The HL-20 Personnel Launch System Flies

I used to keep track of such aerospace stuff via BIS, but I completely missed the HL-42.
My first reaction was to croon, 'How SWEEET !!!'
My second was to blink.
Hang on a mo...
Remember how Apollo Command module plus Service module could work as a tug ? Turn and dock nose to nose with LEM or, potentially, space-station or cargo can ??

How d'you do that with those HL designs ? Or Hermes ? Or the Russian wingy-thingies ? No, like the much lamented Shuttle, they're dorsal docking.

FWIW, I've had a few rants about US' re-invented bi-conic space capsules with absurdly grandiose names, sniffed at Russian retro-capsules, but those do --Or could-- nose-dock.
D'uh...
 
How d'you do that with those HL designs ? Or Hermes ? Or the Russian wingy-thingies ? No, like the much lamented Shuttle, they're dorsal docking.

If the vehicle is designed to act as a tug for something attached to its dorsal surface, it would work fine I would think.

Certainly with 90s era technology, it would be less of an issue than with 60s era technology (which had to be more intuitive to the pilots and had to be built around a limited number of view screens and cameras).

Re: Phobos as a goal:

Eh, the 'argument' is pretty much the same as the 'utility' of a flyby mission versus landing :)

Phobos takes time to get to, but the deltaV required to get there and land is less than the deltaV required to get to Luna and land. And of course, it takes much less deltaV to take off from Phobos. Since Phobos has a high ice content, the idea is that it makes a perfect place to set up a fuel mining/production/depot center.

the POWOW, (POWer With Out Wires) concept

That is a pretty neat way of saving on the costs of landing the reactor on Mars itself. And might have political advantages due to not having a heavy nuclear reactor.

The military liked the smaller stations mainly because they could done more cost effectively but they had been 'coming around' to some possibilities of what Mir could be used for. Oddly enough just about everyone initially considered Mir much to large to be a practical space station "unless" the Russians were going to use it for staging flights to the Moon or Mars. Which was exactly the reason the US station design kept getting smaller.

Ahh. I'd thought it was just cost that made Congress space station shy.

And what uses were the Soviet military interested in Mir for?

That's a good possibility and one of the main reason neither the HL20 or HL42 got any significant traction and the main 'reason' the X-38 was canceled even before it flew. But had the Shuttle been less trustworthy and less political support, (possible) and they are looking for an alternative the HL20 had a very good possibility of being that alternative. The thing with down-sizing the HL20 was that it was about the smallest workable size as it was for the mass. One thing I point out when people bring up the idea of the X-37B as a manned vehicle is that this will significantly increase its mass which will make its reentry MUCH harsher and probably require a significantly more robust TPS. The Shuttle had issues even the size it was due to down-mass and the TPS and it was found during design and testing of the Hermes its TPS would be inadequate for the mass involved. The HL20 on the other hand was actually significantly lighter and therefore the TPS requirements were significantly less and could be handled by a lighter, but more robust TPS.

The entire reason the HL42 was designed was to make the HL20 'closer' in capability to the Shuttle. On the down side it was as noted significantly heavier and LESS capable than the HL20 as a result. It was understood during the early lifting body tests that for the most part they were 'as-good' as the were BECAUSE they were significantly lighter than they would be in any actual 'flight' condition other than the low-speed regime they were tested at. (One of the reasons the only one that continued testing was the X-24B is because it was planned from the start to have a VERY robust, fully metallic, titanium in fact, reentry system specifically designed for it)

All very interesting.

When you talk about the HL-20 being much lighter - is that assuming the vehicle is 150%-200% heavier than the initial design, as you mused upon earlier in the thread (quite soundly, I think, from what I read most aerospace designs are about 150% heavier than the initial paper design assumes).

I could see the HL-20 getting into real trouble if they don't over-engineer the TPS from the start so that it can handle the mass of the vehicle increasing. Redesigning the TPS every time some unforeseen need increases the mass of the vehicle could get expensive.

How was the HL-20 going to be more capable than the HL-42?

And interestingly, reading up on the X-38, I see that it was intended to be launched on the Ariane 5. That bodes well for the HL-20 being made available to the Europeans in some way. Hmm... Here's a crazy idea:

The Europeans are brought on board in a minimal capacity and the HL-20 is designed to be launched on both the Titan IV and on Ariane 5, with the idea being that US companies will get some nice sales out of this. ITAR ends up getting signed as per OTL and as per OTL, Congress decides civilian space technology should not be exported. The ESA can't get its HL-20s and justly throws a hissy fit. To calm them down, the US agrees to buy Ariane 5 rockets from them, resulting in the Ariane 5 becoming the sole launcher for the HL-20 and retrofits to allow Canaveral to launch Ariane 5s...

OK, probably not very likely, but it is a funny thought.

Somewhat. Assuming a "problem" with the Shuttle and the need to move forward with a new LV system your situation is actually still "similar" to the EELV but differs in more entrenched interest in a utility system that is NOT the Shuttle but also does not require a totally "new" LV system. I'll point out again that you would not necessarily have in TTL the complete shut down of the Delta II/III (the former still flying and the latter due around 1998) as the EELVs came online. So you pretty much have a far better "commercial" launch vehicle market even if the competition IS getting rather stiff with artificially discounted "Russian" LVs available.

No Delta IV would almost certainly mean Delta III is in use longer, and without EELV, there would be no Delta IV.

