Conference 7.286::space

There was a report in a British newspaper yesterday that this proposed
launcher will actually cost less than the shuttle to put satellites in 
orbit.

My personal opinion is that purely as a satellite launch platform the 
shuttle is too complex and expensive.  Manned flight should be sustained, 
but it should be reserved for purposes where having humans on board has 
real paybacks.  I do not see satellite launch as such a purpose.

Jeremy Barker - Reading, England

Re .1:

Considering how many hidden costs were involved in the Shuttle program,
I wonder whether the initial cost projections for this new booster are
less or greater than the initial ones for the Shuttle?  (Adjusted
for inflation, of course).

Anyone can claim that they have a cheaper way to orbit.  The hard part
is demonstrating it.
				/AHM

    Last weeks issue of AW&ST had a very interesting article about H
    (sounds like hews) Aircraft's (they build a lot of satelites) plan
    to finance a reliable expendable launcher, so their satelite business
    won't be jeprodized!  This is the way we are going into space -
    in a financially sound, profit motivated, business fashion.
    I bet the launcher that comes out of this effort will be a lot more
    functional (like Lockeheed's skunk works projects) than the designed
    by committee and DOD shuttle compromise.  When all else fails, turn
    to private industry.   - Chris

    Actually, I wish NASA would stick to R & D and turn their completed
    projects over to commercial industry.  Read "The Man Who Sold the
    Moon" by Bob Heinlein (in "The Past Through Tomorrow") if you
    want a real example of how things might have happened if industry
    had gotten ambitious a lot sooner than they have.
    
    I certainly agree any commercial launch vehicle will have to be
    a lot more reliable than government stuff.  They're playing for
    real dollars, not the invisible stuff the government plays with.
    Of course, a real pre-requisite would be that NASA must stop
    selling satellite launches below cost so the commercial industry
    would have a chance to compete.
    

    I don't have the exact date, but "The Man who Sold the Moon" was
    written somewhere around 30 or 35 years ago.
        John Sauter

    Some more recent info on the Medium-lift launch vehicle program.
    
    The 6/30 Av. Week reports that the AF program is temporarily on
    hold due to the disorganization inside the White House and the
    inability of the Administration to get behind a spaceflight recovery
    program.
    
    In an aside, there is also a report on the Hughes Aircraft proposal
    for this program.  It involves using the Rocketdyne F-1 rocket
    engine used in the Saturn V in single units or clusters of two or
    three.  This gets us right back to the original Army/Von Braun proposal
    for the Saturn C-1 thru C-8/Nova family (circa 1958-62).  The idea
    was to cluster the F-1 and the cryogenic M-1 and J-2 engines in
    various combinations to create a series of launch vehicles for just 
    about any mission one could name.  As it happened, only the C-5 (Saturn
    V) was built.
    
    Boeing proposed a "flyback" booster using F-1 engines to support
    Solar Power Satellites in the NASA study of the late 1970s.  It
    seems to me that a 1.5 million LB. thrust engine, already developed
    and with an extensive operational database,  is a national asset
    which should be exploited immediately.

    re .6:  The article about Hughes also said that they were looking
    for a launch site in the equatorial Pacific!
    
    Burns
    

    Re: .7
    
    Right.  It also brings to mind the demise of the old Thor-based
    nuclear antisatellite system that was based on Johnston Island in
    the Pacific.  It was taken out of service after a hurricane wiped
    out the launch facilities in 1972.  Hope Hughes is counting on that!

    One of the articles claimed that HAC considered the '30 year old
    technology of todays launchers unreliable for launching today's
    satellites'. Now they are talking F-1s which are based on technology
    only 25 years old...
    

Let's take what we can get!

Sure, the F-1 is an old technology, but as an interim step, it's
acceptable.  I think the advantages of hydrogen-oxygen engines (higher
Isp) can be traded off (in first stage applications) for the advantages of
oxygen-hydrocarbon engines (smaller airframe, simplified tanks and
ground support requirements).  Besides, use of a high-energy upper stage
(Centaur or SSME-based) is not ruled out. 

The SSME itself is almost a 20 year old program.  It seems that propulsion
technology was more adventurous in the 1960s (NERVA, M-1, XLR-125) than it
is now; maybe the proper phrase is, "was allowed to be more adventurous .."

The potential for growth versions of the Hughes booster (still in the
proposal phase, of course) is tantalizing.  We might get the Saturn V back
yet! This could give us the capability to launch a large space operations
center, with a significant crew and scientific instrumentation, rather than
the four phone booths strapped together which seems to be the preferred
space station mode at the moment. 

