ESA ATL Plausibility Checks and Development

[Bahamut-255]

Probably has more to do with his being a Secondary School Physics Teacher and using only very small - firework-sized - rockets for the equations, where the difference would be so small that it wouldn't really make any difference which method was used.

Running the numbers again means this:

In(77/39)*9.8*457 = 3,046.539774 m/s. A difference of just over 112.28 m/s.

 

[e of pi]

Probably has more to do with his being a Secondary School Physics Teacher and using only very small - firework-sized - rockets for the equations, where the difference would be so small that it wouldn't really make any difference which method was used.

Probably.

Running the numbers again means this:

In(77/39)*9.8*457 = 3,046.539774 m/s. A difference of just over 112.28 m/s.

That's correct for an Isp of 457...but this is using an RL-10B2, Isp 464s. ln(77/38.75)*9.8*464=3122. (25 metric tons TLI payload + 3.75 ton dry stage= 38.75). And 3122 meets the requirements for TLI.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Unmanned Payloads - Part II

I think it's time now to worry about the other aspects of unmanned missions. Other than Mars, there are a number of other bodies of great interest within the Solar System alone. These are*:

1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. The Moon
4. The Asteroid Belt
5. Jupiter + Moons
6. Saturn + Moons
7. Uranus + Neptune
8. Pluto + Kuiper Belt

Clearly there's a lot that can be done. But with only finite resources, they have to be picked carefully. But since Manned missions to The Moon are far more likely here, let's look at that first.

I would think that with Shuttle-C having been built by the late 1980s, there would exist renewed interest in sending men back to the Moon, seeing that the means to accomplish this has now been built. Though you can be certain of robotic precursers that would preclude such a mission - so expect the likes of Clementine, perhaps even a little sooner.

This would be followed by a number of unmanned missions designed to investigate certain key aspects of the Lunar Environment, such as the 'lumpy' gravitational field and surface composition, which would be used to select a number of 'landing points' of interest where the Manned missions would occur.


* I'm well aware there are plenty of other interesting - even exciting - items in Earth Orbit and beyond the Solar System, future posts will look into them.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Unmanned Payloads - Lunar Probes

A focus on the Robotic Probes that will focus on Lunar Exploration.

OTL, since 1990, the NASA Lunar Probes have consisted of:

1. Clementine
2. Lunar Prospector
3. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
4. ARTEMIS P1 & P2
5. GRAIL A & B

So seven in total. While ESA Lunar Missions have consisted solely of SMART-1. The first, and - to date - only ESA Lunar Mission. This means eight Lunar Missions since 1990 between ESA and NASA.

But since here, Manned Lunar Missions are very possible with Shuttle-C, I think it's possible for NASA and ESA to do a few more Unmanned Lunar Missions. I'd expect it to revolve mainly around full surface orbital scanning and measurements of gravity fields and solar winds. This being used to help determine the best possible site(s) for Manned Lunar Missions further down the line. I would also see it starting either a little earlier or at around the same time, the key difference being the pace that should be quicker - especially when Freedom/Alpha is completed.

What I'm basically looking at is a small number of orbiters that go into the highest possible inclination, as so to map as much of the Lunar Surface as possible. Some landers to follow for close up looks at the sights of interest. Which would be used in part to determine the best landing sites when Manned Lunar Missions are given the go-ahead.

I think 6-8 orbiters by the late 2000s with 3-5 landers over the 2000-2010 period seems reasonable. Depends mainly on their size and the required LV.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I thought I had posted something here earlier about lunar probe requirements, but it seems I did not. Well, I really must rectify that. The resumption of a lunar program in the 1980s will most likely be tied to the initiation of a human lunar flight program, not entirely surprisingly based on history (Clementine and Lunar Prospector being outliers that were launched, particularly in the former case, for altogether separate reasons and fortuitously were sent to the Moon). Thus, the selection of probes to be launched will tend to address concerns and requirements for human flights. Given this, and given that any 1980s or beyond human lunar program is naturally going to be more ambitious than Apollo, this leads to three major and one minor priority for lunar probes (in the long-ish run):

1: High-quality (LRO level) imagery and mapping of the surface. Obvious, really. Not much else to talk about, an LRO-type probe will undoubtedly carry much more than just a couple of good cameras, including most likely several types of spectrometers (ie., it will almost assuredly discover the water)

2: High-quality gravity-field mapping, ie. GRAIL-level. Most important if you want long-duration surface stays and to use low lunar orbit as a staging area (rather than EML1/2). If you're doing that, you're going to need good maps of the mascons and gravity fields to maintain your orbit correctly.