Also, McDonnell-Douglas may avoid getting bought by Boeing in TTL, since the ongoing cold war would mean they have a fatter order book. As I understand, Delta IV owed a number of important design decisions to Boeing, so even if there is an EELV program, the Delta IV entered into it may have a first stage that is directly descended from the Thor missile.

I'm not sure that the Soviet Union surviving longer would mean the commercial launch market was healthier - orders will probably crash much as OTL. However, the Soviets may be able to compete as well as the Russians did in the commercial launch market, since the rouble is unlikely to collapse to the lows seen in OTL and the .

(Older Europeans for the most part were less concerned over the US/USSR tensions where as younger generations were rather more nervous of being 'ground-zero' in any conflict. This was having the effect that "younger" European leaders were seeking more cooperative or common ground with Russia while still maintaining their distance so as to give the USSR/Russia 'pause' over starting anything where they had interests. At the same time the Reagan era had generated increased tension where it had been waning during the 70s and with it a definite feeling that the previous "cooperative" efforts had not served Europe as well as had been expected. A surviving USSR would continue this and probably "penetration" worries and issues would have had Europe backing off again over time, but as I noted the US was lacking in incentives to really draw them back towards us. I have to wonder if the idea of Europe being a 'third force' might not have gotten better traction TTL)

I can certainly see Europe cutting more of a 3rd way if Germany doesn't re-unite and Eastern Europe remains locked behind the iron curtain.

The US had incurred a major debt issue with the Reagan build up coupled with lower taxes, and frankly everyone knew it. But both Reagan and Bush had promised and laid their campaign's on reducing taxes despite continuing to build up the military. Bush ended up having to break his campaign promise of "no new taxes" due to the Gulf War but if that hadn't happened the 'break' was going to come around the end of his second term anyway. The Republicans had been struggling to balance the increased military spending with the decreased tax revenue and have never really reconciled them despite Democratic efforts to do so. It wasn't so much a "sea-change" as trying to avoid paying for the expanded military by kicking the can down the road. They'd hoped to use the "Peace Dividend" but as it never actually existed and the cuts only succeeded in job losses and economic problems which linger today. In order to keep pandering to their base they need to keep throwing out tax cuts but what they really need to do is increase some so we can finally balance out the Reagan expenditures but I don't see it happening and in fact they are talking MORE tax cuts coupled with MORE spending which makes no damn sense at all but...

Given a still active Cold War it's quite likely they could have snuck some tax increases back in with little protest and reached a balance again by the late 90s to early 2000s.

Having looked up the US Fed. Gov't. budget deficits since WW2, I am wondering if the US would control its deficit.

While debt was increasing faster under Reagan, the real turning point seems to have come back in 1975 under Gerald Ford. So it may well be that there would be no return to surplus in TTL's 90s (though I have a hard time seeing anyone who'd have power from 1988-1998 being willing to borrow as heavily as Reagan did).

Now as to the Titan IV...

I suspect we've read the same sources but have different perspectives more than anything else :) I was a very active "space fan" from a young age and got to access a lot of 'non-linear' information over the years by being associated with the Air Force. Having said that there are others around who had even deeper access, (fellow named "Jim" over on the NSF forums was an Air Force officer and then transferred to NASA as an Air Force liaison during the Shuttle program for example) which all pretty much showed that Air Force was never really a fan of the Shuttle and didn't in fact like the idea of a "national" launch system at the most basic level. They WOULD have liked it somewhat if it had been: 1) "their" system and 2) been fully under their control, but they had made it clear very early on they were not really in step either with NASA or the NRO both of which were the major drivers for the idea of a "national" launch system. (I suspect where you read "Air Force" it wasn't clear that it actually meant NRO which being part CIA and part Air Force was simply referred to as the "Air Force" before the NRO was revealed) The NRO wanted a specific "National" launch capacity which they continually tried to get political support for, but meanwhile a rather visible portion of the supposedly "same" Air Force would be disinterested to say the least in the concept. Similarly during the Shuttle "design" process the actual Air Force gave a set of very specific but not actually 'required' parameters to NASA that had to be met to get Air Force buy-in. Shortly thereafter an "Under Secretary" of the Air Force met with some NASA higher ups to inform them that given 'requirements' were not as "set-in-stone" as the Air Force had implied. Due to security at the time no one was aware that "Under Secretary" was actually head of the NRO and was much more intimately familiar with what was NEEDED than the regular "Air Force" was so NASA went with the 'official' requirements, (which more closely matched what they wanted to have anyway) rather than what was really needed.