To be realistic for a moment, under the operating style of this
Administration, anything that Don Regan can't understand (i.e., more
complex than a ball-point pen) is destined for the scrap heap.  Is there
any way to make space program recovery proposals read like leveraged buyout
offers? 

    Any guesses how long and how expensive it will be to get Rocketdyne
    to re-tool to build F-1 engines?

Oh, it would cost a great deal, I'm sure.  Not to mention finding/rehiring
experienced personnel and training new people, determining/mitigating the
impact on other Rocketdyne programs, rebuilding test facilities (Bay St.
Louis, watch your ears), and finding a production site.  Why all this
effort for an old design? 

a) It is still the most powerful liquid rocket engine ever developed;

b) It had an exemplary service record;

c) It increases options for future reusable boosters.  By using RP-1, which 
is much denser than LH2, the airframe of any returnable booster can be made 
more compact and probably more manageable aerodynamically.  Ground support 
tasks can be simplified as well.  

Last week's Aviation Week (?) noted that the National Space Transportation 
Study team feels that oxygen-hydrocarbon engines are viable for advanced 
reusable boosters.  Re-introduction of the F-1 would provide a technology 
base from which advanced versions, including reusable versions, could be 
developed; interim expendable boosters using the F-1 could provide the kind 
of heavy-lift capability we gave up long ago.

Is the cost worth it?  I can't say; but if we want to have propulsion 
options available for use in the future, we could remember the old Fram 
commercials: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

George

  > c) It increases options for future reusable boosters.  By using RP-1, which 
  > is much denser than LH2, the airframe of any returnable booster can be made 
  > more compact and probably more manageable aerodynamically.  Ground support 
  > tasks can be simplified as well.  

   
    Pardon my ignorance here, but I'm confused...
    
    Although RP-1 is denser than LH2, don't you need a lot more of it
    to get the same kick?  If so, then the airframes would be of similar
    size, but would have to handle greater weights...
    
    
    - dave
    
    p.s. This assumes that RP-1 is what I think it is - kerosene...

    RP-1 is a refined cut of kerosene. RP-1/LOX has a much lower specific
    impulse than LH2/LOX but is also much denser. For stages that operate
    primarily in the atmosphere, the smaller size that can result from
    using RP-1 can translate into improved system performance (the smaller
    vehicle has less aerodynamic drag). It is easier to handle than
    LH2.
    
    It was also considered safer but LH2 handling technology seems to have
    progressed to the same level as RP-1. RP-1/LOX has the same habit of
    becoming explosive when incorrectly mixed that LH2/LOX has.
    
    gary 

    To rephrase .14 to my taste:
    
    RP-1 gives less energy per kilogram than LH2, but if you compare
    the RP-1 for a given energy with the LH2 for the same energy, the
    RP-1 will be heavier, but will take up less volume.
    
    Burns

Capabilities of a proposed unmanned heavy-lift booster family (from 7/14
issue of Aviation Week) 

     					Payload (in pounds)
     				LEO, KSC		LEO, VAFB(polar)

Launcher A
(2x SRB, 1x SSME)		85K 			60K 

Launcher B
(2x SRB, 2x SSME)		150K 			110K 

Launcher C
(1x liquid-fuel flyback
booster, 2x SSME)		150K			110K

Launcher D
(2x flyback booster,
4x SSME)			400K			Not given


The flyback booster would be powered by "advanced liquid 
oxygen/hydrocarbon engines".  No information was given on development costs 
or schedules.   Thought you might be interested.
    

Hughes is apparently serious about a Saturn-based launcher to be used as the 
Air Force MLV and as a commercial satellite launcher (Hughes' interest 
should be obvious here).  They are calling it the Jarvis booster, after 
Gregory B. Jarvis, the Hughes engineer killed aboard Challenger.  According
to the latest Aviation Week, they have requested an analysis from
Rocketdyne regarding re-starting F-1 *and* J-2 production.  Boeing
Aerospace would do the actual booster manufacturing.  The proposed commercial
launching site is the old Thor anti-satellite launch complex on Johnston
Island in the Pacific. No info given on schedules, payloads, production
facilities, or weather or transportation issues (it's at least 4000 mi.
from Johnston to So. Cal., I believe.  Of course, this could be an
advantage if the earthquakes keep up.)    
    
    George

Associated Press Fri 08-AUG-1986 18:53                             USAFRocket

Air Force Awards New Rocket Contracts

By NORMAN BLACK
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force, as part of its response to the loss of
the space shuttle Challenger, on Friday awarded four contracts totalling
$20 million to aerospace companies competing to develop a new unmanned
rocket.    