3: Communications. A must if you're doing farside or polar landings. Obviously this can also provide some of 1 or 2 depending on how you set up your communications network, but the basic idea is providing 24/7 communications with anyone on the Moon. This obviously requires multiple satellites, probably in Molniya-type orbits or perhaps in Lagrangian halo orbits.

The minor objective is providing something like terrestrial GPS, at least insofar as you can get a position fix to perhaps within several hundred meters from a hand-held or rover-borne unit. Might be unifiable with priority 3, I don't know. It would, however, be useful, especially for autonavigation (although with an accuracy of only a few hundred meters...not that useful. Still, probably better than manually getting a fix with a sextant or whatever.)

 

[Bahamut-255]

I thought I had posted something here earlier about lunar probe requirements, but it seems I did not. Well, I really must rectify that. The resumption of a lunar program in the 1980s will most likely be tied to the initiation of a human lunar flight program, not entirely surprisingly based on history (Clementine and Lunar Prospector being outliers that were launched, particularly in the former case, for altogether separate reasons and fortuitously were sent to the Moon). Thus, the selection of probes to be launched will tend to address concerns and requirements for human flights. Given this, and given that any 1980s or beyond human lunar program is naturally going to be more ambitious than Apollo, this leads to three major and one minor priority for lunar probes (in the long-ish run):

Late 2000s to early 2010s for return to the Moon. And yes, it will be rather more ambitious than Apollo. Planning on having it occur during the wind-down of Freedom/Alpha.

1: High-quality (LRO level) imagery and mapping of the surface. Obvious, really. Not much else to talk about, an LRO-type probe will undoubtedly carry much more than just a couple of good cameras, including most likely several types of spectrometers (ie., it will almost assuredly discover the water)

This will certainly be the case once Return to Moon kicks in. While they can be smaller and simpler early on - the prospecting phase - once they find enough items of interest, they'll really want the most they can out of future missions. So the later LROs will undoubtedly be far more advanced and capable than perhaps even OTL Lunar Probes.

2: High-quality gravity-field mapping, ie. GRAIL-level. Most important if you want long-duration surface stays and to use low lunar orbit as a staging area (rather than EML1/2). If you're doing that, you're going to need good maps of the mascons and gravity fields to maintain your orbit correctly.

I was thinking more like putting as much hardware as possible on the Lunar Surface, since that's where you want the crew. Though the profile I have in mind means the Orbiter is in Lunar Orbit, so picking the right one would be seen to be a neccessity. So gravity-field mapping would be seen as a future requirement for longer-duration, Polar, and Far-Side missions.

3: Communications. A must if you're doing farside or polar landings. Obviously this can also provide some of 1 or 2 depending on how you set up your communications network, but the basic idea is providing 24/7 communications with anyone on the Moon. This obviously requires multiple satellites, probably in Molniya-type orbits or perhaps in Lagrangian halo orbits.

As with Point 2. The right number of satellites, in the right orbit would allow communications with 100% of the Lunar Surface 100% of the time. Can be combined with Lunar Global Positioning. This could be negated in the early missions via going for lower inclination visible-side landing spots, though as you said, Polar and Far-Side missions would certainly need them.

The minor objective is providing something like terrestrial GPS, at least insofar as you can get a position fix to perhaps within several hundred meters from a hand-held or rover-borne unit. Might be unifiable with priority 3, I don't know. It would, however, be useful, especially for autonavigation (although with an accuracy of only a few hundred meters...not that useful. Still, probably better than manually getting a fix with a sextant or whatever.)

Unifiable with Point 3 if the setup I showed is selected. Then they can function as both communcations and positioning satellites. Getting it to within 50 metres of your actual point should be more than doable, and workable. And certainly better than Sun + sextant - especially during the 14.5-day night.

 

[Bahamut-255]

So this is the basic structure of the Unmanned Lunar Missions.


1) Beginning in the early-mid '90s, the prospecting phase. With a significant chunk of the budget being eaten up by the Freedom/Alpha Space Station at this point, the odds are small that you'll get anything larger than a very few tonnes for TLI. Granted, you can get a lot out of it, even in the early '90s, but long-life, high-redundancy, and high-reliability will all add a notable mass-penalty IMHO.

2) Once construction of Freedom/Alpha ends, there may be more funding available for more/higher quality missions, and with the Moon being a viable Manned Target ITTL, the need for high quality mapping of the Lunar Surface, Gravitational Field and Lunar Conditions will be needed to plan even a good mission profile.