The regular Air Force jumped on the Shuttle bandwagon because they were promised dedicated Air Force missions and a Shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg. The NRO "Air Force" however kept insisting that the Titan-IV be developed because it, (and the Titan-III before it) more closely matched what they actually needed. Then Challenger happened and even the lukewarm, (would have been 'hot' but Congress didn't authorize the Air Force to actually get Shuttles) Air Force support dried up. But the Titan-IV was expensive and had issues so the NRO kept looking for 'alternative' launch vehicles and finally managed to get enough support for the EELV. It was a mess even from inside. At the core you had a very basic unhappiness of the "main" Air Force that they got "space" taken away from them. First by the NRO which took over the spy sat programs because the Air Force was more interested in a "manned" space flight capability and then NASA took even that away from them. The Shuttle looked like a chance to get that back even if only partially and then they didn't get the promised Shuttles and worse Challenger happened. Neither the actual Air Force or the NRO have any interest in SLS nor any derivatives thereof because it offers neither anything they want. Hence SLS is a NASA-only platform.
Economics of scale is a factor as it the repeated use of facilities and personnel which actually reduces the direct costs. Further the Titan-IV production lines could have been kept active which again would provide economy of scale and more efficient use of personnel and systems. A side benefit overall would be that Titan-IV was useful this way to more than a single, (NRO mind you who is the 'real' owner) user. As an "attraction" you end up with a launcher capable of not only launching crewed payloads, (which was specifically the main reason NASA designed the Shuttle the way they did so that it would require a crew EVERY flight) but could launch NRO assets AND unmanned spacecraft which is where the Shuttle was lacking. (Never mind the Astronauts Office was "nervous" about carrying liquid propellant "upper stages" the Orbiter would have required major modifications to actually carry them! Cryogenic stages VENT and there was no way to vent that hydrogen and oxygen from the bay!)
EELV was "organized" in 1994, it really didn't get started till nearly 1996/7 at which time the Titan-IV was being retired. (Which is the main reason the EELV program was finally getting going in fact) The HL20 would have been getting really going around 1994, (first flight test was optimistically suggested to be no later than 1997/98 if fully funded by 1992/3 it would depend on the amount of effort/support) under the circumstances so the "requirement" of a capable and "man-rated" Titan-IV would have been coming up around that same time. You could argue that the there might be a viable case for the development of an "Atlas-V-like" ELV but it would be hard to justify the Delta-IV as despite the often quoted idea it is a "direct descendent" of the Thor via the Delta is was, (and is) obviously a new design vehicle. Boeing didn't even seriously start design work until they got funds from the EELV program in the middle of 1995 and did not actually submit a 'design' until the propellant question, (there was one, NASA was pushing for LH2 while the Air Force, {NRO} preferred kerolox for operational purposes, they both 'won' as obviously one LV used kerolox and the other used LH2) was finally decided in 1996.

In TTL the HL20/Titan-IV is rather obviously a much 'nearer' term solution than designing a fully new LV, (Delta-IV) or a questionable heritage (no Russian engines TTL) and development LV such as the Atlas-V. And ALS/NLS is worse because while it "may" use some Shuttle legacy technology it is obviously going to be long in development and testing so it would make much better sense to simply use the Titan-IV and the Air Force, (both) will support that even if NASA probably won't. Assuming any reason that NASA might in fact support such a system and it's a shoe in.
At its most basic the equation is that having NASA and the DoD/Air Force using the same launchers give economy of scale to an extent and reduces the expenses of shared personnel and facilities. So the argument would be if the DoD/Air Force is using Titan-IV NASA should, as much as practical, (note that part) do so as well. Then there is the obvious "payback" in having NASA 'forced' to use an Air Force LV which is non-trivial. Lastly, politically it's much easier to 'convince' the American taxpayers to fund what can be touted as a 'multi-user' LV "made in America" like the Titan-IV. Not that a clever politician, (and say what you will they do tend to be that more often than not) can't find a way to sell it for "occasional" use but if we imagine the OTL "mentality" carrying over TTL with a longer Cold War situation it's hard to see attitudes changing enough to encompass an American use of an Ariane 5. I can see HL20s being 'sold' to Europe for their use and it being touted as "cooperative" (and frankly it would be more than Europe had gotten in the past space program wise but right in line with Cold War military policy/sales) but it would be hard to "sell" if "cooperation" had been increasing between Europe and Russia as it was in the late-80s early-90s period OTL. Especially if the Cold War in ongoing. (The "closer" relationship between Europe and the USSR was worrisome to the US when it happened OTL and caused quite a few 'joint' programs to fall apart due to concerns about security, penetration and "leakage" over closer ties to Russia)

My sources have only spoken about ALS, NLS and EELV programs in passing or have been rather vague.

Thanks for explaining all of that. The politics between the USAF and the NRO were particularly interesting - the USAF having resentment for the NRO was new to me.

One of the problems the Titan IV had (which NASA committing to the vehicle might help, or might not) was that Lockheed Martin made a real mess of the manufacturing. Quality was extremely poor and costs were high (partly due to having to fix mistakes earlier in the manufacturing process partly due to the organization being that poor). If NASA buying more Titan IVs gives LM the practice to iron out their difficulties, I can see the Titan IV continuing in use for longer.

It would be fun to see the Titan IV getting incrementally upgraded...

fasquardon
 
I used to keep track of such aerospace stuff via BIS, but I completely missed the HL-42.
My first reaction was to croon, 'How SWEEET !!!'
My second was to blink.
Hang on a mo...
Remember how Apollo Command module plus Service module could work as a tug ? Turn and dock nose to nose with LEM or, potentially, space-station or cargo can ??

How d'you do that with those HL designs ? Or Hermes ? Or the Russian wingy-thingies ? No, like the much lamented Shuttle, they're dorsal docking.

FWIW, I've had a few rants about US' re-invented bi-conic space capsules with absurdly grandiose names, sniffed at Russian retro-capsules, but those do --Or could-- nose-dock.
D'uh...

If the vehicle is designed to act as a tug for something attached to its dorsal surface, it would work fine I would think.

Certainly with 90s era technology, it would be less of an issue than with 60s era technology (which had to be more intuitive to the pilots and had to be built around a limited number of view screens and cameras).

