Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Work Bench > Scale & Sport Scale Rocketry
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-23-2014, 05:16 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke strawwalker
Here's some of the proposals that have come out for the Advanced Booster competition...




Anyone know of a good way to model that offset booster cone? I'm thinking a cardstock cone over a dowel with a rounded tip.


Bill
__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-24-2014, 10:30 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/audit-nasa-do...--politics.html

Audit: NASA doesn't have the money for big rockets

WASHINGTON (AP) — NASA doesn't have enough money to get its new, $12 billion rocket system off the ground by the end of 2017 as planned, federal auditors say.





The Government Accountability Office issued a report Wednesday saying NASA's Space Launch System is at "high risk of missing" its planned December 2017 initial test flight. The post-space shuttle program would build the biggest rockets ever — larger than the Saturn V rockets which sent men to the moon — to send astronauts to asteroids and Mars.

"They can't meet the date with the money they have," report author Cristina Chaplain said. She said it wasn't because the space agency had technical problems with the congressionally-required program, but that NASA didn't get enough money to carry out the massive undertaking.

The GAO report put the current shortfall at $400 million, but did say NASA was "making solid progress" on the rocket program design.

NASA's launch system officials told the GAO that there was a 90 percent chance of not hitting the launch date at this time.

This usually means NASA has to delay its test launch date, get more money or be less ambitious about what it plans to do, said former NASA associate administrator Scott Pace, space policy director at George Washington University.



NASA is working on the problems GAO highlighted, but delaying launch or diverting money from other programs would harm taxpayers, NASA Associate Administrator William Gerstenmaier wrote in the agency's response.

"Welcome to aerospace," Pace said, pointing out that large space projects often end up as much as 50 percent over budget. He said that "is why you shouldn't believe initial cost estimates."

The space agency has been reluctant to put an overall price tag on the Space Launch System. The GAO report says it will cost $12 billion to get to the first test launch and "potentially billions more to develop increasingly capable vehicles" that could be used for launches to asteroids and Mars.

___

Online:

GAO audit: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664969.pdf
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-24-2014, 10:37 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Anyone know of a good way to model that offset booster cone? I'm thinking a cardstock cone over a dowel with a rounded tip.


Bill


That, or take a regular balsa nosecone, cut off the shoulder, then sand the cut line to an angle to make the proper angle, and glue it back to the shoulder to go back into the tube.

The other alternative is the one you mentioned-- a paper cone with either a wooden dowel or wooden "screw hole plug" for the tip... basically the same method used to make the nose cap on the Dr. Zooch Shuttle.

Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-24-2014, 10:42 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but I'd really prefer if you guys want to discuss politics outside the space agency and its appropriations and Congressionally mandated direction, or political appointees directed to oversee it (like the NASA Administrator or his boss in the White House) and how that affects the space program and its likelihood of success or failure, that yall would start a new thread for those sorts of things over in the "free for all" or whatever...

I'm not saying those things (like Nobamacare) or whatever aren't worth discussing or don't have an impact (likely FAR more impact than most people will be willing to concede or even think about) but I don't think this thread is really the proper place to discuss it.

In short, if it's not a direct impact on SLS and the likelihood of it succeeding, failing, or getting canceled, or on modeling it or the advanced boosters proposed for it, it should probably go elsewhere...

Thanks! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-31-2014, 01:06 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014...loration-rival/

Summary: Check out this detailed and informative look at the unspoken competiton between NASA's SLS rocket and SpaceX's planned heavy lift rocket. It's being designed to be even more powerful than the Falcon Heavy. Key quote: "It is clear SpaceX envisions a rocket far more powerful than even the fully evolved Block 2 SLS – a NASA rocket that isn't set to be launched until the 2030s." The SpaceX rocket hinges on whether the company can successfully build its new Raptor engine. If they do, they will have their heavy lift rocket in the air and functioning far sooner than NASA, and for far less money.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-01-2014, 02:35 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke strawwalker
And some more...

OL JR
Thank you for posting all of this SLS material! The work being done on this boondoggle might--just might--not be completely in vain; if the modern F-1 engine reaches the hardware stage, we might "back into" an intriguing capability, as I'll explain:

This week I was looking through a copy of T.A. Heppenheimer's 1977 book Colonies in Space, which I'd ordered (yes, I'm one of those who would still love to live at L5). The delta-winged, reusable flyback S-IC booster, which was NASA's last manned booster proposal during the Space Shuttle design selection process, is prominently featured in the book. It had strong support within the agency and was reluctantly abandoned in 1971. BUT:

Interestingly, work on the flyback S-IC did not stop there. When Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill's space colonization concepts were seriously studied by NASA and the aerospace industry in the mid-1970s, the study participants realized that they would need a heavy-lift launch vehicle to support space colonization, and that the baseline Space Shuttle (which by then was under construction) wasn't the answer. They looked at uncannily SLS-like launch vehicles (also shown in the book--they were made of the 26' ET tankage and boosted by multiple Shuttle SRBs). But the analyses showed that a flyback S-IC booster, with a 26' diameter upper stage strapped to its belly, would be the best option, being able to loft 400,000 pounds into Low Earth Orbit for $10 million. They refined the design to the point that they were ready to discuss the choice of standard existing landing gear tires, and where the best locations were to install the APUs (Auxiliary Power Units). They also believed the booster's F-1 engines were reusable (and not without reason, because during the earlier Shuttle work F-1s had been fired for over an hour without harm to themselves). Now:

If the 33' diameter S-IC tankage tooling still exists (I rather doubt it, but it could be replicated, and probably better today), the flyback S-IC could be built. But even a four-F-1 version, using the 26' diameter ET/SLS tankage, might be worthwhile. In addition to carrying a large and massive core stage (with its payload) to staging altitude and velocity, either variant of this flyback booster could also carry a reusable orbiter (either winged or vertical-landing, like the VTVL SSTO designs) or--if desired, depending on mission requirements--smaller upper stages. They could also be clustered (with one booster on either side of a very large core vehicle) for orbiting even heavier payloads. The flyback boosters could be piloted or could be autonomously flown, like the unmanned X-37B spaceplanes.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-01-2014, 03:44 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
Thank you for posting all of this SLS material! The work being done on this boondoggle might--just might--not be completely in vain; if the modern F-1 engine reaches the hardware stage, we might "back into" an intriguing capability, as I'll explain:

This week I was looking through a copy of T.A. Heppenheimer's 1977 book Colonies in Space, which I'd ordered (yes, I'm one of those who would still love to live at L5). The delta-winged, reusable flyback S-IC booster, which was NASA's last manned booster proposal during the Space Shuttle design selection process, is prominently featured in the book. It had strong support within the agency and was reluctantly abandoned in 1971. BUT:

Interestingly, work on the flyback S-IC did not stop there. When Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill's space colonization concepts were seriously studied by NASA and the aerospace industry in the mid-1970s, the study participants realized that they would need a heavy-lift launch vehicle to support space colonization, and that the baseline Space Shuttle (which by then was under construction) wasn't the answer. They looked at uncannily SLS-like launch vehicles (also shown in the book--they were made of the 26' ET tankage and boosted by multiple Shuttle SRBs). But the analyses showed that a flyback S-IC booster, with a 26' diameter upper stage strapped to its belly, would be the best option, being able to loft 400,000 pounds into Low Earth Orbit for $10 million. They refined the design to the point that they were ready to discuss the choice of standard existing landing gear tires, and where the best locations were to install the APUs (Auxiliary Power Units). They also believed the booster's F-1 engines were reusable (and not without reason, because during the earlier Shuttle work F-1s had been fired for over an hour without harm to themselves). Now:

If the 33' diameter S-IC tankage tooling still exists (I rather doubt it, but it could be replicated, and probably better today), the flyback S-IC could be built. But even a four-F-1 version, using the 26' diameter ET/SLS tankage, might be worthwhile. In addition to carrying a large and massive core stage (with its payload) to staging altitude and velocity, either variant of this flyback booster could also carry a reusable orbiter (either winged or vertical-landing, like the VTVL SSTO designs) or--if desired, depending on mission requirements--smaller upper stages. They could also be clustered (with one booster on either side of a very large core vehicle) for orbiting even heavier payloads. The flyback boosters could be piloted or could be autonomously flown, like the unmanned X-37B spaceplanes.


This is all well and good and quite intriguing, but the simple fact is, *NASA* simply cannot do it, period...

Here's why... The original shuttle development was projected at something like $5 billion bucks... in the end, with the delays, troublesome development of the SSME, design and fabrication, DDT&E of the SRB's, orbiter and GNC/avionics development, and clean-sheet design of the ET, it was actually over $10 billion... Course that's in 70's dollars... adjusting for inflation, that'd be a LOT more today...