3) Once the decision is made to go, landers/surveyors are used to: A - Scout for preferred landing sites; B - Act as homing beacons.

4) While visible-side missions won't require Lunar-GPS and Communications - you can do that from Earth. Far-side and Polar missions will see their need for 24/7/365 communications and tracking. This can come later and be built up even as Manned missions are in effect.


With NASA as the only ones capable of sending crews to the Lunar Surface via Shuttle-C, I'm considering having the ESA handle some of the unmanned side, like Communications, Lunar Surface Positioning - as barter for seats. Seems reasonable enough to me, and allows for the complementing of the others capabilities.



In a completely unrelated article! I know E of Pi has said that the first major Freedom/Alpha Station design I had was seriously oversized. But I've determined a method to revive it - if only to crush it again, hehehehehe.

Here's not one, but three hints. It begins with 'S', continues with 'E', and is completed with the letter 'I'.

Your thoughts?

 

[Bahamut-255]

Some thought about the Launch Vehicles...

Something that's been on my mind for quite some time now. I know that with the Argo LV for ESA, they have a good, flexible LV for the 12,000-37,000Kg payload range, while NASA have both STS and Shuttle-C - with up to 77,000Kg payload. But this raises a few issues...


1) OTL ESA needed new LVs for the lower payloads that certain missions imposed. to accomplish this with the relatively inflexible Ariane 5, they needed all-new LVs. In this case, Soyuz 2 LV and Vega. Since Europa tech was able to work ITTL, I don't really see them dumping it all considering the investment. To be completely honest, I see them keeping it in use - possibly updated in line with technological improvements as time passes - to meet the OTL Vega-to-TTL Argo-Base payloads. This is what I have in mind.

Though the LOX/LH2 part will most likely be of French Manufacture, with twin HM7s instead of RL-10s.


2) After STS-51L OTL, the USAF decided to only use expendable launch vehicles for their own payloads. This is almost certainly going to be the case ITTL. Even though NASA has STS and Shuttle-C, their respective maximum payloads are wildly different, and rather unsuited to USAF requirements. And while NASA can use Shuttle-Cs capabilities to justify using Argo for the relevant payloads, without losing much - if any - face. USAF would never do such a thing IMHO. With military payload requirements, they could never justify using a launch vehicle that came from another Continent! That's why USAF ELVs will track largely like OTL. Running down of remaining stockpile of ELVs - the aging Atlases and Titans. Restart of Delta II series. And Titan IV crash development. What I plan to change is the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Replacement Programme - EELVRP. With the Argo LV in service here, there would be incentive to start is earlier than OTL - say, '92-'94. I will, likely keep the designs like OTL Atlas V and Delta IV, with maybe some small changes. Maybe have Atlas V win the main USAF contracts instead of Delta IV - though since OTL Atlas V uses Russian RD-180s, the odds seem low to me on that happening. I'd have to do something about that to make it work.


All of this seems reasonable to me. What about you?

 

[e of pi]

1) OTL ESA needed new LVs for the lower payloads that certain missions imposed. to accomplish this with the relatively inflexible Ariane 5, they needed all-new LVs. In this case, Soyuz 2 LV and Vega. Since Europa tech was able to work ITTL, I don't really see them dumping it all considering the investment. To be completely honest, I see them keeping it in use - possibly updated in line with technological improvements as time passes - to meet the OTL Vega-to-TTL Argo-Base payloads. This is what I have in mind.

Though the LOX/LH2 part will most likely be of French Manufacture, with twin HM7s instead of RL-10s.

Hmm. So Europa with optional boosters and a hydrolox upperstage? Seems like it'd serve pretty well in the light range. I can definitely see them doing that ITTL.

What I plan to change is the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Replacement Programme - EELVRP. With the Argo LV in service here, there would be incentive to start is earlier than OTL - say, '92-'94. I will, likely keep the designs like OTL Atlas V and Delta IV, with maybe some small changes. Maybe have Atlas V win the main USAF contracts instead of Delta IV - though since OTL Atlas V uses Russian RD-180s, the odds seem low to me on that happening. I'd have to do something about that to make it work.

So a start in '92-'94? I guess they might still go with the RD-180 for Atlas, it's a pretty amazing engine, and American kerlox pickings are a little thin on the ground. I dunno, it's a tossup.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Hmm. So Europa with optional boosters and a hydrolox upperstage? Seems like it'd serve pretty well in the light range. I can definitely see them doing that ITTL.