Actually you don't use a "lifting" vehicle (winged or lifting body shape) to "tow" payloads, they actually require a dedicated "tug" of some sort if they don't carry the payload in a bay. It was one of the rather 'obvious' issues that was discussed during the Shuttle, (and actually as far back as early Dynasoar studies) and one of the advantages of the "capsule" designs. Due to needing to thrust through the center-of-mass to "push" payloads around you either need to be able to align the "thrust-vector" by somehow moving the propulsion system or you end up using a bay or something, (the Orbital Transfer Vehicle studies all had they payload 'mounted' to the center of the vehicle to both align the thrust AND cover it with the aero-shield) or you have a dedicated "tug" like (OTV counts) vehicle.

Of course if you are really working on a "sustainable" space program having dedicated "tug" vehicles isn't a bad thing, however if you are not having more 'spacecraft' than the bare minimum you need can get rather expensive.. Guess which one "I" think is what everyone currently is doing :)

Or... You can try to have BOTH, which is an interesting idea in and of itself:
http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-1964-proposal-for-small-lifting-body.html
http://iaass.space-safety.org/wp-co...-NO.-2-DECEMBER-2015-LR-HYBRID-SPACECRAFT.pdf

Randy
 
Re: Phobos as a goal:

Phobos takes time to get to, but the deltaV required to get there and land is less than the deltaV required to get to Luna and land. And of course, it takes much less deltaV to take off from Phobos. Since Phobos has a high ice content, the idea is that it makes a perfect place to set up a fuel mining/production/depot center.

Phobos was actually discussed as a goal and a mission unto itself in the late 50s/early 60s when the idea of building up interplanetary infrastructure was the baseline and before Apollo came along and ruined everything :) Can't find the article ATM but one of the Von Braun team IIRC organized and ran the earliest studies of what we call ISRU and proposed a "resources extraction depot" on Phobos. (BTW, Atomic Rockets has a new ISRU section I see: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/mining.php)

That is a pretty neat way of saving on the costs of landing the reactor on Mars itself. And might have political advantages due to not having a heavy nuclear reactor.

Main point is it is not only an SPS but an electric propulsion "super-tug" as well :) Downside is the choices for power transmission. Laser is the most efficient both in transfer and size on both ends but is limited by dust and power conversion. Microwaves are better but need larger surface and space antennas.

Ahh. I'd thought it was just cost that made Congress space station shy.

Nope, a space station can lead to Mars so we can't have one that's "capable" of doing anything useful :) Of course the rather obvious fact that Congress can and does have line-item veto powers for the NASA budget would you could assume preclude NASA "sneaking" anything by them but paranoia is a political survival factor after all :)

And what uses were the Soviet military interested in Mir for?

"Technically?" The same ones they'd been persuing on the smaller more limited Salyut and proposed Almaz stations. More directly it was the station they HAD even if it wasn't what they really wanted. Which is why they were so peeved over the allowance of "Space Tourists" because you can't really "hide" things on a space station. (Of which I have a partially written 'scene' where Benny Hill does a skit relating to a recent in-time-line visit to a Salyut station by a British single pilot spacecraft. The "joke" being the obvious weapons and warheads with the clear signs that state "Not A Weapon" and the totally calm British pilots reactions as he's shown around the station :) )

When you talk about the HL-20 being much lighter - is that assuming the vehicle is 150%-200% heavier than the initial design, as you mused upon earlier in the thread (quite soundly, I think, from what I read most aerospace designs are about 150% heavier than the initial paper design assumes).

I could see the HL-20 getting into real trouble if they don't over-engineer the TPS from the start so that it can handle the mass of the vehicle increasing. Redesigning the TPS every time some unforeseen need increases the mass of the vehicle could get expensive.

The "initial" HL-20 design parameters were "optimistic" to say the least but they'd planned a rather robust TPS in any case. It they had gone over the higher outside estimates, (around the 200% mark) they might have needed to change the TPS significantly but then again around the same time a lot of the formally classified work done on titanium TPS systems was de-classified so it might have been a matter of changing the structural design to titanium instead of aluminum and going with that.

How was the HL-20 going to be more capable than the HL-42?

The HL-42 was bigger, but heavier, and was very much an "American Hermes" in being designed for three crew and LOTS of cargo. The HL-20 "carried" less overall but did it better with a more capable design that wasn't going to run into the "personnel OR cargo" issues the HL-42 was inheriting due to being designed to be a "Shuttle-Light" instead of an actual "personnel launch vehicle." In light of what was "needed" rather than "wanted" the "crew OR cargo" HL-20 is actually a MORE capable vehicle than the "crew AND cargo" HL-42.
This has been an ongoing "issue" with what NASA "wants" and what it actually "asks" for. Take the OSP program. Seems straight forward enough after all as it's the "Orbital Space Plane" competition right? Well it turns out the entire reason the Boeing entry "broke" the rules with a submitted capsule design is because if you ignored the actual NAME of the program and went by the requirements NASA was better served with a capsule than a "space plane." In fact the "winner's" (LM) final report prior to finalizing their design STATED that the capsule was 'superior' to even their own design and they acknowledged the fact IN WRITTING at the time. They then changed their "winning" design from a winged runway landing body to a hypersonic lifting body that needed to land by parachute because the wings had been eliminated. And the development program was cancled anyway....

