Topic: Video: Space shuttle-derived heavy lift booster
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-23-2009 05:12 PM
During the first public meeting of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, NASA's space shuttle program manager John Shannon delivered a presentation (PDF) on an alternative option to the Ares architecture, a shuttle-derived side-mounted vehicle design. His discussion included the following video:
Video credit: NASA/Spaceref.com
Voyager1975 Member
Posts: 188 From: Registered: Dec 2008
posted 06-23-2009 05:59 PM
Well, it surely looks to me like the cheapest or most coast-effective means for the Constellation program. I could be wrong but the Jupiter cargo vehicle or the Ares V rocket looks like it could take more cargo plus the Altair Lunar Lander. Whereas this Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch vehicle would not be able to accommodate the Altair hence there would be no lunar missions. Oh and by the way the music didn't seem THAT cheesy.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-23-2009 06:04 PM
This concept can loft Altair, just as the other alternatives can (they wouldn't be looking at it as a design if it could not). Under the Ares architecture, Orion launches on Ares I and Altair launches on Ares V. Under this concept (as shown in the linked presentation), Orion and Altair launch on the same vehicle configuration but on separate flights and then rendezvous in lunar orbit.
Lunar_module_5 unregistered
posted 06-23-2009 09:26 PM
Something like this was proposed way back in the early 1980s. I have some info on it somewhere.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-23-2009 09:56 PM
I believe you are thinking of Shuttle-C, which while mounted similarly was significantly from this concept given the latter's modular approach to the cargo.
posted 06-23-2009 10:49 PM
Still not a fan of two separate launches to the moon. It smacks of keeping more money in the pockets of certain manufacturers, then is needed to get the job done.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-24-2009 12:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: This concept can loft Altair...
I'll amend/correct what I wrote earlier and qualify it by saying that it can loft a smaller Altair, as John Shannon told Discovery News:
Shannon says the shuttle-based heavy lifter is not as capable as Ares 5, the rocket currently earmarked for a revived lunar exploration initiative that is intended to land astronauts on the moon by 2020. The side-mount shuttle's lunar lander would have to shrink from the planned 48 metric tons to about 28 metric tons.
"That's still pretty good because the Apollo lunar lander was 16 metric tons."
MichaelD Member
Posts: 90 From: Troy Michigan USA Registered: May 2009
posted 06-30-2009 05:16 PM
Per this report, it could not carry the full 4 man crew up either. Three launches to boost all that is needed.
The Shannon plan — called the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle - would only be able to carry two astronauts at a time instead of three or four. That might mean less of a moon base, Shannon said.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 07-01-2009 09:48 AM
I thought one of the design features of any new manned-launch vehicle was supposed to be that the explosive part of the vehicle must be below the manned spacecraft, thus allowing the crew to escape in the event of a catastrophic failure of the booster.
It does not appear that this vehicle architecture meets that criterion, although the Orion spacecraft retains the escape tower.
Would the Orion vehicle, in a side-mounted launch configuration, be able to escape a Challenger-type explosion?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 07-01-2009 10:00 AM
If ejection seats on STS-1 through STS-4 were capable of ensuring crew survival during ascent, then I would expect the launch escape system to perform a similar function.
(Remember, the crew cabin survived intact from the Challenger break-up. Had an LES been attached, the crew would have presumably survived.)
And with regards to a Columbia-type threat, the blast protective cover would negate any issues related to falling foam (also Orion's heat shield is opposite direction of travel).
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 07-01-2009 05:16 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: If ejection seats on STS-1 through STS-4 were capable ensuring crew survival during ascent, then I would expect the launch escape system to perform a similar function.
Interesting points, Robert, and I do not dispute them. However, there was a reason that the design for the manned Orion missions was originally made to stack the spacecraft above the rocket. Placing the spacecraft above the rest of the rocket enhances safety for the crew during the launch phase of the mission when compared to placing the spacecraft right next to a gigantic fuel tank -- I strongly believe that testing would bear this assertion out.
The most likely reason to abandon the stacked configuration is concerns over cost. While there will always be decision-making regarding cost vs. safety, one would hope that the manned component of Constellation would receive a decision leaning more in the direction of crew safety.
And, perhaps it will... the above video describes merely a design proposal, not a program decision.
It will be an interesting process to watch, particularly to see if the architecture for beyond-earth-orbit survives budgetary scrutiny given the expected costs of greater priorities in the Administration's agenda (universal health care, et al).