That's the general idea. With this Europa III being able to support a CCB setup, which should take it's maximum payload to slightly below that of the Argo-Base - I get about 9,500Kg for 225x225Km at 52 degrees.

So a start in '92-'94? I guess they might still go with the RD-180 for Atlas, it's a pretty amazing engine, and American kerlox pickings are a little thin on the ground. I dunno, it's a tossup.

I know. OTL, all they really had in 1990 was the RS-27 insofar as LOX/Kerosene engines were concerned. Getting a good one will force them to go 'shopping around'. The only real candidates being the RD-180 (Russia), and the RZ-9 (ESA - what I plan to call the Argo 1st stage engine). One gives better performance. The other is easier to sell politically. Gonna be a tough one, this.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Unmanned Payloads - Earth Orbit

With the flexible Argo series and Europa III launch Vehicles in operation, able to meet a wide range of payload demands, it is not inconceivable that the Commercial Satellite Market will be larger than OTL. It only really took off OTL once Ariane 4 was in operation, while Soyuz and Proton were also available from the 1990s onwards, following the collapse of the USSR.

On the other hand. With TTL ESA performing a lot more missions - such as Solaris Crew & Cargo, Mars Sample Return, Lunar Robotics, Freedom/Alpha Station components - that is likely to squeeze out room for commercial flights, at least for them. Even though the Argo-UH could carry up to four GTO payloads in the one launch, they may not be able to meet all the demand.

This is where NASA/USAF and Russia come in. One reason for the Atlas V and Delta IV IOTL was the need to get the launch costs down - although it failed quite miserably - to make them viable commercial launch vehicles. Though with ESA tied up rather more ITTL than IOTL, they may be able to get some of the market, especially if included with getting the costs down a bit.

As for Russia. Their chaotic 1990s left their space agency severely strapped for cash, and dependant on NASA for supporting Mir and the ISS segments. ITTL, with a stronger ESA, this need to include the Russians will likely be reduced considerably, and really leave them in a crisis. This would force them to really open up their LVs for the commercial market to get any real finance in. Although there does exist a means to mitigate this somewhat. It may well be vital for TTL Russia to convince enough former Soviet Blocks to form a unified Space Agency, akin to the ESA to secure sufficient funding for the years ahead. Ukraine would be a real plus here, securing access to the Zenit LV/Energia Booster and the RD-170/1 engines. As would Kazakhstan - for the Baikonur Cosmodrone.


As for the major LEO payloads. Hubble will be largely like OTL. GPS operational 1994. Climate and weather satellites. Deep Space Observing satellites.

As you may have noticed. The unmanned side of things isn't my strongest suit, so any help here would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Launch Vehicle Europa III - Finalised Design

I've finalised the design for the Europa III Launch Vehicle to be used by TTL ESA. Like the Argo LV, it will comprise of a core stage, upper stage, and either solid or liquid boosters, with the ultimate version comprising of three core stages.

The core stage would be an uprated version of the British Blue Streak 1st stage, modified to handle the much-increased loads being imposed on it, as well as more powerful and efficient rocket engines - which I refer to as RZ4. While a French LOX/LH2 upper stage features on all models, powered by twin HM7s.

These is the payload capabilities for the various forms it can take, for an orbit of 225x225Km at 51.6 degrees, when launched from Kourou, French Guiana. Mass is in Kilograms.


Europa III-0: 4,400
Europa III-2P: 5,300
Europa III-4P: 6,100
Europa III-2L: 6,400
Europa III-4L: 7,900
Europa III-H: 9,500


This, IMHO, would provide TTL ESA with all the LV capability that they'll need well into the 2020s - with some technical updating of the design every now and then when needed.

For timeline. I see 1971/2 as being the most plausible point for authorisation of Europa III, with 1973 being the latest. 4-6 years to develop all the new hardware and facilities. So 1975-79 for first launch.

I'd also see Europa III as being the first ESA LV to utilise the Hammerhead Payload Fairing - from 305cm to 400cm.

 

[Bahamut-255]

ESA Europa/Argo Timeline

I think there's been sufficient development work on the Europa and Argo LVs for there to be a basic timeline concerning their development and operational runs. So here's an initial framework for them - I'll leave the USSR/Russian and NASA side of things out for the time being:


1967 - A considerably more extensive and thorough investigation of the failure of Europa Test Flight 6 leads to many failings in the design. Extensive redesign of the electronics enables future test flights to succeed.