And interestingly, reading up on the X-38, I see that it was intended to be launched on the Ariane 5. That bodes well for the HL-20 being made available to the Europeans in some way. Hmm... Here's a crazy idea:

The Europeans are brought on board in a minimal capacity and the HL-20 is designed to be launched on both the Titan IV and on Ariane 5, with the idea being that US companies will get some nice sales out of this. ITAR ends up getting signed as per OTL and as per OTL, Congress decides civilian space technology should not be exported. The ESA can't get its HL-20s and justly throws a hissy fit. To calm them down, the US agrees to buy Ariane 5 rockets from them, resulting in the Ariane 5 becoming the sole launcher for the HL-20 and retrofits to allow Canaveral to launch Ariane 5s...

OK, probably not very likely, but it is a funny thought.

Actually that might work out as a way to overcome the political issues and make the idea workable...

Now as to the Titan IV...

My sources have only spoken about ALS, NLS and EELV programs in passing or have been rather vague.

Thanks for explaining all of that. The politics between the USAF and the NRO were particularly interesting - the USAF having resentment for the NRO was new to me.

It's "new" to a lot of people because the "Air Force" was always the public face of the NRO and for obvious reasons that 'face' didn't always actually KNOW what was going on due to security. It's a wonder the 'secret' held as long and as well as it did given the internal conflict :)

One of the problems the Titan IV had (which NASA committing to the vehicle might help, or might not) was that Lockheed Martin made a real mess of the manufacturing. Quality was extremely poor and costs were high (partly due to having to fix mistakes earlier in the manufacturing process partly due to the organization being that poor). If NASA buying more Titan IVs gives LM the practice to iron out their difficulties, I can see the Titan IV continuing in use for longer.

It would be fun to see the Titan IV getting incrementally upgraded...

fasquardon

Part of the reason for the issues was the Titan production line was already shut down and being disassembled, (and the workforce reduced which meant a lost knowledge and skill base) due to the idea that the Shuttle would be the "sole" US launch vehicle once operational. LM had to build capacity back up first because of the switch between Titan III and Titan IV and then due to Challenger and they never really had enough actual support or orders to really put production back in order. Having NASA use the Titan IV and having a space station to support goes a long way towards fixing the main issues with the rest coming down to funding. The biggest issue was always going to be the "Titan II" legacy, aka toxic propellants and that "could" be addressed by going back to the Titan I propellants. I'm wondering if they would have 'stuck' with the LR87 or gone towards the H1 legacy RS series engines.

Randy
 
I wonder how USAF and NRO relationship had went on if NASA selected Titan 34 with UA1207 booster to launch light weight CSM in 1978...

On Phobos mission
the Team of Viking 1&2 made several proposal for follow up missions like 1979 Viking mars Rover
less known are proposal of Viking Mars Sample return Mission and the Viking Phobos/Deimos mission.

On last one the Orbiter, drops a modified Viking lander on two mars moons, who use wheels to roll slowly over there surface
RX04i1.jpg


Sadly those proposal got no chance to get build, during president Carter, a man was despicable about Space flight.
and then came Ronald Reagan and wipe out of NASA planetary program in 1981


sources
https://www.wired.com/2013/04/viking-on-the-moons-of-mars-1972/

"A Study of System Requirements for Phobos/Deimos Mission", Final Report, Volume I, Summary, Martin Marietta Corporation, June 1972.
 
Due to needing to thrust through the center-of-mass to "push" payloads around you either need to be able to align the "thrust-vector" by somehow moving the propulsion system or you end up using a bay or something

Surely you could thrust through the center of mass if a tug was mated on its dorsal side also.

Of course if you are really working on a "sustainable" space program having dedicated "tug" vehicles isn't a bad thing, however if you are not having more 'spacecraft' than the bare minimum you need can get rather expensive..

On the other hand, specialization seems to be the way to go with spacecraft.

I've always wondered if the Agena stage or Soviet Blok D stage could have been evolved into useful space tugs.

Phobos was actually discussed as a goal and a mission unto itself in the late 50s/early 60s when the idea of building up interplanetary infrastructure was the baseline and before Apollo came along and ruined everything :) Can't find the article ATM but one of the Von Braun team IIRC organized and ran the earliest studies of what we call ISRU and proposed a "resources extraction depot" on Phobos. (BTW, Atomic Rockets has a new ISRU section I see: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/mining.php)

I didn't realize Phobos was seen as a goal so early on. It's fascinating to think what might have happened if Phobos was the goal picked for the US-USSR race (or maybe the USSR picks a manned mission to Phobos as the best way to respond to the Apollo program - now that would set the cat amongst the pigeons).

"Technically?" The same ones they'd been persuing on the smaller more limited Salyut and proposed Almaz stations.

Ahh, I see. So they weren't so much being won over to the potentials of large space stations, but that they were growing to tolerate the large space station they had?

The "initial" HL-20 design parameters were "optimistic" to say the least but they'd planned a rather robust TPS in any case. It they had gone over the higher outside estimates, (around the 200% mark) they might have needed to change the TPS significantly but then again around the same time a lot of the formally classified work done on titanium TPS systems was de-classified so it might have been a matter of changing the structural design to titanium instead of aluminum and going with that.

So even if it went overweight, it still would have had less heat shield stress than the X-37? Huh...

The HL-20 "carried" less overall but did it better with a more capable design that wasn't going to run into the "personnel OR cargo" issues the HL-42 was inheriting due to being designed to be a "Shuttle-Light" instead of an actual "personnel launch vehicle."

