on Rutan's concept of space vehicles - NASA would be the customer. They already awarded one time 3 million $ to t/Space and now another time 6 million $ - they seem to be interested. And they would follow the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission this way.



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


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: Sat May 14, 2005 2:17 pm
Well to get a bit back on topic and leave the HLLV debate behind for a moment (publiusr please start a new thread if you wish to discuss this rather than hijacking everyone elses), has anyone got some weight figures for the T-space CXV LEO only vehicle.

How big a QuickReach booster would be needed to place it in orbit and how would a 747 carry such a heavy bulky load, like the shuttle piggy back rides possibly?

Could it be launched on a Falcon V instead or would it require a larger vehicle like a Delta IV heavy to launch it rather than the air launch talked about? If a larger launcher is needed, could the $400m price tag cover the development costs for the uprated Falcon or the modification man rating aspects needed for it. As the article says a EELV is to expensive at $150m a flight but an uprated Falcon might be cheap enough.

It is interesting to note that the Russians have said that their Klipper program would cost about $1Bn over 5 years (this does not include the launcher) and they have already done some work. The T-space vehicle seems too cheap to be true.

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat May 14, 2005 6:28 pm
Where is the problem with the low costs?

There will be no development costs for the air launch because the development has been done successfully already. This is valid for the space vehicle too. And they included the White Knight and summed up to 20 million $ only.

What's required now is modification and improvement instead of development from scratch. Alright- this can be called development too but it is a different kind of development.

A White Knight-derivative wouldn't be to be developed if a 747 would be used really.

And isn't it to be expected that Rutan again will use Computer Fluid Dynamics?

A washtube seems to have different aerodynamics than SSO to me - but isn't its shape a little bit substituting the wings? I can't remember if t/Space's orginal plans included the washtuibe too but might it be that the wastube would be wide and broad? Could it be developed out of SSO step by step until SSO's shape has been changed to unrecognizability by following a path of optimalities? Does such a path, such a method exist?



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


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: Sat May 14, 2005 8:47 pm
Although the white knight and 747 launch systems appear to be similar in what they are trying to accomplish this is superficial only. There will need to be a lot of design work done, a modified 747 is unlikely to handle anything like the white knight (or indeed like a conventional 747). The configuration will probably be different, hanging the QuickReach below the fuselage like SSO will not be possible due to weight distribution and ground clearance (its weight will mean that it could not be mounted under a wing it would probably have to be on the centreline somewhere).

The bath tub shape vehicle is unlikely to have very much in common with SSO's design and aerodynamic properties T-Space will be dealing with a completely new vehicle and starting from scratch. Add in the problems associated with the extra stresses and re-entry heat protection and you have a much more complicated vehicle that has very little synergy with SSO.

With regard to costs: a 747 costs about $200m, so even if you bought a 2nd hand one and modified it the cost is still likely to be over $100m (a quarter of the budget). The development of SSO is reputed to be in excess of $20m, an orbital vehicle will be at least an order of magnitude more. An uprated QuickReach is also going to cost a lot of money to develop.

Edit: Now I'm not saying that any of the above is impossible just unlikely for a cost of $400m in a timeframe of 3 years (the article says it will be ready in 2008). I would have thought a crew capsule mounted on a Falcon booster would have been much more realistic.

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun May 15, 2005 10:50 am
To avoid misunderstandings only: It's clear to me that a new design is required and that different numbers etc. are valid and that all has be calculated from scratch

It's a quite new and different vehicle - but not a quite new technology. The principles of the mechanisms to carry and to release a vehilce from an airplane as well as the principles of the use of composites Scaled has applied don't need to be developed new.

To me the development of a new vehicle doesn't mean the development of a new technology.

For reantry Ball is developing the ballutes - perhaps t/Space tries to make use of them. NASA is interested in the ballutes because they provide to drop a payload or a vehicle sfae. That technology is considered to be applicable to manned vehicles. I initiated a thread about it in this section last year.



