credit NASA / caption: will it ever be crewed?
Flightglobal recently interviewed Space Shuttle Programme manager John Shannon about the Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV). He gave a presentation about it to the Review of US human spaceflight plans commitee on 17 June. The Flightglobal article about HLV can be found here and also below and in the extended portion of this blog post are the notes from that interview that have information excluded from the article - due to reasons of word count limits for the web site's sister print title Flight International
The Shuttle-C separated from the External Tank (ET), the HLV doesn't. Industry looked at side mount for two years, 2004, 2005
A deployable fairing was added by the SSP HLV team, which added payload capability
Learnt from SSME about life cycle costs. "Reusability is a myth in my opinion" because of the parts that have to be replaced and associated costs with keeping the supply chain in place to keep the engines maintained
The cargo carrier boat tail is permanently attached to the ET while the avionics are at the front of it
I wish we had done Shuttle-C in 1980s and 1990s we could have tested upgrades, developments that could then be rolled into the Shuttle-Orbiter stack
The HLV block one will use existing Shuttle flight software, but would not use the full suite used on the Orbiter
The aerodynamics between the ET and the orbiter are complex, acoustic models, structural models, loads, trajectory models need to be done for the cargo carrier and crewed version
If you used a cargo carrier that has the same or similar mould line as shuttle stack has now you already have that history/data
Block two for HLV is necessary because we will run out of shuttle hardware
A big plus for the HLV is no new infrastructure, no new ET barge for example
Early assessment on crew version launch abort system (LAS) being close to the ET says that it "looks doable"
Primary area of HLV study, having a crewed version it all depends on how effective we can make the LAS work
We need more study to ensure any escape system can get out of the proximity of a rocket if it is out of control. I am not real worried about [ET/cargo carrier] shock interaction, affecting the abort system
Have studied different flows and load paths on feed lines and protuberances and we have to do detailed dynamic work to make sure we don't affect the ET [with addition of cargo carrier]
"Its very complicated aerodynamics between the orbiter and external tank, it would be very complicated aerodynamics between the cargo carrier and tank and with the crew version you have another pointy piece sticking above the stack"
I have no doubts we could design an escape system to get away from the tank. You'd have a thrust component that is not straight up, one that carries you away from the tank but we do that with [solid rocket] booster separation
Would you have zero altitude capability, on the pad, could you could you boost up [with the LAS] and yes [we found] you could. You'd be only 30ft lower than you would be on the Ares I [crew launch vehicle]
We would look at both of them - baseline Orion LAS and the Max Launch Abort System and maybe something completely different
Notional architecture for HLV lunar mission is two launches, one for Orion, one for a lander, each with their own Earth departure stage (EDS) with lunar orbit rendezvous
Instead of two EDS I would put lunar lander in lunar orbit and with hypergols you can send the Orion whenever you want
In my opinion the Orion development would be the pacing item for the new crewed HLV
We have everything to build the HLV except the cargo carrier structural parts, its keel, deployable fairing and boat tail to mount up the engines. For development you would focus on the structural pieces - because you are reusing the likes of Orbiter avionics and flight software
HLV retains the contractor and civil servant skill base we have right now, especially if Shuttle flights are spread out, I am very concerned about the industrial base
By spreading out the remaining Shuttle flights to 2012 we can reduce the impact of the transition and make the gap smaller. HLV is the least expensive most evolutionary option as opposed to a new design
[A five segment solid rocket booster used on the side mount design] would be a much different configuration. You'd need different contact points on the solid rocket boosters as it would sit up higher. Connections on both sides would be lower down you would have to alter them, its a completely different configuration
Our number one favourite option is to build Ares I and V but right now there is no money to do that. If the money is not there, the money is not there
There is a NASA technical team and an aerospace independent technical team. We have shared all previous analysis and data we added on what we thought was new, feature such as the fairing jettison with the sub-orbital main engine cut off
[The technical teams] have gone off to do a first order technical assessment on cost and schedule and performance and then it is very simply looking at that performance, is there an architecture you could have that would be sustainable that we cuold do with our current budget
DIRECT is a viable rocket but the cost is high also. I think they have underestimate their costs
on July 10, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply
"We have everything to build the HLV except the cargo carrier structural parts, keel, deployable fairing, boat tail, escape system, aerodynamics, acoustic models, structural models, loads, trajectory models, expendable SSME, & foam shedding solution."
on July 12, 2009 6:19 AM | Reply
"I think they(DIRECT)have underestimated their costs..."
Right in line with NASA S.O.P on every project since Apollo. They should fit right in!
In any case, if by some miracle DIRECT is chosen,the NASA/Industry team will ensure that is so just for
"I told you so" purposes...ah me.