Gotcha.

Actually that might work out as a way to overcome the political issues and make the idea workable...

You really think?

I do wonder what the effects of the Ariane 5 being used by NASA would be... I can see it being limited to ONLY HL-20 launches for political reasons, even so, there surely must be interesting effects on Arianespace and on the US space program.

Part of the reason for the issues was the Titan production line was already shut down and being disassembled, (and the workforce reduced which meant a lost knowledge and skill base) due to the idea that the Shuttle would be the "sole" US launch vehicle once operational. LM had to build capacity back up first because of the switch between Titan III and Titan IV and then due to Challenger and they never really had enough actual support or orders to really put production back in order. Having NASA use the Titan IV and having a space station to support goes a long way towards fixing the main issues with the rest coming down to funding. The biggest issue was always going to be the "Titan II" legacy, aka toxic propellants and that "could" be addressed by going back to the Titan I propellants. I'm wondering if they would have 'stuck' with the LR87 or gone towards the H1 legacy RS series engines.

I would have guessed that going for the RS-27 would have been preferred, as that would mean less money being spent on development. But maybe Aerojet would re-kerlox-ize the LR-87 in a bid to keep the business?

Seeing how keen Lockheed were on large diameter cores as an upgrade to the Titan family, I could see them pushing for that as well, though I do wonder if there'd be any interest in a wider Titan 1st stage. I suppose there might, if the upgraded "eco" Titan was meant to cover the same needs as the Delta IV Heavy. I could see NASA being interested in such an upgrade, since it would allow the HL-20 to be launched with a 7-13 tonne service module.

fasquardon
 
Surely you could thrust through the center of mass if a tug was mated on its dorsal side also.

This is going to sound odd but, it doesn't work and you can see this if you try it in KSP :) If the "payload" is mounted dorsal or ventral the engine has to significantly gimbal to thrust through the new center-of-mass and with a cylindrical layout it's unlikely you can gimbal enough to do the job so you then need to have a engine in a spot where it DOES through the CoM which is usually side/dorsal/or ventral "opposite" or congruent with the total CoM. It's the entire reason the Orbiter engines were "off-set" so much and still required major gimbal movement to maintain thrust through the CoM of the stack as it changed mass on the way to orbit. It's why Dyansoar had a generic "bay" design that could either be used for up to four astronauts, deployable/storable sensor systems, or "payload" but had no utility beyond the mass it carried IN that bay or the Titan/Saturn "Transtage" adapter unit.

On the other hand, specialization seems to be the way to go with spacecraft.

I've always wondered if the Agena stage or Soviet Blok D stage could have been evolved into useful space tugs.

It's 'evolved' that way mostly because it ended up being "cheaper-and-easier" to do so rather than more generic but it's a classic case of what we are doing now being driven by early work and NOT being automatically the actual "best" way to do things. For example "orbital assembly" is hard, dangerous and difficult work which requires hours of practice and simulation for each minute of on-orbit work. This is because EVA is difficult due to the nature of space suit technology and he endurance cost in working in a space suit. Space suits are difficult and expensive to design and build because very few are ever needed so they are a specialty item. All this makes EVA expensive, difficult and dangerous so we do EVA only as often as absolutely needed and therefore we don't have extensive experience in EVA work and "working" space suits, which is why we don't plan on EVA work unless there is no other option...

I'm sure you can see where this circles around to the start over and over again :)

In fact both Agena and Blok-D WERE initially designed to fulfill the roles of unmanned "space tug" upper stages but were never fully utilized in that role. Which is why anyone who does a 'continuation' timeline after they were produced tends to have them "fulfill their destiny" as it were :) Similarly the Centaur was supposed to be the basis of a family of 'generic' high performance upper stages and the "S-IV" stage was supposed to be the basis of a similar 'advanced' and larger upper stage design but neither was utilized to the expected capacity due to programmatic issues "moving on" to operations.

I didn't realize Phobos was seen as a goal so early on. It's fascinating to think what might have happened if Phobos was the goal picked for the US-USSR race (or maybe the USSR picks a manned mission to Phobos as the best way to respond to the Apollo program - now that would set the cat amongst the pigeons).

Timing is everything in space travel after all :)

Ahh, I see. So they weren't so much being won over to the potentials of large space stations, but that they were growing to tolerate the large space station they had?

"You fight the battles you are in with the tools you have, not the ones you may want" Forgot who said it but it's true and in any military it's a truism rather than a pithy saying :) The smaller space stations had the advantages of size compatibility with the available launch vehicles and general economics but were also self-limiting due to that same size. Mir was seen as a significant step up due to design modularity but much like the ISS the actual as opposed to the assumed 'modularity' is very basic. (Compared to other more actually modular station designs such as Freedom or the "Power Tower" designs for example)

So even if it went overweight, it still would have had less heat shield stress than the X-37? Huh...

Keep in mind the X-37B is a very "light-weight" spaceplane, which is why I laugh at any suggestion of a 'manned' version as that would put far over its TPS's ability to handle and require a new (probably expensive and less robust) TPS, The X-37B is doing the testing the Air Force
wanted to do with Dynasoar and MOL (not the NRO so much but given current technology they have more interest in the X-37B than they did in either the Dynasoar or MOL) but lacked support or a justifiable mission for. They have "gotten" this because NASA paid for most of the X-37 design and the Air Force only had to pay for the "B" and actual launches and operations. Given everything we've assumed so far the Air Force, (and possibly the NRO though they'd be more interested in the Titan-IV itself) could actually find itself being able to operate and fly the HL-20 and Titan-IV in TTL as an asset rather than through NASA which is another "advantage" they'd support.