1969 - First insertion of Native European Payload on a European LV into orbit.

1971 - Europa 2 first flight. First Europa flight from Kourou, French Guiana.

1972 - ELDO & ESRO merged into ESA. Europa 1 & 2 determined to be insufficient - payload-wise - for future European use. Work begun on next-generation LV.

1973 - Europa 3 design finalised and approved. Blue Streak and RZ.2 to receive substantial modifications and all-new upper stage to be developed. Solid and liquid boosters also developed for Europa 3, though base version has the priority.

1978 - First launch of Europa 3. Marred by payload shroud failure to jettison. subsequent re-design allows next flight to succeed 7 months later.

1980 - Following three years of negotiations between the ESA member states. Approval is given for new LV - later named Argo - and a manned crew transportation system - later called Solaris.

1982 - Final designs approved and construction work begins on Argo.

1983 - Solaris design greenlighted and construction started.

1986 - This Author is born somewhere in the Central-Western part of Scotland.

1988 - First launch of Argo - Base version - from Kourou.

1993 - First unmanned test launch of Solaris Spacecraft.

1994 - First launch of Argo-HU, first launch of 4 payloads into GTO.

1995 - First manned flight of Solaris Spacecraft.

1996 - Solaris Spacecraft Operational Service begins.


I think that's a realistic timeline to go with. I know the Solaris development looks long, but I haven't forgotten that this would be the first time that the ESA has ever attempted such a task, and they'd know they couldn't afford to make any errors in it - especially with Atlantis 1985 taking the place of Challenger ITTL - hence the long development schedule. That and the fact you want the LV to work before any payloads are put on it, so Argo would be given the priority.

NB: E of Pi and Truth is Life. I'm well aware that the early portion of the timeline mirrors Update 9 in Eyes Turned Skywards. I want you to know that I did look into other methods, but decided that this way was the most plausible for this ATL. That's why I would really appreciate your input for this portion - and avoid any mess that might arise.

 

[e of pi]

I think there's been sufficient development work on the Europa and Argo LVs for there to be a basic timeline concerning their development and operational runs. So here's an initial framework for them - I'll leave the USSR/Russian and NASA side of things out for the time being

Seems like a fairly reasonable development history for Argo and Solaris. I'd say even being fairly conservative that Solaris could probably be ready in 8 years instead of ten, even starting from scratch (see: Dragon) but that's as much a money thing as an engineering thing, so it could e argued that the real cause isn't so much a technical focus on Argo as the monetary priority for it.

NB: E of Pi and Truth is Life. I'm well aware that the early portion of the timeline mirrors Update 9 in Eyes Turned Skywards. I want you to know that I did look into other methods, but decided that this way was the most plausible for this ATL. That's why I would really appreciate your input for this portion - and avoid any mess that might arise.

I'm perfectly okay with it mirroring events in our TL a bit. The problem is that a Europa that works is one of only a few good PODs I see for a solid European manned program, and the only one in that time period (the other one I can think of being a focus on a capsule instead of Hermes, and thus managing to develop manned alongside Ariane 5), so there's going to be some convergence there of necessity.

 

[Bahamut-255]

Seems like a fairly reasonable development history for Argo and Solaris. I'd say even being fairly conservative that Solaris could probably be ready in 8 years instead of ten, even starting from scratch (see: Dragon) but that's as much a money thing as an engineering thing, so it could e argued that the real cause isn't so much a technical focus on Argo as the monetary priority for it.

Conservative development, I know. But you're right, it is that Argo has the monetary priority. And ESA is government-funded, so expect some slowdown and cost-overrun as a direct result.

I'm perfectly okay with it mirroring events in our TL a bit. The problem is that a Europa that works is one of only a few good PODs I see for a solid European manned program, and the only one in that time period (the other one I can think of being a focus on a capsule instead of Hermes, and thus managing to develop manned alongside Ariane 5), so there's going to be some convergence there of necessity.

I realised that already. So few good PODs to make it work. As for the Manned Spaceflight aspect, AFAIK, the UK tended to be more favourable towards capsule designs over the winged shuttle design favoured by France. With the UK as an ESA member, they can tip things in favour of Capsule Spacecraft which will get it working. I see an Argo/Solaris compromise here.

 

[Bahamut-255]

USAF Launch Vehicles

I guess now would be a good time to focus on the USAF LVs.