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 2954 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 07-01-2009 05:36 PM
The configuration shown still has a launch escape system. This could pull the crew compartment away in the event of a launch issue. This configuration would have been successful in the Challenger type scenario.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 07-02-2009 08:54 AM
quote:Originally posted by GACspaceguy: The configuration shown still has a launch escape system.
I am aware that the configuration shown retains an LES, and I said so in my post.
quote:This configuration would have been successful in the Challenger type scenario.
Really? Based upon what? The Challenger explosion damaged the hull of the orbiter -- would the hull of Orion have been damaged? Hard to tell. Regardless, the LES would have been triggered after the explosion, presumably by NASA personnel unless an automatic system would sense the breakup of the booster -- either way, the Orion would have to endure the brunt of the explosion before being pulled away.
Maybe Orion would survive a Challenger type explosion if stacked beside the ET, maybe it wouldn't...
My point is, stacking the Orion spacecraft ABOVE the booster would likely enhance safety, and stacking it NEXT TO the ET would likely reduce safety (comparatively speaking).
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 2954 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 07-02-2009 10:34 AM
We are all entitled to our opinions, this is mine based on my 30 years as an Aerospace Structural Engineer. I saw that you mentioned a LES, I was just setting up my post by stating the fact this configuration had a LES and did not intend to slight you in anyway.
The Challenger orbiter broke up not from the explosion but from the aerodynamic forces on the vehicle. The actual ET explosion/flame could not be anything more, from a thermal or loading point of view, than the thermal/loads that the Orion would see on reentry, which I am sure would look as impressive as an explosion. The difference being, we do not get to see the reentry phase as we would an explosion on launch. When reviewing a design through a safety analysis computation you may be surprised what would fall out as more or less safe. I would suggest that the ET/SRB combination is a known assembly with real life data as opposed to a new vehicle with its unknowns.
One thing for sure is if it becomes too expensive to build the next generation spacecraft it will be extremely safe as it will never leave the launch pad.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2337 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 07-02-2009 11:23 AM
quote:Originally posted by GACspaceguy: We are all entitled to our opinions, this is mine based on my 30 years as an Aerospace Structural Engineer.
Ok, I give up. I'm an engineer too, by the way (Aerospace Engineering, Univ of Florida, 1987) -- and I was a USAF pilot for over 20 years prior to my retirement in 2008. Does that make my opinion more valid?
Regarding the Challenger accident:
"At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of 1.92 at an altitude of 46,O00 feet, the Challenger was totally enveloped in the explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control system ruptured and a hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as it exited the oxygen-hydrogen flames. The reddish brown colors of the hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the edge of the main fireball. The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections that can be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward fuselage trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the payload bay." Quoted verbatim from the Rogers Commission report
"Challenger's reaction control system ruptured ..." ...sounds like damage from the explosion to me.
Regardless, my point has been made, and such discussion is moot until a decision is made anyway. As I mentioned earlier, the video above represents an option, not THE option.
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 2954 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 07-02-2009 03:27 PM
Peace, once again I never said your opinion was not valid just different than mine and that I had a background in applied Engineering related to structures which is what I have done for 30 years. Therefore that is the basis of my opinion.
As the quote above stated from Roger's Report “The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large sections which emerged from the fireball" The key there is the "under severe aerodynamic loads". As I stated, that is what caused the “break up”, yes there was damage from the explosion but the break up was areo loads. The shuttle had no way of getting away from the asymmetric loading that caused its break up and no way of pulling the crew compartment free and recover it safely. With a LES and the linear design of the Orion it could be pulled clear of such a scenario and thus side mounted, or top mounted, the system is still valid and the level of safety sufficient.
posted 07-03-2009 12:33 AM
I'm not crazy about this configuration for several reasons. A major one is crew safety.
I think it is also time to move on to a new system. I also question why so late in the game is this concept being floated. Cost has to be a factor but if it is the overriding factor, history shows us that there will be an accident which will cost billions more.
hlbjr Member
Posts: 552 From: Delray Beach Florida USA Registered: Mar 2006
posted 07-03-2009 06:38 AM
Two points: 1) Would any of us prefer to try riding out an explosion in this configuration as opposed to the Direct or Ares style "above the stack" position?; and 2) Did anyone notice Chang-Diaz' concerned look at the Augustine Commission hearing when he saw the capsule location next to the fuel tank? It was very telling.
posted 06-23-2009 05:12 PM
advertisement