You really think?

I do wonder what the effects of the Ariane 5 being used by NASA would be... I can see it being limited to ONLY HL-20 launches for political reasons, even so, there surely must be interesting effects on Arianespace and on the US space program.

It might be that under the circumstances, (in order to "significantly" deviate and differentiate the US/European Space Station Program from that of the Soviet/Russian one...) that there might be enough of a "compromise" that NASA would be authorized to launch out of Guiana Space Center into equatorial orbit. It would increase the costs and move "space station" support mostly, (but not entirely) away from the Cape but on the plus side it allows a higher European "participation" factor and would avoid ITAR restrictions AND avoid significant European access to the Titan-IV program which the military and NRO would endorse. That would allow "only" space station support and personnel launches of the HL20 while allowing cargo and module launches to still take place from the Cape with US made modules and cargo... Hmmm...

I would have guessed that going for the RS-27 would have been preferred, as that would mean less money being spent on development. But maybe Aerojet would re-kerlox-ize the LR-87 in a bid to keep the business?

We'd assume that Aerojet would offer at least and it could be argued that with the RS-27 being used on the Delta-II/III it might be more 'efficient' to keep the Titan with a version of the LR-87. Were I to write it I'd probably have a debate over it but in the end pay for Aerojet to re-develop the kerolox version to keep them in the business. Now having said that I'd also consider allowing them to re-develop the LR-87H as an alternative to the RL-10 while I was at it. Can't hurt to have an actual J2-ish class rocket engine available :) (Of course someone's going to suggest actually resurrecting the J2 which NASA will support for their own reasons so it may be both versions get researched)

Seeing how keen Lockheed were on large diameter cores as an upgrade to the Titan family, I could see them pushing for that as well, though I do wonder if there'd be any interest in a wider Titan 1st stage. I suppose there might, if the upgraded "eco" Titan was meant to cover the same needs as the Delta IV Heavy. I could see NASA being interested in such an upgrade, since it would allow the HL-20 to be launched with a 7-13 tonne service module.

fasquardon

Problem was even though LM was "keen" on the idea in reality it would have a very low commonality with the actual Titan production line and fixtures which was the main reason it never got take seriously. It would have been far more expensive to produce than LM suggested and they had to admit it which is why they dropped back to a modified 'standard' Titan suggestion for possible use with Apollo. While it would have been more 'capable' the large Titan would have been as expensive if not more to develop and operate as the suggested "Saturn-II/INT/Saturn-IB" designs. NASA probably WILL be 'interested' in such an upgrade which will pretty much guarantee that the proposal will keep coming up over and over again but I suspect it will not be 'politically' supported due to the very capability, (and cost) it would engender :)

Randy
 
Some note on rising cost of Titan rocket
The Titan III series were very cheap launcher with around 55 Millions USD, but in 1980s the launch price of Titan 34 series trippelt to 154 Millions USD, Why ?
They launch between 1975 and 1982 in total 47 Titans III variants, but from 1982 to 1989 only 15 Titans 34 variant.
Means 6-7 titan were needed a year in 1970s, while in 1980s this drop to 2-3 Titan launches a year. why that ?
partly thanks the Shuttle, improvement in Technology, means USAF could use Delta Rockets for smaller payload.
and only one that needed the two Titan 34D a year, was NRO for there big Key-hole satellite.

Had History went little bit a different path in 1970s with no Shuttle.
NASA had used the Titan III and 34 series for Manned flights and series of space probes
They would had flight rate about 6 to 9 titans a year, means paradoxical even lower launch cost do higher flight rate...
 
Some note on rising cost of Titan rocket
The Titan III series were very cheap launcher with around 55 Millions USD, but in 1980s the launch price of Titan 34 series trippelt to 154 Millions USD, Why ?
They launch between 1975 and 1982 in total 47 Titans III variants, but from 1982 to 1989 only 15 Titans 34 variant.
Means 6-7 titan were needed a year in 1970s, while in 1980s this drop to 2-3 Titan launches a year. why that ?
partly thanks the Shuttle, improvement in Technology, means USAF could use Delta Rockets for smaller payload.
and only one that needed the two Titan 34D a year, was NRO for there big Key-hole satellite.

Had History went little bit a different path in 1970s with no Shuttle.
NASA had used the Titan III and 34 series for Manned flights and series of space probes
They would had flight rate about 6 to 9 titans a year, means paradoxical even lower launch cost do higher flight rate...

Very interesting! I hadn't realized the cost of the Titan III had shot up as well.

It's worth noting that inflation over the 1975-1982 period was pretty high as well - 55 million USD in 1975 money was worth the same as 98.65 million USD in 1982 money.

Even so, if another 4 launches a year is enough to reduce the cost/launch of a Titan IV by a similar degree, each Titan IV would only cost NASA $276.7 million in 1999 money (or $89.35 million in 1975 money - so 62% more expensive than a Titan III launch - not bad considering that the Titan IV could launch more than 162% of the Titan IIIC's payload).