With a planned Atlantis Disaster in the end of 1985 ITTL, the issues raised putting STS out of commission for ~3 years - to put it mildly - it's safe to say that TTL USAF will decide to go with only expendable LVs - as per OTL. IOTL, they did this with first the Delta II and Titan IV, then moved on to the Atlas V and Delta IV.

What I plan is something largely like OTL. But with the EELVRP occurring earlier here than IOTL, there will be effects. It would not surprise me if Boeing and Lockheed would be aware of the programme prior to it's announcement as they are key suppliers for US military payloads, and this would reflect on the development timeline.

So while the Delta II series of LV should almost certainly see use in the lighter payload range - 2,700 - 6,100Kg IOTL - it's the other LVs I need to worry about.

I would expect the Titan IV to be developed as well, as so to provide USAF with it's Shuttle-class payloads, though this presents a scenario that I don't believe occurred IOTL. It would only be in service for 2-4 years prior to the EELVRP being launched. Not good. Especially for the times. This could well convince them to keep the basic design when designing/developing their new LV. But this presents a serious challenge. One reason that the Titan IV was so expensive OTL was it's use of toxic, hypergolic propellants - N2O4/A50 - which had soared in cost over the years, both in itself and the handling of it. This can be negated by switching from N2O4/A50 to LOX/Kerosene - it should be noted that the LR87 engines which powered the first stage were originally LOX/Kerosene on the Titan I, prior to conversion to N2O4/A50 - at the cost of additional development work. Retest the engines to verify them and if all goes well, they have a 'new' engine to work with. I'd expect the same to occur with the LR91 which powered the second stage.

This also opens a possibility that revealed itself recently - thanks E and Truth - with the Titan 3L2 and 3L4 which though studied OTL, were never developed.

​

Renamed the Titan V, it could provide all the USAF and NASA requirements for years to come - if it's built that is.

More to come later.

 

[Bahamut-255]

USAF Launch Vehicles Part II

Having gone over some major details - with plenty of assistance from E of Pi - here's the revised Titan V.

Using a 510cm core stage powered by either 1 or 2 SSME engines - depending on which version is used - this core stage would then be augmented by optional 5 or 7 segment SRBs for when the additional payload is required. With perhaps smaller SRBs to fill the interim. The upper stage being powered by either 1 or 2 RL-10 derived engines, depending on the mission requirements - 2 engines for LEO payload maximisation.

The core stage would use 2 SSMEs in it's base form or when the small SRBs are used to increase the payload, otherwise it won't even get off the launch pad. In 5 and 7 segment large SRB form, only one SSME engine - moved to the centre - is used. This provides me with the following payloads*:


Base: 17,000

2 small SRB: 19,500

4 small SRB: 21,600

2 5S-SRB: 31,700

2 7S-SRB: 35,000

4 5S-SRB: 40,000

4 7S-SRB: 44,000

CCB: 47,200


Owing to the relatively small payload increase offered by the CCB form relative to the 4 7-segment SRB version - on top of the increased work required insofar as launch vehicle and launch pad adaptations are concerned - I don't really see it happening here. In any case, this should provide the USAF with all of their launch requirements for perhaps the next 20+ years.

For the naming convention. I was going for the numeric setup.


Titan V xxxxx

Where the first digit states the number of Core Stage engines.

The second digit states the number of Upper Stage engines.

The third digit states the number of small SRBs.

The fourth digit states the number of 5-segment SRBs.

The fifth digit states the number of 7-segment SRBs.


As such:

Titan V 22000 - Base version. Two SSME. Two RL-10s. No SRBs

Titan V 21400 - Two SSME. One RL-10. Four small SRBs.

Titan V 11020 - One SSME. One RL-10. Two 5-segment SRBs.

Titan V 12004 - One SSME. Two RL-10s. Four 7-segment SRBs.



* Payload to a 225x225Km Orbit at 52 degrees launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

 

[e of pi]

What are the numbers like for 11022 or a 12022?

 

[Bahamut-255]

What are the numbers like for 11022 or a 12022?

Titan V 11022 - One SSME. One RL-10. Two 5-segment SRBs. Two 7-segment SRBs.

Titan V 12022 - One SSME. Two RL-10s. Two 5-segment SRBs. Two 7-segment SRBs.

Does that help to clear things up?

 

[e of pi]

Titan V 11022 - One SSME. One RL-10. Two 5-segment SRBs. Two 7-segment SRBs.

Titan V 12022 - One SSME. Two RL-10s. Two 5-segment SRBs. Two 7-segment SRBs.

Does that help to clear things up?

I got that. I meant performance.