Here's the kicker... NASA is going to spend, by PRESENT estimates (and this early in the design phase, they haven't really run into the DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS that WILL INEVITABLY creep up on them when they start bending metal and running tests on completed components and assemblies, as well as fine-tuning requirements that will end up having to be made to the designs, which all these expenses are YET TO COME...), by NASA OWN *rosiest* projections, it will take them *$36-40 BILLION DOLLARS* to "re-engineer" the ALREADY EXISTING shuttle components into the SLS... When shuttle was designed and built, that $10 billion or so bought the ALL NEW clean-sheet design of the SSME and brought it through difficult teething stages where they blew up on the test stands to an operationally certified flight-ready engine-- an ALL NEW clean-sheet design for a 100 ton reusable delta-wing hypersonic spaceplane glider, ALL NEW clean-sheet design avionics using cutting edge computers and electronics (for the early-mid 1970's anyway, now hopelessly antiquated), ALL NEW clean sheet development of a large 146 inch steel-cased segmented reusable SRB, and ALL NEW clean sheet design of a roughly 150 foot long, 27.5 foot diameter core stage tanks, in a previously unproven "side mount" configuration in relation to the spaceplane it was carrying which held this "stage's" engines...

NOWADAYS, NASA cannot even take *all this preexisting equipment, all this preexisting knowledge and 50 years of development and design experience, and the benefit of 50 years of advanced computer development and modeling and improvements in fabrication and materials technologies, and come up with a modification of this design into a MUCH SIMPLER INLINE stage design flanked by a pair of largely existing Ares I first stage SRM's as boosters, for less than $40 BILLION bucks and a decade and a half of work, at a MINIMUM.

SO, therefore, the idea that NASA could come up with an ALL NEW 33 foot diameter core stage, using ALL NEW tooling and a COMPLETELY NEW CLEAN SHEET DESIGN, suitable to be powered by a cluster of F-1B engines, and what's more , design that all-new stage to be a flyback or glide-back vertical takeoff horizontal landing REUSABLE vehicle, for anything approaching anything like what the NASA budget could possibly be in their wildest dreams, is patently ludicrous...

More to come! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-01-2014, 03:45 AM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Continued...

Interestingly enough, the RAC-2 studies done in the wake of the Ares I debacle, around the time it was canceled and the Constellation Program along with it, actually found, much to the agency's chagrin, that the LOWEST RECURRING COST OPTION was to develop a new 33 foot diameter kerosene powered first stage, topped by a new 33 foot diameter cluster hydrogen engine powered second stage inline serially staged rocket, capable of carrying a large hydrogen powered optimized in-space propulsion stage and payload to orbit. SOUND FAMILIAR?? IOW, their study proved the cheapest way to do the missions envisioned for the future "deep space exploration goals" of NASA was not to reuse old redesigned shuttle boosters strapped to the side of a modified converted ET into high performance hydrogen engine cluster ground lit core stage booster, with a small single or dual engine hydrogen powered upper stage lofting the payload into orbit in the heavy version, but to, by definition, RE-CREATE the SATURN V, in a modern form!! This was HUGE! BUT, you WON'T hear it from NASA... It flies in the face of the "desired approach" committed to by Congress and accepted and endorsed by the Agency-- "shuttle derived", whether it makes ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER OR NOT! SO, it was hastily "discovered" that the "development and cost risks associated with a completely new "clean sheet" development like that required of the all-liquid serially-staged kerosene first-stage/hydrogen cluster second stage booster vehicle would be too expensive compared to the cheaper, less 'technically risky', shuttle derived solutions, which leverage already-existing technologies (like the ET and SSMEs and SRB's) to their fullest, saving "considerable development budget".

SO, IF NASA cannot turn a shuttle into an inline shuttle derived vehicle made from mostly already existing parts for less than $40 billion bucks, it's reasonable to assume they could not redesign a modern Saturn V equivalent of the S-IC and S-II stages and integrate them into a "new Saturn V-Skylab" type booster for that amount of money, since it would by definition require a 33 foot diameter stage development for BOTH stages, as well as "revival" of the F-1B and adaptation of the J-2X (paid for already by Ares I development-- about the ONLY good thing to come out of that program, though that engine is basically only well suited as a second-stage engine-- it's dry weight is too high and ISP is too low for a good IN-SPACE propulsion engine for a dedicated in-space station (ie a modern revival of S-IVB).

Now, interestingly enough, SpaceX OFFERED to develop a clean-sheet 10 meter diameter (33 foot) kerosene powered first stage, hydrogen powered second stage HLV for NASA, and to do it within ten years and for only THREE AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS in development funding! The design was based on their "Falcon X and Falcon XX" designs using a new roughly 2.2 million pound thrust kerosene engine, the "Merlin 2". The notional engine for the upper stage was a J-2 like version powered by LH2 called "Raptor" at the time... (which I presume is different from their present "Raptor" engine development). Of course NASA said it was TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for them to do it and politely but firmly declined (assuming, as most gubmint types do, that if *THEY* can't do it, nobody else can *either*!! It MUST be impossible!)