The Pentagon, in a brief summary of contractual awards, said the
Air Force had solicited 23 companies, received six proposals and selected
four corporations to compete in designing a new Medium Launch Vehicle, or
MLV.    

The four are McDonnell Douglas Corp.; the Martin Marietta Corp.;
General Dynamics Corp., and Hughes Aircraft Co. Each received a six-month,
$5 million contract to perform ``design work on existing or modified
existing launch vehicle configurations,'' the Air Force said.    

Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge last week unveiled a five-year, $2.6
billion program to overcome the Jan. 28 loss of the Challenger. The Air
Force can no longer afford to place great reliance on the shuttle for
launching satellites and thus the new recovery program will emphasize unmanned 
rockets, Aldridge said.    

One of the key parts of the Air Force program as outlined by Aldridge
involves the design and construction of a medium-lift rocket to be used in
launching Navstar Global Positioning navigation satellites.    

The Pentagon was preparing to establish a Navstar system consisting of 18
satellites when the Challenger was lost. With the three remaining shuttles
grounded at least until 1988 - and a backlog of even more important
reconnaissance satellites awaiting their return - the Air Force decided to
develop an unmanned rocket that could handle Navstar.    

Aldridge said last week the service would need to acquire at least 12 of
the MLV boosters and possibly more. 

The medium-lift rockets must be capable of carrying payloads weighing
10,000 pounds into low-earth orbit or satellites weighing up to 2,500
pounds to an orbit of 11,000 nautical miles. The latter requirement
reflects the boost required for the Navstar satellites.    

In soliciting bids on the MLV program, the Air Force stressed the need for
contractors to propose designs based on ``flight-proven hardware'' as
opposed to starting from scratch.  As a result, McDonnell Douglas is
expected to propose a derivative of the Delta rocket; Martin Marietta a
derivative of the Titan; General Dynamics a derivative of the Atlas; and
Hughes Aircraft a derivative of the Saturn. 

The Air Force said Friday it would select one of the four designs as soon
as possible after submission and award the winner a Phase II contract for
final development and construction.    

The Air Force had previously awarded contracts for the design and
construction of a new, heavy-lift derivative of the Titan rocket that can
carry oversized payloads of the type normally carried on the shuttle. 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  2-OCT-1993
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Seen on net

I saw the following on the net.  You probably did too, but what the hell...

--------------------------------------------

                        CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

                          AIR FORCE STUDY
                                on
     Technology and Innovative Applications of Space Hardware

The United States Air Force is conducting a study to identify
creative technologies and innovative applications of hardware that
will support national security well into the next century.  Air
University at Maxwell AFB, Alabama is chairing the study, which
will be called SPACECAST 2020.  The product will recommend specific
technologies and applications that have the greatest potential.

Included in the first phase of this effort is the solicitation of
"brainstorming" abstracts from government agencies, industry,
academia, and private individuals.  The Air Force Institute of
Technology at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio will handle these
abstracts for the study.  Abstracts are needed in three areas:

     1.  Emerging research technologies that, if exploited, can
     significantly improve the capabilities of our space systems
     (to include satellite design, reliability, remote sensing,
     data processing, power production, stealth, etc.).

     2.  Innovative space systems and applications for military purposes.

     3.  Prior studies and briefings on future military space systems.

If you have information in these areas, please provide one-page
abstracts that include:

     1.  A brief description of the concept.

     2.  Your understanding of the concept's military application
     and associated technical risks and tradeoffs.

     3.  Your name and how you can be contacted.

Please remember the emphasis is on NEW or INNOVATIVE technologies
and uses for systems that could be fielded by the year 2020.  Also,
please limit responses to one abstract per page with classification
no higher than SECRET.  Your support is appreciated.

Abstract submittal by 15 October 1993 is requested.  However,
abstracts submitted by 1 March 1994 will be included in the study.
Please submit abstracts to:

     AU SPACE STUDY TECHNOLOGY TEAM
     AFIT/ENA (AFIT/ENAS if abstract is classified)
     2950 P STREET
     WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH 45433-7765

     EMAIL:         [email protected]
     FAX:           DSN 986-7302   or   (513) 476-7302
     PHONE:         DSN 785-7210   or   (513) 255-7210
--
Lt Col TS Kelso                     Deputy Chief, Technology Assessment Team
[email protected]                  Spacecast 2020
[email protected]                 Air Force Institute of Technology

-------------------------------------------

	Paul

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 08:47:34 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% To: [email protected]
% Subject: seen on net