Still if the latest cancellation is an indicator DIRECT is becoming the most viable choice as every day passes, for both mission profiles.
on July 12, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply
It won't be chosen for one single reason, and it is for the same reason that no in-line Ares V-like designs were chosen back in 2005, with NASA's budget they could not afford the development costs before Shuttle and station were shut down. And that was with the fantasy budget increases that president George Bush proposed. The problem DIRECT has now is that NASA's budget has been flat, will be flat and although Shuttle is likely to be shut down next year costs related to that are extending way out into FY2011 and then space station, which is very likely to be continued beyond 2015, consumes at least $1.5 billion in today's dollars a year, so they have to build something that fits this financial situation. You only have to look at NASA's technology development plans for Constellation to see that much of the technology for Ares V, large scale composites for example, is also necessary for DIRECT. The Jupiter rockets DIRECT proposes are not going to be a cheap option.
on July 12, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply
To develop the Ares rockets, its going to cost between $30 to $40 billion. The Ares V won't even be ready for testing until 2018 at the earliest.
The development cost for DIRECT have be estimated to be about $15 billion. Shannon says he thinks the cost of DIRECT will be more than this.
The development of the Side-mount shuttle concept has been estimated to cost about $6.6 billion and can be online for full testing in less than 5 years (2014).
So I think the Obama administration is going to choose the Side-mount concept because its both quicker to develop and a lot cheaper. Why wait until 2020 or later to return to the Moon when we could return as early as 2016.
on July 13, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply
The fundamental concept of using the excellent lifting capacity of the shuttle launch stack to lift something other than the shuttle has been staring NASA in the face for a couple of decades.
I can't believe the United States has had an unchallenged lifting capacity in that vehicle for some thirty years, and has essentially done nothing with it except launch what are essentially Boeing 737s to do some laps. Think of the Hubble you could launch if you could launch just a Hubble, without the expensive airliner middleman? Same goes for space station bits, or moon mission bits, deep probes, Mars junk, whatever. A space program's fundamental effectiveness and capability is what you can put in space, not what you can bring back after hucking it up there.
Need to fix the Hubble? use the Shuttle, which you've parked in the garage for when the thing is actually useful vs. trying to justify using it for everything all the time.
on July 14, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply
I can't imagine a side-mounted design costing significantly less than Direct 3.0 Jupiter. Jupiter is a conventional design in every respect: an inline rocket with a typical payload fairing, a Centaur-derived upper stage with human-rated RL10B-2 engines (used on the Delta IV upper stage) in a Saturn I upper stage configuration, with a first stage based on the highly detailed National Launch System study and using all the same propulsion as Shannon's HLV. On top of that, the infrastructure changes needed to support Jupiter are minimal-by-design. Unexpected costs are unlikely.
By contrast, we've never done side-mounted payload fairings with spring mechanism for deployment, or a side-mounted rocket with a launch abort system, nor have we had a side-mounted carrier with larger volume and total mass-with-cargo than the shuttle. I would imagine that "Not-Shuttle-C" would easily end up costing the same as Jupiter due to it's unprecedented configuration. What's more is that the payload fairing is fixed in its size and volume, the upper stage takes up payload volume, and the cargo lifted by the upper stage is without the protection of a payload fairing for the entire second leg of the accent. Add to this the fact that it can't achieve the same lift performance as Jupiter and one can't help but be concerned.
on July 17, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply
One would expect that the "second leg of the ascent" will be at worst, @ 99.9 % S.L.Atm value for a few seconds at most,and thus the necessity for payload fairings is largely redundant. Although, if they insist on employing the eco-foam which destroyed Columbia, that may well still be needed on NTS-C: reducing useful payload...it's not quite as bad as "Le Schtick" but almost level-pegging! Again, with NASA's penchant for "optimistic" cost estimates we may be sure it'll turn out to at least equal the DIRECT estimate for both the 130 & 24x configurations.
I would point out that the DIRECT ET design mod's don't necessarily require Composites; Li-Al structures for the IU, trans-stage & nose fairings will do just as well. That includes the thrust frame which presumably will be stressed for the 4-engine configuration.
on August 28, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply
@Mercer F. Williams
Aerospace Corp, under contract with the Augustine Commission, has validated the Direct Team's estimate of the Jupiter development costs: $8.8 Billion. This already has a 30% budget overrun factor built in. Sally Ride's team, at the 12 August session, then applied a 2.0 cost overrun to the validated figure.
It would appear the $15 Billion figure is greatly exaggerated. And Shannon has not restated his cost estimate for Jupiter.