Ariane 5 was still cheaper (by around 90 million USD in 1999 money) but I don't think that would be enough to allow it to compete with such a cheap Titan IV. Not only is the Titan IV is an all-American rocket, NASA sharing costs with the USAF would mean their cost to launch the 2/year they were averaging would be 310 million USD a year less than what they paid OTL).

fasquardon
 
Ariane 5 was still cheaper (by around 90 million USD in 1999 money)
I guess that more option for NASA to take Ariane 5 in your scenario
because it's be cheaper as good old "Toxic bandwagon" Titan. (of curse USAF and NRO would stick to Titan)

There is a NASA payload for Ariane 5 ECA, the James Webb space telescope to launch in October 2018

Also was this combination "Liberty" a Shuttle SRB and Ariane 5 cryogenic Core by ATK and Astrium
sadly The Commercial Crew integrated Capability initiative not selected Liberty as rocket in 2011 and went for SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(rocket)

oh by the way, fasquardon
do you know the 1988 "Launch Options for the Future Special Report"? http://ota.fas.org/reports/8826.pdf
 
Also was this combination "Liberty" a Shuttle SRB and Ariane 5 cryogenic Core by ATK and Astrium
sadly The Commercial Crew integrated Capability initiative not selected Liberty as rocket in 2011 and went for SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(rocket)

Turning the Ariane 5 core into an upper stage is a neat idea. I'd still rather ride on a rocket with just about any other first stage though...

oh by the way, fasquardon
do you know the 1988 "Launch Options for the Future Special Report"? http://ota.fas.org/reports/8826.pdf

I do. It's a great resource.

fasquardon
 
oh by the way, fasquardon
do you know the 1988 "Launch Options for the Future Special Report"? http://ota.fas.org/reports/8826.pdf

I was just re-reading this and a few things struck me:

* Their "low growth" scenario is "41 launches peryear by 2010" - the real number of launches made on American rockets in 2010 was 15 - clearly even the lowest scenario in the report was wild optimism when compared with reality.

* According to the economic analysis, it does tend to support the Titan IV (possibly backed up by a minimal Titan V) as the best vehicle for a realistic intensified US space program (as compared to the OTL program).

* The report is prefaced by some recommendations to Congress, among them is this gem:

"If Congress wishes to:
Limit the future growth of
NASA and DoD space
programs:

Then it should:

Maintain existing launch systems and limit expenditures on
future development options.
Current capabilities are ade-
quate to supply both NASA and DoD if the present level
of U.S. space activities is maintained or reduced"

Which pretty well exactly describes what has happened with the US space program since 1988.

fasquardon
 
Turning the Ariane 5 core into an upper stage is a neat idea. I'd still rather ride on a rocket with just about any other first stage though...

Almost anyone would rather ride a different first stage, that's the problem in fact. Very specifically the Shuttle SRBs are brutal and despite "adjustments" (which actually ATK doesn't seem to actually know how to do) to the formulation the burn on the grains is horribly uneven which causes so much vibration no ATK-SRB derived design has been capable of launching a satellite let alone a manned vehicle without a LOT (massive) vibration damping. Which is odd as they apparently have done so in the past and the know-how seems to common knowledge in the industry, (UA adjusted the mixture for the later Titan SRBs) itself. The "new" SRBs for the SLS are supposed to be 'smoother' but from what I've heard from the static tests they are not.

Randy
 
Almost anyone would rather ride a different first stage, that's the problem in fact. Very specifically the Shuttle SRBs are brutal and despite "adjustments" (which actually ATK doesn't seem to actually know how to do) to the formulation the burn on the grains is horribly uneven which causes so much vibration no ATK-SRB derived design has been capable of launching a satellite let alone a manned vehicle without a LOT (massive) vibration damping. Which is odd as they apparentl


Randy
y have done so in the past and the know-how seems to common knowledge in the industry, (UA adjusted the mixture for the later Titan SRBs) itself. The "new" SRBs for the SLS are supposed to be 'smoother' but from what I've heard frommistrixx the static tests they are not.

Yanno. I wonder how rough a ride the Titan IV solids would have given a manned payload?

Doing a quick search I can't find any information on vibrations on the Titans after the Titan II accidents they had early on... Of course, I came across unrelated stuff that was fascinating!

fasquardon
 
Yanno. I wonder how rough a ride the Titan IV solids would have given a manned payload?

Doing a quick search I can't find any information on vibrations on the Titans after the Titan II accidents they had early on... Of course, I came across unrelated stuff that was fascinating!

fasquardon

As far as I know they weren't anywhere near as bad as the Shuttle SRMs and apparently during the post-Challenger work on the "improved" SRMs UA was consulted and did some work on grain and mixture types but ATK never used any of the work. I recall there were questions raised on why post Columbia but never heard any answers or if the subject was pursued.

I've gotten the impression over the years that ATK is less 'interested' in SRM production than Thiokol was as they see this as a very minor operation overall. Locally they do FAR more composite work than employment for solid propellant manufacturing. Part of the reason the military is (again) looking to generate interest in a new ICBM is the US has lost a significant portion of it's large scale solid propellant manufacturing capability and pretty much ATK is currently the only company that can make large scale solid motors. And the down-side of that is they really have issues with making anything but segmented "shuttle" type solid even though they can in theory still make Peacekeeper and Minuteman stages. (Note that "in theory" part)

Something to say about what?

I suspect the HL-20 and/or Titan-IV :)

Randy
 
Top