Elon has made no secret of his Mars ambitions. Despite loud protests by the "old space" crowd within and outside NASA to the contrary, Elon has been designing the Dragon capsule and the new manned versions to be capable of easy adaptation to deep-space flight beyond LEO. Sure, the first versions are being designed to carefully satisfy NASA's requirements for a LEO taxi under the CCCDev contracts to launch US astronauts to ISS, per the contract requirements issued by NASA... but it's well known that Dragon's heat shield was designed from the get-go to be capable of being beefed up sufficiently for a deep-space trajectory reentry (high speed reentry from lunar or solar orbit entry velocities). It's only a few steps to add in the capabilities required for deep space navigation, communication, etc to make the capsule deep-space capable at that point... basically just adding the appropriate avionics to the system, and if you design it right, they can be "plug-n-play" with the existing capsule systems on the LEO version from the get-go...

SO, you want to see a flyback S-IC equivalent, the ONLY way you'll see something like that is to talk Elon into building it... NASA is simply too expensive and too inflexible to ever be able to do it for the budget they're going to have... Heck SLS is going to be the most expensive vehicle ever conceived to design, build, and fly... can you IMAGINE the cost NASA would incur building an all-new flyback reusable first stage landing on a runway, and this "new spaceplane" you speak of... that would be a project AT LEAST as big as the original shuttle from a cost perspective... that's totally not in the cards either.

Besides, SpaceX is slowly, inexorably working toward realizing the goal of reusability without the wasteful and complex "glideback to a runway landing" phase requiring enormous wings, jet engines, and all that... if they can make VTVL reusability work, they'll have cracked a nut NASA never could even attempt (beyond the Delta-Clipper prototype they inherited and subsequently destroyed) which goes back all the way to the Chrysler "SERV" shuttle proposal AT LEAST, and will basically prove them right... and that shuttle was a colossal mistake from the get-go. (Not that I completely agree with how SpaceX intends to do it-- they'd be MUCH better off payload-wise to create a downrange landing capability for the Falcon 9 first stage and eliminate the costly "boostback maneuver" required to arrest the downrange movement of the stage and in fact reverse it, re-accelerating back toward the landing site, then having to again decelerate to a hover and translate to line up a landing and then hover down to a landing under rocket power... It's MUCH easier propellant=wise to simply continue to coast along the ground track after staging, ignite the engine to decelerate to hover, and then translate to line up the landing and hover down to a landing near where the first stage would have impacted if unpowered after staging, and then transport that stage back to the launch site for reuse... But who's to say that's what they won't do after the initial "make it work" phase gets done, assuming they can pull it all together and make it work properly (and cost effectively). It looks like a pretty good bet so far, but it's not a done deal YET...

Anyway, just some things to ponder...

Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-01-2014, 04:10 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

I didn't even have NASA in mind regarding a flyback S-IC, but instead Elon Musk, Burt Rutan, Jeff Bezos, Bob Bigelow, Richard Branson, and other such folk (although I should have mentioned this--a serious omission for which I apologize..."NASA has been dead to me" for so long now that they don't enter into my thoughts about these kinds of space operations). If the F-1B makes it to a static test stand (meaning that tooling for it exists), when the SLS goes south, some enterprising New Space man (or woman) might be able to "buy those F-1B spoils, cheap." Also:

I'm sold on vertical landing as well, although for really big first stages (like the S-IC), analyses indicate that wings seem sensible from a mass budget standpoint. I've read--unfortunately I can't remember where--that if the Falcon 9 first stage test landings on a downrange barge work well, SpaceX might build or procure something like Sea Launch's ocean platform, which would be positioned at the downrange landing point (to reduce the required amount of landing propellant, as you mentioned), where landed stages could be hangared (so that the craft could remain at sea until several launches were completed, if desired). That capability could result in further savings, by making it *not* necessary for the craft to travel (or be towed) back to port after each launch. In addition:

The J-2X could power a latter-day, simple Faget-type TSTO shuttle (which was designed to use the less-powerful J-2S variant), using appropriately-sized clusters on the winged booster and orbiter (and shorter, sea-level nozzles on the booster's J-2Xs). It would probably be best for personnel transport (no need to shoot for more than ~15,000 pound payloads to Low Earth Orbit), with short on-orbit stays and frequent flights, although carrying/retrieving small satellites as well would be no handicap to it. Just looking at the billions that NASA might as well throw down a mine shaft on SLS, I'd love to see *something* worthwhile--such as J-2X and F-1B applications, brought to fruition by others--come out of this otherwise lemming-like effort.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Last edited by blackshire : 09-01-2014 at 04:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2014, 07:11 AM
Joe Wooten's Avatar
Joe Wooten Joe Wooten is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,164
Default

NASA is simply too expensive and too inflexible to ever be able to do it for the budget they're going to have...

Bureausclerosis..... NASA is just another money wasting government bureaucracy. I'm waiting for JPL to succumb to the paralysis the rest of the agency has.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024