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


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 May 18, 2005 9:51 pm
Airbus is thinking about building a tanker plant in Mobile, Alabama. With Lockheed-Martin moving its Atlas V EELV production line to Decatur along with the Delta IV as part of the ULA, the transport Vessel Delta Mariner will be very close to where this Airbus plant would be. With only a littel pushing--Airbus MIGHT be persueded to build thei facilities there a bit overlarge, so that some A-380/AN-124/AN-225 production could take place--were the Europeans to also try for a C-5 replacement contract.

So a lot of the infrastruture needed for some kind of air-launch is already here or could be easily had in my state--provided you interest certain powers that be--like Neal Wade at the Alabama Economic Development Office, which was recently ranked first in the nation by SITE SELECTION magazine. Neal can be contacted at waden@ado.state.al.us 1-334-353-1717

Sadly, some developers want the state to help fund a domed stadium in Birmingham. If you guys are serious about revolutionizing spaceflight--you will exploit this situation. As I have said before--the AN-225--and other large jets--can at least can be used for other things. If you can convince our Governor Riley that money is best spent on spaceflight--and not a Domed Stadium--you will go far.

They key is to have the other guy spend as much of his money on your project as you can--thus lowerring your own costs on actual hardware. So even if you have no funds now, you will be better off--as in convincing EADS to make the proposed plant/hangers a little taller clearance wise. That may cost you nothing at all--and would negate your having to build your own facilities. Alabama will actually be getting jobs from the recent base closures--and is a very attractive state to business.

I wasn't wild about Pemco (Hayes Aircraft) and the way they treated workers in Birmingham some time ago--so perhaps EADS might like to listen to you--provided you are big enough to be noticed by them. They have gov't support.

So prove me wrong.

Contact Neal Wade at Montgomery and see if you can establish a base. We have new Hyundai, Honda, and Mercedes car plants here--as well as both EELVs now. A lot of the infrastructure you need is here--or could be here if EADS sees the light. They have good gov't support, and might help you guys with something like MAKS. I remember hearing of one individual who was a contact for ANTONOV in Mobile as well.

Time to leave the desert.


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: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:25 pm
It seems that NASA may have been fudging the figures to make Ares 1 a better bet than using an EELV from this article (Who'd of thought that such a thing could happen:- a large government department being less than honest with the public, pure fantasy).

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/ ... s-fiction/

Its interesting to note that one of the reasons that is given against using an EELV is the extra job loses caused. 2 points to consider

1. Is NASA a jobs program? If so then this is a fair point, if not and the focus is having a space program then why is this a consideration?

2. If EELV were to be a cheaper option than Ares 1 then this saving could be used to employ these surplus staff to work on other space projects or fund COTS (additional COTS contracts would result in private companies employing extra staff).

Using an EELV such as Atlas V would have other bonuses as well, man-rating it would result in a ready made booster for others to use. Such as the SpaceDev Dreamchaser concept for example.

Another argument used is the wasted time/effort on Ares 1, surely not all this is wasted and a lot will read across to Ares V which will still be necessary IMO. Why develop 2 different rockets when one could be replaced by an existing vehicle?

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:21 pm
Posts: 20
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:10 pm
When an organization (including all the subcontractors and such) becomes old and huge, the people are in it for the money and job security, not to innovate. They secured their piece of the pie, and will do anything needed to hold onto it. You need small startups for innovation.

Then again, those large companies have the ear of the politicians, and can simply buy or destroy any small company through legal actions if they so please.

And, of course, a large, entrenched bureaucracy tends to make things very expensive and make any amount of rules to secure their position and expand their piece of that pie.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 151
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:57 pm
Lost jobs is just another term for available resources. Workforce is a resource. Freeing up more of that resource allows more stuff to get done. In a perfect world, everyone would strive to achieve as much as possible with as little effort as possible, and to keep everyone occupied doing what is most efficient/necessary/useful and thus maximize total achievement.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


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